Polar Jets

[dalemiller]

The Fair Weather Current (FWC) of meteorological concern demonstrates Earth’s negative charge, and is taken here to suggest that the so-called ionosphere might be a bubble-like strata of electrons. It seems common sense that such electrons would hover above the atmosphere due to mutual repulsion from each other and from a negatively charged Earth. As we know, the ionspheric bubble remains deflected away from our sun, indicating that the sun itself must be charged toward the same polarity. Our expectations for prevailing composition of the solar wind should be of electrons. Solar flares, as eruptions of plasma would throw in a mix of protons on occasion.

 

For the sun to remain of negative charge despite continuous discharge of electrons, something would have to be either creating electrons or consuming protons, or at least those little positrons. Now that I believe in fusion of plasma, which presumably annihilates electrons and positrons with faithful parity, I must nevertheless expect an alternative form of fusion in the solar core to account for sustained negative charge. As an electronics technician with 60 years experience, it is no big deal to boast assurance that it is one and the same thing for negative charge to migrate upward and for positive charge to migrate downward. Hence, a ball of nuclear material devoid of electrons must dwell at the center of any star. That center is the ideal location for electrostatically positioning nuclear fuel where maximum gravitational pressure is to be found, and with an extra little electrostatic squeeze. My guess is that static fusion at the core is what eventually lights off a new star.

 

This sets the stage for galactic structure, including the polar jets we mean to address. We are prepared to see spheres of a given polarity with cores of the opposite polarity. Then we can grasp that disks of a given polarity would attract particles of the opposite polarity toward their centers and hoops or sleeves of a given polarity would attract particles of the opposite polarity through their centers.

 

Counterintuitivity demands that we dwell upon this natural rule: That small charged particle enshrouded by such shapes of opposite polarity must shun the closest portion of its enclosure. The square law reduction of the more distant attracting particles is offset by the square law increase in the number of such particles. That makes effect of range a wash, and the greater profile toward the far side tips the scales to make the grass that much greener on the other side. The particle finds the double cross at the center where growing retrograde pull matches falling forward pull. In a sphere, it has fallen and cannot get up. Going toward a hoop or disk, that opposite charge huddles around the rim and the centering process becomes attainment and maintenance of equidistance for the particle to all points around the rim as it approaches and as it proceeds beyond the other side if there is a hole. Our electron guns that work that way might have been discovered by accident. I looked but never saw who had a clue. Dead givaway: that sleeve through which electrons shoot is called the focusing anode (that’s a positive electrode).

 

Now we are ready to describe the polar jet Milkyway would have if it had one. We sorta just did. The focusing anode is made of protons that converged from a disk some hundred thousand light years across over a long period of time. (I think Milkyway’s disk has gotten too fat to qualify as a disk and now it is more like a growing ball of protons spinning more slowly than the stars that it gobbles revolve around our Super Massive Black Hole (SMBH)). I guess those stars make up the bar across our galactic bulge. Am surer of that than I have any right to be: sorry. When and if our galaxy had a polar jet, her bulge would have been an accretion disk centered by the SMBH. Electrons thrust down from within that positive domain would not head for the black hole but onto the rotational axis of the disk. (The black hole but nibbles upon the few required to keep attraction of its growing mass balanced against equivalent repulsion from all the electrons it has gobbled.) We have electrons aligned for the trip they take as influx of electrons proceeds. The electrons repell each other outward while the mean positive ring hold each one centered, guiding each for equidistance around the ring. I hear tell of electron beams thousands of light years long. NOTE: That is a lot of electrons missing from somewhere else. So how come grown physicists write books telling how we have to have the same number of each polarity?

 

 

 

How many moderators of this forum believe that it is preposterous for an outsider to suppose that he may have happened upon some scientific insight?