Can the electron create its own barycenter?
BradGuth
an electron, seems to far exceed the conventional mainstream
interpretation as to the gravitational binding force of attraction.
The electromagnetic force is simply far greater than any gravitational
force, and perhaps somewhere in between is the electrostatic force of
attraction that's only limited by the voltage differential, of which
seems nearly unlimited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
"The gravitational force is extremely weak compared with other
fundamental forces. For example, the gravitational force between an
electron and proton 1 meter apart is approximately 1e-67 newton, while
the electromagnetic force between the same two particles is
approximately 1e-28 newton. Both these forces are weak when compared
with the forces we are able to experience directly, but the
electromagnetic force in this example is some 39 orders of magnitude
(i.e. 1e39) greater than the force of gravity -- roughly the same ratio
as the mass of the Sun compared to a microgram mass."
What if the velocity of the gravity unit/graviton were exactly twice
that of 'c'?
If there's no self generated barycenter created at the atomic or any
other level, then for example, what is the electrostatic binding force
that's existing between Earth and our Selene/moon?
The naked Selene/moon is after all acting a bit like Earth's electron,
though getting continually hit (each and every cm2) with cosmic energy
of 1e12 ~ 1e21 eV, and there's no question that such cosmic energy
that's directly interacting with such a naked anticathode and thus
fully reactive Selene/moon would not have subsequently electrostatic
charged this orb, as well as having unavoidably released secondary/
recoil gamma plus having produced X-rays in the process.
Why would our Selene/moon not have an electrostatic charge, that's of
a different and/or of even opposite polarity in respect to Earth?
Of further consideration; Why would our physically dark and otherwise
naked Selene/moon not be as bad or worse off than any Van Allan
magnetosphere badlands?
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / "Guth Usenet"
Uncle Al
>
> The strong electrostatic tidal radius, as a force that's holding onto
> an electron, seems to far exceed the conventional mainstream
> interpretation as to the gravitational binding force of attraction.
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
BradGuth
> BradGuth wrote:
>
> > The strong electrostatic tidal radius, as a force that's holding onto
> > an electron, seems to far exceed the conventional mainstream
> > interpretation as to the gravitational binding force of attraction.
>
> [snip crap]
>
> idiot
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Then do tell what's holding the atom electron in its fast orbit,
besides gravity?
If not an atomic trinary+ barycenter, what else besides gravity and
the electrostatic force of attraction is there?
~ BG
BradGuth
Do atoms have an atomic magnetosphere to go along with their internal
barycenter? (with all of that nucleus strong force that’s taking an
LHC to reveal, seems like they should)
~ BG
BradGuth
Since the electron represents a mass that’s orbiting a complex binary+
core of greater mass, is what’s suggesting the atomic barycenter as
another reason and method as to why such atomic orbits do not lose
their tidal radius grip.
Gravitational Constant = 6.673e-11 or 6.6743e-11 or 6.693e-11
(conditional physics, as need be modified in order to make their
gravitational force of attraction between Earth and our Selene/moon or
that of any other orbital mechanics equal to the centripetal force).
In that case, what’s the atomic gravitational constant?
It’s a little odd that so many variations of this Gravitational
Constant seem to exist, especially when such would demand far better
accuracy when dealing with the task of missions orbiting asteroids or
even the likes of our Selene/moon. No wonder India has been taking it
nice and easy with their Selene/moon mission.
CHANDRAYAAN - 1
http://www.isro.org/index.htm
The notions of an atomic barycenter seems as likely as our Selene/moon
L1 being the easiest of orbital placements for mostly rad-hard science
instruments and robotics to coexist. Even North Korea could manage to
get an orbital mission parked within the Selene/moon interactive L1.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Timberwoof
<5dee29a3-c0e6-486c...@e38g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since the electron represents a mass that零 orbiting a complex binary+
> core of greater mass, is what零 suggesting the atomic barycenter as
> another reason and method as to why such atomic orbits do not lose
> their tidal radius grip.
You obviously understand nothing about an electron's behavior or orbit.
The concept of little marbles orbiting a nucleus of bigger marbles is
slightly more accurate than your goofy notion of a "complex binary+
core of greater mass". It is useful in basic chemistry, but that's about
as far as it goes.
You need to do some serious research into quantum physics ... hang on,
hang on, be quiet. I know you're squealing about how it's all
counterintuitive and wrong and nonsensical, but you don't have any kind
of scientific measurements to support your wacky ideas.
The secret scientists in their secret labs funded by secret research
grants by secret branches of the government ... haven't published their
results anywhere that you can read them. But the other ones, the real
scientists working at universities and studying this stuff for real;
they have. Go to PBS.org and watch some episodes of NOVA.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.
Jacko
> BradGuth wrote:
>
> > The strong electrostatic tidal radius, as a force that's holding onto
> > an electron, seems to far exceed the conventional mainstream
> > interpretation as to the gravitational binding force of attraction.
>
> [snip crap]
>
> idiot
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
do you think he means something like the centre of the schwartzchild
radius of the electron or some other thing? ;)
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <5dee29a3-c0e6-486c-998c-5aba6c08e...@e38g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Since the electron represents a mass that¹s orbiting a complex binary+
> > core of greater mass, is what¹s suggesting the atomic barycenter as
> > another reason and method as to why such atomic orbits do not lose
> > their tidal radius grip.
>
> You obviously understand nothing about an electron's behavior or orbit.
> The concept of little marbles orbiting a nucleus of bigger marbles is
> slightly more accurate than your goofy notion of a "complex binary+
> core of greater mass". It is useful in basic chemistry, but that's about
> as far as it goes.
>
> You need to do some serious research into quantum physics ... hang on,
> hang on, be quiet. I know you're squealing about how it's all
> counterintuitive and wrong and nonsensical, but you don't have any kind
> of scientific measurements to support your wacky ideas.
So what. There's nothing all that quantum physics about atoms,
they're just terribly small and infinitely energy efficient. A better
gamma microscope and we'd be looking in stop-action at what makes an
electron tick.
>
> The secret scientists in their secret labs funded by secret research
> grants by secret branches of the government ... haven't published their
> results anywhere that you can read them. But the other ones, the real
> scientists working at universities and studying this stuff for real;
> they have. Go to PBS.org and watch some episodes of NOVA.
If it's mainstream published, it must be the one and only word of your
God, just like our DARPA / NASA having us walking upon their passive
moon that seemed exactly like a certain terrestrial guano island,
which is nothing at all like the real thing. But what the hell, even
your NOVA did major televised productions on behalf of Apollo, and
thus proving it really happened.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Timberwoof
<a77e610a-7c95-43da...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 5:44 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <5dee29a3-c0e6-486c-998c-5aba6c08e...@e38g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Since the electron represents a mass that1s orbiting a complex binary+
> > > core of greater mass, is what1s suggesting the atomic barycenter as
> > > another reason and method as to why such atomic orbits do not lose
> > > their tidal radius grip.
> >
> > You obviously understand nothing about an electron's behavior or orbit.
> > The concept of little marbles orbiting a nucleus of bigger marbles is
> > slightly more accurate than your goofy notion of a "complex binary+
> > core of greater mass". It is useful in basic chemistry, but that's about
> > as far as it goes.
> >
> > You need to do some serious research into quantum physics ... hang on,
> > hang on, be quiet. I know you're squealing about how it's all
> > counterintuitive and wrong and nonsensical, but you don't have any kind
> > of scientific measurements to support your wacky ideas.
>
> So what. There's nothing all that quantum physics about atoms,
> they're just terribly small and infinitely energy efficient. A better
> gamma microscope and we'd be looking in stop-action at what makes an
> electron tick.
You may know know this, but you're talking about particle accelerators.
> > The secret scientists in their secret labs funded by secret research
> > grants by secret branches of the government ... haven't published their
> > results anywhere that you can read them. But the other ones, the real
> > scientists working at universities and studying this stuff for real;
> > they have. Go to PBS.org and watch some episodes of NOVA.
>
> If it's mainstream published, it must be the one and only word of your
> God, just like our DARPA / NASA having us walking upon their passive
> moon that seemed exactly like a certain terrestrial guano island,
> which is nothing at all like the real thing. But what the hell, even
> your NOVA did major televised productions on behalf of Apollo, and
> thus proving it really happened.
Bla bla bla, there you go again with your kook theories.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <a77e610a-7c95-43da-aca3-dab715e8f...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
There's no bla bla about it. You are clearly one of the bad guys that
wants to kill off the messenger, any messenger, because you already
know all there is to know as based upon whatever hype and eye-candy or
infowar brain-candy gets mainstream published by LeapFrog or NOVA
televised.
”Whoever controls the past, controls the future” / George Orwell
~ BG
extremesou...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
'momentum-wave duality is what's holding the atom electron in its fast
orbit,
besides gravity?
BradGuth
Is there an objective strong force accounting for this "momentum-wave
duality"?
Is there any "momentum-wave duality" taking place with our moon?
~ BG
BradGuth
I can see that I've lost control over this lose cannon topic.
I'll have to put it into "Guth Usenet", whereas at least I can exclude/
banish those as clearly having a mental breakdown problem in addition
to all of those strictly topic/author stalking and bashing for sport.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
extremesou...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -Is there an objective strong force accounting for this "momentum-wave
duality
yes their is a force but it's measured in quanta or more than one
momenta wave
Of course, once a measurement of the particle is made, a single
momentum is observed. But, like fuzzy position, momentum before the
observation is intrinsically uncertain. This is what is know as the
uncertainty principle, that certain quantities, such as position,
energy and time, are unknown, except by probabilities. In its purest
form, the uncertainty principle states that accurate knowledge of
complementarity pairs is impossible. For example, you can measure the
location of an electron, but not its momentum (energy) at the same
time.
extremesou...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Werner Heisenberg, in 1926, formulated the uncertainty principle. "In
order to predict the future position and velocity of a particle, one
has to be able to measure its present position and velocity
accurately. ... In other words, the more accurately you try to measure
the position of the particle, the less accurately you can measure its
speed, and vice versa. Heinsenberg showed that the uncertainty in the
position of the particle times the uncertainty in its velocity times
the mass of the particle can never be smaller than a certain quantity,
which is known as Planck's constant. Moreover, this limit does not
depend on the way in which one tries to measure the position or
velocity of the particle, or on the type of particle: Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle is a fundamental, inescapable property of the
world
so I say yes to the sub atomic barycenter but because of the
uncertainty priciple i'ts not possible to predict the sub orbital
paths to calculate the center of i'ts equillibrium or center of forces
in the electrons orbital
BradGuth
Very interesting, as sort of a virtual barycenter effect, except that
it can never be objectively identified or much less utilized outside
of the electron realm?
How about our Selene/moon and of its supposed "momentum (energy)"?
How much of our Selene/moon orbit is assisted or modified by the same
"uncertainty principle"?
Isn't there any probability for "accurate knowledge of complementarity
pairs" associated within planetary systems, their moons and of
interstellar associations?
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth
What's the "quanta or more than one momenta wave" that's between Earth
and Selene, as well as that existing between Sirius and our sun?
~ BG
extremesou...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
In the case of the Earth and the sun, both bodies actually revolve, or
spin, around the very center of the mass (similar to center of
gravity) between them. This point is called the "barycenter." Earth
and the sun are "connected" by the gravity pulling them together.not
wave duelaity, It's just like the light end and heavy end of the
sledge hammer. Compared to the size of the sun, Earth is about like a
flea on a cat! So the center of mass between the Earth and the sun is
almost--but not quite--the very center of the sun.
extremesou...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
momentum wave duelalty is the strongest force aplicable in subatomic
barycenters but not the force in steller barycenters
BradGuth
Why is being much bigger than an atom of any problem for the momentum
wave duelalty?
Are you saying the regular laws of physics simply do not apply to
small stuff?
If so, at what size or mass does this transfer over?
~ BG
extremesou...@yahoo.com
~ BG
Because once size and density reach a critical amount the gravity
finally has enough gravitational binding force of attraction to
overpower the forces of momentum
wave duality and bring larger stellar bodies into orbits, even though
those forces are still at work with in the subatomic realm, once the
over all mass reaches x amount that force is stronger , but to answer
your question I am not sure at what point that would be
but one of you math nerds could whip that out faster than me once you
know the streanth of the binding force between the electrons of a said
partical and it's nucleus
BradGuth
If we gave Selene a million teraVolt charge (1e18 eV) in respect to
Earth, what would the force of attraction be?
~ BG
extremesou...@yahoo.com
depends on what her net charge was at the time of the electrcution
with respect to earth it my not be enough to raise the hair on her
arms but I think that was a trick question when you said in respect to
the earth since net charge is dynamic depending on the atmisperic
conditions and location
BradGuth
>
> depends on what her net charge was at the time of the electrcution
> with respect to earth it my not be enough to raise the hair on her
> arms but I think that was a trick question when you said in respect to
> the earth since net charge is dynamic depending on the atmisperic
> conditions and location
There's also the given surface area and thus multi farad capacitance
potential of each orb to consider, and of the plasma or soup of
particles existing between these two orbs (especially in the three
body alignment configuration).
~ BG
extremesou...@yahoo.com
center of the three body weights (head, thorax, and pelvis
does this make a significant diffrance in the amount of a million
teraVolt charge (1e18 eV) in respect to Earth on what the body feels,
I think selinas was wet and bare foot would make more diffrance than
body alignment configuration and the amount of humidity in the air at
the time.
BradGuth
~ BG
On Nov 3, 11:37 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The strong electrostatic tidal radius, as a force that's holding onto
> an electron, seems to far exceed the conventional mainstream
> interpretation as to the gravitational binding force of attraction.
>
> The electromagnetic force is simply far greater than any gravitational
> force, and perhaps somewhere in between is the electrostatic force of
> attraction that's only limited by the voltage differential, of which this
> seems nearly unlimited.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
> "The gravitational force is extremely weak compared with other
> fundamental forces. For example, the gravitational force between an
> electron and proton 1 meter apart is approximately 1e-67 newton,
> while the electromagnetic force between the same two particles is
> approximately 1e-28 newton. Both these forces are weak when compared
> with the other forces we are able to experience directly, but the
BradGuth
<extremesoundandli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 11:53 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 7:40 am, "rustyjames...@gmail.com"
>
> > <extremesoundandli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 10, 6:50 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 10, 6:20 am, "rustyjames...@gmail.com"
>
> > > > <extremesoundandli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 7, 4:20 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 7, 12:49 pm, "rustyjames...@gmail.com"
>
> > > > > > <extremesoundandli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 7, 1:43 pm, "rustyjames...@gmail.com"
>
> > > > > > > <extremesoundandli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 1:38 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 12:21 pm, "rustyjames...@gmail.com"
>
> > > > > > > > > <extremesoundandli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 8:24 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 11:37 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > The strong electrostatic tidal radius, as a force that's holding onto
> > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation as to the gravitational binding force of attraction.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > The electromagnetic force is simply far greater than any gravitational
> > > > > > > > > > > > force, and perhaps somewhere in between is the electrostatic force of
> > > > > > > > > > > > attraction that's only limited by the voltage differential, of which
> > > > > > > > > > > > seems nearly unlimited.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
> > > > > > > > > > > > "The gravitational force is extremely weak compared with other
> > > > > > > > > > > > fundamental forces. For example, the gravitational force between an
> > > > > > > > > > > banish those as clearly having a mental breakdown problem in addition
> > > > > > > > > > > to all of those strictly topic/author stalking and bashing for sport.
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -Is there an objective strong force accounting for this "momentum-wave
>
> > > > > > > > > > duality
>
> > > > > > > > > > yes their is a force but it's measured in quanta or more than one
> > > > > > > > > > momenta wave
>
> > > > > > > > > > Of course, once a measurement of the particle is made, a single
> > > > > > > > > > momentum is observed. But, like fuzzy position, momentum before the
> > > > > > > > > > observation is intrinsically uncertain. This is what is know as the
> > > > > > > > > > uncertainty principle, that certain quantities, such as position,
> > > > > > > > > > energy and time, are unknown, except by probabilities. In its purest
> > > > > > > > > > form, the uncertainty principle states that accurate knowledge of
> > > > > > > > > > complementarity pairs is impossible. For example, you can measure the
If we had that platform of science instruments at our Selene/moon L1,
we'd know.
~ BG
BradGuth
If not, why not?
Where's all the Usenet/newsgroup love and affection?
~ BG
Tom Roberts
> "Do atoms have internal barycenters?"
Hmmm. The question is ill-posed. It is not possible to measure the
"barycenter" of an atom exactly, due to the nature of quantum phenomena.
But given an isolated atom, the momenta of its constituents add up to
zero in some frame, and relative to that frame the EXPECTATION VALUE of
the atom's position does not move.
But this is subtle: if one prepares a large number of such atoms
one-at-a-time and measures their positions one-at-a-time, one obtains a
distribution, not a definite value, no matter how carefully the
preparation is performed. Moreover, while the mean of those measurements
remains constant, their variance increases with time when one delays the
measurement after the preparation.
Tom Roberts
BradGuth
But electrons and all other components of the atom do have mass, and
since nothing is standing still and their ongoing orbital and/or
interactive nature would have to agree that barycenters (just like
with moons, planets, stars, black holes and galaxies) should exist on
the atomic level.
~ BG
Tom Roberts
> But electrons and all other components of the atom do have mass, and
> since nothing is standing still and their ongoing orbital and/or
> interactive nature would have to agree that barycenters (just like
> with moons, planets, stars, black holes and galaxies) should exist on
> the atomic level.
Nature does not "have to" follow the dictates of your wishes and dreams.
One major lesson of quantum mechanics is: don't attempt to discuss
things you cannot measure. You cannot MEASURE the barycenter which you
assume is present; see my previous post far what you can measure.
For instance, the electron in a ground-state hydrogen atom at rest is
NOT moving, in the sense that the expectation value of its velocity is
zero (this is true of all S electrons). That is relative to the rest
frame of the atom, which in practice cannot be determined precisely --
see my previous post. The theory can be used to compute spectroscopic
properties (energy differences between states), and experiments can
measure them quite accurately; things like electron velocity are in
practice not measurable (or at least it's not useful to measure them).
Tom Roberts
BradGuth
So, "S electrons" can be and/or become kinda rogue or surplus elements
of an atom?
~ BG
extremesou...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Do atoms have internal barycenters?"
If not, why not?
yes if you replace the way you were thought about barycenters and
gravity and substitute other binding forces like charge and
electrostatic witch are much stronger on a sub atomic level than
gravity is yes their are sub atomic barycenters even with gravity but
that’s not the binding force with respect to what holds the particle
together but even a sludge hammer has a barycenters it's just the
point were forces are at a point of equilibrium
BradGuth
I agree, and I’ll suggest that perhaps even outside of the atomic
level there are sufficiently worthy forces other than gravity,
especially obvious of the electrostatic binding force that's downright
impressive as long as there's sufficient eV differential.
What is the eV of extreme cosmic gamma? Such as what gamma is
unavoidably interacting with our Selene/moon. (<1e21 eV)
~ BG
Androcles
"Kodos friend of Kang" <hawkl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u9hsi4l4puji0es8p...@4ax.com...
> or even Luna. Why is it that the moon gets this archaic Roman
> reference and not other things?
Because he's a clueless dork trying to sound as if he's intelligent.
BradGuth
wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:36:13 -0800 (PST), BradGuth
> or even Luna. Why is it that the moon gets this archaic Roman
> reference and not other things?
It's because I like using Selene/moon instead of just moon which
doesn't specifically address any given moon.
btw, I do not "alway say "Selene/moon"", as sometimes I've said moon
or Selene. Go figure, I must be crazy.
If the average gamma were 1e15 eV, what's the electrostatic charge of
our Selene/moon?
~ BG
BradGuth
> "Kodos friend of Kang" <hawklara...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:u9hsi4l4puji0es8p...@4ax.com...
There we go, a straight answer from a devout Zionist/Nazi that
supposedly knows all there is to know.
Do tell, what is the electrostatic charge of our Selene/moon? (if
dumbfounded, you're not alone)
Say if we stuffed one instrument probe up your butt and touched the
other volt meter probe to our Selene/moon; what kind of readings
would we get?
~ BG
Michael Moroney
>If the average gamma were 1e15 eV,
It's not.
> what's the electrostatic charge of
>our Selene/moon?
Since the effect of an initial charge would be to attract low energy
particles of the opposite charge and repel like charges, it wil not tend
to accumulate a strong charge. It will reach an equilibrium where any
processes that tend to produce a net charge are exactly counterbalanced by
neutralization by the solar wind etc.
BradGuth
wrote:
Good THEORY. Got any objective science to back that up?
Are you saying if we hit a given anticathode target that's situated
within a near ideal vacuum of greater than 1e-18 bar, with a sustained
dosage of 1e12 eV gamma, that as such it doesn't gain any
electrostatic charge?
~ BG
Michael Moroney
>On Nov 27, 10:05 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >If the average gamma were 1e15 eV,
>>
>> It's not.
>>
>> > what's the electrostatic charge of
>> >our Selene/moon?
>>
>> Since the effect of an initial charge would be to attract low energy
>> particles of the opposite charge and repel like charges, it wil not tend
>> to accumulate a strong charge. It will reach an equilibrium where any
>> processes that tend to produce a net charge are exactly counterbalanced by
>> neutralization by the solar wind etc.
>Good THEORY. Got any objective science to back that up?
The behavior of electric charges in response to another charged object is
very well understood. Do YOU have any FACTS on how strong a charge
the moon has? I didn't think so, just your rants.
>Are you saying if we hit a given anticathode target that's situated
>within a near ideal vacuum of greater than 1e-18 bar, with a sustained
>dosage of 1e12 eV gamma, that as such it doesn't gain any
>electrostatic charge?
Such gamma rays aren't all that common. But consider what does happen.
Assume the Moon has a net negative charge to start. As solar wind
particles (mostly electrons and protons) approach, they'll feel a force
from the charge. Electrons will be repelled, and fewer will strike the
Moon. Protons will be attracted, and more will strike the Moon. The
combined effect will be to reduce the overall charge.
Also, from some process that generates low energy free charges, the
negative ones will be accelerated away while the positive ones lose
energy and many won't escape. This will also reduce the net charge.
If the initial charge is positive, the same holds true except the charges
are reversed.
At some point, this process will be equal to whatever processes attempt to
generate a net charge (this is likely possible due to the mass difference
between electrons and anything with a net positive charge). This will
generate an equilibrium state likely with an overall net charge, probably
significant but not outstanding.
BradGuth
wrote:
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Nov 27, 10:05 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >wrote:
> >> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >If the average gamma were 1e15 eV,
>
> >> It's not.
>
> >> > what's the electrostatic charge of
> >> >our Selene/moon?
>
> >> Since the effect of an initial charge would be to attract low energy
> >> particles of the opposite charge and repel like charges, it wil not tend
> >> to accumulate a strong charge. It will reach an equilibrium where any
> >> processes that tend to produce a net charge are exactly counterbalanced by
> >> neutralization by the solar wind etc.
> >Good THEORY. Got any objective science to back that up?
>
> The behavior of electric charges in response to another charged object is
> very well understood. Do YOU have any FACTS on how strong a charge
> the moon has? I didn't think so, just your rants.
Same as your SSWAG (subjective scientific wild ass guess), so we're
about even.
>
> >Are you saying if we hit a given anticathode target that's situated
> >within a near ideal vacuum of greater than 1e-18 bar, with a sustained
> >dosage of 1e12 eV gamma, that as such it doesn't gain any
> >electrostatic charge?
>
> Such gamma rays aren't all that common. But consider what does happen.
> Assume the Moon has a net negative charge to start. As solar wind
> particles (mostly electrons and protons) approach, they'll feel a force
> from the charge. Electrons will be repelled, and fewer will strike the
> Moon. Protons will be attracted, and more will strike the Moon. The
> combined effect will be to reduce the overall charge.
So, you're saying that no matters how much gamma gets absorbed into
the moon, that no amount of electrostatic charge ever gets created.
What objective science supports this theory?
>
> Also, from some process that generates low energy free charges, the
> negative ones will be accelerated away while the positive ones lose
> energy and many won't escape. This will also reduce the net charge.
>
> If the initial charge is positive, the same holds true except the charges
> are reversed.
>
> At some point, this process will be equal to whatever processes attempt to
> generate a net charge (this is likely possible due to the mass difference
> between electrons and anything with a net positive charge). This will
> generate an equilibrium state likely with an overall net charge, probably
> significant but not outstanding.
Now you're saying that such cosmic gamma is uncommon, and no matters
what, whereas in theory everything remains eV neutral and/or eV equal
to one another.
How uncommon in terms of hits per cm2/sec are you suggesting?
Are you not aware of the shuttle deployed tether science experiment
that sort of blows holes in your theory?
~ BG
Michael Moroney
>On Nov 27, 1:25 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>>
>> >> > what's the electrostatic charge of
>> >> >our Selene/moon?
>>
>> >> Since the effect of an initial charge would be to attract low energy
>> >> particles of the opposite charge and repel like charges, it wil not tend
>> >> to accumulate a strong charge. It will reach an equilibrium where any
>> >> processes that tend to produce a net charge are exactly counterbalanced by
>> >> neutralization by the solar wind etc.
>> >Good THEORY. Got any objective science to back that up?
>>
>> The behavior of electric charges in response to another charged object is
>> very well understood. Do YOU have any FACTS on how strong a charge
>> the moon has? I didn't think so, just your rants.
>Same as your SSWAG (subjective scientific wild ass guess), so we're
>about even.
I don't think so. I'm talking about how electric charges react to each
other while you're just spouting nonsense.
>> Such gamma rays aren't all that common. But consider what does happen.
>> Assume the Moon has a net negative charge to start. As solar wind
>> particles (mostly electrons and protons) approach, they'll feel a force
>> from the charge. Electrons will be repelled, and fewer will strike the
>> Moon. Protons will be attracted, and more will strike the Moon. The
>> combined effect will be to reduce the overall charge.
>So, you're saying that no matters how much gamma gets absorbed into
>the moon, that no amount of electrostatic charge ever gets created.
>What objective science supports this theory?
Gammas are uncharged (photons).
For them to produce a net charge, they'd have to do so by expelling
charged particles, and one type preferentially to the other.
>> Also, from some process that generates low energy free charges, the
>> negative ones will be accelerated away while the positive ones lose
>> energy and many won't escape. This will also reduce the net charge.
>>
>> If the initial charge is positive, the same holds true except the charges
>> are reversed.
>>
>> At some point, this process will be equal to whatever processes attempt to
>> generate a net charge (this is likely possible due to the mass difference
>> between electrons and anything with a net positive charge). This will
>> generate an equilibrium state likely with an overall net charge, probably
>> significant but not outstanding.
>Now you're saying that such cosmic gamma is uncommon, and no matters
>what, whereas in theory everything remains eV neutral and/or eV equal
>to one another.
You haven't read what I wrote. I said that if there are processes that
tend to generate a charge, other processes will tend to neutralize it,
leading to an equilibrium.
>How uncommon in terms of hits per cm2/sec are you suggesting?
It's your obsession; why don't you do so? (and facts, not made-up numbers)
>Are you not aware of the shuttle deployed tether science experiment
>that sort of blows holes in your theory?
Gammas, magnetic fields or solar wind?
BradGuth
wrote:
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Nov 27, 1:25 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >wrote:
>
> >> >> > what's the electrostatic charge of
> >> >> >our Selene/moon?
>
> >> >> Since the effect of an initial charge would be to attract low energy
> >> >> particles of the opposite charge and repel like charges, it wil not tend
> >> >> to accumulate a strong charge. It will reach an equilibrium where any
> >> >> processes that tend to produce a net charge are exactly counterbalanced by
> >> >> neutralization by the solar wind etc.
> >> >Good THEORY. Got any objective science to back that up?
>
> >> The behavior of electric charges in response to another charged object is
> >> very well understood. Do YOU have any FACTS on how strong a charge
> >> the moon has? I didn't think so, just your rants.
> >Same as your SSWAG (subjective scientific wild ass guess), so we're
> >about even.
>
> I don't think so. I'm talking about how electric charges react to each
> other while you're just spouting nonsense.
Perhaps in your ideal universe that's forever expanding, and thus
nothing interacts with anything.
In other words, you're just a hired spook/mole. At least now we know.
>
> >Are you not aware of the shuttle deployed tether science experiment
> >that sort of blows holes in your theory?
>
> Gammas, magnetic fields or solar wind?
Perhaps all of the above. The point being is that stuff in space
(such as our moon) gets extremely charged up.
~ BG
Szczepan Białek
"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote
news:ggmnhq$q7k$1...@pcls4.std.com...
> BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>If the average gamma were 1e15 eV,
>
> It's not.
>
>> what's the electrostatic charge of
>>our Selene/moon?
"The dozen Apollo astronauts who walked on the moon between 1969 and 1972
were all surprised by how "sticky" moondust was. Dust got on everything,
fouling tools and spacesuits. Equipment blackened by dust absorbed sunlight
and tended to overheat. It was a real problem.
Many researchers believe that moondust has a severe case of static cling:
it's electrically charged. In the lunar daytime, intense ultraviolet (UV)
light from the sun knocks electrons out of the powdery grit. Dust grains on
the moon's daylit surface thus become positively charged."
It is from: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/21nov_abbas.htm
>
> Since the effect of an initial charge would be to attract low energy
> particles of the opposite charge and repel like charges, it wil not tend
> to accumulate a strong charge. It will reach an equilibrium where any
> processes that tend to produce a net charge are exactly counterbalanced by
> neutralization by the solar wind etc.
Electrons do not like vacuum. They prefer solid bodies and liquids. They do
not escape even from Van der Graff sphere. So all bodies far from the Sun
should have an excess of electrons. Have they?
S*
BradGuth
> "Michael Moroney" <moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrotenews:ggmnhq$q7k$1...@pcls4.std.com...
If we had our science platform within the Selene/moon L1 (Earth-moon
L1), say as of 4 decades ago, we'd know.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Szczepan Białek
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote
news:0559cafb-b7c3-4810...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
> Perhaps all of the above. The point being is that stuff in space
> (such as our moon) gets extremely charged up.
Is it known if they have excess of electrons?
S*
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrotenews:0559cafb-b7c3-4810...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > Perhaps all of the above. The point being is that stuff in space
> > (such as our moon) gets extremely charged up.
>
> Is it known if they have excess of electrons?
> S*
Yes, it is sufficiently peer replicated and otherwise objectively
known that such naked anticathodes as our Selene/moon must have loads
of electrons to spare.
How is it possible that such items would be passive (nonreactive) and
thus electron inert?
~ BG
Szczepan Białek
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote
news:5b5af418-81c2-4de9...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 29, 8:59 am, "Szczepan Białek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com>
> wrotenews:0559cafb-b7c3-4810...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > Perhaps all of the above. The point being is that stuff in space
> > (such as our moon) gets extremely charged up.
>
>> Is it known if they have excess of electrons?
> S*
>Yes, it is sufficiently peer replicated and otherwise objectively
known that such naked anticathodes as our Selene/moon must have loads
of electrons to spare.
Anticathode works all times (stronger in day), but load is constant.
>How is it possible that such items would be passive (nonreactive) and
thus electron inert?
They are active. Electrons emitted by photo- and thermo- processes migrate
quickly toward the surface. But if the voltage is too high they migrate
inside ground (electons do not like vacuum) and the recombination take
place. Have it sense?
S*
~ BG
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrotenews:5b5af418-81c2-4de9...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 29, 8:59 am, "Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com>
> > wrotenews:0559cafb-b7c3-4810...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Perhaps all of the above. The point being is that stuff in space
> > > (such as our moon) gets extremely charged up.
>
> >> Is it known if they have excess of electrons?
> > S*
>
> > Yes, it is sufficiently peer replicated and otherwise objectively
> > known that such naked anticathodes as our Selene/moon must
> > have loads of electrons to spare.
>
> Anticathode works all times (stronger in day), but load is constant.
Are you saying the "load is constant" as meaning the discharge of
those spare electrons is constant?
I'd agree that at some point in the cosmic and solar process of
electrostatic charging up of our moon, by rights it should find a
balance point of where any new electrons are only going to match those
being drawn off by way of whatever "load" you speak of, as otherwise
the moon would have exploded by now.
Obviously there is a electrostatic force or energy balance taking
place, as similar to the 2e20 N gravity balance of Selene L1 (Earth-
moon L1), and same as the ongoing thermal balance where the Selene
surface has to get rid of all the solar thermal influx by radiating
such out the dark side. In other words, all forces are always in
balance. So, if such electrons can not forever keep loading into
Selene, where exactly are those spare/rogue electrons going?
>
> > How is it possible that such items would be passive (nonreactive)
> > and thus electron inert?
>
> They are active. Electrons emitted by photo- and thermo- processes migrate
> quickly toward the surface. But if the voltage is too high they migrate
> inside ground (electons do not like vacuum) and the recombination take
> place. Have it sense?
> S*
Therefore it makes perfect sense that our Selene/moon is highly
charged.
The ionized 1e6 km trail of lunar sodium could be another indication
of just how highly charged our Selene/moon actually is. What amount
of artificial voltage would it take in order to sustain a 9r sodium
cloud, or to otherwise sustain a 1e6 km trail of ionized sodium?
Szczepan Białek
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote
news:4f189f4f-82fe-46ef...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 30, 1:53 am, "Szczepan Białek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
>Are you saying the "load is constant" as meaning the discharge of
those spare electrons is constant?
"balance point "
>I'd agree that at some point in the cosmic and solar process of
electrostatic charging up of our moon, by rights it should find a
balance point of where any new electrons are only going to match those
being drawn off by way of whatever "load" you speak of, as otherwise
the moon would have exploded by now.
>Obviously there is a electrostatic force or energy balance taking
place, as similar to the 2e20 N gravity balance of Selene L1 (Earth-
moon L1), and same as the ongoing thermal balance where the Selene
surface has to get rid of all the solar thermal influx by radiating
such out the dark side. In other words, all forces are always in
balance. So, if such electrons can not forever keep loading into
Selene, where exactly are those spare/rogue electrons going?
>
> > How is it possible that such items would be passive (nonreactive)
> > and thus electron inert?
>
>> They are active. Electrons emitted by photo- and thermo- processes
>> migrate
> quickly toward the surface. But if the voltage is too high they migrate
> inside ground (electons do not like vacuum) and the recombination take
> place. Have it sense?
> S*
>Therefore it makes perfect sense that our Selene/moon is highly
charged.
It is not highly. We know that a charged body attract a neutral body. But
when the neutral touch the charged it is repelled. No such events. Dust is
on the surface.
>The ionized 1e6 km trail of lunar sodium could be another indication
of just how highly charged our Selene/moon actually is. What amount
of artificial voltage would it take in order to sustain a 9r sodium
cloud, or to otherwise sustain a 1e6 km trail of ionized sodium?
""The primary goal of our research is to figure out what process is most
responsible for producing the Moon's atmosphere," says Wilson. "Is it solar
radiation, the solar wind, meteoroid impacts, or some combination? We're
still not sure.". From:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast26oct_1.htm
There may be an analogy to the Earth. The Earth has the excess of electrons
and a dust and moisture also. So they levitate.If coagulation take place
they can fall down. If the dust lost electrons they also fall down. "Balance
point " must exist.
S*
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrotenews:4f189f4f-82fe-46ef...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
So, what is the voltage differential between Earth and our moon?
In other words, what is Earth's charge, as opposed to moon charge?
Which one is the positive, making the other negative? (or is it
alternating?)
~ BG
Szczepan Białek
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote
news:e432c74f-bebb-4ff4...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>So, what is the voltage differential between Earth and our moon?
Each charged body has its own voltage V = Q/C. It is the Absolute Voltage.
The proportion between mass and charge makes that microdust fly or not. All
suspensions must be charged.
>In other words, what is Earth's charge, as opposed to moon charge?
Earth has an excess of electrons. So all planets and moons should have also.
But I do not know. They know: "The research, conducted at the National Space
Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) in Huntsville, involves bombarding the
floating dust grains with ultraviolet radiation, which allows Abbas and his
colleagues to study the grains' electrostatic properties and other
characteristics. NASA and its partners at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville are looking for ways to "shake off" the lunar dust, which clings
to astronaut suits, lunar rovers and other delicate equipment and could pose
a potential hazard to long-term Moon explorers. (NASA/MSFC) " From:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/multimedia/photos/2005/photos05-144.html
>Which one is the positive, making the other negative? (or is it
alternating?)
I assume, like Franklin, that all heaven bodies have an exces of electrons
(on their surfaces).
S*
Szczepan Białek
alternating?)
Negative and positive have the two different meanings. In physics they means
the deficit and excess of electrons. In electrotechnic the direction in
which a current flows. So:
"The dust is electrostatically charged by the Sun in two different ways: by
sunlight itself and by charged particles flowing out from the Sun (the solar
wind)."
Should be understand that:
Solar wind deliver electrons. Sunlight makes dinamical changes in their
locations. But the total sum is the excess of electrons.
"On the daylit side of the Moon, solar ultraviolet and X-ray radiation is so
energetic that it knocks electrons out of atoms and molecules in the lunar
soil. Positive charges build up until the tiniest particles of lunar dust
(measuring 1 micron and smaller) are repelled from the surface and lofted
anywhere from meters to kilometers high, with the smallest particles
reaching the highest altitudes, Stubbs explains. Eventually they fall back
toward the surface where the process is repeated over and over again."
During dinamical changes some particles of dust can get more electrons and
they levitate. The citations are from:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/30mar_moonfountains.htm
S*
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrotenews:e432c74f-bebb-4ff4...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > So, what is the voltage differential between Earth and our moon?
>
> Each charged body has its own voltage V = Q/C. It is the Absolute Voltage.
> The proportion between mass and charge makes that microdust fly or not. All
> suspensions must be charged.
What is the absolute V = Q/C of Earth?
What is the absolute V = Q/C of Selene?
>
> > In other words, what is Earth's charge, as opposed to moon charge?
>
> Earth has an excess of electrons. So all planets and moons should have also.
> But I do not know. They know: "The research, conducted at the National Space
> Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) in Huntsville, involves bombarding the
> floating dust grains with ultraviolet radiation, which allows Abbas and his
> colleagues to study the grains' electrostatic properties and other
> characteristics. NASA and its partners at the University of Alabama in
> Huntsville are looking for ways to "shake off" the lunar dust, which clings
> to astronaut suits, lunar rovers and other delicate equipment and could pose
> a potential hazard to long-term Moon explorers. (NASA/MSFC) " From:http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/multimedia/photos/2005/photos05-...
A coating or composite of Po 210 should work on the short run,
although Ra 226 might be better for the long haul, not to mention the
rather nifty glow-in-the-dark attribute that'll come in real handy
while working via earthshine.
>
> > Which one is the positive, making the other negative? (or is it
> > alternating?)
>
> I assume, like Franklin, that all heaven bodies have an exces of electrons
> (on their surfaces).
> S*
That's simply not at all what I'm after. Too bad we still do not have
any kind of science platform within our Selene L1 (Earth-moon L1), as
then we'd know with objective certainty.
Other than the unavoidable daytime, in addition to the extra heat and
increased gamma plus X-rays from our Selene/moon, why do you suppose
our NASA so deathly afraid of our Selene/moon L1?
Can't our science instruments be made rad-hard enough and otherwise
artificially shaded?
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrotenews:e432c74f-bebb-4ff4...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for sharing that infomercial science data that I'd somewhat
known about for quite some time, although the following document
included is certainly a better offering that has moon dust
electrostatic charged enough to exceed 100 km on the night side.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1899.pdf
Since we've supposedly been to the moon, having nearly countless times
orbited with our best of science instruments and supposedly with live
crew and their rad-hard Kodak film, as such why don't we objectively
know this range of eV charge.
How many antigravity teraVolts are we talking about?
Szczepan Białek
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote
news:4af58ac1-7438-4204...@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>What is the absolute V = Q/C of Earth?
>What is the absolute V = Q/C of Selene?
To know this someone must use the absolute voltage meter. Student may use:
H.W. Fullbright, American Journal Physics.(61) (10), Oct. 1993 [A Simple and
Inexpensive Teaching Apparatus For Absolute Measurement of Voltage]
Nasa probably has better.
>
>That's simply not at all what I'm after. Too bad we still do not have
any kind of science platform within our Selene L1 (Earth-moon L1), as
then we'd know with objective certainty.
Some people know with certainty. We can only speculate.
S*
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrotenews:4af58ac1-7438-4204...@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
If it's all public funded physics and science, as such we should be
informed rather than having to speculate.
Other than the Earth-moon L1 unavoidable daytime, in addition to the
extra heat and increased gamma plus X-rays from our Selene/moon, why
do you suppose our NASA has been so deathly afraid of our Selene/moon
L1?
Can't our science instruments be made rad-hard enough and otherwise
artificially shaded?
~ BG
Szczepan Białek
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote
news:7da80b99-b09d-4c20...@g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>Thanks for sharing that infomercial science data that I'd somewhat
known about for quite some time, although the following document
included is certainly a better offering that has moon dust
electrostatic charged enough to exceed 100 km on the night side.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1899.pdf
>Since we've supposedly been to the moon, having nearly countless times
orbited with our best of science instruments and supposedly with live
crew and their rad-hard Kodak film, as such why don't we objectively
know this range of eV charge.
They simply do not want tell us.
>How many antigravity teraVolts are we talking about?
Electrons are on the surface so the ratio charge/mass is for planets and
moon very very small. Quite opposite is in the case of ultra fine dust.
S*
extremesou...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
unshielded ultraviolet rays from the Sun have enough energy to kick
electrons out of the upper layers of the regolith (soil), giving the
surface of each dust particle a net positive charge. The smaller the
particles, the less their mass and the greater their charged surface
area, so the more they clung—just like Styrofoam peanuts broken into
small bits.
Sunlight gives an electrostatic charge to dust particles on the Moon,
causing some to lift off the surface and levitate
extremesou...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is no net electronic charge between the earth and the moon.
There is no medium between the moon and earth with which to allow
charge accumulation from one body to the other. Lightning and clouds
accumulate electrons and then realease them through a lightning
discharge. The air allows the movement and conduction of electrons
from the earth surface to the clouds, or cloud-to-cloud charge
accumulation. Electrons in the air are used in this process. The
vacuum of space (electronless) and a 250,000 mile long "reistor" would
be too great to allow a charge to be set up between the moon and
earth. The earth-moon connection is currently explained as "gravity"
and has nothing to do with an electric field due to surplus electrons
on one body versus the other body.
For an E (electrostatic) field to exist between two bodies, there must
be a net negative charge on one body and a lack of electrons (positive
charge) on the other body. This simply is not the case with the earth
and moon.
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrotenews:7da80b99-b09d-4c20...@g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Thanks for sharing that infomercial science data that I'd somewhat
> > known about for quite some time, although the following document
> > included is certainly a better offering that has moon dust
> > electrostatic charged enough to exceed 100 km on the night side.
>
> > http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1899.pdf
>
> > Since we've supposedly been to the moon, having nearly countless times
> > orbited with our best of science instruments and supposedly with live
> > crew and their rad-hard Kodak film, as such why don't we objectively
> > know this range of eV charge.
>
> They simply do not want tell us.
That's pretty much what I figured.
>
> >How many antigravity teraVolts are we talking about?
>
> Electrons are on the surface so the ratio charge/mass is for planets and
> moon very very small. Quite opposite is in the case of ultra fine dust.
> S*
But the entire surface of the moon has got to be hosting at least 1e18
kg worth of crystal dry dust and lose rock that's potentially
containing a fairly good amount of He3 and other nifty elements, such
as sodium and oxygen, with basalt bedrock below that's supposedly
hosting 260 ppm of h2o and otherwise loads of heavy elements.
Don't forget the 9r of sodium and of the 1e6 km comet like trail of
sodium.
Until proven objectively otherwise, I'd say there's several teraVolts
existing between Earth and Selene, and perhaps Selene offers several
farads worth of eV storage capacity to boot. (above the surface and
trailing behind, I'm up to more than 1.5e6 tonnes of sodium)
~ BG
extremesou...@yahoo.com
if you had a way set up a potential difference between the planet and
the moon, so their would be a flow of current but that’s not the case,
so their for you have no tera volts but you do have the potential if
you could connect the potential difference physically between the two
like a electrostatic network of satellites that could bridge the gap
and set up the link for the current flow the electricity needs a path
back to ground for you to have a several teravolts existing between
Earth and Selene. but I think it's may be possible someday.
BradGuth
<extremesoundandli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 1:05 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 11:01 am, "Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrotenews:7da80b99-b09d-4c20...@g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > Thanks for sharing that infomercial science data that I'd somewhat
> > > > known about for quite some time, although the following document
> > > > included is certainly a better offering that has moon dust
> > > > electrostatic charged enough to exceed 100 km on the night side.
>
> > > >http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1899.pdf
>
> > > > Since we've supposedly been to the moon, having nearly countless times
> > > > orbited with our best of science instruments and supposedly with live
> > > > crew and their rad-hard Kodak film, as such why don't we objectively
> > > > know this range of eV charge.
>
> > > They simply do not want tell us.
>
> > That's pretty much what I figured.
>
> > > >How many antigravity teraVolts are we talking about?
>
> > > Electrons are on the surface so the ratio charge/mass is for planets and
> > > moon very very small. Quite opposite is in the case of ultra fine dust.
> > > S*
>
> > But the entire surface of the moon has got to be hosting at least 1e18
> > containing a fairly good amount of He3 and other nifty elements, such
> > as sodium and oxygen, with basalt bedrock below that's supposedly
> > hosting 260 ppm of h2o and otherwise loads of heavy elements.
>
> > Don't forget the 9r of sodium and of the 1e6 km comet like trail of
> > sodium.
>
> > Until proven objectively otherwise, I'd say there's several teraVolts
> > existing between Earth and Selene, and perhaps Selene offers several
> > farads worth of eV storage capacity to boot. (above the surface and
> > trailing behind, I'm up to more than 1.5e6 tonnes of sodium)
>
> > ~ BG
>
>"Until proven objectively otherwise, I'd say there's several teraVolts
> existing between Earth and Selene, and perhaps"
>
> if you had a way set up a potential difference between the planet and
> the moon, so their would be a flow of current but that’s not the case,
Speak for yourself. I have my nifty LSE-CM/ISS tether dipole that'll
reach safely to within 2r of Earth, with the other end or opposite
dipole element connected to the moon.
>
> so their for you have no tera volts but you do have the potential if
> you could connect the potential difference physically between the two
> like a electrostatic network of satellites that could bridge the gap
> and set up the link for the current flow the electricity needs a path
> back to ground for you to have a several teravolts existing between
> Earth and Selene. but I think it's may be possible someday.
Dipole extracted energy can be sent back to Earth via microwaves or
better to use IR lasers, and otherwise via any number of Selene
products that we here on Earth or on behalf of our goings between
Earth and Selene could be put to darn good use.
~ BG
extremesou...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
from 1 mm to 1 m, or frequencies between 0.3 GHz and 300 GHz. but
practical microwave techniques tends to move away from the discrete
resistors, capacitors, and inductors used with lower frequency radio
waves. Instead, distributed circuit elements and transmission-line
theory are more useful methods for your idea of a design and you would
have to find a way to convert the net positive charge, practical
microwave technique tends to move away from the discrete resistors,
capacitors, and inductors used with lower frequency radio waves.
Instead, distributed circuit elements and transmission-line theory are
more useful methods for your idea of harnessing the net positive
charge of the moon dust but the positive charge potential on the moon
dust needs to be converted on the moon first then it must be beamed
back , I'm not sure Above 300 GHz, the absorption of electromagnetic
radiation by Earth's atmosphere is so great that it is effectively
opaque, absorbing your wattage you just harnessed ,let me give it some
thought on a circuit designee for this application.
extremesou...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
How is it possible that such items would be passive (nonreactive)
> > and thus electron inert
Solar-power plasma-waves spiral-into-earth atmosphere, functions of
multi-balancing in global eco-zones in: tornadoes, typhoons,
hurricanes, cyclones are huge & small vortexes; earthquakes &
volcanoes. Meteorology claims that air hi/low temp & pressure waves,
fronts & climate changes, refuting that plasma-energy are everywhere,
spiraling around thru jet-streams. The solar plasma waves spiral
thru the geodesic-earth-grid works of invisible structure-of-
consciousness, that radiation flows thru in all directions, this octet-
truss grid-matrix triangulating space structures all our weather flows
multi-dimensional thru natural geometry of space. This sets the stage
for the interaction of extremely low frequency waves (ELF: 3–3000 Hz)
and very low frequency (VLF: 3–30 kHz), the ground and the ionosphere
are good electrical conductors
And form a spherical earth–ionosphere waveguide that’s dynamics.
Electricity flows from the ionosphere through these waveguides to
earth that’s what keeps the levels of one net charge positive or
negative in a state of checks and balance or wanting to move to a
state of equilibrium.On the moon the solar winds that charge the moon
dust that store vast amounts of a positive ionic charge dont have a
way to discharge themselves from the lack of atmosphere.
BradGuth
You really don't know squat about Selene L1. No wonder we're having
this pesky communications problem.
Think a little more outside the box, think as big as you like, and
think as though there were a viable future for 1e10 or more of
humanity that's other than terrestrial based.
~ BG
BradGuth
The 2e20 N/sec of tidal force having Selene in orbit about our 98.5%
fluid Earth represents a much lower frequency (0.392e-6 Hz).
>
> And form a spherical earth–ionosphere waveguide that’s dynamics.
> Electricity flows from the ionosphere through these waveguides to
> earth that’s what keeps the levels of one net charge positive or
> negative in a state of checks and balance or wanting to move to a
> state of equilibrium.On the moon the solar winds that charge the moon
> dust that store vast amounts of a positive ionic charge dont have a
> way to discharge themselves from the lack of atmosphere.
That's where the tether dipole element of my LSE-CM/ISS comes in real
handy.
The CM/ISS is situated only 58~60,000 km from the moon and worth 256e6
t, and the counter-rotating flywheels storing the multiple teraWatts
of clean energy at the Selene L1 (roughly 1,000 km below the CM/ISS)
might need only be 256e3 t.
~ BG
.
Szczepan Białek
"rustyj...@gmail.com" <extremesou...@yahoo.com> wrote
news:4d9fc408-e4a6-4c09...@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>.On the moon the solar winds that charge the moon
dust that store vast amounts of a positive ionic charge dont have a
way to discharge themselves from the lack of atmosphere.
It is not difficult to make the atmosphere. Charged ultra fine dust levitate
and in this way electrons can even escape from the Moon into Space.
S*
Szczepan Białek
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote
news:4ab697ca-84be-453b...@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 1, 11:01 am, "Szczepan Białek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
>Until proven objectively otherwise, I'd say there's several teraVolts
existing between Earth and Selene,
Calculated absolute Earth voltage is 150V. On the Moon will be similar.
S*
Szczepan Białek
"rustyj...@gmail.com" <extremesou...@yahoo.com>wrote
news:1f1e037b-f160-4333...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
>unshielded ultraviolet rays from the Sun have enough energy to kick
electrons out of the upper layers of the regolith (soil), giving the
surface of each dust particle a net positive charge.
And where are the kicked electrons.
> The smaller the particles, the less their mass and the greater their
> charged surface
area, so the more they clung曜ust like Styrofoam peanuts broken into
small bits.
Sunlight gives an electrostatic charge to dust particles on the Moon,
causing some to lift off the surface and levitate
"Negative and positive have the two different meanings. In physics they
means
the deficit and excess of electrons. In electrotechnic the direction in
which a current flows"
Which one do you use?
S*
BradGuth
> "rustyjames...@gmail.com" <extremesoundandli...@yahoo.com> wrotenews:4d9fc408-e4a6-4c09...@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >.On the moon the solar winds that charge the moon
>
> dust that store vast amounts of a positive ionic charge dont have a
> way to discharge themselves from the lack of atmosphere.
>
> It is not difficult to make the atmosphere. Charged ultra fine dust levitate
> and in this way electrons can even escape from the Moon into Space.
> S*
I agree, that atmosphere making is not so insurmountable, although it
would still be rather thin and dry.
You obviously meant to say "this way electrons can't even escape from
the Moon into Space".
That electron saturated trail of sodium (1.6e9 kg of Na) that offers
nearly 1e6 km (@10 Na atoms/cm3) in overall length should be worth a
few tera eV.
~ BG
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrotenews:4ab697ca-84be-453b...@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 1, 11:01 am, "Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> >Until proven objectively otherwise, I'd say there's several teraVolts
> > existing between Earth and Selene,
>
> Calculated absolute Earth voltage is 150V. On the Moon will be similar.
> S*
That's interesting. Makes me further question most everything we've
ever been informed about off-world matters.
Why still no Earth-moon L1 platform of science and astronomy
instruments (including TRACE-II)?
Perhaps our Selene/moon L1 offers too much voltage, along with too
much IR energy and obviously too much gamma and X-rays.
BradGuth
> "rustyjames...@gmail.com" <extremesoundandli...@yahoo.com>wrotenews:1f1e037b-f160-4333...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> >unshielded ultraviolet rays from the Sun have enough energy to kick
> > electrons out of the upper layers of the regolith (soil), giving the
> > surface of each dust particle a net positive charge.
>
> And where are the kicked electrons.
>
> > The smaller the particles, the less their mass and the greater their
> > peanuts broken into small bits.
> Sunlight gives an electrostatic charge to dust particles on the Moon,
> causing some to lift off the surface and levitate
>
> "Negative and positive have the two different meanings. In physics they
> means
> the deficit and excess of electrons. In electrotechnic the direction in
> which a current flows"
>
> Which one do you use?
> S*
Why are you playing word games? Are you being a little bipolar?
Earth should, because of size and mass, have more electrons to spare,
thus Earth would become positive charged to that of the moon.
Therefore the moon could represent a highly negative tera eV
potential.
However, Earth has a magnetosphere that could extensively discharge
the vast bulk of those electrons into space, making Earth electron
deficient.
How about those naked moon protons and neutrons?
How about the moon sodium (Na) and its Radon (Ra 222)?
What's making our Selene/moon so unusually gamma saturated?
~ BG
Szczepan Białek
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote
news:8d3beafe-b478-4d38...@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
>You obviously meant to say "this way electrons can't even escape from
the Moon into Space".
Everywhere must be the balance point. Moon must have a way to export
electrons.
S*
Szczepan Białek
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote
news:02e0bece-b978-4aa8...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
>Why are you playing word games? Are you being a little bipolar?
>Earth should, because of size and mass, have more electrons to spare,
thus Earth would become positive charged
I simply do not know what "become positive charged" means. If electrons
escape from a body a current flows. Electrons flow from "-" to "+". But we
do not know if is excess or deficit of electrons. So is better use big/small
deficit and big/small excess.
> to that of the moon.
>Therefore the moon could represent a highly negative tera eV
potential.
>However, Earth has a magnetosphere that could extensively discharge
the vast bulk of those electrons into space, making Earth electron
deficient.
Earth surface has the excess of electrons
>How about those naked moon protons and neutrons?
>How about the moon sodium (Na) and its Radon (Ra 222)?
>What's making our Selene/moon so unusually gamma saturated?
Too detailed question for me.
S*
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrotenews:02e0bece-b978-4aa8...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> >Why are you playing word games? Are you being a little bipolar?
> >Earth should, because of size and mass, have more electrons to spare,
> >thus Earth would become positive charged
How about; "thus Earth would become negative charged"?
>
> I simply do not know what "become positive charged" means. If electrons
> escape from a body a current flows. Electrons flow from "-" to "+". But we
> do not know if is excess or deficit of electrons. So is better use big/small
> deficit and big/small excess.
>
> > to that of the moon.
> >Therefore the moon could represent a highly negative tera eV
>
> potential.
>
> >However, Earth has a magnetosphere that could extensively discharge
>
> the vast bulk of those electrons into space, making Earth electron
> deficient.
>
> Earth surface has the excess of electrons
>
> >How about those naked moon protons and neutrons?
> >How about the moon sodium (Na) and its Radon (Ra 222)?
> >What's making our Selene/moon so unusually gamma saturated?
>
> Too detailed question for me.
> S*
Why is your version of Usenet/newsgroup posting replies working in
such a piss poor format?
It obviously makes for others and myself reading your replies extra
complex and/or confusing. Is that the intention, as it looks?
Why no Selene/moon L1 science platform that could have easily answered
all of these questions and perhaps hundreds of others as of decades
ago?
~ BG
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrotenews:8d3beafe-b478-4d38...@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> >You obviously meant to say "this way electrons can't even escape from
> >the Moon into Space".
>
> Everywhere must be the balance point. Moon must have a way to export
> electrons.
> S*
I agree. So, of where exactly are those trillions upon trillions of
moon electrons/sec going?
Are any of those spare/rogue electrons capable of creating gamma and X-
rays?
~ BG
Szczepan Białek
Użytkownik "BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:a4d8545a-11c8-44d8...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 2, 9:15 am, "Szczepan Białek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com>
> wrotenews:02e0bece-b978-4aa8...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> >Why are you playing word games? Are you being a little bipolar?
> >Earth should, because of size and mass, have more electrons to spare,
> >thus Earth would become positive charged
How about; "thus Earth would become negative charged"?
The whole Earth has excess of electrons. The surface, air (electrons are on
the dust and moisture) and upper layers of the atmosphere.
>
> I simply do not know what "become positive charged" means. If electrons
> escape from a body a current flows. Electrons flow from "-" to "+". But we
> do not know if is excess or deficit of electrons. So is better use
> big/small
> deficit and big/small excess.
>
> > to that of the moon.
> >Therefore the moon could represent a highly negative tera eV
>
> potential.
>
> >However, Earth has a magnetosphere that could extensively discharge
>
> the vast bulk of those electrons into space, making Earth electron
> deficient.
>
> Earth surface has the excess of electrons
>
> >How about those naked moon protons and neutrons?
> >How about the moon sodium (Na) and its Radon (Ra 222)?
> >What's making our Selene/moon so unusually gamma saturated?
>
> Too detailed question for me.
> S*
>Why is your version of Usenet/newsgroup posting replies working in
such a piss poor format?
>It obviously makes for others and myself reading your replies extra
complex and/or confusing. Is that the intention, as it looks?
Few years ago everybody recommended "cut off". Now all memories are bigger
so I can stop with it.
>Why no Selene/moon L1 science platform that could have easily answered
all of these questions and perhaps hundreds of others as of decades
ago?
Not all information are available for all.
S*
~ BG
BradGuth
> U¿ytkownik "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶cinews:a4d8545a-11c8-44d8...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 2, 9:15 am, "Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com>
> > wrotenews:02e0bece-b978-4aa8...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >Why are you playing word games? Are you being a little bipolar?
> > >Earth should, because of size and mass, have more electrons to spare,
> > >thus Earth would become positive charged
>
> How about; "thus Earth would become negative charged"?
>
> The whole Earth has excess of electrons. The surface, air (electrons are on
> the dust and moisture) and upper layers of the atmosphere.
Then Earth is perhaps highly negative charged, because of having
electrons in excess that would want to flow or reach out to something
like our moon, that by your reasoning is supposedly deficient of
electrons due to it's smaller size. I don't exactly buy that analogy.
>
> > I simply do not know what "become positive charged" means. If electrons
> > escape from a body a current flows. Electrons flow from "-" to "+". But we
> > do not know if is excess or deficit of electrons. So is better use
> > big/small deficit and big/small excess.
>
> > > to that of the moon.
> > >Therefore the moon could represent a highly negative tera eV
>
> > potential.
>
> > >However, Earth has a magnetosphere that could extensively discharge
> > > the vast bulk of those electrons into space, making Earth electron
> > > deficient.
>
> > Earth surface has the excess of electrons
>
> > >How about those naked moon protons and neutrons?
> > >How about the moon sodium (Na) and its Radon (Ra 222)?
> > >What's making our Selene/moon so unusually gamma saturated?
>
> > >Too detailed question for me.
> > >S*
> >Why is your version of Usenet/newsgroup posting replies working in
> > such a piss poor format?
>
> >It obviously makes for others and myself reading your replies extra
> > complex and/or confusing. Is that the intention, as it looks?
>
> Few years ago everybody recommended "cut off". Now all memories are bigger
> so I can stop with it.
Just use Google Groups. It should be free, or as near to free as
you're going to get.
>
> >Why no Selene/moon L1 science platform that could have easily answered
> > all of these questions and perhaps hundreds of others as of decades
> > ago?
>
> Not all information are available for all.
> S*
If our hard earned public loot is what pays for everything, then we
should be entitled to review all that's not specifically of national
security.
Are you suggesting that our Selene/moon L1 is national security?
Are you suggesting that the planet Venus is of some kind of national
security?
Are you suggesting that our Selene/moon itself is taboo/nondisclosure
rated, because of national security?
Sounds like a whole lot of faith-based nonsense and cover-thy-butt
going on, doesn't it.
How much of these public Usenet/newsgroup topics as provided via
Google Groups or by whatever Usenet reader, are you able to see?
The newsgroup "alt.astronomy" is but one out of many that'll host
hundreds of interesting topics we can chat about. Are some of these
topics getting restricted or excluded from whatever internet provider
or Usenet reader that you happen to use?
~ BG
Szczepan Białek
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote
news:82bad944-754a-4f9d...@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 3, 12:35 am, "Szczepan Białek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> Użytkownik "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> napisał w
> wiadomościnews:a4d8545a-11c8-44d8...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 2, 9:15 am, "Szczepan Białek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com>
> > wrotenews:02e0bece-b978-4aa8...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >Why are you playing word games? Are you being a little bipolar?
> > >Earth should, because of size and mass, have more electrons to spare,
> > >thus Earth would become positive charged
>
>> How about; "thus Earth would become negative charged"?
>
>> The whole Earth has excess of electrons. The surface, air (electrons are
>> on
> the dust and moisture) and upper layers of the atmosphere.
>Then Earth is perhaps highly negative charged,
Not highly. The Earth electric field is below 300V/m or 3V/cm. It is very
very weak.
Any problem with stopping cutting off
>
> >Why no Selene/moon L1 science platform that could have easily answered
> > all of these questions and perhaps hundreds of others as of decades
> > ago?
>
> Not all information are available for all.
> S*
If our hard earned public loot is what pays for everything, then we
should be entitled to review all that's not specifically of national
security.
Are you suggesting that our Selene/moon L1 is national security?
Are you suggesting that the planet Venus is of some kind of national
security?
Are you suggesting that our Selene/moon itself is taboo/nondisclosure
rated, because of national security?
Sounds like a whole lot of faith-based nonsense and cover-thy-butt
going on, doesn't it.
How much of these public Usenet/newsgroup topics as provided via
Google Groups or by whatever Usenet reader, are you able to see?
The newsgroup "alt.astronomy" is but one out of many that'll host
hundreds of interesting topics we can chat about. Are some of these
topics getting restricted or excluded from whatever internet provider
or Usenet reader that you happen to use?
We can chat about all topics. But it is not easy to find the results of
measurements. Even such made by students.
S*
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrotenews:82bad944-754a-4f9d...@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 3, 12:35 am, "Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
>
>
> > U¿ytkownik "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> napisa³ w
> > On Dec 2, 9:15 am, "Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com>
> > > wrotenews:02e0bece-b978-4aa8...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >Why are you playing word games? Are you being a little bipolar?
> > > >Earth should, because of size and mass, have more electrons to spare,
> > > >thus Earth would become positive charged
>
> >> How about; "thus Earth would become negative charged"?
>
> >> The whole Earth has excess of electrons. The surface, air (electrons are
> >> on
> > the dust and moisture) and upper layers of the atmosphere.
> >Then Earth is perhaps highly negative charged,
>
> Not highly. The Earth electric field is below 300V/m or 3V/cm. It is very
> very weak.
Good grief, 300 V/m is not insignificant, especially when taking into
account the 6378 km radius plus at least another 100 km beyond that,
not to mention our other ionic gauntlet of 70,000+ km if you'd care to
include the Van Allan badlands of our ionic charged magnetosphere, or
how about the 326,000 km radius to Selene L1.
Even if you meant 300 mV/m is still going to get impressive.
Not that I know of. As far as I know, you should be able to run with
both options unless your PC OS simply isn't new enough. A DOS ASCII
news reader (if that's what your "cutting off" is) isn't going to run
anything of Google Groups.
>
>
> > >Why no Selene/moon L1 science platform that could have easily answered
> > > all of these questions and perhaps hundreds of others as of decades
> > > ago?
>
> > Not all information are available for all.
> > S*
>
> > If our hard earned public loot is what pays for everything, then we
> > should be entitled to review all that's not specifically of national
> > security.
>
> > Are you suggesting that our Selene/moon L1 is national security?
>
> > Are you suggesting that the planet Venus is of some kind of national
> > security?
>
> > Are you suggesting that our Selene/moon itself is taboo/nondisclosure
> > rated, because of national security?
>
> > Sounds like a whole lot of faith-based nonsense and cover-thy-butt
> > going on, doesn't it.
>
> > How much of these public Usenet/newsgroup topics as provided via
> > Google Groups or by whatever Usenet reader, are you able to see?
>
> > The newsgroup "alt.astronomy" is but one out of many that'll host
> > hundreds of interesting topics we can chat about. Are some of these
> > topics getting restricted or excluded from whatever internet provider
> > or Usenet reader that you happen to use?
>
> We can chat about all topics. But it is not easy to find the results of
> measurements. Even such made by students.
> S*
Our being on such a need-to-know basis, or outright banished isn't
helping on my side of this research either. It's as though all the
really good stuff has been made taboo/nondisclosure rated, especially
if any of it could potentially rock a given faith-based boat, so to
speak.
~ BG
Szczepan Białek
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com>wrote
news:3dd4d755-1ae4-4ffd...@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 3, 9:53 am, "Szczepan Białek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com>
> wrotenews:82bad944-754a-4f9d...@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Użytkownik "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> napisał w
> > On Dec 2, 9:15 am, "Szczepan Białek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com>
> > > wrotenews:02e0bece-b978-4aa8...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >Why are you playing word games? Are you being a little bipolar?
> > > >Earth should, because of size and mass, have more electrons to spare,
> > > >thus Earth would become positive charged
>
> >> How about; "thus Earth would become negative charged"?
>
> >> The whole Earth has excess of electrons. The surface, air (electrons
> >> are
> >> on
> > the dust and moisture) and upper layers of the atmosphere.
> >Then Earth is perhaps highly negative charged,
>
> Not highly. The Earth electric field is below 300V/m or 3V/cm. It is very
> very weak.
Good grief, 300 V/m is not insignificant, especially when taking into
account the 6378 km radius plus at least another 100 km beyond that,
not to mention our other ionic gauntlet of 70,000+ km if you'd care to
include the Van Allan badlands of our ionic charged magnetosphere, or
how about the 326,000 km radius to Selene L1.
Even if you meant 300 mV/m is still going to get impressive.
300 V/m is significant but not high. We can do 3000000 V/m.
300 V/m is enough to produce the all phenomenon simmilar to that on the
Moon. Ultra fine dust and water vapour aggregates levitate if are charged.
Condensed water (droplets) do not levitate and fall down. Electrons come
back separately (20% as lightning).
I am not an expert in PC.
All measurements are costly. The results are for sale.
S*
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com>wrotenews:3dd4d755-1ae4-4ffd...@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 3, 9:53 am, "Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com>
> > wrotenews:82bad944-754a-4f9d...@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > U¿ytkownik "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> napisa³ w
Who the hell are you kidding? All measurements and thereby all data
are public funded and thus having been public paid for many times
over.
Are you suggesting a government cabal or secret cults within is always
going to be the norm? (isn't that what Hitler and any number of other
bastards had going?)
~ BG
extremesou...@yahoo.com
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrotenews:02e0bece-b978-4aa8...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
a lack of an ionosphere
extremesou...@yahoo.com
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrotenews:02e0bece-b978-4aa8...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
In other words, what is Earth's charge, as opposed to moon charge?
the earths charge is dynamic it changes constanly to reach a point of
equilliberium
BradGuth
We can assume that our sun has by far the most electrons to spare,
thus it should be the most negative charged if it's supposedly where
most of our local electrons came from.
But what is this shifting charge or alternating differential of Earth,
as opposed to that of whatever our naked Selene might have to offer?
Shouldn't this amount of charge be objectively known by now?
How much ionic or electrostatic charge does it take in order to get
moon dust to zoom past the 100 km mark?
In all of our NASA/Apollo EVA Kodak images, including movie film and
video, in addition to everything looking rather unusually passive,
guano island like and xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated, it seems
there's absolutely no sign whatsoever of any vertical movement in moon
dust of any kind. Clearly dust was being kicked and otherwise tossed
upwards by their manner of doing stuff, and otherwise for just having
a little 1/6th gravity fun within that 3e-15 bar vacuum.
What the hell gives? Did our DARPA special affects crew miss a little
something?
Szczepan Białek
"rustyj...@gmail.com" <extremesou...@yahoo.com> wrote
news:b40cd3e4-258c-4c85...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Thank this they come. But why they are not absorbed? The Moon albedo is very
low (7%). Probably they are reflected like X-rays in Bragg experiment from
crystal lattice.
S*
BradGuth
> "rustyjames...@gmail.com" <extremesoundandli...@yahoo.com> wrotenews:b40cd3e4-258c-4c85...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
The entire electromagnetic spectrum of photons creates and/or provides
secondary/recoil photons of a lower frequency per each physical
encounter or interaction. There's no such thing as any mirrored
surface of exactly 1.0 albedo, because some degree of photon/matter
interaction always takes place.
Our nearly naked Selene/moon is in fact highly reactive, and
subsequently it too gives off more than its fair share of such
secondary/recoil photons. In other words, or Selene/moon is very
anticathode worthy.
~ BG
BradGuth
> "rustyjames...@gmail.com" <extremesoundandli...@yahoo.com> wrotenews:b40cd3e4-258c-4c85...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
This has nothing to do with atom barycenters, but it does relate to
our subtopic of our highly reactive Selene/moon.
Preparing For A Walk On The Moon
“Astronomers Discover That The Earth's Magnetotail Charges The
Surface Of The Moon”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/1007-preparing_for_a_walk_on_the_moon.htm
"The surface of the moon can become electrified from charged particles
in the surrounding space environment," says Timothy Stubbs, Ph.D., a
space scientist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt,
Md.
“on the dark side, the voltage can reach hundreds or thousands of
volts”per meter?
“Each month, the moon enters the magnetotail for six days. As it
crosses inside the magnetotail, the moon's surface becomes highly
charged.”
"These sorts of things that affect astronauts are things that we'd
like to investigate before we return to the moon," Dr. Stubbs says.
Gee whiz Dr. Stubbs, too bad we still do not have our Earth-moon L1/
(Selene L1) Boeing OASIS, Clarke Station or any other kind of outpost/
gateway as our robotic science, SETI, TRACE and astronomy platform, or
much less hosting my LSE-CM/ISS.
The lunar eclipse that’s offering a very dull yellow/orange moon is
likely a color/hue tint contributed from the ionic/electrostatic
charged sodium via Earth’s magnetosphere and its magnetotail plus
solar wind at the same time. Of course there’s also a trace of Rn222
that’ll also tend to excite.
Szczepan Białek
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote
news:dc780168-bc21-46b7...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 5, 10:16 am, "Szczepan Białek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "rustyjames...@gmail.com" <extremesoundandli...@yahoo.com>
> wrotenews:b40cd3e4-258c-4c85...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/1007-preparing_for_a_walk_on_the_moon.htm
Not per meter. " Astrophysicists found that the moon's surface becomes
electrified during each full moon. The moon passes through the Earth's
magnetotail, a cone of highly-charged particles, for about 6 days each
month. On the side of the moon facing the sun, ultraviolet particles disrupt
the electromagnetic effect, keeping the voltage at low levels, but on the
dark side, the voltage can reach hundreds or thousands of volts."
Six days the Moon is charged and next the charges escape with the dust.
>“Each month, the moon enters the magnetotail for six days. As it
crosses inside the magnetotail, the moon's surface becomes highly
charged.”
Highly but to about thousand volts. Van der Graff has milions volts.
>"These sorts of things that affect astronauts are things that we'd
like to investigate before we return to the moon," Dr. Stubbs says.
>Gee whiz Dr. Stubbs, too bad we still do not have our Earth-moon L1/
(Selene L1) Boeing OASIS, Clarke Station or any other kind of outpost/
gateway as our robotic science, SETI, TRACE and astronomy platform, or
much less hosting my LSE-CM/ISS.
>The lunar eclipse that’s offering a very dull yellow/orange moon is
likely a color/hue tint contributed from the ionic/electrostatic
charged sodium via Earth’s magnetosphere and its magnetotail plus
solar wind at the same time. Of course there’s also a trace of Rn222
that’ll also tend to excite.
S*
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrotenews:dc780168-bc21-46b7...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 5, 10:16 am, "Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "rustyjames...@gmail.com" <extremesoundandli...@yahoo.com>
> > wrotenews:b40cd3e4-258c-4c85...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com>
> > > wrotenews:02e0bece-b978-4aa8...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >Why are you playing word games? Are you being a little bipolar?
> > > >Earth should, because of size and mass, have more electrons to spare,
>
> > > thus Earth would become positive charged
>
> > > I simply do not know what "become positive charged" means. If electrons
> > > escape from a body a current flows. Electrons flow from "-" to "+". But
> > > we do not know if is excess or deficit of electrons. So is better use
> > > big/small deficit and big/small excess.
>
> > > > to that of the moon.
> > > >Therefore the moon could represent a highly negative tera eV
>
> > > potential.
>
> > > >However, Earth has a magnetosphere that could extensively discharge
> > > > the vast bulk of those electrons into space, making Earth electron
> > > > deficient.
>
> > > Earth surface has the excess of electrons
>
> > > >How about those naked moon protons and neutrons?
> > > >How about the moon sodium (Na) and its Radon (Ra 222)?
> > > >What's making our Selene/moon so unusually gamma saturated?
>
> > > Too detailed question for me.
> > > S*
> >
> > > What's making our Selene/moon so unusually gamma saturated
> >
> > a lack of an ionosphere
But there's a 9r surround of charged sodium that has got to be good
for something.
>
> > Thank this they come. But why they are not absorbed? The Moon albedo is
> > very low (7%). Probably they are reflected like X-rays in Bragg experiment
> > from crystal lattice.
> > S*
>
> > This has nothing to do with atom barycenters, but it does relate to
> > our subtopic of our highly reactive Selene/moon.
>
> > Preparing For A Walk On The Moon
> > “Astronomers Discover That The Earth's Magnetotail Charges The
> > Surface Of The Moon”
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/1007-preparing_for_a_walk_on_...
>
> >"The surface of the moon can become electrified from charged particles
> > in the surrounding space environment," says Timothy Stubbs, Ph.D., a
> > space scientist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt,
> > Md.
>
> >“on the dark side, the voltage can reach hundreds or thousands of
> > volts” per meter?
>
> Not per meter.
Then per what distance. (and trust me, it does matter) If not per
meter, are we talking per km, or what?
>
> >" Astrophysicists found that the moon's surface becomes
> > electrified during each full moon. The moon passes through the Earth's
> > magnetotail, a cone of highly-charged particles, for about 6 days each
> > month. On the side of the moon facing the sun, ultraviolet particles disrupt
> > the electromagnetic effect, keeping the voltage at low levels, but on the
> > dark side, the voltage can reach hundreds or thousands of volts."
>
> Six days the Moon is charged and next the charges escape with the dust.
>
> >“Each month, the moon enters the magnetotail for six days. As it
> > crosses inside the magnetotail, the moon's surface becomes highly
> > charged.”
>
> Highly but to about thousand volts. Van der Graff has milions volts.
But our moon is certainly far better isolated than any Van der Graff,
and otherwise each and every cm2 getting directly hit by the likes of
1e15 eV gamma that in turn gets converted into eV photons of gamma and
X-rays, whereas as much as half of the conversion becomes electrons
(it's pretty much exactly what gets an excess of electrons created
from sunlight, in the form of what PV cells accomplish).
>
> >"These sorts of things that affect astronauts are things that we'd
> > like to investigate before we return to the moon," Dr. Stubbs says.
> >
> >Gee whiz Dr. Stubbs, too bad we still do not have our Earth-moon L1/
> > (Selene L1) Boeing OASIS, Clarke Station or any other kind of outpost/
> > gateway as our robotic science, SETI, TRACE and astronomy platform, or
> > much less hosting my LSE-CM/ISS.
>
> > The lunar eclipse that’s offering a very dull yellow/orange moon is
> > likely a color/hue tint that's contributed from the ionic/electrostatic
> > charged sodium via Earth’s magnetosphere and its magnetotail plus
> > solar wind at the same time. Of course there’s also a trace of Rn222
> > that’ll also tend to excite.
>
> S*
How much artificial ionic eV would it take in order to artificially
exceed 100 km?
Why was there never any sign whatsoever of this ionic/electrostatic
charged dust moving vertical throughout all of our Apollo EVAs?
~ BG
Szczepan Białek
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote
news:6458c359-031b-4da6...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 6, 1:19 am, "Szczepan Białek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com>
> wrotenews:dc780168-bc21-46b7...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > "rustyjames...@gmail.com" <extremesoundandli...@yahoo.com>
> > wrotenews:b40cd3e4-258c-4c85...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
It is the absolute voltage. Charged Moon has an electric field. But it has
also the spare electron density (or pressure). The pressure is the absolute
voltage.
One charged plate produces an electric field. In the equqtion F = E*q the
"E" is like the acceleration in the equqtion F = a*m.
The two plates also produce an electric field. In this case E = V/distance
between plates.
The both field are the same so we describe them in V/m.
Probably exists such distance where numerical value of the absolute voltage
and "E" is the same.
>
> >" Astrophysicists found that the moon's surface becomes
> > electrified during each full moon. The moon passes through the Earth's
> > magnetotail, a cone of highly-charged particles, for about 6 days each
> > month. On the side of the moon facing the sun, ultraviolet particles
> > disrupt
> > the electromagnetic effect, keeping the voltage at low levels, but on
> > the
> > dark side, the voltage can reach hundreds or thousands of volts."
>
> Six days the Moon is charged and next the charges escape with the dust.
>
> >“Each month, the moon enters the magnetotail for six days. As it
> > crosses inside the magnetotail, the moon's surface becomes highly
> > charged.”
>
>> Highly but to about thousand volts. Van der Graff has milions volts.
>But our moon is certainly far better isolated than any Van der Graff,
and otherwise each and every cm2 getting directly hit by the likes of
1e15 eV gamma that in turn gets converted into eV photons of gamma and
X-rays, whereas as much as half of the conversion becomes electrons
(it's pretty much exactly what gets an excess of electrons created
from sunlight, in the form of what PV cells accomplish).
Our moon is certainly far better isolated than any Van der Graff and is
possible to charge it stronger. But it is charged very poor because
astronauts not levitate after touching the surface.
>
> >"These sorts of things that affect astronauts are things that we'd
> > like to investigate before we return to the moon," Dr. Stubbs says.
> >
> >Gee whiz Dr. Stubbs, too bad we still do not have our Earth-moon L1/
> > (Selene L1) Boeing OASIS, Clarke Station or any other kind of outpost/
> > gateway as our robotic science, SETI, TRACE and astronomy platform, or
> > much less hosting my LSE-CM/ISS.
>
> > The lunar eclipse that’s offering a very dull yellow/orange moon is
> > likely a color/hue tint that's contributed from the ionic/electrostatic
> > charged sodium via Earth’s magnetosphere and its magnetotail plus
> > solar wind at the same time. Of course there’s also a trace of Rn222
> > that’ll also tend to excite.
>
> S*
>How much artificial ionic eV would it take in order to artificially
exceed 100 km?
>Why was there never any sign whatsoever of this ionic/electrostatic
charged dust moving vertical throughout all of our Apollo EVAs?
Moon and the dust are very poor charged.
S*
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrotenews:6458c359-031b-4da6...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 6, 1:19 am, "Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com>
> > wrotenews:dc780168-bc21-46b7...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > "rustyjames...@gmail.com" <extremesoundandli...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrotenews:b40cd3e4-258c-4c85...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
That's hard to follow, and sounds a good deal like covering thy NASA
butt with a brown nose, to me.
>
>
> > >" Astrophysicists found that the moon's surface becomes
> > > electrified during each full moon. The moon passes through the Earth's
> > > magnetotail, a cone of highly-charged particles, for about 6 days each
> > > month. On the side of the moon facing the sun, ultraviolet particles
> > > disrupt
> > > the electromagnetic effect, keeping the voltage at low levels, but on
> > > the
> > > dark side, the voltage can reach hundreds or thousands of volts."
>
> > Six days the Moon is charged and next the charges escape with the dust.
>
> > >“Each month, the moon enters the magnetotail for six days. As it
> > > crosses inside the magnetotail, the moon's surface becomes highly
> > > charged.”
>
> >> Highly but to about thousand volts. Van der Graff has milions volts.
>
> > But our moon is certainly far better isolated than any Van der Graff,
> > and otherwise each and every cm2 getting directly hit by the likes of
> > 1e15 eV gamma that in turn gets converted into eV photons of gamma and
> > X-rays, whereas as much as half of the conversion becomes electrons
> > (it's pretty much exactly what gets an excess of electrons created
> > from sunlight, in the form of what PV cells accomplish).
>
> Our moon is certainly far better isolated than any Van der Graff and is
> possible to charge it stronger. But it is charged very poor because
> astronauts not levitate after touching the surface.
Exactly, nor did anything else levitate or emerge regardless of its
less than micron size. So where exactly was this ionic/electrostatic
charge hiding itself on each of those missions?
>
>
> > >"These sorts of things that affect astronauts are things that we'd
> > > like to investigate before we return to the moon," Dr. Stubbs says.
>
> > >Gee whiz Dr. Stubbs, too bad we still do not have our Earth-moon L1/
> > > (Selene L1) Boeing OASIS, Clarke Station or any other kind of outpost/
> > > gateway as our robotic science, SETI, TRACE and astronomy platform, or
> > > much less hosting my LSE-CM/ISS.
>
> > > The lunar eclipse that’s offering a very dull yellow/orange moon is
> > > likely a color/hue tint that's contributed from the ionic/electrostatic
> > > charged sodium via Earth’s magnetosphere and its magnetotail plus
> > > solar wind at the same time. Of course there’s also a trace of Rn222
> > > that’ll also tend to excite.
>
> > S*
>
> > How much artificial ionic eV would it take in order to artificially
> > exceed 100 km?
>
> > Why was there never any sign whatsoever of this ionic/electrostatic
> > charged dust moving vertical throughout all of our Apollo EVAs?
>
> Moon and the dust are very poor charged.
> S*
I think you have a DARPA/NASA (aka MIB) loaded gun to your head.
~ BG
Szczepan Białek
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote
news:b2b94722-3b5a-4fb4...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 6, 11:31 am, "Szczepan Białek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com>
> wrotenews:6458c359-031b-4da6...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com>
> > wrotenews:dc780168-bc21-46b7...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > "rustyjames...@gmail.com" <extremesoundandli...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrotenews:b40cd3e4-258c-4c85...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Many people do not understand what the "E" is. Typical error is like this:
"Integrating the electric field from the earth's surface to the ionosphere
gives as a result an electric potential difference of about 200 kV." From:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/TreshaEdwards.shtml
The only source of the field is the Earth surface. Small charges on the
levitated dust, moisture (clouds) and upper layers only modyfy this field
locally.
So it is important to know tha Absolute Earth Voltage.
A little charged dust was seen and made small trouble.
>
> > >"These sorts of things that affect astronauts are things that we'd
> > > like to investigate before we return to the moon," Dr. Stubbs says.
>
> > >Gee whiz Dr. Stubbs, too bad we still do not have our Earth-moon L1/
> > > (Selene L1) Boeing OASIS, Clarke Station or any other kind of outpost/
> > > gateway as our robotic science, SETI, TRACE and astronomy platform, or
> > > much less hosting my LSE-CM/ISS.
>
> > > The lunar eclipse that’s offering a very dull yellow/orange moon is
> > > likely a color/hue tint that's contributed from the
> > > ionic/electrostatic
> > > charged sodium via Earth’s magnetosphere and its magnetotail plus
> > > solar wind at the same time. Of course there’s also a trace of Rn222
> > > that’ll also tend to excite.
>
> > S*
>
> > How much artificial ionic eV would it take in order to artificially
> > exceed 100 km?
>
> > Why was there never any sign whatsoever of this ionic/electrostatic
> > charged dust moving vertical throughout all of our Apollo EVAs?
>
> Moon and the dust are very poor charged.
> S*
I think you have a DARPA/NASA (aka MIB) loaded gun to your head.
I only translate NASA information into common language.
S*
~ BG
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrotenews:b2b94722-3b5a-4fb4...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 6, 11:31 am, "Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com>
> > wrotenews:6458c359-031b-4da6...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com>
> > > wrotenews:dc780168-bc21-46b7...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > "rustyjames...@gmail.com" <extremesoundandli...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrotenews:b40cd3e4-258c-4c85...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
In other words, our NASA is pretty much your one and only bible or
qur'an.
Do you realize what that makes you?
Doesn't that seem a wee bit intellectually and scientifically limited,
if not entirely bigoted on behalf of NASA?
What would happen to you if you did anything outside the NASA box.
BTW, 9r of ionized sodium is hardly minimum charged.
The nearly 1e6 km comet like trail of sodium is hardly of any minimal
charge.
The gamma and X-rays given off by our Selene/moon is hardly that of a
minimal charged or passive/inert anticathode surface.
~ BG
Szczepan Białek
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com>wrote
news:83ef86c4-6ef6-420a...@c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 7, 2:25 am, "Szczepan Białek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
>In other words, our NASA is pretty much your one and only bible or
qur'an.
In the first your post is the question: "If there's no self generated
barycenter created at the atomic or any
other level, then for example, what is the electrostatic binding force
that's existing between Earth and our Selene/moon?
To calculate it we need to know the Absolute Voltages (or the electric
field) of Earth and Moon.
Data for Moon are in NASA publications.
>Do you realize what that makes you?
>Doesn't that seem a wee bit intellectually and scientifically limited,
if not entirely bigoted on behalf of NASA?
>What would happen to you if you did anything outside the NASA box.
>BTW, 9r of ionized sodium is hardly minimum charged.
>The nearly 1e6 km comet like trail of sodium is hardly of any minimal
charge.
>The gamma and X-rays given off by our Selene/moon is hardly that of a
minimal charged or passive/inert anticathode surface.
For me 130V/m (Earth electric field) is small. For Moon is probably
similar. Will be better if wait for real data.
S*
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com>wrotenews:83ef86c4-6ef6-420a...@c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 7, 2:25 am, "Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> >In other words, our NASA is pretty much your one and only bible or
>
> qur'an.
>
> In the first your post is the question: "If there's no self generated
> barycenter created at the atomic or any
> other level, then for example, what is the electrostatic binding force
> that's existing between Earth and our Selene/moon?
>
> To calculate it we need to know the Absolute Voltages (or the electric
> field) of Earth and Moon.
> Data for Moon are in NASA publications.
>
> >Do you realize what that makes you?
> >Doesn't that seem a wee bit intellectually and scientifically limited,
>
> if not entirely bigoted on behalf of NASA?
>
> >What would happen to you if you did anything outside the NASA box.
> >BTW, 9r of ionized sodium is hardly minimum charged.
> >The nearly 1e6 km comet like trail of sodium is hardly of any minimal
> >charge.
>
> >The gamma and X-rays given off by our Selene/moon is hardly that of a
>
> minimal charged or passive/inert anticathode surface.
>
> For me 130V/m (Earth electric field) is small. For Moon is probably
> similar. Will be better if wait for real data.
> S*
We should have had this "real data" as of 4+ decades ago.
Creating and having interactively sustained a viable platform of more
than sufficient science and astronomy/observationology instruments
within the Earth-moon L1 (aka Selene L1) would not have cost 10% of
one Apollo mission.
extremesou...@yahoo.com
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrotenews:02e0bece-b978-4aa8...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Everywhere must be the balance point. Moon must have a way to export
electrons.
S*
yes, I agree great Question, now who has the correct answer I think
that the net charged dust would want to shake off the extra electrons
to reach a point of equillibrium aswell does any one have the correct
answer or do they stay positivly charged until the element decays into
another element by half life decay.
BradGuth
Perhaps those secondary moon electrons merely turn into positrons as
they manage to exit away from that highly reactive surface, taking
sodium along for the ride.
Too bad we still do not have the Earth-moon L1 (aka Selene L1)
platform of science instruments and observational technology to work
with. I can't think of any better do-everything location.
A deployed tether dipole element, as easily based within such a nearby
location of this local Earth/moon common space, that's offering the
most freedom of gravity and perhaps 1e-21 bar that's also offering the
fewest atoms/cm3, as such can not be utilized because of the extreme
conditions and that of our DARPA plus NASA hocus-pocus.