Sir I. Newton to the Rescue

Newton's Shell Theorem is found to give us an elegant shortcut to the truth.

A significant but seemingly paradoxical effect takes place within a planet or star endowed with a negative charge. Such charge is demonstrated by the deflection of comets’ tails from the sun and the exothermic rise of electrons from Earth’s surface. The excess electrons scatter themselves as far apart as they can get by surrounding the hosting body, arrayed as a bubble formation. Yet, by doing so, they impart their collective electrical force into the central core of their host where as a consequence, not a single particle of that polarity of electric charge resides. Hence, in accordance with Newton’s Shell Theorem, negative particles upon the outside surface transfer their influence to the center of a negatively charged body. This virtual charge causes continual migration of protons inward and electrons outward without affecting the magnitude of the central virtual charge that pulls a core of mingling protons together. Such a core can provide conditions for a static form of nuclear fusion that would augment energy produced from dynamic fusion to be found in surrounding plasma, but necessarily without any destruction of electrons. Such a virtual electron generation process within billions of stars implies a growing negative cosmic electric charge and perhaps a decent explanation for anti-neutrino shortfalls.

The Shell Theorem converts well enough to a Rim Theorem whereby all of any excess particles of electric charge would center a virtual equivalent combined charge of the same polarity upon the rotational axis of the disk. Such a virtual charge would call particles of the opposite charge into the same location. That is how polar jets work: Negative charge on the rim of a protoplanetary disk results in the ejection of positively charged matter from the rotational poles of the protostar, and positive charge on the rim of a black hole’s accretion disk results in alignment of electrons along the rotational axis of the black hole’s accretion disk. In the latter case, mutual repulsion of the aligned electrons accounts for outward acceleration of electron beams. 

COSMIC MACROSCOPIC ELECTRIC CHARGE

 

The repulsion of comets’ tails from our sun is presented as evidence of an electric bias within our Solar System. Increased reddening of supernova sightings suggests a growing macroscopic electric charge to exist for the cosmos.

Emmy Noether’s Theorem of Charge Conservation excludes impact upon the dissipation of positive charge endured where fusion is sheltered from electron intervention. Without a conceivable means for such exclusive elimination of negative charge, then the presumption of a negative macroscopic charge offers itself as the plausible premise. This brings us to the rationality of taking the entire earth, including its atmosphere, to bear a negative charge. The outer array of electrons such electrification must form conforms to the Shell Theorem devised by Isaac Newton: The net summation of such distributed electrons presents the entire negative charge as located at the center of the earth. Consistent with the downward-pointing electric field proclaimed by Michael Faraday, any isolated positive charge will propagate toward the center of the earth where hopeful protons might fancy meeting up with a marriageable electron. (What a double-cross, because a frustrated proton would thus be fleeing the virtual bevy of electrons assembled in the shell behind it.)

More importantly, a much greater electrical formation such as the above must be in place in and about our sun. It is there and in any star that a continuous static fusion process can be proceeding where no electrons can perish there because no electrons can arrive there. The consequential virtual production of electrons in each burning star has the effect of stellar wind essentially of electrons that seek their way to galactic rims. Ultimately, a negative shell upon the universe should, according to Sir Isaac’s Shell Theorem, present its total charge (but not its negative particles) upon some central place within to attract an inward flow of positively charged pieces and particles that may be revealing themselves already under the category of dark matter.

Milky Way SMBH Remains Active

A strange belief has been encountered that due to lack of X-radiation from that direction, we should assume that our Super Massive Black Hole is not feeding on additional matter. It is supposed here that current misinformation about the workings of polar jets could be at the root of that misconception. Electrons under acceleration from polar jets produce the X-Rays detected from the direction of some black holes. That is natural where the accretion disks of such BHs remain thin enough to function electrically as disks: The proton rims of such a disk  pushes electrons down to the disk's rotational axis, producing a gigantic electron gun. That makes for the radiation.

Once the accretion disk grows fat from electrostatic expansion along the rotational axis, a spheroidal formation has overtaken such a mature galactic center to result in formation of a ball of electrons around the black hole instead of the axial alignment formed by a disk. Our black hole continues to feed from the descending stream of pulverized stellar matter that lights up a bar formation across  our galactic bulge. As long as electrons are held within the bulge, no X-Rays occur no matter how fast the black hole grows.

Google

Google:

'via Blog this'

(5977 unread) - dimview7@verizon.net - Verizon Yahoo! Mail

(5977 unread) - dimview7@verizon.net - Verizon Yahoo! Mail:

'via Blog this'

Hindered Science

A broadly accepted piece of misinformation tells that Earth is charged negative (so far so good), but that her atmosphere is electrically charged positive (wrong).

I have questioned a retired meteorologist on why he believes in a positively charged atmosphere. He explained that the atmosphere has been shown to be positive by repeated measurements for decades. We come to find out that he refers to voltage measurements taken between Earth ground and atmospheric potentials at various altitudes! That appears to be what has led him as well as a distinguished professor in Florida to make such statements about the electrostatic condition of our atmosphere. The poor fellow explained measurement technique simply as saying it was done using balloons, rockets and kites. Those measurements were simply voltage-drop measurements taken from effects of the Fair Weather Current flowing through the resistance of the atmosphere. Since I begged to differ despite the amazing fact that NASA scientists agree with him, he dismissed me as a pseudo-scientist and went his way.

Unhappily, it seems that when meteorologists post the ion density measurements obtained from rocket samplings, they determine the conductivity of their air samples by providing their own current supply through the samples and measure the resulting voltages. Since such conductivity varies with ion density (of either polarity), then they merely presume their ions to be positive because of their accustomed blunders and estimate those negative ions from their charts of conductivity versus positive ion concentrations.

This brings up the issue of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience will prevail in meteorology by brute force long beyond my time. Great store is held in that technology for the length of time that an item of misinformation has endured. Much like the business of antique furniture, a century of endurance is a premium milestone in the criteria. I must bow to the drive-by denigration from established science.

The nominal +100 volts per meter of elevation experienced by meteorologists measuring atmospheric voltage with respect to Earth ground tells unthinking scientists that they sense a positive charge upon the atmosphere. Actually, such a voltage gradient would not exist as a static condition because it would establish a field of attraction that would move charged particles until the field becomes nullified. Hence, voltage-divider action is being manifested by such samplings of voltage drop due to negative Fair Weather Current (FWC) flowing along the resistance of the atmosphere. Rising electrons demonstrate the earth's negative charge. The less negative potential appraised by such measurements are merely positive with respect to the surface of the earth which is known to hold a concentration of negative ions. Were it not for the prevailing negative bolts of lightning and negatively charged rain, there would be very much less FWC, and most of the globe's negative charge would reside upon the surrounding shell of electrons that reflect short-wave signals so well.

It was amazing to me that a meteorologist challenged the point of a forum discussion of this effect and another friendly scientist considered it irrelevant. To date, how can we not rate meteorology as a pseudoscience?