Thread: Blue collar electricity

A weatherman or astrophysicist looks upward for inspiration about his specialty. When he does, he constricts arteries that feed the brain. This is demonstrated by their mystification about the FWC (Fair Weather Current) encountered on nice days when electrons rise up from the earth and travel to the ionosphere.

We all know that electrons possess what we call a negative charge, repel from one another and are attracted to objects possessing the opposite charge. Why do they go up? As light as they are, they do not displace their weight even in dense atmosphere, so gravity is not the reason; that is to say it is not floatation. Since they rise straight up from most anywhere in the world, might they be attracted to a positive potential that envelopes our planet? No, that would not work because of a counterintuitive circumstance: A charged particle will be attracted to the center of an enclosing charge of the opposite polarity. More attraction is exerted from the greater arc presented beyond the middle. That leaves us with repulsion as explanation for the FWC. Thus, Earth proves herself to hold a negative charge. Any great scientist who would deny this could enlighten himself by pondering the electrostatic electron guns in so many cathode ray tubes, or by pondering the difficulty encountered in electroplating a ring.

This principle is not limited to Earthbound physics. Astrophysics is deemed here to be severely corrupted due to ignorance of the principle. Can an anointed scientist relegate this contribution to the ignominy of junk science? We will see; RHIP.

HUH?

This is not easy to understand. Please rephrase your claims more clearly. Have you considered contributions of ions? I thought that charged particles cling to small water droplets that can be elevated by convection.

A few words on the "Fair Weather Electricity" phenomenon can be found here:
http://dev.space.fmi.fi/~makelaa/fairw.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_weather_condition

Since this is not Astrophysics related, I moved this thread to the Physics section.

Dishmaster
(Moderator, Astrophysics)

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

This is not easy to understand. Please rephrase your claims more clearly. Have you considered contributions of ions? I thought that charged particles cling to small water droplets that can be elevated by convection.

FWC is the passage of electrons into the atmosphere and. mostly, on up to the ionosphere. Negative ions throughout the atmosphere play a role in elevating the ionosphere, but their atomic ballast keeps them below that upper layer.

If I express more than one of my realizations in one posting, I endanger any credibility by seeming adrift from mainstream science. I have considered a number of subsequent determinations that fall on deaf ears because the simple fact that the earth possesses a negative charge has not been acknowledged. My direct case for such a charged Earth seems well supported by FWC. Barring atmospheric disturbances, the outward migration of electrons from Earth surface can manifest nothing contrary to the contention that Earth must have a negative charge in order to so repel them. That charge simply proves the earth to possess more electrons than protons.

A profoundly accomplished physicist (no names) has nevertheless stated in his textbook that charged particles must be of exactly the same count in matter or else everything would fly all apart. The poor soul forgets that electrical particles of a charged host reside at the outer surface.

There is little point for me to resort to book-learning before the book-writers learn the facts, and I have been trying nigh onto seven years to tell them something that they have overlooked. Sixty years of successful practical experience finds me ready to explain in greater detail, but beating the thing to death might make a very simple concept look complicated. I am ashamed of getting a little sassy, but have been seeking to draw a few experts out.

What reason would there be just to barf up scientific trivia that conforms to popular dogma?

The usual explanation is that the fair weather current is the return path for electrons flowing from the atmosphere to ground by thunderstorms.

http://dev.space.fmi.fi/~makelaa/fairw.html

Your objection seems to be that you think the enclosing positive charge in the atmosphere would not attract electrons on the earth's surface. They would actually be attracted to the center of the earth. Is that correct?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The usual explanation is that the fair weather current is the return path for electrons flowing from the atmosphere to ground by thunderstorms....
Your objection seems to be that you think the enclosing positive charge in the atmosphere would not attract electrons on the earth's surface. They would actually be attracted to the center of the earth. Is that correct?

I did not question the source of the electrons. They come down with rain whether or not there is lightning, and come to Earth with solar wind. The reason for them residing and/or returning to the upper atmosphere must be caused by a negative global electrical charge due to a greater population of electrons than protons on the earth. I failed you in asking "... might they be attracted to a positive potential that envelopes our planet?", should have said "... attracted to any positive potential ..." because despite common accepted consensus, there is no such positive envelope around our planet. The point was raised as a possibility to be logically excluded. We get to pay extra taxes for misbegotten government grants because this is not understood. If one thought there were such a positive envelope, then one would have to believe that electrons would go toward Earth's center because it would be any positive ions that would be rising. An astrophysicist has suggested that electrons are carried up aboard water particles by convection, but that thought is not under consideration in any of my work. By excluding two out of three means for causing motion, and finding electrostatic repulsion as standing alone, it seemed that a case is found with FWC to manifest Earth as having a negative global charge.

In response to a previous comment for more lucid explanation, an explanation is under preparation on why a charged particle will be attracted through the middle of a hoop of the alternate charge, or to the center of a spherical shell of the opposite charge. (Clue: electron guns shoot fine beams of electrons through a focusing anode. Their creators might have blundered into the design or they may have figured it out.)

Thank you for taking an interest in a subject close to my heart that responds so well to thought experimentation. Begging but a bit of patience for improved articulation of these principles to be delivered.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

This is not easy to understand. Please rephrase your claims more clearly. Have you considered contributions of ions?
Dishmaster
(Moderator, Astrophysics)

A Thought Experiment

Given an electrically isolated hollow copper ball moderately coated with an excess of electrons, we have the model of a hosting body bearing a negative charge. Let us call those excess electrons our primary electrons. Let the ball’s material contents receive an ionizing event somewhere inside the ball so that what we will call a secondary electron is removed from a normal atom thus leaving a single positive ion within the ball. Because of the negative global charge, that secondary electron will “feel” some net repulsion away from the center of the ball: let us call that push “a global repulsion”. The positive ion will “feel” some net pull toward the global center: let us call that pull a “global attraction”. If the secondary electron and positive ion are far enough apart so that their mutual attraction is less than the global repulsion, then the secondary electron will travel to the outer surface unless it is already there, and the positive ion will travel to the global center unless it is already there. As long as the ball does not lose its isolation or its negative charge, the ball will continue to harbor that positive ion at its center and an additional electron will have shouldered its way in among the outer shell of primary electrons. Such migration of charged particles works in similar fashion under conditions of multiple ionizations, and is immune from indefinite interruptions such as when a rising electron nullifies a sinking proton: the fact remains that when “free”, each charged particle picks up where it left off, towards ultimate arrival as advertised.

The reason for the secondary electron’s outward travel is the overall negative charge upon the hosting body produced by the primary electrons. Mutual repulsion of electrons would produce the secondary electron’s excursion. Familiar electrical principals promise us that the particle of opposite polarity from the global charge would move the positive particle into the opposite direction. That means that either the positive particle would travel, or its charge would propagate, to the center of the ball.

Greater negative charge would cause more vigorous travel of the charged particles and would reduce the ionic separation required to enable the global migration. The electron surplus confined to the ball’s surface as electrical charge is limited to the maximum quantity that can be retained due to gravity between electron and the charged host. It should seem that the addition of many secondary electrons coming from the ionization processes would be tolerated at the surface due to simultaneous development of a positive core, but a host already charged to saturation would begin sloughing some primary electrons as secondary electron count mounts up. No single electron takes up with any division of labor, but those counted among electrical charge are to those counted among secondary electrons as crewman is to passenger.

A counterintuitive phenomenon appears here between the positive core and negative shell whereby opposing arrays of charged particles are separated because of their attraction for each other. Strangely like charges become grouped together and strangely arrays of opposing charge shun each other! A proton, for instance, would shun the closest surface within the sphere only in deference to greater attraction from the other side of the fence so to speak. A sighted sector of the closer surface would bring stronger pull from each electron within the sector, but such a sector seen from inside the opposite side of the sphere contains commensurately more electrons contributing to attraction, and greater sector-size is also to be had; tipping the balance for a trip to the center, where the proton beholds equal pull from fore and aft.

We have hereby modeled phenomena that shape worlds great and small.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

HUH?

I apologize.

I agree with your rebuttal. My rudeness seemed like a good idea at the time, due to my desperation to draw out some meteorologists so that I could argue with them. Meteorology has been troubled by horrible textbooks such as one claimed to be the right book written in the right place by the right people at the right time. That book provoked my notion that everybody is crazy. I am trying to get over that.

Electronic technicians shooting trouble sometimes cannot go home to supper until they get it right. That suggests possible validity to some of what they learn. To hear NASA tell folks that ice crystals make lightning by rubbing rain drops!!! No! No! Ions build up high voltages on the raindrop skins as total surface to volume ratios decline. At minus forty degrees, raindrops coated with those ions than are tantamount to inducing vast sparking bear repulsion in excess of the molecule to molecule pull of gravity that draws them toward condensation. Nevertheless the raindrops hold frozen cores because all of the charge is on the outside.

How are my kids going to learn if the unapproachable NASA geniuses hold sacred credibility over blue collar slobs who live electricity?

Originally Posted by dalemiller

How are my kids going to learn if the unapproachable NASA geniuses hold sacred credibility over blue collar slobs who live electricity?

Perhaps by paying attention to sources of real science. That would, of course require that they ignore bogus sources -- like you.

NASA has some resources whereby people can be exposed to knowledgesble scientists, but better resources are available at good universities and in good textbooks.

Any of thse sources would present real science --which will contradict the utter nonsense that you are spouting.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Any of those sources would present real science --which will contradict the utter nonsense that you are spouting.

You can do so much better than to just sling generalities. Step up to the plate by advancing at least one specific contradiction to what I offer. Don't let me off so easily.
Most people do know more than I do. So what? I am too lazy to learn very much. That doesn't make what I have learned wrong!

You must know how to prove your point, and if you won't, where is your credibility? What is your point? Where am I wrong? Have I just failed to explain something understandably? If you don't get to the point, then some folks will think that you are just trying to be nasty, but I know better than that.

Let's just suppose the Earth has a zero net charge for a moment. Wouldn't the greater mass of the protons cause them to overcome electrostatic repulsion more toward the center of the body (where gravity is the greatest) and clump closer together? But the electrons aren't pushed as strongly against their electrostatic repulsions, because they're less massive.

So the electrons should be settling toward the outside of the body, even if the body has a balanced total charge.

Originally Posted by dalemiller

because despite common accepted consensus, there is no such positive envelope around our planet. The point was raised as a possibility to be logically excluded. We get to pay extra taxes for misbegotten government grants because this is not understood.
.

Dalemiller: you should try not to be overly critical when proposing a counter theory. Statements like the one above "We get to pay extra taxes for misbegotten government grants" will cause people to be unnecessarily resistant to your ideas for reasons that are wholly unscientific (it's just an emotional response to being told that a large number of one's peers shouldn't have jobs), but very real nonetheless.

Clearly people should not become emotionally invested in a scientific question, and it's a failing on their part if they allow themselves to, but it's also failing on your part if you provoke them unnecessarily, rather than being diplomatic as well as you can.

Originally Posted by kojax

Let's just suppose the Earth has a zero net charge for a moment. Wouldn't the greater mass of the protons cause them to overcome electrostatic repulsion more toward the center of the body (where gravity is the greatest) and clump closer together? But the electrons aren't pushed as strongly against their electrostatic repulsions, because they're less massive.

So the electrons should be settling toward the outside of the body, even if the body has a balanced total charge.

Originally Posted by dalemiller

because despite common accepted consensus, there is no such positive envelope around our planet. The point was raised as a possibility to be logically excluded. We get to pay extra taxes for misbegotten government grants because this is not understood.
.

Dalemiller: you should try not to be overly critical when proposing a counter theory. Statements like the one above "We get to pay extra taxes for misbegotten government grants" will cause people to be unnecessarily resistant to your ideas for reasons that are wholly unscientific (it's just an emotional response to being told that a large number of one's peers shouldn't have jobs), but very real nonetheless.

Clearly people should not become emotionally invested in a scientific question, and it's a failing on their part if they allow themselves to, but it's also failing on your part if you provoke them unnecessarily, rather than being diplomatic as well as you can.

Your technical point on proton mass eludes me. Why wouldn't the greater density of an electron impress you the other way around?

Your point is well taken that I could have avoided that criticality. Making mistakes is what I do best, but the parenthetical comment eludes me too. What emotion? Do you mean that government waste is a beneficial thing? Hereabouts, there is no shortage of government waste at all, it is plentiful. My needless comment on the forum involved a moral reproach to circumstances of an arrogant agency using public funds but contemptuously denying access to an iota of dialog from their helpless benefactors. That is an injustice. Why shouldn't I say so?

Originally Posted by dalemiller

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Any of those sources would present real science --which will contradict the utter nonsense that you are spouting.

You can do so much better than to just sling generalities. Step up to the plate by advancing at least one specific contradiction to what I offer. Don't let me off so easily.
Most people do know more than I do. So what? I am too lazy to learn very much. That doesn't make what I have learned wrong!

You must know how to prove your point, and if you won't, where is your credibility? What is your point? Where am I wrong? Have I just failed to explain something understandably? If you don't get to the point, then some folks will think that you are just trying to be nasty, but I know better than that.

One is forced to be general since your assertions are so non-specific and wrong on so many fronts. When confronted with such a plethora of non-sequitars one is simply overcome with the Alice-in-Wonderland view of nature. It is not a question of finding where you are wrong, but rather a challenge to find the occasional intersection with reality where you might have a brush with being right.

Atmospheric electricity is a complex issue. Here is a pretty good overview. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_electricity

Some of what you have said is partially true, but largely by accident. The surface of the Earth does seem to have a slight bias toward a negative charge, but that is minor. On the other hand your application of physical reasoning is laughable, for instance the notion that buoyancy is relevant in a discussion of electrons.

Buoyancy is a phenomena that arises from continuum mechanics and the behavior of fluids considered as a continuum. Electrons are not even a part of the continuum model, and buoyancy is not applicable to electrons, individual atoms, or sub-atomic particles.

The point is that you don't have a point. More seriously, you don't even know that you don't have a point. And finally, since, as you admit to being too lazy to learn, you will never understand physics well enough to ever have a point. All that you have is a twisted bunch of misconceptions and contempt for people who do understand physical phenomena.

The only solution is for you to overcome your self-described laziness and learn some real physics. You could start by reading TheFeynman Lectures on Physics.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Atmospheric electricity is a complex issue. Here is a pretty good overview. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_electricity

Some of what you have said is partially true, but largely by accident. The surface of the Earth does seem to have a slight bias toward a negative charge, but that is minor. On the other hand your application of physical reasoning is laughable, for instance the notion that buoyancy is relevant in a discussion of electrons.

Buoyancy is a phenomena that arises from continuum mechanics and the behavior of fluids considered as a continuum. Electrons are not even a part of the continuum model, and buoyancy is not applicable to electrons, individual atoms, or sub-atomic particles.

The point is that you don't have a point. More seriously, you don't even know that you don't have a point. And finally, since, as you admit to being too lazy to learn, you will never understand physics well enough to ever have a point. All that you have is a twisted bunch of misconceptions and contempt for people who do understand physical phenomena.

The only solution is for you to overcome your self-described laziness and learn some real physics. You could start by reading TheFeynman Lectures on Physics.

Now that is more like it. I will look the blog over, but am pretty sure my point on electron buoyancy was to focus attention on its nonexistence in order to assert that a net negative atmospheric charge must explain the retreat of electrons all the way up to the electro-sphere. I saw fit to narrow down against alternative explanations because an information service hosted by NASA has insisted that the atmosphere holds a net positive potential. Lack of electron buoyancy points them to a negative atmospheric potential. Surely they would realize that electrons hardly displace fluid in order to rise up from the earth.

Your unwarranted personal attack reflects only upon one us. I withhold other backtalk to get back on topic.

Wikipedia emphatically deals not with that is true, but with that which conforms with consensus. Such is its creed, and that does not fit my need. My quest is to supply some missing pieces. You grant that earth might have a negative charge. I believe it does. Granting that negative charge should bring you to realize a negative charge for our sun. Isn't our electro-sphere repelled by the sun? Dead giveaway. Then won't unbound electrons drift up from below the sun's surface? Then don't loose positive charges migrate or propagate down toward the sun's center? Must you laugh if I answer all of those questions with "yes"? If you think about it, must you not conclude that the sun and the earth have electrically positive cores?

Mysteries unfold for you if you can admit the truth you should find here. No consensus I can find reveals this stuff. A few people have somehow blundered into a similar bottom line but get there with logic I think to be crazy and they do not seem to go anywhere with it. One such has spoken of the filament and film structures of charged particles I expect in concentric cosmic structures, but then seems to have jumped the track as far as I can see.

You could swallow your pride to understand and exploit the value of what I seek to tell you. I only hope that your demonstrated determination to be contrary does not cheat you of the grace you might require to concede to the wondrous beauty and value of this message.

Your hollow copper ball coated with electrons would not produce an electric field inside of the ball. The electrons coated on the outside would cause the copper to rearrange its particles, which will result in a positive-negative polarity within the copper. This results in a proton sandwich with electron bread, which is limited to the electron coating and the copper itself. The charges have balanced without producing any net electric field inside of the hollow copper ball. Hence, an ionizing event inside of the hollow ball would not cause any particle migration regardless of each particle's position within the hollow ball. The new charges within the ball balance themselves out and, if I am correct in my line of thought, would recombine into a particle with no net charge.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

Your hollow copper ball coated with electrons would not produce an electric field inside of the ball. The electrons coated on the outside would cause the copper to rearrange its particles, which will result in a positive-negative polarity within the copper. This results in a proton sandwich with electron bread, which is limited to the electron coating and the copper itself. The charges have balanced without producing any net electric field inside of the hollow copper ball. Hence, an ionizing event inside of the hollow ball would not cause any particle migration regardless of each particle's position within the hollow ball. The new charges within the ball balance themselves out and, if I am correct in my line of thought, would recombine into a particle with no net charge.

The copper just sits there. The electrons produce a field that reaches through the enclosure to move them in the directions that lead them to positions that bring the algebraic sum of thrusts and pulls to zero for each of them. Once all are in place all such repulsion persists to hold them there, and the cessation of their migration suggests to the casual observer that some obligation to Gauss causes the closed conductor to deny penetration into the chamber for electric fields in conformity to natural laws that he has signed on to. Once a molecule within has lost its electrical neutrality by becoming ionized, the entire algebraic cancellation has been disturbed so that each excess electron and the positive ion is subjected to some residual thrust or attraction until migrations subside due to consequential arrival to the nulling position for each charged particle. The positive ion will either have recombined with the electron she takes to be her mate, or she will have relocated to the electrical center of the closed conductor. In the latter case, her ex would have shouldered in amongst the crowd of electrons surrounding the closed conductor.

Originally Posted by dalemiller

Originally Posted by kojax

Let's just suppose the Earth has a zero net charge for a moment. Wouldn't the greater mass of the protons cause them to overcome electrostatic repulsion more toward the center of the body (where gravity is the greatest) and clump closer together? But the electrons aren't pushed as strongly against their electrostatic repulsions, because they're less massive.

So the electrons should be settling toward the outside of the body, even if the body has a balanced total charge.

Originally Posted by dalemiller

because despite common accepted consensus, there is no such positive envelope around our planet. The point was raised as a possibility to be logically excluded. We get to pay extra taxes for misbegotten government grants because this is not understood.
.

Dalemiller: you should try not to be overly critical when proposing a counter theory. Statements like the one above "We get to pay extra taxes for misbegotten government grants" will cause people to be unnecessarily resistant to your ideas for reasons that are wholly unscientific (it's just an emotional response to being told that a large number of one's peers shouldn't have jobs), but very real nonetheless.

Clearly people should not become emotionally invested in a scientific question, and it's a failing on their part if they allow themselves to, but it's also failing on your part if you provoke them unnecessarily, rather than being diplomatic as well as you can.

Your technical point on proton mass eludes me. Why wouldn't the greater density of an electron impress you the other way around?

Yeah. I need to reformulate it a little bit.

Gravity pulls on a more massive object with a stronger force than it does on a less massive object. That means a proton actually feels a stronger force from gravity than an electron does (because protons have more mass than electrons do, despite having exactly the same strength of charge). However, the electric repulsive force between two protons is exactly the same as the electric repulsive force between two electrons.

So, electrons and protons have the same force of repulsion, but protons have a slightly stronger force of attraction between them.

Therefore: we should expect electrons to settle toward the outside of any very massive object, regardless of its net charge.

Your point is well taken that I could have avoided that criticality. Making mistakes is what I do best, but the parenthetical comment eludes me too. What emotion? Do you mean that government waste is a beneficial thing? Hereabouts, there is no shortage of government waste at all, it is plentiful. My needless comment on the forum involved a moral reproach to circumstances of an arrogant agency using public funds but contemptuously denying access to an iota of dialog from their helpless benefactors. That is an injustice. Why shouldn't I say so?

It wouldn't seem like a waste to you if your job depended on it.

Or .... here's an even shorter explanation: In chemistry, chemists often use a device called a centrifuge to separate a mixture of chemicals into its separate parts. The centrifugal force (which pushes outward instead of inward...so the opposite of gravity) causes the heaviest chemicals settle toward the outside, and the lightest chemicals to settle toward the inside.

High gravity can do the same thing (in reverse). It can cause the heaviest chemicals to settle toward the middle, and the lightest chemicals to settle toward the outer edge.

Protons are heavier than electrons, so they tend to settle toward the middle also.

Originally Posted by kojax

Protons are heavier than electrons, so they tend to settle toward the middle also.

To tackle the last thought first, am I to assume that you speak not of electrons tucked comfortably in orbits around the nuclei of atoms, but more likely of a process that would sort protons away from electrons amongst a plasma? Also, am mindful that you speak of the hypothetical case of a hosting body bearing an equal number of charged particles of either polarity.

Firstly, are we in agreement that a feather and an anvil dropped simultaneously toward the earth from far above atmosphere, for instance, would keep pace with each other while in free space?

Secondly, would we agree that the infamous mobility of an electron should give it effective chase in pursuit of an escaping proton?

Thirdly, were the core of a neutral hosting body ever to somehow cull down extra protons, would not that resulting bevy of protons, if it were to grow, increasingly discourage more protons from coming to the party and increasingly beckon all the harder for electron escorts to hasten to the event?[/b]

The algebraic sum is disturbed only for the ionized particle and its electron by the ionized particle and its electron. No matter where each respective particle is, the sum of attractive and repulsive force will be in favor of the two particles reuniting, always, because the only contributions to the less-than zero sum for the two particles are the particles themselves. The new sum leads to a net attractive force between the two particles, all of which taking place independently from the hollow copper ball the event is taking place in.

There is no merit in the notion that the electrons will be shouldered to the rim while protons collect at the center. The conductor will act as if it had a negative charge at its center to particles not contained within the ball. This does not mean, in any way, that particles inside of the shell "feel" the influence of a negative charge situated at the center of the hollow ball. The balance was achieved before the inner barrier of the hollow copper ball was crossed. The electron coat and the conductor have no effect on the volume enclosed.

As for Kojax's remark: The gravitational constant is on the order of , while the Coulomb constant is on the order of . The vast difference in strength between gravity and electric force is testament to the fact that protons would not collect in the center by influence of gravity, overcoming electric forces. Also, would you not be compelled to believe that, if by some freak accident the protons had collected at the center, the electrons the protons lost would be forced even more strongly to the center?


And another thing. Assuming that your "theory" is correct in such as way as you have described, protons collecting at the center and electrons moving to the edge due to a "global negative" charge situated at the center, the phenomenon would not cause any change in overall charge. Therefore, no change in overall force would occur. The proton, having arrived at its destination, would quench the "global negative" charge situated at the center the same amount that the electron arriving at the rim would theoretically strengthen the "global negative" charge situated at the center. It would only be after achieving your postulated saturation point that any sort of shift in force would occur. Again, thinking within the realm of your thought experiment, the migration effect would start to decline once the saturation point has been reached. Protons would continue to bring the global charge closer to equilibrium (zero) while electrons are ejected. Once the migration effect is eliminated by the last proton coming to the center to balance the global charge (making it zero net charge), only one more electron would be ejected and no more. After that, equilibrium has been reached and the entire system is at a steady state aside from any other ionizing events taking place after the fact, resulting in the reuniting of the particles to become neutral ones once more.

“Faraday cages cannot block static and slowly varying magnetic fields, such as Earth's magnetic field (a compass will still work inside)”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

“There is no merit in the notion that the electrons will be shouldered to the rim while protons collect at the center. The conductor will act as if it had a negative charge at its center to particles not contained within the ball. This does not mean, in any way, that particles inside of the shell "feel" the influence of a negative charge situated at the center of the hollow ball. The balance was achieved before the inner barrier of the hollow copper ball was crossed. The electron coat and the conductor have no effect on the volume enclosed.

The electrons on the outer coat got there and stayed there by responding to their mutual repulsion. Think it out!

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

And another thing. Assuming that your "theory" is correct in such as way as you have described, protons collecting at the center and electrons moving to the edge due to a "global negative" charge situated at the center, the phenomenon would not cause any change in overall charge. Therefore, no change in overall force would occur. The proton, having arrived at its destination, would quench the "global negative" charge situated at the center the same amount that the electron arriving at the rim would theoretically strengthen the "global negative" charge situated at the center. It would only be after achieving your postulated saturation point that any sort of shift in force would occur. Again, thinking within the realm of your thought experiment, the migration effect would start to decline once the saturation point has been reached. Protons would continue to bring the global charge closer to equilibrium (zero) while electrons are ejected. Once the migration effect is eliminated by the last proton coming to the center to balance the global charge (making it zero net charge), only one more electron would be ejected and no more. After that, equilibrium has been reached and the entire system is at a steady state aside from any other ionizing events taking place after the fact, resulting in the reuniting of the particles to become neutral ones once more.”

My point has been that the supplementation of electron count at the outer shell of electrons would be equal to the proton count in the central core.

By “saturation”, my meaning would apply to that negative charge exceeding the host’s ability to retain it. The most conceivable manner in which a reduction of retention might have occurred might well be the removal of equivalent positive charge by the destruction of protons.

A body’s charge is not contained at its center. No “global negative” potential has been claimed here as situated at the center. My use of quotes here are not for the invalid application toward sarcasm, but only for clarification of your words toward which I refer.

Hence, I respectfully submit that your conclusions seem null and void.[/quote]

Originally Posted by kojax

Dalemiller: you should try not to be overly critical when proposing a counter theory. Statements like the one above "We get to pay extra taxes for misbegotten government grants" will cause people to be unnecessarily resistant to your ideas for reasons that are wholly unscientific (it's just an emotional response to being told that a large number of one's peers shouldn't have jobs), but very real nonetheless.

Clearly people should not become emotionally invested in a scientific question, and it's a failing on their part if they allow themselves to, but it's also failing on your part if you provoke them unnecessarily, rather than being diplomatic as well as you can.

I had previously misread your statement quoted above. So it is their emotional rejection that you anticipate. That cannot be the case, where arrogance at NSF lets you bring not a word to their door. It ought to be that any taxpayer has access to persons of integrity who are safe enough in their jobs to lend out their ears. As far as empathy goes, it is like the way voters should perform: Our votes should never be self-serving. Such a voter is worse than a politician. A scientist serving the agenda of a lobbyist to the disservice of science deserves a special place in hell. If truth cannot prevail, what ship can find safe harbor?

Originally Posted by dalemiller

Firstly, are we in agreement that a feather and an anvil dropped simultaneously toward the earth from far above atmosphere, for instance, would keep pace with each other while in free space?

An anvil has greater inertia than a feather. If gravity exerted exactly the same amount of force on the anvil as it did on the feather, then the feather's inertia would be overcome more easily and it would hit the ground first. So, the reason Anvils fall at the same speed as feathers is because gravity exerts more force on them than it does on feathers.

The same goes for protons. It takes more force to make a proton accelerate as fast as an electron does, so gravity must be exerting more force on them.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

As for Kojax's remark: The gravitational constant is on the order of , while the Coulomb constant is on the order of . The vast difference in strength between gravity and electric force is testament to the fact that protons would not collect in the center by influence of gravity, overcoming electric forces. Also, would you not be compelled to believe that, if by some freak accident the protons had collected at the center, the electrons the protons lost would be forced even more strongly to the center?

That is true, but near the center of a very massive body, and with nothing to act against it, gravity can get to be a very strong force.

Normally, the distances between protons is determined by the balance of electric attraction from nearby electrons and repulsion from nearby protons. Since the force is inverse square (diminishes according to the square of the distance) that means there is an optimum distance where the attraction from the electrons is equal to the repulsion from the other protons. If they get any closer than that, the repulsive forces will outweigh the attractive ones. Get further away, and the attractive force starts to be stronger. However, if you factor in gravity, then that optimal distance shifts toward being slightly closer.

All I am saying is that this optimal distance calculation shifts more for protons than it does for electrons.

To kojax:

I do not follow the logic you present, but presume your intention is to help me by providing an alternative to some flaw you see in my theory.

I have good reason for confidence in my grasp of the electrical nature of cosmic structure. It is obscure to so many because of the counterintuitive relationship between concentric arrays of grouped electrical particles. There seems to be many other factors misleading the scientific consensus at large for such consistent misconceptions about the Faraday cage and its less intensive imitators, such as raindrops, stars, and galaxies. As I see it, they fail to see the folly in dismissing the effect of external charge upon the interior of a Faraday cage. Mutual repulsion of the electrons constituting the electric charge on the chamber pushes all excess electrons to the outside surface and holds them there!

Not until all migration of charged particles has seized can the chamber lay claim to enveloping a neutral interior. Whenever such neutrality is disrupted, appropriate motion resumes, always in the direction that finally nullifies further motion. The Faraday cage prevents certain radiation from influencing the interior by the cancelling effect of magnetic lines of force cutting a closed conductor across its near side and then its far side. (Induced current would foster a clockwise - then a counter clockwise electric current.) Additional awe is presented by the safety enjoyed within a good Faraday cage whereby even a heavy DC current can flow across it without frying any human occupants. That is sheerly due to the shunting of all such current along outer portions of the conductive structure: current cannot flow where free electrons don't go.

It is a lot easier for a tradesman to understand something that experience has pounded into his lower nerve centers, than for a scholar to guide himself through correct parsing of sacred wording from hallowed pioneers. Such a scholar tormented my efforts at great lengths until I faced him with the distinction that purity of the inner chamber of a Faraday cage is lost to it during the transient intrusion of a stray charged particle. He bought that off with ridiculing contemplation of such a short-lived intrusion. But it was the valid exception to interior Faraday cage purity that was dispatched by that short-lived intrusion!

I like to use this forum as a place to try and learn better how to explain things to people, so I'll take another shot.

First of all: the difference between gravitational force and gravitational acceleration. Suppose you have two bullets, one weighs 2 grams, and the other weighs 20 kilograms. If you take the amount of gun powder required to shoot the first 2 gram bullet at 500 meter/second at a target, and instead use that same amount of powder to fire the 20kg bullet how fast will the 20kg bullet be traveling? The same amount of gun powder, means the same amount of force.

Clearly, it takes a lot more force to set a heavy object in motion than it does to set a light object in motion. So, gravity must exert more force on heavy objects than it does on light objects in order to get equal accelerations.


Now, lets compare that with the electric force. An electric field exerts the same amount of force on all oppositely charged objects. It doesn't care whether the object is massive or un-massive. It just gives everything the same push. So, if you apply the same amount of electric force to a proton as you do to an electron, that's just like with our two bullets. The proton, just like the heavy bullet, doesn't get moving as fast as the electron.

So:

1)- Electric force:;

Accelerates protons less than electrons.

Pushes on protons exactly as hard as it does on electrons.


2) - The force of gravity:;

Accelerates protons exactly as much as electrons.

Pushes on protons harder than it does on electrons.



3) - The two forces acting together:;

Accelerates protons less than electrons

Pushes on protons harder than it does on electrons.

Originally Posted by dalemiller

Because of the negative global charge, that secondary electron will “feel” some net repulsion away from the center of the ball: let us call that push “a global repulsion”. The positive ion will “feel” some net pull toward the global center: let us call that pull a “global attraction”.

Originally Posted by dalemiller

No “global negative” potential has been claimed here as situated at the center.

I will say no more in refute to your claim for obvious reasons that can be deduced from the above.

As for the saturation. The most conceivable manner should not involve destruction of protons because protons do not decay. The most conceivable manner, the one which I was alluding to before, would be that the outer rim electrons, being blocked from the proton core's attraction, would be ejected due to the repulsive force that dominates on the outer rim due to electron shielding produced by the electrons below the rim rising toward the top. This is, of course, all under the assumption that your theory is correct.

The phenomenon with the magnetic field is fine and dandy. I will not argue that a Faraday Cage has trouble when it comes to magnetic fields. However, referencing Earth's magnetic field relative to the Earth itself is irrelevant for your theory. The Earth's permeating magnetic field would not cause such an effect as the one you have described. It would also not cause anything of the sort in your copper ball. Your original premise was based on influence from electric fields as far as I could tell. It still holds that no electric field will exist inside the ball with an electron coating. Electromagnetic radiation emitted from the electrons would also be blocked.

Might I add that years of experience in the field could be quite misleading without the proper education and study of the phenomena that you deal with.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

Might I add that years of experience in the field could be quite misleading without the proper education and study of the phenomena that you deal with.

Some people have thirty years of esperience.

Some people have one year of experience, thirty times.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

Might I add that years of experience in the field could be quite misleading without the proper education and study of the phenomena that you deal with.

Some people have thirty years of esperience.

Some people have one year of experience, thirty times.

Hahaha, Touché.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

Your hollow copper ball coated with electrons would not produce an electric field inside of the ball. The electrons coated on the outside would cause the copper to rearrange its particles, which will result in a positive-negative polarity within the copper. This results in a proton sandwich with electron bread, which is limited to the electron coating and the copper itself. The charges have balanced without producing any net electric field inside of the hollow copper ball. Hence, an ionizing event inside of the hollow ball would not cause any particle migration regardless of each particle's position within the hollow ball. The new charges within the ball balance themselves out and, if I am correct in my line of thought, would recombine into a particle with no net charge.

Glad I did not say that. What do you think holds the electrons in place upon the outer surface of the hollow ball? All charged particles move or propagate their charge until the algebraic sum upon each particle becomes nullified. There is no magic block that masks any electrical charge. Your problem stems from either lack of intuitive comprehension of the subject, and/or a mistaken parsing of sacred rulings from the ancients without due coordination of the context involved.

Glad I could help.

Originally Posted by dalemiller

There is no magic block that masks any electrical charge.

What? I referred, in a separate post from the one you quoted, to 'electron shielding', but I am not sure that you were referring to that. Nowhere else did I imply that the electric field was being blocked. I said that the particles align in the copper such that there is no net electric field inside of the shell. Positions of ions inside of the shell are of no consequence to that, and they reunite.

Although the ones I support are 'ancient', their time does not make them wrong.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

I said that the particles align in the copper such that there is no net electric field inside of the shell. Positions of ions inside of the shell are of no consequence to that, and they reunite.

Although the ones I support are 'ancient', their time does not make them wrong.

Wrong!

Fancy an isolated hollow spherical shell of copper possessed of an equal number of protons and electrons. Through a hole, we present a probe containing an immobile electric charge of ten electrons into the interior space of the shell, then to discover just that much negative charge appears upon the outer surface of the shell. Although no excess electrons are available to our isolated shell, ten copper molecules at the outer surface would then bear an additional electron. The means for such an addition to the outside surface can be accounted for by the fact that ten copper molecules along the inner surface of the copper shell would have yielded an electron to provide the extra electrons to be found upon the outer surface, thus presenting them with positive electrical charge. Those electrons would have been repelled on through the thickness of the shell due to the internal presence of ten extra electrons enclosed within the interior space of the chamber. Let us suppose now that we can prompt the mobility of two electrons as separated particles set adrift from the probe. Since those electrons would each have already induced a positive charge upon the inner surface of the copper shell, we should be able to conclude that they would travel toward the positive charges upon the inner surface to neutralize them. At such time, eight of the electrons upon the outer surface could still be considered proxies for excess electrons within. Two remaining electrons on the outer surface would then be proper residents of that surface. Whatever electrical fields account for such particle transfer will remain until there are no longer any such charged particles within the chamber. Throughout and after such particle migrations, the macroscopic electrical charge of ten electrons would be maintained.

As for the ancients: I never knocked them at all, although the state of the art had not gotten very far back in their time. I focused upon your misinterpretation of their words, sentences and paragraphs if they did have the opposable thumbs required to record them back then.

You have introduced an entirely new situation here. Before, your charges were strictly located on the outside of the shell until an ionizing event took place inside of the shell that started a migration. Now, you are probing the shell to introduce charges inside of it!

Of course, in your new scenario, the net electric field inside of the shell is not zero.

Fancy that your probe were removed after the two free electrons neutralized two positive charges on the inner surface. Then, would the shell retain a quasi-permanent negative charge? A 'yes' or 'no' will suffice. Choose carefully. Also, if you say 'no', tell me why.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

Choose carefully. Also, if you say 'no', tell me why.

Oh yes, I will be very very careful when I get around to do all your bidding.

Originally Posted by dalemiller

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

Choose carefully. Also, if you say 'no', tell me why.

Oh yes, I will be very very careful when I get around to do all your bidding.

I fail to see the point in this.

I think we should also point out that objects toward the inside of a hollow sphere do not feel the same balance of attractive/repulsive electrical forces as objects on the outside.

Why not? It's for the same reason as why the Roman Arch was so effective. You are being acted upon from more than 50% of the possible vectors. Some of the nearby repulsive/attractive effects are self canceling (by virtue of acting in perfectly opposed directions), which reduces the net force. On the outside, you're getting acted upon from less than 50% of the possible vectors, so no cancellation means the electric force is slightly stronger.


Regions where the electric force is weaker should be dominated slightly more by protons than electrons because they can rely on the force of gravity to keep them bound together a little bit, and the comparative strength of gravity vs. the electric force is greater when the electric force is weaker.

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

I fail to see the point in this.

Precisely

Originally Posted by dalemiller

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

I fail to see the point in this.

Precisely

My aim is to elicit a more clear explanation from you. Why am I wrong in my consistent position while you seem to be jumping all over the place with your "thought" experiments?

Instead of answering my question in a form that I would desire in order for the debate to continue, you accuse me of being demanding as though I am barking orders at you. Then, you act as though you're trying to rebel and show your independence? Yes, it is quite possible that you would have done as I had asked without my prompting. However, as an adult, you must get used to the fact that, sometimes, people will ask you do certain things.

It seems as though you have reverted back to the age of 13, stamping your foot to the ground, yelling, "I don't have to do what you say," and slamming the door behind you, all as a desperate attempt to claim that you are your own person and that you don't have to follow orders. When you're actually 13 years old, people understand that you're hormonal, confused and not fully developed. But now, it is old. It is annoying.

Come back when you've procured several more years of maturity and answer my question. Oh wait, I'm sorry. Am I being too pushy?

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

Originally Posted by dalemiller

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

I fail to see the point in this.

Precisely

My aim is to elicit a more clear explanation from you. Why am I wrong in my consistent position while you seem to be jumping all over the place with your "thought" experiments?

Instead of answering my question in a form that I would desire in order for the debate to continue, you accuse me of being demanding as though I am barking orders at you. Then, you act as though you're trying to rebel and show your independence? Yes, it is quite possible that you would have done as I had asked without my prompting. However, as an adult, you must get used to the fact that, sometimes, people will ask you do certain things.

It seems as though you have reverted back to the age of 13, stamping your foot to the ground, yelling, "I don't have to do what you say," and slamming the door behind you, all as a desperate attempt to claim that you are your own person and that you don't have to follow orders. When you're actually 13 years old, people understand that you're hormonal, confused and not fully developed. But now, it is old. It is annoying.

Come back when you've procured several more years of maturity and answer my question. Oh wait, I'm sorry. Am I being too pushy?

It would be so much nicer if you were not here. I began this thread and you horn in to dismiss me. Your use of quotation marks suggests you to be pretty small potatoes, so you will not be missed if you would be so kind as to boycott my postings in the future. It has been such a pleasure.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

HUH?

No offence. Was just trying to rile someone into debate over some commonly accepted doctrine.