Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Help the experts

  1. #1 Help the experts 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    There must be some electronics technicians hanging out around here. It has come to my attention that cookie-cutter book-learning has been failing our physicists, meteorologists and astrophysicists. They have been short-changed on static electricity. The practical experience afforded electronics technicians might have brought more insight reasoning to electronics technicians than our scientists get a chance at. With all due respect, the experts are not playing with full decks!

    As of now, they do not understand how lightning is formed. They do not know why electrons rise up from the earth. They cannot understand how an electron gun works (the kind with a focusing anode). Therefore the identical circuit in space, polar jets, have them baffled. They do not know their way around a Faraday cage. They might not be able to explain the minus 40 degree liquid rain aloft. Ad infinitum. They think an imbalance of charged particle polarities would tear everything apart. They got it figured that gravity is wearing out and believe in cosmic acceleration!

    Contradict their precious dogmas and they send your stuff to the junk science department. The experts are so far off that if you get to the truth you are so far from mainstream that they commend you to the booby hatch. Write for a peer-review journal and get "We regret that we cannot enter into any discussion" on the reject notice. (Nature had just published a dilly that my paper inadvertently debunked.)

    This is not to complain. It is an appeal for electronics technicians to bring these people along with simple explanations of how electrons treat each other, likewise for protons, and how the two polarities array within and upon mostly spheres and disks throughout the cosmos.

    The tipping point proves to be vague notions they have of complex electrical fields.
    Take a negatively charged sphere. Just more electrons than protons. So electrons try to haul out of there but get stuck out on top. If you come along and say, "Lets stick another electron in there and watch it go up." They will say no no no, it won't go up, it missed the boat. They say you then have a Faraday cage, and the inside doesn't know about those electrons on the outside because they are shielded. A grown man told me that you cannot tell what charge your world has because it is impossible. (So much for understanding the meteorologists' Fair Weather Current.)

    Catch a scientist and teach him a little bit every day!

    Any other ideas how to fix this mess?


    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    65
    Hi,

    Im not really sure your questions but if you want to see energy in a cloud just look at it like a Capacitor.

    There are several ways it could possibly charge, off hand ;

    1) Electrostatics, friction and kinetic energy from evaporated water.
    ie, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_water_dropper

    2) Cosimc energy and UV radiation from the ionosphere


    Also there is nothing to say that the earth has more electrons than protons or that all clouds are negatively charged.

    In electronics we look at the relativity of force of electrons during a chemical reaction, ie, Ni and Cd want to bond so much that X amount gets us Y amount of "energy"

    Gravity is decaying as the sun's weight(energy) does, and electrons do gravitate to the EQUATOR in a rotating disk.

    A negative charge is just a little more negative if you add another electron, electorns do escape that is why all capacitors(insulation) have leakage currents, we can count the charge on the planet but there are so many variables its impossible for us right NOW. Also you may not realize that when we say we have a potential voltage we are actually measuring the holes(or lack of electrons), and voltage is like the pressure, C=Q/V where capacitance equals the number of electorns relative to the pressure it s charged to.


    Cookie cutter pieces are ok since they outline the different aspects of science, as long as we make sure that we use 100% of the dough!

    All aspects of science will add up but only till we have all the pieces cut,


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by doggy
    Hi,

    Im not really sure your questions but if you want to see energy in a cloud just look at it like a Capacitor.

    There are several ways it could possibly charge, off hand ;

    1) Electrostatics, friction and kinetic energy from evaporated water.
    ie, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_water_dropper

    2) Cosimc energy and UV radiation from the ionosphere


    Also there is nothing to say that the earth has more electrons than protons or that all clouds are negatively charged.

    In electronics we look at the relativity of force of electrons during a chemical reaction, ie, Ni and Cd want to bond so much that X amount gets us Y amount of "energy"

    Gravity is decaying as the sun's weight(energy) does, and electrons do gravitate to the EQUATOR in a rotating disk.

    A negative charge is just a little more negative if you add another electron, electorns do escape that is why all capacitors(insulation) have leakage currents, we can count the charge on the planet but there are so many variables its impossible for us right NOW. Also you may not realize that when we say we have a potential voltage we are actually measuring the holes(or lack of electrons), and voltage is like the pressure, C=Q/V where capacitance equals the number of electorns relative to the pressure it s charged to.


    Cookie cutter pieces are ok since they outline the different aspects of science, as long as we make sure that we use 100% of the dough!

    All aspects of science will add up but only till we have all the pieces cut,
    My appeal to electronic technicians is from slightly facetious notion that some experience lending itself to intuitive learning comes more readily to blue collar workers than disciplined scholars. But to know if you are such a technician, a good test is to figure out the resistance of a cubic outline formed by twelve 100 ohm resistors so soldered together. If you cannot figure the resistance between two extremely separated corners, then you are not an electronics technician and should just watch ball games.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    65
    I hate sports, isn't that proof enough?

    unless this is a trick question the equivalent resistance is 75ohms.


    I still don't know what your question is but you may get further if you just come out with it and ask..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by doggy
    I hate sports, isn't that proof enough?

    unless this is a trick question the equivalent resistance is 75ohms.


    I still don't know what your question is but you may get further if you just come out with it and ask..
    I think it is 100 ohms, and the question is not a trick but holds out for tricky solution. As an attention deficit, I had to find an easy way and two methods came up. But you're answer is close enough; not many of us are perfect.

    Forgive the misleading title for the post. The experts are a them not an us.

    It has become my conviction that technicians get caught up in quests for information that is familiar to scholars of disciplined educations but that we have to noodle out for ourselves. There seems always to be two or more paths to understanding something, whereby the well born get the answer by doing the loops and squiggles of higher math, and never imagine that slobs can reach an answer by jumping between the stepping stones of intuitive special cases.

    Thing is, if we hit any pay dirt outside the trodden ground of the elite's realizations, it is up to us to convert to conventional frames of reference in order to project our findings. Nevertheless, sometimes the worm's eye view becomes an advantaged vantage point that wins out over conventional perspectives. That happened to me when I accidentally blundered into the kernel of lightning formation while trying to think of completely different stuff. Well, that was seven years ago and I never found an anointed one to pick up the phone. Sure, now we know why NSF goons couldn't spare the time away from their computers, but the approved solution holds atmospheric lightning as beyond our ken to this very day.

    Too many everyday things confound our scientists, yet notions outside their consensus goes straight to the junk science circular file. There has to be a better way for slobs to gain audience. We are taxed to support grants funding search for stuff they will not let us tell them. Something is wrong wrong wrong!
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    65
    nope its definitely 75 ohm, I hate to say it but i cheated and used a simulator .


    but what is this new lightning theory of yours?

    bottom line is they wont care till you can fit that power in to a jar, we have since tesla known about energy in the air that even exists in the darkness of space
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by doggy
    nope its definitely 75 ohm, I hate to say it but i cheated and used a simulator .
    So then I cheated too by finding a published solution. http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~lecture...ges/64.42.html
    Ha, according to that you solved the face diagonal instead of the body diagonal. But don't trust that site, because their body diagonal solution doesn't agree with mine. After I find out how they went wrong, will get back to you about lightning.
    Oops, this edit moves that we just give the published solution site full credit for their cube. OK?

    However, for starters, I claim the key energy source for our atmospheric lightning first hides out in the latent heat of evaporation of water. Much of such energy lurking in water vapor reemerges as electrical energy instead of heat. The trick is in the oodles of negative ions native to our atmosphere, or perhaps naturalized from a solar supply of electrons. That is to say that the earth does have a negative bias. Proof? Sure, the Fair Weather Current meteorologists wonder about is a manifestation of electrons being repelled to outer limits due to mutual repulsion. We can go on then to say that the sun has a negative bias. We can realize that by thinking how the ionosphere is pushed down on the sunny side and pushed up on the other side; mutual repulsion indicating matching polarity for sun and earth.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    65
    um, i think you should read up on nuclear theory if you want to know where electrons come from@!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by doggy
    um, i think you should read up on nuclear theory if you want to know where electrons come from@!
    I won't because I don"t. See you around.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    The main problem that you're always going to run into with scientists is that you have to speak their language exactly the way they speak it. For example: you can't say that the speed of light slows down in a gravitational field (And all velocities uniformly slow down with it). You have to say that time slows down, and light speed remains constant..... even though these two statements are absolutely identical in every way (they would lead to all the same predictions, and thus conform to all the same experimental results).

    There's no room for violation of jargon, or recasting any model from a different perspective... even if the new perspective might make something clear that wasn't readily apparent in the old perspective.

    What I've seen in studying the field is that most scientists are operating at the edge of their own intellect. While I greatly respect this, (It's inspiring to watch people push themselves as far as they can go), it brings with it the problem that most of them don't have head-space available to turn their calculations sideways, or backwards, or upside down, and still manage to get the right answers. They *need* it presented to them all in one format.

    Just so you understand: it is not arrogance that causes scientists to reject your ideas. It's the staggering amount of work it would take to try and convert the information into a format they are capable of approaching, without exceeding their own abilities as scholars. Nobody is infinity intelligent. Even genius has its limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    404
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The main problem that you're always going to run into with scientists is that you have to speak their language exactly the way they speak it. For example: you can't say that the speed of light slows down in a gravitational field (And all velocities uniformly slow down with it). You have to say that time slows down, and light speed remains constant..... even though these two statements are absolutely identical in every way (they would lead to all the same predictions, and thus conform to all the same experimental results).

    There's no room for violation of jargon, or recasting any model from a different perspective... even if the new perspective might make something clear that wasn't readily apparent in the old perspective.

    What I've seen in studying the field is that most scientists are operating at the edge of their own intellect. While I greatly respect this, (It's inspiring to watch people push themselves as far as they can go), it brings with it the problem that most of them don't have head-space available to turn their calculations sideways, or backwards, or upside down, and still manage to get the right answers. They *need* it presented to them all in one format.

    Just so you understand: it is not arrogance that causes scientists to reject your ideas. It's the staggering amount of work it would take to try and convert the information into a format they are capable of approaching, without exceeding their own abilities as scholars. Nobody is infinity intelligent. Even genius has its limits.
    i agree................
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Such sage council is not wasted kindness. Let the metaphor be "vocabulary" rather than language and my mission is more visibly improbable. I had no truck with big thinkers for seven decades until I stumbled onto something they missed, ostensibly due to semantics and how they parse wording they find in scientific rules. There seems no way to just plug in another working vocabulary.

    The hope has been merely to reach an exceptional scientist that carries intuitive reasoning along with the formal analytical path. Some folks find that side-stepping a view can bring a two dimensional view into a three D view to afford more useful grasp of an issue. Sixty years as a blue collar electronics technician that almost never went home without fixing the trouble puts a lot of science down into the lower nerve centers where it can get something done. Design engineers usually learned to listen to us slobs, but the ivory tower folks seem never to meet the humiliation of meeting the truth. They boast when none of them understand something, confident that ordinary folks just are not in the game. Like lightning: they pass is of as beyond human ken. But they will not shut up and listen. They cannot tell you anything about polar jets than some crap about twisted magnetic lines of force. They get grants of taxpayers money to seek out where lightning gets is energy. It is from the heat that goes into evaporating water: some of it comes back as electric power. But they won't shut up and listen. If they do hear something they don't know, then the fact that they don't know shows them that such matters are just junk science. They cannot figure out for themselves that if stellar fusion did not involve some static pressure fusion, then stellar fusion could not self-regulate. But they won't shut up and listen. When NSF wouldn't take my calls, I had no idea how busy they were at their computers. That came out much later. They don't know how super-massive black holes are cultivated. They don't know how matter gets down to black holes from orbit. But they won't shut up and listen. Who cares? Not enough folks to crowd a blog. Bullies haunt forums without acknowledging if a posting bears up to their challenges and contradictions.

    But now when a couple of gentlemen have come along with the kindness of well thought advice, it takes the fun out of just going mad, and maybe that would have been just as well.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •