Chewbalka Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 Everything we have discovered today was thought up by dreamers, they were called idiots, fools and crack pots. Then they found evidence and everyone tore it apart in order to pull a turtle and after many years with failure to disprove they just went along with it... Maybe he is right maybe he is wrong. But when the day comes that we stop questioning science, it becomes the day we are all truly ignorant... Theres no need to be such a dick a simple prove them wrong would concise here. Sides a hypothesis is not required to provide that much evidence, its in the making. Its an idea... Just because the current theory states otherwise does not necessarily mean it is absolute, its just currently the best we got right now. Maybe you put too much faith in science... When i read your posts about fighting tooth and nail on contradicting hypothesis' it reminds me of how flat our earth is... I can see that your a smart cat there turtle... You can not honestly tell me you blindly agree to every single dumb idea a person with a diploma says to you? Please tell me that it is not so. The point in science is to scrutinize until you can't scrutinize no more. All heedless has to do is work on some math to prove his theory and it automatically becomes plausible... Think of it this way turtle, almost everything you fight so hard at today which is stated as true by todays methods will be different one day. Maybe people will laugh at how ignorant we are in this time... Everyone should be trying to disprove and try to find new answers... Otherwise what a flat world we live in... Village Idiot 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted October 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 i admonish(ed) you to [please peacefully & technically] describe an experiment that would establish the polarity of the atmosphere and per se the Earth to your satisfaction.  Under the presumption that the macroscopic electrical charge of Earth and its atmosphere is non-zero, the following test should be satisfactory. On a nice sunny day, with an electrostatic voltmeter, one could measure the voltage between a point 3 meters above sea level (point A) and a point 4 meters above sea level (point B)in the atmosphere. If point A measures to be negative with respect to point B, that would indicate that electrons were flowing upward. If point B measures negative with respect to point A, then that would indicate that electrons were flowing downward. The former case would be interpreted to represent a negative polarity for Earth and atmosphere. The latter case would represent the opposite polarity. In case of the latter case being the outcome, I would go back to my Sudokus. If we were to also observe that a comet's tail always points away from the sun, then we would have to presume that the solar system within our range from the sun carries one consistent polarity of electrical charge. My purpose in this thread is to discover what measurements taken by more knowledgeable scientists brings them to report of contrary empirical determinations having been repeatedly achieved for ages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) Under the presumption that the macroscopic electrical charge of Earth and its atmosphere is non-zero, the following test should be satisfactory. On a nice sunny day, with an electrostatic voltmeter, one could measure the voltage between a point 3 meters above sea level (point A) and a point 4 meters above sea level (point B)in the atmosphere. If point A measures to be negative with respect to point B, that would indicate that electrons were flowing upward. If point B measures negative with respect to point A, then that would indicate that electrons were flowing downward. The former case would be interpreted to represent a negative polarity for Earth and atmosphere. The latter case would represent the opposite polarity. In case of the latter case being the outcome, I would go back to my Sudokus. If we were to also observe that a comet's tail always points away from the sun, then we would have to presume that the solar system within our range from the sun carries one consistent polarity of electrical charge. My purpose in this thread is to discover what measurements taken by more knowledgeable scientists brings them to report of contrary empirical determinations having been repeatedly achieved for ages. so, you say you have an electronics background so why don't you build or buy the equipment & conduct the experiment(s) and report the results instead of simply decrying what others have done? :shrug: Everything we have discovered today was thought up by dreamers, they were called idiots, fools and crack pots.  that is simply false. not that discoveries start with ideas, but that all such thinkers are called idiots, fools, and crackpots. this idea that idiots, fools, and crackpots have that "thinking out of the box" or whatever similar terms they describe their thinking as, is how science advances is, well, contrary to the facts. Then they found evidence and everyone tore it apart in order to pull a turtle and after many years with failure to disprove they just went along with it...  "pull a turtle"? excuse me if i say that sentence resembles word-salad. Maybe he is right maybe he is wrong. But when the day comes that we stop questioning science, it becomes the day we are all truly ignorant... Theres no need to be such a dick a simple prove them wrong would concise here. Sides a hypothesis is not required to provide that much evidence, its in the making. Its an idea... Just because the current theory states otherwise does not necessarily mean it is absolute, its just currently the best we got right now. Maybe you put too much faith in science... When i read your posts about fighting tooth and nail on contradicting hypothesis' it reminds me of how flat our earth is... I can see that your a smart cat there turtle... You can not honestly tell me you blindly agree to every single dumb idea a person with a diploma says to you? Please tell me that it is not so. The point in science is to scrutinize until you can't scrutinize no more. All heedless has to do is work on some math to prove his theory and it automatically becomes plausible... Think of it this way turtle, almost everything you fight so hard at today which is stated as true by todays methods will be different one day. Maybe people will laugh at how ignorant we are in this time... Everyone should be trying to disprove and try to find new answers... Otherwise what a flat world we live in... blah blah blah. if you were to read any of my posts here on my own research and experiments you would full well know i regularly challenge diploma'd folk both dead and alive. moreover, you would know full well my challenges there are not some pipe-dream willy-nilly imaginings without tangible merit, evidence, or reasoned methods. the facts stand contrary to this idea of yours -and others- that i'm some inflexible flat-liner with no vision or creativity, and the suggestion is, to put it in dick terms, bullshit. now, if any of you don't care to hear any more retorts from me on that vein, kindly keep your yap(s) shut on the matter and don't give me anything to retort on. cha togar m' fhearg gun dìoladh. thank you so very mush. lol Edited October 28, 2012 by Turtle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbalka Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 Quote1. Turtle "that is simply false. not that discoveries start with ideas, but that all such thinkers are called idiots, fools, and crackpots. this idea that idiots, fools, and crackpots have that "thinking out of the box" or whatever similar terms they describe their thinking as, is how science advances is, well, contrary to the facts." http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html give this a read... And you will plainly see your the incompetent blabbering fool. Quote2. Turtle "pull a turtle"? excuse me if i say that sentence resembles word-salad. Wow i thought this was an obvious one... Its a joke. Pull a turtle... Get it now or do i need to dumb it down some more for you to understand? Quote3. Turtle "blah blah blah. if you were to read any of my posts here on my own research and experiments you would full well know i regularly challenge diploma'd folk both dead and alive. moreover, you would know full well my challenges there are not some pipe-dream willy-nilly imaginings without tangible merit, evidence, or reasoned methods. the facts stand contrary to this idea of yours -and others- that i'm some inflexible flat-liner with no vision or creativity, and the suggestion is, to put it in dick terms, bullshit." What you did before hand means jack **** to me... Just as what i did means jack **** too you... What you do now is what counts because its all that I care about. Do you honestly think heedless believes his idea is and i quote a "pipe-dream willy-nilly imagining"? Of course not, you don't believe yours are so why would he? Your a hypocrite and as well obviously enjoys arguing as much as i do... I dont care if you and i quote once again because i find you hysterical " now, if any of you don't care to hear any more retorts from me on that vein, kindly keep your yap(s) shut on the matter and don't give me anything to retort on. cha togar m' fhearg gun dìoladh. thank you so very mush. lol ". I don't take to idle, weak and pathetic threats lmfao. I revel in the fight. And now if you do not want to hear me retort shut your god damn mouth and walk away! LMFAO! What an arrogant prick! I was nice as well as polite, your response is unacceptable and deserves much more extra attention from me. Lets see how long you can go! I know i can go the distance! Otherwise lets get back to the discussion at hand and assist possible none turtlish ideas of the future! Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) Quote1. Turtle "that is simply false. not that discoveries start with ideas, but that all such thinkers are called idiots, fools, and crackpots. this idea that idiots, fools, and crackpots have that "thinking out of the box" or whatever similar terms they describe their thinking as, is how science advances is, well, contrary to the facts." http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html give this a read... And you will plainly see your the incompetent blabbering fool.  well, i guess your were right and all discoveries were ridiculed because that list is one of all discoveries. * :doh: ... I revel in the fight. And now if you do not want to hear me retort shut your god damn mouth and walk away! LMFAO! What an arrogant prick! I was nice as well as polite, your response is unacceptable and deserves much more extra attention from me. Lets see how long you can go! I know i can go the distance! Otherwise lets get back to the discussion at hand and assist possible none turtlish ideas of the future! Lol so, if i'm an arrogant prick for arguing as i do, and you can argue better longer as i do, what does that make you? pot calling the kettle black. lol returning to the op, suppose we wait for heedles to respond to my invitation that he actually perform some experiments and/or you or someone else gives a reasonable account of the measuring of the electrical polarity of Earth's atmosphere.  *EDIT:Researchers Go fro A to B to DiscoveryThe mythology of science is tall with tales of lone scientists whose dramatic discoveries came from flashes of insight or strokes of good luck. Friedrich August Kekule, the 19th century German chemist, claimed to have deduced the circular structure of the chemical benzene after dreaming of a snake biting its own tail. Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin when he had the good fortune to sneeze into a petri dish containing a natural culture of the germ-killing mold. But are these stories representative of how advances are typically made? Not according to a new field of study that focuses on the psychology of scientific discovery. Far from the movie image of the white-coated iconoclast shouting "Eureka!" in the middle of the night, most scientific breakthroughs are collaborative, gregarious affairs involving many participants with varying backgrounds. Moreover, discoveries rely very little on blind luck or grand strokes of genius and much more on solid logic, a talent for apt comparison and a mind so steeped in a discipline that it can recognize an unexpected clue for what it's worth. ... Edited October 28, 2012 by Turtle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbalka Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 Yaaaaa!!!!  Quote 1 :). well, i guess your were right and all discoveries were ridiculed because that list is one of all discoveries.  I am assuming you glanced at it... These scientists changed the view of the world... Apparently that means nothing to you lol!!! And of course not all scientist are viewd that way just a good portion of the ones who changed the future of man kind. It took me 10 seconds to find this on google and it was the first link... Imagine how many more there are that this particular article did not list... Especially in ancient times. Quote 2 :). so, if i'm an arrogant prick for arguing as i do, and you can argue better longer as i do, what does that make you? pot calling the kettle black. lol Exactly!!! Unless you had played nice... But you did'nt :).  Quote 3 :). returning to the op, suppose we wait for heedles to respond to my invitation that he actually perform some experiments and/or you or someone else gives a reasonable account of the measuring of the electrical polarity of Earth's atmosphere. I am no scientist but the net is a wonderful tool. All i need to do is find some condradicting evidence and work my way from there!  Speaking of which as i go along on this topic i will post my findings here to work with heedless on this and maybe just maybe we might get his hypothesis into a theory! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbalka Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) Heedless give this a read not sure if you have already! I got half way through so far and it states there are negitive ions in the atmosphere much more then on the earth itself at sea level. As well it has another device much like the mills one with a better diagram as to how it works. Lol forgot the link!!! http://www.colutron.com/download_files/chap2.pdf Edited October 29, 2012 by Chewbalka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) Yaaaaa!!!!  Quote 1 :). well, i guess your were right and all discoveries were ridiculed because that list is one of all discoveries.  I am assuming you glanced at it... These scientists changed the view of the world... Apparently that means nothing to you lol!!! And of course not all scientist are viewd that way just a good portion of the ones who changed the future of man kind. It took me 10 seconds to find this on google and it was the first link... Imagine how many more there are that this particular article did not list... Especially in ancient times.  of course i read it. i also edited my post #22 and added an article supporting my contention. perhaps i should have added it as a new post. if you have not read that, please do as it's just the sort of searched up contradicting evidence you are about to mention. ...I am no scientist but the net is a wonderful tool. All i need to do is find some condradicting evidence and work my way from there!  Speaking of which as i go along on this topic i will post my findings here to work with heedless on this and maybe just maybe we might get his hypothesis into a theory! i wait with breath unbated the results. Edited October 28, 2012 by Turtle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbalka Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 I read through it and i fail to see how this is contradicting evidence... This entire article in its whole entirety is basically read as a work environment of scientists... I can not see how this says the world has not been changed by contradicting hypotheses. As well i fail to see anything stating that a larger portion of science discoveries have been gratefully acknowledge by everyone with no supportive arguments... But i did find a quote which i thought to be rather funny in my point of view from your posted article :).  "Tweney found that Faraday and other successful scientists benefited from some degree of bias. At least in the early stages of research, he found, it pays to stick to a hypothesis even as evidence to the contrary accumulates. Those who change course too easily do as badly as those who cling too long to their wrong views." Thats funny and true! Unfortunately you have not yet weened my point of view that world changing theories were not conceived by previously certified crack pots lol Quote 1 :). searched up contradicting evidence you are about to mention. And to be honest with you i never really have a follow up response i make it up as i go along... Theres no planing going on yet its too early for that. I need material to work with before i can make a difference.  Basically this means i wait and annoy until i see enough of the required information provided by yourself. Its just a game :). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 I read through it and i fail to see how this is contradicting evidence...  no small surprise.  Quote 1 :). searched up contradicting evidence you are about to mention.And to be honest with you i never really have a follow up response i make it up as i go along...  :doh: no no no. about to mention as in you did mention, but later in the post i was quoting when you said "All i need to do is find some condradicting evidence and work my way from there! "  And to be honest with you i never really have a follow up response i make it up as i go along... ]Theres no planing going on yet its too early for that. I need material to work with before i can make a difference.  Basically this means i wait and annoy until i see enough of the required information provided by yourself. Its just a game :). yes well, you appear to enjoy annoying for annoying's sake, at least you said as much elsewhere; something along the lines of rattling folks to see what they're made of or some such wasn't it? arguably my directness and per se hyperbole is annoying, but the root of it is to get to the facts. i don't argue for arguing's sake. i was looking forward to the information you just told heedles to have a look at, but you seem not to have given a link at all. ?? more games, or an oversight? hard as it may be for either of you to swallow, i have a genuine interest in this topic. i don't see any point or merit in my going to any more trouble of searching out & giving any more links or references when heedles broad-brush discounts anything that he doesn't understand or agree with (or dislikes the author) or you take as a challenge to simply contradict out of hand for sport. y'all are such bright blubs i'm sure you'll become historical luminaries all on your owns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbalka Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 I can see your not as much of a prick as your post let on... But you are totally right about the sport... But you are incorrect about just contradicting for sport... I do not agree nor disagree with heedless. I just wish for him to find his answers without being pushed around.... You could say a more pleasant work environment. Just because he disagrees does not mean he should be forced to. If he feels he is onto something help him find this something not throw it in his face! No one learns that way! You never know maybe the current theory has flaws that we don't see yet? Or maybe something is missing... For all we know it could be totally wrong lol. Only time can tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 I can see your not as much of a prick as your post let on...  now you disparage my reputation!!!  But you are totally right about the sport... But you are incorrect about just contradicting for sport... I do not agree nor disagree with heedless. I just wish for him to find his answers without being pushed around.... You could say a more pleasant work environment. Just because he disagrees does not mean he should be forced to. If he feels he is onto something help him find this something not throw it in his face! No one learns that way! You never know maybe the current theory has flaws that we don't see yet? Or maybe something is missing... For all we know it could be totally wrong lol. Only time can tell. well, i find intellectual slackery makes for a poor work result and intellectual slackery is my estimation of heedless' slamming books and castigating of publishing researchers without proper foundation. (as well as your implication that convention and consensus are the shortfall of science.) his saying "I think they fudged the plus sign into their readings.)" is not a proper foundation for a legitimate challenge. anyway, moving on. Heedless give this a read not sure if you have already! I got half way through so far and it states there are negitive ions in the atmosphere much more then on the earth itself at sea level. As well it has another device much like the mills one with a better diagram as to how it works. Lol forgot the link!!! http://www.colutron.com/download_files/chap2.pdf excellent reference!! :thumbs_up however, i read the whole of it and don't see where you read what you said you did. on the contrary, i read this. 2.2 THE FAIRWEATHER ELECTRIC FIELDThe fairweather electric field discovered by Lemonnier and Beccaria(see Chapter 1.2) is almost entirely due to the excess of positive ionsover negative ions in the atmosphere.  now to be sure, the author states a number of times that some measurements are hard to make or have not been made, but it seems clear that the answer to heedless' "If you understand how we are to know that our atmosphere contains a vast shortage of electrons, you would be able to set me straight." is that The conductivity is the inverse of specific resistance and is usually measured with a Gerdien cylinder (Gerdien 1905). The Gerdien apparatus consists of a cylinder with a coaxial mounted electrode (see Fig. 9). Air is drawn through the cylinder at a velocity of a few metres per second by means of a fan. The centre electrode is biased to a few volts via a sensitive electrometer. The amount of current registered on the electrometer relates to the amount of ions per unit volume of air. i don't see a publish date on the paper but the latest date referenced appears to be 1994. for that matter i don't see the author's name on the document. ?? in any regard, i find it a dubious and per se wreckless idea that Unan et al in their research, experiments, & writings would fail to challenge such a basic finding -or the methods used to establish that finding- if it contradicted their experiments and/or research. hope that all doesn't upset my reputation as a technically inept prick. lol ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) so thens, if i may further damage my reputation - ;) - i have some links of a similar charged nature that bear on the issue. the focus here however is the charge and per se polarity of the Earth rather than the atmosphere. i'll start with 2 threads on our forum and then after i re-read these i'll see if i can tease out a couple more links.  >> Earth conductivity >> Piezoelectric earth Edit: build your own field mill: >> Electric Field Mill Fabrication >> GROUND-ATMOSPHERE-IONOSPHERE INTERACTIONS RELATED TO EARTHQUAKES >> field mill with polarity indication....Here is another site that provides info on building a field mill.http://freespace.virgin.net/paul.z/Electronic/fieldmill1.htm#Fieldmill%20Voltmeter%20MK%202 This device provides a methodology for determining polarity, which would be important for the determination of earthquake induced surface charge levels. Earthquake induced charges provide a short term polarity reversal at the surface relative to the atmosphere. Edited October 29, 2012 by Turtle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbalka Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) This is way to easy lmfao Quote1. :). well, i find intellectual slackery makes for a poor work result and intellectual slackery is my estimation of heedless' slamming books and castigating of publishing researchers without proper foundation. (as well as your implication that convention and consensus are the shortfall of science.) his saying "I think they fudged the plus sign into their readings.)" is not a proper foundation for a legitimate challenge. So basically what your saying here is if your not smart enough or disagree with todays sciences, do not join a science forum to learn anything about it because that was not what it was created for... Are you serious? That is by far the most incompetent thing I have ever read... Seriously? Dare I ask what the **** is the point in a science forum if not to learn or express views in this world we live in which allows freedom of speech? I apologize oh mighty czar of the science forum! We should all prior to asking questions send you a direct pm for approval! The more crap i read from you the more i picture the comic book guy from the Simpsons...  Quote2. :). excellent reference!! however, i read the whole of it and don't see where you read what you said you did. on the contrary, i read this. Wow... "rate at sea level is about ten million ion pairs per cubic metre per second. However, the average ion population at any given time is nearly one hundred times more, and ion mobility with altitude as air gets thinner has a drastic effect on the electric structure of the atmosphere." It was on the third god damn page... It appears as though the genius is incapable of reading... Maybe if I had not written that i got half way through you would have not skimmed so quickly... Hmm. Funny thing... And maybe if i had not neglected to add the link so late you might not have rushed so quickly to respond... Hmm funny thing having too much pride... Is'nt it... Its odd how too much pride makes you look like a dumbass... And makes you predictable... Quote3. :). hope that all doesn't upset my reputation as a technically inept prick. lol  Nope i counted on you to be who you are... And you did exactly what you were supposed to do...  Now i do not expect you to become some reasonable person and start treating others with respect. I mean how could you? Your head is shoved so far up your god damn *** you can barley breath! Which explains why your personality is so damn shitty! Now as for your last post... Your on the right track its evedence that should be posted not your childish temper tantrum . When someone posts there point of view posting dumb **** responses is pointless.  In closing i would love to leave you with a thought... But i am not sure if you would have anywhere to put it... Edited October 30, 2012 by Chewbalka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbalka Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Well heedless i am thinking you need to build a mills device... study how it works in random enviorments meaning city country prarie and high altitudes.... night and day for each location.... and see if the surronding enviorment has an effect on the device... and if i assume it would never really be identical or repeat readings within a days time... If it does thats really odd... As in its not working or is un reliable. If it turns out effective maybe build a huge *** kite and get it as high as you can... I am not aware of how much effort you want to put into this... Maybe if your lucky you will find what it is your looking for... If not it will have been a great learning expereience! I am going to continue trying to find more info on this the only part that is really confusing me on this theory is a why question... Why is there only positive ions in the atmosphere? And if this is so and it is caused by the sun somehow where or how are the negitive ions getting made... You really cant have one without the other... And i can see your point on how the little charges across the atmosphere make such huge lightining bolts... They also stated somewhere that even after thunderstorms there is still plenty of energy left behind up there... I understand that the area in which this is happining is large but there are alot of storms... But just to back track a little... The negitive ions... Something to ponder... See if you can find out how they are getting created maybe this is your key... So far i have had no luck on this... But i am really curious and i need to know lol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted October 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Well heedless i am thinking you need to build a mills device... study how it works in random enviorments meaning city country prarie and high altitudes.... night and day for each location.... and see if the surronding enviorment has an effect on the device... and if i assume it would never really be identical or repeat readings within a days time... If it does thats really odd... As in its not working or is un reliable. If it turns out effective maybe build a huge *** kite and get it as high as you can... I am not aware of how much effort you want to put into this... Maybe if your lucky you will find what it is your looking for... If not it will have been a great learning expereience! I am going to continue trying to find more info on this the only part that is really confusing me on this theory is a why question... Why is there only positive ions in the atmosphere? And if this is so and it is caused by the sun somehow where or how are the negitive ions getting made... You really cant have one without the other... And i can see your point on how the little charges across the atmosphere make such huge lightining bolts... They also stated somewhere that even after thunderstorms there is still plenty of energy left behind up there... I understand that the area in which this is happining is large but there are alot of storms... But just to back track a little... The negitive ions... Something to ponder... See if you can find out how they are getting created maybe this is your key... So far i have had no luck on this... But i am really curious and i need to know lol! This thread was started in search of a single issue that is a mystery to me. I do not for minute beleive that the atmosphere holds a macroscopic positive charge. If no such charge is up there, then what illusion brings so many scientists to beleive that it is? They demand evidence from others but seem to have no evidence for that conclusion. A common factor among the positive atmosphere believers such as those you linked us to in post #24, is that some take the universe to have a net electrical charge of zero. I am afraid to admit that sometimes I fear that graduate scientists might be so poorly trained about electricity that they can mistake the increasingly less negative atmospheric potential with increased altitude to signify a positive electrical charge to the atmosphere. The manner in which hot stellar hydrogen plasma fuses encourages belief in an electrically neutral cosmos: positrons bearing the positive charge emerge from protons and smack into electrons. Both particles are totaled, nothing left but energy in their place. I call that dynamic fusion because it works by having protons zip around so fast that some smack into each other. However, I beleive that meanwhile back down in stellar cores, a cluster of atomic nuclei devoid of electrons is being crushed together to bring on fusion. I call that static fusion. That static fusion destroys positive charges but has no way of getting at negative charges. Hence, burning stars act as virtual generators of stray electrons. This goes on down there all the time without rest or coffee breaks. Lots of stars in lots of galaxies with lots of time makes for lots and lots of extra electrons. No laboratory is needed for proof that solar wind is not neutral. What else would the main ingredient be except electrons. We all know that a comet's tail points away from the sun. That is why. The truth is simpler than the stories to be found on your link. A genius by name of Emmy Noether is famed for her Law of Conservation of Electrical Charge. She made specific exception to the implied electrical neutrality. Namely, to open systems of dissipative nature, especially for cases involving transformation between states of matter and energy.   With all of the data that is already in our hands, there is no need for me to go running with a kite to get evidence. It would be awkward for me any way with my cane. Am an old geezer at nine squared now. Issac Newton's Shell Theorem explains the counter-intuitive electrical structure of stars and orbs. The negative shell around a star or orb presents itself as the equivalent of a negative charge at its center. This is an equivalence, there are no electrons down there at all. With the sun, for instance, electrons move upward when free and positive charges propagate downward. To easily account for the descent of free protons or positive charges, just realize that a proton has the illusion that it is being attracted to a big bunch of electrons, so down it goes to get one. Trapped in the core, its centuries are numbered! Edited December 23, 2012 by Heedless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted October 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 so thens, if i may further damage my reputation - ;) - i have some links of a similar charged nature that bear on the issue. the focus here however is the charge and per se polarity of the Earth rather than the atmosphere. i'll start with 2 threads on our forum and then after i re-read these i'll see if i can tease out a couple more links.  >> Earth conductivity >> Piezoelectric earth Edit: build your own field mill: >> Electric Field Mill Fabrication >> GROUND-ATMOSPHERE-IONOSPHERE INTERACTIONS RELATED TO EARTHQUAKES >> field mill with polarity indication.None of this posting's message is on-topic. Thanks for trying to help just the same. The word "charge" is such a useful thing that we use it for everything. Teddy Roosevelt is alleged to have use the word in Cuba, but it was not really at San Juan Hill. We have to narrow down on our application of the word here, and "macroscopic" seems to fit the bill. An electron is often called a charged particle. The "ed" suffix implies that some charging process has proceeded in the past, but no one has ever charged an electron and what is more, they cannot be discharged to the extent that they would lose their electrical influence. Here, on this thread, the question of the day pertains to a quest for technical evidence of any positive macroscopic electric charge to the earth's atmosphere. The meaning of the word "macroscopic" contrasts with the word "microscopic" in similar fashion to what happens for a monkey with a telescope. When he or she peeks in the proper lens, sighted objects seem closer. When he or she peeks through the objective lens, sighted objects seem farther away, but a broader scope is afforded the viewer. The macroscopic charge of a planet, lets say as a count of the total extra electron count, remains completely independent from how much or how little ionization is occurring within. Electrons arrive as discrete little pieces of matter, and cannot travel by radiation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.