"Net Charge"

[earls]

I'm pretty sure this topic has been covered 100 times, but I'd like to start a resource about the "net charge" of astronomic bodies.

I'm constantly assaulted with statements as such:

"why stars should be charged, if they contain negative and positively charged particles in balanced equilibrium?"

"Most objects in the universe have a net neutral charge. That doesn't mean that the internal distributions have to be homogeneous, just that the total number of positive charges equals the negative charges."

Now, I'm not sure if there is observational evidence FOR no net charge or "neutral" bodies, but I'm certain there isn't an evidence against it. I believe it's one of those "assumed" aspects in astronomy, that of course, duh!, there just CAN'T be a net charge... A great example is:

"If a sizable object (such as the sun) had any net charge, it would quickly grab particles from around it to balance out the charge."

... Uh? Right? That's exactly the point!

So there's a couple talking points here:

A. The net charge of planets and other misc. bodies.

B. The net charge of stars, including the sun.

C. The net charge of the Universe.

D. The role of matter/anti-matter regarding the net charge.

I've looked into this before and did again today, but feel free to add anything you can think of to strengthen the argument for net charge.

http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/astronomy ... charge.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v1 ... 043a0.html

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=215189

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=10517

[junglelord]

I have to say the gravity only-flat earth society had me so dumbed down, that any attempt to explain it to them is useless.

At some point the brain washing either self destructs from too much charge accumulation, as in my case, or it continues to clean from all the years of pre-programming, scrubbing away any residue of charge, down into that black hole of dark matter called the Phd.

The issue from our point of view, at least to me is quite simple.
The entire system is nonlinear.....if you get that, then you get everything.
Nonlinear charge parameters, that is the essence, with longitudinal propagation.
The aether is capable of creating equal and opposite charge fields under intense pressure from plasma charge fields with high frequency...this is the very act of creating matter from seemingly no-where, in the modern model. This is how it works in my model. This is how I fabricate matter in my EU.

The entire fabrication of using linear models to explain the universe is non-sensecal.
Balanced charged models.....another black hole of thinking from the flat earth society.


My fabrication is just as good if not better then their fabrication.

[bboyer]

Excerpt

All matter is made of enormous quantities of positive and negative charge in perfect balance. When opposite charges flow in the same direction, we have PHYSICAL MOTION. Whenever the opposite quantities of charge are forced to flow in two different directions, we have an ELECTRIC CURRENT. Whenever the positive charge is separated from the negative charge, we have NET ELECTRIC CHARGE.

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ELECTRIC CURRENT AND NET ELECTRIC CHARGE?
William Beaty 1999

Also see: What's the difference between Static Electricity and Current Electricity?

[StevenO]

Excerpt

All matter is made of enormous quantities of positive and negative charge in perfect balance. When opposite charges flow in the same direction, we have PHYSICAL MOTION. Whenever the opposite quantities of charge are forced to flow in two different directions, we have an ELECTRIC CURRENT. Whenever the positive charge is separated from the negative charge, we have NET ELECTRIC CHARGE.

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ELECTRIC CURRENT AND NET ELECTRIC CHARGE?
William Beaty 1999

Also see: What's the difference between Static Electricity and Current Electricity?

The main point to realize is that positive and negative charges can only be physically created as a difference wrt. to a background field. This background photon field is what is always overlooked in mainstream physics. Each object of matter has both a gravity field caused by the expansion of matter and a base photon field that is caused by matter emitting base photons. It is wrt. to this base field that +/- electric charges and magnetism are defined. The old Egyptians already knew this. Tesla has shown us the way how to use it but he knew that he was way ahead of his time. It's about time for us to re-ignite and carry this olympic fire.

The strenght of this base E/M field is about 0.1% compared to gravity at the size and density of the earth. It explains the variation of G. It is about 110x stronger at the size and density of the moon, which explains a.o. the tides and moon-coupled menstrual cycles. At the small size of a comet this base E/M field could be more important in terms of force than gravity.

I would think some simple experiments done at the moon could easily prove the existence of this base E/M field for those that are not convinced yet. Experiments done at the earth's surface will always suffer from the relatively small strength of the field at that level.

[Lloyd]

* The following Kronia article excerpts help explain why charge separation should be expected, rather than neutrality. More detailed explanations are undoubtedly available at http://holoscience.com etc [see http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=site%3Ah ... 5261e448ad]
http://www.kronia.com/symposium/thrnhill.txt
I have a very strong belief that the work of the late Dr. Charles Bruce, a fellow of the British Electrical Research Association, and Eric Crew in England, was on the right track when they looked at the electrical nature of stars. And Crew's contention that when you start to gravitationally confine matter, you get to a certain point where the electrons begin to leave the atoms near the center of that body. In other words, it becomes metallic, conductive, and you get pressure ionization.

http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoVII03.txt
Eddington did not pursue it because he was convinced that a star must collapse under its own gravity unless supported from within by an energy source. That was an incorrect assumption because gravity induces charge separation and electrical repulsion effects within a star ? something that Eddington dismissed. The simple fact that a proton weighs almost 2000 times as much as an electron ensures that this will occur. Each hydrogen atom in a star will be distorted by gravity to form a tiny radial electric dipole. The resulting electric field will ensure charge separation inside the star. Free electrons will drift toward the surface and leave behind a positively charged core.

http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThoIII10.txt
Hannes Alfvén tilted that card with his observations that plasmas are not neutral superconductors: they propagate charge separation, current flow, and electrical forces over large distances.

http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThoIII04.txt
Thornhill challenges us to drop the accepted view of the sun as an isolated fusion factory and think of it as a focal point of galactic electrical energy. He tells us that, although plasma is a good conductor, it is limited in its ability to carry current. So, if the rate of charge separation within the galaxy exceeds the capability of the plasma threading the spiral arms to carry it, the plasma will be under constant stress and current will flow continuously, powering the stars within it.

http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoVII02.txt
See "Antigravity?" at: http://www.holoscience.com/news/antigravity.html
There is another important consequence of taking into account atomic electric dipole effects. A ponderous body will introduce an additional dipole effect, that of the gravitational offset of the heavy nucleus from the centre of the atom. This effect can set up a radial electric field that may lead to charge separation and stratification in the conducting interior of a body, particularly stars and gas giants. In that case, electrostatic repulsion between similar charges will serve to offset compression due to gravity. The usual determination of density will therefore tell us nothing about the internal structure and composition of such a body. Certainly, such powerful electrical forces will prevent gravitational collapse....

[junglelord]

Thats correct, charge seperation is the norm....not neutrality.
Non linear properties is another norm, not linear properties.
They are highly electrically resonate systems...certainly not nuclear bombs under pressure, in and off itself, thats absurd.
The linear property rules or even more silly neutrality themes of the no charge in space from the gravity camp, are blanet lies, meanwhile charge is actually created by the gravity camp...silly boys, they are, those neutrallity men.

[mharratsc]

Wow, thanks Lloyd! I've never seen that explained in one shot like that before- I learned something today

I really gotta go through that Kronia site a little more thoroughly. :\

Mike H.

[Siggy_G]

Lloyd wrote: "That was an incorrect assumption because gravity induces charge separation and electrical repulsion effects within a star - something that Eddington dismissed. The simple fact that a proton weighs almost 2000 times as much as an electron ensures that this will occur. (...) Free electrons will drift toward the surface and leave behind a positively charged core."

Then reading from Wikipedia (solar wind): "It consists mostly of electrons and protons with energies of about 1 keV. The stream of particles varies in temperature and speed with the passage of time. These particles are able to escape the sun's gravity, in part because of the high temperature of the corona, but also because of high kinetic energy that particles gain through a process that is not well-understood."

[earls]

"It consists mostly of electrons and protons"

There's more constantly cited evidence for the current solar model and a criticism of EU.

But even if electrons were streaming into the sun and protons being accelerated out, wouldn't you except to find both? Also consider that would not heavier protons being accelerated out (via electric field) attract and and drag electrons with them there by appearing to be "streaming" in the same direction?

[bree09]

The explanations are on point. Very nice replies. I really learned something.






Regards,
Bree

[junglelord]

Tesla stated that the Earth can be considered as a hollow copper sphere.
Birkeland used a hollow copper sphere in his terrella experiments.
MIT EM lecture series says that the center of a hollow copper sphere is a zero point.
Charge can enter the center of the hollow copper sphere and this basic concept drives a Van de Graaff generator.
Tesla stated only longitudnal EM will travel in a vacuum.

If charge can and does enter the earth or the sun at the center of the sphere via longitudinal em waves, then your net charge boys will drown in a sea of charge.

[earls]

It seems to me it should just be "common sense." If there's no net charge, there's no difference, if there's no difference, there's no electric field, if there's no electric field, there's no magnetic field.

What is so blasphemous and other-worldly about this logic?

[james weninger]

Earls, I have suggested that the article "On the Global Electrostatic Charge of Stars" should appear in the thread "Electricity and Plasma, from Micro to Macro and Beyond". In case you missed it,the entire article is available on line. I would be interested in your comentary on it.

[earls]

"In conclusion, it seems to be desirable to remember the global electrostatic charge as a significant physical property of every star in various stellar studies and in teaching."

Says it all. It definitely introduces some important concepts that are new to me.

[4realScience]

Why not measure charge with next space probes? Net charge can be measured.! What is the proper design of such a detector?

Cassinni is way out at Saturn doing a wonderful, fantastic job thanks to the NASA rocket scientists and the US taxpayers! If only they had a charge detector.

At EU, we say electric charge is positive at the sun and lessens as we move away from it, then drops DRASTICALLY as we then cross the boundary of the double layer (beyond Pluto) that isolates the sun from the local interstellar plasma cell. We say the sun is an ANODE, a place that is WAY deficient of electrons.

I remember doing a high-school physics experiment with a charge detector, do you? It was a glass globe with a conductive rod stuck down inside it. At the center of the globe the rod terminated. At the termination there were two thin strips of aluminum foil attached that hung down due to gravity when no charge was present on the globe's rod. But with any charge (positive or negative) the foils repelled, pushed away from each other and pushed/angled apart. Simple.

In a space probe without gravity to do the hanging it could be done this way:

We just need a reliable ZERO charge to compare against. This is easy. We, on Earth before launch make a nugget of some kind, water?, that is de-ionized: charge zero. It will freeze in space. We embed a wire in it and encapsulate it in glass of WAY sufficient thickness as electrical insulator (suggest 4 inches). We never, there after, allow the wire to come into conductive contact with anything. We just use it as a ZERO voltage reference (at infinite impedance) for any charge/voltage (voltmeter) measurement we want (VTVM?). We should be able to read out the net charge anytime, wherever the probe is. We use the surface of the probe as one electrode and the rod into the deionized ice as the other. Simple.

I suggest an EU prediction would be that such measurements would show charge decreasing as probe moves away from sun? (En-glassed zero ref must not be contaminated... (no low resistance connections to it allowed)).