<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></p><p>We're sitting inside a "current flow" or "discharge" that is taking place between the surface and the heliopshere. Birkeland predicted *both* electrons *and* positively changed ions that would follow those electrons. If you sat there and counted it over time, it may "seem' like a net zero "current flow", but it's not. The whole circuit energy would need to be considered. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no evidence of high energy discharges, if by discharges you mean electrical discharges.</DIV></p><p>You mean except for those million degree coronal loops Birkeland and Alfven both "predicted"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have said the coronal loops look like discharges but I do not agree,</DIV></p><p>I don't care. I've posted Alfven's views on this topic. What makes you a "better" expert?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>the coronal loops look like magnetic lines that plasma is following.</DIV></p><p>AKA "current flow" and a "circuit". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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>Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>What causes the solar wind to accelerate in your opinion then? What emrpical test of "magnetic reconnection" would you cite to verify your claim, and please don't hand me that PPPL paper again. We've debunked that one already.</p><p>Magnetic lines lack physical substance. They form as a full continuum, without beginning and without end. They are physically incapable of "reconnecting" so what actual physical process are you claiming is the cause of the heating of the plasma in the solar atmosphere? </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>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No he has not. But he as made a start and if it continues he will have answered the question. Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Perhaps true Dr Rocket. I haven't had time to read through it yet, as I've been putting out other fires in this thread.</p><p>I have printed it out and will have some time to read it shortly....</p><p>MW</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. I am checking todays temperature forecast for hell, and the Super Bowl status of the Detroit Lions, though! <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>The lions comment was actually pretty funny. 
Thank you for finally selecting a title that leaves me out of the discussion by the way. </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>
Thank you for finally selecting a title that leaves me out of the discussion by the way. </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>Now that I have "explained" what EU theory is, what logical and rational reason did you have for calling EU theory "psuedoscientific"? <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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No he has not. </DIV></p><p>Yes I have. This is another example of your unethical debate practices. Even when I answer your questions directly and honestly you accuse me of not doing so. That is outrageous behvavior. You are evidently not capable of debating in an honest manner. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But he as made a start and if it continues he will have answered the question.</DIV></p><p>I'm still waiting for you to explain your irrational predjudices towards EU theory. You've dodged nearly every direct questions I have posed to you on EU Theory specfically.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> But so far he has done nothing more than provided selected quotes from Alfven and links to Birkeland. </DIV></p><p>That would be because *they* wrote EU theory, not me.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Those elements still need to be put into some cogent logical package from which one can discern an overall "theory". </DIV></p><p>And you will need to come to terms with the fact that "cosmology theory" is not the same as a "solar model".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He has not addressed cosmology in any real sense beyond "Alfven had one",</DIV></p><p>That is today called "EU theory". Alfven wrote the cosmology theory known as "EU theory". It was based on Birkeland's earlier work in the lab.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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, </DIV></p><p>These issues would be related to "solar theory" and have absolutely nothing to do with a "cosmology theory" DrRocket. Didn't you just say that you could distinguish between these things? How are the two even remotely related since Alfven worked with a standard solar model, as did Bruce and Peratt?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>he has not addressed any clear application of magnetohydrodynamics to any "object in space".</DIV></p><p>Did you miss those papers by Alfven on CME's and magnetospheric activity DrRocket? I certainly cited several papers from my own website so I know you have access to the material. Read it. That's what all those blue links were about.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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 /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>But the mainstream can't explain why solar wind continues to accelerate and the only "explanation" they have for CME's is called "magnetic reconection" something Alfven rejected in interstellar space due to the current flows that traverse it on an ongoing basis.</p><p>Now, what exactly did you read that makes you believe that "EU theory is crap". Please justify your claim about EU theory. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What causes the solar wind to accelerate in your opinion then? What emrpical test of "magnetic reconnection" would you cite to verify your claim, and please don't hand me that PPPL paper again. We've debunked that one already.</DIV></p><p>It was not debunked. Even if we believe your revisionist history, here are some more:</p><p>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7111/abs/nature05116.html</p><p>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002GL016497.shtml</p><p>http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v95/i5/e055003</p><p>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6845/abs/412414a0.html</p><p>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JA010809.shtml</p><p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008GeoRL..3519109P</p><p>http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n4/abs/nphys574.html</p><p>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2001JA000016.shtml</p><p>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v404/n6780/abs/404848a0.html</p><p>I don't expect you to read all of those, but the fact that I found so many within 5 minutes just further solidifies my point that you aren't up to date scientifically. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<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.<br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Wayne, I'm almost positive that there is a separate EU theory on Uplink that I started over 3 years ago. I've been through this process before. As I said, I appreciate you finally removing "mozina" as topic of the thread. That's all I was ever asking you for. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></p><p>You have this a bit skewed. The currents ARE the key boundary conditions, and Alfven used the notion of a circuit to ensure that the boundary conditions are included in the analysis. "Circuit energy" is a term that Alfven coined for his specific perspective and is the energy of the electromagnetic field (and it is NOT kinetic energy of the plasma particles. He is quite clear on this point -- "In order to study the energy transfer between the <em>kinetic energy</em> Wk=1/2 Mmu^2 of a plasma and electromagnetic energy of a circuit, which will be referred to as <em>circuit energy</em> Wc, we consider the following three simple cases:" (pg 44).</p><p>Current is important because current creates a magnetic field and there is energy stored in the magnetic field that can be converted to kinetic energy of the plasma. Alfven makes this quite clear when states, also on page 44, "The inertia drift is important because <em>it transfers kinetic energy into electromagnetic energy, and vice versa."</em></p><p> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. 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.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. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Sorry, but again misconstrue and misrepresent Alfven. He has some drawing that are schematic representations of laboratory equipment, designed to illustrate the experiments and he has some drawings using equivalent circuits that help to illustrate the importance of boundary conditions to plasma physics.</p><p>Yes Alfven's book is full of drawings, and because I have a couple of electrical engineering degrees in addition to a mathematic degree I understand what those drawings actually mean. There is quite a LARGE difference between physical circuits and equivalent circuits, and Alfven understands this. He uses the circuit imagery to ensure that the necessary boundary conditions are included in the analysis of plasmas. OF COURSE electrical currents play a significant role, they are the origin of magnetic fields, and those magnetic fields are crucial to the understanding of plasma phenomena.</p><p>And yes, as I stated in my original report on the book, he is consistent in his perspective throughout, as he noted right up front in the introductory material. To understand the magnetic field it is not enough to look at the field alone, and in fact you cannot do that without recognizing that the source is currents. Hence it is necessary to understand and "explicitly account for" the currents that constitute the boundary conditions and that determine the magnetic fields. That is what Alfvenis saying on pages 7 and 8. "Exploration of th os plasma properties that can be described by the magnetic field concept have been successful. However, this is not the case for those phenomena which cannot be understood by this approach. The present monograph shall concentrate on the latter, and try to give <em>a survey of cosmic plasma based on the partical (electrical current) aspect. </em>Alfven in writing the monograph has as his intention to emphasize the important role played by currents in setting the correct boundary conditions for the analysis of plasmas. It is the <strong>purpose</strong> of the monograph to emphasize that aspect, so of course you see it emphasized.</p><p>But to understand what Alfven is saying you must first understand and appreciate the overall discipline of electrodynamics, the nature of electromagnetic fields, the meaning of current in that context, what circuit theory is, what circuit theory is not, what "equivalent circuits" are and the difference between equivalent circuts and physical circuits, and how they fit together in mathematical descriptions of plasma physics. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sorry Michael, but I agree with Alfven's statements, largely because I understand them</DIV></p><p>If you did, you wouldn't call his *cosmology theory* "crap".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>Compare and contrast that now with inflation, dark energy, expanding space, negative pressure vacuums, etc. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></p><p>Indeed. That is why EU theory was technically born with Alfven's work. He gave Birkeland's work "better" mathematical expression.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The mathematics is critical to this aspect of physics.</DIV></p><p>The actual physics at work is also critical to the math. The empirical tests allow us to "physically verify" our computer models. Without a laboratory "test of concept", all you have is a mathematical expression and no way to physically verify it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Experiments that cannot be compared to the predictions of mathematical models based on known physical law are not hard science at all. </DIV></p><p>Likewise, any mathematical expression that can't be verifed by real "physics" is also not "hard science" at all. It is "software science", or "soft science", not "hard science" with real "hardware'. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Looks like" is not a scientific criteria. </DIV></p><p>Yes, it is. Our ability to "observe" and compare these results to our computer models requires a lot of "looks like" comparisons.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Looks like" is nothing more than a tinkerer's equivalent to Hollywood graphics.</DIV></p><p>An "observation" is an critical part of science. Observation is critical to be able to conduct science at all. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>Yes, and that is what Alfven did with Birkeland's work. He gave it mathematical expression and he applied it on a larger scale, a "cosmology" scale. Your ideas all seem to lack any sort of "qualification" process. They are all well mathematically expressed, but none of your ideas can be verified to work here on earth. Space does not expand on Earth. Inflation doesn't have any affect on anything in a lab. There are no verified SUSY particles to explain "dark matter". Many of the mainstream beliefs lack any sort of "qualification" based on empirical testing. That is why the EU movement is growing, particularly since the advent of the internet where more information becomes freely accessable.</p><p>You clearly do not understand "hard science" DrRocket. "Hard science" requires real "hardware" and actual empirical "qualification" of the idea, not simply a "quantification" process. What you lack is any sort of empirical verification for 96% of the mainstream theory. Only about 4% of the universe is supposedly composed of normal baryonic matter. The rest is all "fudge factor" as far as the EU community is concerned.</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Perhaps true Dr Rocket. I haven't had time to read through it yet, as I've been putting out other fires in this thread.I have printed it out and will have some time to read it shortly....MW <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Please keep in mind as you read this thread that Aflven, Bruce and Peratt all used a "standard" solar model, so Birkeland's solar model is irrelevant as it relates to EU cosmology theory. EU cosmology theory is simply the application of MHD theory to objects in space. One can interchange any of the various "objects" in space and it will still fit within the confines of EU theory. Solar theory is irrelevant as it relates to the validity of EU cosmology theory. Whereas Alfven's writings describe a "cosmology theory", Birkeland's work explains a "solar model". Alfven freely exchanged one solar theory for another, and I'm doing exactly the same thing. Neither Alfven, nor myself consider solar theory to be in any way related to EU theory. They are separate topics of conversation. Alfven's EU theory does not depend on Birkeland's solar model, and Birkeland's solar model could still be accurate and yet many of the components of EU theory may eventually be proven to be false. Neither theory depends on the other. The ligitimacy of the solar model in no way reflects upon the ligitimacy of the EU theory. Alfven himself freely exchanged solar models at will. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We're sitting inside a "current flow" or "discharge" that is taking place between the surface and the heliopshere. Birkeland predicted *both* electrons *and* positively changed ions that would follow those electrons. If you sat there and counted it over time, it may "seem' like a net zero "current flow", but it's not. The whold circuit energy would need to be considered.</DIV></p><p>I did not see where Birkeland predicted positively charged ions, could you cite where Birkelands said that. I never even implied that there was no net current flow, even though I would term the flow as the solar wind. Are you saying the solar wind is a circuit?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You mean except for those million degree coronal loops Birkeland and Alfven both "predicted"?</DIV></p><p>Please cite where Birkeland predicted million degree coronal loops.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't care.</DIV></p><p>No room for discussion there.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've posted Alfven's views on this topic. What makes you a "better" expert?</DIV></p><p>Yes you have pointed out one persons views on the subject, who unfortunately is not up on the newest discoveries and evidence that has been gathered. It is not that I am a better expert it is that the astronomical community is a better expert because the furthering of science over the years. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>AKA "current flow" and a "circuit". What causes the solar wind to accelerate in your opinion then? What emrpical test of "magnetic reconnection" would you cite to verify your claim, and please don't hand me that PPPL paper again. We've debunked that one already.Magnetic lines lack physical substance. They form as a full continuum, without beginning and without end. They are physically incapable of "reconnecting" so what actual physical process are you claiming is the cause of the heating of the plasma in the solar atmosphere? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />It makes no difference if I have an opinion as to what accelerates the solar wind. If my answer is I don't know, that in no way furthers your position. I do however lean towards magnetic reconnection as defined in terms of MHD. I will not once again explain magnetic reconnection and point out your misconceptions because you have shown that you will ignore it and talk about physical breaking and reconnecting of magnetic lines. As far as empiraical evidence for magnetic reconnection that has already been cited in a previous post.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> No, he did not, and yes, he did. </DIV></p><p>If he understood Alfven's writings he would not have missed the first math question. It was actually the easiest and simplest mathmatical question I could ask him in fact. He blew it. Alfven's model *depends* on a discharge process going on between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere. Nowhere inside of Birkeland's terella experiment was curl B = 0. Likewise, no such condition exists in interplanetary space in EU theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Do not impersonate another user or <strong>stalk</strong> them. (bold mine)</DIV></p><p>You might mention that to DrRocket who has now be "stalking me" and "EU theory" for nine whole months. His efforts to disredit Alfven's theories are not without sucess either. Just look where we are now posting threads related to MHD theory?</p><p>I will not go through your post line by line because you have in every instance been honest and upfront with our disagreements, and you've been entirely rational in your responses. With every other person I know, it is "ok" to simply "agree to disagree". Only DrRocket seems intent on crusading against a specific theory, and he obviously knows nothing about it, or he would not confuse a solar theory with a cosmology theory.</p><p>I know you well enough to respect you very much. That is true for *everyone* on this website *except* they guy you keep trying to protect. I strongly urge you to step out of the way, and just let nature take it's course. I'm about to knock his block off at it relates to plasma physics, and it's going to obvious, even to you that DrRocket does *not* understand particle physics or he would already have agreed with you and I and Alfven that "magnetic reconnection" and "particle reconnection/circuit reconnection are interchangeable terms.</p><p>I know for a fact that Birn understands particle physics. I know for a fact that *you* understand particle physics. I know for a fact that DrRocket does *not* understand particle physics. This is not going to go down the way you think. Trust me. He doesn't have a scientific leg to stand on, and his crusade will come to an end by the end of this thread, one way or the other. Even if I get banned, it won't make his statement "EU theory is crap" any more justifyable, nor will it change the fact that this forum is now completely disfunctional due to the efforts of DrRocket, and of course my stupid actions early on.</p><p>I've come down off my high horse, and I've given up my crusading days. I can't change the past or undo the damage I have done, but I can explain to DrRocket why his beliefs are simply false, starting with his belief that curl B=0 anywhere in interplanetary space. There is simply no possibility of this condition in Birkeland's solar model experiments. There is no possibility of this condition in Alfven's theory either. He simply substituted Birkeland's solar model with the standard solar model and *assumed* it too was discharging to the heliosphere. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Please keep in mind as you read this thread that Aflven, Bruce and Peratt all used a "standard" solar model, so Birkeland's solar model is irrelevant as it relates to EU cosmology theory. EU cosmology theory is simply the application of MHD theory to objects in space. One can interchange any of the various "objects" in space and it will still fit within the confines of EU theory. Solar theory is irrelevant as it relates to the validity of EU cosmology theory. Whereas Alfven's writings describe a "cosmology theory", Birkeland's work explains a "solar model". Alfven freely exchanged one solar theory for another, and I'm doing exactly the same thing. Neither Alfven, nor myself consider solar theory to be in any way related to EU theory. They are separate topics of conversation. Alfven's EU theory does not depend on Birkeland's solar model, and Birkeland's solar model could still be accurate and yet many of the components of EU theory may eventually be proven to be false. Neither theory depends on the other. The ligitimacy of the solar model in no way reflects upon the ligitimacy of the EU theory. Alfven himself freely exchanged solar models at will. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I disagree that Solar theories are irrelevant to the validity of cosmological theories. They MUST be consistent with each other. If I choose a Solar theory that claims it is a lump of burning coal, then my cosmological theory MUST be able to explain the evolution of the universe in such a way that allows for that coal to develop and begin burning. The Big Bang theory (BBT)specifically predicts the abundance of light elements such as hydrogen, helium, lithium, etc via nucleosynthesis. This is absolutely consistent with the Standard Solar Model (SSM). The current SSM is consistent with BBT, it is also consistent with General Relativity (GR), consistent with Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), consistent with Quantumelectrodynmics (QED), consistent with the Standard Model of particle physics (SMPP???), consistent with Quantumchromodynamics (QCD) and so on... It is consistent with the four known fundamental forces of nature... As is the mainstream cosmological model.</p><p>So, in my opinion, addressing whatever Solar model you prefer, is indeed relevant to the discussion as it must maintain consistency with whatever cosmological model you chose to espouse. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I did not see where Birkeland predicted positively charged ions, could you cite where Birkelands said that.</DIV></p><p>I already cited his entire volume for you. I'm at work right now and I don't have time to hold your hand. Look at his solar terella experiments. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I never even implied that there was no net current flow, even though I would term the flow as the solar wind.</DIV></p><p>In Alfven's model, this "current flow"' is due to the charge separation between the photosphere (cathode) and heliosphere(anode). The acceleration is due to charge attraction, and the total circuit energy would need to be looked at and considered.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Are you saying the solar wind is a circuit?</DIV></p><p>I'm saying that the surface of the sun discharges to the heliosphere.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Please cite where Birkeland predicted million degree coronal loops.</DIV></p><p>I have an image from his emprical experiments shown side by side with Yohkoh x-ray images of the sun. There is no doubt that these are all "discharge" events. Did you read Alfven's paper on CME's yet?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No room for discussion there.Yes you have pointed out one persons views on the subject, who unfortunately is not up on the newest discoveries and evidence that has been gathered. </DIV></p><p>It certainly jives with modern satellite images, and observations in space. Care to take a crack at explain Kosovichevs Doppler image of a wave on the photosphere for us? What's that jagged and rigid thing under the wave? Why does the solar wind accelerate in your opinion?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is not that I am a better expert it is that the astronomical community is a better expert because the furthering of science over the years. </DIV></p><p>Many areas of science have "advanced" over the last 100 years since Birkeland and in the decade since Alfven's death, but no consumer product runs on inflation. Some advancements even support Birkeland's position over Alfven's position which is why I chose Birkeland's model over the one that Alfven preferred.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It makes no difference if I have an opinion as to what accelerates the solar wind. If my answer is I don't know, that in no way furthers your position. </DIV></p><p>That is untrue. It demonstrates that EU theory can "predict" something that standard theory does not. Astronomy is all about making accurate predictions that match observation and in-situ measurements. Birkeland pegged the fast speed solar wind with his model from 100 years ago. Today the mainstream is still 'perplexed" by a phenomenon that was "predicted" by EU theory over 100 years ago. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I do however lean towards magnetic reconnection as defined in terms of MHD. </DIV></p><p>And yet magnetic lines lack physical substance and they form as a full continuum, so this term is simply a pseunonym for "current sheet acceleration" as Alfven stated.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I will not once again explain magnetic reconnection and point out your misconceptions because you have shown that you will ignore it and talk about physical breaking and reconnecting of magnetic lines. As far as empiraical evidence for magnetic reconnection that has already been cited in a previous post. <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>You missed a key point. I have not "disowned" magnetic reconnection theory. I agree that Birn's presentation is the same as "current sheet acceleration' and Alfven also embraced this idea, he just never liked the name "magnetic reconnection" for obvious reasons. He was an electrical engineer by trade. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You might mention that to DrRocket who has now be "stalking me" and "EU theory" for nine whole months.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I think that critique is a bit over the top and unwarranted. A claim of stalking has serious implications. What I see is DrRocket addressing what he considers to be psuedoscience. He is challenging claims that are being made. His tone may be harsh at times, but he is certainly entitled to enter whatever thread he desires and challenge whatever claims he feels, rightly or wrongly, are false. This forum is free to everyone.</p><p>DrRocket, myself, UFMbutler, meteorwayne, alp, et al. are interested in seeing that "EU theory" does not go unchallenged here. We are entitled to follow whatever thread/post we choose if we feel the scientific statements being made are unfounded and inconsistent with known physics. The reasons we choose to do this is also irrelevant. It may be personal, or it may be to offer a balance so that lurkers of the forums and other member that may not participate but remain interested get a balance from both sides. </p><p>This is supposed to be a space and science forum. Theories should be challenged aggressively. This is what science is all about. Those theories/models that stand up to aggressive skepticism enter mainstream. Those that do not either need refinement or should be discarded altogether. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I disagree that Solar theories are irrelevant to the validity of cosmological theories. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Alfven used Birkeland's emprical experiments to justify his 'discharge' ideas Derek. He personally "swapped" Birkeland's solar model for standard solar theory. All I'm doing is swapping it back!</p><p>Alfven's EU cosmology theory is unrelated to the physical makeup of any of the objects inside space. It is not a solar theory, it is a "cosmology theory" that is far more comprehsive and wide reaching than a simple solar theory.</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Even if I get banned, it won't make his statement "EU theory is crap" any more justifyable, nor will it change the fact that this forum is now completely disfunctional due to the efforts of DrRocket, and of course my stupid actions early on.<br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Hey michael, if it's your intention to martyr yourself yet again, why not get it over with. Say the magic word. You have already accused me of being Unethical and have not retracted it. You are thisclose to getting toasted.</p><p>Of course, if you do so, everyting you've ever posted here will disappear. All the work you have put in will be gone. Then you can go merrily along to the next forum to complain about how you were banned here, as you did when you arrived here. But those who have watched this will know that it was your own actions, your own refusal to respond to direct questions, your own violation of the rules, your own failure to follow moderator instructions, and your own persecution complex that precipitated such action. I'm growing tired of repeatedly saving your tail.</p><p>I'd stongly suggest that you adjust your attitude, and go out of your way to answer specific questions with specific relevant answers without your obfuscating line by line microdissection of phrase by phrase style.</p><p>How this ends is in YOUR hands and fingers.</p><p>Just friendly advice.</p><p> </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> In Alfven's model, this "current flow"' is due to the charge separation between the photosphere (cathode) and heliosphere(anode). The acceleration is due to charge attraction, and the total circuit energy would need to be looked at and considered.I'm saying that the surface of the sun discharges to the heliosphere.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p>If the sun is negative and the heliopause is positive then why the heck is the solar wind composed of protons and electrons? Shouldn't the protons be sucked back toward the sun? Shouldn't they be constantly decelerating thereby moving slower than the electrons?<br /><br />Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Only DrRocket seems intent on crusading against a specific theory, and he obviously knows nothing about it, or he would not confuse a solar theory with a cosmology theory. Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />It seems a bit grandiose to call the EU thing (whatever it is) "cosmology". Birkeland made a model of the sun, Alfven studied auroras. Pretty local stuff as far as the universe is concerned. You continually write about: the surface of the sun, heliosphere, interplanetary space in EU theory, photosphere, Yohkoh x-ray images of the sun, CME's, Kosovichevs Doppler image of a wave on the photosphere, etc. Electric <strong>Universe</strong> indeed I submit that it is YOU who confuse solar theory with cosmology. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I submit that it is YOU who confuse solar theory with cosmology. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfven used Birkeland's emprical experiments to justify his 'discharge' ideas Derek. He personally "swapped" Birkeland's solar model for standard solar theory. All I'm doing is swapping it back!Alfven's EU cosmology theory is unrelated to the physical makeup of any of the objects inside space. It is not a solar theory, it is a "cosmology theory" that is far more comprehsive and wide reaching than a simple solar theory. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I'd like to take a temporary diversion in to the semantics between theories and models. I see them being interchanged all too often and there is a difference. Models are an attempt at recreating what we currently observe. Models are built of pre-existing theories. Within those models, there may exist a cornucopia of theories that attempt to keep the model consistent with the theories the model is built from.</p><p>Models can be altered at will depending on the development of new theories or the abandonment of old theories. The theories themselves, however may not be. There might be some fine-tuning allowed with theories, but I can only imagine there is a limit to this before it must be discarded.</p><p>With that said.... Solar models are, well... models. They are based on a pre-existing subset of theories. Likewise, I believe the Electric Universe is a model comparable, in context only, to the LambdaCDM model. The EU model should be based on one or more foundational theories. It would appear the EU model is based on the theory of MHD and Alfven's theory of ambiplasma and should show consistency with GR, QED, et al. The EU model is an attempt at describing what we observed based on theories. Similarly, the LambdaCDM model is based on GR and BBT and show consistency with various other theories. </p><p>Ultimately, we may be asking the wrong questions by asking "What is EU <strong><em>theory</em></strong>". Better questions and answers might be had if we address it as a model and ask how certain observations based on this model are consistent with the theories that allow this model to exist.</p><p>And in closing, I'll make what should be an unnecessary statement: "No current models, whether mainstream or non-standard, are complete." - This is an attemp at avoiding misdirection into the well know and well understood gaps in understandings of the LambdaCDM model which include inflation, dark matter and dark energy.</p><p>Just to clarify. Models may be altered at will so long as they remain consistent with pre-existing scientfic, well-defined and supported theories that have been exhaustively tested, critiqued, peer-reviewed and are mathematically rock solid. The theories born from the models may be discarded without discarding the model. Models don't necessarily make predictions... theories do.</p><p>So, now my question is: Is EU a theory or a model? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hey michael, if it's your intention to martyr yourself yet again, why not get it over with. Say the magic word. You have already accused me of being Unethical and have not retracted it. You are thisclose to getting toasted.</DIV></p><p>You have already taken the step that was necessary to rectify the problem and I appreciate it Wayne. I will not "give up". I will continue to speak the truth here for as long as I am allowed to do so. I have no desire to martyr myself, I just wish to present EU theory and plasma physics in space as it should be presented. The fact you changed the title demonstrates to me that your actions are now congruent with normal scientific practices and entirely "ethical". I have no problem with you putting these ideas all in one thread, I just wanted there to be no confusion between EU theory and Michael Mozina. </p><p>I've posted here for almost four years now. If I had a martyr complex Wayne I would not still be here defending Alfven's work at 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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> "No current models, whether mainstream or non-standard, are complete." </DIV></p><p>But for some reason on EU theory is "off limits" for normal discussion?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, now my question is: Is EU a theory or a model? <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>It is a "cosmology theory" that is larger than, and works with, every single physical object in the universe. It is not a solar theory, and in fact it is solar theory independent. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the sun is negative and the heliopause is positive then why the heck is the solar wind composed of protons and electrons? Shouldn't the protons be sucked back toward the sun? Shouldn't they be constantly decelerating thereby moving slower than the electrons?</DIV></p><p>That is an excellent question. In Birkeland's terella experiments, the protons followed the electrons as they flowed from the surface to the outer chamber. Both the electrons and the positively charged ions flowed away from the sun as long as the sun was the cathode. In other words, the entire sphere surface has to emit electrons. The rest is physics in motion. The protons are attracted toward the electrons and they start flowing from the surface with the electrons. This is also why the solar wind is composed of the lighest, most postitively charged particles, and why He+2 is favored over He+1 by many multiples in the solar wind ions that come from the surface. The constant streeam of electons continues to accelerate the protons over time which is why the solar wind continues to acclerate as it moves toward the heliosphere.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It seems a bit grandiose to call the EU thing (whatever it is) "cosmology". </DIV></p><p>Alfven wrote a whole book and many papers on this topic. What else would you call it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birkeland made a model of the sun, Alfven studied auroras. Pretty local stuff as far as the universe is concerned. You continually write about: the surface of the sun, heliosphere, interplanetary space in EU theory, photosphere, Yohkoh x-ray images of the sun, CME's, Kosovichevs Doppler image of a wave on the photosphere, etc. Electric Universe indeed I submit that it is YOU who confuse solar theory with cosmology. <br /> Posted by bobw</DIV></p><p>Not me. I've had to work long and hard to create a logical separation between me, EU, and Birkeland's solar model. DrRocket has been intentionally stuffing them all together as they they are all one and the same thing. That's been a major block. </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>
I submit that it is YOU who confuse solar theory with cosmology. <br /> Posted by bobw</DIV></p><p>Not me. I've had to work long and hard to create a logical separation between me, EU, and Birkeland's solar model. DrRocket has been intentionally stuffing them all together as they they are all one and the same thing. That's been a major block. </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><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />will you please retract your accusations of stalking towards DRrocket?</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>will you please retract your accusations of stalking towards DRrocket? <br /> Posted by rubicondsrv</DIV></p><p>Fine. I retract the statement. I will however *insist* that DrRocket make every good faith effort to differentiate between a cosmology theory, a solar theory and my personal opinions, and to represent them *all* with scientific accuracy and integrity from this point forward.</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is an excellent question. In Birkeland's terella experiments, the protons followed the electrons as they flowed from the surface to the outer chamber. Both the electrons and the positively charged ions flowed away from the sun as long as the sun was the cathode. In other words, the entire sphere surface has to emit electrons. The rest is physics in motion. The protons are attracted toward the electrons and they start flowing from the surface with the electrons. This is also why the solar wind is composed of the lighest, most postitively charged particles, and why He+2 is favored over He+1 by many multiples in the solar wind ions that come from the surface. The constant streeam of electons continues to accelerate the protons over time which is why the solar wind continues to acclerate as it moves toward the heliosphere.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I disagree with your mechanism for the acceleration of the solar wind. You seem to be implying that it is simply the coulomb force producing an acceleration as electrons and protons flow through space. However, I would argue that the energy isn't a result of coulomb interaction but rather the release of energy from the magnetic field. When I first arrived here I mentioned the idea of "magnetic islands" that the electrons bounce off of that converts magnetic energy into kinetic energy. Here is the abstract of the original paper I posted, by Drake in 2006 in Nature, where he outlines the concept(the math is quite sophisticated(read: hard to understand), so for now concepts will do...that said, these islands have been observed empirically both in tokamak reactors and in in-situ satellite observations...see the citations to the paper on ADS):</p><p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Natur.443..553D </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A long-standing problem in the study of space and astrophysical plasmas is to explain the production of energetic electrons as magnetic fields 'reconnect' and release energy. In the Earth's magnetosphere, electron energies reach hundreds of thousands of electron volts (refs 1–3), whereas the typical electron energies associated with large-scale reconnection-driven flows are just a few electron volts. Recent observations further suggest that these energetic particles are produced in the region where the magnetic field reconnects<sup>4</sup>. In solar flares, upwards of 50 per cent of the energy released can appear as energetic electrons<sup>5, </sup><sup>6</sup>. Here we show that electrons gain kinetic energy by reflecting from the ends of the contracting 'magnetic islands' that form as reconnection proceeds. The mechanism is analogous to the increase of energy of a ball reflecting between two converging walls—the ball gains energy with each bounce. The repetitive interaction of electrons with many islands allows large numbers to be efficiently accelerated to high energy. The back pressure of the energetic electrons throttles reconnection so that the electron energy gain is a large fraction of the released magnetic energy. The resultant energy spectra of electrons take the form of power laws with spectral indices that match the magnetospheric observations.</DIV></p><p>Note that he puts "reconnect" in quotes, so he is not talking about literal reconnection. This is how the mainstream believes electrons continue to accelerate as they leave the sun. Do you agree or disagree, and why? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 21
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 6
-
US Space Force 5 years later: What has it accomplished so far, and where does it go from here?- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram