Macroscopic Electrical Formations

[dalemiller]

Just as a hydrogen atom is made up of a positive and a negative particle, arrays of electrical particles can take on stable formations.

A case can be made for the earth and our sun to both be holding negative electrical charge charge. As such, both bodies would posses downward-pointing electric fields that lead to existence of a congestion of positive particles at their central cores. Meditation over how negatively charged outer shells of these bodies would hold lesser charges of positive polarity within themselves brings needed insight toward the electrical influence upon galactic infrastructure.

[Ophiolite]

Is this going to morph into a plasma universe thread?

[dalemiller]

Is this going to morph into a plasma universe thread?

 

Will get back to you after finding out what you mean by a plasma universe thread.

 

I pursued what passes for coin-of-the-realm understanding of Earth's electric field, and suggested a mere contemplation that I have found to bear rewarding revelations. The insight expected from intelligent contemplation that I suggest overcomes disadvantages due to a counter-intuitive feature of electricity. I chose your Cosmology forum site in order to extend into a realm affording a practical measure of electrical isolation and have no need to intrude into the great category of the entire universe if you are disinclined to tolerate it.

 

Edit: Having researched "plasma fusion", I hope to reassure you that I subscribe to no scriptures from any stigmatized society. I deal with nothing but my own reverse engineering experiences that have rewarded me with top-notch comprhension of complex electronic systems.

Edited September 3, 2012 by dalemiller

[Moontanman]

Just as a hydrogen atom is made up of a positive and a negative particle, arrays of electrical particles can take on stable formations.

 

Can you give an example of this?

 

A case can be made for the earth and our sun to both be holding negative electrical charge charge.

 

Can you give some evidence of this?

 

As such, both bodies would posses downward-pointing electric fields that lead to existence of a congestion of positive particles at their central cores. Meditation over how negatively charged outer shells of these bodies would hold lesser charges of positive polarity within themselves brings needed insight toward the electrical influence upon galactic infrastructure.

 

Assuming the first two are true to support the last with no evidence of the first seems a bit premature...

[dalemiller]

Can you give an example of this?

 

 

 

Can you give some evidence of this?

 

 

 

Assuming the first two are true to support the last with no evidence of the first seems a bit premature...

 

Expert guidance to writers sometimes advise that any sentence more than fifty words long is incomprehensible. If my first sentence is intended to introduce a contention that I hope to demonstrate, and if I am to be obliged to establish from what technical premises I will substantiate my conclusions before I describe my conclusions, and if I must ensure that my premises are made indisputable prior to developing my conclusions, all in my first sentence, then the readability of that sentence will go to zero.

 

I seek only to invite attention of the rare scientist who accepts that a case can be made for the negative charges to Earth and Sun. Sacred tradition actually has it the other way, at least for the earth. I side with Michael Faraday, not with the civil servants being left in command of absolute truth.

 

Due to the dynamics of electrical storms, the earth sheds electrons into its fair weather atmosphere at an alleged rate of two microamps of negative current per square kilometer of surface. This demonstrates to the technically sharp that Earth is charged negatively thereby repelling such electrons outward. It is no fault of mine that such electron flow naturally develops a minus-to-positive voltage drop of some 100 Volts per meter of elevation along the vertical path of the lower atmosphere. Casual observers mistake such measurements as evidence of a positive charge for the atmosphere. The percentage of observers that or so casual is an overwhelming obstacle to the truth we expect from the scientific community.

 

I deem the sun to be of negative charge because of its effect upon our atmosphere: The ionosphere is depressed at noon and extended higher on the night sky. Since it is like charges that repel, then the evidence points to a like electrical polarity between Earth and Sun.

 

It is assumed that everybody knows something. When they do not know, they could just ask for the information/proof/support/evidence whatever without scolding the writer who can only do his or her poor best.

[Ophiolite]

dale,

the plasma universe has nothing to do with plasma fusion. But it seems my question was misdirected: you are not a proponent of the plasma universe. That, in my book is a good thing. I'm pleased we got that cleared up.

 

Now, I'd like to ask you a favour. Please don't take offence. Could you try to simplify your writing style? As it stands it truly agonising to read. Indeed, after several attempts I have been unable to finish post 3 and 5 because of the turgid, affected stlye. Keepi t simple man! Please.

[dalemiller]

 

 

 

Can you give an example of this?

 

 

 

Yes.

 

(An example of an array of electrical particles that would have taken on a stable formation.)

 

From the notion that Earth and her atmosphere possess a downward-pointing electrical field:

1. The electric field pushes electrons upward and pushes positive charges downwards.

2. Hence, by now, there must be a lot of electrons at the top of the atmosphere.

3. Hence, by now there must be a lot of positive ions at the center of the earth.

4. Would this situation not represent a global macroscopic formation of charged particles?

Edited September 5, 2012 by dalemiller

[dalemiller]

... affected stlye. Keepi t simple man! Please.

 

Please look at post 4 where you might find Moontanman's notion that my first sentence must tell it all. I was demonstrating to him that if everything is in the first sentence, then it would be all in one sentence and hence incomprehensible. I was addressing Moontanman not you.

 

Your critique was embellished with the denigrating judgement of affectation. What is it that makes you think that I don't seem to be what I am trying to seem to be? I ain't no phony! You seem to be one of those sosh majors. What are you doing in a technical forum?

[John Cuthber]

Yes.

 

(An example of an array of electrical particles that would have taken on a stable formation.)

 

From the notion that Earth and her atmosphere possess a downward-pointing electrical field:

1. The electric field pushes electrons upward and pushes positive charges downwards.

2. Hence, by now, there must be a lot of electrons at the top of the atmosphere.

3. Hence, by now there must be a lot of positive ions at the center of the earth.

4. Would this situation not represent a global macroscopic formation of charged particles?

 

That's not an example of anything really is it?

It's pretty much begging the question: you assume some nonsense "From the notion that Earth and her atmosphere possess a downward-pointing electrical field" to prove your point.

It's not a valid proof unless you can demonstrate that "From the notion that Earth and her atmosphere possess a downward-pointing electrical field" is actually true and, since "down" isn't defined from the point of the earth as a whole, it doesn't make sense to talk about a downward pointing anything.

[swansont]

I deem the sun to be of negative charge because of its effect upon our atmosphere: The ionosphere is depressed at noon and extended higher on the night sky. Since it is like charges that repel, then the evidence points to a like electrical polarity between Earth and Sun.

For what reasons can the solar wind not account for this?

[John Cuthber]

Oh come on.

"A case can be made for the earth and our sun to both be holding negative electrical charge charge."

That is just silly isn't it?

The sun is hot enough to emit electrons thermionically if it has a net negative charge.

It certainly wouldn't stay charged for long.

 

The earth is weakly electrically connected to the sun by the ionised gases in the solar wind so it too would soon lose any significant negative charge.

 

The whole idea is preposterous.

 

Also

"As such, both bodies would posses downward-pointing electric fields that lead to existence of a congestion of positive particles at their central cores."

Nope, the field inside a conductor (like the ionised gas of the sun or the not very good insulator that s the earth's crust) is zero. Have a look at the ice pail experiment.

 

At best this should be moved to speculations.

Edited September 6, 2012 by John Cuthber

[dalemiller]

That's not an example of anything really is it?

It's pretty much begging the question: you assume some nonsense "From the notion that Earth and her atmosphere possess a downward-pointing electrical field" to prove your point.

It's not a valid proof unless you can demonstrate that "From the notion that Earth and her atmosphere possess a downward-pointing electrical field" is actually true and, since "down" isn't defined from the point of the earth as a whole, it doesn't make sense to talk about a downward pointing anything.

 

In the case of any spheroidal hosting body, "down" seems a pretty apt description for anything moving toward the center of such a form. Likewise, "upwards", from any point would be into the opposite direction. This might make sense to me and many others even if it doesn't make sense to you.

 

Support of the electric field that I mentioned can be found at this URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field .

On Earth, a Fair Weather Current of an alleged 2 microamps of up-going negative current (electrons rising) corresponds to a downward-pointing electric field. If you dispute such a field for the sun, we could get into the manifestations of electrostatic repulsion between the sun and our atmosphere.

 

Oh come on.

"A case can be made for the earth and our sun to both be holding negative electrical charge charge."

That is just silly isn't it?

The sun is hot enough to emit electrons thermionically if it has a net negative charge.

It certainly wouldn't stay charged for long.

Conclusions to be drawn from this thread provide for virtual production of excess electrons within a star.

 

Also

"As such, both bodies would posses downward-pointing electric fields that lead to existence of a congestion of positive particles at their central cores."

Nope, the field inside a conductor (like the ionised gas of the sun or the not very good insulator that s the earth's crust) is zero. Have a look at the ice pail experiment.

 

At best this should be moved to speculations.

 

You would have all that you do not or cannot understand committed to speculations.

The particles of positive charge at the core would be neutralized in contribution to the total charge of the host, by the additional electrons that would join the outer shell of electrons without altering the total charge upon the hosting body.

Edited September 6, 2012 by dalemiller

[Ophiolite]

Your critique was embellished with the denigrating judgement of affectation.

I asked at the outset that you not take offence at what was sincerely offered with the intention of helping you get your ideas across more effectively.

 

What is it that makes you think that I don't seem to be what I am trying to seem to be?

Your writing style. It lacks clarity. It is verbose. It is structurally complex, yet that structure does not contribute to getting your point across. All of that gives the appearance that you believe the importance of what you are saying can be enhanced by complexity. That is how you come across to me and, I suspect, to others.

 

I could just sit quitely by and decide you are a dickhead and place you on ignore. I don't think you are a dickhead and simply wished to suggest that change in your writing style might help you presnet your arguments more convincingly. If you wish to consider this advice then reject it, that's fine with me. If you decide to ignore it completely, that's also your choice - but it seems rather foolish.

 

You seem to be one of those sosh majors. What are you doing in a technical forum?

I have no idea how you made such deduction, but it is not relevant. I'm on a technical forum because technical matters interest me and the clear communication of technical matters interests me. I found your thoughts provisionally interesting, but was unable to fully engage with them for the reasons noted. Now if you cannot take constructive criticism I might be tempted to ask you, what are you doing on a technical forum.

[dalemiller]

I asked at the outset that you not take offence at what was sincerely offered with the intention of helping you get your ideas across more effectively.

 

Your writing style. It lacks clarity. It is verbose. It is structurally complex, yet that structure does not contribute to getting your point across. All of that gives the appearance that you believe the importance of what you are saying can be enhanced by complexity. That is how you come across to me and, I suspect, to others.

 

I could just sit quitely by and decide you are a dickhead and place you on ignore. I don't think you are a dickhead and simply wished to suggest that change in your writing style might help you presnet your arguments more convincingly. If you wish to consider this advice then reject it, that's fine with me. If you decide to ignore it completely, that's also your choice - but it seems rather foolish.

 

I have no idea how you made such deduction, but it is not relevant. I'm on a technical forum because technical matters interest me and the clear communication of technical matters interests me. I found your thoughts provisionally interesting, but was unable to fully engage with them for the reasons noted. Now if you cannot take constructive criticism I might be tempted to ask you, what are you doing on a technical forum.

 

Maybe neither of us is as bad as we seem right now. I am not totally unable to take criticism and you might not realize how punchy a poster can get from negative responses. If I thought someone needed a clue or two, I might not take him down in a world-wide public scene. Especially when and if he is seeking to share a finding with people on the edge of lending a bit of credibility. When you put me down in public I fear you do the same for my message. Being primarily a care-giver and secondarily a science freak, there is less time for the writing and that cramps my style. If responses dealing with the technical issues were given first crack at a posting before the shrinks did their deeds it would take a little headwind out of this thankless uphill battle. Its like a law of nature, I just want to lay my eggs before I die. And I have a wife of 57 years' expert nagging in case you do forget to tell me what.

 

Thanks for not being like Johnny boy with his preposterous postings of "preposterous".

[dalemiller]

For what reasons can the solar wind not account for this?

None

[swansont]

None

So there's no reason or support for the idea that it's due to electric fields. i.e. what you claim is evidence is not actually evidence.

[dalemiller]

So there's no reason or support for the idea that it's due to electric fields. i.e. what you claim is evidence is not actually evidence.

It does not follow. As electrons being repelled from the sun, the solar wind is a manifestation of the negative charge upon the sun. The only issue claimed to be evidenced by the shape of the ionosphere is that both the sun and the earth are charged to the same polarity. As such, they both have downward-pointing electric fields as manifested by rising electrons.

[swansont]

It does not follow. As electrons being repelled from the sun, the solar wind is a manifestation of the negative charge upon the sun. The only issue claimed to be evidenced by the shape of the ionosphere is that both the sun and the earth are charged to the same polarity. As such, they both have downward-pointing electric fields as manifested by rising electrons.

The solar wind contains protons, which cannot be repelled by a negatively-charged sun.

 

Also, how would the sun maintain its negative charge if it is continually shedding negative charge?

[dalemiller]

The solar wind contains protons, which cannot be repelled by a negatively-charged sun.

 

Also, how would the sun maintain its negative charge if it is continually shedding negative charge?

Any protons in the stellar wind would have to be thrown, not electrically repelled, from the plasma that erupts on occasions of solar flares. For some reason, they are conspicuously evident in our night sky when that happens. The electrons that prevail as solar wind emerge as excess negative particles that can be due to annihilation of positive charges by static fusion within the positive core. That core provided by a downward-pointing electric field upon the sun. If you suspect this answer to be speculation, I remind you that it is presented as a reply to your question on how the sun could feasibly maintain its negative charge.

 

The solar wind contains protons, which cannot be repelled by a negatively-charged sun.

 

Also, how would the sun maintain its negative charge if it is continually shedding negative charge?

Any protons in the stellar wind would have to be thrown, not electrically repelled, from the plasma that erupts on occasions of solar flares. For some reason, they are conspicuously evident in our night sky when that happens. The electrons that prevail as solar wind emerge as excess negative particles that can be due to annihilation of positive charges by static fusion within the positive core. That core provided by a downward-pointing electric field upon the sun. If you suspect this answer to be speculation, I remind you that it is presented as a reply to your question on how the sun could feasibly maintain its negative charge.

[swansont]

Any protons in the stellar wind would have to be thrown, not electrically repelled, from the plasma that erupts on occasions of solar flares. For some reason, they are conspicuously evident in our night sky when that happens. The electrons that prevail as solar wind emerge as excess negative particles that can be due to annihilation of positive charges by static fusion within the positive core. That core provided by a downward-pointing electric field upon the sun. If you suspect this answer to be speculation, I remind you that it is presented as a reply to your question on how the sun could feasibly maintain its negative charge.

So your solution is to toss the law of conservation of charge. You've also implied that we should only see protons after a CME. Any evidence to back that up?

[dalemiller]

So your solution is to toss the law of conservation of charge.

 

"(Physics / General Physics) the principle that the total charge of any isolated system is constant and independent of changes that take place within the system."

 

Solar charge should remain unchanged when a measure of positive charge is annihilated because, as a consequence, an equal and opposite measure of electrical charge departs from that isolated system as solar wind. What need should I have to contradict the law of conservation of charge?

 

 

You've also implied that we should only see protons after a CME. Any evidence to back that up?

 

I never meant to imply such exclusive presence for protons, but only to exclude them from normal presence in solar wind.

 

We should see both electrons and protons coming from the sun after a CME. A solar flare is an eruption of solar plasma launched by regenerative (explosive) stellar fusion surrounding the vortex centered at a black hole. Equal counts of either polarity can be expected within the expelled plasma, plus a much great number of electrons rising from the negative solar shell, upon the towering flares. I omitted to include protons received as cosmic rays, but we can deal them in if you wish. We can also expect the presence of protons resulting from local ionizations.

 

Perhaps I can seek the backup evidence you request and get back with an edit.

 

 

Do you have any evidence that protons emerge as solar wind? The downward-pointing electric field does not support such action, and you imply that you doubt the validity of theoretical contemplation.

[ACG52]

Do you have any evidence that protons emerge as solar wind?

 

Yes. It wasn't hard to find.

 

http://ulysses.jpl.n...s/ulss01-02.pdf

 

Observations using the Ulysses/SWICS ion composition spectrometer have determined the

average solar wind charge state and elemental abundances of over 40 ion species of He, C, N,

O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Fe.

 

Edited September 9, 2012 by ACG52

[swansont]

"(Physics / General Physics) the principle that the total charge of any isolated system is constant and independent of changes that take place within the system."

 

Solar charge should remain unchanged when a measure of positive charge is annihilated because, as a consequence, an equal and opposite measure of electrical charge departs from that isolated system as solar wind. What need should I have to contradict the law of conservation of charge?

You can't balance the books that way. You can account for charges leaving through a boundary, which should eventually leave you with a neutral system. You require positive charges to simply be disappearing.

[dalemiller]

You can't balance the books that way. You can account for charges leaving through a boundary, which should eventually leave you with a neutral system. You require positive charges to simply be disappearing.

 

When the charged nuclear material becomes annihilated, it can no longer host the positive charge that it carried. That would have increased the negative charge by the amount of that missing positive charge were it not for the fact that the sun had been maintaining hold of that same amount of negative charge at its outer limits only because of the positive charge so decremented. One proton changed to a neutron (for instance and perhaps) takes away the attraction that holds one electron onto the solar surface. Hence, one electron departs. Net change of global charge thus equals zero. In other words, positive charge is lost due to nuclear fusion. Scratch one positron to fusion, scratch one electron to outgoing solar wind and you have a wash!

 

Why should we not expect to find a negative charge upon the sun when the earth has such a distinct negative charge? Electrons forced down into depths of the atmosphere function as the storage of electrical energy. As such, the voltage of the lower atmosphere becomes more negative by some 100 Volts per meter of descent with respect to a reference point at the ionosphere. Would it not seem logical for us to attribute reception of so many electrons from the solar wind?

Edited September 10, 2012 by dalemiller

[swansont]

When the charged nuclear material becomes annihilated, it can no longer host the positive charge that it carried. That would have increased the negative charge by the amount of that missing positive charge were it not for the fact that the sun had been maintaining hold of that same amount of negative charge at its outer limits only because of the positive charge so decremented. One proton changed to a neutron (for instance and perhaps) takes away the attraction that holds one electron onto the solar surface. Hence, one electron departs. Net change of global charge thus equals zero. In other words, positive charge is lost due to nuclear fusion. Scratch one positron to fusion, scratch one electron to outgoing solar wind and you have a wash!

 

Why should we not expect to find a negative charge upon the sun when the earth has such a distinct negative charge? Electrons forced down into depths of the atmosphere function as the storage of electrical energy. As such, the voltage of the lower atmosphere becomes more negative by some 100 Volts per meter of descent with respect to a reference point at the ionosphere. Would it not seem logical for us to attribute reception of so many electrons from the solar wind?

When a proton changes into a neutron, a positron is emitted to conserve charge (along with a neutrino). The charge does not just vanish. What you propose has not been observed, and runs contrary to what we know.