Just a running start

[OnlyMe]

Dale, you keep citing Faraday as the source and support of your conclusions.

The earth is not a block of ice, nor a solid object. It is a complex composit of gases, liquids and solids, where even the solids at times, interact as liquids.

Find a more recent reference, that does include at least some of the science that has been discovered in the 150 years since Faraday, gave way to the grave.

 

[origin]

This is actually true, see Wiki.

Where I grew up in southern California, a few days before the Santa Anna winds would blow the potential difference could jump to near 500 volts, as hot air from the high desert began to shift to the lower valleys.

Note, somewhere in I think the second paragraph of the article, it mentions that though the atmosphere can be both positive or negatively charged, a positive net charge is more common.

Interesting.

This is a rather interesting and informative paper on the electical dynamics of the atmosphere.

 

[origin]

No. I speak of the electrosphere and its supporting atmosphere.

Please define the term electosphere the only references that I can find for the electrosphere is regarding a video game.

The 100 Volts per meter comes from the voltage drop produced by some two pico amps of upward flow of electrons through some 50 British billions of Ohms per square meter.

I was not aware of this, I do not see why you cannot supply evidence instead of just repeating the same thing over and over. Onlyme was kind enough to do your work, so I now know what you are talking about. However you have quite a few misconsceptions about this phemonena. I recommend that you look at the source I cited or another one of your own choosing.

Please, no need for that, I am actually nothing more than a glorified super-scientist.

I was not refering to you. I was refering to scientists that have evidence and mathematics to back up their theory.

By radiation, I referred to the electromagnetic radiation produced by electric current flowing through an antenna. Radio wave, but so dam low in frequency that it is almost direct current. (An admitted exaggeration.)

So are you with drawing your claim and now agreeing that the current spikes in powerlines are due to changes in the magnetic field of earth during a CME?

What would you think if you figured that you had found an answer but could find no audience within the government whereby you could even attempt to present it. Let me withdraw my comment.

If your answer is not accepted by any scientist and has in fact has been shown to be incorrect by science, why would you think the goverment would be interested?

Where proof is self-evident, no supporting reference is needed. Now I am late for chow, but I appreciate your concern the for these technical issues and should hardly wish for any gullibility.

But there is no proof. You are saying things you think are true - that is not self-evident proof (except in your own mind).

 

[Dale]

We are all being such amateurs at what we do. Let's just defer to the professionals unless and until some new blood drops in.
http://www.threestooges.com/

 

[Dale]

If your answer is not accepted by any scientist and has in fact has been shown to be incorrect by science, why would you think the goverment would be interested?

That response was to my statement that I could find no audience within the government to disclose a finding that they were spending tax money to find.
He concludes from that that nevertheless that my unheard offering was refused acceptance by all of the scientists in the world and, although still unheard, it was shown by science to be incorrect. So, the government is of course so disinterested that they will hear nothing of it.

Origin is totally uninformed about the finding that I would have disclosed if given audience. Yet he or she advances his determination that my finding has been proven false by science (does he or she know what "science" is?). Any proof that I have handed him or her seem to be beyond his or her comprehension and that to him or her defines it as being no shred of proof.

What kind of reasoning process goes on in the mind of such a person? It is a hopeless thing to reason with such a person. It only gets worse with every step. I will not respond to any more of his or her comments.

 

[Dale]

Dale, you keep citing Faraday as the source and support of your conclusions.

The earth is not a block of ice, nor a solid object. It is a complex composit of gases, liquids and solids, where even the solids at times, interact as liquids.

Find a more recent reference, that does include at least some of the science that has been discovered in the 150 years since Faraday, gave way to the grave.

I have heard tell that somewhere along the line, Faraday said something that did not hold. That does not make all he told to be misinformation. Isn't his work behind the glory of the Maxwellian equations?

It is the mutual repulsion of like-charges that explain Faraday's ice pail experiments. Electrons appear on the outside of any isolated charged object, big or small. Even if a charged particle is trapped within, it repels a proxy particle to the outside to represent it. It does not matter that the earth is not a block of ice. Whatever it is, it is not a perfect insulator because there is no such thing: for heat or electricity. I cite the laws of thermodynamics. 150 years does not change any natural laws.

I target only the 150-year misconception about atmospheric charge because that was wrong all that time. By accident, I came to notice that error and would like to share my information. If no one else has noticed the error, then I cannot cite reference that supports my claim with documentation. Neither can I reach the intellect of nontechnical people who are faced with so much propaganda against unpopular beliefs. It seems a sociable thing to join a crowd, but if the largest crowd you find is a pack of running lemmings, too bad if you overtake them and even worse if you outrun their leader.

I respect OnlyMe for being well intentioned, but cannot deal with such unpredictable restrictions upon my rationale.

So far, I have failed to learn how to get e-mail alerts to responses, but will check in weekly for any new blood.

 

[Ophiolite]

Lets go with that. It is just a little nicer than a response from a person admittedly stifling an urgent technical issue because he or she found me an unlikable person. Who cares. Why come here just to stick your finger in my eye?

I 'came here' to offer you some insight as to how you come across. convincing people of the validity of a new idea requires three things: sound logic, good evidence and marketing. Your style of presentation lets you down on the last point and discourages readers (consciously or subconsciously) from considering the other two legs of the tripod.

Of course you can ignore that observation, continue as you are, and fail to convince anyone. Your choice. I'll be sure not to offer advice in future, since you consider it so unwelcome.

 

[origin]

Origin is totally uninformed about the finding that I would have disclosed if given audience. Yet he or she advances his determination that my finding has been proven false by science (does he or she know what "science" is?). Any proof that I have handed him or her seem to be beyond his or her comprehension and that to him or her defines it as being no shred of proof.

I'm a he. If I am totally uniformed then that is your fault. You made statements that you have not backed up. I have requested repeatedly for eveidence and all you have done is repeat your assertions. All you have to do is back it up with observational evidence or mathematics. You have made statements that the solar wind is electrically negative and science has measured that it is not. Give some counter evidence besides your say so! You have handed out NO PROOF, only assertions.

What kind of reasoning process goes on in the mind of such a person?

It is really quite simple. I have seen and analyzed (to the best of my abilities)the evidence supplied by astronomy and agreed with the 'mainstream'. You have come here with assertions - so I asked for YOUR evidence and all you do is repeat your assertions. The one piece of evidence that was supplied was by onlyme, which was very informative - but even that was somewhat at odds with one of your conjectures.

It is a hopeless thing to reason with such a person.

I am quite reasonable, but I don't believe something unless there is compelling evidence to believe it.

It only gets worse with every step. I will not respond to any more of his or her comments.

It does seem to be getting worse with ever post. You can respond or ignore it is your choice.

 

[Aqueous Id]

@Dale

I believe you are referring to a Faraday Cage, which requires a conductive outer surface. Obviously there are ionized layers of the atmosphere, but these do not constitute a Faraday Cage. They are air molecules which have been ionized primarily by the sun. They do not conduct direct current, so they are not capable of supporting the idea of an electrode in the sky. If they were conductive, radio telescopes wouldn't work, and radars would tell us how high it is.

If what you are saying is true, then anyone should be able to charge air in a lab and make it work like a capacitor. (An air capacitor without plates). I should be able to take a beach ball full of air, with a sealed wire poking through the ball and raise it to 20 kV or more, and come back later and measure around 19.999 kV referenced to a spike in the ground. (i.e., less whatever discharged.)

The idea of protons clustering doesn't make sense. Why would they not occupy every surface as close to the electrons they are attracted to, e. g., all metal roofing, highland lakes, whatever. Makes no sense.

Another thing that makes no sense is this: The bombardment of your Faraday cage by protons from solar wind, etc., would seem to produce hydrogen at the cost of depleting the cage of its accumulated potential. Presumably it would have crashed long ago.

You have to have conductors to set up a Faraday cage, or battery, or capacitor, whatever you're calling this. And then the forcing function has to be applied across those terminals. Otherwise, there is no cause for positive and negative to move apart.

Finally, the Faraday Cage is only skin deep. Here you're talking about - what -many miles deep? In other words, where exactly is that surface you speak of? It can't be diffused over miles of altitude - it needs a skin, and a conductive one, or the charges don't interact like a group in a conductor. There's no transport.

 

[Dale]

I 'came here' to offer you some insight as to how you come across. convincing people of the validity of a new idea requires three things: sound logic, good evidence and marketing. Your style of presentation lets you down on the last point and discourages readers (consciously or subconsciously) from considering the other two legs of the tripod.

Of course you can ignore that observation, continue as you are, and fail to convince anyone. Your choice. I'll be sure not to offer advice in future, since you consider it so unwelcome.

I do apologize for any rudeness that I failedl to conceal. You have always seemed to have meant well, but it is much too late for me to cultivate a personality. It is embarrassing to receive such public council on such personal problems as my being universally contemptible. There always seems to be a chance that somebody might come along who doesn't spot my deficiency of personality, or might overlook it if I just manage to conceal my deficient character.

Of course, if you limited your messages to private messages you would remain unknown, but I do precipitate enough negativity that I am sure you are correct. How am I to rehabilitate myself from your categorical remarks? I am relatively shut-in and unable to attend charm school. I try: for instance I was once told to take a good look at myself in the mirror, and did so for a long session. Then it came to me: they are all jealous of my good looks!!!

But on-line how do did they all find out about my appearance? By the way, do you have a medical degree or some professional training or talent that gives you confidence that you can help us unfortunates? I have done lots of good deeds, like busting my hump getting and saving contracts, but that was mostly thankless. I feed the squirrels. I have always been more interested in thinking about whatever science I like and can understand and don't care much about thinking about myself. There are still a lot of things that ordinary slobs can figure out, and even if everybody else already understands it, it is fun to see it in one's own way. And (look it is naughty to start a sentence with a conjunction, but Mark Twain did it) sometimes a guy finds a new angle. I did that with gyroscopes, and noticed that the big kids are not even on to it.

The best shot I can see for me is to hope for a few savvy chimps who can overlook my being me without crapping on my attempts to share my "findings". Forgive me for being so ungrateful for your advice. However, I do carry other burdens, like dodging other snipers who hurl the kitchen sink without cause or warning.

The outstanding problem that I see has nothing to do with me. I log in if I think I have a useful contribution. If I stick to well documented "facts", what good is that? If I offer stuff that has not had such publication, then I wave a red flag at the bulls defending the most general consensus. I have had the plug pulled on me just for offering to mention an effect that appears unnoticed. Jackasses log on to preach the need to follow the crowd. Further, to be within too small a crowd assures one to be called a crank or crackpot.

 

[Dale]

I'm a he. If I am totally uniformed then that is your fault. You made statements that you have not backed up. I have requested repeatedly for eveidence and all you have done is repeat your assertions. All you have to do is back it up with observational evidence or mathematics. You have made statements that the solar wind is electrically negative and science has measured that it is not. Give some counter evidence besides your say so! You have handed out NO PROOF, only assertions.



It is really quite simple. I have seen and analyzed (to the best of my abilities)the evidence supplied by astronomy and agreed with the 'mainstream'. You have come here with assertions - so I asked for YOUR evidence and all you do is repeat your assertions. The one piece of evidence that was supplied was by onlyme, which was very informative - but even that was somewhat at odds with one of your conjectures.



I am quite reasonable, but I don't believe something unless there is compelling evidence to believe it.



It does seem to be getting worse with ever post. You can respond or ignore it is your choice.

Responding with you permission. The kitchen sink you threw condemned the merit of a matter to which you have no inputs at all, and you stated that the issue has been proven false by all of science. I will present math only where it is applicable. I did work in a little Ohm's law. Here is more. Two plus two is four. Two times two is four.

An original finding will not be available verbatim in a referenced URL unless I send you to my blog. I assume that everybody knows that electrons go up into our atmosphere. Is that what you want me to prove? It is my proof. There has to be a reason for certain things to happen. Electrons are repelled by other electrons. I cannot prove why that is so but we all know it is true. A negatively charged Earth has to repel electrons outward because it would have to be outside of itself to repel electrons inward. An uncharged Earth would leave them alone. A positively charged Earth would attract them toward itself. Is there any other choice possible? Is any of this clear to you?

 

[origin]

I assume that everybody knows that electrons go up into our atmosphere. Is that what you want me to prove?

No everyone does not know this. If this is so clear and obvious then it should be astonishingly easy to just supply any evidence to support this. Saying 'everybody knows' is not evidence. The articles I have read do not state this. Maybe I have missed the articles that 'everybody' reads.

Electrons are repelled by other electrons. I cannot prove why that is so but we all know it is true.

I do not ask why, I only ask for evidence to support statements. Yes, it is safe to say that there is ample evidince that this is true.

A negatively charged Earth has to repel electrons outward because it would have to be outside of itself to repel electrons inward. An uncharged Earth would leave them alone. A positively charged Earth would attract them toward itself. Is there any other choice possible?

The other possiblility is the one that is accepted. That is that the atmosphere is in flux and there are positive ions and negative ions that migrate away from the surface of the earth into the atmosphere as the potential differences change.

Do you have evidence that it is only negative charges that move away from the surface of the eath.

Is any of this clear to you?

Yes it is clear to me what you are saying.

It is apparently not clear to you how to supply evidence. I never asked you why. I never asked for proof. I only asked for evidence for your conjecture.

Saying your conjecture over and over is not evidence.

A science website would be nice evidence. Some actual data showing the solar wind is negative would be good. A peer reviewed paper would be killer.

Looking forward to links to evidence.

 

[Dale]

No everyone does not know this. If this is so clear and obvious then it should be astonishingly easy to just supply any evidence to support this. Saying 'everybody knows' is not evidence. The articles I have read do not state this. Maybe I have missed the articles that 'everybody' reads.



I do not ask why, I only ask for evidence to support statements. Yes, it is safe to say that there is ample evidince that this is true.



The other possiblility is the one that is accepted. That is that the atmosphere is in flux and there are positive ions and negative ions that migrate away from the surface of the earth into the atmosphere as the potential differences change.

Do you have evidence that it is only negative charges that move away from the surface of the eath.



Yes it is clear to me what you are saying.

It is apparently not clear to you how to supply evidence. I never asked you why. I never asked for proof. I only asked for evidence for your conjecture.

Saying your conjecture over and over is not evidence.

A science website would be nice evidence. Some actual data showing the solar wind is negative would be good. A peer reviewed paper would be killer.

Looking forward to links to evidence.

That was my bad. I thought of it at chow and came back to prove that electrons are going up as I think I did previously. I am not guessing, so I object to anyone calling what I provide as conjecture, which is an insulting term to apply. The upward flow of electrons in clear air is what I have been calling Fair Weather Current (FWC). People complain when I come back with repetition of what I have already written. If I keep getting the same question, I cannot keep changing the answer just to get variety.

As proof of the FWC, I bring up the nominal +100 Volts of increased electrical potential per meter of elevation within the lower part of the atmosphere. You might not need proof of that voltage gradient, but I can send links for that if you wish. Electrically nontechnical personnel can be expected to take those voltage readings as a direct manifestation of a positive electrical charge upon the atmosphere, and they write a lot of handbooks. That is too bad, but you cannot hold me to parrot every confused expert that comes down the pike. The electrical charge of the atmosphere is not due to charge-seperated ions that such handbooks might tell you. The charge upon any isolated body is simply the imbalance of charged particles possessed by such bodies. I am not here to abuse the experts but merely to protect you from them. Those excess charged particles that have found their resting places do not represent energy but are just material substance. Electrical potentials measured by voltmeters represent energy. The +100 volts per meter that weathermen measure for various altitudes with respect to Earth is due to the voltage drop caused by two little pico amps flowing through the resistance of a one cubic column of air in cubic shape. After my nap I expect to send you a link confirming FWC to vary through the stated value. It should vary according to altitude, but it might be hard to find links stating that fact.
R = E/I Where R is resistance in Ohms, E is electrical potential in Volts, and I is electric current in Amps. Oh, AC volts and DC volts and little mili-amperes.

Those volts across those meters of altitude are due to current flowing through the air, They flow to get farther and farther away from all the other electrons, most of which are below them. All that can be only because the earth and its atmosphere contain more electrons than protons. Casual observers see that +100 Volts per meter and lose sight of the fact that electric charge and electrical voltage are two different things under any administration.

 

[origin]

Just for instructive purposes this is what I mean by evidence.

Statement: The solar wind is electrically neutral.

Evidence:

South Western Research Institute.
From the site
It is composed of approximately equal numbers of ions and electrons; the ion component consists predominantly of protons (95%), with a small amount of doubly ionized helium and trace amounts of heavier ions.

University of Tennessee
From the site
The solar wind contains roughly equal number of electrons and protons, along with a few heavier ions

NASA / JPL
From the site
The restless solar wind consists of charged, gaseous particles (a plasma), 95% of which are protons and electrons (in roughly equal numbers). The remaining small portion contains isotopes such as helium-3, helium-4, neon-20, neon-21, neon-22, and argon-36

Hope this helps.

 

[origin]

That was my bad. I thought of it at chow and came back to prove that electrons are going up as I think I did previously. I am not guessing, so I object to anyone calling what I provide as conjecture, which is an insulting term to apply. The upward flow of electrons in clear air is what I have been calling Fair Weather Current (FWC). People complain when I come back with repetition of what I have already written. If I keep getting the same question, I cannot keep changing the answer just to get variety.

I do not want you to keep repeating the same thing. I have specifically asked you not to just keep repeating the same thing. I have asked for evidence.

Like this:

Statement:
I disagree with your conjecture that there is a constant flow of electrons away from the earth. The voltage differences in the atmosphere do not result in constant flow of electrons.

Evidence:
Atmospheric Electricity
From the site
Experiments have shown that there is always free electricity in the atmosphere, which is sometimes negative and sometimes positive, but most generally positive.

 

[Dale]

You mistake publications to be evidence. That is evidence of what someone else thinks. It is not evidence, NASA will tell you that the atmosphere is charged positive. I know why but am not troubled with their problems.

You continue to call my statements conjectures. Why do you call their stuff evidence and my stuff conjecture? That is applying a double standard. I spoke up because they screwed up. Their work is the work of committees. A camel is a horse designed by committee. You are welcome to believe them. I do not have to because I have thought it out.

I have mentioned that we need not waste time discussing solar wind because I have proven our atmosphere's negative charge in my explanation. They might have an excuse for saying that solar wind is negative: Some of them are just talking about solar flares. When there are no flares, I know the solar wind has to be mostly electrons because of what I think they do not know about core fusion. Am not going into that now. The plasma that spouts out as solar flares should be somewhat neutral, but the magnetic phenomena that comes with such events demonstrates that excess electrons from the sun's negative surface climb those flairs of plasma to still tip the balance. I can say that because flow of plasma; neutral matter, is not going to produce significant magnetic activity. You cannot have it both ways. If you do not understand that, it does not make me wrong. Prove me wrong. I consider myself right until I am proven wrong. Parroting somebody else's theories is just shuffling papers.

 

[AlexG]

Prove me wrong. I consider myself right until I am proven wrong.

Thus the lack of any kind of evidence.

You've made the claims, it's up to you to supply evidence. That you are unable to do so, and take the position that you have, would indicate that what you're posting is simply spurious nonsense.

 

[origin]

You mistake publications to be evidence. That is evidence of what someone else thinks. It is not evidence, NASA will tell you that the atmosphere is charged positive. I know why but am not troubled with their problems.

Here we go with the conspiracies...

You continue to call my statements conjectures.

Good point. You stuff is pure crap.

Why do you cal their stuff evidence and my stuff conjecture?

Little details like actual measurements, convincing mathematics and logic.

That is applying a double standard. I spoke up because they screwed up. Their work is the work of committees. A camel is a horse designed by committee. You are welcome to believe them. I do not have to because I have thought it out.

It is not a double standard because they are practicing science and you are practicing hand waving woo-woo garbage.

I have mentioned that we need not waste time discussing solar wind because I have proven our atmosphere's negative charge in my explanation. They might have an excuse for saying that solar wind is negative: Some of them are just talking about solar flares. When there are no flares, I know the solar wind has to be mostly electrons because of what I think they do not know about core fusion. Am not going into that now. The plasma that spouts out as solar flares should be somewhat neutral, but the magnetic phenomena that comes with such events demonstrates that excess electrons climb those flairs of plasma to still tip the balance. I can say that because flow of plasma; neutral matter, is not going to produce significant magnetic activity. You cannot have it both ways. If you do not understand that, it does not make me wrong.

Well we have definitly arrived in La-La land. You know you are right, because, by God you know it. Wow, and people won't take you seriously? Imagine my surprise.

Prove me wrong. I consider myself right until I am proven wrong. Parroting somebody else's theories is just shuffling papers.

Prove you wrong? This is another one of those annoying aspects of science, if you have a new hypothesis it is up to you to prove it, it is not up to us to disprove it. Even though ironically I have disproved several of your conjectures.

You have no leg to stand on, and you are begining to rant so, I will leave you to live in your fantasy world. Enjoy!

 

[Dale]

Thus the lack of any kind of evidence.

You've made the claims, it's up to you to supply evidence. That you are unable to do so, and take the position that you have, would indicate that what you're posting is simply spurious nonsense.

It does not follow that your stack of slurs leads to credible evaluation of my posting. My limited ability to convey a theory to others is vastly compounded in cases like yours where there might also be critical limitations to the heckler's logical processes. The fact that I have presented evidence and you insist that I haven't, would indicate that you have a morbidly severe need to bother other people. If you ever take up the practice of thinking, you should learn the rule of deferred criticism. An open-minded individual can find himself adding constructive contribution to valid work of other people. If you were to comprehend what others are saying, you would be able to specify appropriate contradictions dealing with the technical issues at hand rather than launch personal attacks against those you spite just for spite's sake.

Links to writings from others is hardly proof unless they show their proof. All my little phrase intended was to lift the logic of yesteryear's democratic justice. I brought you the proof that the positive atmosphere claimers are mistaken. I hasten to seek the words that further clarify my logic to the public. Instead of hurling slurs you might combat my logic with your own. Maybe my last posting was a valid challenge. Weather lore has characteristically been controversial for ages. Sophisticated scientists encourage challenge to any and all scientific theory, yet the layman resents his peers that dare reproach the anointed that they hold in such awe.

Look at the degradation that science has now invited down upon itself by propagandizing elementary school children. Are there any giants left like Asimov or Feynman who would reach out to little people? Wish I knew.

 

[AlexG]

It does not follow that your stack of slurs leads to credible evaluation of my posting. My limited ability to convey a theory to others is vastly compounded in cases like yours where there might also be critical limitations to the heckler's logical processes. The fact that I have presented evidence and you insist that I haven't, would indicate that you have a morbidly severe need to bother other people. If you ever take up the practice of thinking, you should learn the rule of deferred criticism. An open-minded individual can find himself adding constructive contribution to valid work of other people. If you were to comprehend what others are saying, you would be able to specify appropriate contradictions dealing with the technical issues at hand rather than launch personal attacks against those you spite just for spite's sake.

Links to writings from others is hardly proof unless they show their proof. All my little phrase intended was to lift the logic of yesteryear's democratic justice. I brought you the proof that the positive atmosphere claimers are mistaken. I hasten to seek the words that further clarify my logic to the public. Instead of hurling slurs you might combat my logic with your own. Maybe my last posting was a valid challenge. Weather lore has characteristically been controversial for ages. Sophisticated scientists encourage challenge to any and all scientific theory, yet the layman resents his peers that dare reproach the anointed that they hold in such awe.

Look at the degradation that science has now invited down upon itself by propagandizing elementary school children. Are there any giants left like Asimov or Feynman who would reach out to little people? Wish I knew.

Crank.