Electric Universe, The Iron Sun, and Plasma Cosmology thread

michaelmozina · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Based on your three consecutive posts, it appears that you have no intent of answering ANY of the outstanding questions regarding EU theory.</DIV></p><p>That is not true.  I will post a formal first post sometime tomorrow on the topic of EU theory, the "cosmology theory".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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,</DIV></p><p>I will continue to answer every direct question in due time and in due order.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>the sole venue available for EU discussions.</DIV></p><p>You and Wayne must really be proud of that.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Perhaps we should request that the mods close this last EU thread and lower the curtain on discussion of "EU Theory" in SDC entirely.  <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Running away already?  Sheesh.  I even told you I probably wouldn't post my actual EU post till sometime tommorow.  You are welcome to close this thread I will open a new one when I'm actually ready to explain EU theory.   If however you refuse to deal with your "issues" in an honest manner, don't blame me.  I'm not the one running away from the topic, and I will put a formal definition of EU theory on the table tomorrow.  I'm just curious how you rationally justify your crusade on EU theory if you actually comprehend the difference between a cosmology theory written by Alfven, a solar theory created by Birkeland and the personal beliefs of Michael Mozina.</p><p>On what basis did you personally decide that EU theory was crap? </p> <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

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Perhaps we should request that the mods close this last EU thread and lower the curtain on discussion of "EU Theory" in SDC entirely.  <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Perhaps you need to first explain to all of us why this should occur, and why it should only apply to EU theory?   On what basis should all discussion on EU theory (the cosmology theory) be banned in your opinion?   </p> <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

On what basis did you personally decide that EU theory is "crap"?  Quit dodging this question oh humble and correct one. <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

I waited NINE LONG MONTHS for you to finally read Alfven's work and to actually describe it.  The least you could do is wait a couple of days before screaming that this thread be closed when I already admitted it will be tommow at the earliest before I'm ready to post a formal presention.  You even got to use your own title.  Don't you think you could give me 48 hours before trying to "close the curtain" on the whole topic?  Man are you a control freak or what?  You must be very frightened to be this uptight already. <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

<p>To all participants in this thread:</p><p>Michael seems again ready to dodge the questions that have been addressed to him.  There are three of them, which I consolidated into one post a bit earlier in the thread.</p><p>I therefore propose that NO ONE make any further posts or replies in thread until Michael has directly and clearly answered each and every one of those three questions.  This will eliminate his strategy of dodging the issues and providing answers to fictitious questions, in the usual manner of a cornered politician.  The three questions are:</p><p>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.</p><p>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 ?</p><p>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 ?</p><p>His option of garnering attention by creating a new thread has been eliminated.  This is the one and only EU thread.  It is proper that he should be required to address questions regarding his EU theories here and to address them directly and clearly.</p><p>I therefore solicit your support of this strategy.  Michael can either answer the questions or remain forever confined to a thread to which no one will pay attention.  The choice will be his.  But it will take all of us to make this strategy effective. Silence will be the signal of support for this approach.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To all participants in this thread:Michael seems again ready to dodge the questions that have been addressed to him. </DIV></p><p>No, I have not.  I have posted here for nearly four years now DrRocket.  I have answered *thousands* of questions about my various beliefs on space.com, and I'm sure you made no effort to read any of them.  You won't answer even one question, specifically how you decided that EU theory was "crap"?</p><p>I am not obligated to answer *your* questions in *your* order of importance.  Wayne asked me to briefly explain EU theory and I will do that as I see fit oh grand inquisitor of space.com. </p> <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

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is the one and only EU thread.</DIV></p><p>Yes DrRocket, and we all know that you personally made certain of that.  Proud of yourself?  Care to explain how you decided EU theory was "crap" for us?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is proper that he should be required to address questions regarding his EU theories here and to address them directly and clearly.</DIV></p><p>And I will, on my own timing, in my own way.  If you're going to have a heresy trial here to justify your irrational bigotry toward EU theory, at least show some class.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I therefore solicit your support of this strategy.  Michael can either answer the questions or remain forever confined to a thread to which no one will pay attention.  The choice will be his.  But it will take all of us to make this strategy effective. Silence will be the signal of support for this approach. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>So your intent is to make sure that your game is played by your rules, and everyone else gets to play along with "punch the heretic", is that the plan? </p><p>Are you ever going to actually explain what started your crusade against Alfven's cosmology theories, or did you intend to dodge every question put to you oh humble and correct one? </p> <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

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><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></p><p>You have stated that you can discern between a cosmology theory, a solar theory and an individual.  Why are you crusading against an entire cosmology theory? </p><p> </p> <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

<p style="text-align:center" class="MsoNormal" align="center"><strong>EU Cosmology Theory –The Application Of MHD Theory To Objects In Space.</strong></p> <p style="text-align:center" class="MsoNormal" align="center"><strong>A Brief Introduction</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">EU/PC theory is a <strong>cosmology theory</strong> that was developed by the Nobel Prize winning author, Hannes Alfven (1908-1995) and his friend Carl-Gunne Fälthammar.(b 1931) Professor Emeritus at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden<span>  </span>Their cosmology theory is based upon the application of MHD theory to objects in space as described in Alfven’s book Cosmic Plasma, published in 1981.<span>  </span>Alfven and Fälthammar have also written many papers on this topic, including Alfven’s introductory paper entitled “Cosmology Of The Plasma Universe”.<span>  </span><span> </span>Cosmic Plasma is the second of two books published by Alfven, the first being the work that won him the Nobel Prize in Plasma physics called Cosmical Electrodynamics published in 1963 (second edition).<span>  </span>Alfven was not only the creator of MHD theory, he was also one of the first individuals to create a cosmology theory that is based upon MHD theory.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">EU <strong>cosmology theory</strong> is founded upon empirical physics with roots that actually begin with the lab work of Kristian Birkeland (1867-1917) in the early 1900’s. <span> </span>Birkeland lived in Norway and was fascinated by the aurora.<span>   </span>He and some close friends undertook a polar expedition in 1902-1903 to collect in-situ measurements of the Earth’s polar magnetic field alignments during solar storms.<span>  </span><span> </span>Birkeland meticulously took in-situ measurements of the polar aurora and his empirical work with terellas in a vacuum and he published a two volume set in 1908 entitled The <em><span style="font-style:normal">Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903.<span>   </span>In this work he describes some of the hardships he and his companions endured to take in-situ ground measurements of the magnetic fields of Earth during aurora activity.<span>  </span>In his volumes, he also explains in great detail, his various terrela experiments. <br /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-style:normal">During Birkeland’s lifetime it was assumed that space was pretty much an empty vacuum.<span>   </span>Birkeland was one of the first to propose that the universe is filled with electrons and flying electric ions and was filled with plasma.<span>   </span>More importantly. his physical experiments in the lab enabled him to make some key “predictions’ about the nature of space that were later born out in modern satellite measurements.<span>  </span>For instance, Birkeland believed that the sun was discharging from it’s cathode surface to the more positively charged heliosphere.<span>  </span>He believed that this discharge process would create high speed particles that interact with the Earth’s magnetosphere.<span>    </span>He also “predicted” and wrote about high energy discharges in the solar atmosphere as a result of this ongoing discharge process between the sun’s surface and the heliosphere.<span>  </span><span> </span>He also “predicted” and wrote about “jets” in the solar atmosphere and also described the tornado like filaments he observed in his experiments that are today known and “Birkeland currents”.<span>  </span>All of these observations have also been observed in modern satellite images.<span>  </span>While Birkeland did give mathematical expression to his theories, they were somewhat complicated, and “messy”. </span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-style:normal">Despite the empirical verification of Birkeland’s ideas in a lab, and it’s many interesting and unique predictions, Chapman’s “empty space” theories continued to prevail in mainstream thinking for many decades until satellites launch into space in the sixties finally demonstrated the presence of vertical electrical currents in the Earth’s upper polar atmosphere. <br /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-style:normal">Alfven later built upon Birkeland’s early discharge experiments by applying MHD theory to many of these same topics described by Birkeland and by giving them a more detailed mathematic expression in terms of MHD theory.<span>   </span>Alfven wrote about CME’s and the Earth’s magnetosphere.<span>  </span>Alfven took this process much further however.<span>  </span>He <span> </span>developed an entire <strong>cosmology theory</strong> based upon these ideas which will be discussed in the next post.</span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-style:normal">Next up:<span>  </span>Alfven's basic theories as outline in Cosmic Plasma and his other astronomy papers.</span></em></p> <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

<p class="MsoNormal">Since DrRocket has kindly provided us with a relatively decent introduction to Alfven’s book Cosmic Plasma, I’ll skip some of the basics that he has already outlined and focus on what DrRocket did not mention.<span>  </span>I think I’ll break up these quotes and ideas into specific posts related to other threads that are now closed.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">In his book Alfven spends part of the first chapter clearly explaining the difference between software simulations and empirical testing. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.2 .2. SIMULATION EXPERIMENTS</span></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="1"><span style="font-size:10pt">It was first thought that one could design laboratory experiments which gave an adequate simulation of space conditions . This is possible only in rare cases because the plasma state depends on many parameters which often scale in different ways . To clarify cosmic plasma phenomena by means of laboratory experiments is very complicated . There are basically two types of simulation which have turned out to be fruitful. One is </span><em><span style="font-size:9pt">`pattern simulation' . </span></em><span style="font-size:10pt">An experimental apparatus is constructed with a geometrical configuration which simulates space conditions. (The Birkeland experiment is an example of this .) However, it should be observed that the plasma parameters must be chosen according to certain criteria, so that the laboratory pattern really is relevant to the cosmic situation.</span></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="1"><span style="font-size:10pt">The second one is sometimes called </span><em><span style="font-size:9pt">'</span></em><em><span style="font-size:10pt">p </span></em><em><span style="font-size:9pt">rocess simulation' . </span></em><span style="font-size:10pt">This essentially means that we explore the basic behavior of a plasma in the laboratory . Such experiments are important in building the theoretical foundation of plasma physics in general . They haveshown that many of the conclusions which were drawn from classical plasma theory werewrong, and once again demonstrated that science is basically empirical . Theory is of value only when developed in close contact with reality .Besides laboratory simulation, <em>computer simulation is </em>also widely used . This can be a very valuable substitute for experiments . However, it can never replace process simulation because the computer input must include the basic properties of a plasma which can be found only by  experiments (in laboratory or in space) . The computer is not a good physicist if its programmer is not. </DIV></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal">Whereas DrRocket does not know the difference between "hard science" with real "hardware" and a software simulation, that is not the case with Alfven. He is keenly aware of the differences between software simulations and actual emprical testing in a lab. </p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <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

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I.5. Boundary Conditions. Circuit Dependence </p><p>In applying the classical theory and its modem development, the importance of boundary conditions has often been neglected . As a result, infmite plasma models, or models with static boundary conditions, are often applied to problems with variable boundary conditions. This gives completely erroneous results (examples are given in III). In many theories, it is taken for granted that the behaviour of a plasma depends only on the local parameters (e .g ., density, temperature, magnetic field) . This can be quite misleading . As an example, in a non-curlfree (i .e ., current carrying) plasma, the properties of the plasma are not only a function of the local parameters, but also of the outer circuit in which the current I closes (1I .5). Figure II .16 shows a simple circuit consisting of an electromotive force Vb , a resistor Ro, and an inductance L . By changing R 0 and/or L, the behavior of the plasma may be changed in a drastic way . The value of Ro decides whether the plasma is relatively stable or oscillating . If the plasma contains a double layer which explodes, the circuit energy iLI2 is released in the layer . Hence, the violence of the plasma explosion is determined largely by the circuit.</DIV></p><p>One point that cannot be stressed enough is the importance that Alfven places on boundary conditions of the plasma, and making sure that the circuit energy is explicity accounted for in interactions where the circuit energy plays a decisive role. The key "condition" is whether or not the plasma is carrying electrical current.  As with Birkeland's model, Alfven's model *assumes* the presense of electrical currents, and therefore curl B =0 nowhere inside inteplanetary space.   That is why DrRocket missed his first math qustion.  </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The influence of the `circuit' is essential, not only in a laboratory experiment, but also in space . In the latter case, the total volume in which the current flows affects the ehavior of the plasma at every point . In many instances, it is convenient to introduce he boundary conditions by drawing an `equivalent circuit' (II and III).</DIV></p><p>What DrRocket failed to note is that Alfven's book is full of such drawings.  In fact it's loaded with them and he uses these equivalent ciruit drawings to illustrate every key process he describes in the book.   Alfven's background is one of an electrical engineer, so he clearly understood the subtle differences that DrRocket is getting all huffy and puffy about between circuits and "equivalent circuits".     At no time in his book does he deviate from this same basic circuit oriented approach.  Each new idea has it's own drawing, and the mathematical expressions are then explained based upon these drawings.</p><p>Alfven was quite clear by the way that he believe that electrical currents played a significant role in the solar atmosphere and in CME events.  </p><p> </p><p> </p> <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

<p><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><span style="font-family:'TimesNewRoman';font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">Avoiding the challenge to define EU Theory and he sees it,</DIV></span></p><p>You have never let me define EU theory as I see it. You refuse to accept my answer.  In fact you and Wayne won't even let me start my own thread with it's own title.  This is <u>*UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR*</u>! </p><p><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.<span>  </span>Nothing could be farther from the truth.</DIV><span> </span></span></p><p>This is the second intentional dishonest statement you made DrRocket.  I never claimed to have created or to own EU Theory.  I can't ride on his coattails because he *INVENTED THE THEORY*.   It's not mine.  You are already attempting to intentionally blur the distinction between myself and EU theory.  EU theory's credibility was never dependent upon me.  This is your intentional distortion of the truth.  Again, it's purely *UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR*.  You don't even know how to play fair, and you certainly have not made any attempt to be the least bit honest in this discussion.   </p><p>I'll keep chipping away at these items as I get time and I'll start pointing out all of your unethical behaviors and your intentional distortion of my statements.  I will note where you expressly ignored the difference between a cosmology theory, a solar theory, and my personal beliefs.     If you can distinguish between these three things, then you have made no good faith effort to keep them separate, in fact you and Wayne are doing everything you can to keep these issued blurred and the proof is in the title of this thread.  This is not an honest conversation anymore, this is a witch hunt. </p> <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

<p><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.<span>  </span></span><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font color="#800080">http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Mozina_M/0/1/0/all/0/1</font></span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"> </DIV></span></p><p>Two of the papers are published in the Journal of Fusion energy, and another is published in Physics Of Atomomic Nuclei 69:1847-1856,2006.  What are you talking about? </p> <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

<p><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.<span>  </span>He further misunderstands the relationship between an equivalent circuit, and a physical circuit.</DIV></span></p><p>More nonsense.  It is you that did not understand the circuit/particle orientation of MHD theory.  You were the one who was ignorant on this point, not me.  I knew all along what Alfven said because unlike you, I actually had the book at the time of our arguement.  It is you that had no clue about the particle side of MHD theory.  You're just mad because of all the drawings in Cosmic Plasma.  They busted your show. </p> <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

<p><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is,<span>  </span>of course , in conflict with Hannes Alfven’s own statement in <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics</em> 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.<span>  </span>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)</DIV></span></p><p>Alfven's EU theory is not solar theory dependent DrRocket.   How many times have I told you this, and how many times did you willfully ignore that point? </p> <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

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><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></p><p>On what basis did you make this assessment DrRocket? </p> <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 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> That is why DrRocket missed his first math qustion.</DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It is you that did not understand the circuit/particle orientation of MHD theory. </DIV> </p><p>No, he did not, and yes, he did.  Where in that excerpt does Alfven say "The curl of B is non-zero everywhere in space"?  Where is there anything close to that?  He does say "In a current-carrying plasma".  So?  That does nothing to imply how prevalent curlless plasma is in space.  Here is DrRocket's quote that shows that he has not ignored this part of the book:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><span style="font-family:'Sabon-Roman','serif'"><font size="3">He notes as well that, “With the current description the whole <em>circuit</em> in which the current flows is included and in this way the neglect of boundary conditions is more easily avoided.”<span>  </span>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.<span>  </span>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.</DIV></font></span> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What DrRocket failed to note is that Alfven's book is full of such drawings. </DIV></p><p>No, he did not.   Again, here is the quote you apparently missed, coupled with the previous quote where he mentionsthe circuits Alfven used:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p><span style="font-family:'Sabon-Roman','serif'"><font size="3">Alfven also notes the limitations of a circuit perspective, even if Mr. Mozina does not.<span>  </span><br />“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.<span>  </span>This method will be extensively used, especially in Chapter III.<span>  </span>It is obvious that it should be regarded as a first approximation to a more complicated situation.<span>  </span>Great care is necessary to determine to what extent it may be misleading.”</font></span><span style="font-family:'Sabon-Roman','serif'"><font size="3"> </DIV></font></span></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font size="1">Whereas DrRocket does not know the difference between "hard science" with real "hardware" and a software simulation, that is not the case with Alfven. He is keenly aware of the differences between software simulations and actual emprical testing in a lab.</DIV></font></p><p>Yes, he does.   Here is another DrRocket quote, from the empirical science thread:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Research in hard science is a combination of imagination and discipline.  Imagination is required to formulate new concepts and new mathematical models.  Discipline is required in that the new ideas must conform to what is known and what has been verified many times.  Discipline is also required in the application of empirical methods in the effort to confirm or falsify hypotheses.  Confirmation requires quantitative measurements that can be replicated, and it requires that candidate theories agree with all measurements within the limits of measurement capability.  Note the emphasis on quantitative measurements -- "looks like" is not enough, or even relevant. </DIV></p><p>Specifically note that he recognizes hard science must agree with empirical measurements to be considered valid. Simulations are held to the same standard.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I will note where you expressly ignored the difference between a cosmology theory, a solar theory, and my personal beliefs. </DIV></p><p>No, he did not.   Here is the quote from the beginning of his mozina EU debunked thread:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><strong><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span><span style="font-family:'TimesNewRoman';font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal">  </span></span></span></strong><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">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.<span>  </span>Nothing could be farther from the truth.<span>  </span>Let us review some of the assertions made by Mr. Mozina.</DIV></span></p><p>Note he did not say "Let us review some of the tenets of EU".  He said "let us review some of the assertions made by Mr. Mozina".  There is no "as it relates to EU".  All he has ever addressed are your assertions on various topics.  Also note how his last post contained three SEPARATE questions, separating the EU/cosmology part into one question, and the solar model questions to the other. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have never let me define EU theory as I see it.</DIV></p><p>What the hell do you call this thread? </p><p>There is so much more I could address just on this single page of this thread, but I don't have all day.</p><p>Summary:  You, Michael Mozina, are a (removed).  Either that, or you don't readthe posts you parse to death.  Your continued raving obsession with DrRocket is not only incredibly annoying, in my humble non-mod opinion is also in violation of many of the community guidelines:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments against your fellow community member.</p><p>Do not impersonate another user or <strong>stalk</strong> them. (bold mine)</p><p>Spam is not welcome.</p><p>It is always possible, and preferable, to debate issues, not personalities.  <strong>My Note:  Note how your thread was entirely personal while DrRocket's addressed issues, namely your assertions on various science topics.</strong></p><p>Do not bait, harass, abuse, or threaten the other participants; do not libel or defame others.  Flaming is strongly discouraged and will get your posts deleted. </p><p></DIV></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

origin · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>   More importantly. his physical experiments in the lab enabled him to make some key “predictions’ about the nature of space that were later born out in modern satellite measurements.  For instance, Birkeland believed that the sun was discharging from it’s cathode surface to the more positively charged heliosphere.  He believed that this discharge process would create high speed particles that interact with the Earth’s magnetosphere.</DIV></p><p>It seems that this prediction has not been realized.  I think Birkeland was saying that electrons were being acclerated from the surface to the positively charged heliosphere, so we should see a stream of electrons flying from the sun.  How ever the solar wind is essentially neutral, that is both positively charged nuclei and negatively charged electrons are in approximately the same ratio.  This seems to contradict what Birkeland predicted.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He also “predicted” and wrote about high energy discharges in the solar atmosphere as a result of this ongoing discharge process between the sun’s surface and the heliosphere.</DIV></p><p>There is no evidence of high energy discharges, if by discharges you mean electrical discharges.  You have said the coronal loops look like discharges but I do not agree, the coronal loops look like magnetic lines that plasma is following.  The magnetic lines probably arise from the convection of the plasma near the surface of the sun.  In such a conductive fluid such as plasma I cannot see how it would be possible to build up a meaningful difference in potential to drive large discharges.</p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>On what basis did you make this assessment DrRocket? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Michael, I have changed the thread title to something hopefully more acceptable to you.</p><p>I will entertain any suggestions you have regarding the title, but will not change the founding idea that all of these subjects will be discussed in this single thread, as you see fit to discuss them. Do not start another related thread on these topics. </p><p>And yes, that instruction is given as a Moderator.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><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></p><p>IE: The Thunderdome Thread!</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/12/f364013f-0f71-42c5-bc69-f33e7529f482.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

rubicondsrv · Jan 13, 2009

<p>If this thread dose not demain civil I will not hesitate to close it and begin procedings against the offenders.</p><p>this post is not directed at any specific indivdual but is a blanket statment applying to all posters.</p><p>remain civil or risk sanctions!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If this thread dose not demain civil I will not hesitate to close it and begin procedings against the offenders.this post is not directed at any specific indivdual but is a blanket statment applying to all posters.remain civil or risk sanctions! <br />Posted by rubicondsrv</DIV><br /><br />Actually, despite some opening upset and standard sniping, I think it's gone pretty well. At least mm has FINALLY issued a clear statement on what EU is, that can now be analyzed. It's taken almost 3 years to get to that point, so let's not be too hasty in shutting things down. </p><p>I am checking todays temperature forecast for hell, and the Super Bowl status of the Detroit Lions, though!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

MeteorWayne · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have never let me define EU theory as I see it. You refuse to accept my answer.  In fact you and Wayne won't even let me start my own thread with it's own title.  This is *UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR*! Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />First, You have been <strong>REPEATEDLY</strong> asked to define EU as you see it. You have always in the past refused to do so.</p><p>Thank goodness that after almost 3 years you have!!</p><p>Thank you.</p><p>And BTW, I'd be damn careful about blithely tossing around accusations that a Mod is engaged in *UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR* or for that matter, even accusing another member of it. Because I realize that you are upset, I will let it slide for now, I hope the other Moderators are as understanding. That is perilously close to (or more accurately, over) the line. Self immolation will not help you continue to have the opportunity to discuss your pet issue.</p><p>I might suggest, that if it weren't for some of my own actions and thoughts you might be merely an ion in the cosmic cyber plasma by now, so I'd strongly suggest an immediate attitude adjustment. You should be grateful for my efforts.</p><p>Wayne</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Since DrRocket has kindly provided us with a relatively decent introduction to Alfven’s book Cosmic Plasma, I’ll skip some of the basics that he has already outlined and focus on what DrRocket did not mention.  I think I’ll break up these quotes and ideas into specific posts related to other threads that are now closed. In his book Alfven spends part of the first chapter clearly explaining the difference between software simulations and empirical testing. Whereas DrRocket does not know the difference between "hard science" with real "hardware" and a software simulation, that is not the case with Alfven. He is keenly aware of the differences between software simulations and actual emprical testing in a lab.   <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Sorry Michael, but I agree with Alfven's statements, largely because I understand them</p><p>He is stating that it is important to match theory and experiment in both directions.  Theory provides a basis for knowing how to scale and interpret laboratory experiments.  It is not enough to interprets laboratory experiments on the basis of "looks like" but rather one must have a solid mathematical model to understand how various aspects of the small-scale experiments scale up to real-world phenomena.  The mathematics is critical to this aspect of physics. Experiments that cannot be compared to the predictions of mathematical models based on known physical law are not hard science at all.  "Looks like" is not a scientific criteria.  "Looks like" is nothing more than a tinkerer's equivalent to Hollywood graphics.</p><p>This does not mean that qualitative results are not useful.  They most certainly are, but as a guide in developing more sophisticated experiments and more exact quantitative models.  They are not conclusive.</p><p>Similarly, in developing a computer model one must apply solid theory.  A computer simulation is not a graphics package of the sort used in Hollywoood.  It is a numerical solution to the partial differential equations that provide the fundamental description of nature.  Thos partial differential equations, for instance the equations of Maxwell that describe electromagnetic fields or the Navier-Stokes equation that describes fluid flow, are known to be consistent with ALL laboratory experiments, and therefore have empirical validity.  Computer simulations are nothing more than a means to solve those equations with the complex boundary conditions imposed in the real world.</p><p>And THAT is how HARD SCIENCE is done. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jan 13, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First, You have been REPEATEDLY asked to define EU as you see it. You have always in the past refused to do so.Thank goodness that after almost 3 years you have!!Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>No he has not.  But he as made a start and if it continues he will have answered the question.  But so far he has done nothing more than provided selected quotes from Alfven and links to Birkeland.  Those elements still need to be put into some cogent logical package from which one can discern an overall "theory".  And that theory should either be consistent with the totality of his assertions or he should recant those assertions.</p><p>He has not addressed cosmology in any real sense beyond "Alfven had one", he has not addressed the source of energy for the sun,  he has not addressed the alleged solid surface of the sun,  he has not addressed the alleged neutron star center of the sun, he has not addressed any clear application of magnetohydrodynamics to any "object in space".</p><p>No one has argued that Birkeland was correct and Chapman was wrong in that plasma is common in what was according to Chapman simply a vacuum, in the region of Earth.  The solar wind is accepted by the mainstream, as is the existence of charged particles elsewhere. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Electric Universe, The Iron Sun, and Plasma Cosmology thread

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

UFmbutler

Guest

origin

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

rubicondsrv

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page