We have reasoned that when global electric traction upon charged particles exceeds that for ionic recombination force within a charged body, the charged particles are subject to stable redeployment into polarized arrays. This concept has solved some unanswered questions and debunked some very peculiar answers presently embedded in scientific doctrine. It explains polar jets in a way that makes sense; lightning formation and distribution, the illusion of cosmic acceleration, solar corona temperatures, galactic central bulges, snowflake development, and the neutrino deficit. Being saddled with such discovery brings one into intensive compulsion to disclose his treasured findings before he hits the finish line.
Early on, it had been surprising to find no easy access for disclosure of such findings. Basic electronics expertise led to such a simple concept that nevertheless remained ignored until recent ventures into scientific forums. The watchword in such venues is to avoid Stigma. Unless one has something new, why would one want to report it? But if it is something new, then it is subject to being disqualified as something Off Mainstream. Forum moderators rush out shooting from the hip with anything but encouragement. A moderator’s negativity diminishes ones credibility before a mass of casual observers, but the exposure can advance a nobody from Ignored to Ridiculed on Mahatma Gandhi’s four-step ranking of progress. That leaves only two more steps to go. Even impaired exposure can bring on a perceptive thinker who might yet further the concept. Maybe some day even physicists will be playing with a full deck as a result.
Our ability to determine the polarity of Earth by treating it as a Faraday cage is our premise for identifying the polarity of the sun (Both are negative.) The term Faraday cage lends Earth the description of being coated with its majority charge, which is the polarity of transient charged particles, electrons, continuously being restored to the ionosphere as the Fair Weather Current. Earth is hence an environment in which positive charges migrate or propagate toward her center, and precious little can ever bring them back up unless Earth somehow sheds its negative charge.
We can drop the Faraday cage identity or analogy whatever at any time. Too many people are in charge of Faraday cages and too few understand them. We need know only that like charges repel and vice versa. Fruitless disagreements have emerged because the earth is not made of metal, it is not impervious to radiation, and other pointless quibble right or wrong, then no fair because it does have ions inside, and why can we get hit by lightning when we are inside (we are not quite).
Given: The majority charge of Earth is on her outside, and our meteorologists report seeing electrons sneaking out there all the time as negative FWC; so Earth is negative. The ionosphere is pushed down by noonday sun, showing the sun to be negative too. So then, both bodies have positive cores (This calls for respectful attention if you are counting neutrinos.) A forum moderator says he never heard of such a thing. I said that I said it because it seemed to be too unsaid. Why else would I ever say it?
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
EXOTHERMIC MIGRATION OF CHARGED PARTICLES
[The author recently place this posting onto a scientific forum in hopes for greater feedback. Late this month of September 2009, a constructive although laconic response signaled some interest and reasoning upon the subject. The magic of such response was a cessation of the customary obtuse assault by the duty gatekeeper there, and an amelioration of such counterproductive administrations of standard dogma. It is strange that although most of the universe is composed of charged particles, a fearsome stigma is quickly assigned to anyone speaking of electrical influence upon cosmic architecture.]
One broadly accepted concept in electronics is Michael Faraday’s notion that the entire charge placed onto a conductive body is to be found upon its outer surface. I agree with that notion and would like to suggest a mind-experiment for others who share that understanding.
An electrically isolated bucket capturing negatively charged rainwater falling from the sky would store all excess electrons upon its outer conductive surface. They would have migrated there from within due to mutual repulsion. Hence, charged particles would have traveled from where they had been to where they were going. Therefore the entire physical host could be viewed as a body that presented traction for those particles to accomplish an exothermic excursion. As a result, rainwater within the bucket’s interior would have become electrically neutralized. Once all the particle motion is completed, electricity is more of a matter about matter than about energy. If, under these conditions, an ionization event were to separate an electron from a molecule of water, the cloven molecule would present an attraction between its erstwhile pieces: traction toward reunification. But if particle separation were sufficient to render traction of reunification subordinate to systemic traction of the host upon the electron, then the electron would move toward the outer surface of the bucket, leaving a particle of positive charge behind. Fundamental to basic principles of electricity, existing systemic traction of the host would propagate or move the positive particle into opposite direction from that of the electron, hence it would seek out the electrical center of the bucket of rainwater.
Since excursions of either charged particle brought on by ionization would be exothermic, no pent-up forces such as those involved with a charged capacitor become involved to destine any reversal of the migrations described above. Ongoing repetitions of such phenomena represent transfer processes that change micro electric formations (atoms) to stable macro electric formations (including some that we see almost every day or night).
One broadly accepted concept in electronics is Michael Faraday’s notion that the entire charge placed onto a conductive body is to be found upon its outer surface. I agree with that notion and would like to suggest a mind-experiment for others who share that understanding.
An electrically isolated bucket capturing negatively charged rainwater falling from the sky would store all excess electrons upon its outer conductive surface. They would have migrated there from within due to mutual repulsion. Hence, charged particles would have traveled from where they had been to where they were going. Therefore the entire physical host could be viewed as a body that presented traction for those particles to accomplish an exothermic excursion. As a result, rainwater within the bucket’s interior would have become electrically neutralized. Once all the particle motion is completed, electricity is more of a matter about matter than about energy. If, under these conditions, an ionization event were to separate an electron from a molecule of water, the cloven molecule would present an attraction between its erstwhile pieces: traction toward reunification. But if particle separation were sufficient to render traction of reunification subordinate to systemic traction of the host upon the electron, then the electron would move toward the outer surface of the bucket, leaving a particle of positive charge behind. Fundamental to basic principles of electricity, existing systemic traction of the host would propagate or move the positive particle into opposite direction from that of the electron, hence it would seek out the electrical center of the bucket of rainwater.
Since excursions of either charged particle brought on by ionization would be exothermic, no pent-up forces such as those involved with a charged capacitor become involved to destine any reversal of the migrations described above. Ongoing repetitions of such phenomena represent transfer processes that change micro electric formations (atoms) to stable macro electric formations (including some that we see almost every day or night).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)