A case for cosmic electrical imbalance

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Dale, May 26, 2012.

  1. Dale Geriatric friend of trolls Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    118
    If we were to find a downward-pointing electric field upon a star, it would seem that the action of that field would produce a shell of electrons above the stellar atmosphere and a congestion of protons at the central core. Indeed, mutual repulsion of the protons would tend to fend off extreme proximity, but a mighty gravity might offer quite a contest. Adding to effects of gravity, an electrostatic pull upon any but the most central proton would be in the direction across the center of the proton cluster from which more than a hemisphere of electrons exceed the pull from the lesser count pulling from behind. Hence a stable concentric configuration would be holding arrays of opposite charge apart from each other.

    This counter-intuitive infrastructure presents a scene whereby we might have fusion of protons from static pressure at a site devoid of electrons. Could this possibly annihilate carriers of positive charge thereby leaving a systematically increasing proportion of electrons?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    Since electromagnetic force is about 10[sup]37[/sup] greater than gravitational force, it does not seem possible to have a concentration of either positive or negative particles.

    Perhaps somebody here has the data required to do the arithmetic. My WAG is the following.
    If 10 kilograms of protons replaced the sun and the Earth was replaced by a matched (by count, not weight) number of electrons, the electromagnetic force would keep the electrons in orbit.​
    BTW: A WAG is not as reliable as a SWAG (Sophisticated Wild Ass Guess).

    Very few people have a good intuition for the power of electromagnetic force. If they did, Cold Fusion would have no advocates. The temperature & pressure at the core of a star is required for hot fusion to occur & be maintained. Without that temperature & pressure, the repulsion between hydrogen nuclei would prevent fusion.

    I apologize if 10[sup]37[/sup] is off by a few orders of magnitude. I used my not infallible memory rather than looking it up.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Just a minor correction here in passing: The force you intended to name here is electrostatic rather than electromagnetic.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    The global stellar electrostatic field is 918 times stronger than the corresponding stellar gravity and compensates for a half of the gravity, when it acts on an electron or proton, respectively.



    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A%26A...372..913N
     
  8. Dale Geriatric friend of trolls Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    118
    I second the motion. Thanks for being here.
     
  9. Dale Geriatric friend of trolls Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    118
    Suppose we had an East pole and a West pole on our central blob of protons. A new proton on the block arriving near the East pole would shy away from close quarters due to repulsion, even though it gets that far by attraction from an electron shell centered above the West pole of the proton cluster.

    Now, lets empathize with a proton just East from the middlemost proton. Its neighbor to the West wouldn't know which way to flinch because things for it are tough all over, but its neighbor to the East just barely favors retreat back to the East. The second proton to the West just barely favors retreat to the West. Somehow, all this makes it seem as though the mutual repulsion between protons falls away near the very center. Protons getting that cozy just might connect. We might describe their mating as a static fusion.

    In a shell outside there could be the dynamic fusion brought on by all that reckless speeding. It is too late for such phenomena to solve the anti-neutrino shortage problem because science has already fixed that worry with flavor changes.
     
  10. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    This whole idea of a electron shell and a core of neutrons is silly. You don't have squat to support this. Why don't supply some evidence to support your conjectures? If your evidence is an electric field do you have any evidence of a pile of electrons at one end of a field and a pile of protons at the other end?

    You failed miserabley last time you prestented this stuff, what makes you think you will do any better this time?:shrug:
     
  11. Dale Geriatric friend of trolls Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    118
    "This stuff" is not the Earth Science topic you hounded before.
     
  12. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    (Some dawgs are hounds and some are St Bernards with their first aid kits. And then there's the labs and shepherds that guide the blind. And let's no forget all the different sheep dogs!) In any case, dogs are a person's best friend right?

    I came to ask you, Dale, if you have a rationale for assuming a neutron stellar core. What would be some of the facts for or against that?
     
  13. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    Are you referring to ionized hydrogen and helium, if so I'd say the answer could be yes. But I'd like to point out neutron stars could not form if there were no electrons to combine with the protons. So I really can't picture what you just said about the core of a regular star. It really doesn't make any sense to me.
     
  14. Dale Geriatric friend of trolls Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    118
    I do not assume a neutron stellar core. It has been given to me that a downward electrical field moves a test proton downward and an electron upwards. If you accept that rule of thumb as coin-of-the-realm and if you accept our fair weather current as an upward flow of electrons (no matter just how much), you might conclude as I do that positive charges would be descending toward the center of the earth.

    Hopefully, it should be understood that "free" charged particles would be the only candidates for such transference, in that neutral particles would be unaffected by the electric field. If ionization below the ground surface sufficiently separated the opposing charges of particles resulting from an ionization so that their mutual attraction could be overcome by the global electric field, then the two opposing migrations of the charged particles would proceed accordingly until completed or interrupted by another event.

    The night and day distortions of our ionosphere suggest that our sun shares the same overall electric charge and hence the same type of electric field (downward-pointing) as our planet, and it seems reasonable to contemplate other stars as being comparable to our sun in this matter.

    As I have acknowledged to James R, his description of the electric field (http://physics.info/electric-field/) for our atmosphere is a grand asset to communications about that part of our infrastructure. It allows us to get to the point instead of falling into a hopeless pit of worthless controversy about some counter-intuitive confusion factors ensnared with a host of traditional monstrosities.

    I anticipate that your past reproach out of the blue for some perception of me being in any doubt of Karl Freidrich Gauss, has come from my problem with how his meanings have been distorted. Karl's admonition that there is no electric field within a closed conductor is totally true as soon as all transients have subsided. (In a laboratory, in those days, you could hardly notice such a thing as a transients, and they hardly mattered. It was the transients that extinguished any electric fields by moving charged particles to where the belonged to make his assertion true. Within a galaxy, a transient lasts for many generations of human life!)
     
  15. Dale Geriatric friend of trolls Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    118
    Being wronged is not personal failure. I presented Carl Sagan's Baloney detector for the benefit of complaints that I did not heed scientific authority. Carl asserts there that in science there are no authorities. Then, Trippy withheld the content of his baloney detector but warned that it was going to explode. Following that, I contradicted his claim that ionization in our sky changes the overall macroscopic electric charge of the earth. For that, and my failure to agree with your slander perhaps, he locked my thread.

    Hence, to do better, I hope to agree with everything you say, everything you will ever say, and everything that you have ever said. It will not be easy.
     
  16. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Can you link to that thread to be read?
     
  17. Dale Geriatric friend of trolls Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    118
    I propose only that within the central core of a star would there be an electron shortage. If the global electric field moves free electrons up then what would ever bring them back down? For the time being, I would be only too happy to exclude neutron stars from any of my considerations. That is because I hqve never been tempted to even think of them.
     
  18. Dale Geriatric friend of trolls Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    118
  19. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Thanks.
    Four pages of reading. 3 pages in, you posted about Baloney Detection.
    Most posts were pretty clear and to the point...
    Except yours. The best post in the entire thread is the one that asks you to stop trying to sound like an English Major. "Trying" being the key word.

    In order to read your posts, I needed a sharp knife to cut through the word salad.
    I needed to ignore or remove defensive commentary and off topic sentences.

    Which pretty much left the thread with only enough talk from you to account for three moderately sized actual posts containing information.

    At no point did you scientifically refute any argument given against your claim.

    You ignored evidence and presented no evidence on your behalf.

    So no- claiming that for refuting Trippy's arguments and that you were "slandered" resulted in the threat being closed is Intellectual Dishonesty.


    Perhaps you might do better over here.
     

Share This Page