Chat Room
 

Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Dale

Bear
Registered:
Posts: 104
Reply with quote  #1 

 Newton's shell theorem, extended as applicable to electrostatic force, establishes that a body hosting a negative charge will develop a positive central core. This would seem to be a groundbreaking realization for a scientific body that seems either unwilling to admit or unable to comprehend this aspect of cosmic infrastructure. 

Newton's Shell Theorem explains cosmic architecture in an elegant fashion! It bears out the intuitive approach I have been using by treading stepping stones presented by special cases. It saves thousands of words that I can now use for other purposes. A simple aspect of the theorem places the composite of the electrostatic force of an outer shell of electrons surrounding a globe or even the rim of a disk, into the center of the hosting body. It can be seen to account as well for the positive charge particles that rim the accretion disk of SMBHs.

Hence, all of the extra electrons upon a star’s outer surface impose a great negative charge at that body's center, where no particles of negative charge exists! As a consequence, a vast population of protons invades that location from surrounding plasma but without becoming encumbered with any electrons when they get there. Although such a central ball of protons might well prove to be hollow, such a central structure should be prone to induce a static form of nuclear fusion. Natural regulation of output power for such static core fusion comes from inherent negative feedback due to thermal expansion. 
 A contrasting form of stellar nuclear fusion seems to predominate within general scientific consensus as though it were the only source of atomic energy within a star: a dynamic process among protons within hydrogen plasma, but actually located outside of the center-most stellar core. Regulation of this more popular fusion is accomplished by converting any excess energy production into potential energy by the lifting of stellar matter required to accommodate associated thermal expansion. This dynamic regulation runs amuck when any vortex causes absorption of heat-induced expansion. It produces sunspot centers surrounded with gushing stellar plasma called stellar flares.


__________________
Two's a crowd.
DrCharbonneau

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 501
Reply with quote  #2 
Quite often Newton wins out. Do you have any thoughts about cold fusion? That one has seemed so fascinating, yet, as we know, so questionable. It's a darned shame when scientists fudge results just to look right or keep their funding flowing.
__________________
The universe is a hairball. It was created by Fritz the Cat. Einstein said the universe was like a plate of spaghetti. Still, you don't want to know what transpired between him and Elsa to bring about that idea.
Dale

Bear
Registered:
Posts: 104
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCharbonneau
Quite often Newton wins out. Do you have any thoughts about cold fusion? That one has seemed so fascinating, yet, as we know, so questionable. It's a darned shame when scientists fudge results just to look right or keep their funding flowing.


Cold fusion would seem a good name for what I have called "static fusion". Static fusion can get pretty hot once it gets going, but it would seem easier to start up when the fuel was cold. Heat is simply the absence of cold. If a hot fire's temperature were to be reduced, we   could say it has cooled, and if it cooled from white-heat to red heat, why couldn't we say it is cold? Like, cold is just a relative thing. Previous use of a term by frauds does not justify stigmatizing honest use of the words that they abused.  

__________________
Two's a crowd.
DrCharbonneau

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 501
Reply with quote  #4 
Could we possibly even consider calling it "dark" fusion?
__________________
The universe is a hairball. It was created by Fritz the Cat. Einstein said the universe was like a plate of spaghetti. Still, you don't want to know what transpired between him and Elsa to bring about that idea.
Dale

Bear
Registered:
Posts: 104
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCharbonneau
Could we possibly even consider calling it "dark" fusion?


Well, it seems that "static" and "dynamic" fusion would emphasize understandably, the opposing circumstances of the two potentialities. Dynamic fusion is the fusion that astrophysicists already know about to some limited extent. The main jackass scientist in the original science forum relegates any information beyond his comprehension as "pseudoscience" and justifies the bums rush he gives to his betters with the generality that the author has denied physics. There, he and his toadies declare that when you heat plasma, it gets cooler, they have the earth spinning from east to west, and they all agree that the regulation of the plasma fusion (because they do not comprehend "static fusion) is due to a negative feedback due to hotter gasses being farther apart than cooler gasses (without understanding that hotter gasses have protons going at a faster clip, which would mean that greater spacing would not necessarily result in fewer proton collisions. They also beleive that ions would wander at random within a charged Faraday cage because of the no-electric field rule which applies only after all charged particles have reached their nullifying positions.

Such sites must bring us to contribute clarifications that are invulnerable to obfuscation by such anointed imbeciles.

It is going onto ten years now that I have been trying to share what I encountered intuitively, probably due to insight developed in over six decades of experience as an electronic technician. I see no shame in having learned the hard way, and am comfortable that when my theory cures a glitch in a radar or computer system, I needn't ask the anointed to certify my competence.

Forgot to finish: My ignorance of so much book learning is why it took me a thousand words or so to explain the electro-concentric arrays of charged particles. Newton's Shell Theorem shortens the explanation to some eight and a half words.



__________________
Two's a crowd.
DrCharbonneau

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 501
Reply with quote  #6 
I do my best to abandon anointed imbeciles. It's tougher to do when they rule over you.

Thought I'd add a bit to make that less confusing...

I say very little in argument to your ideas, Dale, because I don't want to taint your raw scientific thinking. Science and arts are very related. I was blessed enough to be inspired into both. Not so with everyone. Since the judge saw fit to give me the good-old-fashioned-okie-dokie where my doctorate title is concerned, I have to walk carefully. That means knowing when to keep my lip zipped.

The trolls on those other boards are just stooges with an alleged cap and gown. In the real world it's just as absurd. There are those, in all walks of life, who hide their incompetence, where pure creative thought is concerned, behind a sheepskin. If honesty threatens their façade, they find a way to hide honesty's light under a bushel basket and a truckload of gravel if needs be.

Honesty must never be tainted by the yeast of narcissism.

__________________
The universe is a hairball. It was created by Fritz the Cat. Einstein said the universe was like a plate of spaghetti. Still, you don't want to know what transpired between him and Elsa to bring about that idea.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!

Buying JOOTBOX some cyberspace... :)
Grants for Various Levels or Projects