Notices
Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: Does a Galaxy have an electrical charge?

  1. #1 Does a Galaxy have an electrical charge? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    50
    Does a Galaxy have an electrical charge. If so, it would have a tendency to repel other Galaxiex that have a similar charge. This makes more sense to me in expansion of the Universe than Dark Energy which no one has ever proven to esist. Thanks for comments. Joe L. Ogan


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Does a Galaxy have an electrical charge? 
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe L. Ogan
    Does a Galaxy have an electrical charge. If so, it would have a tendency to repel other Galaxiex that have a similar charge. This makes more sense to me in expansion of the Universe than Dark Energy which no one has ever proven to esist. Thanks for comments. Joe L. Ogan
    For a galaxy to have a net charge, the parts that make it up would have to have a charge. For that charge to be large enough to account for dark energy, it would have to be too large far the galaxy to hold together. Nor would groups of galaxies (like our own local group) hold together like they do.


    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Does a Galaxy have an electrical charge? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe L. Ogan
    Does a Galaxy have an electrical charge. If so, it would have a tendency to repel other Galaxiex that have a similar charge. This makes more sense to me in expansion of the Universe than Dark Energy which no one has ever proven to esist. Thanks for comments. Joe L. Ogan
    No galaxies do not have a significant net charge. See the post from Janus.

    In addition, if a galaxy had a net charge the electrostatic repulsion that would result would tear the galaxy apart internally.

    The expansion of the universe is based on observation. So is the accelerating rate of expansion.

    Dark energy is simply a name, a place holder, for the expansion. It is equivalent to a positive cosmological constant in the Einstein field equations of general relativity. There are some candidate causes for this positive cosmological constant, including the zero point energy of the quantum vacuum, but there are serious problems with that idea as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Does a Galaxy have an electrical charge? 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe L. Ogan
    Does a Galaxy have an electrical charge. If so, it would have a tendency to repel other Galaxiex that have a similar charge. This makes more sense to me in expansion of the Universe than Dark Energy which no one has ever proven to esist. Thanks for comments. Joe L. Ogan
    It would seem that galaxies would contain electrical charge along their rims, and such charge would therefore place no strain upon the galaxy's contents. An observer dwelling within a charged material host would perceive elevation for charged particles matching the polarity of the host. (They would be repelled and seeking to escape the crowding.) This asserts that charged particles of the opposite polarity would travel downward (toward the center). Assuming the universe to hold a negative charge, one would expect particles or bodies of net negative charge to appear to accelerate outward. However, positive particles and bodies would hence pull back into the opposite direction. Overall exchange of position for such matter might be a wash, but if positively charged particles and bodies were to remain unseen, some crazy explanations would ensue throughout the scientific community.
    "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  
     

  6. #5 Re: Does a Galaxy have an electrical charge? 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus

    For a galaxy to have a net charge, the parts that make it up would have to have a charge. For that charge to be large enough to account for dark energy, it would have to be too large far the galaxy to hold together. Nor would groups of galaxies (like our own local group) hold together like they do.
    The notion that an electrically charged body would be torn apart seems to be a popular misconception. An electrical charge is constituted by a majority of charged particles of a given polarity. That majority of charged particles will not reside within the depths of a hosting body: Should they be electrons, they travel freely through any material (there is no such thing as a perfect insulator). Such travel is called conduction. Consequently, they drag no molecular baggage with them as they travel to the outer surface under the force of mutual repulsion. Were a positive charge to have been buried somehow, that charge would propagate to the outer surface. The mechanism for such charge mobility is the effect of a positive ion drawing an electron down upon itself from a molecule above it.
    "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 Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Well, I think there might be regions in universe which expand or deflate or which are being constant even, regarding their current extensions.

    A black hole for example, that was about to destruct a galaxy (even our own ) will diminish the galaxy, steadily. Therefore, even this region (the galaxy ) very slowly should shrink.

    Other regions, lets say region where stars were being born, could even expand (this regions do have the heat of the stars added, which will cause some dilatation of this regions ). The physical space in contrast, but has to go somewhere. Pretty much the same as on earth, I would say.

    I could think such events in space rather have been triggered by local events in closed regions. Not by equal entities like galaxies, where one galaxy has to be seen as a positive terminal, but the other galaxy too. Right?

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Does a Galaxy have an electrical charge? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by dalemiller
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus

    For a galaxy to have a net charge, the parts that make it up would have to have a charge. For that charge to be large enough to account for dark energy, it would have to be too large far the galaxy to hold together. Nor would groups of galaxies (like our own local group) hold together like they do.
    The notion that an electrically charged body would be torn apart seems to be a popular misconception. An electrical charge is constituted by a majority of charged particles of a given polarity. That majority of charged particles will not reside within the depths of a hosting body: Should they be electrons, they travel freely through any material (there is no such thing as a perfect insulator). Such travel is called conduction. Consequently, they drag no molecular baggage with them as they travel to the outer surface under the force of mutual repulsion. Were a positive charge to have been buried somehow, that charge would propagate to the outer surface. The mechanism for such charge mobility is the effect of a positive ion drawing an electron down upon itself from a molecule above it.
    rubbish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Does a Galaxy have an electrical charge? 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    rubbish.
    It would be shocking to suppose your implied contradiction to be nothing more than a manifestation of spite. That would be attributing you with an evil determination to undermine my communication with the corrupt device of a prevarication. That would misdirect people you might have no reason to hate. Yet I must ponder the fact that you had prompted my message by stating that electrically charged bodies would disintegrate themselves! With all due respect, I find the idea preposterous.

    How could a knowledgeable person such as you hold such a belief? Surely you know better than I that electrons are sufficiently mobile enough to "go where they please" without breaking away other matter. Why would any encased surplus electron endure the repulsive company of another of its kind when it can leave at any time? There are no perfect insulators to bar the way. It is incomprehensible that you, great sir, could be so ignorant and I refuse to believe it. It very well might simply not have come to your attention that you harbored such an impression that you would discard upon further contemplation. That is why it seemed feasible for me to present you with my case for disagreement.

    I appeal to you to withdraw your slur that could foster gross misconceptions in the sorry state of astrophysics. I apologize for having been so happy to aggravate you in the past, and besides, have gone on to other interests now.
    "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  
     

  10. #9 Re: Does a Galaxy have an electrical charge? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by dalemiller
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    rubbish.
    It would be shocking to suppose your implied contradiction to be nothing more than a manifestation of spite. That would be attributing you with an evil determination to undermine my communication with the corrupt device of a prevarication. That would misdirect people you might have no reason to hate. Yet I must ponder the fact that you had prompted my message by stating that electrically charged bodies would disintegrate themselves! With all due respect, I find the idea preposterous.

    How could a knowledgeable person such as you hold such a belief? Surely you know better than I that electrons are sufficiently mobile enough to "go where they please" without breaking away other matter. Why would any encased surplus electron endure the repulsive company of another of its kind when it can leave at any time? There are no perfect insulators to bar the way. It is incomprehensible that you, great sir, could be so ignorant and I refuse to believe it. It very well might simply not have come to your attention that you harbored such an impression that you would discard upon further contemplation. That is why it seemed feasible for me to present you with my case for disagreement.

    I appeal to you to withdraw your slur that could foster gross misconceptions in the sorry state of astrophysics. I apologize for having been so happy to aggravate you in the past, and besides, have gone on to other interests now.
    Your statement was intended to contradict a statement made by Janus.

    What Janus said was correct.

    Your contradiction was and remains rubbish.

    Not all electrons are mobile. Not by a long shot. They most certainly do not just "go were they please". If they did that none of our electrical devices would work -- the electrons in those devices go where the designers cause them to go to create the desired effect.

    Not all electrically charged bodies would disintegrate. A single electron certainly would not. But electric repulsion is quite strong, sufficiently strong that a body composed of ions of the same charge would disintegrate. A galaxy composed of bodies with significant charge would not hold together.

    What holds solid bodies together is the electromagnetic force, in the form of chemical bonds. What keeps you from falling through the floor is also the electromagnetic force in terms of the repulsion between electron clouds, with some quantum mechanics thrown in to prevent the collapse of atoms and molecules. That repulsion is much stronger than gravity -- or else you would indeed fall through, bats would not propel baseballs, and cars would not crash..

    Astrophysicists are generally quite well versed in electrodynamics, and indeed in one of the more difficult sub-disciplines -- plasma physics. There is no sorry state of astrophysics. Your aspersions on that discipline are merely indicative of the sorry state of your understanding of basic physics.

    You have some very serious misconceptions, expressed in several threads, regarding electromagnetics. Please limit expression of such rubbish to Pseudoscience where it belongs.

    I do not accuse you of prevarication. You do actually believe the crap that you post. But it is still wrong. The problem is not that you lie. The problem is that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. The net result is still a torrent of misrepresentations and untruths.

    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Suppose the inner core of the galaxy had a net charge, but the gravitational force were sufficient to overcome it, and then the outer region also a net charge, opposite that of the inner core.


    In a situation like that, if the outer region were to spin faster or slower (in terms of radians) than the inner core, I think that would generate a magnetic field wouldn't it? ..... But the outer region does not spin faster or slower than the inner core. The rotational curve is flat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74
    I reckon there's a good chance the galaxy has a net charge as a result of the expulsion of charged particles during supernova explosions, but how much of a charge? I could not guess.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Home200
    I reckon there's a good chance the galaxy has a net charge as a result of the expulsion of charged particles during supernova explosions, but how much of a charge? I could not guess.
    Why would you expect a supernova to a) expel any appreciable mass from its own galaxy or b) to expell any significant deficit between positive and negative charges ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: Does a Galaxy have an electrical charge? 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    Your statement was intended to contradict a statement made by Janus.

    What Janus said was correct.

    Your contradiction was and remains rubbish.
    Wrong again. Your slur fails to demonstrate either statement but does reflect upon your profound respect for other people. You simply buttered up the boss and bashed a little beggar that came to bother him. Rollo used to do that to Hans and Fritz.
    The statement I take exception to was " Nor would groups of galaxies (like our own local group) hold together like they do." where limitation was being applied to how a galaxy would respond to excessive charge. Nothing would be sloughed off except for excess charge particles themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    Not all electrons are mobile. Not by a long shot. They most certainly do not just "go were they please". If they did that none of our electrical devices would work -- the electrons in those devices go where the designers cause them to go to create the desired effect.
    Designers know what pleases an electron and scheme out their circuits accordingly. No electron is immovable unless there is a crafty proton keeping him occupied with her and that will at least keep him out of trouble. Any electrons constituting a charge would be surplus beyond the normal parity. These are readily repositioned by influence of other charged particles. Electrons involved as substance of atomic structure more deeply than mobile electrons would be electrically nullified by proton counterparts. The constancy of electrostatic forces precludes our discovery of them in an explosive array. For a violent exothermic event to occur, an unlikely endothermic process would have to have occurred. For an analogy, consider how terrifying Mt. Everest would be if it sailed up overhead. The natives would take a fit if they expected it to fall. However, there would be little to fear if the mountain showed little chance of rising up in the first place. Electrostatic repulsion is just as benign as gravity to that effect. It would take up a lot of energy to push that much electric charge down against the global repulsion demonstrated by M. Faraday so long ago. An ion per se is just matter, not energy.



    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    Not all electrically charged bodies would disintegrate. A single electron certainly would not. But electric repulsion is quite strong, sufficiently strong that a body composed of ions of the same charge would disintegrate. A galaxy composed of bodies with significant charge would not hold together.

    They would not collect in the first place without restraining influence. Such influence can be arranged, but that would introduce means by which they would hold together be it a loose togetherness. The trick nature uses to array positive charges against negative charges lies in their interaction within concentric formations. A ball (a relatively loose one of course) of one polarity centered within a shell of the opposite polarity will find almost each of its charged particles straining to travel toward the far side of the attracting shell. The force that prompt such motion nulls out when and if the center is reached, when the hemisphere behind matches the attraction of the hemisphere ahead. http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~cs315/Sp...lab02/text.txt

    Letís face it, we hear tell of young galaxies where polar jets push streams of electrons away for many thousands of years. That has to mean that charged particles are not limited to equal helpings everywhere and always! I speculate that the disks producing those jets fatten up to become their galaxiesí central bulges.


    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket


    What holds solid bodies together is the electromagnetic force, in the form of chemical bonds. What keeps you from falling through the floor is also the electromagnetic force in terms of the repulsion between electron clouds, with some quantum mechanics thrown in to prevent the collapse of atoms and molecules. That repulsion is much stronger than gravity -- or else you would indeed fall through, bats would not propel baseballs, and cars would not crash.
    That is interesting. Hey, those quantum mechanics know their stuff but they charge an arm and a leg. They probably sprinkle a little gravity into the cracks. But how does that bear upon your fancied formations of charged particles that would self-destruct? There is a lot I really donít have to know in order to comprehend how electrical charges coexist, and how if you leave them alone they wonít usually bother anyone. I confess to having believed atoms to bind together as molecules through electromagnetic force, but thought clustering of molecules to be more due to gravity. That all must be one of those clues of which you find me so lacking.


    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Astrophysicists are generally quite well versed in electrodynamics, and indeed in one of the more difficult sub-disciplines -- plasma physics. There is no sorry state of astrophysics. Your aspersions on that discipline are merely indicative of the sorry state of your understanding of basic physics.
    Are you talking to me? Just last month or so I accidentally discovered how sunspots are caused! As a cosequence Are you talking to me? Just last month or so I accidentally discovered how sunspots are caused! As a cosequence of that discovery came realization of why solar flairs occur and how they can fry wires strung along the earth. Do you call that a sorry state for my understanding of physics? Your big shots may still believe it is from big magnetic plugs that block convection donít they? Do they still think that sunspots causes the vortexes? Your big shots know so much about lightning that they tell the world that no one knows! Well I do, but no one wants to hear that from an old slob. Polar jets: same story. Just because I see they need my help, that makes me a puke because I have the audacity to see that they need it. Look, a lot of those guys got fancy degrees because such pursuits kept them out of the draft. Some of us went to war and then came back home to raise kids. By then, bread on the table and a roof overhead trumps bags of tuition gold. Why should I ever start over just to turn out like you? And whatís more, where would I find the time?

    I donít find astrophysics so difficult. Probably because I donít carry baggage for the consensus people and accept no political agenda. I canít get fired for telling the truth because I donít have a job. How can we go forward if we are to worship status quo at the same time? It is a bitch that they cannot take the whole nine yards into a laboratory, so we got to allow for a little lattitude. A few years back they converged from all over the world, boasting themselves as on the verge of understanding how polar jets work, then came up with crap. It takes three seconds to figure that one out if you are playing with the full deck I am trying to show you. Your problem might be that you have absolutely no intuitive grasp upon physics.

    Once I caught on just how plasma fusion avoids avalanching effects due to positive feedback, I knew what causes sunspots. The big shots have it backwards. Reduced pressure imposed by vortex center at depth of a given temperature cuts fusion rate and denies the usual compression for the adiabatic temperature compensation. Temperature drops regeneratively to show darkened dimple on sun some 50,000 miles across or so. Meanwhile, pressure gradient rises to above normal for that depth at extended radius from center. Adiabatic effects boost plasma temperature causing runaway rise in fusion rate. Increased energy forms as heat due to no heavy lifting: much expansion is taken up by neighboring central chill. Raging fusion in vortex sheath spews hot plasma aloft many miles, these towering solar flares conduct huge quantity of electrons streaming up the flair, dollops of fallback plasma carries many back down to sun. Talk about Extra Low Frequencies!

    Meanwhile. Scientific consensus may still fancy mysterious magnetic phenomena that somehow block convection to prompt the sunspots. How in the world can a serious consensus hold in place that some magnetic block somehow appears on the sun to obstruct convection of heated gas from below? The fancied obstruction is to extend across tens of thousands of miles! And if convection were blocked, wouldnít temperature rise below the sunspot? Wow, what a mess that ought to make!

    They wonder just how it all makes the middle go round and round. Who can imagine a star lacking the swirls that lead to a vortex? And Dr. Rocket wants my stuff to go to pseudoscience? I respectfully suggest kicking of this stuff around with an electronics technician or even an electrical engineer. Just so long as you do not pick a jerk. Engineering is people making things happen with this stuff, and they donít hold out strictly for collegiate pabulum, we are forced to think it out and our experience cultivates insight reasoning that gets us there without a desk or milk and cookie breaks.
    An astrophysicist answer man told me that the super massive black hole comes first, not the galaxy. Bull! I cannot find an astrophysicist who knows his way around a Faraday cage! Your assertions to the contrary fail to demonstrate your denigrating accusations.

    I have demonstrated elsewhere on this thread the insistance of astrophysicists upon denying the evidence of Faradayís ice pail experiments. They mix up ďexternal toĒ and ďexternal fromĒ a closed conductor. The external surface of a conductor is part of the conductor. Meaningless bickering comes about over meaningless semantics. No one came forward to ward off the presumptious, technically-challanged monkey type taking fits as sole responder to my explanation. I showed a way to focus upon how the outer surface of a Faraday cage maintains influence upon the interior. Yet, an ostensibly qualified veteran scientist jumps me to defend a forum moderator who can well defend his own premises.


    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    You have some very serious misconceptions, expressed in several threads, regarding electromagnetics. Please limit expression of such rubbish to Pseudoscience where it belongs.
    Dr. S: You just cannot get down to brass tacks. You do not seem to comprehend electricity well enough to take me on. You just keep tossing slurs and crap. You must be a slur head.


    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    I do not accuse you of prevarication. You do actually believe the crap that you post. But it is still wrong. The problem is not that you lie. The problem is that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. The net result is still a torrent of misrepresentations and untruths.
    I don't think you think. If something is in the handbooks you quote it. Learn to think. Thinking produces ideas. If I know that something is already in the handbooks, I don't come here and write it down. What I write here is stuff I found out. If it ain't in a book you think it is crap.
    "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  
     

  15. #14 Re: Does a Galaxy have an electrical charge? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by dalemiller
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    Your statement was intended to contradict a statement made by Janus.

    What Janus said was correct.

    Your contradiction was and remains rubbish.
    Wrong again. Your slur fails to demonstrate either statement but does reflect upon your profound respect for other people. You simply buttered up the boss and bashed a little beggar that came to bother him. Rollo used to do that to Hans and Fritz.
    The statement I take exception to was " Nor would groups of galaxies (like our own local group) hold together like they do." where limitation was being applied to how a galaxy would respond to excessive charge. Nothing would be sloughed off except for excess charge particles themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    Not all electrons are mobile. Not by a long shot. They most certainly do not just "go were they please". If they did that none of our electrical devices would work -- the electrons in those devices go where the designers cause them to go to create the desired effect.
    Designers know what pleases an electron and scheme out their circuits accordingly. No electron is immovable unless there is a crafty proton keeping him occupied with her and that will at least keep him out of trouble. Any electrons constituting a charge would be surplus beyond the normal parity. These are readily repositioned by influence of other charged particles. Electrons involved as substance of atomic structure more deeply than mobile electrons would be electrically nullified by proton counterparts. The constancy of electrostatic forces precludes our discovery of them in an explosive array. For a violent exothermic event to occur, an unlikely endothermic process would have to have occurred. For an analogy, consider how terrifying Mt. Everest would be if it sailed up overhead. The natives would take a fit if they expected it to fall. However, there would be little to fear if the mountain showed little chance of rising up in the first place. Electrostatic repulsion is just as benign as gravity to that effect. It would take up a lot of energy to push that much electric charge down against the global repulsion demonstrated by M. Faraday so long ago. An ion per se is just matter, not energy.



    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    Not all electrically charged bodies would disintegrate. A single electron certainly would not. But electric repulsion is quite strong, sufficiently strong that a body composed of ions of the same charge would disintegrate. A galaxy composed of bodies with significant charge would not hold together.

    They would not collect in the first place without restraining influence. Such influence can be arranged, but that would introduce means by which they would hold together be it a loose togetherness. The trick nature uses to array positive charges against negative charges lies in their interaction within concentric formations. A ball (a relatively loose one of course) of one polarity centered within a shell of the opposite polarity will find almost each of its charged particles straining to travel toward the far side of the attracting shell. The force that prompt such motion nulls out when and if the center is reached, when the hemisphere behind matches the attraction of the hemisphere ahead. http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~cs315/Sp...lab02/text.txt

    Letís face it, we hear tell of young galaxies where polar jets push streams of electrons away for many thousands of years. That has to mean that charged particles are not limited to equal helpings everywhere and always! I speculate that the disks producing those jets fatten up to become their galaxiesí central bulges.


    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket


    What holds solid bodies together is the electromagnetic force, in the form of chemical bonds. What keeps you from falling through the floor is also the electromagnetic force in terms of the repulsion between electron clouds, with some quantum mechanics thrown in to prevent the collapse of atoms and molecules. That repulsion is much stronger than gravity -- or else you would indeed fall through, bats would not propel baseballs, and cars would not crash.
    That is interesting. Hey, those quantum mechanics know their stuff but they charge an arm and a leg. They probably sprinkle a little gravity into the cracks. But how does that bear upon your fancied formations of charged particles that would self-destruct? There is a lot I really donít have to know in order to comprehend how electrical charges coexist, and how if you leave them alone they wonít usually bother anyone. I confess to having believed atoms to bind together as molecules through electromagnetic force, but thought clustering of molecules to be more due to gravity. That all must be one of those clues of which you find me so lacking.


    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Astrophysicists are generally quite well versed in electrodynamics, and indeed in one of the more difficult sub-disciplines -- plasma physics. There is no sorry state of astrophysics. Your aspersions on that discipline are merely indicative of the sorry state of your understanding of basic physics.
    Are you talking to me? Just last month or so I accidentally discovered how sunspots are caused! As a cosequence Are you talking to me? Just last month or so I accidentally discovered how sunspots are caused! As a cosequence of that discovery came realization of why solar flairs occur and how they can fry wires strung along the earth. Do you call that a sorry state for my understanding of physics? Your big shots may still believe it is from big magnetic plugs that block convection donít they? Do they still think that sunspots causes the vortexes? Your big shots know so much about lightning that they tell the world that no one knows! Well I do, but no one wants to hear that from an old slob. Polar jets: same story. Just because I see they need my help, that makes me a puke because I have the audacity to see that they need it. Look, a lot of those guys got fancy degrees because such pursuits kept them out of the draft. Some of us went to war and then came back home to raise kids. By then, bread on the table and a roof overhead trumps bags of tuition gold. Why should I ever start over just to turn out like you? And whatís more, where would I find the time?

    I donít find astrophysics so difficult. Probably because I donít carry baggage for the consensus people and accept no political agenda. I canít get fired for telling the truth because I donít have a job. How can we go forward if we are to worship status quo at the same time? It is a bitch that they cannot take the whole nine yards into a laboratory, so we got to allow for a little lattitude. A few years back they converged from all over the world, boasting themselves as on the verge of understanding how polar jets work, then came up with crap. It takes three seconds to figure that one out if you are playing with the full deck I am trying to show you. Your problem might be that you have absolutely no intuitive grasp upon physics.

    Once I caught on just how plasma fusion avoids avalanching effects due to positive feedback, I knew what causes sunspots. The big shots have it backwards. Reduced pressure imposed by vortex center at depth of a given temperature cuts fusion rate and denies the usual compression for the adiabatic temperature compensation. Temperature drops regeneratively to show darkened dimple on sun some 50,000 miles across or so. Meanwhile, pressure gradient rises to above normal for that depth at extended radius from center. Adiabatic effects boost plasma temperature causing runaway rise in fusion rate. Increased energy forms as heat due to no heavy lifting: much expansion is taken up by neighboring central chill. Raging fusion in vortex sheath spews hot plasma aloft many miles, these towering solar flares conduct huge quantity of electrons streaming up the flair, dollops of fallback plasma carries many back down to sun. Talk about Extra Low Frequencies!

    Meanwhile. Scientific consensus may still fancy mysterious magnetic phenomena that somehow block convection to prompt the sunspots. How in the world can a serious consensus hold in place that some magnetic block somehow appears on the sun to obstruct convection of heated gas from below? The fancied obstruction is to extend across tens of thousands of miles! And if convection were blocked, wouldnít temperature rise below the sunspot? Wow, what a mess that ought to make!

    They wonder just how it all makes the middle go round and round. Who can imagine a star lacking the swirls that lead to a vortex? And Dr. Rocket wants my stuff to go to pseudoscience? I respectfully suggest kicking of this stuff around with an electronics technician or even an electrical engineer. Just so long as you do not pick a jerk. Engineering is people making things happen with this stuff, and they donít hold out strictly for collegiate pabulum, we are forced to think it out and our experience cultivates insight reasoning that gets us there without a desk or milk and cookie breaks.
    An astrophysicist answer man told me that the super massive black hole comes first, not the galaxy. Bull! I cannot find an astrophysicist who knows his way around a Faraday cage! Your assertions to the contrary fail to demonstrate your denigrating accusations.

    I have demonstrated elsewhere on this thread the insistance of astrophysicists upon denying the evidence of Faradayís ice pail experiments. They mix up ďexternal toĒ and ďexternal fromĒ a closed conductor. The external surface of a conductor is part of the conductor. Meaningless bickering comes about over meaningless semantics. No one came forward to ward off the presumptious, technically-challanged monkey type taking fits as sole responder to my explanation. I showed a way to focus upon how the outer surface of a Faraday cage maintains influence upon the interior. Yet, an ostensibly qualified veteran scientist jumps me to defend a forum moderator who can well defend his own premises.


    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    You have some very serious misconceptions, expressed in several threads, regarding electromagnetics. Please limit expression of such rubbish to Pseudoscience where it belongs.
    Dr. S: You just cannot get down to brass tacks. You do not seem to comprehend electricity well enough to take me on. You just keep tossing slurs and crap. You must be a slur head.


    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    I do not accuse you of prevarication. You do actually believe the crap that you post. But it is still wrong. The problem is not that you lie. The problem is that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. The net result is still a torrent of misrepresentations and untruths.
    I don't think you think. If something is in the handbooks you quote it. Learn to think. Thinking produces ideas. If I know that something is already in the handbooks, I don't come here and write it down. What I write here is stuff I found out. If it ain't in a book you think it is crap.
    More of your usual rubbish.

    And another demonstration of ignorance of basic physics. Go look up "conduction band".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    I always learned that objekts have both pos and negative charge so yes offcourse galaxy,s are charged. Charge is an abstract /absolute notion funktioning as pairs.

    Black and white pigments for paint can illustrate the general idea :

    A light grey painted area in a painting is relational black to a pure white part but relational white to a black part. Grey is not something on itself it consists of black Šnd white. White for white paint is also relative it would be strange pointing to a certain white objekt saying this objekt is "the absolutely white".

    It,s also strange saying that a lightgrey is white to a darkgrey but whiter then darkgrey is not strange.

    That,s how it works with charge also ; Pos charged only means more positive then something else.

    Things being pos and negative both (like grey paint being white and black) means there are four relations based on pos - neg between objekts A and B.

    A + .... B +
    B - .... A -
    A + .... B -
    B + .... A -

    If for A in itself pos is stronger then neg compared with B then we say A is positively charged to B. similar as light grey being whiter then darkgrey.

    The electrical field is only a resultant of two ;
    B - .... A + and B+ ...A -.

    Stating proudly that Galaxy,s have no charge is more or less similar to stating proudly that a certain painting with all kinds of greys is "all grey".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Please, learn to write if you're going to post.

    The point that people have been making is that the net charge of a galaxy is neutral, that is the positive and negative charges balance.

    You do not even have to have a school level understanding of physics to get this point.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    You do not even have to have a school level understanding of physics to get this point.
    It does, however, help to be smarter than a house plant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Neutral ? Neutral to who or what ? To a thundercloud or to me ? To both is impossible.

    To or in itself ? You can say that also for both plates of a condensator.

    Using the word charge (as this is only and always netto) is a mistake on my side becaus it,s always netto (even for neutron proton and electron) but netto charge allready implies it,s just a resultant. Simply because that,s all that instruments used in science can indicate. Luckily we can think somewhat further then that.
    If it,s for charge (being netto) then it,s also for "electric field".

    A pos. - B neg. and A neg - B pos relations when A pos - B neg dominates the resultant is a net charge where A is meassured to be pos and B neg...
    But molecules with assumed electrons, neutron and protons can be found in both plates of a condensator. If the electrons of the pos plate are neg to the protons of the same plate then they will also be neg to the protons of the other plate. And this seemingly reversed relation will also contribute to the net charge difference and be part of the net elecric field. If there is no net electric field the two are balanced and there is no special interaction but that does not say there are not two electric fields. Only not a netto difference between the two that can be meassured as a special interaction.

    Electric and magnetic fields are ust working hypothesis, tools for technics and as such entangled with technical instruments how they funktion and meassure.

    A good example is the so called magnetic field. Correlated magnetism http://www.correlatedmagnetics.com/index.html shows that "magnetic field" is a huge symplification no more then a concept or workingscheme.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    See my original point.

    Please, learn to write if you're going to post.
    Again you're being pedantic and moronic.

    And the magnetic field is not simply a concept.

    People have known about it in great detail for a while now.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    I,m very sorry English is not my native language is this how you threat foreign students in you,re country also ? If so then that,s being worse then pedantic to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    I,m very sorry English is not my native language is this how you threat foreign students in you,re country also ? If so then that,s being worse then pedantic to me.
    Ik dacht dat Nedelanders is ontrent allemaal goed met Engels? Ik ben Afrikaans en is redelijk goed met Engels en voor vele andere leden is het Engels ook hun tweede taal, dus misschien, als je wilt dat mensen moet je beter begrijpen, moet je weinig moeite doen om je Engels op te scherp. Stem je niet akkoord?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe L. Ogan View Post
    Does a Galaxy have an electrical charge. If so, it would have a tendency to repel other Galaxiex that have a similar charge. This makes more sense to me in expansion of the Universe than Dark Energy which no one has ever proven to esist. Thanks for comments. Joe L. Ogan
    Indeed your sense makes more sense to me than any of the denials that followed. Electric charge would be distributed in the same fashion as Faraday explained and demonstrated with his ice pail. With all of the charge of a celestial body thus lying upon its surface, why should anything fly apart or away except for any excess charged particles that exceed gravitational retention by the host? There seems to be a consensus that there is a consensus that prohibits contemplation of an electrically charged universe, even though there is evidence to support the prohibited concept.

    Is there any way to distinguish such behavior from a conspiracy when it becomes so prevalent as to appear to be the solemn findings of all the greatest minds in our galaxy?
    "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  
     

  24. #23  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by dalemiller View Post
    Indeed your sense makes more sense to me than any of the denials that followed. Electric charge would be distributed in the same fashion as Faraday explained and demonstrated with his ice pail. With all of the charge of a celestial body thus lying upon its surface, why should anything fly apart or away except for any excess charged particles that exceed gravitational retention by the host? There seems to be a consensus that there is a consensus that prohibits contemplation of an electrically charged universe, even though there is evidence to support the prohibited concept.

    Is there any way to distinguish such behavior from a conspiracy when it becomes so prevalent as to appear to be the solemn findings of all the greatest minds in our galaxy?




    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dalemiller View Post
    Is there any way to distinguish such behavior from a conspiracy when it becomes so prevalent as to appear to be the solemn findings of all the greatest minds in our galaxy?
    Yes, learn the relevant science instead of going by intuition or what "makes sense".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Am trying to learn, but how does one identify what science is relevant when there is no such thing as an authority on scientific matters. Carl Sagan has pointed that out. Do you disagree with Michael Faraday about charged bodies? We should expect a response to deal with cause and effect considerations upon the technical issue. Do you believe that an electrically charged planet would blow up as some imply? What is the reason that the issue is ignored, and responses are handed down as disparaging remarks or instructions enshrouded with trappings of great ostentatious wisdom directed at the posting contributor? I cannot obtain the greater wisdom that would bring me up to your level. I have applied what science I could grasp, quite successfully, for several decades.

    Just tell me why no dialog comes forth applied to the technical issue. No minimum IQ or certificate is required to pipe up on this forum (or is there, oh my), so why would you send me away for retraining when I ask a question? Is intuitive reasoning bad? Doesn't it make sense to try to make sense out of what you think?
    Last edited by dalemiller; October 29th, 2011 at 02:54 AM.
    "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  
     

  27. #26  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dalemiller View Post
    Am trying to learn, but how does one identify what science is relevant when there is no such thing as an authority on scientific matters.
    There is no central authority, true. However, there are experts in various fields. These can be identified in various ways: are they affiliated with a respectable organization (university, research organization, etc.); have they published papers in peer reviewed journals; do you understand at least some of the math and physics they use (and can see it is correct); are they talking about their area of expertise ... and so on.

    None of these are foolproof - either to identify a good authority or an obvious crank.

    Do these experts have anything to say on these theories? Is the science in question published in respectable (peer reviewed) journals and serious popular science magazines. Is it taught as part of a university course? Is it only available on a small number of web sites and blogs (and maybe a few books) all which refer to each other for authority. Has the subject been promoted for decades without being taken seriously by other scientists?


    Do you believe that an electrically charged planet would blow up as some imply?
    I am pretty certain that if galaxies had enough electric charge to repel each other (overcoming the gravity between them) then they would certainly have enough charge to overcome their self gravity and rip themselves apart. I am not going to do the calculations to check that as there is no point. If proponents of the electric universe "theory" want to do the necessary calculations to show that the idea is not laughable, then they are welcome to do that. And submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. I won't hold my breath.

    What is the reason that the issue is ignored
    Because it is obvious nonsense. And because it has been debunked repeatedly in the past, which is just ignored by the proponents of this "theory". The same is true of most other pseudo scientific theories from creationism to the Apollo hoax.

    and responses are handed down as disparaging remarks
    Probably because people get tired of showing it to be nonsense time after time and then having exactly the same arguments presented again.

    Is intuitive reasoning bad?
    It is not necessarily bad if guided by relevant experience or expertise. But much science is counter-intuitive. Newton's laws of motion seemed counterintuitive to some people ("how can something keep moving if nothing is pushing it?"), quatum mechanics is not exactly intuitive without a reasonably good understanding of the math involved, ditto relativity, etc.

    Doesn't it make sense to try to make sense out of what you think?
    For certain values of "sense" yes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    A well presented reply. Thank you. However, I seek to fashion no new science and have no time left for peer reviews. I have observations conspicuously evidenced and so fundamental as to require no rigorous mathematical investigations.

    Faraday's rule is that the entire charge upon an isolated body occupies the outer surface of that host. How much attention should I pay to any scientist, no matter how impressive his credentials be, who proposes that any amount of electrical charge will disintegrate its host? When unimpeachable experts take diametrically opposed positions, it is just too bad if so many people must render contemptuous denigration of simple questions on how can both experts be correct. It would be as easy for you to explain why a thought is obvious nonsense as to complain about hearing some question all over again. Other proponents for admitting charged particles into their universe have no bearing upon my understanding of those significant portions of reality.

    No. A person can hold the title of Distinguished Professor and yet be unable to convince me that Earth's atmosphere is positive. If by such a statement, he means that it contains more protons than electrons, too bad; I know better. If he does not mean that then he shouldn't have conveyed all of the ignorance that semantics would bring to the community. I solve problems. If someone calls my explanations "theory" with the his quote marks applied, I take his sarcastic rudeness to be his own visible problem.

    Try to explain how the electrostatic electron gun works without knowing something that you do not know.

    Intuitive logic readily applied to counter-intuitive phenomena. A dead giveaway does not have to be beaten to death; its already a dead giveaway! I am guided by relevant experience: six decades of it. What do you think a peer reviewer would do with counter-intuitive theory? Fat chance!

    I have always loved the word "obviously" in a debate. It has to be an oxymoron because it takes the posture of an objective perspective boasted by a subjective person professing hence to explain his narrow minded perspective as the sole rational path to any valid determination.

    No peer's permission is needed for me to believe that gravity is not going away.

    No disrespect is intended here. You may have risen so far above the common clod that you deserve to have all of your inputs to be peer reviewed. But people do make thought experiments that bring them to new understandings of the world around them. I believe that I have and have come to share them with the logic behind them. There are thinking people out there that have the ability to cope with such offerings. Some might even be PhD's, but those folks have so much to keep up with that I do not think that they have much time to think. I am truly in awe of many such folks, but if I had that much on my plate I would be just as hopeless.
    Last edited by dalemiller; November 1st, 2011 at 01:54 AM. Reason: par 2 word 3 is new
    "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  
     

  29. #28  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dalemiller View Post
    I solve problems. If someone calls my explanations "theory" with the his quote marks applied, I take his sarcastic rudeness to be his own visible problem.
    Or it is an indication that you don't know what the word "theory" means in science. The electric universe concept doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis because, as you say, it is all based on intuition and "looks like". It is not able to make any quantitative, testable predictions. The few unquantified predictions it makes are already falsified.

    If you choose to believe pseuodscience in favour of extablished theories with solid evidential and mathematical basis, then feel free. But don't pretend it is science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    There are many, many debunkings of the electric universe out there. This is one site I came across recently that has put a lot of effort into analysing the arguments: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy

    This may be a good starting point: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: The Electric Universe & Creationism
    More here: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Electric Universe
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Or it is an indication that you don't know what the word "theory" means in science. The electric universe concept doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis because, as you say, it is all based on intuition and "looks like". It is not able to make any quantitative, testable predictions. The few unquantified predictions it makes are already falsified.

    If you choose to believe pseuodscience in favour of extablished theories with solid evidential and mathematical basis, then feel free. But don't pretend it is science.
    What are you talking about? You speak of "The Electric Universe Concept" as though you take anyone else's mention of electricity as being part of my infrastructure and slander me therefore as a pseudo-scientist. I am taking no page out of anybody else's book. I draw from my own experience and education about electronics, which is trickier than the few electrical arrangements that discern from my recent studies of astrophysics. No one has proven anything I have proffered to be false. The only specific contradictions from a few challenged actual scientists has involved their difficulty in adjusting terms such as "electrical field" to considerations of environments of electrical particles. The most obnoxious of such scientists professed that fusion of heated plasma decreases with increase of temperature, he explained oceanic rotational phenomena as based on Earth spinning from East to West, and has no understanding of electricity.

    If I knew what an extablished theory was, I would like to hear what solid evidential and mathematical basis has you so impressed. I have tried to do you a favor by pointing out that it is improper to use quotation marks as cheap insult paraphernalia.
    "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  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    There are many, many debunkings of the electric universe out there. This is one site I came across recently that has put a lot of effort into analysing the arguments: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy

    This may be a good starting point: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: The Electric Universe & Creationism
    More here: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Electric Universe
    How did you ever get onto my case? I have nothing to do with creationism. Go find a creationist and bother him! Please.
    "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  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by dalemiller View Post

    Faraday's rule that the entire charge upon an isolated body occupies the outer surface of that host. How much attention should I pay to any scientist, no matter how impressive his credentials be, who proposes that any amount of electrical charge will disintegrate its host? When unimpeachable experts take diametrically opposed positions, it is just too bad if so many people must render contemptuous denigration of simple questions on how can both experts be correct. It would be as easy for you to explain why a thought is obvious nonsense as to complain about hearing some question all over again. Other proponents for admitting charged particles into their universe have no bearing upon my understanding of those significant portions of reality.
    I think Dr. Rocket was ignoring the fact that the electric force is distance dependent. One proton can pull on you more strongly than two electrons pushes, if you're closer to that one proton. As long as geometric configurations are possible where that condition will hold true, there can be more of one than the other.


    Electrons gathering on the outer surface of an object is one example of that. They're strategically choosing a location where they are physically positioned closer to most of the object's protons and further away from most of the object's electrons, by doing this they put themselves in a situation where the forces are balanced, even though the total number of electrons present may be larger.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    Electrons gathering on the outer surface of an object is one example of that. They're strategically choosing a location where they are physically positioned closer to most of the object's protons and further away from most of the object's electrons, by doing this they put themselves in a situation where the forces are balanced, even though the total number of electrons present may be larger.
    Beg to differ. If there are extra electrons on an isolated body, (hence, a negative charge upon the host), they just scramble to evade the crowd. Thing is, the only way out is via the outer surface, so they get that far but then they are screwed out of further escape by the combined pull of gravity from so many neutral molecules. However, they do not cozy up to any protons out there because there are none out there that are not already involved with an electron. Faraday made an interesting clarification: If a conductive, negatively charged sphere were bound with a perfect insulator (just maybe there is no such thing according to the rules), and then covered with an electrically neutral conductive shell (that gives us concentric spherical shells), the inside electrons would be stuck inside but the macroscopic charge would nevertheless occupy the outside of the outer shell. The scenario would be that a lone electron thus stuck inside would repel an electron from the inside surface of the outer shell (creating a positive ion there) and that ejected electron would check in at the outside surface of the outer shell even though that outer shell remained macroscopically neutral.

    By the way, the internal electrical neutrality to be expected of any charged body remains for the interior of the net sum sphere, strictly on a macroscopic basis, because that mentioned positive ion induced upon the inside of the outside sphere belongs to the domain of the grand interior of the total sphere.
    "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  
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    It's not about cozying up to protons. Electrical attraction is very similar to gravitational attraction. It follows the same inverse square law. So, an electron very far away from a proton still feels it pulling on it, just not as strongly. The difference is that the electric force can also be repulsive, while the force of gravity can't. So, all it takes for an electron to feel equally pulled inward by the protons in a negatively charged object, as it feels repelled by the other electrons, is for the average distance between it and the other electrons to be just slightly greater than the average distance between it and the protons.

    It's kind of like how if you were located between the Moon and Earth, but closer to the Moon, you might feel the Moon's gravity pulling on you more strongly than the Earth's gravity, even though the Earth has a much stronger gravitational field overall due to its greater mass. A comparatively small number of protons could pull on your more strongly than a comparatively large number of electrons in the same way, if the distances are right.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It's not about cozying up to protons. Electrical attraction is very similar to gravitational attraction. It follows the same inverse square law. So, an electron very far away from a proton still feels it pulling on it, just not as strongly. The difference is that the electric force can also be repulsive, while the force of gravity can't. So, all it takes for an electron to feel equally pulled inward by the protons in a negatively charged object, as it feels repelled by the other electrons, is for the average distance between it and the other electrons to be just slightly greater than the average distance between it and the protons.

    It's kind of like how if you were located between the Moon and Earth, but closer to the Moon, you might feel the Moon's gravity pulling on you more strongly than the Earth's gravity, even though the Earth has a much stronger gravitational field overall due to its greater mass. A comparatively small number of protons could pull on your more strongly than a comparatively large number of electrons in the same way, if the distances are right.

    Where are you going with that? If you find a way to apply such considerations to the geometric forms that engage the clumps of matter of the universe, typical forms emerge: spheroidal assemblies of gas with any rotation at all lead into disk formation, and any electrical imbalance intensifies as dimensions reduce because electrical charge restricts itself to outer surfaces including the rims of disk formations. Arrays of charged particles of the dominating polarity are formed that bring significant "global" influences that find their balance with gravitational effects. Such phenomena arise to sweep charged particles of the greater population outward and to sweep particles of the alternate polarity inward.

    As a great gas cloud tinged with negative charge evolves into a galaxy, a congestion of positive particles begins to form at its center. An ever growing hollow sphere or disk formation is so devised with positive particles whose gravitational influence calls neutral matter to its center. And so on.
    "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
  •