Electric Universe, The Iron Sun, and Plasma Cosmology thread

MeteorWayne · Jan 12, 2009

I have started this thread to give michael (and the community) an opportunity to consolidate all the discussions spread all over the place.Let's start with...concisely:What is the Electric Universe Theory?Take a few paragraphs.... Edit January 15th.The poster who this thread has been directed to (michaelmozina) has been temporarily banned from this site. As a result, all of his posts, in all his threads have temporarily disappeared. They will return when his temporary ban period has ended, unless he decides that it should be considered a permanent ban. We shall see.Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

michaelmozina · Jan 12, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have started this thread to give micheal (and the community) an opportunity to consolidate all the discussions spread all over the place.Let's star with...concisely:What is the Electric Universe Theory?Take a few paragraphs.... Wayne Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV>Change the thread title Wayne.  I will not participate in any thread that *intentionally* confuses and mixes Mozina and EU theory as a stated goal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

DrRocket · Jan 12, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Change the thread title Wayne.  I will not participate in any thread that *intentionally* confuses and mixes Mozina and EU theory as a stated goal. Posted by michaelmozina</DIV>Wayne has not intentionally confused anything.  In fact he is quite focused and correct in his terminology.Do you promise not to participate ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Jan 12, 2009

I actually agree with Michael here.  Let's try to keep some professionalism here and see where it takes us.  I could make a few predictions, but let's not go there yet.  I might recommend changing the title to:Electric Universe, Plasma Cosmology, Electric Sun and other non-standard theories/models. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

michaelmozina · Jan 12, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I actually agree with Michael here.  Let's try to keep some professionalism here and see where it takes us.  I could make a few predictions, but let's not go there yet.  I might recommend changing the title to:Electric Universe, Plasma Cosmology, Electric Sun and other non-standard theories/models. Posted by derekmcd</DIV>I think I'll start my own thread with my own title and present EU theory the way it should be presented when I'm ready to post it.  It will not include any debate of solar theory or the name "Mozina". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

yevaud · Jan 12, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think I'll start my own thread with my own title and present EU theory the way it should be presented when I'm ready to post it.  It will not include any debate of solar theory or the name "Mozina". Posted by michaelmozina</DIV>/Mod Hat On OK.I rarely make decisions while I feel like crap, but I will now.  This thread will hetretofore become the active EU/Whateverthehell topic thread.Sorry if anyone is offended, but endgame.  I am closinhg down all of the other threads. [apologetic shrug] /Mod Hat Off Everyone start off fresh, and play nice from now on.  Or the Collective spank.

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

michaelmozina · Jan 12, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>/Mod Hat On OK.I rarely make decisions while I feel like crap, but I will now.  This thread will hetretofore become the active EU/Whateverthehell topic thread.Sorry if anyone is offended, but endgame.  I am closinhg down all of the other threads. [apologetic shrug] /Mod Hat Off Everyone start off fresh, and play nice from now on.  Or the Collective spank.

Posted by yevaud</DIV>Then *please* change the title of this thread to something that is limited to EU theory, opens no discussion about solar theory or the name "Mozina".  You afforded DrRocket the courtesy of naming his own thread when he reviewed Alfven's book.  I would like the same coutesy when I start my own thread to present EU theory in my own way.The title "EU Theory" would be fine.  Better yet, just close this thread as well and I'll start my own new thread when I'm ready.  It probably won't be tonight anyway. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

UFmbutler · Jan 12, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then *please* change the title of this thread to something that is limited to EU theory, opens no discussion about solar theory or the name "Mozina".  You afforded DrRocket the courtesy of naming his own thread when he reviewed Alfven's book.  I would like the same coutesy when I start my own thread to present EU theory in my own way.The title "EU Theory" would be fine. Posted by michaelmozina</DIV>So I guess we will never get those solar model questions answered then.  Tell me, how can we have a thread where you present EU, in your words, "in my own way", without being able to discuss michaelmozinas presentation of EU theory?  If you are going to take on the responsibility of presenting a theory for consideration, you open yourself to criticism.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jan 12, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So I guess we will never get those solar model questions answered then. </DIV>Sure you will.   I will petition for yevaud to reopen the sun thread when we are done discussing EU theory.  I can't handle all the debates simultaneously and the moderators don't want to read through mutliple threads. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Tell me, how can we have a thread where you present EU, in your words, "in my own way", without being able to discuss michaelmozinas presentation of EU theory?  If you are going to take on the responsibility of presenting a theory for consideration, you open yourself to criticism.   Posted by UFmbutler</DIV>I am going to do what DrRocket did.  I'm going to give a presentation of Birkeland's work and Alfven's work as it relates to "cosmology theory".  Cosmology theory is not even the same topic as solar theory.   I can handle one debate at a time, but I can't have them all mixed together in one big bag and do any of them any justice. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

origin · Jan 12, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I am going to do what DrRocket did.  I'm going to give a presentation of Birkeland's work and Alfven's work as it relates to "cosmology theory".  Cosmology theory is not even the same topic as solar theory.   I can handle one debate at a time, but I can't have them all mixed together in one big bag and do any of them any justice. Posted by michaelmozina</DIV> Good, I agree jumping around different threads was most annoying.  I am going to keep a positive attitude (hope overcoming reason?) that you will present the information in a clear and concise manner. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jan 12, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then *please* change the title of this thread to something that is limited to EU theory, opens no discussion about solar theory or the name "Mozina". Posted by michaelmozina</DIV>The stated intent of the consolidation is to get ALL of these topics in one place.  Therefore it is completely inappropriate to take this tack.  This thread should explicitly address solar theories and anything else that a "reasonable man" would consider to be a part of "EU Theory" as that topic has been discussed in the SDC forums, and that most certainly includes Mr. Mozina's posts on solar theory, expansion of the universe, etc. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jan 12, 2009

As requested by dereckmcd here is the synopsis presented earlier in another thread:  In my humble but absolutely correct opinion:The time has come to recap the various statements and allegations made by Mr. Mozina with regard to “EU Theory”, his misrepresentations and attacks on mainstream physics and physicists, and to debunk his assertions.  He has recently adopted the stance of steadfastly refusing to even define what he means by EU Theory.Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfven were respected scientists of the early and mid-twentieth century.  Their work, in the proper context, is valuable and is respected still.  No criticism of their work, or the proper interpretation of it, has been made by the majority of mainstream scientists. Despite Mr. Mozina’s brazen lies to the contrary, I have not criticized either Alfven or Birkeland, in the proper context.   But their work has been widely misinterpreted and misrepresented by those advocating the pseudoscience of the Electric Universe perspective.  Mr. Mozina is an advocate of a most outrageous brand of pseudoscience. I.             Avoiding the challenge to define EU Theory and he sees it, Mr. Mozina instead attempts to behind the skirts of Alfven and Birkeland and claims that they have completely defined EU Theory, hence that the credibility of EU Theory rests on their reputations.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Let us review some of the assertions made by Mr. Mozina.1.     The primary source of energy for the sun is an external electric current.  "If one theorizes that the sun is its own energy source, and the core of the sun is the whole energy source of a solar system, it's hard to imagine a sun with a crust.  If however one puts a Birkeland model sun in context with EU theory, and theorizes it to be a simple conductor of electrical current, then a sun with a crust doesn't seem farfetched at all.  It can still radiate heat from the current it conducts, and we should not be surprised that the heliosphere is roughly the same temperature as the photosphere." -- Michael Mozina http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat:c7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum:2f3143ad-161c-461f-b1e1-f88bf188e3cfDiscussion:3eca296d-2ec2-4989-9749-098a272ba62e&plckCurrentPage=3&sid=sitelife.space.com"The universe itself is electric.  Any physical body will conduct current.  The larger the body, the larger the current it will carry. It's not a mystery why the sun erupts as it does.  It's simply electrically interacting with an electrically conductive universe."  -- Michael Mozina http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat:c7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum:2f3143ad-161c-461f-b1e1-f88bf188e3cfDiscussion:3eca296d-2ec2-4989-9749-098a272ba62e&plckCurrentPage=3&sid=sitelife.space.com"Yes, that is a reasonably accurate description of my views.  You are actually more attentive to detail than I gave you credit for.  It is entirely correct that EU theory diverges at various points, particularly solar theory.  Birkeland's solar model works well in a lab and it's been well tested to work in a lab.  Hydrogen fusion doesn't seem to be sustainable in a lab.  FYI, the solar model I favor is the same one that Birkeland himself favored over 100 years ago.  He realized the sun had a plasma atmosphere that was electrically active.  That would still be true of a completely plasma sun, including a mass separated plasma sun.  Either concept would likely produce similar results as long as the primary energy source is the electrical flow of the universe." -- Michael Mozinahttp://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat:c7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum:2f3143ad-161c-461f-b1e1-f88bf188e3cfDiscussion:3eca296d-2ec2-4989-9749-098a272ba62e&plckCurrentPage=3&sid=sitelife.space.com  2.     The primary source of energy for the sun is fusion.“The energy source for the Sun and ordinary stars seems to be neutron-emission and neutron-decay, with partial fusion of the decay product, rather than simple fusion of hydrogen into helium or heavier elements. Neutron-emission from the solar core and neutron-decay generate about sixty five percent of solar luminosity and H-fusion generates about thirty-five percent.” – Manuel, Kamat and Mozina  http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510001 It should be noted that Mr. Mozina has also posted several more e-prints on ArXiv, but has not been able to have them accepted in refereed journals.  http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Mozina_M/0/1/0/all/0/1 “Measurements on !-rays from a solar flare in Active Region 10039 on 23 July 2002 with the RHESSI spacecraft spectrometer indicate that the CNO cycle occurs at the solar surface, in electrical discharges along closed magnetic loops.” – Mozina, Ratcliffe, and Manuel http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0512/0512633.pdf (Note: The CNO cycle for the fusion reaction in stars has been known since the 1938 paper of Hans Bethe. http://prola.aps.org/pdf/PR/v55/i5/p434_13.     Fission is a major contributor to the energy of the sun”It should also be noted that I have published a paper on fusion processes in the solar atmosphere, and I do not believe that fission is the *only* energy source of the sun.  There are many variables in play, including induction and fusion as well, and solar models remain in debate within the EU community.  There is no "consensus" on that issue, and I would in fact assume I am in the minority of folks that prefer a Birkeland model over a standard solar model.” – Michael Mozina   http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat:c7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum:2f3143ad-161c-461f-b1e1-f88bf188e3cfDiscussion:fe11cb81-01b7-46b5-a90f-f1a39d1eddba&plckCurrentPage=11&sid=sitelife.space.com“Um, it "potentially" points to new properties for neutrinos just as it "potentially" points to a new primary energy source like fission that can release all three neutrino leptons.  That would also preserve lepton conservation "laws".” – Michael Mozina  http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat:c7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum:2f3143ad-161c-461f-b1e1-f88bf188e3cfDiscussion:91e16c2e-278f-44c5-adbe-1e79ee1e1662&plckCurrentPage=23&sid=sitelife.space.com It is rather apparent from items 1-3 that Mr. Mozina is rather confused with regard to what he, himself, believes.  It is no wonder that the rest of us are in the dark as well. Note that, for the record, the mainstream opinion is the proton-proton fusion is the primary source of power for stars of about 1.4 times the mass of the sun and the CNO cycle dominates for larger stars.  So his second notion carries some truth, but is direct conflict with his more common assertions as to the source of solar energy. 4.     The surface of the sun is solid and the photosphere is primarily neon“The sun's photosphere is often mistakenly referred to as the surface of the sun.  In reality however, the sun's photosphere is only a "liquid-like" plasma layer made of neon that covers the actual surface of the sun.  That visible layer we see with our eyes is composed of penumbral filaments that are several hundred kilometers deep.   This visible neon plasma layer that we call the photosphere, and a thicker, more dense atmospheric layer composed of silicon plasma, entirely covers the actual rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer of the sunhttp://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/T171_000828.avi.  The visible photosphere covers the actual surface of the sun, much as the earth's oceans cover most of the surface of the earth.   In this case the sun's photosphere is very bright and we cannot see the darker, more rigid surface features below the photosphere without the aid of satellite technology.” – Michael Mozinaand“The running difference imaging technique used by both NASA and Lockheed Martin have revealed to us for the first time that the sun is not simply a ball of hydrogen gas; it has a hard and rigid ferrite surface below the visible photosphere that can be seen in all of the images on this page! “ –Michael Mozina  http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/This is,  of course , in conflict with Hannes Alfven’s own statement in Cosmical Electrodynamics that “The concept of frozen-in lines of force may be useful in solar physics, where we have to do with high- and medium-density plasmas (cf. 5.1.4), but may be grossly misleading if applied to the magnetosphere of the earth.” (pg. 191), or, “`In the interior of stars the gas is almost completely ionized.  In the photosphere of the sun (and other stars) the degree of ionization is not very high, but above the photosphere =, in the chromospheres and corona, the ionization if higher again (almost 100 per cent).” (pg. 134)Mozina seems to be relying on the Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903 by K.R. Birkeland (published in 1908) for his interpretation of the sun as a solid object powered by electric current.  While Birkeland’s observations regarding the earth’s aurora borealis phenomena have proved to be prescient, his notions of solar physics are rather far off the mark.  This is understandable since his work was published prior to the announcement of the discovery of the nucleus by Ernest Rutherford in 1911.  Lacking knowledge of the nucleus itself, it is no wonder that Birkeland did not know of nuclear fusion.His notion that the photosphere is composed largely of neon is also in conflict with known solar physics, but consistent with his notion that the sun in nothing more than externally powered electric neon light bulb. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/tables/suncomp.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunThe notion of  a solid surface of the sum is in direct conflict with all estimates of the surface temperature of at least 5600 C. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/GlyniseFinney.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun well above the melting point of calcium ferrite which is about 1200C http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/GlyniseFinney.shtml Mozina’s rather bizarre notion regarding the surface of the sun are recognized as easily debunked pseudoscience in the professional astronomy community (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=673) : “As we have stated in other places, we do not feel that the "Curious" site is not the appropriate place to debate the in-depth details of such models, although I should note that it takes only basic Physics to find flaws in the idea of a solid iron surface to the Sun (for example the fact that iron is vaporized at the temperature of the Sun's surface). If you do want more details I would like to refer you to the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum which hosted this thread in June-July 2005 in which the author of thesurfaceofthesun.com debates his model with various other members of the forum.”  His ideas have been debated elsewhere, as noted, with professional astronomers, and have been shown to be pure pseudoscience, for many reasons.  A particularly easy point to make is that the solid calcium ferrite which he claims makes up a large portion of the solid surface of the sun has a melting  temperature on the order of 1200 C which is far below the surface temperature of about 6000 C.   Mozina has no credible answer to this criticism. 5.    The universe is not expanding and red shift is caused by other factorsMr. Mozina refuses to accept that it is a consequence of the observed red shift of distant galaxies, the nature of the cosmic background radiation and the apparent validity of Einstein’s general theory of relativity that space itself is expanding and that the universe originated at some time in the distant past in a very compact form, an event known in the mainstream as the Big Bang.  He further confuses the ordinary expansion of space with the theory of inflation proposed by Alan Guth.“While I accept and believe in "space-time expansions" (objects in motions stay in motion), I do not personally happen to believe that "space expands". – Michael MozinaAt the same time Mr. Mozina purports to accept general relativity “as Einstein taught it”. “I have no problem accepting GR theory as Einstein taught it to his student (and to me while reading his material).  GR theory as I was taught it in college is just fine by me.” – Michael Mozina   http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat:c7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum:2f3143ad-161c-461f-b1e1-f88bf188e3cfDiscussion:3eca296d-2ec2-4989-9749-098a272ba62e&plckCurrentPage=11&sid=sitelife.space.com “In Einstein's version of GR, "space' did not expand.  There was no constant.  He tried that and yanked it the moment he realized there was expansion happening.  The "expansion" he envisioned and taught was simple physical expansion of the mass objects that make up "space time".  He in no way suggested that "space" expands, that there were any negative pressure vacuums, etc.” – Michael Mozina http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat:c7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum:2f3143ad-161c-461f-b1e1-f88bf188e3cfDiscussion:3eca296d-2ec2-4989-9749-098a272ba62e&plckCurrentPage=15&sid=sitelife.space.com Yet, as pointed out to Mr. Mozina on numerous occasions, Einstein did, in fact, remove the cosmological constant from his formulation of the field equations and adopted the perspective of expanding space, consistent with the observations of Edwin Hubble. Moreover, the cosmological constant introduced by Einstein had the sole purpose of permitting a static solution to the field equations of general relativity – A. Einstein in “Cosmological Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity as reprinted in The Principle of Relativity by A. Einstein (see especially page 188).Mr. Mozina has several times made reference to e- papers by Ari Brynjolfsson that Mr. Brynjolfsson has been unable to publish in refereed journals.  http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/search?a=Brynjolfsson&t=&q=&c=&n=25&s=Listings  “Actually we *believe* (at the moment) that it's expanding.  In reality however Ari's paper demonstrates that there are other mathematical ways to "interpret" the redshift data.  Arp’s observations must also be reexamined, particularly in light of the fact that astronomers have been talking about galaxies ejecting large objects at very high speeds.   MECO theory suggests that large physical objects may have an intrinsic redshift.  We *presume* from the redshift observations that the universe is expanding.  For the time being that seems to be the most logical conclusion, but it's not a given, and the 'interpretations' of the redshift phenomenon may change over time.” – Michael Mozina http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat:c7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum:2f3143ad-161c-461f-b1e1-f88bf188e3cfDiscussion:3eca296d-2ec2-4989-9749-098a272ba62e&plckCurrentPage=17&sid=sitelife.space.com  These papers purport to describe a hitherto unknown mechanism for the production of redshift that would be an alternative hypothesis to the expansion of the universe.  Unfortunately Mr. Brynjolfsson appears to not understand the basic difference among a photon, the quantum mechanical wave function that describes the state of a single photon and an electromagnetic wave that is the result of the behavior of a huge number of individual photons.  He simply misunderstands basic physics.  See the first paragraph of section 2 in the paper http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0401/0401420v3.pdf.  II.           Mr. Mozina has demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of fundamental physics 1.     Mr. Mozina has consistently demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of ions and conductivity, a topic essential to any application of plasma physics or magnetohydrodynamics.   He apparently confuses “ions” with “iron”.“Ions most certainly do "conduct" electrons.  Iron atoms will "conduct" electrical current.  Iron ions will most certainly "conduct" electrical current.Nobody doubts that the movement of charged particles *is* current.   Ions however will themselves conduct electrons flow, just as those ions in the spinning filaments are conducting electrons through the filament.” – Michael Mozina    http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat:c7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum:2f3143ad-161c-461f-b1e1-f88bf188e3cfDiscussion:fe11cb81-01b7-46b5-a90f-f1a39d1eddba&plckCurrentPage=10&sid=sitelife.space.com2.     Mr. Mozina seems to think that a Wal Mart plasma ball is somehow representative of the physics of the sun. “The question posed and answered was with regard to the plasma balls that you seem to like from Wal Mart, not the sun.” – DrRocketTo which Mr. Mozina replied“The "physics" are similar, they differ only in terms of their amounts of "current flow".” – Michael Mozina3.   Mr. Mozina has been rather vociferous in his advocacy of circuit theory in analyzing plasma phenomena, relying on Alflven’s use of the work “circuit” while misunderstanding Alfven’s meaning entirely.  Alfven understood that plasmas are described in the theory of magnetohydrodynamics via Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetic fields, the Lorentz force equation and the principles of fluid dynamics.  He did use the idea of equivalent circuits, a common electrical engineering device, to describe certain aspects of plasmas (see for instance section 5.3.2 of Cosmical Electrodynamics).  Alfven, unlike Mozina, understood that equivalent circuits are only a useful means of calling attention to the implications of the more fundamental field theory, that the parameters of the equivalent circuits are derived from solutions to Maxwell’s equations, and not the other way around.  Mr. Mozina simply fails, loud though his protestations may be, to understand the fundamental nature of plasmas and the limitations of a lumped parameter, low frequency approximation to Maxwell’s equations, which is what circuits are.  He further misunderstands the relationship between an equivalent circuit, and a physical circuit.4.     Mr. Mozina has totally misunderstood the nature of the vacuum state in quantum field theory, the importance of the vacuum state in cosmology, or the current issues with regard to the vacuum state, expansion of the universe or dark energy.  The FACTS are that the energy of the quantum vacuum provides a negative pressure term for use in the stress-energy tensor in the field equations of general relativity, that negative pressure term is equivalent to a positive cosmological constant, which in turn is equivalent to dark energy, and which provides for a model in which the expansion of space is accelerating.  It is also true that current quantum field theory calculations predicts a negative pressure that exceeds that required to explain the observed accelerated expansion by 120 orders of magnitude, which is a HUGE discrepancy, and the theory is not now at all satisfactory.  But the reason for the problems is totally unrelated to Mr. Mozina’s illogical rants.  http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat:c7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum:2f3143ad-161c-461f-b1e1-f88bf188e3cfDiscussion:fe11cb81-01b7-46b5-a90f-f1a39d1eddba&plckCurrentPage=12&sid=sitelife.space.com5.      Mr. Mozina has repeatedly misunderstood both circuit theory and Hannes Alfven’s use of the term to call attention to the need to properly account for boundary conditions.  He instead relies solely on semantics and completely disregards the needs of physics.  That topic has been discussed thoroughly in the thread “Report on Alvfen’s book Cosmic Plasma.”  What is important to note is that Mr. Mozina exhibits complete ignorance of physics while arguing vociferously from a perspective of pure semantics.  That approach was carried to an extreme in his attacks on mainstream “magnetic reconnection” where he argued vehemently but irrationally for his undefined “circuit reconnection”. 6.     As seen Mr. Mozina misunderstands, perhaps willfully, both basic physics and the work of Hannes Alfven.  Since he claims that EU Theory is the work of Alfven, it is clear that he misunderstands it as well. III.         The Work of Hannes Alfven and  Kristian Birkeland1.    Kristian Birkeland Birkeland’s work is published in a large volume, The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903, published in 1908.  It is worthwhile putting those dates in perspective.  Ernest Rutherford announced the discovery of the modern concept of the nucleus surrounded by an electron cloud in 1911.   JJ Thompson had discovered the electron only 5 years prior to the expedition, in 1897.  Birkeland’s work must be viewed in the light that modern atomic theory was in the process of formation during the time that he was performing his experiments. Birkeland did extensive work directed at explaining the aurora borealis, and despite some criticisms at the time and somewhat later, his work has stood the test of time and proven to be prescient in describing the currents that create the aurora.  He was the first to postulate that space is widely populated by plasma.Birkeland did many experiments with his “terella” apparatus to simulate the behavior of plasma in the region of a solid conductive sphere energized with an externally supplied electric power source.  Those experiments allowed him to gain an understanding the effect of the Earth and the magnetic field of the Earth on the flow of plasma that emanates from the sun and is moderated by the magnetosphere.  However, those experiments, in light of current knowledge of stellar formation, nuclear fusion, and modern electrodynamics are simply not directly applicable to the finer points of solar physics.  It would be rather unfair to criticize Birkeland for this, given the state of physical knowledge at the time of his work.  Birkeland remains a historic figure in physics, a man to be admired.  But his work ought not to be viewed as definitive with respect to modern stellar physics.2.     Hannes AlfvenHannes Alfven was a Swedish physicist and electrical engineer.  He received a Nobel Prize in 1970 for his work in magnetohydrodynamics, a sub-discipline of plasma physics.  Along with Chandrasekhar Alfven had a strong influence on the application of plasma physics to astrophysical problems.  He died in 1995.Alfven published many papers and two notable books.  Cosmical Electrodynamics is a widely cited monograph on the subject of plasma physics and magnetohydrodynamics written with a view towards solar physics and astrophysics.  The second edition was published, with Carl-Gunne Falthammar as co-author in 1963, prior to Alfven’s receipt of the Nobel Prize and reflects much of the work that earned him that honor.  Cosmic Plasma, published in 1981 was a stark contrast to Cosmic Electrodynamics. The latter book, discussed at length in the thread “Report on Alflven’s book Cosmic Plasma” is largely speculative and most of the speculations have been invalidated by modern observations.  Unfortunately, EU wackos lacking perception and knowledge of physics have actually amplified and expanded upon Alfven’s 27-year-lold speculations to construct some truly outrageous nonsense, which they label “EU Theory”.Alfven was a proponent of what is usually termed “Plasma Cosmology” or “The Plasma Universe”, which is based on sensible standard physics.  It challenges the Big Bang and asks the reasonable question as to whether at some time in the distant past the transverse motions of the galaxies might not have been comparable to the radial motions and hence questions the extrapolation back to the extreme densities of the Big Bang.  This was not an unfair premise at the time that it was made by Alfven and Klein.  However, this hypothesis is inconsistent with more modern information regarding the isotropy of the cosmic background radiation (CMBR) and X-ray backgrounds.  It is also inconsistent with the theorems of Hawking and Penrose (Hawking and Penrose, (1970) “The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 314, 529-48)  that show that the Big Bang follows from general relativity and boundary conditions imposed by the lower bound on the observed matter in the universe and the observed expansion of space as reflected in the work of Hubble and more recent surveys.  In light of modern empirical data, Alfven’s Plasma Cosmology is no longer seriously considered (see Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles, pp. 207-209 or Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler pg. 770)Just as with the work of Birkeland, one must interpret the work of Alfven in the context of the state of physics during the time in which that work was performed.  Alfven’s seminal work in magnetohydrodynamics was performed in the first part of the twentieth century.  The understanding of cosmology at that time was far more primitive than it is today.  There were several competing approaches to cosmology (see for instance Cosmology, by Herman Bondi; Cambridge University Press 1952).  The Big Bang theory originated with the work of Lemaitre in 1927 as a theoretical solution, which he called the “primeval atom” to the equations of general relativity, preceding the experimental work of Hubble that provides strong support.  But the Big Bang remained one of several competing theories until the experimental discovery by Penzias and Wilson of the CMBR and the recognition of P.J.E. Peebles of the significance and origin of that microwave signal.Even with the recognition of the CMBR, the ascendancy of the Big Bang hypothesis awaited the work of Hawking, Penrose and Ellis in the late 1960’s which showed the Big Bang to be a logical consequence of general relativity with boundary conditions imposed by a minimum amount of matter supported by astronomical observation.  It was further supported experimentally by detailed surveys of the CMBR, such as the COBE (1992) and WMAP (first results in 2003 with observations scheduled to continue through Sept. 2009) surveys that showed small anisotropies consistent with the Big Bang hypothesis.  Mather and Smoot were awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics for their COBE work mapping the CMBR anisotropies which helped to cement the Big Bang as the leading theory of the origin of the universe.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMAP Thus one sees that while the cosmological models posed by Alfven were not valid, they were consistent with responsible speculation at the frontiers of research in physics.  Alfven’s work was not pseudoscience.  But to continue to advance ideas that have been shown to be incorrect and inconsistent with established theory, such as general relativity, and with the body of empirical data that has been gathered in recent years, is most assuredly pseudoscience.  It is equally the case that the advocacy of Newtonian mechanics over Einstein’s relativity is pseudoscience, but Newton was clearly a great scientist.  There is a contextual element to pseudoscience that cannot be denied.  Alfven was no fool.  But those who continue to advocate ideas based on his hypotheses, now set aside for sound scientific reasons, are most certainly foolish, and abysmally ignorant of the true state of physics.  They deserve no more respect than witch doctors who refuse to acknowledge the work of Louis Pasteur on the microbial nature of infections and continue to treat illness as the result of evil spirits.  The tools of the modern advocates of “EU Theory” are the equivalent of beads and rattles.  Mozina is no more than a witch doctor with a keyboard. IV.          EU Theory debunked as pseudoscienceWhile Mr. Mozina would like to define EU Theory as simply ” the application of MHD theory to objects in space&rdquo

so as to trade on the credibility of Hannes Alfven it is abundantly clear that he has a far different view of “EU theory” and a personal agenda.  His statements have clearly differentiated his notions of “EU Theory” from those of Alfven and he has even more clearly differentiated his ideas from those of proven physics.  Mr. Mozina is an advocate of a most blatant variety of pseudoscience.  http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat:c7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum:2f3143ad-161c-461f-b1e1-f88bf188e3cfDiscussion:fe11cb81-01b7-46b5-a90f-f1a39d1eddba&plckCurrentPage=8&sid=sitelife.space.com   In short, Mr. Mozina has demonstrated a profound confusion with respect to fundamental physics so consistently that he simply cannot be accorded any credibility whatever when matters of science in general and physics in particular are of import.  EU theory as represented by the bulk of Mr. Mozina’s assertions is not consistent with mainstream physics and is simply pseudoscience.Mr. Mozina’s brand of pseudoscience deserves no serious consideration in the scientific community, and it receives none.  He and his web site are a laughing stock among astronomers.  The only likely impact from his advocacy of scientific hogwash is damage to young people who have little experience and background, and may be dissuaded from a career in real science or engineering through his offices.  But that impact could be tragic to the individuals so affected, and therefore he deserves the strongest censure by people of integrity.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jan 12, 2009

And also as requested here is the report on Cosmic Plasma  and Cosmical ElectrodynamicsI had intended to produce a brief report on the book Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven.  After reading that book I have decided that it is necessary to also report on his earlier book Cosmical Electrodynamics, Fundamental Principles, written with Carl-Gunne Falthammar.  This latter book, published in 1963 was revision of Alfven’s earlier book Cosmical Electrodynamics, published in 1948.  It will be referred to by the shorter and more common name of simply Cosmical Electrodynamics but should not be confused with the earlier original book of that name.Hannes Alfven (1908-1995) was a Swedish physicist whose work in plasma physics earned a Nobel Prize in 1970.  A good description of his professional life, written by Falthammar and Dessler is available here http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1504/150412.pdf.   Of interest in this obituary are the observations that  “Typical of much of Alfven’s work, his discovery of a fundamentalphenomenon (e.g., magnetohydromagnetic waves) was successful, althoughhis application to the specific phenomenon that inspired it wasnot. His explanation of sunspots and the solar cycle was not accepted,but the waves he discovered in the process, and the field of magnetohydrodynamicshe opened, remain central, not only to solar physics, butto laboratory physics, such as research on thermonuclear power, and tothe physics of space and astrophysical plasmas.”Also, the comment regarding “critical velocity” “In space, the phenomenon has proved elusive. It wasclearly demonstrated in at least one rocket experiment, but it failed toshow up in others, which points the way to future theoretical and experimentalresearch on this topic.”Also curious is the prominence placed on both editions of Cosmical Electrodynamics while no mention whatever is made of Cosmic Plasma.However, a comment relevant to Cosmic Plasma is made,"Still another example is the concept of symmetric cosmology, which implies that the universe may consist of equal amounts of plasma andantiplasma, separated by thin boundary layers, where intense matter/antimatter annihilation takes place. These ideas were initiated by OscarKlein and carried on by Alfvén, who argued that these boundary layersare analogous to the Leidenfrost layer formed under a drop of water ona hotplate. Because of the low density and the thinness of these boundaryregions, the resulting radiation would be too weak to be detected atthe position of the Earth by instruments available at that time. Thelack of detection of this radiation by increasingly sensitive instrumentsin space has caused this hypothesis to become regarded as invalid.What one sees from the obituary written by close associates of Alfven’s and from his work as represented in his papers and in particular in the two books that are the subject of this report is a dichotomy.  His work in plasma physics and in particular in the development of the theory of magnetohydrodynamics  (MHD) is mainstream physics at its finest.  It is reflected in Cosmical Electrodynamics which explains much of the work for which he received the Nobel Prize.  Alfven was clearly a great physicist and an expert in the behavior of plasmas.In his later writings, including Cosmic Plasma, one sees, not as Michael Mozina has stated an application of MHD to objects in space, but rather a series of conjectures regarding astrophysics and cosmology, that are presented on the basis of Alfven’s intuition with regard to plasma phenomena but largely without justification.  The use of “if” and “may” abound in Alfven’s writing in Cosmic Plasma.Cosmical Electrodynamics is a hard-core physics text that presents plasma physics as one is used to seeing physics presented.  It contains theory, mathematical formulation and discussion of supporting experiments. It is representative of the work for which Alfven is justly regarded highly among physicists.  Topics include, motion of charged particles in magnetic fields, hydromagnetic waves, other applications of magnetohydrodynamics, plasma physics including effects of collisions within plasmas, magnetic plasmas and classification of such plasmas, frozen-in lines of force, inhomogeneities in plasma, diffusion, magnetic properties, and the distribution function.  Cosmical Electrodynamics is widely cited in the mainstream physics literature and remains a respected monograph on the subject of plasma physics.  It is highly recommended as reading for those with a solid background in basic physics and mathematics who have an interest in the physics of plasmas.  Cosmic Plasma published in 1981 is of quite different character from Cosmical Electrodynamics. One finds few, if any, citations of Cosmic Plasma in the mainstream literature of physics and cosmology, although one does occasionally find reference to Alfven’s earlier book Worlds Anti-worlds, usually to note that the cosmological theories therein have been examined and found to be invalid.  Since Cosmic Plasma seems to have much in common with Worlds Anti-worlds, the lack of reference to it may be a sign of respect for Alflven’s work in plasma physics. In Cosmic Plasma Alfven puts forth some very speculative notions, as he clearly recognizes since his statements throughout the book are replete with “if” and “may”.  He begins with an overview of plasma physics, but assumes the reader to have some familiarity already, with several references to Cosmical Electrodynamics.  He then builds a case for an alternate view of astrophysics and cosmology based on plasma phenomena, with the logic train running as follows: 1.       Plasma phenomena are described accurately by Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetic fields and the Lorentz force equation, but proper application of those equations requires that the boundary conditions be recognized and included in the solution.  Often those boundary conditions are not properly recognized or considered.  Consideration of the sources of electromotive forces and the complete description of the flow of the ions of the plasma, currents, is necessary.  He adopts the language of electrical circuits to assure that the necessary boundary conditions are incorporated, and because it provides some useful imagery that is intuitively appealing to someone with Alfven’s association with electrical engineering.  However, Alfven continues to formulate the equations for all but the most crude of these models in the mathematics of field theory – Alfven understands what he is doing.  This step seems to be misunderstood by “EU” proponents, such as Michael, as being a replacement for, and even “more fundamental” than field theory.  Alfven himself in under no such delusion.Alfven clearly sets up his description based on Ampere’s law:  curl B = mu (i + dD/dt) making the usual MHD approximation that dD/dt=0 so that curl B is proportional to current, or simply taking the right side of   Ampere’s law as a generalized notion of current.  That sets up his approach to consideration of current as an equivalent to consideration of the magnetic field itself.  That is perfectly legitimate, but it in no way detracts from the field-theoretic approach to electrodynamics, merely provides a different but equivalent treatment.  He states “The present monograph shall concentrate on the latter, and try to give a survey of cosmic plasmas based on the particle (electric current) aspect.”He notes as well that, “With the current description the whole circuit in which the current flows is included and in this way the neglect of boundary conditions is more easily avoided.”  It is important to note that it is the boundary conditions appropriate to a model based on partial differential conditions that is foremost in the mind of Alfven.  Circuit theory itself, is a lumped parameter model, which uses ordinary differential equations and for which there is no concept of boundary conditions, only initial conditions.As we see, Alfven’s use of the word “circuit” is appropriate and useful, while Mr. Mozina’s misinterpretation of Alfven’s meaning is manifest.  Alfven does NOT replace field theory with circuit theory, and he most certainly DOES NOT view the use of a current and particle description as in any more fundamental than alternate and conventional approaches.  He does, quite rightly, point out that field theoretic models based on faulty boundary conditions are invalid.It is notable that throughout his discussion he used the notion of an inductor L as a surrogate for the magnetic field and that inductive energy is simply a term meant to refer to energy stored in the magnetic B field.  It is notable as well that on page 29 he notes that to describe a plasma in a fixed volume one needs the component of the curl of the B field perpendicular to the boundary of the volume to be zero – the field theoretic equivalent of stating that there is to be no current flow into or out of the volume.  He then notes that magnetic merging (aka magnetic reconnection) is what he calls “current sheet acceleration”.  This is simply a different way of saying that when the topology of the magnetic field changes, reducing the energy density of the field and hence releasing energy, that energy is realized as an increase in the kinetic energy of the charged particles, the plasma that are affected by the magnetic field.  Alfven clearly recognizes that magnetic fields contain energy, a fact vociferously denied by Mr. Mozina on several occasions. Alfven also notes the limitations of a circuit perspective, even if Mr. Mozina does not.  “The observed existence of cable-like plasma configurations motivates us to draw electric circuit diagrams for electromagnetic phenomena in space, and to discuss them with the help of electrotechnical technology.  This method will be extensively used, especially in Chapter III.  It is obvious that it should be regarded as a first approximation to a more complicated situation.  Great care is necessary to determine to what extent it may be misleading.” Despite Mr. Mozina’s rather sill claims that electromagnetic energy is identical with the kinetic energy of the particles of plasma, Alfven is under no such delusion.  Section III.1 is dedicated to a discussion of the transfer of energy between a circuit and a moving plasma.  He states, “In order to study the energy transfer between kinetic energy  Wk=1/2 Mu^2 of a plasma and electromagnetic energy of a circuit, which will be referred to as circuit energy Wc, we consider the following three simple cases,”The objective of this discussion if circuits from the perspective of the overall logic of the book is to establish that in looking at plasma phenomena one must not restrict attention to only the local plasma but must also look to assure that the motive forces (electromagnetic fields) and boundary conditions (plasma flow and currents) that are necessary to properly define the physics are included in the mathematical modeling of the problem.  He is quite correct in that position.  However, his later ideas as to what might constitute the motive forces are decidedly difficult to defend.2.      He applies his models to some known plasma phenomena, including the aurora, the heliosphere and the magnetosphere of the Earth.  His discussion of the heliosphere “circuit” is interesting but speculative, and Alfven recognizes this, as he makes no assertions of fact, but merely offers possibilities for further investigation.  This theme is characteristic of the remainder of the book, which becomes successively more speculative in later chapters.  But it does serve to illustrate his focus on boundary conditions, currents, and electromotive forces and the transfer of energy associated with them.3.      Alfven next discusses cosmic plasmas, meaning the existence of ionized gas in deep space.  His objective is to set the state for analysis of many astrophysical phenomena on the basis of plasma physics and to justify it by providing a foundation for believing in the ubiquity of ionized species.  Among the mechanisms that he cites are the phenomena of “critical velocity” which he first proposed.  This phenomena, which asserts that when a gas moves at a velocity relative to a magnetic field such that the kinetic energy is equal to the ionization  potential then the gas becomes ionized and any further addition of kinetic energy goes to further ionization rather than increased speed until the gas is nearly completely ionized.  This phenomenon has been observed in laboratory experiments, although it largely failed to be observed in space experiments.  In any case Alfven thesis is that ionized gases are extremely common.  He also gives plausibility arguments for chemical separation of species by magnetic means within plasmas, for the existence of self-exciting dynamos, and associated phenomena.4.      Alfven also discusses “ampbiplasma”.  He makes an argument for the existence of large quantities of antimatter, not simply positrons and anti-protons but for atoms and molecules of antimatter in equal amount to ordinary matter, which he calls “koinomatter”.  He in fact argues that anti-matter and koinomatter can exist nearby one another separated by Leidenfrost.  Ambiplasma is mixture of ionized koinomatter and antimatter.  The existence of large quantities of antimatter and ambiplasma is necessary to his theory of cosmology.  This is distinctly speculative and not supported by any empirical data whatever.5.      Alfven presents his theory of the origin and formation of our solar system, and hence other similar systems.  This is highly speculative and relies upon chemical separation by magnetic means, by ordinary dynamics moderated by the critical velocity phenomena and results in a “band theory” that describes the formation of the planets.   He notes that our solar system seems to be composed only of koinomatter at least out to, but perhaps not including all bodies in the Oort reservoir.  As one would expect the use of “if” and “may” abound.   He provides something that one ought to look for in observations of the cosmos to support or refute either conventional theories of solar system formation or his own ideas. In light of Mr. Mozina’s various “non-mainstream” assertions regarding the power source for the sun, it is interesting to note that Alfven states that the sun, during the very early formation of the Solar system “is not necessarily very hot, actually it may be a very large deuterium-burning star.” 6.      Alfven next expands into broader considerations of cosmology and becomes even more speculative.  He argues that the universe is split evenly between koinomatter and anti-matter.  He even goes so far as to postulate the existence of ambistars that are themselves composed of both koinomatter and anti-matter separated by a thin Leidenfrost layer.Alfven attacks the Big Bang theory, on the basis that it is an incorrect extrapolation of linear expansion based on the constancy of the Hubble constant in a Euclidean geometry.  He seems to fail to have recognized the work of Hawking and Penrose showing that the Big Bang is logically required by general relativity with appropriate boundary conditions that have been validated by observation. He argues for an inhomogeneous universe, with a cellular structure provided by plasma current sheets and Leidenfrost that separate regions of koinomatter and anti-matter.  He argues that the Milky Way galaxy itself may be composed of equal amounts of koinomatter and anti-matter.  He further argues that quasars are a sign of annihilation of anti-matter and koinomatter.  Alfven apparently had little familiarity with general relativity and the implications for black holes, or chose to ignore the large body of theory.  He does make reference to Arp’s now discredited notions regarding the distance of quasars.  Quasars are now thought to be galaxies with a super-massive black hole the accretion disk of which creates the emissions and high luminosity.These cosmological hypotheses of Alfven are curious in that they are based on little or no empirical evidence.  There is certainly nothing wrong with speculation, and it is equally certain that more data is available at this time than was available to Alfven.  But what is incongruous is the simultaneous insistence on what his present-day disciples call “empirical science”, and Alfven’s willingness to speculate broadly despite a lack of such data.  What is more incongruous is the insistence of his disciples of the validity of what to Alfven were only speculative hypotheses in light of modern data showing them to be invalid.  It is now 45 years since the publication of Cosmical Electrodynamics, Fundamental Principles.  Nevertheless, it can still be recommended as good source of information with regard to plasma physics, written by a master of the subject.It is 27 years since the publication of Cosmic Plasma.  That book is speculative and contains no physics not better explained in Cosmical Electrodynamics or other books on plasma physics.  The cosmological and astrophysical speculation in the book is largely discredited.  One cannot recommend this book for any serious scientific purpose, but it is perhaps of interest for historical reasons.Perhaps more importantly, Alfven’s speculative hypotheses of 27 years ago do not in any way support the pseudoscience that has been built from them and called “EU Theory”.  EU theory seems to be the result of wild extrapolation of Alfven’s speculations by a group that lacks both the knowledge of real physics and the intelligence to apply it properly.  The utter pseudoscience that has arisen from the misinterpretation, misapplication, and misunderstanding of Cosmic Plasma is in some ways tragic, but mostly just plain silly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jan 12, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  But that impact could be tragic to the individuals so affected, and therefore he deserves the strongest censure by people of integrity.  Posted by DrRocket</DIV>This is exactly why I refuse to participate in a witch hunt that refuses to acknowledge the difference between a cosmology theory, a solar theory, and an individual, when your sole intent is dishonest, and your desire is to see me banned.EU theory is a *cosmology* theory, and when I'm good and ready I will present *EU* theory, and only EU theory.  I will not even respond to your solar theory strawmen in that thread.   Do you or do you not cognitively comprehend the difference between a cosmology theory written by Alfven, a solar model created by Birkeland, and Michael Mozina the individual?  Yes or no will suffice.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

DrRocket · Jan 12, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is exactly why I refuse to participate in a witch hunt that refuses to acknowledge the difference between a cosmology theory, a solar theory, and an individual, when you sole intent is dishonest, and your desire is to see me banned.EU theory is a *cosmology* theory, and when I'm good and ready I will present *EU* theory, and only EU theory.  I will not even respond to you solar theory strawmen in that thread.   Do you or do you now cognitively comprehend the difference between a cosmology theory written by Alfven, a solar model created by Birkeland, and Michael Mozina the individual?  Yes or no will suffice.  Posted by michaelmozina</DIV>Bye.  Have a nice life. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jan 12, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Bye.  Have a nice life. Posted by DrRocket</DIV>Nice dodge.  Care to answer the question?  Yes or no would be fine. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Jan 12, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The stated intent of the consolidation is to get ALL of these topics in one place.</DIV>That does not mean we are obligated to discuss cosmology theory, solar theory and the personal beliefs of MM in one thread at the same time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Jan 13, 2009

You might as well call this thread "The heresy trial of Michael Mozina" if you intend to no longer allow me to start my own threads with my own title, even in the "unexplained" section of this forum and you all refuse to acknowledge the difference between a cosmology theory, a solar theory and an individual.  Why put up a sham pretext of title? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

DrRocket · Jan 13, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nice dodge.  Care to answer the question?  Yes or no would be fine. Posted by michaelmozina</DIV>Unlike you , I  have answered your questions quite directly in the past.  And I answered that one as well.The answer is Yes, and quite a bit more as well.I recognize that Alflven's work has nothing whatever to do with your statements, beyond titles, section headings and semantics.  I recognize that you have no understanding whatever of Alfven's physics. I do not and have never judged Alflven's work on the basis of anything that you have ever said.  I therefore recognize that Alflve's work has nothing to do with the scientific content, if any, of your particular brand of  "EU Theory".  I recognize that in fact your views on solar physics are in direct conflict with those of Alfven, as are your views on astrophysics.I recognize that Birkelands work has nothing to do with your statements with regard to solar physics.  And that your continual misrepresentations of Birkeland's work are most certainly a major aspect of YOUR particular brand of "EU Theory".  I recognize that Birkeland's work is more easily distorted  to support your personal agenda since it was performed at a time before the modern understanding of the atom and indeed prior to Ernest Rutherford's discovery of the central nucleus.  I recognize that Birkeland's experiments were designed to explore the physics of the Earth's aurora, and not to simulate solar physics in any manner whatever.  I recognize that you misunderstand Birkeland's work every bit as much as misunderstand Alfven's work.I recognize that you have consistently avoided addressing direct questions.  I recognize that this is your debating tactice, and a transparent attempt to avoid having to address any questions in terms of real physice.  I recognize that you have completely misunderstood classical electrodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics and indeed any and all foundational elements of mainstream physics.  I recognize that you will do anything, anything at all, to try to maintain credibility.  I recognize that you fear more than anything having to enter into a debate based on physics, because that would make it even more clear than it has already been made that you have no idea whatever what you are talking about.I recognize that you attempt to hide behind the reputations of Alfven and Birkeland, because there is no substance or validity to YOUR PERSONAL versions of EU Theory.  And I recognze that this FACT is precisely why you are refusing to address the questions that have been posed to you regarding your most recent statements.  In particular I recognzie that you have repeatedly promised to answer but have consistently avoided answering three telling questions:1.  What are the basic tenets of "EU Theory" as you see and practice it ?  (Waynes question in the OP, posed many times elsewhere and assiduously ignored by you.2.  If the sun contains at its core a the collapsed neutron star of a former supernova, how do you explain the lack of evidence of the mass that would result as reflected in the observed orbits of the planets ?3.  If, as you claim, fission is a significant source of energy of the sun, what specific nuclei do you think are present to provide a net energy source from fission ?  Also what reactions would provide the muon neutrinos and tau neutrinos that you claim originate from th postulated fission ?    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jan 13, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You might as well call this thread "The heresy trial of Michael Mozina" if you intend to no longer allow me to start my own threads with my own title, even in the "unexplained" section of this forum and you all refuse to acknowledge the difference between a cosmology theory, a solar theory and an individual.  Why put up a sham pretext of title? Posted by michaelmozina</DIV>So that a thread, a single thread, exists in which you can present the DATA and SCIENCE, if any exist, that support your assertions with regard to EU Theory, so that those assertions can be examined in light of known science, and so that the discussion can be focused in one place and not spread. " Quarantine" is probably an applicable word. The questions are posted and they are clearly stated. So, quit your bitchin' and git to the answering.  Real physics, real science, no vague references, no BS.  Put up or shut up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jan 13, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Unlike you , I  have answered your questions quite directly in the past. </DIV>Ya right, like you ran from the only decent post on EU theory you ever made.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And I answered that one as well.The answer is Yes, and quite a bit more as well.</DIV>It's not altogether obvious that you do.  You certainly do everything in your power to throw everything at me, including the kitchen sink.  Did you miss anything that you could have intentionally distorted on any subject under the sun?Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I recognize that Alflven's work has nothing whatever to do with your statements,</DIV>Then we will begin our discussion by limiting our disussion to his statements.   It is you that do not understand his physics, and I will demonstrate that to you in this thread based on his own statements.  I will then be happy to discuss Birkeland's solar model with you.  If you continue to mix cosmology theory, solar theory, and my personal beliefs into one bag, everyone will now know it's an intentional act on your part and a dishonest act on your part.   I will not discuss solar theory with you until you concede that EU theory is not crap and should be discused in the SS&A forum like any other science topic, so kick back and get ready for a long debate.  It will take awhile to wade through your strawmen and cut to the core of your irrational predjudices.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Jan 13, 2009

According to Hannes Alfven (not you personally), where in the solar atmosphere is curl B=0?Page 29. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>113 .3. `MAGNETIC MERGING' THEORIES What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if no electric current crosses the surface . In the terminology of the magnetic field description, this means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface. All theories of `magnetic merging' (or `field line reconnection') which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention .</DIV> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Jan 13, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only likely impact from his advocacy of scientific hogwash is damage to young people who have little experience and background, and may be dissuaded from a career in real science or engineering through his offices.  But that impact could be tragic to the individuals so affected, and therefore he deserves the strongest censure by people of integrity. Posted by DrRocket</DIV>How long have you felt the need to campaign against Alfven's work, and to herd everyone into your own personal belief system?   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Jan 13, 2009

Here's a recent quote of your's on the topic of EU theory from this thread. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was under the impression that it was the intent of the mods, including yourself, to limit the posting of pseudoscientific crap like EU theory to The Unexplained. </DIV>On what basis did you decide that the whole of EU theory was "pseudoscientific crap"?  Don't tell me it was based on something you read on a website?  If you can distinguish between a solar theory, a cosmology theory and an individual, why would you post something like this? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

DrRocket · Jan 13, 2009

Based on your three consecutive posts, it appears that you have no intent of answering ANY of the outstanding questions regarding EU theory.If you do not intend to address questions in a straightforward manner, then there would seem to be little point in continuing even this thread, the sole venue available for EU discussions.Perhaps we should request that the mods close this last EU thread and lower the curtain on discussion of "EU Theory" in SDC entirely.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Electric Universe, The Iron Sun, and Plasma Cosmology thread

MeteorWayne

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

yevaud

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

UFmbutler

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

origin

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page