Macroscopic Electrical Formations

[John Cuthber]

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 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.

Until you provide evidence, you haven't "outclassed" anyone.

Rather the reverse.

[dalemiller]

Until you provide evidence, you haven't "outclassed" anyone.

Rather the reverse.

Loads of evidence is right out there. All I have to do is point it out, not supply it.

Please advise of what evidence you require from me.

Edited October 8, 2012 by dalemiller

[hypervalent_iodine]

Loads of evidence is right out there. All I have to do is point it out, not supply it.

Please advise of what evidence you require from me.

 

!

Moderator Note

Incorrect. Please review the Speculations forum rules before posting again in this thread.

[swansont]

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.

How do they get there? The earth isn't particularly conductive, and you want not just charge to flow, but ion transport.

 

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.

Logic is not enough. If we relied solely on logic, we would still be confounded by Zeno's paradoxes of motion, because according to his logic, there is no motion.

 

If you have evidence, then share it. A test of the core of the earth showing positive charge, or the ability for charge to annihilate. Something empirical.

 

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?

What is your dissipative mechanism?

 

 

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.

Your case is not valid. What you call smoke and mirrors I call science, and my objective is to discuss science. But you are apparently not willing to subject your claims to scientific scrutiny, you want people to simply accept it. That's religion.

 

A fool is not wrong simply because he is a fool.

Once again, this is you calling yourself names, not me. But you are wrong because the world does not behave as you claim, as evidenced by the science that has been tested countless times. We're not going to discard all of that just because you had a vision of how things really work.

[dalemiller]

Until you provide evidence, you haven't "outclassed" anyone.

Rather the reverse.

I am obliged to provide evidence and am not sure if you mean evidence that our atmosphere bears a negative charge. In case you do, then I invite attention to the Fair Weather Current of an alleged value of some minus two microamps per square kilometer of Earth surface.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/TerryMathew.shtml

That is a vertical rise of electrons. If you agree that most of the earth's charge is behind those electrons, then it seems that you should agree that such a charge must be negative in order to have repelled those electrons upwards.

 

If we were dealing with a simple hollow globe, we might need to provide some sort of test stimulus to evaluate our total net electrical charge. However, due to endothermic dislocation of outer charged particles down to the surface wherever it is raining, we have a steady flow of test particles, namely those rising electrons. How am I wrong, or where am I unclear?

[John Cuthber]

If you want to be taken seriously you need to supply evidence for your assertion in the original post.

I don't know why you keep going on about atmospheric phenomena. They have nothing to do with the net charge on the Sun or Earth.

I have already pointed that out a few times.

So stop wasting time with them and give us some evidence of your actual claim.

 

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

 

Or you could provide evidence of charge conservation being violated.

[dalemiller]

If you want to be taken seriously you need to supply evidence for your assertion in the original post.

I don't know why you keep going on about atmospheric phenomena. They have nothing to do with the net charge on the Sun or Earth.

I have already pointed that out a few times.

So stop wasting time with them and give us some evidence of your actual claim.

 

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

 

Or you could provide evidence of charge conservation being violated.

I have done both but for reasons unknown have failed to discover how to get it across to you.

1. The earth must be holding a negative charge because it is repelling electrons as far away as it can. The evidence is in the reported measurements of Fair Weather Current. You could measure the voltage drop along a vertical length of atmosphere. Using either a special radioactive probe that connects the atmosphere to the high side of a voltmeter, or use an electrostatic voltmeter. From Earth ground, the air would measure some +100 Volts per meter of elevation. That voltage would indicate that the Fair Weather current (conventional) (do it on a nice day) is developing that much voltage across the intervening atmosphere. That voltage signifies the action of a negatively charged body. A good electrical engineer could explain it to you. The key caveat here is to avoid mistaking a voltage drop for being any manifestation of the ion density or polarity. In my humble opinion, that very stumbling block has been stunting the growth of some important scientists.

 

2. The ionosphere (an upper layer of the atmosphere is known to rise at night, evidenced by the longer-range communications thus afforded short wave communications in the night time. This is evidence of the sun being of like charge with the earth. What other explanation would there be? I see little reason to ignore that evidence because it makes so much sense. A good radio amateur could explain it to you. I am not saying that these interpretations are popular although I cannot understand why not. Nevertheless, science deals with truth, not with popularity.

 

3. Noether's Theorem provides an exception (not a violation) to rule of the law of charge conservation. "In particular, dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law." Further, from wiki: "A dissipative system is a thermodynamically open system which is operating out of, and often far from, thermodynamic equilibrium in an environment with which it exchanges energy and matter." That is exactly what I wass talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissipative_system

[John Cuthber]

As I explained to you, we know about the fair weather current.

As I explained to you, it has that name for a reason.

As I pointed out, there's a well known return current.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning

 

So it's not evidence of a net charge loss from the earth.

And it wasn't evidence the last time I pointed this out.

So please stop going on about it.

 

"The ionosphere (an upper layer of the atmosphere is known to rise at night, evidenced by the longer-range communications thus afforded short wave communications in the night time. This is evidence of the sun being of like charge with the earth."

No it is evidence of high energy particles and electromagnetic radiation from the sun (and the rest of the cosmos) ionising the upper reaches of the atmosphere.

It is no indicator of any net charge on the sun or the earth (actually, it's a weak indicator that they do not have the same charge- if they were both negatively charged then electrons from the sun would be repelled by the earth and wouldn't reach us so they wouldn't ionise the air.)

 

"What other explanation would there be?"

The conventional one.

"The ionosphere is a part of the upper atmosphere, from about 85 km to 600 km altitude, comprising portions of the mesosphere, thermosphere and exosphere, distinguished because it is ionized by solar radiation."

from wiki with my emphasis.

 

Even if you were right about Noether's theorem (and I think you have completely failed to understand the nature of the exception) it wouldn't help.

Proving something might be possible is not the same as proving that it happens in a particular circumstance.

 

So, once again, do you actually have any evidence for your assertions?

[dalemiller]

How do they get there? The earth isn't particularly conductive, and you want not just charge to flow, but ion transport.

 

If I ever said I want ion transport, I misspoke. Propagation attends well enough where it can or must. Even in a fluid medium, transport is not essential. There are no perfect insulators and plenty of time for the charges to respond to electric fields.

 

Logic is not enough. If we relied solely on logic, we would still be confounded by Zeno's paradoxes of motion, because according to his logic, there is no motion.

 

Zeno didn't fool me for a minute. Zeno’s falacy was his own, not the fault of logic. I thought that I had already established the reasoning that takes the compression of noonday atmosphere and the outstretching of the night side sky. Well tested basic electronics establishes that like charges repel. I now think that I was wrong to propose that influence on RF propagation tells the story. It does to me but not to you. Too many other variables involved. Hoping to bring on more easily accepted evidence soon. Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that the sun would not have imposed its charge upon the earth. There is such a thing as dogma. Fudging explanations about effects they do not understand get a scientist through the day. Oblivious to alternatives, some have written that solar wind is a 50/50 mix of electrons and protons (plasma). Radio engineers oblivious to an electron shell above the atmosphere could just tell a story about ions that persist throughout the night to explain extended rf range. There is no shame in unchaining one’s brain from adherance to words of duly annointed athorities. In upper US, our NSF tell or told that ice crystals striking super-cooled water somehow causes lightning. (But they confess ignorance and attack anyone who could set them straight. For crying out loud, when raindrops have raised their enveloping membrains to voltages tantamount to explosion into thunderbolts, their the outer moleules have such ionic density that counter intermolecular gravitation sufficiently to prevent solidification down to more than -40 degrees temperature. Naturally, the centers of those raindrops are frozen solid. An imbecile can see that the NSF story is true. But no one else. But that is all part of rock solid true facts existing official approved solutions.

 

Hence, free to think, it was easy to overlook dogma contradicting validity of my proof. Although this is Speculations, I withdraw my reckless conjecture that Earth and Sol share the same polarity. (I wonder why electrons flee from our sun.)

 

There is no conflict to these conclusions warranted by reports of protons to be found in the solar wind. Neutral molecules already traveling among electrons of solar wind can become ionized in transit. Cosmic rays are usually made up from particles of positive charge. Solar flare activities launch heated plasma. It seems likely that Earth's negative charge would have been delivered from the sun via solar wind.

 

If you have evidence, then share it. A test of the core of the earth showing positive charge, or the ability for charge to annihilate. Something empirical.

The latitude extended to astrophysicists because of the restricted opportunities for immediate investigation should hardly be denied in a speculations department. The understandable indulgence for a radial downward-pointing electric field on Earth is coin-of-the-realm acceptable theory supportable by voltage measurements of atmosphere. It is covered in a recent posting. If it is or were possible to exert sufficient pressure and containment of protons on Earth, empirical data might be restricted to insufferable side effects upon the countryside. Not in my neighborhood please.

 

What is your dissipative mechanism?

 

If conversion of matter to energy were not to occur, then the dissipative mechanism waver of conservation of charge would not be needed. If it does occur, then we have our dissipative situation.

 

 

Your case is not valid. What you call smoke and mirrors I call science, and my objective is to discuss science. But you are apparently not willing to subject your claims to scientific scrutiny, you want people to simply accept it. That's religion.

 

 

Scientific scrutiny is just what I seek. Above, I replied to a challenge that I could not take seriously. Nuclear fusion was certainly the issue on the table. The question could only trick me out of appreciating the validity of my belief. How could that have been scientific scrutiny?

 

Once again, this is you calling yourself names, not me. But you are wrong because the world does not behave as you claim, as evidenced by the science that has been tested countless times. We're not going to discard all of that just because you had a vision of how things really work.

[swansont]

If conversion of matter to energy were not to occur, then the dissipative mechanism waver of conservation of charge would not be needed. If it does occur, then we have our dissipative situation.

Which is a circular argument and why independent confirmation is required.

 

Scientific scrutiny is just what I seek.

And yet you complain of persecution when scrutiny is applied.

[dalemiller]

Which is a circular argument and why independent confirmation is required.

 

 

My presumption of static stellar fusion within positive cores was faulted for its potentiality of violating the law of conservation of charge. If no electron could avail itself within the core, then two of you suggested that no positive charge could be destroyed in the privacy of the core. We found Noether provided a waiver of the law that would apply to conversions between matter and energy. That took me off the hook as a violator of anything or anybody. What circle do you see?

 

By the way, I had somehow overlooked your link to Jason Goodman's message. He gives no proof, took no measure of ionic polarity.

 

His final text makes strange statements: "The movement of air and charged cloud particles within them separates electrical charges vertically; lightning then transfers the extra electrons at the base of the cloud to the ground. Positive charge at the top of the cloud leaks into the upper atmosphere. This recharges the fair weather electric field."

 

Why "charged cloud particles"? They do not get blasted by wind, they just go along with it. How would that separate electrical particles? Why would positive charge leak up toward positive air instead of being pulled down to the negative ground?

 

How does it prove anything. That write-up is a good reason for me not to follow the crowd.

 

An awful lot of posting seems dedicated to generalizing upon my deficiencies instead of the technical issues. I would like to explain what Mr. Goodman was trying to talk about.

[swansont]

My presumption of static stellar fusion within positive cores was faulted for its potentiality of violating the law of conservation of charge. If no electron could avail itself within the core, then two of you suggested that no positive charge could be destroyed in the privacy of the core. We found Noether provided a waiver of the law that would apply to conversions between matter and energy. That took me off the hook as a violator of anything or anybody. What circle do you see?

Nother's theorem allows for dissipation. Your dissipation appears to be an assumption of non-conservation of charge in a nuclear reaction. Which is circular if trying to demonstrate the non-conservation of charge.

[John Cuthber]

"My presumption of static stellar fusion within positive cores was faulted for its potentiality of violating the law of conservation of charge. "

It was also faulted for, and let me see if I can make this clear to you

 

NOT HAVING ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT

 

Do you understand that?

[dalemiller]

Nother's theorem allows for dissipation. Your dissipation appears to be an assumption of non-conservation of charge in a nuclear reaction. Which is circular if trying to demonstrate the non-conservation of charge.

 

Am still trying to figure out how you find circular thinking in my work. You reacted to discovery of Noether's exception using a flat statement without supporting logic, that it wouldn't apply because the rule could be derived by an alternate mathematical approach. So what?

 

There is a broadly held notion that I once shared, that the universe contained equal counts of electrons and protons. That natural compulsion to believe so might be the foundation for shunning thoughts of any exclusive annihilation of protons, and for believing stars and planets to be of zero electric charge. "Noether's statement "In particular, dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law." demonstrates her law to provide exceptions to the rule. That is all it takes. Hence, when you challenged that I "threw down her law" by presenting the inevitable configuration of stars for some static fusion, you were mistaken. I therefore carry no burden to justify the electric bias resulting from static stellar fusion. The exception simply means that you do not have a case by that avenue. Your circular thinking gimmick just a distraction. You have confessed determination to denigrate me out of personal resentment. As a care giver, I find that responding to perpetual hounding from you becomes an insufferable drain on my valuable time.

 

"My presumption of static stellar fusion within positive cores was faulted for its potentiality of violating the law of conservation of charge. "

It was also faulted for, and let me see if I can make this clear to you

 

NOT HAVING ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT

 

Do you understand that?

I think we are supposed to be a little more high class here.

 

You seem to doubt that any electric charge can remain on the earth. Electrons have mass and Earth has mass. Up to a certain limit, electrons can be piled onto the earth and stick around because of gravity. It is quite easy for negative ions to remain here because they have additional ballast. I do to have any evidence to support my presumption. You do not ask for evidence about morphing neutrinos. You know that you would not understand it, and besides, the proposition was made by people wearing white lab coats and pocket protectors. But I think maybe they were fudging to get through the day in spite of neutrino shortages. Maybe static fusion could have made the same save. Scientists have declared the earth to have a downward-pointing electric field. That means, to thinking people, that the earth is charged with extra electrons. Until you or anyone can suggest that our source of electrons is from anywhere except the sun, I would have to assume that it too is negative. There is lots of other reasons if you do not like that one.

 

Actual scientists have been known to entertain theoretical approaches to astrophysics because of the extensive travel time involved in retrieving solid evidence. Thinking is not a crime to be punished with loud noises or little words in huge letters. How come you did not challenge Swansont when he contradicted my claim of a negative atmosphere with that write-up from Mr. Goodman? It was just junk. It did not present a reason for negative-charged lightning to be coming from a positive-charged sky. I made thin fudge to say how air and charged droplets created charged droplets. It did not prove anything.

 

When I was a kid, bullies dealt in a cowardly way: If one was hitting you another felt safe in joining his effort. I warn you not to get infected with the beliefs of another bully here. He cannot understand that the last electric field expires within a closed conductor after the last charged particle has been placed at rest. This causes him to publicly condemn my understanding of Gauss. He disagrees with Michael Faraday about our downward-pointing electric field on Earth. He believes that when you heat plasma, it gets cooler. He has never acknowledged that most of the sky above is far below your feet on the other side of the earth. That last one gives him proof that the sky is positive.

[swansont]

Am still trying to figure out how you find circular thinking in my work. You reacted to discovery of Noether's exception using a flat statement without supporting logic, that it wouldn't apply because the rule could be derived by an alternate mathematical approach. So what?

 

There is a broadly held notion that I once shared, that the universe contained equal counts of electrons and protons. That natural compulsion to believe so might be the foundation for shunning thoughts of any exclusive annihilation of protons, and for believing stars and planets to be of zero electric charge. "Noether's statement "In particular, dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law." demonstrates her law to provide exceptions to the rule. That is all it takes. Hence, when you challenged that I "threw down her law" by presenting the inevitable configuration of stars for some static fusion, you were mistaken. I therefore carry no burden to justify the electric bias resulting from static stellar fusion. The exception simply means that you do not have a case by that avenue. Your circular thinking gimmick just a distraction.

Yes there are exceptions. But you have to actually come up with a verified/verifiable mechanism by which there is dissipation. You cannot make one up out of whole cloth, in which charge is not conserved, and use that as proof that charge is not conserved. If you have no independent evidence, then the argument is circular.

 

And yes, the burden is yours, because the claim is yours.

 

You have confessed determination to denigrate me out of personal resentment.

Where/when the hell did I ever do that?

 

As a care giver, I find that responding to perpetual hounding from you becomes an insufferable drain on my valuable time.

Your participation here is voluntary. OTOH, so much for your desire to have your idea held up for scrutiny.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Dalemiller

You have been given massive leniency by the moderators - if we had stuck to the letter of the forum rules this thread could have been locked many posts ago (you have failed to answer in any meaningful way the questions that have been posed and you have countered refutations with simple and factually incorrect assertion) - but in the quoted post you have crossed a line. We do not accept negative characterisations of those who disagree with your assertions, and we will not have posters making unfounded accusations of personal animosity. Any more imputations or characterisations of other posters will lead to significant negative consequences - please be warned.

In your next few posts you must include, at the very least, evidence of a net charge (or a concise reason why we have not seen the evidence) and a proper explanation of the violation of the conservation of charge. BTW stating baldly that Noether's theorem has exceptions for dissipative systems does not remove the experimental proof and theoretical validity of the conservation of charge. To use this exception you would need to show that the system you envisage does fit the circumstances (it doesn't), and that charge conservation is violated (it isn't).

Am still trying to figure out how you find circular thinking in my work. You reacted to discovery of Noether's exception using a flat statement without supporting logic, that it wouldn't apply because the rule could be derived by an alternate mathematical approach. So what?

There is a broadly held notion that I once shared, that the universe contained equal counts of electrons and protons. That natural compulsion to believe so might be the foundation for shunning thoughts of any exclusive annihilation of protons, and for believing stars and planets to be of zero electric charge. "Noether's statement "In particular, dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law." demonstrates her law to provide exceptions to the rule. That is all it takes. Hence, when you challenged that I "threw down her law" by presenting the inevitable configuration of stars for some static fusion, you were mistaken. I therefore carry no burden to justify the electric bias resulting from static stellar fusion. The exception simply means that you do not have a case by that avenue. Your circular thinking gimmick just a distraction. You have confessed determination to denigrate me out of personal resentment. As a care giver, I find that responding to perpetual hounding from you becomes an insufferable drain on my valuable time.


I think we are supposed to be a little more high class here.

You seem to doubt that any electric charge can remain on the earth. Electrons have mass and Earth has mass. Up to a certain limit, electrons can be piled onto the earth and stick around because of gravity. It is quite easy for negative ions to remain here because they have additional ballast. I do to have any evidence to support my presumption. You do not ask for evidence about morphing neutrinos. You know that you would not understand it, and besides, the proposition was made by people wearing white lab coats and pocket protectors. But I think maybe they were fudging to get through the day in spite of neutrino shortages. Maybe static fusion could have made the same save. Scientists have declared the earth to have a downward-pointing electric field. That means, to thinking people, that the earth is charged with extra electrons. Until you or anyone can suggest that our source of electrons is from anywhere except the sun, I would have to assume that it too is negative. There is lots of other reasons if you do not like that one.

Actual scientists have been known to entertain theoretical approaches to astrophysics because of the extensive travel time involved in retrieving solid evidence. Thinking is not a crime to be punished with loud noises or little words in huge letters. How come you did not challenge Swansont when he contradicted my claim of a negative atmosphere with that write-up from Mr. Goodman? It was just junk. It did not present a reason for negative-charged lightning to be coming from a positive-charged sky. I made thin fudge to say how air and charged droplets created charged droplets. It did not prove anything.

When I was a kid, bullies dealt in a cowardly way: If one was hitting you another felt safe in joining his effort. I warn you not to get infected with the beliefs of another bully here. He cannot understand that the last electric field expires within a closed conductor after the last charged particle has been placed at rest. This causes him to publicly condemn my understanding of Gauss. He disagrees with Michael Faraday about our downward-pointing electric field on Earth. He believes that when you heat plasma, it gets cooler. He has never acknowledged that most of the sky above is far below your feet on the other side of the earth. That last one gives him proof that the sky is positive.

Do not response within the thread to this modnote. You can PM or report if you feel it is unjust or unwarranted.

[Ophiolite]

. As a care giver, I find that responding to perpetual hounding from you becomes an insufferable drain on my valuable time.

As a parent, grandparent, educator, keen amateur scientist and inept piano player can you explain to me in what way pointing out errors of fact and logic in your posts and requesting explanations of your hypothesis constitute hounding? I find that offensive in the extreme to people who actually are hounded.

[Phi for All]

You have confessed determination to denigrate me out of personal resentment.

I think you should either give us a link to where this was said or you should stop making the claim. Until that time I think your talk of cowardly bullies is fairly hypocritical.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

I think we are supposed to be a little more high class here.

 

Indeed: we are meant to have enough class to provide evidence.

You have said that you can - but you don't.

You use circular arguments and other logical fallacies instead.

[dalemiller]

Indeed: we are meant to have enough class to provide evidence.

You have said that you can - but you don't.

You use circular arguments and other logical fallacies instead.

Thank you for your opinions. I am working on it. I have to construct it more carefully. Don't have much time.

[dalemiller]

You have said that you can - but you don't.

 

 

 

It is kind for anyone dubious of my credibility to let me speak. (That is not a reproach.) It is so easy for doubters to presume to characterize the writer time after time, and perhaps naive for a writer to proceed under consistent attack.

 

If I suggest logic to be worthwhile I can be made to appear to rely on nothing else. If I assert belief that dogma can be found within current consensus, it can be made to have me rejecting all work of all scientists. However I do declare that if I am wrong about a negative bias to be prevalent, then almost everything I seek to tell is folly. Let me tackle that first.

 

The reference below suggests the total vertical voltage drop along our atmosphere to be 200 KV. Other estimates range up to at least 300 KV.

http://hypertextbook...haEdwards.shtml

 

Hence, taking that potential as 250 KV, we should measure Earth’s electric field as 250 plus or minus 50 KV from Earth surface to the loftiest electron atop the atmosphere. Near the ground, we can measure some +100 volts IR drop per meter of elevation. The negative current involved for this voltage drop is some two micro amps per square kilometer. The source potential delivering such upward electron flow lies at the earth’s surface where sufficiently high density of electrons or negative ions is present due to a preponderance of negative lightning and the fall of negatively charged rain. It is of no significance that minor occasions of reverse lightning polarity can be found. It can be produced by “Flywheel effect” familiar to electrical engineers. It can deliver excess current for a normal discharge whereby magnetic flux is built up encircling the conductor (the lightning bolt) during current up-slope and then as the current subsides, collapsing magnetic flux forces continued current in the same direction. That action can leave a cloud with an over- reduced negative potential seen to us as a positive voltage.

 

Few people bear an everyday awareness that they walk around on some -250,000 Volts and even swim in it, and yet it is quite harmless. Electricians think of Earth-ground as the epitome of zero Volts. That +100 Volts per meter of atmospheric elevation from surface actually signifies a voltage that is that much less negative than the reference taken at the surface. True electrical neutrality is close at hand beneath the surface, (but too tricky to really get to) and should also be present far up where a highest electron rises no further (virtually unattainable).

 

An overabundance of electrons on Earth seems intuitively obvious from the foregoing explanation. If I am shown how that is not so, please explain and/or let me try again. An electron atop our atmosphere would not represent storage of any energy. An endothermic process can store energy simply by pushing electrons downward, or in any other way, crowding them closer together. Another way to store energy would be to ionize molecules or find them that way and pull them apart. I venture that an ongoing widespread search for involvement such a process comes from dogma in the woodwork, no offence. To reiterate such a process of charge seperaton to build up electrical energy, one would have to go in all different ways at once in pursuit of the seperate charges, just to re-stretch the polarities farther apart. That is no way to concentrate energy! On the other hand, to compress like-charges together, you can reiterate over and over without jumping around, and using ever so much less working space as you go

 

It would be paradoxical to suppose that with an Earth-surface density of negative ions equivalent to some 250 negative kilo-volts, that we should find one meter above, a true potential of +100 volts. The actual equivalent range of voltage from an inch above Earth surface, to the highest electron aloft to be from some minus 250,000V to zero Volts aloft.

 

There is an overwhelming consensus that opposes my contention due to longstanding practices of atmospheric measurement. The word on the street is that positive ionization has been measured for ages. "IR drop" was measured, not the polarity of atmospheric charge. Ionic density was estimated from direct measurement of atmospheric conductivity: a constant current passed through atmospheric sample, and that conductivity relies on ionic density of either polarity. Hence, no measurements were being taken for determination of the ionic polarity! An error made generations ago stands today only in inadvertent deference to the credibility of long-standing determinations.

 

It is seen here that rejecting a premise on the basis of longstanding beliefs, as decried so well by Carl Sagan, is an unfortunate obstacle to progress.

[swansont]

It is seen here that rejecting a premise on the basis of longstanding beliefs, as decried so well by Carl Sagan, is an unfortunate obstacle to progress.

Carl Sagan was also fond of saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and you haven't even provided ordinary evidence for your claim of non-conservation of charge, or your peculiar movement of charges.

[dalemiller]

Carl Sagan was also fond of saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and you haven't even provided ordinary evidence for your claim of non-conservation of charge, or your peculiar movement of charges.

Thank you for your point of view.

Edited October 16, 2012 by dalemiller

[dalemiller]

 

The septic, mediocre scrutiny supplied so far extinguishes my wish to share my expertise with such company. I will make a safety copy of my work here and carry it Dr.C. It has been 100%.