The Creation and Maintenance of Large Scale Cosmic Electric Charge Gradients!

[Leif]

In 1933 Pauling introduced the concept of electronegativity. It is the very real adjustment made to account for the extra functional charge on what you might think should be a neutral atom. Oxygen for example when supposedly charge balanced with 8 electrons and 8 protons still behaves as if it were positively charged. It seems that the upper right elements of the periodic table all demonstrate this extra positive charge built into their atoms.

 

This has some profound and unexamined consequences in cosmology and suggests the existence of large scale electrical gradients throughout the universe and may account for the accelerated increase of the universes expansion. In fact I would speculate that the force of expansion and the expansion itself will end only after the weighted synthesis of electro negative elements has been exhausted.

 

Consider that the third most abundant element in the universe is oxygen(only after hydrogen and helium). Oxygen has an extremely high electronegativity value, which means it has a large functional positive charge value.

 

The positive charge electric field created by the accumulation of oxygen as a product of solar fusion is much more significant in quality and magnitude than the electric field created by the hydrogen and helium transmuted to create it.

 

The sum of the products of solar fusion is weighted in the production of oxygen and therefore the result is the creation of large scale cosmic electric fields!

 

A star like ours generates a positive electric field, and this is the result of the weighted construction of electronegative elements like oxygen. If you look up the abundance of elements in the universe you will find it is heavily biased towards electronegative elements.

 

The galaxies do not follow a spin described by a gravitational model unless you invent the existence of dark matter to account for it, as current mainstream cosmology suggests. But it does adhere to an electric model, and I believe the gradient for this is provided by the concentration of mass and it's electro negative distribution.

 

Consider that the centre of a galaxy has the highest concentration of stars, and this concentration decreases as you travel radially out to the periphery. This alone will create a galactic charge gradient capable of holding the galaxy together, and there is no need for a fiction like dark matter.

 

Also consider the accelerating expansion of the universe. If the universe is evolving such that the dominant products of solar fusion are electro negative(as they seemingly must be), then it is not difficult to see that this is driving the accelerating expansion.

 

Edited August 18, 2013 by Leif

[EdEarl]

 

Pauling introduced the concept of electronegativity

Do you have a reference to this concept?

 

 

Oxygen for example when supposedly charge balanced with 8 electrons and 8 protons still behaves as if it were positively charged. It seems that the upper right elements of the periodic table all demonstrate this extra positive charge built into their atoms.

If the concept is electronegativity, why are these atoms positively charged? That is a contradiction and doesn't make sense.

 

 

The galaxies do not follow a spin described by a gravitational model unless you invent the existence of dark matter to account for it, as current mainstream cosmology suggests. But it does adhere to an electric model, and I believe the gradient for this is provided by the concentration of mass and it's electro negative distribution.

 

Consider that the centre of a galaxy has the highest concentration of stars, and this concentration decreases as you travel radially out to the periphery. This alone will create a galactic charge gradient capable of holding the galaxy together, and there is no need for a fiction like dark matter.

If the center of the galaxy were either positively or negatively charged, everything would repel, not be attracted. In other words, additional dark matter would be needed to hold the galaxy together. in other words, your ideas are contradictory and do not make sense.

 

Moreover, gravitational attraction is more pronounced at large distances than the electrostatic force. It is possible for an electrostatic force to overcome gravity at small distances, for example a small piece of paper may adhere to you when you are charged with static electricity (as when rubbing your feet on the carpet). However, you cannot pick up a piece of paper laying on the floor because of the static charge, the paper must be touching you.

 

If the charge of oxygen in the Earths atmosphere were greater than gravity, the oxygen would fly off into space and not be held to the earth by gravity, because positive charges repel other positive charges and negative charges repel other negative charges.

 

 

Also consider the accelerating expansion of the universe. If the universe is evolving such that the dominant products of solar fusion are electro negative(as they seemingly must be), then it is not difficult to see that this is driving the accelerating expansion.

This idea is consistent with like charged particles repelling other like charged particles, but it contradicts your previous idea that galaxies are held together by charged particles. However, the distances are so vast, it does not seem electrostatic charge would have such an effect.

 

Your ideas are not consistent; thus, please give a reference to Pauling's paper on electronegativity, because you have not explained the expected results well enough to understand.

[Leif]

The electric force is hugely greater than gravity; 2.2x1039 times greater in magnitude!

 

Electro negativity values are calculated values which indicate a charge-sum balanced elements ability to attract electrons. The only force that will directly attract negative charge is a positive charge and so a high electro negativity value means the element is behaving with a net positive charge(functionally positively charged).

 

The electric fields generated are hardly static and this is obvious by the clear dominance of plasma in the visible universe. In fact it cannot be static while the bulk of creation is solar fusion, the ongoingness of this process constantly causes electrical imbalance.

 

What I am saying is that the centre of a galaxy is a concentration of electro negative mass which is fundamentally a concentration of functional positive charge. This concentration of positive charge will attract and concentrate electrons to the centre of the galaxy creating a charge distribution imbalance with the centre of the galaxy concentrating extra negative charge(negative charge centre). This will leave a charge gradient radially as the concentration of mass and positive charge elements decreases. This will leave the outer portions of the galaxy positively charged.

 

The Earth's atmosphere is a perfect example. As Nichola Tesla discovered 100 years ago, the surface of the earth has an enormous negative charge. The difference in charge between the surface and the stratosphere is around 50 KV.

 

99% of the atmospheric gases are nitrogen and oxygen; both highly electro negative. The density difference of these gases decreases radially from the surface to the stratosphere proportionally representing the decreasing charge gradient. The atmosphere of the earth has been accumulating electrons from the solar wind over time as a result of this. Oxygen is the single most abundant element in the earth's crust and in living organisms(66% of your mass is Oxygen), and you are negatively charged as a result of Oxygen's Net Functional Positive Charge(it's not much; 120 mV or so depending upon how healthy you are).

 

I think you might want to consider Richard Feynman's "Like-likes-Like" principle to really understand what I am saying.

 

Here is somewhat of a description of Feynman's idea;

 

http://faculty.washington.edu/ghp/research-themes/origin-of-life/

Edited August 18, 2013 by Leif

[John Cuthber]

Ed, electronegativity is perfectly well established (if a bit wishy washy).

It's a bit of a stretch to say "Oxygen for example when supposedly charge balanced with 8 electrons and 8 protons still behaves as if it were positively charged. " but, to the extent that it has a measurable electron affinity, it's a reasonable (if rather shaky) analogy.

The problems with the OP start with

"This has some profound and unexamined consequences in cosmology and suggests the existence of large scale electrical gradients throughout the universe"

which is total bollocks, and get worse from there.

 

Leif is talking nonsense.

Most people don't realise but solids, liquids and gases are not the commonest form of matter in the universe.

Most of the conventional matter in the universe is present as a plasma.

It's ionised and electrically charged

So you can't get a long term charge displacement in the universe- the charge leaks away.

[EdEarl]

TY John

[Leif]

Most of the matter in the Universe is in a plasma state which means there is there is at least a partial if not complete separation of the electrons from the nucleus of atoms, and in stellar objects this separation is typically complete because of the extreme temperatures. Stars make up almost all of the visible universe by mass unless you believe in the contrivance of dark matter(which conveniently for it's proponents has no optical properties and is therefore unverifiable and just happens to exist in the exact amount they need to make their equations work).

 

I do not think it is in the spirit of science that scientists introduce unfalsifiable forms of phenomena simply to salvage a dysfunctional hypothesis and their reputations because of a long history of supporting it and the preceding intellectual commitments? To be truly scientific dark matter would have to be a falsifiable hypothesis, and it clearly is not. And so dark matter is more akin to occult discussion than it is a scientific one.

 

The fact remains that the electric field because the intrinsic charge of many constructed elements is far different than those of the simpler ones used to construct them creates ongoing electrical imbalances on large scales. This is the reason that our sun is also associated with a positive charge field, and that particles emitted from it move away from it at an accelerating rate(exactly like a strong positively charged electric field exists around our own sun; and apparently it does exist). When you add up this combined effect with a billion other stars in a galaxy, then you get very profound consequences.

 

Considering that most of the mass of the universe is in an active stellar form, then it is not a stretch to consider that stars are actively generating huge electrical potentials in space and many of the properties and behaviours we are observing are electrical and not of gravitational in nature; like the force that is binding the galaxy together.

 

Gravity is a very weak force and cannot account for the cohesion of galaxies with the observable mass while the electric force is more powerful by over 39 orders of magnitude. There is then no need to fabricate ghost-like forces when you realize that the intrinsic charge imbalances can and do account for it all!

Edited August 19, 2013 by Leif

[studiot]

I am now wearing ear defenders, but really Leif, there is no need to shout.

 

I don't see the connection between your over simplistic description of the electronegativity of oxygen and your description of plasma, which is also in error.

 

You should not assign electron affinity as being simply due to coulomb forces.

Quantum theory, using properties such as spin, angular momentum as well as coulomb attraction leads to the difference in electron affinities.

 

As regards plasma, or other ionised states, only some of the electrons are parted from their nuclei.

If all were parted as you suggested then they would not be in suitable states to provide the energy jumps to give off the observable light frequencies.

So we would not observe spectral lines for oxygen.

 

Can you tell me what is the half life of an oxygen nucleus without any electrons?

 

Not very long I think.

 

So please do not throw away conventional science and replace it by wishful thinking when considering phenomena beyond that which is well established.

 

I would agree that dark matter is a form of wishful thinking that may or may not come to fruition.

[Leif]

Light is emitted from solar objects because light is emitted in the fusion reactions at the core. This emission has nothing to do with quantum chromo-dynamics.

 

Also I do not think I said that there was a connection between the plasma state and the net functional charge of electro negative elements?

 

Sorry, I didn't think I was yelling; In fact I'm not.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Leif

[studiot]

In posts 1 and 3 you made great play of the electronegativity of oxygen and linked it to 'large masses of electronegative material at the centre of the galaxy'.

 

Now you tell me light is given off by fusion reactions.

 

So what? This 'light' is hard gamma radiation, nothing like the light characteristic of electronic transitions in oxygen.

 

QCD? I'm sorry I didn't mean to imply QCD. By quantum theory I mean theory appropriate to electronic transitions in oxygen.

 

I repeat, if you stripped off all the electrons there would be no matter identifiable as 'oxygen'.

 

As to your comments about charge, several times you refer to charge as measured in volts, kilovolts or millivolts. Please check your elementary physics book.

Edited August 18, 2013 by studiot

[Leif]

If you isolate oxygen and strip it of electrons, then this nucleus of oxygen cannot have quantum chromo dynamic properties now can it?

 

Nuclear reactions also give off light, and this is how the current theory suggests that sunlight is caused and emitted(they tell us it takes 100,000 years for a photon to make it's way to the surface of the sun from the origin(the core)).

Edited August 18, 2013 by Leif

[studiot]

 

If you isolate oxygen and strip it of electrons, then this nucleus of oxygen cannot have q

 

What on earth do you mean?

[Leif]

Sorry, my puter is not behaving! Updated above...

[swansont]

The Earth's atmosphere is a perfect example. As Nichola Tesla discovered 100 years ago, the surface of the earth has an enormous negative charge. The difference in charge between the surface and the stratosphere is around 50 KV.

We also have lightning.

 

Is there an experimentally measured field once you get into space?

 

99% of the atmospheric gases are nitrogen and oxygen; both highly electro negative. The density difference of these gases decreases radially from the surface to the stratosphere proportionally representing the decreasing charge gradient. The atmosphere of the earth has been accumulating electrons from the solar wind over time as a result of this. Oxygen is the single most abundant element in the earth's crust and in living organisms(66% of your mass is Oxygen), and you are negatively charged as a result of Oxygen's Net Functional Positive Charge(it's not much; 120 mV or so depending upon how healthy you are).

Presumably that's for a single oxygen or nitrogen. What is it for diatomic oxygen(nitrogen), which is the form that most of those atoms takes in the atmosphere?

[Leif]

Yes and that is where the stretch is. I think that if single molecule oxygen or nitrogen has effective net positive charge that the diatomic forms should also have this, but there is no calculation for this value(Pauling neglected this idea).

Edited August 19, 2013 by Leif

[studiot]

 

If you isolate oxygen and strip it of electrons, then this nucleus of oxygen cannot have quantum chromo dynamic properties now can it?

 

Why ever not, for the short time it would exist?

 

It is nucleons that are made up of quarks, not electrons.

 

 

Nuclear reactions also give off light,

 

I have already agreed and point out that this light is gamma radiation, not visible.

[Leif]

Swansont,

 

I think that the conclusion is that it is difficult to find any place including space around the earth that does not display charge or charge separation to some degree. The field surrounding the earth is definitely a positively charged field generated by the sun.

 

THE ELECTRIC GENERATORS of THE UNIVERSE!

It does apear that the ubiquity of the stellar fusion process is the engine that both generates and maintains the electric field gradients on all levels throughout the cosmos. The charge separations and gradients do not simply disappear in time because they are constantly being generated and regenerated by A Universe full of Stars!

 

CLOUDS;

I think that water vapour has a higher concentration of oxygen and therefore negative charge than does dry air(dry air is 21% oxygen while water is 80% oxygen by mass). Increased negative charge is typically a function of oxygen content where the earth is concerned.

 

The water vapour is mobile, negatively charged, and attracts to itself by Feynman's Like-Likes_Like principle to form clouds and is pushed upward by the repulsive negative charge of the dry air below it and pulled upward by the less negative(more positively charged) air above it; This is why many clouds have flat bottoms and rarefied tops. The cloud stops climbing when a neutral electrical buoyancy is achieved.

 

Rain provides the electrical conductor for lightning discharge because liquid water has the highest oxygen and therefore electron concentration of all! Don't forget that charge particles will move from a region of extremely high charge concentration to a region of lower same sign charge regions if they can. This is why lightning discharge occurs with electrons moving from an extremely high concentration of negative charge(the cloud) to a lesser negative charged surface(the earth).

 

Again it is exactly similar to Bernoulli's work with fluid dynamics in that a high pressure fluid will move into another fluid when it is connected to the other and the other is at lower pressure. A negative charged particle will move in a negative electric gradient field in the direction that is less negative, and a proton will move in the direction that is the most negative, and so you do not need opposite charge sign interaction to create force.

 

NOTE;

The entire process of ATP(concentrated negative charge) synthesis in your body is the consequence of the need for negative charge. This is the basis of cellular energy by all living entities.

 

It may seem that you only get into the layer of true positive charge as you pass into the Van Allen Belt? Perhaps the Ozone layer resides on the thin strip of true neutral charge? I really don't know enough to say.

 

MAJOR MINERAL COMPONENTS ARE ELECTRO NEGATIVE;

I think it interesting that the major mineral components of LIFE are those summarized in the SCNOPS Acronym; SULPHUR, CARBON, NITROGEN, OXYGEN, PHOSPHOROUS. These elements are highly electro negative and are also among the most abundant in the universe; so are in large they are the heavily biased products of stellar fusion throughout the universe.

Studiot,

 

Chromo dynamically emitted light is released when an electron orbiting a nucleus moves from an excited state to an unexcited state.

 

If the nucleus has been stripped of electrons then there can be no chromo dynamic emission of light, can there?

 

The atom is then invisible by any regular measure. It does not cease to exist as you seem to suggest, it merely becomes functionally invisible.

 

And without electrons an atom has no chemical properties either.

 

Edited August 19, 2013 by Leif

[studiot]

 

Chromo dynamically emitted light is released when an electron orbiting a nucleus moves from an excited state to an unexcited state.

 

If the nucleus has been stripped of electrons then there can be no chromo dynamic emission of light, can there?

 

The atom is then invisible by any regular measure. It does not cease to exist as you seem to suggest, it merely becomes functionally invisible.

 

And without electrons an atom has no chemical properties either.

 

None of this has any basis in fact.

 

What is "Chromo dynamically emitted light" and do you think light from electrons has anything to do with QCD (It doesn't).

What do you think quantum chromodynamics theory means?

 

One type of nuclear radiation is called Bremstrallung - you should look this up.

 

It is debatable whether an "atom without electrons" is an atom, but nuclear chemistry was well known when I studied it as part of my degree way back in the 1960s. So yes there is an established chemistry of nuclei.

[Leif]

Fair enough Studiot, I was not using the term chromo dynamics properly.

 

Let me ask you a question then if you don't mind. You maintain that an atom completely stripped of electrons is unstable. If this is so, then what are the decomposition products, and this would be a fission result?

 

The reason I mention it involves some conjecture because indeed the current experts on the sun believe that most of the element composition of it is in a state of complete disassociation of electrons from the nucleus and they are calling this plasma. If they are right and you are right then the overwhelming energy generating process within the sun is fission and not fusion?

 

Also, they claim that photons are generated, but you insist it is gamma radiation, so which is it, and how is it that we receive visible light from the sun, or do we?

 

[Strange]

Let me ask you a question then if you don't mind. You maintain that an atom completely stripped of electrons is unstable. If this is so, then what are the decomposition products, and this would be a fission result?

 

An atom stripped of one or more atoms (i.e. an ion) is "unstable" in the sense that it has a net positive charge and will rapidly recombine with free electrons to form a stable atom again. Unless there is sufficient energy to keep ions and electrons apart (i.e. a plasma).

 

It has no effect on the stability of the nucleus and hence will not lead to fission.

 

 

The reason I mention it involves some conjecture because indeed the current experts on the sun believe that most of the element composition of it is in a state of complete disassociation of electrons from the nucleus and they are calling this plasma. If they are right and you are right then the overwhelming energy generating process within the sun is fission and not fusion?

 

The reason that fusion takes place is the same reason there is a plasma: the high energy (temperature). This makes it possible for nuclei to overcome the repulsive force and collide, leading to fusion.

 

I guess (but I don't know) that the absence of electrons may also reduce the energy needed to make nuclei collide.

 

 

Also, they claim that photons are generated, but you insist it is gamma radiation, so which is it, and how is it that we receive visible light from the sun, or do we?

 

They are photons of gamma radiation.

 

Gamma radiation is just electromagnetic radiation (like light or radio waves, but higher energy/frequency). All electromagnetic radiation is made up of photons.

[Leif]

Strange,

 

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

 

Now this still leaves the question of how fusion produces gamma radiation and how this is converted into visible light frequencies that we depend upon;have you any ideas?

 

[Strange]

Strange,

 

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

 

Now this still leaves the question of how fusion produces gamma radiation and how this is converted into visible light frequencies that we depend upon;have you any ideas?

 

Not really my area. I keep meaning to learn more about this. There is an overview here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-proton_chain

There are two sources for gamma rays in the process. Positrons are produced (through the weak (beta) interaction, I assume) which then annihilate with electrons to create gamma rays. Then other fusion reactions produce gamma rays directly.

 

Some of the thermal and gamma ray energy produced is ultimately converted to visible light (plus infra-red and ultra-violet) by heating the outer layers of the sun.

[Leif]

Strange,

 

I hardly think the sun could be emitting gamma rays on large; we'd all be dead...so most of it is converted.

 

Interesting that Studiot brought this up. Gamma rays are converted into particles and anti-particles when subjected to a strong magnetic field(and the sun has this in spades). There must be a lot of this going on and it lends itself to an asymmetry; a pathway where barionic matter is converted into gamma radiation, and then equally into barionic matter and anti-particles.

 

Interesting to consider when the balance was 100% barionic to begin with and then the process continues with the introduction of anti-matter which was not there before...creating the asymmetry .

Edited August 21, 2013 by Leif