Just a running start

[Dale]

Conspicuous evidence readily shows Earth's atmosphere to contain more electrons than protons. Being thus negatively charged, our planet and the sun present their charge at their outer limits much as Michael Faraday's ice pail does.

It is reasonable to observe that mutual repulsion of like-charged particles accounts for their migration to outer limits of their hosts, and it would be such migration that would account for their presence at those surfaces.

It should follow that we can expect the central cores of Earth and Sol would have developed a congestion of protons, although of a lesser population than the negative outer array of electrons.

It is supposed no more than a casual familiarity with electricity would be required to theoretically investigate these claims, and any doubts expressed can be dealt with if specifically addressed to technical issues.

This first posting is hoped to provoke sufficient dialog to develop indulgence for the relevance of electrical implications upon cosmic structure.:truce::thankyou:

 

[James R]

Conspicuous evidence readily shows Earth's atmosphere to contain more electrons than protons.

Does it?

It should follow that we can expect the central cores of Earth and Sol would have developed a congestion of protons, although of a lesser population than the negative outer array of electrons.

If the net charge on the Earth's core is zero, then there would be no reason for positive charges to stay in the centre and negative charges to migrate to the outside.

Is it your contention that the Earth's core has a non-zero electric charge? And if so, is there any actual evidence of that, as far as you are aware?

 

[Dale]

Does it?

Yes. A prevailing solar wind of electrons suggests more than just a negative charge to the sun. The noon-time compression and midnight elevation of our atmosphere demonstrates our atmosphere's matching polarity to the charge of the sun. Direct voltage measurements of a voltage gradient of a nominal +100 Volts per meter of atmospheric elevation above Earth's surface is indicative of a minus-to-positive I x R drop due to some 2 pico-amps of upward electron flow per square meter of surface, as measured with respect to Earth surface. This would be the normal manifestation of electrons being returned, by global repulsion, of electrons brought down to the surface by electric storms.

If the net charge on the Earth's core is zero, then there would be no reason for positive charges to stay in the centre and negative charges to migrate to the outside.

It is the macroscopic net charge of all below Earth's surface that is zero. The outside surface of Earth would be occupied by the excess count of electrons representing Earth's net negative charge. These constitute the array of negative charge that present the moving force upon any charged particles within. They impose an outward migration upon negative charged particles and hence an inward migration upon positive charged particles.

Adjacent to such a shell would be a count of electrons equal to the number of positively charged particles at her core. Counter-intuitively, the two arrays of charged particles are held apart by their mutual attraction: Outer protons in the core press against repulsion of the inner ball to the extent that the electron shell behind that ball exceed a hemisphere. Range is not a factor within such geometry because inverse square-law attenuation with range between particles is offset by a squaring of the number of particles within any sector.

Prior to formation of any positive core, any stray negative particle would have been forced to the surface. Unperturbed, this would bring about the nullification of any electric fields within such a closed conductor. Only then does Gaussian rules apply. Fancy an ionization that carries an electron so far from its erstwhile positive compliment that global outward repulsion exceeds the mutual attraction of subject ion. The result would be an indefinite separation of the two pieces. Any electrical force that carries an electron up will bring on a reverse effect upon an isolated positive charge: it will move or propagate downward. Hence, given a plasma, an out-sweeping goes for electrons and a sweeping descent goes for positive charge.

Indirect evidence of Earth's electrically positive core might be evidence of such a thing within our sun. The parity of electron and positron annihilation under the dynamic nuclear fusion process described for solar plasma. A positive core would prohibit any such involvement for electrons. Instead, a static-pressure conversion of matter to energy would suggest the virtual production of excess electrons that must still otherwise find us scratching our heads. It is interesting to consider that no matter how slowly a star might form, and hence no matter how cool it might ever remain, a start-up initiation of fusion would await whatever stellar size might be required to press those protons being held to the highest pressure to be had within the orb.

 

[OnlyMe]

Yes. A prevailing solar wind of electrons suggests more than just a negative charge to the sun. The noon-time compression and midnight elevation of our atmosphere demonstrates our atmosphere's matching polarity to the charge of the sun. Direct voltage measurements of a voltage gradient of a nominal +100 Volts per meter of atmospheric elevation above Earth's surface is indicative of a minus-to-positive I x R drop due to some 2 pico-amps of upward electron flow per square meter of surface, as measured with respect to Earth surface. This would be the normal manifestation of electrons being returned, by global repulsion, of electrons brought down to the surface by electric storms.

Dale, could you supply some reference to support this position?

While the net charge differential between "ground" and any elevation above ground is well known, I have always understood the atmospheric charge to be net positive relative to ground.

I have also never seen any experimental data that proves that the solar wind has an excess electron component. The detectable portion of the solar wind is composed primarily of charged ions. While it is reasonable to assume at least an equal charge potential of free electrons, I have not seen direct reference to experimental data that proves an excess of electrons, when comparred to the positive ion component. I am not even certain an equivalent volume of free electrons have been experimentally detected.

So I would very much like to see any reference material you have.

 

[Dale]

Dale, could you supply some reference to support this position?

While the net charge differential between "ground" and any elevation above ground is well known, I have always understood the atmospheric charge to be net positive relative to ground.

I have also never seen any experimental data that proves that the solar wind has an excess electron component. The detectable portion of the solar wind is composed primarily of charged ions. While it is reasonable to assume at least an equal charge potential of free electrons, I have not seen direct reference to experimental data that proves an excess of electrons, when comparred to the positive ion component. I am not even certain an equivalent volume of free electrons have been experimentally detected.

So I would very much like to see any reference material you have.

Am not sure that anyone else has noticed that the atmospheric voltage measurements indicate a negative atmosphere. Electrical potential is measured in Volts. Electrical charge is measured in Coulombs. Those are the things that are Amps if you get them moving.

I have too few postings here to be allowed putting out a URL. I have been using Ohm's Law for more than six decades. Realizing how and why lightning is formed came to me none years ago when it was too late to go back to school. Gotta stay home and care for my beautiful wife.

The point here is that only a negative atmosphere could explain how it works. The 100 Volts per meter represents dynamic electrical circuitry. The negative charge of Earth and her atmosphere is static electricity. I noticed the 150 year-old screw-up by accidental thought. Longstanding beliefs in dogma are nothing but ancestor worship as far as I can see. High class experts on atmospheric electricity have declared the atmosphere to be positive, and are not anxious to admit

Rather, it is the atmospheric voltage vice charge that is positive. Reasoning that excess electrons imposed upon the earth do no represent energy, but merely a part of our material infrastructure. The movement of a voltmeter's needle is a dead giveaway that energy is being used during a voltage-difference measurement. Indeed, a 100 Volt gradient has to cause electric current to flow through the resistance of the air. That would be the Fair Weather Current (FWC) of meteorological fame. (Too bad they measured it so much at sea level.)

Were it not for electric storms, all of that congestion of electrons at our feet would be up at the ionosphere where it keeps heading out exothermally once coronal discharge sets it free.

I have found out what brings out those solar flares which spout plasma, and assume that prevailing solar wind differs by not bringing on the polar fireworks we see during solar storms. I assume reports of protons with normal solar wind is just a workaround story. I might be mistaken but don't know how. Meteorologists admit to a charged Earth, they just balk in dealing with the air.

Another thing: If the surface of Earth has a congestion of electrons (as meteorologists admit), than when ground is used as a reference, why does anyone think that anything less negative is positive?

 

[OnlyMe]

Dale, my point was that the way I have understood the charge distribution between ground and atmosphere, is that the earth or ground holds an excess negative or electron, contrasted by an ionized atmosphere, with a largely positive net charge. This still produces the potential for a current flow. It just represents a difference in the direction of that flow.

The other aspect is that I have not seen, which does not mean it does not exist, any experimental evidence that suggests that the cosmic wind is predominantly of an excess electron composition. In fact it has seemed to me that the positive ion composition is most commonly measured and a balancing free electron component is assumed.

We have a great deal of experimental measurements of the proton and alpha particle components of both the solar wind and little data involving free electrons. Since we assume that those ions began as atoms with a balanced electron-proton content and we have evidence that free neutrons decay into free electron-proton pairs, it does seem logical that there would be a balance of positive and negative charge, but again I have not seen any direct experimental data that demonstrates that.

Since you cannot post links yet, send me the link by PM and I will post it. I really would like to see and review the reference.

 

[wlminex]

NOW . . . THIS is an example (so far) of a great exchange of ideas on Sciforums . . . . a pleasure to read!

 

[origin]

I assume reports of protons with normal solar wind is just a workaround story.

Huh? What is that suppose to mean.:shrug:

Here is some real time proton work around data.

 

[Dale]

Huh? What is that suppose to mean.:shrug:

[/QUOTE

Looks like you have a case on space protons. My poke at protons is merely my doubts of claims to finding equivalent counts of either polarity as part of the prevailing condition of solar wind. Cosmic rays raise lots of hell when and where they go. When a sun spot boosts a sleeve of solar flair it is also a noticeable event. Heavy electron flow running up the flairs should add negative imbalance to the flying plasma.

Short of stellar flare issues, a negatively charged star should send most stray positive charges down toward its core.

 

[OnlyMe]

Conspicuous evidence readily shows Earth's atmosphere to contain more electrons than protons. Being thus negatively charged, our planet and the sun present their charge at their outer limits much as Michael Faraday's ice pail does.

It is reasonable to observe that mutual repulsion of like-charged particles accounts for their migration to outer limits of their hosts, and it would be such migration that would account for their presence at those surfaces.

It should follow that we can expect the central cores of Earth and Sol would have developed a congestion of protons, although of a lesser population than the negative outer array of electrons.

It is supposed no more than a casual familiarity with electricity would be required to theoretically investigate these claims, and any doubts expressed can be dealt with if specifically addressed to technical issues.

This first posting is hoped to provoke sufficient dialog to develop indulgence for the relevance of electrical implications upon cosmic structure.:truce::thankyou:

Here is Dale's link, The Sun's Electrical Charge. It is from letters to nature circa 1964. I don't subscribe and the full text does not seem publicly accessible, so I can't comment further than that, at least at present.

 

[origin]

My poke at protons is merely my doubts of claims to finding equivalent counts of either polarity as part of the prevailing condition of solar wind.

Your doubts? Are these doubts based on anything other than your guesses, because it sounds like you're just starting to make stuff up now.

Cosmic rays raise lots of hell when and where they go.

Cosmic rays are don't do much of anything, CMEs on the otherhand are a real problem.

When a sun spot boosts a sleeve of solar flair it is also a noticeable event.

Yes, solar flares are noticeable.

Heavy electron flow running up the flairs should add negative imbalance to the flying plasma.

This doesn't reflect what is actually happening.
Here is an easy to understand explanation of a solar flare. Notice that electrons, protons and ions are accelerated not just electrons.

Short of stellar flare issues, a negatively charged star should send most stray positive charges down toward its core.

Your just making stuff up again.

 

[Dale]

Here is Dale's link (omitted here of course)

Here is Dale's link (omitted here of course)

Much obliged. The link makes the point on solar/stellar electrical charge, so there is no need for me to deal with the lovely posts bestowed by origin.

With the indulgence the Nature article might provide for a negative charge upon the sun, if we should agree that its charged particles are presented upon the host's outer limits, then we are close to asserting that global repulsion forced the migration that put it there. The least convoluted reverse engineering in the world would seem to provide that the very same global force would move positive charges toward the central core of the host. Any flow of electrons in a given direction is, by definition, a flow of conventional current in the opposite direction.

A comparable phenomenon to positive particles centering themselves within a negative sphere can be found within many old television sets. Many electron guns within such sets exploit the centering of electrons within an open ring or sleeve that is held at a high positive voltage. They call that part of such a CRT the "focusing anode". Electrons provided by the CRT cathode are accelerated toward the focusing anode and maintain convergence on the way to, through and on the way out beyond the sleeve or ring shape of the focusing anode. By positioning and holding themselves in equidistance from the surrounding electrode, the pencil resulting beam proceeds to deflection plates for lateral deflection on the way to the imaging surface. Those electron guns also serve very well on demonstrating how polar jets might function at the rotational axis of a galactic accretion disk.

Edit: I am afraid that the scope of what reference is sought by OnlyMe is not directly available, because perhaps no one has written about it before. It may be that no one requires assurance that the sun and earth are charged negative. The positive core of negatively charged bodies and the corrected interpretation of Earth's atmospheric voltage gradient is just stuff I noodled out. Honest, it is easy to get that stuff straight after six decades in electronics. It is not anything that origin is likely to ever understand, but that doesn't make it wrong. Scientists figure out some science and engineers put it to work. But the time comes when the guy doing the engineering has it all squirreled away into his lower nerve centers. bye and bye some of us come to find out that we can do whatever it takes to fix a trouble and still get home for supper, even if it requires discovering another natural law. (No brag, just fact. I know what I am talking about.) I just never presume that no one else has noticed something before it has occurred to me. And I certainly do not come here just to tell you something I read in a book.

 

[origin]

Much obliged. The link makes the point on solar/stellar electrical charge, so there is no need for me to deal with the lovely posts bestowed by origin.

Lovely, no need to answer my questions because you have letter written to Nature 50 years ago by a retired professor, who's ideas (on this matter) have been discredited.

Well played.

I do not wish to diminish the earlier work by Dr. Victor Albert Bailey, which was impressive. I don't even think it is fair to bring up his conjecture about a net charge on the sun that he came up with in his waining years.

 

[Dale]

Lovely, no need to answer my questions because you have letter written to Nature 50 years ago by a retired professor, who's ideas (on this matter) have been discredited.

Well played.

I do not wish to diminish the earlier work by Dr. Victor Albert Bailey, which was impressive. I don't even think it is fair to bring up his conjecture about a net charge on the sun that he came up with in his waining years.

Nobody around here has asked you to. But why are you so anxious to denigrate my work? I think you might need a better head on you shoulders before you can stand in judgement of me.

 

[origin]

Nobody around here has asked you to. But why are you so anxious to denigrate my work? I think you might need a better head on you shoulders before you can stand in judgement of me.

Because you are esentially proposing the electric universe pseudo-science, which is bogus and could confuse the young people that visit this site.

 

[Dale]

Because you are esentially proposing the electric universe pseudo-science, which is bogus and could confuse the young people that visit this site.

I can't blame you for that and respect your stated motivation. However, I believe that the youngsters should hold out for specific proof against false information and should not lose sight of Sagan's caveats. I seek only to share my little findings with awesome intellects perhaps abounding here that can put such theory to better use than I can apply.

I have spotted some claims (that I had already thought of) about formations of electrons arrayed as threads and films. Did not buy their book because where they went with that was obvious bologna. Thanks for explaining yourself and please pardon my cocky response. My alibi for that is that specific specific address to technical issues were lacking and left me defenseless against the ad hominem assaults. Attack me defenseless and you grant me martyrdom. (Not my cup of tea, but thank you just the same.)

If you apply De Morgan's Theorum to your perceptions (A truth remains a truth when you change all dis-junctions to conjunctions, all dis-junctions to conjunctions, all assertions to negations, and all negations to assertions) then you would come up with more generosity in your evaluation of my work. It was that theorem that inspired me to jump into mainframe computers.

But one boob cannot hijack the English language from all boobs to follow. They might have dealt with the subject of gravity but that doesn't mean I cannot fall down my stairs. Electrons and protons have been around for a long time. The equality of like charges is amazing but true. Ask a dead man killed by lightning if he believes in electricity.

Electricity is so consistent in its behavior that one man can chicken-track through a hand-sized slab of an integrated circuit chip and come up with accurate predictions of how it performs in its circuit. My job entailed such reverse engineering and resulting determinations got proven months or years later all in one swell foop.

Peace! My issue with positive cores in celestial bodies does still have some hurdles due to embedded dogma. Weathermen have told me that my claim to negative charge of our atmosphere flies in the face of longstanding claims to the contrary: They still think that the positive voltage gradient measured for increasing altitude signify a paucity of electrons in the atmosphere. Nothing but undue reverence for tradition accounts for the mindless and spiteful reproach I gain for heeding Carl Sagan instead of to such ancient tradition.

Astrophysics demands the extension of logic to supplant some of the scientists' convincing profile with their wonted laboratories replete with smocks and pocket protectors. Space geeks require a little more latitude. I have never seen the sun's core. But free electrons abound on Sol''s surface and that means they came up from below. (Is there any other possible source?) That would have to be called the flow of electrons. For some reason, electrical engineers are obliged to usually speak of such a phenomenon in terms of Conventional Electric Current. They thus get away with saying that positive charge is going in the opposite direction from the electron flow, just like Ben Franklin told us. It is OK because it is true, and their cook-books of equations hold them to it I guess. Using this valid alternative of analysis, electrical engineers have to say that the negative charge on the sun's surface is left behind by departing positive charge which is heading the other way. Now tell me what I am making up when I ask, "Golly gee, must there not be positively charged particles down in the belly of this beast?" It is not a guess if there is no other conclusion to be drawn. As all print keeps getting finer as the decades roll by, I think myself to sleep instead of reading. Huge print books would only bash me harder when the sand man comes along, because bigger letters makes for bigger books. I have backed that theory up empirically. Hence, am not trying to outclass anybody; just trying to get some sleep.

 

[origin]

My issue with positive cores in celestial bodies does still have some hurdles due to embedded dogma.

It is not dogma, it is the utter lack of evidence.

Weathermen have told me that my claim to negative charge of our atmosphere flies in the face of longstanding claims to the contrary: They still think that the positive voltage gradient measured for increasing altitude signify a paucity of electrons in the atmosphere. Nothing but undue reverence for tradition accounts for the mindless and spiteful reproach I gain for heeding Carl Sagan instead of to such ancient tradition.

You are mistaking tradition for evidence.

I have never seen the sun's core. But free electrons abound on Sol''s surface and that means they came up from below. (Is there any other possible source?)

Making a claim does not make it so. You do know what plasma is don't you?
Free electrons do abound on the surface of the sun AS DO positive ions.

It is OK because it is true, and their cook-books of equations hold them to it I guess. Using this valid alternative of analysis, electrical engineers have to say that the negative charge on the sun's surface is left behind by departing positive charge which is heading the other way.

You are again assuming that there is a negative charge on the surface of the sun, which needs evidence before we start deciding how this happened.

Now tell me what I am making up when I ask, "Golly gee, must there not be positively charged particles down in the belly of this beast?"

You are making up that there is a negative charge on the surface of the sun. So there is no positive charge that needs to be explained.

 

[Dale]

If you reread my postings a few times maybe something will sink in. A prerequisite for you might be an appreciation course in basic electronics.

Maybe you can explain why our ionosphere goes higher at night.
Maybe you can tell us how black holes form.
Maybe you can tell us how solar energy finds its way (some of it) into lightning bolts.
Maybe you can tell us what causes sun spots.
Maybe you can tell us how matter gets out of orbit in order to enter a black hole.

Where is your evidence that I have presented no evidence.

I have already explained why a negative charge to our atmosphere has to be what produces a positive voltage gradient with increase of altitude. A course in basic electricity would help you if you could get through it.

Enough already. It has been a hundred percent.

 

[AlexG]

Where is your evidence that I have presented no evidence.

In the previous 18 posts.

 

[Dale]

Sufficient evidence for the deductions of this string have already been presented. We might hope for responses of even more constructive criticism than what we have already enjoyed.