Macroscopic Electrical Formations

[Ophiolite]

Carl Sagan said it well: Arguments from authority carry little weight

Arguments from ignorance appear to lack rest mass.

Ophiolite

[dalemiller]

 

 

The positive charge will not seek the center. This is very basic electrostatics.

 

Earth has a downward-pointing electric field.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/TreshaEdwards.shtml

 

Hence a positive charge is pushed downward. Just saying that it won't can hardly be very basic electrostatics. This is a science forum. No support or proof was given in Swantson's contradiction. Saying "This is very basic electrostatics." is just a bluff. A positive charge being pushed downward is heading for the center. All that stops it from getting all the way to dead center would be the presence of other positive charges that have already gotten there. Nevertheless, we can say it is still seeking the center as it pushes down upon the existing ball of protons.

 

His statement seems to be nothing but a desperate attempt to evade detection of his folly and injustice.

[swansont]

The general condemnation with which you bully me is too vague to afford me chance to defend myself. You harm those who cannot harm you back.

You could "defend" yourself by learning some physics. Nobody is stopping you. You come to a science site, and expect not to be called out on nonscience BS, and when it happens you label it as bullying? Really?

 

I see no contradiction from the math. I understand the words of Newton. Gravity cannot be eclipsed. The starting point is just where tuition takes me. I am a crackpot because I disagree with you. The electrostatic electron gun proves me right: a cylindrical anode presents itself as a point target to form a pencil beam of electrons. Carl Sagan said it well: Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

It's not argument from authority, it's an application of the math and a well-tested theory. It's not right because someone said so. The math is there for anyone to work out, and for those who do, the result is clear.

 

I supported my claims with Isaac Newton's Shell Theorem. Swansont added his own made-up stipulation that no objects within a shell can respond to the pull of the center of gravity. It is he who I think is the dummy.

It's not a made up stipulation — it's right there in the math — and I never called you anything.

 

Earth has a downward-pointing electric field.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/TreshaEdwards.shtml

I have not objected to this claim. It is the explanation that you give (that it's due to a shell of negative charge and such) that I am rebutting.

 

Hence a positive charge is pushed downward. Just saying that it won't can hardly be very basic electrostatics. This is a science forum. No support or proof was given in Swantson's contradiction. Saying "This is very basic electrostatics." is just a bluff. A positive charge being pushed downward is heading for the center. All that stops it from getting all the way to dead center would be the presence of other positive charges that have already gotten there. Nevertheless, we can say it is still seeking the center as it pushes down upon the existing ball of protons.

I provided a link to the shell theorem and Gauss's law, which you acknowledged reading. How can you possibly claim that I gave no support for my position?

 

(However, it remains true that it is basic electrostatics, and anyone who has taken calculus-based physics and gotten as far as E&M in the curriculum would have seen this)

[John Cuthber]

Dale,

Can you give me an answer that isn't word salad please?

Why don't the excess electrons simply leave?

Edited October 5, 2012 by John Cuthber

[dalemiller]

You could "defend" yourself by learning some physics. Nobody is stopping you. You come to a science site, and expect not to be called out on nonscience BS, and when it happens you label it as bullying? Really?

 

 

It's not argument from authority, it's an application of the math and a well-tested theory. It's not right because someone said so. The math is there for anyone to work out, and for those who do, the result is clear.

 

 

It's not a made up stipulation — it's right there in the math — and I never called you anything.

 

 

I have not objected to this claim. It is the explanation that you give (that it's due to a shell of negative charge and such) that I am rebutting.

 

 

I provided a link to the shell theorem and Gauss's law, which you acknowledged reading. How can you possibly claim that I gave no support for my position?

 

(However, it remains true that it is basic electrostatics, and anyone who has taken calculus-based physics and gotten as far as E&M in the curriculum would have seen this)

 

My knowledge comes from personal experience. So, for me to tell what I know, you demand that I have shoveled the whole driveway. I do not come to catch up with you. You bar persons without a PhD. When the PhD's couldn't make something work, they came and got me. No brag, just fact. It is clear to me that you do not understand about the earth's downward-pointing electric field, because it conforms to my interpretation of the shell theorem.

 

It is a negative net charge upon Earth that points its electric field toward the center of the earth. Your rebuttal of this should be more detailed than name-calling me as being a pseudo-scientist. The great number of people who believe our atmosphere to be positive does not make that belief true. I can prove to intelligent people that the belief is false. If you disagree with me and do not hear me out, why would I be indulgent that your mathematically derived supplementation of Newton's Shell Theorem?

 

You disparage my work as nonscience BS. You suggest that I should learn some physics as though I knew nothing. I know good stuff that I would share with the world, but you denigrate me in cowardly ways to destroy my opportunity to do so. I would not bring information to the forum if I thought it was already there. Yet, you complain that I have said things that no-one has ever heard of. They will hear of it if you stop blocking my way!

 

The key to my findings has been to realize that our atmosphere is negatively charged. It is most likely that you disagree and I invite you to debate the issue. The idea is to keep it simple. I realized that a negative atmosphere gave me complete insight upon atmospheric lightning, and labored long and hard to find out how that bias comes to be.

[John Cuthber]

Dale,

Can you give me an answer that isn't word salad please?

Why don't the excess electrons simply leave?

[dalemiller]

Dale,

Can you give me an answer that isn't word salad please?

Why don't the excess electrons simply leave?

 

Can the "word salad" crapola. My poor best is all I can do.

 

On Earth's surface, that is just what is going on. Electrons leave. It is called The Fair Weather Current, and amounts an alleged two microamps per square kilometer of surface. They join up with air molecules to form ions. If you think about it, the extra electron on that ion cannot manage to repel itself because to do so it would have to get into two places at once. There is bound to be an upper limit. If ion density became strong enough, electrons would flee into space. However, electrons from the solar wind would simply decline to stick around if we already have our limit. (Like, one might splat into the sunny side, and another one somewhere gives up and takes French leave.

[swansont]

My knowledge comes from personal experience. So, for me to tell what I know, you demand that I have shoveled the whole driveway. I do not come to catch up with you. You bar persons without a PhD. When the PhD's couldn't make something work, they came and got me. No brag, just fact. It is clear to me that you do not understand about the earth's downward-pointing electric field, because it conforms to my interpretation of the shell theorem.

 

It is a negative net charge upon Earth that points its electric field toward the center of the earth. Your rebuttal of this should be more detailed than name-calling me as being a pseudo-scientist. The great number of people who believe our atmosphere to be positive does not make that belief true. I can prove to intelligent people that the belief is false. If you disagree with me and do not hear me out, why would I be indulgent that your mathematically derived supplementation of Newton's Shell Theorem?

I will point out for a third time that I have never called you names. You have used the words stupid and dummy, but (other than to quote you), I have not.

 

And the thing is that I have heard you out. More than 100 posts' worth. And yet it's obvious you still have not given the shell theorem or Gauss's law any serious consideration, because you keep getting it wrong.

 

You disparage my work as nonscience BS. You suggest that I should learn some physics as though I knew nothing. I know good stuff that I would share with the world, but you denigrate me in cowardly ways to destroy my opportunity to do so. I would not bring information to the forum if I thought it was already there. Yet, you complain that I have said things that no-one has ever heard of. They will hear of it if you stop blocking my way!

Who is blocking you? Have any of your posts been deleted?

 

Pointing out that you are wrong is not denigrating you. It's too bad if you feel that way, but that's not how this works.

 

The key to my findings has been to realize that our atmosphere is negatively charged. It is most likely that you disagree and I invite you to debate the issue. The idea is to keep it simple. I realized that a negative atmosphere gave me complete insight upon atmospheric lightning, and labored long and hard to find out how that bias comes to be.

You claim that the atmosphere has a downward pointing field, and that this is because it has a negative charge outside and a positive charge at the core/surface. But field lines are directed from positive to negative, by definition — such a configuration would have a field pointed upward from the earth. (If you wanted to calculate it, it would also be solely from the positive charge on the earth, since by Gauss's law, a uniform charge outside makes no contribution.) In such a configuration, a positive charge would be propelled upward to the sky, and this would tend to equalize the charge. Which is what most people familiar with physics would expect.

 

Thus, a downward-pointing field indicates a negatively charged surface of the earth, and you can easily Google to find that this is what others find.

 

So a positive charge will be pushed downward, but not for the reason you claim. The field does not enhance a charge separation, it tends to neutralize it. (the former violates conservation of energy, after all)

[John Cuthber]

Can the "word salad" crapola. My poor best is all I can do.

 

On Earth's surface, that is just what is going on. Electrons leave. It is called The Fair Weather Current, and amounts an alleged two microamps per square kilometer of surface. They join up with air molecules to form ions. If you think about it, the extra electron on that ion cannot manage to repel itself because to do so it would have to get into two places at once. There is bound to be an upper limit. If ion density became strong enough, electrons would flee into space. However, electrons from the solar wind would simply decline to stick around if we already have our limit. (Like, one might splat into the sunny side, and another one somewhere gives up and takes French leave.

 

I'm not interested in local effects like those within the atmosphere.

Why are the spare electrons not repelled into space?

(whether they are stuck to molecules or not).

If, as you say, the earth (and sun) have a negative charge then they should lose electrons

If they do that, the negative charge goes away.

Why do you think it's still here?

 

Seriously, if you can't answer this then the whole of the thread is based on nothing.

You really need to put some work into this rather than ignoring it or inventing meaningless phrases like "further ionic density".

(which is, incidentally, word salad)

[dalemiller]

You claim that the atmosphere has a downward pointing field, and that this is because it has a negative charge outside and a positive charge at the core/surface. But field lines are directed from positive to negative, by definition — such a configuration would have a field pointed upward from the earth.

 

Our feet point to more sky than our heads. That test proton is attracted toward the greater negative charge of the earth (all of it, solid, liquid gas,) From any position down along a radius of Earth short of the center, there is more negative charge in that direction. The 6 db per octave loss between point sources gives way fixed attraction despite range. At twice the distance from a wall of electrons, the electron count within a given scope quadruples the electron count. For that sneaky reason, a first proton goes down until the pull from behind equals the remaining pull from the opposite side.

 

Of course, this makes sense only if one entertains the global charge to be negative.

 

If anyone could divest me of this conviction of a negative global charge, it would set me free to go back to Sudoku. I won't spike the ball if anyone ever agrees with me, but a lot hinges on that charge polarity. Hoping that by charge polarity, we both are speaking of which charged particles outnumber the other upon the hosting body.

[dalemiller]

I'm not interested in local effects like those within the atmosphere.

Why are the spare electrons not repelled into space?

(whether they are stuck to molecules or not).

If, as you say, the earth (and sun) have a negative charge then they should lose electrons

If they do that, the negative charge goes away.

Why do you think it's still here?

 

Seriously, if you can't answer this then the whole of the thread is based on nothing.

You really need to put some work into this rather than ignoring it or inventing meaningless phrases like "further ionic density".

(which is, incidentally, word salad)

I could explain why I think the sun's negative charge doesn't go away. However, it might be perceived as less controversial if I first attempted to support fundamental principles under current debate on this thread. Those principles would be involved with my explanation.

 

Pertaining to your admonition that I am "inventing meaningless phrases like "further ionic density". (which is, incidentally, word salad)": You have now shown me what you consider to be "word salad". Then no, I cannot answer your question now that I know what word salad means. I see now that word salad can be quite meaningful indeed. "Further ionic density" should suggest an increased proximity of ions whereby additional electrical energy has been stored. Furthered ionic density should suggest that more ions would be contained per unit volume. I do want to apologize for motivating you to keep putting me on the defensive. Sorry that I cannot help you.

[swansont]

Our feet point to more sky than our heads. That test proton is attracted toward the greater negative charge of the earth (all of it, solid, liquid gas,) From any position down along a radius of Earth short of the center, there is more negative charge in that direction. The 6 db per octave loss between point sources gives way fixed attraction despite range. At twice the distance from a wall of electrons, the electron count within a given scope quadruples the electron count. For that sneaky reason, a first proton goes down until the pull from behind equals the remaining pull from the opposite side.

 

Of course, this makes sense only if one entertains the global charge to be negative.

 

If anyone could divest me of this conviction of a negative global charge, it would set me free to go back to Sudoku. I won't spike the ball if anyone ever agrees with me, but a lot hinges on that charge polarity. Hoping that by charge polarity, we both are speaking of which charged particles outnumber the other upon the hosting body.

I'm confused by your position here, because earlier you stated this (emphasis added):

 

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?

And now you're saying that no, the negative charges are on the earth's surface rather than at the top of the atmosphere. The realization that the surface has a negative charge is nothing new.

[John Cuthber]

1 I could explain why I think the sun's negative charge doesn't go away.

 

2 Furthered ionic density should suggest that more ions would be contained per unit volume.

1 Do so.

2 Thanks for another serving of word salad.

[dalemiller]

I'm confused by your position here, because earlier you stated this (emphasis added):

 

 

And now you're saying that no, the negative charges are on the earth's surface rather than at the top of the atmosphere. The realization that the surface has a negative charge is nothing new.

 

I hope that I have mentioned that by saying "global", I mean all of the earth including its atmosphere. The surface should contain an ion density relating to more that that of a 200 kilo volt potential with respect to a true neutral reference. That is not to equate voltage per se with electrical charge. From there, a negative charge is dynamically sustained upon the atmosphere all the way up to the ionosphere where electrical neutrality would be reached. All of this, from surface to ionosphere would constitute our electron shell. I have used the word "global" as an inclusive description of the whole nine yards.

 

Do you see what I mean about why that with a negative shell, the downward "push" upon a test proton is really created by the greater attraction upon the proton by the greater attraction centered directly below that proton? Were the proton near the closest part of the shell (upwards to our eyes) almost all of the electrons upon the globe and within its atmosphere contain some downward component of their direction from the test proton. This conforms to the basic equivalence of electric current: Franklin fancied of positive particles, and that equivalence to electron motion in the opposite direction remains as definition of conventional electric current.

 

It would be mistaken of us to mistake the sky above us as a significant contender against all of the sky surrounding the earth.

 

1 Do so.

2 Thanks for another serving of word salad.

I did in posting #19

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

 

I did in posting #19

Do you mean this "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. "?

 

Because it doesn't make any sense. Positive charges are not annihilated during fusion.

Do you have a reason that actually obeys the experimentally determined laws of physics?

[dalemiller]

Do you mean this "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. "?

Yes.

 

Because it doesn't make any sense. Positive charges are not annihilated during fusion.

 

 

Wrong.

 

Do you have a reason that actually obeys the experimentally determined laws of physics?

 

Yes.

[swansont]

This is the new physics I mentioned. Where has the non-conservation of charge been experimentally observed?

[John Cuthber]

 

Wrong.

 

You are saying that charge conservation is wrong.

That's an extraordinary claim.

Unless you have extraordinary evidence it just isn't science.

[dalemiller]

This is the new physics I mentioned. Where has the non-conservation of charge been experimentally observed?

 

Conservation of Charge is a tenuous law: It was fancied because no instance had been conceived at the time for how a positive charge could be destroyed without simultaneous annihilation of an electron. Apparently, the only fusion of hydrogen explained at the time dealt with what I call dynamic fusion within plasma.

 

At that time, apparently no one had an understanding of macroscopic electrostatic formations (MEF). You probably not cannot copy MEF information out of a book because I have not published it since I figured it out. MEF leaves no mystery as to why the law requiring electrical parity is mistaken. No one could ever say that the law is cast in concrete. Certainly, Carl Sagan would not. I have no idea who is empowered to pass such a law. The matter was not determined in my presence. The presumption of static nuclear fusion seems a less drastic explanation of cosmic acceleration than the Dr. Kaku's conclusion that the law of gravity has hit its expiration date.

 

You have not found grounds to deny the formation of a core of positive charge within stellar centers where no electrons lurk. In your mind, would a man-made rule of thumb trump the potentiality of static fusion without the presence of electrons? Would you be more indulgent of Dr. Kaku's determinations? He sort of hired a circus to parade his opinion on TV.

[John Cuthber]

"Conservation of Charge is a tenuous law"

Not really

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

[dalemiller]

You are saying that charge conservation is wrong.

That's an extraordinary claim.

Unless you have extraordinary evidence it just isn't science.

 

What hairs do you split to conclude that I told you that?

 

I did tell Swansont something like that but not you. Conservation is very nice. Even conservation of charge, but we don't have to be control freaks and bring in the police. It is an option: if you are a proton and want to take an electron with you, end it all amid a plasma. To go alone, go to the the center of a star.

 

In Carl Sagan's time, he said that there no authorities in science. Now that you are here it seems to be a different story.

 

Where do you get that "extraordinary claim" business. Do you know just who I might be contradicting? Is he or she a Mensan or something? How can I get a job like that?

[ACG52]

At this point, it appears that OP taken the option of abandoning physics completely, in favor of his own imaginings.

[dalemiller]

"Conservation of Charge is a tenuous law"

Not really

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

 

Thanks. From what she says, I see that she pays out a little latitude.

 

"Noether's theorem has become a fundamental tool of modern theoretical physics and the calculus of variations. A generalization of the seminal formulations on constants of motion in Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics (developed in 1788 and 1833, respectively), it does not apply to systems that cannot be modeled with a Lagrangian alone (e.g. systems with a Rayleigh dissipation function). In particular, dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law."

 

Thanks again. My case fits the exception that proves the law. The law is ever so good and I embrace its glorious exception.

[swansont]

Having your conjecture depend on non-conservation of charge cannot be used as evidence for it. That's circular reasoning. It is new physics, and you need a bunch of evidence to overturn more than a hundred years of experimental evidence.

 

Thanks. From what she says, I see that she pays out a little latitude.

 

"Noether's theorem has become a fundamental tool of modern theoretical physics and the calculus of variations. A generalization of the seminal formulations on constants of motion in Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics (developed in 1788 and 1833, respectively), it does not apply to systems that cannot be modeled with a Lagrangian alone (e.g. systems with a Rayleigh dissipation function). In particular, dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law."

 

Thanks again. My case fits the exception that proves the law. The law is ever so good and I embrace its glorious exception.

The link mentions how charge conservation can be derived using field theory, so it's not an exception.

[dalemiller]

Having your conjecture depend on non-conservation of charge cannot be used as evidence for it. That's circular reasoning. It is new physics, and you need a bunch of evidence to overturn more than a hundred years of experimental evidence.

 

Rather than a conjecture, I see direct logical reasoning applied to existing scientific understandings. Fair Weather current demonstrates validity of a downward-pointing electric field. Negative ions go up, positive ions go down. Down takes us to the center of the globe. Logic shows the sun to have similar negative charge. Special evidence would be needed for one to presume that static fusion could not occur because a law seems to say that maybe this could not happen. Onward and upward, but drag down the guy who figures something out. Shame on him for not using fancy loops and squiggles of mathematics. Or is it shame on you for getting outclassed by a run-of-the-mill slob. I got a bunch of evidence. Why would I seek polite dialog (lol) to share with decent intelligent people. I suspect the widespread supposition of a positive charge on our atmosphere to be mistaken because of easily misinterpreted data. But I would never accuse a thinking person of being a pseudoscientist just for making a mistake, or worse yet, for telling me something that I was not capable of understanding.

 

 

 

The link mentions how charge conservation can be derived using field theory, so it's not an exception.

 

The link contains the statement: "In particular, dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law." You point out that we can arrive at proof of her law from an alternative approach. If the alternative proof is valid then it is equivalent. How can you say that it would negate the truth of her statement: " In particular, dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law."? Further, if that were simply OK, then what justifies your insistence that I select whichever alternative that would make me wrong?

 

In that I have countered your assertion that our atmosphere is charged positive, and you drop the hot potato without acknowledging the validity of my case, then I must realize that your objective is to defeat me by whatever smoke and mirrors tricks lie within your impressive education. A fool is not wrong simply because he is a fool.