Net Positive Charge Options in Plasma

[kodybatill]

Hello all!!! So I have a string of Plasma related scenarios to present here - and I will present the first!

In Plasma reactions as found any-where Plasma-can be - is Net Positive Charge created when specifically Plasmons move horizontally with Neutrons?

This Forum gives me warmth.
Kody

[nick c]

The assumption that a plasma has an overall charge is not necessary. Plasmas are expected to have localized charge separation, for example jets or double layers, but the containing plasma can be assumed to be neutral, ie containing the same amount of electrons and protons; or not.
The application of quasi neutrality to cosmic plasmas is undetermined since any containing plasma could and we would expect would be contained within a larger plasma up to and beyond galactic scales.

[Michael Mozina]

Hello all!!! So I have a string of Plasma related scenarios to present here - and I will present the first!

In Plasma reactions as found any-where Plasma-can be - is Net Positive Charge created when specifically Plasmons move horizontally with Neutrons?

This Forum gives me warmth.
Kody

Neutrons are charge neutral, so their movement (or lack of movement) is pretty much irrelevant with respect to charge. Net positive plasma would be found in things like cosmic rays, where the majority of the particles are positively charged. Even current carrying plasma like electrical discharges can be "net neutral" to some degree because you have positively charged particles moving in one direction, and negatively charged particles moving in the opposite direction. Birkeland currents (the most common carrier of currents in plasma) can have both positive and negative particles flowing inside the same structure and can therefore seem to be pretty much 'net neutral" in some sense, even though they are net carriers of current.

Technically a plasma with more positively charged particles than negatively charged particles would be 'net positive", regardless of whether or not it's moving, whereas plasma with more electrons compared to positive ions would be 'net negative".

The movement of a charged particle results in the generation of a magnetic field, but movement is not a requirement to have a "net positive", or "net negative" plasma. Neutrons have no net effect on the charge of the plasma body, and the movement of neutrons doesn't generate a magnetic field either.

[kodybatill]

Hello all!!! So I have a string of Plasma related scenarios to present here - and I will present the first!

In Plasma reactions as found any-where Plasma-can be - is Net Positive Charge created when specifically Plasmons move horizontally with Neutrons?

This Forum gives me warmth.
Kody

Neutrons are charge neutral, so their movement (or lack of movement) is pretty much irrelevant with respect to charge. Net positive plasma would be found in things like cosmic rays, where the majority of the particles are positively charged. Even current carrying plasma like electrical discharges can be "net neutral" to some degree because you have positively charged particles moving in one direction, and negatively charged particles moving in the opposite direction. Birkeland currents (the most common carrier of currents in plasma) can have both positive and negative particles flowing inside the same structure and can therefore seem to be pretty much 'net neutral" in some sense, even though they are net carriers of current.

Technically a plasma with more positively charged particles than negatively charged particles would be 'net positive", regardless of whether or not it's moving, whereas plasma with more electrons compared to positive ions would be 'net negative".

The movement of a charged particle results in the generation of a magnetic field, but movement is not a requirement to have a "net positive", or "net negative" plasma. Neutrons have no net effect on the charge of the plasma body, and the movement of neutrons doesn't generate a magnetic field either.

Thank you Michael Mozina! I think you are talking about Plasma itself! What about Plasmons - or - "an instability in the dielectric function of a free electron gas", which can have different types of frequencies than just Plasma alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmon - "The frequency only depends weakly on the wavelength of the oscillation."

Under unique circumstances - would Plasmons ever be able to excite Net Positive Charge within Neutrons? Maybe at a specific frequency? Thanks!
Kody

[Michael Mozina]

My bad. I should have paid more attention to your actual question. I saw plasma in the title and i went with it.

[kodybatill]

Its all good! Thank you for your responses!

It is actually my theory that when Plasmons are equal in energy and frequency with any energy unit that causes Protons to take in Neutrinos - the Neutrino part of the Proton-and-Neutrino effect becomes very small - imploded into the Plasmon - and so very difficult to detect. That is what I believe creates a Plasma - the equal-ness of the previously described Plasmon and the Proton-taking-in-Neutrino reaction - contributing to the neutrality in the Plasmas! This whole get-up is 2 Neutrinos away from becoming or attracting a gas - and 8 Neutrinos away from forming a cloud of Electrons. So I guess I would like to ask now - is there any proof that some type of Plasma can attract Gases - before attracting Electrons? Either in a vacuum - radiation - explosion - or implosion? Any ideas?
Much Thanks!
Kody

[kodybatill]

Okay! Time to re-feed this actually quite important Plasma oriented thread of mine! But not with place-holder words - but rather something accurate about Plasma that I will use my specialty formula to whip up right here on the spot! I will make sure to only mention things that can be proven at one time or another. Here we go.

Plasma will not emit UV Light until it has the equivalent energy of specifically 6 Neutrinos - heading in the direction of Net Positive Charge - which 6 Neutrinos, similar-but-different to a 6 sided molecule of Carbon Graphene, allow a single Plasmon to record the energetic fluctuations of these interactions. This alignment causes Bose Einstein Condensates to be propelled into Neutrons with a force of 5 Neutrinos heading in the direction of Negative Charge (Is this a Z-pinch?) - As this occurs - the 5 Neutrinos allow a single Inert Gas Hydrate to induce the nearest touching Neutrino to actually take in information from Photons and Color - as a special window of time not dissimilar to biological conception. The result is a different type of Neutrino.

Does any of this ring any bells? Looking for a wide array of responses! I actually really want to speak with the creators of this site - although I know it will probably never happen.

[seasmith]

...

Plasma will not emit UV Light until it has the equivalent energy of specifically 6 Neutrinos - heading in the direction of Net Positive Charge - which 6 Neutrinos, similar-but-different to a 6 sided molecule of Carbon Graphene, allow a single Plasmon to record the energetic fluctuations of these interactions. This alignment causes Bose Einstein Condensates to be propelled into Neutrons with a force of 5 Neutrinos heading in the direction of Negative Charge (Is this a Z-pinch?) - As this occurs - the 5 Neutrinos allow a single Inert Gas Hydrate to induce the nearest touching Neutrino to actually take in information from Photons and Color - as a special window of time not dissimilar to biological conception. The result is a different type of Neutrino.
...

Not one word of that makes any sense to me. Can you break it down with maybe a diagram or two, and definitions of squishy things like "neutrino" and "color" ?

Are you al chemist ?

[kodybatill]

It's really only meant for the truly knowledge-hungry prolific thinker - so that they can research it for themselves with only pieces of examples found on the internet. It is also mainly for professionals who end up seeing this! Even some of the moderators have said to me that I am not likely to find professionals here - but I was able to get a response from just such a person many years ago when I first joined - and it was about something a lot more complex than this.

I could cite examples of what I mean - but it would require the explanation of certain words not privy to Plasma Cosmology - such as Positrons. As I have tried stating before in some of my other posts - that it is my military background in this information which makes me so confident - and trust me - EVERY series of public words used to describe a Positron is almost completely fictional - about 60% - compared to how the military handles Positrons. In the military - a Positron - IS - a single unit of Color - and it's interactions with Photons are Muonic - or the self-similarity in a sub-atomic element being able to record every single type of UV frequency - while also at the same time - only requiring half of a Proton for binding Bose Einstein Condensates with a full Proton - creating bubbles - as well as binding to other Sub-atomic elements at the same time.

[seasmith]

It is also mainly for professionals who end up seeing this!

What profession did you have in mind ?
Who was the professional who responded when you first joined? I may know him.

- EVERY series of public words used to describe a Positron is almost completely fictional

Well you got that part right... your definition, or description, would be a start,
for we mere mortals.

[kodybatill]

-READ ALL!!!-

Why is ANOTHER one of my Plasma Cosmology accurate threads placed in the NIAMI section!?!?!?!
Man I wish I had some kind of catch 69 for you guys to stop and - THINK - for just a second.

Can you please tell me what SPECIFIC - concepts I posted that the Moderators did not agree with? Because each one is easily provable, even by a system that will be acceptable to you. Please help me and dont turn me away.
Was it the idea that Protons take in Neutrinos? Because Protons and even Hydrogen isotopes - under the influence of Bose Einstein Condensates - have been shown to take in Neutrinos: https://scienceblogs.com/principles/200 ... d-neutrino

"The story is based on a proposal by Mark Raizen and Joshua Klein for a way to use cold tritium atoms to measure the mass of the neutrino. Tritium is hydrogen with two extra neutrons, and it tends to decay by turning into helium: one of those neutrons turns into a proton (through the weak nuclear interaction), spitting out an electron and a neutrino.

The proposed experiment is to trap a large amount of tritium at very low temperatures (meaning that the atoms are very nearly stationary), and look at the recoil of the helium that's produced. When the tritium decays into helium, one of two things happens: either the helium captures the electron on the way out, becoming neutral helium, in which case the atom recoils in a direction opposite the direction of the neutrino; or the electron and neutrino both escape, in which case the helium ion recoils in a direction that depends on the exit direction of both the electron and the neutrino. In either case, the helium is moving, and if everything is done right, it's moving considerably faster than the trapped tritium atoms.

To measure the neutrino mass, then, all you need to do is detect the helium and measure both the magnitude and direction of its velocity. If the electron was captured, that alone is enough to let you find the momentum (and thus mass) of the neutrino; if the electron escaped, you need to determine its velocity as well, but again, you can calculate the momentum of the neutrino."

So it can easily be accurately inferred that Protons - including Hydrogen itself - are capable of bonding to or containing Neutrino information - and specifically it NOT being a reaction to just out-side forces. Combine that with what I stated in my third Post in this thread - and my other posts in this thread as well - the net neutrality of Plasma most likely coming from this state of Neutrino-containing Protons - and Plasmons who take in fractions of this information - and when they are equal or Neutral - a Plasma is created. This also means that there are Plasmas - EVEN as we/you would describe them - that actually do not require electrons to exist.
Neutrinos themselves - which are observed visibly like in Alcohol-Dry-Ice chambers - are most likely when a Solar Neutrino (Length and Crystallization of a single Solar Photon unit under the influence of intense Net Positive Charge) - and an Electron - both break apart at the same time - and this itself being the continuous fractal that is the Neutrino - along with some other Neutrino laws not mentioned here yet. Without Plasmons and Neutrino containing Protons - Plasma would not exist.

So will any of the Moderators start an active dialog with me about this? I can prove it to be very useful to each one of the Moderators - as I have a nearly endless source of knowledge in this area.
Thanks!!!
Kody Tillotson <3

[kodybatill]

It is also mainly for professionals who end up seeing this!

What profession did you have in mind ?
Who was the professional who responded when you first joined? I may know him.

- EVERY series of public words used to describe a Positron is almost completely fictional

Well you got that part right... your definition, or description, would be a start,
for we mere mortals.

The professions I have in mind are Chemists - Physicists - Electrical Engineers - and all related parties.
The professional who responded before - years ago - commented on a post I made about 9+1 steps of an Atomic Bomb/Explosion - or something like that. I forgot his name - but if you find the thread and get it for me - it will be there.

Also - a Positron is most simply - and not even always visible: A single unit of true Color. Any actual TITLE - besides that for Positrons - would be incorrect. From there - a person can only expound upon it's effects on the Universe. Various Sub-atomic elements use them - such as Neutrinos - Potential Acid Positrons - Inert Gas Hydrates - Plasmons - Bose Einstein Condensates - and UV Positrons. That is about it - the only places a person will find real Positrons.

[kodybatill]

Neutrinos break apart Positron containing elements - Potential Acid Positrons cause Positrons to rise above their opposites - Inert Gas Hydrates cause Neutrinos to take in Positrons without breaking them apart - Plasmons leave behind only some of their Positrons - Bose Einstein Condensates leave behind all Positrons - and UV Positrons cause Positrons to become part of highly complex energetic maneuvers only slightly similar to Muons - or rather an equal opposite of Muons - which the equal opposite of a Muon would be when Bose Einstein Condensates are propelled with the force of 5 Neutrinos - into a Neutron.
Positrons dont even Annihilate on Electrons - besides a combination of 1: Neutrinos breaking apart Electrons in the presence of Positrons - and 2: Potential Acid Positrons causing Positrons to rise above opposites - and so no longer being in the same usable or record-able place it was before.

[jacmac]

kodybatill :

It's really only meant for the truly knowledge-hungry prolific thinker

NON knowledge-hungry prolific thinkers unite !
There is strength in our combined ignorance !
Jack

[kodybatill]

kodybatill :

It's really only meant for the truly knowledge-hungry prolific thinker

NON knowledge-hungry prolific thinkers unite !
There is strength in our combined ignorance !
Jack

Or for that matter - it is only meant for any type of prolific thinker at all - which prolific thought is not possible without complete freedom or true Non-fudged maneuverability in every type of association possible for the topic.