Macroscopic Electrical Formations

[John Cuthber]

OK, first off I apologise for sloppy choice of language.

Sustaining a field in a conductive medium requires power not energy.

 

Secondly, the first time you say something that's plain wrong it is a mistake.

If you are told (repeatedly) that it's wrong and you keep saying it then you are only pretending that it's true.

 

I'd be happy to defend that position in court if the question were to arise, but that would be a waste of your money and my time.

 

It would be better to get back to the science.

 

If there's a potential difference within bits of the sun and its surroundings, how come the charged particles don't move and cancel the potential out?

 

Sustaining such a field would require the continuous input of energy (i.e power) and you have not explained where that comes from or how it is coupled to the particles.

 

If you don't do that you should realise that this whole idea is dead in the water.

[dalemiller]

OK, first off I apologise for sloppy choice of language.

Sustaining a field in a conductive medium requires power not energy.

 

I have tried to point out to you that an electric field does not exist unless it contains at least one charged particle to be placed into its rest position. That might not be written down somewhere for you to memorize, but I can figure that stuff out and have just tried again to help you with it. What is sustained around a charged perfect sphere, for instance, is material goods: charged particles of electrical charge of the polarity in majority upon an isolated hosting body.

 

 

 

Secondly, the first time you say something that's plain wrong it is a mistake.

 

If you are told (repeatedly) that it's wrong and you keep saying it then you are only pretending that it's true.

 

As I have attempted to clarify, pretending constitutes a voluntary distortion of the truth. If I keep saying something that you do not understand, it seems that you will repeatedly tell me that it is wrong. It does not follow that your contradictions should discourage me from belief in what I see to be true. Again, I am not a pretender.

 

 

I'd be happy to defend that position in court if the question were to arise, but that would be a waste of your money and my time.

 

I did not threaten action. Slander is actionable, but I sought to appeal to you that it is a shameful character flaw that you publicly demonstrate in your hopes of shaming me.

 

It would be better to get back to the science.

 

If there's a potential difference within bits of the sun and its surroundings, how come the charged particles don't move and cancel the potential out?

 

I was not discussing a potential difference within the sun but there will be many of them just as there are many here on Earth. That is why we keep so many voltmeters around. I discussed the counter-intuitive formation of macroscopic electrical formations. It isn't something easily explained to persons with negative attitudes.

 

Sustaining such a field would require the continuous input of energy (i.e power) and you have not explained where that comes from or how it is coupled to the particles.

 

Again: Happily for electrostatic situations, an electric field is neither supplied not required when all electrically charged particles have found their resting places. The endothermic proposition endured when a charged particle was moved from resting its place provides for the exothermic process of their restoration.

 

If you don't do that you should realise that this whole idea is dead in the water.

 

Please tell, why would that appeal so much to you? Why try so hard to poison the minds of those who might follow and benefit from my logic?

 

Electrostatic repulsion is a force, and that means there is an electric field. An equilibrium with gravity means there is a force, and that means there is an electric field (a gravitational one, too). Any configuration of charge will have an associated electrostatic potential energy.

 

Saying that an electrically charged particle has has found a resting place means to indicate the the net force upon the particle has gone to zero. The words "Charge" and "charged" do have many meanings. Investing energy into a capacitor can be called "charging" of the capacitor. One might hardly tap energy from an isolated sphere that we might call "charged" because it harbors an outer coating of charged particles. No one ever charged an electron.

 

Pointing your actual (not theoretical) error is not slander.

The term "slander" is applied to unwarranted accusation of pretense. Such rudeness is counterproductive to the dialog process and is against the rules of many forums.

 

 

If you have a spherically symmetric shell of charge, the field inside is zero, from the shell theorem and/or Gauss's law. True of any 1/r^2 force http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

Thus, any charge on the interior feels no force from the exterior charge — there is no field. A positive charge will not seek any particular point.

 

Let us say that we have a sphere containing more electrons than positive charges and that all charged particles are in rest position. We can agree here that no electric field would exist. It would require application of energy to somehow push an electron down toward the center of the sphere. Wouldn't it follow that energy would account for an electric field that would tend to bring that electron back up to the surface?

 

No paradox would be involved for the electric field required to lift the electron back. Until that electron regained its original place, there would not be perfect spherical symmetry. The hemisphere enclosing that electron would have greater spacing of adjacent electrons than would be present in the opposite hemisphere.

Edited September 30, 2012 by dalemiller

[John Cuthber]

Way back in the first post you said "A case can be made for the earth and our sun to both be holding negative electrical charge charge. "

If that were true then there would be a potential difference between different places, depending on how far they were from the two charged objects.

 

There is a conducting medium around them- the solar wind.

 

Why has this charge not leaked away?

Maintaining such a charge in a conducting medium would require power.

Where does that come from and how is it coupled to the system?

 

What evidence do you have for your extraordinary claim that "A case can be made for the earth and our sun to both be holding negative electrical charge charge. "?

 

"Please tell, why would that appeal so much to you? Why try so hard to poison the minds of those who might follow and benefit from my logic?"

I frankly don't see logic in your poasts. I see an unsupported assertion and no explanation of how an obviously unstable system is maintained.

[dalemiller]

 

The positive charge will not seek the center. This is very basic electrostatics.

 

Would like to see a link to show how that can be so within a downward-pointing electric field.

 

Way back in the first post you said "A case can be made for the earth and our sun to both be holding negative electrical charge charge. "

If that were true then there would be a potential difference between different places, depending on how far they were from the two charged objects.

 

There is a conducting medium around them- the solar wind.

 

Why has this charge not leaked away?

Maintaining such a charge in a conducting medium would require power.

Where does that come from and how is it coupled to the system?

 

What evidence do you have for your extraordinary claim that "A case can be made for the earth and our sun to both be holding negative electrical charge charge. "?

 

"Please tell, why would that appeal so much to you? Why try so hard to poison the minds of those who might follow and benefit from my logic?"

I frankly don't see logic in your poasts. I see an unsupported assertion and no explanation of how an obviously unstable system is maintained.

 

Since the truth of the matter is not obvious, then it follows that the stability of the system I describe might not be apparent to you right off the bat. Macroscopic electrostatic formations might be counter-intuitive, but that attribute is not impenetrable. The fair-weather current of our atmosphere is claimed by meteorologists to be some two microamps of negative current per square kilometer. That represents electrons rising from the earth's surface. (They are mostly electrons that have been driven to Earth by electrical storms.) That fair weather current should appear to be due to repulsion of electrons from a negatively charged planet. The distortion of the atmosphere in a direction away from the sun should more than suggest presence of a negatively charged sun. Here, the term "negative charge" refers to an overabundance of electrons with respect to equivalent positive charged particles. Electrons themselves do not represent energy. They are just stuff, stranded upon their hosts. This post leads to a possible explanation for how and why there might be lots of extra electrons all over the place. They are nice. You can store energy with a bunch of them just by crowding them together. That is how lightning gets fixed up. The referenced description of Earth's electric field supports my contention of a negative charge upon the earth.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/TreshaEdwards.shtml

 

 

The fact that you do not see logic in my posts is certainly a slam at one of us, but whom might that really be? One cannot be an understanding person if he cannot understand.

Edited October 2, 2012 by dalemiller

[John Cuthber]

"One cannot be an understanding person if he cannot understand. "

Indeed, and, since you are asking for a link to the basic electrostatics that Swansont posted,you have made it clear that you are the one who does not understand.

 

The fair weather currents have that name for a reason.

There are other currents that counterbalance them, but they don't happen in good weather.

There is no net flow of electrons from the earth.

If it were negatively charged then such a flow would take place until the charge was dissipated.

Then it would stop.

[swansont]

Would like to see a link to show how that can be so within a downward-pointing electric field.

There is no downward-pointing field for the system I described, for the reasons that are explained in the link. Thus, if there is a downward-pointing field anywhere, it is due to other reasons.

[dalemiller]

There is no downward-pointing field for the system I described, for the reasons that are explained in the link. Thus, if there is a downward-pointing field anywhere, it is due to other reasons.

 

The shell theorem simply takes us more quickly to my own bottom line. A shell of electrons accordingly presents the net effect of its total charge at its center. That effective negative charge at the center would be a most attractive target for a proton. The center is the very lowest point of downward travel toward which a downward-pointing electric field pushes a positive charge. This does not show up as another reason, it is simply another approach to the very same thing. The center is not occupied by electrons, it is just that the net electrical presentation of that total negative charge is referred to that point.

 

I assume the following quote is that to which you referred. "Newton proved the shell theorem[1] saying that:

A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre.

If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e. a hollow ball), no gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell." Actually, you have shown me that, in my ignorance, I had noodled out Newton's shell theorem all by little myself. Me, the village idiot!

 

"One cannot be an understanding person if he cannot understand. "

Indeed, and, since you are asking for a link to the basic electrostatics that Swansont posted,you have made it clear that you are the one who does not understand.

 

The fair weather currents have that name for a reason.

There are other currents that counterbalance them, but they don't happen in good weather.

There is no net flow of electrons from the earth.

If it were negatively charged then such a flow would take place until the charge was dissipated.

Then it would stop.

 

You have missed the point. It is endothermic processes that push electrons closer together and closer to Earth. The energy applied for such action comes from thermal energy received from the sun. Conversely, electrons rise back up by exothermic activity. This clues us to the fact that it is a negatively charged earth that repels them back up. Hence, we have our evidence that the earth has a negative charge: that is to say that it contains more electrons than protons.

 

Ask an imbecile what the atmospheric electrical charge is, and tell him about the +100 Volt rise of potential per meter of elevation and he will tell then tell you that the atmosphere is positive. If your tax pays his salary, go bother him.

[John Cuthber]

We know about atmospheric electricity.

But you are claiming something on a bigger scale.

The atmospheric effects are driven by the heat of the sun in the same way that the weather is.

I asked what would stop electrons leaving the earth (including the atmosphere) or the sun f it had a net negative charge.

You have missed the point until you answer that.

[swansont]

The shell theorem simply takes us more quickly to my own bottom line. A shell of electrons accordingly presents the net effect of its total charge at its center.

Outside of the shell, yes. Inside, no — inside the shell there is no field.

 

That effective negative charge at the center would be a most attractive target for a proton. The center is the very lowest point of downward travel toward which a downward-pointing electric field pushes a positive charge. This does not show up as another reason, it is simply another approach to the very same thing. The center is not occupied by electrons, it is just that the net electrical presentation of that total negative charge is referred to that point.

There is no effective charge at the center if you are inside the shell.

 

 

I assume the following quote is that to which you referred. "Newton proved the shell theorem[1] saying that:

A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre.

If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e. a hollow ball), no gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell." Actually, you have shown me that, in my ignorance, I had noodled out Newton's shell theorem all by little myself. Me, the village idiot!

No, you didn't. You keep insisting on things that are inconsistent with the shell theorem, like the claim that positive charges will seek out the center. Perhaps you should reread the description.

[dalemiller]

Outside of the shell, yes. Inside, no — inside the shell there is no field.

 

 

There is no effective charge at the center if you are inside the shell.

 

 

 

No, you didn't. You keep insisting on things that are inconsistent with the shell theorem, like the claim that positive charges will seek out the center. Perhaps you should reread the description.

 

I did. it read:

1. A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre.

2. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e. a hollow ball), no gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.

 

Newton established that the shell exerts no gravitational force (on anything) because he has already included all shell influence into a vector sum that places net mass at the center. He denies influence from the shell because that would be processing its influence twice.

He gives no exclusion to gravitational force exerted by the centralized mass upon any object inside the shell because that would not be processing such influence at all.

 

Newton added:

"In addition to gravity, the shell theorem can also be used to describe the electric field generated by a static spherically symmetric charge density, or similarly for any other phenomenon that follows an inverse square law. The derivations below focus on gravity, but the results can easily be generalized to the electrostatic force."

 

A spherically symmetric body affects external objects electrostatically though all of its electrostatic charge were concentrated at a point at its center. With such a negative charge referred to the center with no electrons even present at that point, protons would proceed to that point only to find continuous loneliness for comely electrons. The truth can be recognizable from many approaches, but this one is the best vindication of macroscopic formations of charged particles I have yet to realize.

 

We know about atmospheric electricity.

But you are claiming something on a bigger scale.

The atmospheric effects are driven by the heat of the sun in the same way that the weather is.

I asked what would stop electrons leaving the earth (including the atmosphere) or the sun f it had a net negative charge.

You have missed the point until you answer that.

 

Electrons are completely free to repel themselves away from Earth or Sol.

I do not know who "we" is. Is it the group that has no idea of how solar energy leads into production of lightning? That group has a boilerplate caveat that no one really understands lightning.

Edited October 3, 2012 by dalemiller

[swansont]

I did. it read:

1. A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre.

2. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e. a hollow ball), no gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.

 

Newton established that the shell exerts no gravitational force (on anything) because he has already included all shell influence into a vector sum that places net mass at the center. He denies influence from the shell because that would be processing its influence twice.

He gives no exclusion to gravitational force exerted by the centralized mass upon any object inside the shell because that would not be processing such influence at all.

No. It's not a matter of double-counting. It's a matter of the influence actually being zero. Nothing in those derivations concerning the interior replaces the shell with the mass (or charge) at the center, which is trivial to see if you look at the integral. In fact, that there is an integral shows you that the effect is being calculated for the shell.

[John Cuthber]

 

Electrons are completely free to repel themselves away from Earth or Sol.

And once they have been repelled the two bodies will no longer have a negative charge.

Which would falsify the following statement

"A case can be made for the earth and our sun to both be holding negative electrical charge charge. "

You may remember that was in the opening post.

[dalemiller]

And once they have been repelled the two bodies will no longer have a negative charge.

Which would falsify the following statement

"A case can be made for the earth and our sun to both be holding negative electrical charge charge. "

You may remember that was in the opening post.

 

I did not assert that all electrons would leave the earth. I that happened, I think that all molecular bonds would be lost and we would have to go without any much needed compounds. There would be no "we". No water!

 

Neither would all excess electrons take leave: what would be here to repel them away? What makes you think that electrons need a deterrent from escaping from Earth or Sol? Under certain circumstances, electrons escape from galaxies! Its OK. Don't worry about it. Find a hobby. Discover girls. I feed the squirrels.

[John Cuthber]

I did not assert that all electrons would leave the earth.

Indeed.

What you said was that they would stay and give the earth a net negative charge.

I was the one who said they would leave.

And there's a very simple answer to the question

 

"Neither would all excess electrons take leave: what would be here to repel them away?"

The electrostatic charge on the excess electrons that were left behind would repel them.

 

Remember that you are the one saying that the earth (and sun) has a net negative charge.

If it had then it would repel electrons.

So would the sun

The sun is hot enough to lose electrons by thermionic emission.

If it had a negative charge then it would spit out the excess electrons into deep space.

It would lose that overall negative charge.

The earth is connected to the sun via the solar wind so if the earth had a negative charge then it too would repel electrons from the earth/ sun system until it was neutral.

 

 

I said that nearly a month ago and it's still true now.

You just haven't addressed it.

 

Instead you have come up with pointless strawman arguments about "all molecular bonds would be lost and we would have to go without any much needed compounds. There would be no "we". No water! "

and made unhelpful suggestions like "Its OK. Don't worry about it. Find a hobby. Discover girls."

[dalemiller]

Indeed.

What you said was that they would stay and give the earth a net negative charge.

I was the one who said they would leave.

And there's a very simple answer to the question

 

"Neither would all excess electrons take leave: what would be here to repel them away?"

The electrostatic charge on the excess electrons that were left behind would repel them.

 

Remember that you are the one saying that the earth (and sun) has a net negative charge.

If it had then it would repel electrons.

So would the sun

The sun is hot enough to lose electrons by thermionic emission.

If it had a negative charge then it would spit out the excess electrons into deep space.

It would lose that overall negative charge.

The earth is connected to the sun via the solar wind so if the earth had a negative charge then it too would repel electrons from the earth/ sun system until it was neutral.

 

 

I said that nearly a month ago and it's still true now.

You just haven't addressed it.

 

Instead you have come up with pointless strawman arguments about "all molecular bonds would be lost and we would have to go without any much needed compounds. There would be no "we". No water! "

and made unhelpful suggestions like "Its OK. Don't worry about it. Find a hobby. Discover girls."

 

The sun probably has a maximum negative charge beyond which sufficient release of electrons would prevent further ionic density.

 

I am a care-giver with much to do and feel that we could communicate better by PM rather than for us to embarrass each other in public. You seem not to share my encouragement that some meaningless obfuscations may be getting cleared up on this thread and I would be grateful if our simplistic exchanges could work themselves out elsewhere. I have worked long and hard on an objective for sharing what I have learned in over six decades of experience before I die. I am not asking you for much of a sacrifice.

[dalemiller]

No. It's not a matter of double-counting. It's a matter of the influence actually being zero. Nothing in those derivations concerning the interior replaces the shell with the mass (or charge) at the center, which is trivial to see if you look at the integral. In fact, that there is an integral shows you that the effect is being calculated for the shell.

 

Intuitively, wouldn't your interpretation invite a scenario whereby, within a hollow orb, gravity referred to the shell's center would attract external objects toward the center of gravity, but such objects would never have cause to pause at the center. Once an external object passes back out through the opposite side of the shell. It would coast right through the shell, not to begin deceleration until it was again external to the shell. For every "landing" there would be a nearly immediate relaunching.

 

Had Newton missed the point when he stated: "2. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e. a hollow ball), no gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell."?

 

It would be so interesting to realize that Newton was perhaps unwittingly, directly predicting the formation of SMBHs at galactic centers. He was also predicting a more direct manifestation of Michael Faraday's Electric Field's production of positive charged cores centered by negative charged shells. The issue of a zero electric field within a closed conductor may provoke some misunderstanding unless one observes that zero field is accomplished by the transfer of each charged particle within into its resting place.

 

Macroscopic electrostatic formations conform to my understanding of Gauss, Faraday and Newton. In a negatively charged hosting body, the entire negative charge appears as though at the center even though the all excess negatively charged particles creating that charge lie within upon the outer shell. Seeking electrons, protons are gulled into going straight for that charge referred to dead center. No neutralization occurs there because of nature's slight of hand.

Edited October 4, 2012 by dalemiller

[swansont]

Intuitively, wouldn't your interpretation invite a scenario whereby, within a hollow orb, gravity referred to the shell's center would attract external objects toward the center of gravity, but such objects would never have cause to pause at the center. Once an external object passes back out through the opposite side of the shell. It would coast right through the shell, not to begin deceleration until it was again external to the shell. For every "landing" there would be a nearly immediate relaunching.

The external objects would hit the shell, never getting a chance to be inside. Gravitationally, it would be hard to form such a shell in the first place. But one can form a shell of a conductor and see that you do indeed shield the contents from electric field of uniformly distributed charges on the surface — there is no field inside.

 

 

Macroscopic electrostatic formations conform to my understanding of Gauss, Faraday and Newton. In a negatively charged hosting body, the entire negative charge appears as though at the center even though the all excess negatively charged particles creating that charge lie within the outer shell. Seeking electrons, protons are gulled into going straight for that charge referred to dead center. No neutralization occurs there because of nature's slight of hand.

If that's your conclusion, then your understanding of Gauss, Faraday and Newton is deficient. The derivation of the zero field inside the shell is quite simple and I've given you the link. I can't help if you choose to continue to ignore it.

[John Cuthber]

The sun probably has a maximum negative charge beyond which sufficient release of electrons would prevent further ionic density.

 

 

Can you give me an answer that isn't word salad please?

Why don't the excess electrons simply leave?

[dalemiller]

The external objects would hit the shell, never getting a chance to be inside. Gravitationally, it would be hard to form such a shell in the first place. But one can form a shell of a conductor and see that you do indeed shield the contents from electric field of uniformly distributed charges on the surface — there is no field inside.

 

Chickens might form such a shell and there are folks around who would suck them out. It would take some doing to get it into space.

 

 

If that's your conclusion, then your understanding of Gauss, Faraday and Newton is deficient. The derivation of the zero field inside the shell is quite simple and I've given you the link. I can't help if you choose to continue to ignore it.

My failure to share your belief does not mean I ignore the link. I needn't math up to evaluate credibility of everything in the link. I could as well prove to you of miracles by linking you to a bible. You may have hit the nail on the head about my understanding of the ancients: your understanding might just be that much more superior to mine. I could be real stupid. Nevertheless, my intuitive reservations guide me to see transient electric fields existing within a closed conductor whenever an electrically charged particle has been dislocated from its resting place. The field would go to zero when all such particles are back in place. This precludes an orphaned electrical particle wandering aimlessly. A disturbed charged particle could produce a field, the field would cause the migration, the migration could produce the null, null could "prove" that no disturbed particle could produce a field. Laboratory apparatus doesn't take long with such transients. In a galaxy, a transient can last many lifetimes.

 

If a shell of electrons surrounding an atmosphere gets some particles pushed downward or crowded together in any other way, they are thereby storing electrical energy. Release them and they get pushed back out. Above, the electron shell would have closed to afford equal spacing between adjacent particles. Wouldn't your interpretation deny that those pushed-in electrons would become restored to their original positions? Cause and effect can so easily be confused between each other that it behooves us to be more patient with each other.

[John Cuthber]

Can you give me an answer that isn't word salad please?

Why don't the excess electrons simply leave?

[swansont]

My failure to share your belief does not mean I ignore the link. I needn't math up to evaluate credibility of everything in the link.

Seriously? You reject the validity of math?

 

I could as well prove to you of miracles by linking you to a bible.

No, you couldn't. This is a place of science discussion, we use evidence.

 

You may have hit the nail on the head about my understanding of the ancients: your understanding might just be that much more superior to mine. I could be real stupid.

Your words, not mine.

 

Nevertheless, my intuitive reservations guide me to see transient electric fields existing within a closed conductor whenever an electrically charged particle has been dislocated from its resting place. The field would go to zero when all such particles are back in place. This precludes an orphaned electrical particle wandering aimlessly. A disturbed charged particle could produce a field, the field would cause the migration, the migration could produce the null, null could "prove" that no disturbed particle could produce a field. Laboratory apparatus doesn't take long with such transients. In a galaxy, a transient can last many lifetimes.

Again, this is a matter of science, and thus of evidence. Intuition has its place, but only as a starting point, not a destination. In this case, your intuition is wrong, and requires you to invent new physics that's also wrong and never been observed anywhere. You can ignore this conflict and continue down that path (which is crackpottery) or do science. It's your call.

[dalemiller]

Seriously? You reject the validity of math?

 

 

No, you couldn't. This is a place of science discussion, we use evidence.

 

Of course not. Surely you could see that I was faulting your delivery of a needle hidden in a haystack.

 

Again, this is a matter of science, and thus of evidence. Intuition has its place, but only as a starting point, not a destination. In this case, your intuition is wrong, and requires you to invent new physics that's also wrong and never been observed anywhere. You can ignore this conflict and continue down that path (which is crackpottery) or do science. It's your call.

Do you reject the downward electric field attributed to Earth? Do you reject the negative charge upon Earth and its atmosphere? I invent no physics. I apply scientific principles that are well known and right under our noses. The general condemnation with which you bully me is too vague to afford me chance to defend myself. You harm those who cannot harm you back.

 

I see no contradiction from the math. I understand the words of Newton. Gravity cannot be eclipsed. The starting point is just where tuition takes me. I am a crackpot because I disagree with you. The electrostatic electron gun proves me right: a cylindrical anode presents itself as a point target to form a pencil beam of electrons. Carl Sagan said it well: Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

Edited October 5, 2012 by dalemiller

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

dalemiller, saying "X is crackpottery" is not the same as calling YOU a crackpot. Now that that's settled, you do need to consider this is a science forum, and hence, you are required to support your claims with valid scientific evidence, even if you think said claims are the most obvious thing in the universe.

[dalemiller]

!

Moderator Note

dalemiller, saying "X is crackpottery" is not the same as calling YOU a crackpot. Now that that's settled, you do need to consider this is a science forum, and hence, you are required to support your claims with valid scientific evidence, even if you think said claims are the most obvious thing in the universe.

I supported my claims with Isaac Newton's Shell Theorem. Swansont added his own made-up stipulation that no objects within a shell can respond to the pull of the center of gravity. It is he who I think is the dummy. Can't you get rid of him?

Edited October 5, 2012 by dalemiller

[mooeypoo]

I supported my claims with Isaac Newton's Shell Theorem. Swansont added his own made-up stipulation that no objects within a shell can respond to the pull of the center of gravity. It is he who is incompetent. Can't you get rid of him?

No.