It took a bit of time attempt to do justice to your response. Sorry. Lets slow down a little. First, we are not talking about a capacitor. It is a matter of excess particles of a given polarity trapped in a remote place with no partners of the opposite polarity. Next: A rule of thermodynamics holds that there are no perfect insulators: of heat or electricity. Going with that, in a cosmos with unlimited time, and barring any dynamic interference, any charged particles should eventually get to be where they want to be (if you will forgive the personification). For instance, if a planet is stuck with an extra load of electrons, we cannot say that there is no place for them to be. Everything has to be somewhere. Since they repell each other, they depart from each other, and such departure would hardly be a convergence. Thus they wind up reaching the outer surface of their host. The host might approximate a sphere or a disk. Electrons would pool up in bumps on a sphere or at the rim of a disk. Under sufficient concentration of electrons, whether riding upon ions or “free”, some of them can emerge from solid or liquid surfaces into atmosphere or space. From there they can find a stopping place when all forces upon them balance out to zero. The electrostatic force between electrons is much stronger that their mutual gravity, but the gravity of an entire planet easily reaches from its center with a steady pull that falls to one fourth only upon a distance from its surface equal to its radius. Most of the charged planet’s repulsion upon an electron is from its closest neighbors, such that it requires modest further elevation to attenuate repulsion. Hence it will find a stopping place where it climbs no more. Were charge particles so dense that no stopping point were to be reached, electrons would then escape into space until that overintensity has been relieved. Together, those electrons above the earth might be what we call the electrosphere. The equality of each electrons charge would place them all into a relatively smooth bubble of film capable of reflecting radio waves. The array of electrons would reflect rf by shifting of particles just as electrons would flow through a conductive surface. Such virtual conduction without a host conductor would reradiate such that some radiation would proceed outwardly and some would travel back to Earth. Natural equality of interstices between electrons of the electrosphere and the slight size and mass of the electrons would hardly obscure our view of the heavens. Faraday’s ice pail was hollow. That made room for ice, made it easier to carry, and also permitted Faraday to snoop around in there. Nevertheless, why would excess electrons not hang out at the outer extremes even if the pail was solid all the way through? I dispute the notion that ionized atmosphe will not conduct direct current. The Fair Weather Current (FWC) is direct current. Air has a high resistance, but that does not make it a nonconductor. Its resistance is equal to the voltage-to-current ratio of the FWC. Between opposing flats of a one meter cube of air in easy reach of the ground, that would be some 100 volts divided by some 2 picoamps to give us some 500 billion megohms per meter of elevation for a square meter column of atmosphere. I suspect that the rise of electrons as FWC is more of an ionic propagation of electrons through ions rather than free-flight of isolated electrons. To that effect, a dynamically sustained smooth distribution of electric charge throughout the atmosphere produces a virtual phenomenon of static electricity that presents that conductance through which the flow of electrons develop the positive voltage gradient. Give us a rain-check on proton clustering until we get our global circuit under control. Too much at once calls out a circus of snipers and then the amateur head shrinkers come too and tell us it is all because we hate our mothers. But they do not prescribe any therapy.
I am going to tell you a secret. Once the crazies tire and go home I intend to show how the core of a star must be converting positively charged particles to energy without destroying any electrons. It is not done there with plasma because there are no electrons there. They cannot make the trip. Until scientists realize this, they are bound to limit themselves to concluding that free electrons would be in shorter supply than they really are, and therefore should be commended for their stubborn faith in electrical parity. Although this is a forum for new hypotheses, I am nevertheless determined to supply evidence in good time, after I have laid the groundwork for its comprehension. I recommend that you consult Carl Sagan's baloney detector before you further disgrace yourself with statements about accepted possibilities. Especially, he warns that science has no authorities. I trust that you will not betray me about this little secret agenda of mine.
Swell. I am looking forward to your evidence. You wouldn't happen to be and enlisted electrician or electical tech in the armed forces would you? The 'chow' comment got me wondering.
The needle on mine bent over and broke several posts back. The failure to understand that peer reviewed research is not propoganda of some motiveless conspiracy is purest lunacy. Dale, it is nutters like you who give other old people like me a bad name. It is probably too late for you to grow up, but you might consider shutting up.
Thanks for the encouragement. But please refresh my memory. I don't remember ever saying or even thinking that peer reviewed research is propaganda, or results from conspiracy. I sort of thought that an Alternative Theories forum would be the very place where a lunatic could be tolerated. In that this thread is not about me, but about a technical issue, I must presume that you will get aboard by addressing the technical issue I present if you can, or otherwise apologize and then go your way. The key issue is that we need no longer believe that the earth's atmosphere is positive. Do you understand that electrons rising in clear weather produces a minus to positive voltage drop as you go up with your measurements? Do you understand that such a situation is what makes for a no-doubt about it, dead giveaway, that the atmosphere bears a negative charge? Can't you see that Sir origin presents us only with links to scriptures that contradict my position? He presents them to show me what he means when he asks for evidence. (FYI, that is not evidence.) Scriptures are nice because no examination their substance is acceptable at their temples. Haven't you noticed that AlexG offers nothing constructive? He is your compatriot in that he is master of all he surveys. There is nothing to say that I am equal to any of the anointed. You resent me because you think that I think I have a right to disagree with a great one. I am proud of not having called anyone stupid or insane. That is because it is not my place to do so. I cannot avoid privately considering such unpleasant thoughts but to publicly slander anyone would show me that I am indecent. You are addressing another human being and I cannot understand how you cannot know better.
Dale, you keep bringing this up but all of the reputable reference I have seen points toward this being a voltage potential difference. A potential difference occurrs when there is a positive charge and a negative charge, differential between two locations. In the case of the atmosphere, that potential difference is more positive than negative, generally speaking, when comparred to the earth.., as in ground rather than atmosphere. There is no excess of electrons in the atmosphere, compared to positively charged protons and so far you have shown no reference aside from the one, what was it nearly 50 year old letter to Nature, that suggests a overal negative charge. It is not good enough to just keep claiming your case to be true. Provide some credible reference...
Perhaps i could have chosen slightly more apposite terms, nevertheless I offer these extracts of yours as evidence of my contention. Should I have said dogma instead of propaganda? Perhaps. But it seems clear, from your own words, you think the scientific community and the government are deliberately avoiding facing up to their 'mistake'. If that is not a conspiracy, then what is? This thread is about you, in as much as you have made it so. You have repeatedly told us what wonderful things you have done and how expert you are in your field. You have done so in a combative manner. I intially sought to assist you by pointing this out. You didn't like it, just as you didn't like being challenged repeatedly on your technical points. Thos technical points have been adequately dealt with by others. I will however apologise. I am truly sorry that you do not see the weakness of your arguments. Can't you see that Origin offers references to material that is based upon peer reviewed research, validated by multiple expirments, observations and perspectives? You have offered no evidence whatsoever. You make statements that are not demonstrable, or if they are demonstrable you have failed to make such a demonstration. You persistently and consistently fail to understand this. Of course I don't resent you. I just think you are behaving stupidly and arrogantly. Here is how you have addressed other human beings: A plethora of snide, sarcastic, patronising remarks directed at several members. It was only after reading these and noting your intransigent refusal to respond to requests for evidence that I chose to personally attack you.
@ OnlyMe Firstly: I want to thank you for your patience and lack of unkindness, especially considering the preposterous picture I present in actually believing that so many people have overlooked a small detail for such a long time. Also, I do know that I must have an insufferable ego, because at work I was overjoyed upon making a mistake because it gave ordinary people the means to identify with me. Secondly: If I am the only person who has noticed the counter-intuitive evidence of a distinct negative charge upon the entire earth including its atmosphere, then how would it be possible for me to find a supporting reference? If someone besides this humble soul knew anything to support my thesis, then someone else would have to be sharing in my discovery, would they not? Thirdly: In defense of my extensive humility, my plea is that mention of my decades of experience in electronics is meant to supplant any supposition that I am boasting of great intelligence. All that time "on the job" rounds out to plenty of information, but more importantly, it stacks the data down into the lower nerve centers that operate a hell of a lot faster than the frontal lobes. Fourthly: You have said that there is no excess of electrons in the atmosphere. You too have made a statement which I do not think that you can prove. I do not ask for a reference, because no creator of such text has had a chance to hear my case against it as far as I know. My premise is that the positive charge attributed to our atmosphere is a fallacy standing upon a pedestal of some 150 years of reverence. If no one else has shared my observations, please tell me how I would be able to gain peer review respectability. Within the increments of this logic, what validity does a peer-reviewed publication deserve to stifle the emergence of my hypothesis? Fifthly: It does not follow that the only way to get a potential difference is to have both a negative charge and a positive charge. Magnetic lines of force cutting a conductor, for instance, can induce an electric current which can produce a potential difference across any conductive load. In our case of assaying a planet for excess particles of a given polarity is what we are terming a charge. For what it is worth, we need not call it a charge but merely an excess. I present the logic that testifies to such an excess of electrons. I am reminded not to repeat myself, so I must not go on any further. Please forget about my reference to the Nature article. I temporarily forgot that unanimous acceptance of negative charge is limited to Earth but to the exclusion of the atmosphere and was attempting to accommodate you with an impossible task as I have explained under under "Secondly:" above.
My, my how wonderful to be you. So you are saying as the ultimate fount of knowledge you cannot supply supporting evidence because no one has attained your level. Well then just supply some data that supports your conjecture. If there is no data that supports your conjecture, then all you have is an empty worthless thought - a bit less than a conjecture. But it is pretty clear that the facts will not get in the way of your fantasy of superiority - so enjoy; I guess.:shrug:
Consider that this might be because you are wrong. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It seems a shame to close the door on our debate with an outstanding discontinuity in our dialog. Your posting #25 emphasized the heavy upward current within an electric storm. The implication was that you attributed that to testimony to a prevailing elevation of electrons within electric storms. I promise a world of proof if needed to remind you that the upward current described is positive current: aka "conventional current" that formal scientific writings are obliged to use. The statement that you supplied was support for my contention that the prevailing effect of lightning and charged rain upon electron movement is downward. The direction of thunderbolt propagation has no bearing at all as far as I can see. The net direction of electron migration is the issue. Under the presumption that you might have overlooked the truncation of our dialog, I now attempt to get another breath of life to that matter. Thanks for "listening" at any rate. Edit: Barring re-establishment of communications with OnlyMe, this thread's only hope is for some encouragement from beyond. Our worst misadventure here is embodied with the arrival of Ophiolite who has invaded to require me to shut up. He is an ardent defender of deference to the general consensus in scientific belief, and has been hounding me wherever I go in his ostensible mission to rehabilitate me with world-wide evaluation of, god knows, perhaps my early potty training. On the other hand, I never felt that I should venture to contribute any findings that are already so well entrenched into worthy tomes where the world's treasure chest of wisdom resides. According to information theory, information transfer to a place where it has already arrived is an oxymoron. (No AlexG, this is nothing about you.) There I go again!
The rules for this forum advise of need for evidence. No mention is made of references. How in the world could anyone presume to disclose an alternative theory if such a theory has already been published? My evidence is brandished by whomever supports the contention that the atmosphere is positively charged. They present the fact of the nominal gradient of +100 V per meter in the lower atmosphere. Where they screw up is by confusing potential difference with ionic composition. "Charge" does not necessarily equate as potential difference. It might make sense for someone playing with a capacitor, but to say that an atmosphere is charged positive is more properly taken to assert that there are fewer electrons contained there than protons. Barring second-order effects, a steadily supported equilibrium of ions of a given polarity distribute themselves among neutral air molecules so as to maintain equidistance between neighboring ions. Consequentially, a dynamically adjusted equality of ion density is maintained across a broad range of altitude as compared to the 100V per meter gradient encountered with voltage measurements. For that reason, local ionic densities amounts to equal influences upon negative and positive meter leads. This means that a voltmeter should supply no significant response to ionic density of either polarity. Then what are those meteorologists finding with their meter-readings? That is easy for any electrical engineer or technician if he or she stops to think. The voltage measured between ground and elevated atmosphere is due to what is called voltage drop across the resistance of the air when a current is passed through it. The nominal one or two (debatable magnitude) pico-amps of Fair Weather Current produced per square meter of Earth surface provides this voltage drop. The polarity of the voltage drop demonstrates that electrons are rising from the ground. As Faraday noticed, an excess of charged particles of a given polarity within an electrically isolated hosting body migrate to the outer extremes of that host. That action is due to the mutual repulsion between electrical particles of the same polarity. The old evidence stands. The understanding of that evidence is all that has been delayed. A troll called this observation "irrelevant". No scientific truth should be held in such contempt.
You are correct, the rules for Alternative Theories do not require that you provide reference. Almost any theory that is logical will do. However, I believe I have mentioned in the past, that while the rules of this sub forum do no require, scientific reference, you will almost always find that many of those who read and post do require at least some supporting evidence and preferably supporting reference. Just as the thread rules do not require you to provide, what others would call credible references, you cannot expect that those who read the thread accept your opinion, on its own merit. While I am fairly certain you are sure of your own logic in this case, it does not appear to be compelling proof of your hypothesis, to me.., and from what I can tell, to at least a few others following the thread. What you are proposing does not seem logical or consistent with what I, at least believe I understand, about atmospheric charge potential. So I say again, I am not convinced by the argument and hypothesis you present. That in itself should not be a statement of any significant importance, as I represent only myself and my undegrstanding of the situation.
A truly alternative theory would be a theory that is making its debut. How can the first appearance of anything be preceded by its second appearance in order to assure that its beholders of its credibility? How could your reference testifying to the rising electrical current within an electrical storm continue to seem to contradict my theory, not only while you fancied that electrons flow in the direction of the positive current, and subsequent to my valid council that conventional electrical current flows in the opposite direction to that of electron flow when that was the kernal of the debate? AlexG profoundly validated my theory to be an alternative theory when he advised that his fellows did not subscribe to it. It seems counterproductive to the proceedings of a forum to declare a dialog improper for continuation in the same stroke that advises of disagreement without supporting rationale for the disagreement unless some cultural taboo has entangled the conversation. My theory has been preceded by its own evidence. All that remained in order to reach the long-awaited truth was to present the thoughts required for that to happen. The voltage measurements that have been taken represent inspection of the ongoing expenditure of energy. Assessment of the polarity and count of charged particles upon an isolated body is a concern for a mere inventory of matter that is irrelevant to any associated energy. Your leadership role as moderator brings us hope for a trend toward righteousness that would offset the inevitable facetious clowns that obstruct constructive dialog for the rewards they find in abuse of other people. It is hoped that you do not overestimate them as valid jurors on technical issues.
Do you think that theories are something which are simply pulled out of someone's ass? Any scientific theory is supported by observation and experiment, and until it is, it's not a theory. You've been asked for this support for the last 3 pages, and have been completely unable to supply anything. In science, the word 'theory' doesn't mean 'wild ass guess'.
It is almost without exception, that new ideas and theories are built upon knowledge and theory, that predates them. I say almost, not because I have any event in mind, but rather because absolutes are almost always in error. We build new ideas on past knowledge. So there should be no new idea or theory that does not have some historical reference providing some logical support. I am not sure who this last quote was directed at, but in looking back through the thread, only Jame R (post #2) is a moderator. The rest of us are just.., part of the discussion. As far as the last part of that quote, you seem to dish it out as well as point it out.
