Theredbarron

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Also, static electricity does not create magnetism. You need moving charges (such as the plasma and solar wind).

ok I see. So the particles from the article appear to be from a collapsed magnetic field. Is this article saying that the movements between the charged particles (turbulence) are whats creating the magnetism of the galactic magnetic field as of right now?

Sort of a self perpetuating cloud of charged particles maybe.

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't think so. We are moving, roughly, sideways: https://www.space.com/3801-solar-system-sails-sideways-milky.html

I think that asymmetry is unexplained. Maybe turbulence?

So this turbulent fluid that this article is describing, When the friction is happening in between the particles that are involved in this turbulence could static electricity be generated to create this magnet field effect? Another question I have is in cars the spark has to increase in voltage to jump the resistance of the combustion pressures. As the pressure increases so does the resistance as far as I understand. Would space be less resistant due to the lower density or is that up to whats occupying the spaces near it as to how conductive it is?

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Oops. Autocorrect on the phone! (Yes: "outgassing")

Oh. So pretty much all planets and moons do this? arrow up

So totally off subject but I have to ask. One of the links is saying that our systems bowing out from the north of the sun and in from the south. Could this mean that our system is moving in a southern direction from the suns point of view?

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yes. There is some gas (and dust) between the planets in the solar system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere

There is some, but less, between the stars in the galaxy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium

And even less between galaxies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm–hot_intergalactic_medium

Awesome! I didn't even know to search for that stuff

It didn't say anything about nitrogen. Why wouldn't nitrogen share over?

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Roughly. But remember from the link you posted earlier, the moon is not really considered to have an atmosphere because it isn’t held in place by gravity (long term) and needs to be constantly replenished (mainly by our gassing from the surface). 

OK. So between the moon and earth there is also some of these gases as well? solar winds and among other stuff?

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think the solar wind/sunlight is constantly reacting with the Moon's surface forming gases and then leaking them to outer space. I've forgotten where the article is now.

Formation like chemical reaction between gasses?

Does this sound good?

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LADEE/news/lunar-atmosphere.html

Ok so as far as I understand the moons gravity is holding the gas that it has but it is also possible that in part static is attracting and repelling some of this gas. Do this sound right?

28 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This, THIS is why the folks here are taking the time. You have this wonderful curiosity, and a sharp mind that desperately wants all the pieces to fit. Nobody cares about mistakes as long as you learn from them, and it's obvious you're not just digging in your heels on principle, as so many do when their ideas make so much sense to them. 

Congratulations on the new coursework. Hopefully we'll see free college in the US soon, and more people will take advantage of the chance to splash around in the well of accumulated human knowledge.

Thank you. I know what I say is pretty outstandingly ridiculous in many ways. I wanted to get this stuff out of the way before I jump into reality so I can get my dreams crushed. 

Joking. I wanted to see it out and get perspective of what things really are. Like I said I dont have anyone to bounce stuff off of so it can get out of control sometimes. Does this mean that I can bring other crazy stuff to you all?

plus I get to build stuff

37 minutes ago, studiot said:

I saw a TV series (Dr Watsons amazing cases if I remember rightly,) which included some truly amazing medical rehab work with vets as well as other frontier medical stuff.

I thoroughly recommend it if you can get to see it.

Dr Watson Incredible Medicine? 

18 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

A couple of things. You didn't get into science in school, but now you realize it's pretty interesting, and much cooler than you thought back then. If I'm not describing you, then I'm describing me. It took me a long time to see the benefits of using scientific methodology in explaining various phenomena. But at first, I had to unlearn a lot of garbage I'd picked up from popular science publications. It takes a while to sort the cream from the Kaku.

The contradictions come because you're filling in gaps in your knowledge with stuff you've made up. The best way is to go back to the basics and re-learn them. It's never too late. That way, you can go to the top of the building to speculate, instead of trying to rebuild the foundations and lower floors everyone relies on.

I was but nobody around me was. I took a bunch of electricity and electronic in school even if it doesn't sound like it. I have actually been looking into to some courses to see where it goes. I'm sure you can tell I'm like a kid saying whats that right now is how I think this is going down.  

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

OK, you've had military experience that gave you a certain skill set, knowledge that makes it easier for you to understand other bits of data close to your field of expertise. You understand the jargon. You know almost immediately when someone is speaking about the military whether they've actually served before. 

If I came to you with an idea about a new military weapon that would make guns obsolete, you'd probably be skeptical ("Dumbass called them guns instead of rifles!"). If I described the intricate workings that make my new weapon very powerful, you might know instantly that such a weapon would never survive use in the desert sands or anywhere near water. You can also tell by the way I describe the weapon that I don't really understand how explosives work. The power of the weapon is my sole focus, but you know that doesn't matter because the weapon is going to malfunction when the intricate workings heat up/clog up/freeze up, and I don't have the right kind of ordinance to do what I think I'm doing.

When you tell me this, I might think you're just putting my idea down because you love your rifle, or that you won't accept anything that's not standard issue. I might only be interested in comments that support my idea, even though you're only trying to help by telling me, based on your expertise, that my idea is fundamentally flawed. 

I see. What I'm getting at is just telling me it doesn't work does not help me understand why nor does it argue or support itself. Why is it flawed?  and what is flawed I'm trying to get information so again with the other subject and not this one. If vacuum or gravity gets brought up again then I will ignore all questions related and the person who keeps bringing it up. Would this help? if so then what words or jargon should I use in terms of attracting matter with static electricity? I haven't had time to look at the links that I have been given to me and I was asked to ask so can I have a few to understand some of this stuff. I'm am genuinely interested in this no matter what it is. I dont mean to be so contradictive. Its kind of hard to translate my questions to where people can understand when its not in person.  

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Sorry, but this is also flat-out false. You said yourself you're speculating about a non-mainstream idea, and you're not listening to points that refute it. 

Can I ask what your job is, just to give you a relevant example of how this sort of speculation works?

I fail to see how this is appropriate or relevant. I'm a disabled vet that has to work odd job to odd job in order to financially support my family. What were you going to speculate again?

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I expect the OP has camped out sometime in his Arizona desert and received a belt off a metal trailer doorhandle in the morning.

I certainly did in Arabia.

 

Static electricity is a subject in itself, at one time it was the only source of electricity so Strange is correct to suggest looking at older devices.

The Winshurst Machine is was capable of providing a large store of charge in metal plates.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=7_-GW7SQA4zGgAaulamwAg&q=wimshurst+machine&oq=wimshurst&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0l10.2220.5182.0.7870.11.8.1.2.2.0.174.902.3j5.8.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.11.980...0i131k1j0i10k1.0.o1r2YbiFqaU

Thank you. 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I can’t imagine how you are going to use argon. 

What I had in mind was pumping the vacuum then filling it with argon and see what happens or is this just as likely to create static as oxygen or helium?

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Typically, only materials that are insulators (or small amounts of conductive material that are insulated/isolated) are affected by static charges. Conductive materials will diffuse the charge so it has no effect. 

So maybe argon gas could be a good one? it has 8 valence electrons is why and uses with insulating welds. What kind of material would be best for wheel? I had a plastic one but it exploded. 

What I'm going for is to make one possible to use static electricity as a force. For what I'm not sure yet but how can I find out how to use something like static electricity in low density environments? I'm not sure if this helps but if I were to add something to the mix in a low density environment in order to increase its effects, What kinds of element's could be used possibly to generate more efficiently. This is why I'm so interested in the moon. It would be a perfect scenario for a low density environment.

Can anyone tell me what elements are not typically effected by static electricity?

I have not rejected any of them. I only speculate to the possibility of something else. I never said anyone here is wrong. As a matter of fact I came here because of exactly that. Do you think I can get this type of information from people just hanging out? Just because I'm contradicting does not mean I'm not listening. A response with "your wrong and I'm right" logic does not make me understand things. I ask for links as to see what information it has so in can understand more and ask questions. What is it do you think I'm doing? Have I once said that all that's wrong? Maybe to know the whole picture you would have to see it so I'm trying to see it. Maybe I'm actually looking how it parallels with all of it. 

3 hours ago, studiot said:

I blame the education system for fostering the popular myth about the existence of suction and the famous phrase "Nature abhors a vaccum"

Neither are true.

Even (medical) doctors who are intelligent folk and should know much better fall into this trap.

It is the devils own job getting over to them that we do not suck air into our lungs. It is pushed in by outside pressure.

I heard it all. I do get how this all sounds. I'm not trying to disprove anything or prove anything. I'm merely speculating as to a possible method of application not that its a new thing either.

What else is this forum for. I mean come on its speculations. No need to be so uptight about it all. 

So I have a job and cant answer everything to your liking. This is speculations and you dont allow it. I didn't say I was right I said I was speculating and looking for answers. 

answers that I can understand

As soon as I bring up something that's argumentative to the norm you just act like you know everything. I did not say this was gravity on this thread. I did say im looking at static electricity and was curios as to the possibility of using it on the moon if the atmospheric conditions are up for it. so yes these are relevant questions even if you cant answer them. Just speculations. 

you guys are the ones that keep bringing up the comparison not me. Not all of you are but more then enough of you are

Has anything ever been weighed at the poles of the moon? just curios

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Some matter. It can also repel (see the article you linked to).

But why isn’t gravity enough to explain the atmosphere? That always attracts. And it attracts all matter. 

Nature isn't perfect. Couldn't it be so that gravity is the matter and then as it moves and creates this static electrical energy that attracts matter as well thus amplifying the effects of gravity? Totally out on a limb here. 

This also explains how it can jump from cloud to cloud by each body having a great enough differential in polar charge.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Of course there is. 

That is, very crudely, correct. Nothing to do with the Earth’s magnetic field. 

ok so the earth magnetic field is not what I'm going after here. I'm comparing the electrical properties of the moons surface and how it can attract by static electricity. Yes I understand they are different. It still doesn't take away that static electricity attract matter by its electrical properties. Like a balloon having an extra charge and sticking to someone's head. The static that is created on earth would have to overcome the atmospheric resistance to be strong enough for this. 

That would only show that the air has static electrical properties that surround earth. Now I want to compare as to how it gets it on the moon. 

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

Magnetism is not responsible for lightning. Have you considered the fact that we get lightning from storm clouds. If it was the magnetic field then they could occur anywhere and anytime.

Are you saying that there is no scientific explanation for lightning? I have one. Theses storm clouds are more dense matter in motion. While said matter is rubbing against itself in this cloud it creates static electricity. When the charge of the cloud or matter in the cloud becomes strong enough in opposition of a nearby polarity it would then discharge its accumulated static electricity as it passes or gets near the other polar charge. Much like when you rub your socks on the floor and you touch someone.

Just now, Strange said:

What is "it"? The atmosphere? Why wouldn't gravity hold it there? But static electricity may also play a role. But note that (as described in the articles you linked) the static charge is very variable, both daily and on longer (18 year) cycles. 

The atmosphere varies on the moon as well doesn't it?

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well I'm very glad about that.

 

But you seem to have succumbed to another popular myth.

 

Static electricity does not interact with magnetism.
That is the province of moving electricity.

 

Nor does static (or moving electricity) directly interact with mechanical pressure except in very specialist circumstances such as tribolectricity or piezoelectricity.

Except in very special circumstances.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Why do you think this is relevant to the moon's atmosphere?

This is quite interesting (and surprisingly relevant) because it says: "There's growing evidence that fine particles of moondust might actually float, ejected from the lunar surface by electrostatic repulsion. This could create a temporary nighttime "atmosphere" of dust. The moondust atmosphere might also gather itself into a sort of diaphanous wind. Drawn by differences in global charge accumulation, floating dust would naturally fly from the strongly negative nightside to the weakly negative dayside."

No. I don't think the Earth's magnetic field is strong enough to have much effect on lightning.

The static is what I'm thinking may hold it there. Just a thought since the atmosphere is less dense that there would be more room for the magnetic attraction to get through matter. I think that the magnetic field around earth is what generates enough magnetic energy to make static electricity much higher as to cause lightning. Short circuit between polarities of matters static charge.

So another question that I have is what elements are not susceptible to static electricity?

29 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Would you say suction is a pseudo-force like centrifugal force?

Why is everyone stuck on gravity? I'm talking about static electricity. I get that it looks as though a vacuum is suction and that pressure is actually pushing on it. Wouldn't that intensify the effects of the static electricity attraction or make it stronger in a direction as to appear to suck it up? Isn't static electricity the balancing of electrical properties as material moves near or while in contact with other matter of different properties? Since gravity is constant all around the surface and the surface is contacting itself all around the planet or moon and the matter in the core is moving past and rubbing against under the surface could it then generate static electricity? Not only does the core already have magnetic properties couldn't it amplify the static electrical difference that are being created all around it? 

This is saying that the crust itself has magnetic properties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field_of_the_Moon

The static electricity of the Moon.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2007/04/static-electricity-could-short-circuit-moon-missions

Earth creates Lightning With its size of magnetic field correct?

11 minutes ago, DrP said:

Your spinning mass in the tube doesn't create gravity and can't be directed through a metal tube. 

this part and I didn't say it is gravity on this thread did I.  I have been clearly talking about static electricity and you are just reverting back to the other thread. Just telling me how things work doesn't help me understand. I ask for references or I will be here all day waiting and asking and I dont like sitting here that much. Im pretty sure you dont like it either or you would just simply have a conversation about the topic and not what you are connecting things to or think I'm connecting things to. That would be called assumption. Cant you just answer the questions?

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Google is your friend... 

Thank you. I know but I cant find anything in direct reference to the moons poles and weight and density of the matter that surrounds it. 

No I mean so that I dont have to have you answer all my questions as to be annoying. If what read doesn't make sense I will ask questions definitely.

Are you saying that it wont do the same with a metal tube?