Hubble law, magnetic effects around ionic conductors and inner ionization potential variation
I have thought it will be better to organize the newsletter into sections and go farther with new topics; otherwise the discussion will get cluttered to some ideas which can be less important for a lot of physicists; the last section is the place where comments and details from previous newsletter(s) are discussed and I hope clarified.
Section 1 Magnetic effects around ionic conductors
It is assumed by actual physics that an electric current traveling along a conductor generate a magnetic field around that conductor too. But, material science makes a clear difference between electronic conduction and ionic conduction. The model of classical electromagnetism was developed based mainly on electronic conductors and their effects.
What’s happened in case of an ionic conductor though?
From physical chemistry, a long and reliable series of data give us different speeds of displacement for cations or anions in solutions. Can we modify the magnetic field of an electric current generated around an ionic conductor only by changing the chemical composition of the solution?
Figure 1.1 Charge displacement inside metallic and ionic conductor
A simple cut off experiment, handy to be replicated even in a low school laboratory is provided.
Are Maxwell equations valid for ionic conductors too? If not, how can we apply these equations to plasma, where again a flow of positive and negative ,,charges” move and a charge redistribution or neutralization take place?
The link:
Section 2 Ionization potential variation for inner shells
In actual theory of atomic structure, ionization potential plays a secondary importance. The variation of ionization potential of last outer electron is used only as support for chemical periodicity. The variation of ionization potentials of different electrons from the same element or the variations of ionization potentials of the same inner electron from different elements do not present any significance in actual quantum mechanic.
It is important to emphasize that ionization potential must play a fundamental importance in the atomic structure; this because electrons are arranged in shells and in every shell again a difference in ionization energy is observed.
Without making any supposition about arrangement of electron around nucleus let’s analyze the ionization potential for isoelectronic series. By isoelectronic series we mean the same number of electron but an increasing number of protons respectively neutrons in nucleus.
Analyzing the ionization potential of first isoelectronic series (one electron around nucleus) we observe a quadratic dependency related to the atomic number Z. The quadratic dependence is easy to be observed for first isoelectronic series but for other series is hidden by a constant factor addition in the energy expression. In order to arrive to a linear dependency we will work with square root of ionization potential and we will make also some simple mathematical tricks.
We define relative ionization potential of kth electron of an element as kth ionization potential divided by ionization potential of hydrogen electron. For example in case of hydrogen the relative potential is 1, and for helium we have two relative ionization potentials; 1,8 for one electron and 3.99 for the second electron. For other elements the modality of relative ionization potential calculus are the same.
With this simple modification, the distribution of square root of relative ionization potential for first electron (first isoelectronic series) in different atoms is linearly related to the atomic number Z and this is observed even without a graphical representation.
The same linear dependence is observed also for higher isoelectronic series, but a picture with such amount of information doesn’t give any supplementary information.
In a subtle way this distribution contradicts quantum mechanics, because it is impossible to have in the same time both a linear dependency and a probabilistic distribution of electrons inside a layer. Further newsletters will address quantum idea in a more direct way….
More about this topic here:
Section 3 Hubble law
By sure this law needs no presentation and therefore the discussion focuses on some consequences when this law is applied.
Hubble Ultra Deep Field, Cosmic microwave background and Hubble law…
Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation is considered the reminiscence of a hot universe about 300 000 years after Big Bang when the universe was at a temperature of about 4000 K. If the temperature was 4000 K, then the maxium of emission was at λpeak=724 nm. Near Earth observations shows that CMB has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.725 K, so it peaks in the microwave range frequency of 160.2 Ghz (1.9 mm wavelength).
According to Big Bang theory, this radiation was stretched out from 724 nm up to aprox 1,9 mm or 1872659 nm in a time interval of approx 13,5 billions years.
Fig 3.1 Cosmic microwave background radiation stretch along time
The Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (HUDF) searched for early structure in universe after Big Bang. With a new camera in infrared (at 1700 nm), Hubble telescope was able to look for galaxies having red shifts between 9 and 12. An international team of astronomers, led by Yale University and the University of California scientists recently published an interesting study about such an early object - Galaxy EGS-zs8-1. According to their conclusion, this galaxy formed about 400 millions years after Big Bang, i.e, 100 millions years after the recombination epoch.
In case of galaxy EGS-zs8-1, a photon emitted about 400 millions years after Big Bang was stretched from UV domain i.e. 121,5 nm to 1700 nm in infrared and this stretch was performed over a period of about 13,4 billions years as in fig. 3.2.
Fig 3.2 Early galaxy light stretch along time
If we make a simple comparison between first and second case we get some very interesting results.
How is possible that ,,space itself” knows if a photon is originated in big bang and stretch it out with approx. 140687 nm for a billions years and for a photon coming from a star or a galaxy the stretching is only 118 nm for a billion years? These photons follow the same path toward an Earth observer though….
If we make a difference between fist and second case other interesting conclusion can be formulated: If we assume that a big bang photon is stretched similarly with a photon coming from a star when travels the same region of space, than for the first 100 millions years after recombination epoch, photons are stretched out 1897698 nm and for the rest of 13,4 billions years photons are stretched out only a tiny 1578,5 nm (see fig 3.3).
Fig 3.3 Comparative stretch of photons along time
In the right spirit of Big Bang patches, a new fantastic idea has to be promoted. Alan Guth inflationary period is only a joke beside the acrobatics which needs to be invented in order to stretch a photon with 1897698 nm in only 100 millions years.
Even with a new acrobatics the new generation of instruments on Earth or in space will discover structures older than Big Bang or far away structures which needed a longer time to form than Big Bang can explain….
In fact even present discovered galaxies with redshifts between 9 and 12 will get a new face in the future. The fact they appear irregular and disorganized is merely a problem of distance and imprecise instrumentation.
The up presented calculation is only an approximation and I tried to use the most common accepted values published in literature; with other set of values close results are obtained. The purpose of this newsletter is not to argue if the age of Universe is 13,7 or 13,8 billions years or if recombination period was 300000 or 350000 years after Big Bang.
Hubble law and expansion bubbles problem….
At the time Hubble law and Big bang theory were advanced, science was at the beginning of large scale exploration of Universe. The newly discovered galaxies were considered isolated islands of mater in Universe and huge distances between them did not allow us to have a clear image about their reciprocal interactions.
One remark has to be made though: even from beginning it was known and accepted that Hubble law does not work for small distances. Inside our Solar System or inside a galaxy the gravitation forces are considered to strong to allow this expansion. Based on the same reasoning, the expansion was later excluded from clusters of galaxies and this fact already put some serious problems when we estimate distances across universe.
From the time the Hubble law was published, it was clear that this did not apply for our local group of galaxies. The Local Group includes our Milky Way and comprises more than 54 galaxies, most of them dwarf galaxies. The Local Group covers a diameter of 10 Mly (3.1 Mpc). At that time only a handful of galaxies in the group were known and few of them were blue shifted.
Later research showed that our local group is in fact part of the larger Virgo Supercluster, which in turn is considered to be a part of the Laniakea Supercluster.
To date, about 100 galaxies around Milky Way are blueshifted and most of these blueshifted galaxies are inside Virgo Supercluster; therefore we must admit that space expansion does not take place at level of clusters and superclusters either. The Virgo Supercluster has a diameter of 33 megaparsecs (110 million light-years). It is one of millions of superclusters in the observable universe.
The position of our Milky Way, in fact the position of our local group of galaxies, inside Virgosupercluster is somehow peculiar: we are in a coin of this supercluster; therefore when we make a measurement for a farther away object we should take into consideration a compensation if the incoming photons travel through Virgosupercluster!
Let us assume an observer on Earth who makes two measurements up to some far away galaxies A and B (as in fig 3.4). The galaxy A is behind the Virgosupercluster and by comparison the observer has free path up to the galaxy B.
The measurements are quite straightforward: the spectra of these galaxies are registered, their redshifts are estimated and based on Hubble law we can calculate the distances up to galaxies A and B. For simplification let us suppose that based on Hubble law, the observer obtain the same redshift and this mean the same distance up to both galaxies, for example 100 Mpc.
And now the question: are the galaxies A and B at equal distances from Earth or not?
For a cautious scientist, as far the galaxy A is behind our Virgosupercluster and the Hubble law does not apply for it, it means he should add still another 33 Mpc to the distance up to A.
If the observer does not make this correction than we have the following situation: In case of galaxy A, the photons coming from it has to travel for about 25% of distance through the Virgosupercluster. As far the photons are not stretched inside superclusters the calculated distance will have a huge error.
Therefore if Hubble law is kept alive, astronomy has to be transformed into an accounting science and put estimation for each measurement of how much the incoming photons were traveling in free space or near a galaxy or galaxy cluster.
Maybe someone will think that 33 out of 133 Mpc is not such a big deal, but when we look at even larger scale, the application of this law give us biases of up to 50% from real distance.
Fig 3.4 Measuring distance to a galaxy behind Supervirgo cluster
Beside galaxies and clusters of galaxies which seem to defy the space expansion, in the last decade even more complex and large cosmic structures were discovered.
In 1989, Margaret Geller and John Huchra of the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics discovered the first large-scale structure of the universe. This structure, known as the Great Wall (more properly, the CfA2 Great Wall, named after the Center for Astrophysics), is a 500 million light-year's wide shell of galaxies just 16 million light years thick about 200 million light-years distant from Earth. The extent of this shell, which may be the boundary of a giant "bubble," might be larger, but our own galaxy prevents further observations.
A much larger wall, the Sloan Great Wall, named after the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, was discovered in 2003. This wall was observed to extend 1.38 billion light-years, which is nearly three times larger than the CfA2 Great Wall. For comparison, the diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light-years.
Nor is the Sloan Great Wall the last wall found. The farther we look, the more walls we find, the last being the Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall, measuring more than ten billion light-years across, or more than 10% of the diameter of the observable universe. The discovery was made by mapping gamma ray bursts.
Anyone can imagine what errors are introduced if someone wants to measure a distance up to an object behind Sloan Great Wall or Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall, based on Hubble law, without taking into consideration the fact that photons are not stretched out during their trip inside these structures.
Is there at least one single paper in scientific literatures which make this correction in case of measurements made for large distances across Universe? I have found none….
Hubble law and peculiar motion of galaxies
I suppose none will contest the pull between Milky Way and Andromeda and after latest studies they will collide or merge somewhere after about 4 billions years.
The topic has the purpose to analyze how some close or far away observers are going to see the movement of this simple system of two galaxies.
For simplicity, the collision along x axis is considered as in fig. 3.5 and some observers situated along the same axis have to record the events. Do not worry: they don’t need to wait until galaxies collide; only the observed movement of these galaxies for a short time interval has to be recorded. I don’t want to get comments that a galaxy is behind the other and the experiment is impossible so for those people who have difficulties to imagine this experiment, please consider the observers on a line at a certain slope up or down the x axis.
Let us consider the observer, situated in A point at about 1 MLy from Andromeda, making the first series of measurement for spectra coming from Andromeda and from Milky Way. As probably you expect, the spectra of Andromeda is redshifted and spectra from Milky Way is blueshifted; nothing special till here and probably the observer thinks his position is not so convenient for the future and moves along x axis in point B.
Figure 3.5 Appearance of galaxies collision for different observers
Let us consider the distance between A and B to be 1000 Mpc (the picture is not at scale). The observer in B measures again the spectrum of Andromeda and Milky Way and obtains a similar result: Andromeda is redshifted and Milky Way is blueshifted. The results are predictable as far these galaxies are not involved in Hubble flow.
Irrespective of the position on the positive side of x axis, even the observer moves to the end of the visible Universe the result must be the same.
The same results are obtained if the observer is situated on a tilted line in first or four quadrant for any distance; only the size of the effect will decrease as value when the angle of tilting relative to x axis increases.
If the observer is situated on the negative side of x axis (left to Milky Way), or in quadrant two or three, the results will be again consistent for all observers but the Milky Way will appear redhifted and Andromeda blueshifted.
A simple conclusion has to be highlighted: Except the cases of transversal observers to the system, all other observers, irrespective on distance, have to get a blueshifted and a redshifted spectrum for galaxies in collision.
How many far away galaxies are in the process of collision in Universe?
I did not found a statistic yet, but to my estimation at least 20% of observed galaxies are in a collision or a merging process and I suppose half of these are far away from us. If the Hubble law were correct, we would have a special category: galaxies in collision - which are subtracted from the expansion of the Universe. Irrespective of distance to these galaxies, an observer should get all the time a redshifted spectrum for a component and a blueshifted spectrum for the other component.
Now is time to take a telescope and go outside our Virgo group and look for galaxies in collision….
And here appears the first and unique problem: when the spectra of distant galaxies in collision are measured, both components are always redshifted ……
Some principles of astronomy have to be formulated:
- No single case of distant galaxies in collision will be ever found in Universe, having a component redshifted and another one blueshifted.
- At medium distances, sometimes galaxies in collision will appear to an observer as the theory predicts (one spectra blueshifted and another redshifted) and sometimes both spectra will be redshifted.
- At low distance the theory is respected and all the time an observer measures for galaxies in collision a blueshifted and a redshifted spectra.
These principles are valid for IR, VIS, UV, Xray domains. Radio and microwave are different and they will be treated as such in the book.
According to these principles, even the observer situated in B point, at large distance from Milky Way – Andromeda system will measure a redshift for both Milky Way and Andromeda.
Therefore if Hubble law is kept alive, the application of this law falsifies experimental reality.
The explanation for these principles… when the book will be published….
This is a new criterion for estimating the distance up to objects in Universe although at this time is only a qualitative one. And as a parenthesis, I started to read the work of Halton Arp. In fact in December 2015, I made an application for a position at Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik to continue the work of Halton Arp, an extraordinary astronomer with a lot of common sense but without the proper tools to change something in astronomy. The answer from MPA was as usual in the last decade: very polite but negative. To apply for US will be a complete nonsense; they made life a hell for Halton Arp, although he was a top astronomer and later he moved to Europe.
For some money spenders, present time is a golden era in astronomy, but in reality it is a dark age for science, astronomy included.
Cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature and Hubble law
If organized matter (galaxies, clusters of galaxies, walls of galaxies) has the ,,strange property" to block the space expansion, the same particular effects should be observed for cosmic microwave background radiation too.
The purpose of this topic is to establish how the frequency (temperature) of the CMB signal varies when an observer measures CMB behind the Virgosupercluster in comparison with another direction where the observer has free path.
Let us assume a satellite around Earth, which makes two measurements for cosmic microwave background radiation in two different direction of Universe, A and B as in fig 5. The CMB photons coming from A direction have to travel through entire Virgosupercluster and by comparison CMB photons coming from direction B have free path to the observer.
Figure 5. CMB temperature and Virgosupercluster problem
We have to repeat again some simple mathematics:
According to Big Bang theory, CMB radiation was stretched out from 724 nm up to about 1,9 mm, i.e. 1870639 nm in a time interval of 13,5 billions years.
How much should be stretched this CMB in 110 million years?
Making a simple calculation a value of 15242 nm is obtained.
By sure, all CMB photons coming from A direction are not stretched out for the last 110 milions years - the time necessary to travel the entire diameter of Virgosupercluster and they are a bit hotter than photons coming form B direction. As consequence if photons from B direction have a maximum peak at 160,2 GHz, the other photons coming from A direction will have a maximum peak at 161,57 GHz.
Even a radio amateur would be able to see this difference with present instrumentation!
What was the precision of WMAP and Planck satellite?
They were measuring tiny variations of a miliK and even microK in CMB radiation…
Maybe someone should look again to the theoretical aspects ….
For the new theory of science, Hubble law and Big Bang theory are part of the history of physics.
Spectra displacement in the new theory of science
Astronomy uses tools furnished by physics and/or chemistry; it would be better if astronomers questioned more often the validity of these tools. As far the present foundation of entire science was build up on wrong principles, the fruits of precedent errors have started to ripen.
If the Hubble law were to be correct, in the new theory this would have been called Lemaître-Slipher-Hubble law.
Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, this law was first derived from the general relativity equations by Georges Lemaître in a 1927 article where he proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, now called the Hubble constant.
I don’t know if Hubble was aware of this Georges Lemaître’s article, but by sure he was aware of work of Vesto Slipher; in fact Hubble copied Slipher’s work without giving him any credential. I do not think that a modern physicist has at least a clue about what work was done in order to get the redshift of a galaxy at that time! And Hubble took the speeds value for galaxies and published them as they were his own work!
Later around 1950, Hubble recognized Slipher`s contribution, but this is like the comportment of a rich drug dealer boss before retirement, who starts to build churches….
I would like to start with a short presentation of some of Vesto Slipher`s papers relevant to this topic:
- In a paper published in 1913 it was presented the first radial velocity of a "spiral nebula" - the Andromeda Galaxy. He seems to be more than modern in his suppositions too. After noting the high apparent velocity of this nebula he remark about M31 having encountered a “dark star”.
- The 1914 paper is the first demonstration that spiral nebula (galaxies) rotate and inferred from that observation that some nebulae are edge-on spirals.
- The 1915 paper is the classic, in which Slipher gave a summary of galaxy redshifts measuread at that point. Out of 15 galaxies, 11 were clearly redshifted.
- The 1917 paper analyzed a larger sample of galaxies redshifts. The redshift:blueshift ratio has now risen to 21:4, and Slipher noted that we are not at rest with respect to the other galaxies.
The spectra displacement method can reliable be used in astronomy only in some particular cases.
Like millions of other people, with my tiny telescope, I measured some absorption lines displacement in our Sun spectra and of course the method can be used to determine the rotation of Sun.
The first necessary condition is to have the same identical processes to generate the redshifted or blueshifted photons. I am sure that light generated at approaching and receding edge of the Sun was produced based on same identical processes inside Sun.
The second necessary condition is to have identical or very close condition of transport for both redshifted and blueshifted photons. With other words the trip up to observer must affect in a similar way all photons. Again in case of our Sun, I have the certitude that interplanetary medium affects in the same way both kinds of photons.
Based on similar considerations, the Slipher method developed in 1914 for measuring the rotation of a galaxy remains valid in the new theory.
Other cases will be discussed in the future studies.
The link with more details:
The accelerated expansion of the universe will be discussed in another newsletter….
Section 4 Q&A to the previous newsletter
Only two people agreed to publish their correspondence so these emails are grouped in separated pdf documents and a link was created to each of them at the bottom of periodic motion page on elkadot.comwebsite.
Both discussions are worth reading but I will formulate my answer to Mr. A. Chepick as far his first email was very concentrated and punctual. The discussion with Bob Watson is longer and a bit more diluted, having the same essence though.
As a general remark, it is not possible to apply Doppler shift methodology in order to establish the variation of period of an exoplanet. Doppler shift works for physical signals (sound, electromagnetic waves) and not for ,,clocks”; this is a pure relativity problem.
If someone persists in this approach, then please do the calculation for Jupiter moons using Doppler Effect and I will publish the results here.
If someone justifies that Dimidium was discovered by a sort of Doppler effect and it is normal that Doppler shift applies, than again (s)he is wrong. Please redo the measurements for Dimidium period with transit method. Do you see any differences between the results of Dimisium obtained by these two different methods? Of course not! What Doppler shift can someone find in a transit of a planet in front of a star?
The ,,piece of resistence” - Quote from Chepick’s first email:
,,Undoubtedly, the period TS of the planet Dimidium between the same phases, which observed in the Solar system will depend on the speed of the Pegasi-51 relative to the Sun, but not in such manner, as the Author points out. It is obvious that the data (the period TS=4.230785 ± 0.000036 days and speed v=33.7 km/s) are given relative to the center of mass of the Solar system, and not relative to the Earth. Denote by TP the period of this planet in the system of Pegasi-51. Let's simplify the task by assuming that the Pegasi-51 moves strictly from the Sun. We denote R is the distance between the sun and the Pegasi-51 at some moment. Then after n periods the Pegasi-51 will be away from the Sun at distance R+ Ln, Ln=v*n*TP and last of the observed period will be equal TS, taking into account the time difference of light propagation from the positions of beginning and end of this period (relativistic effects are too small):
TS= TP+(R+Ln)/c -(R+Ln-1)/c = TP+ (Ln- Ln-1)/c = TP+ v(n-(n-1))*TP/с = TP+v*TP/с = TP(1+ v/с).
That is, the period TS does not depend on the period's number. So there is no dependence of the period TS and the observation time. Indeed, we observed that the period TS greater than the period TP in the reference frame of Pegasi-51. And it is more exactly in many times, how many were increased the wavelengths by the Doppler effect. And in the Doppler effect also there is no dependence of wavelength and time. And the conclusion of the Author of this dependence is his logical error. Hence it can bring his other errors in reasoning.”
In a subsequent email I asked Mr. Chepick to provide me a simple calculation not for n periods but after first and second period, in the hope he will discover by himself the error in his math computation.
As far as he did not answer to the topic, it is necessary to see where the error in his formula is. It is a simple problem of mathematical analysis with an arithmetic series, i.e. level of high school math.
Of course the entire discussion is in the frame of actual relativity (c = constant).
Let us suppose at a certain moment, one makes a measurement of period of Dimidium. This measurement is only an intermediate term in an arithmetic series; it is not the first and by sure it will not be the last. Let it be this term Ti, and we are interested to see how the next term in the series Ti+1 is related to Ti. The demonstration follows the same steps like the one already presented on site or in emails and one can obtain that:
Ti+1 = Ti +R, where R = approx 40 s
In order to calculate the period of Dimidium after n revolution the right formula is:
Tn = Tn-1 +R
but Tn-1 =Tn-2 +R
and so on until
T2 = T1 +R
With a simple trick made in elementary math ( adding all these equation left part and right part ) we can get:
Tn = T1 + n×R
When this formula is applied, the same results are obtained like the calculation previously presented on website.
In the formula presented by Mr. Chepick, only the contribution brought by the last revolution is added, when the period of exoplanet after n revolution is calculated.
Furthermore, based on Mr. Chepick formula, something very interesting can be demonstrated: for the same very trip, photons travel with two different speeds; part of trip with speed c and another part of trip with infinite speed. One can deduce this demonstration easily reading the discussion with Mr. Chepick and Watson.
Mr Chepick is right in one direction though. I oversimplified the real situation and only the translation motion of far away Star-exoplanet was taken into consideration. In a previous newsletter two questions were formulated as follows:
1. Why there is a change in perceived time of Io eclipses for an Earth observer, depending on the relative distance up to Jupiter but in case of multiple stars, pulsars and exoplanets there is no such dependency?
2. Are these far away periodic systems having a relative motion relative to Earth or are they stationary? If they move away or come toward Earth, than again their perceived periodicity seen by an Earth observer should have still another second factor of variability.
I suppose he did not receive my previous newsletter(s) or the software of his server treated me as spam. I can’t do anything for aprox. 5% of people in distribution list who are not receiving the newsletters because their servers bounce my emails based on some rigid spam protocols.
Coming back to the topic: starting with the first exoplanet discovered in 1995, astronomers should have been questioning any interpretation of the periods of the exoplanets when the component of periodicity, due to the Earth’s motion around the Sun, did not appear.
Let us consider the situation from fig. 4.1 and let us consider the Star-exoplanet system stationary relative to Sun.
Figure 4.1 Variation of exoplanets period due to Earth motion around Sun
When Earth is in position E1, the observer would have a minimum value for the period of exoplanet. As far Earth moves on orbit, the measured period of exoplanet should steadily increase until a maxim is obtained when Earth is in position E2. The difference between E2 and E1 should be about 17 minutes, the time necessary for light to travel the diameter of Earth orbit.
If the observer measures a constant period of exoplanet, irrespective on the position of Earth on its orbit, than we have two simple solutions:
- Earth is not rotating around Sun;
- Someone plays tricks with us and until the limit of the Earth’s orbit light travels with speed c, and after that it travels instantaneously;
The update link has the same address:
There were some comments for the Van de Graaf device too.
Quote:
Yes, other is impossible: in equal conditions, each Teflon roller exchanges the same charge with nylon belt.
If all the time the Teflon rollers change the same type of charge with nylon belt, than both sphere of Van der Graaf device will charge at the same type of potential and no discharge can appear between them; this contradicts the experimental reality…
Quote:
What is the General principle of physics that forbids to pour a glass of water in the sea or put a grain of sand to the mountain? And there is no such prohibiting principle for electric charges. In electrostatics a redistribution of charges are under the action of electrostatic forces in the body, or when contact or induction occurs. It is necessary to compare the forces, not the magnitude of these charges. The rules of common sense should be applied with common sense, but not without it.
There will be a newsletter about electrostatic force (Coulomb force) and by sure you will see the situation with another eye.
In your opinion the electrostatic repulsion between charges which are already on a VDG sphere at few millions Volts is so minuscule that new charges are still received from a belt, which is an insulator?
Could you give a value and a formula for the insulator belt’s electric potential?
Quote:
Author didn't take to the account that the electric potential can be different in different parts of the device, in particular, inside and outside the sphere
There is no such thing as a potential difference between inside and outside of a sphere, at least according to classical electromagnetism.
The electric field inside a conducting sphere is zero, so the potential remains constant at the value it reaches at the surface.
Quote:
Any explanation of physical processes it should be interesting. But if the author is going to explain why a lower charge from one body cannot enter another body with a large charge, it isn't worth to read such a hypothesis.
There are few particular cases when a smaller ,,charge” can be transferred to another body with a ,,larger charge”, but this is not the case here. First of all, there is a transfer from an insulator to a conductor.
There is no law of physics able to explain how much charge an insulator can deliver and the potential generated by an insulator.
Final remarks:
Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to read the newsletter.
Thank you for all of you who sent feedback and of course I will be waiting for your scientific opinions ….
Best regards
Sorin Cosofret
