Electric Universe, The Iron Sun, and Plasma Cosmology thread

[DrRocket]

<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.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&nbsp;that precipitated such action. I'm growing tired of repeatedly saving your tail.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.How this ends is in YOUR hands and fingers.Just friendly advice.&nbsp; <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>You may consider this a formal complaint.</p><p>Michael is refusing to directly address the major questions that are the purpose of this thread, and instead is launching a personal attack against both me and mainstream physics and physicists. I request that he be compelled to address the questions that have been asked.&nbsp; He has made one start, and no more than a start, at answering the first of the 3 questioins which are:</p><p>1.&nbsp; What are the basic tenets of "EU Theory" as you see and practice it ?&nbsp; </p><p>2.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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 ?&nbsp; Also what reactions would provide the muon neutrinos and tau neutrinos that you claim originate from th postulated fission ?</p><p>He has yet to provide any response to&nbsp;even question in terms of statements that are, in princople, confirmable or refutable through physical experiments or theoretical models.&nbsp; He is also clearly avoiding the issue of the relationship between EU theory and the various statements that he has made, and quoted earlier in this thread, with regard to various sub-disciplines within physics.&nbsp;</p><p>He is back to his old ways of attacking mainstream physics and physicists as a ploy to deflect attention from the need for him to directly answer the questions posed. "Compare and contrast that now with inflation, dark energy, expanding space, negative pressure vacuums, etc."</p><p>He has directly accused me of stalking.&nbsp; I demand proof, a formal and clear retractioin or appropriate disciplinary action.</p><p>I also request that he be directed to answer the questions that have been addressed to him, completely and clearly.&nbsp; This thread is making no more progress towards objective scientific discussion of the brand of EU theory that Mr. Mozina has routinely advocated than any of the previous threads.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Fine.&nbsp; I retract the statement.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br />&nbsp;That is precisely what has been done thus far and will continue to be done in the future. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<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>Now that I have explained to you that EU theory is a cosmology theory, not a solar theory, do you withdraw this statement?&nbsp; </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>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I already cited his entire volume for you.&nbsp; I'm at work right now and I don't have time to hold your hand.&nbsp; Look at his solar terella experiments. </DIV></p><p>You are going to have to hold my hand&nbsp;- I can find no where that he discusses positive ions in the paper.&nbsp; From Birkeland "This splendid phenomenon recalls our hypothesis according to which sun-spots sometimes send out into space long pencils of cathode-rays [electrons]."</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have an image from his emprical experiments shown side by side with Yohkoh x-ray images of the sun.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is no doubt that these are all "discharge" events.</DIV></p><p>I asked you if Birkeland really predicted million degree coronal loops as you stated.&nbsp; The above reply does not answer that question.&nbsp; Did you mean Birkelands model was able to&nbsp;closely simulate&nbsp;the coronal loops that are seen on the sun, but he never said anything about the million degree discharges?&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Care to take a crack at explain Kosovichevs Doppler image of a wave on the photosphere for us?&nbsp; What's that jagged and rigid thing under the wave?</DIV></p><p>What&nbsp;doppler images are you talking about?&nbsp; The movies on this site?&nbsp;&nbsp;http://quake.stanford.edu/~sasha/sasha.html&nbsp;&nbsp; If I can't explain the 'rigid thing' does that mean EU is correct by default?&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></p><p>It is true that no consumer products run on inflation.&nbsp; Is the term advanced put in quotes because you don't think science has advanced?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></p><p>Like what?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It demonstrates that EU theory can "predict" something that standard theory does not.&nbsp; Astronomy is all about making accurate predictions that match observation and in-situ measurements.&nbsp; Birkeland pegged the fast speed solar wind with his model from 100 years ago.&nbsp; Today the mainstream is still 'perplexed" by a phenomenon that was "predicted" by EU theory over 100 years ago.</DIV> </p><p>Wrong.&nbsp; His model did not predict the temperatures&nbsp;or the velocities of the particles seen in the solar wind.&nbsp; He accurately showed that the cause of the&nbsp;aurora was charged particles streaming from the sun.&nbsp; The mainstream grudgingly agrees with this, and is not perplexed.&nbsp; </p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobw]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The protons are attracted toward the electrons and they start flowing from the surface with the electrons. ...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>That just doesn't sound right to me.&nbsp; <strong>Can you explain it a little more</strong> <strong>please?</strong><br /><br />http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/swc/<br /><em>The Solar Wind Spectrometer was deployed on Apollo 12 and 15. Although the solar wind contains ions of most chemical elements (including the noble gases measured by the Solar Wind Composition Experiment), <strong>over 95% of the particles in the solar wind are electrons and protons, in roughly equal numbers.</strong></em><br /><br />The mass of an electron is approximately 1&frasl;1836 of that of the proton<br /><br />Any electrostatic attraction between the protons and electrons will follow the inverse square rule and since F=MA then it seems to me that the chance of electrons "dragging" protons is pretty slim.&nbsp; The proton should be dragging the electron about 2000 times as hard as the electron drags the proton. I can see how what you say might be possible if there were many thousands of electrons dragging each proton but NASA says it there are equal numbers of each. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now that I have explained to you that EU theory is a cosmology theory, not a solar theory, do you withdraw this statement?&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Why, it's not really related. He can still say your verrsion of Eu is pseudoscience. <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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why, it's not really related. He can still say your verrsion of Eu is pseudoscience. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Wayne, I do not have my own brand of EU theory anymore than I have my own brand of any other scientific theory.&nbsp; I have "personal opinion" about all theories, but no theory relies upon the beliefs of Michael Mozina for it's scientific credibility.</p><p>I don't own EU theory Wayne.&nbsp; It's not mine.&nbsp; He might as well be calling GR theory pseudoscience because we disagree about some specific aspect of GR.&nbsp;&nbsp; At worst case, the problem is in the individual, not in the 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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now that I have explained to you that EU theory is a cosmology theory, not a solar theory, do you withdraw this statement?&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Of course not, why would I ?&nbsp; Among other things I dispute your assertion that EU is a cosmology theory or that it is limited to the writings of Alfven.&nbsp; Even if we were to limit the definition of EU theory to what Alflven wrote in Cosmic Plasma I could not agree that EU theory is just a cosmology theory.&nbsp; Cosmology is only the last chapter of that book, and Alfven's cosmology is not a viable theory any longer.</p><p>Moreover, as noted earlier, what qualifies as pseudoscience is dependent on the time and the state of knowledge at the tiime.&nbsp; If one were to advocate Newtonian mechanics over relativity now (not as an approximation that suffices at low speeds and in moderate gravitational fields, but as a more correct theory than relativity) that would&nbsp; be pseudoscience.&nbsp; Nevertheless, prior to Einstein's formulation of relativity, Newtonian mechanics was certainly hard science at its finest.&nbsp; In the same way advocacy of Alfven's cosmology in the present era is also pseudoscience. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That just doesn't sound right to me.&nbsp; Can you explain it a little more please?http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/swc/The Solar Wind Spectrometer was deployed on Apollo 12 and 15. Although the solar wind contains ions of most chemical elements (including the noble gases measured by the Solar Wind Composition Experiment), over 95% of the particles in the solar wind are electrons and protons, in roughly equal numbers.The mass of an electron is approximately 1&frasl;1836 of that of the protonAny electrostatic attraction between the protons and electrons will follow the inverse square rule and since F=MA then it seems to me that the chance of electrons "dragging" protons is pretty slim.&nbsp; The proton should be dragging the electron about 2000 times as hard as the electron drags the proton. I can see how what you say might be possible if there were many thousands of electrons dragging each proton but NASA says it there are equal numbers of each. <br /> Posted by bobw</DIV></p><p>Bob, your questions are right on the money and I will come back to them, I promise you.&nbsp; I'm at work however and I will have to lookup Birkeland's explanation of this process and post it here.&nbsp; I think DrRocket posted these exact comments in another thread.&nbsp; I'll go check and post them here if that is the case.&nbsp; I'm not sure if the quote DrRocket cited explain the solar wind acceleration, but it did explain the charge separation aspects.&nbsp; In essense, yes, you are correct.&nbsp; There is current flow between the surface of the sun and the heliopsphere, so even though the solar wind appears to be approximately neutral over the short term and distance, there are actually more electrons flowing outward than protons, and more than one electrons is responsible for accerating any given positvely charged ion. </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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wayne, I do not have my own brand of EU theory anymore than I have my own brand of any other scientific theory.&nbsp; I have "personal opinion" about all theories, but no theory relies upon the beliefs of Michael Mozina for it's scientific credibility.I don't own EU theory Wayne.&nbsp; It's not mine.&nbsp; He might as well be calling GR theory pseudoscience because we disagree about some specific aspect of GR.&nbsp;&nbsp; At worst case, the problem is in the individual, not in the theory. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You most certainly do have your own brand of EU Theory.&nbsp; You advocate ideas that are clearly in conflict with both mainstream physics and with Alfven's writings.&nbsp; There is certainly nothing wrong with developing one's own perspective, and supporting it with real science.&nbsp; But to try to hide behind the skirts of Alfven and Birkeland is just plain silly.&nbsp; You clearly advocate your own ideas, and misconstrue those of others as well.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You most certainly do have your own brand of EU Theory.</DIV></p><p>No, I do not.&nbsp; I have my own opinions about which solar model is correct, but EU theory applies to both solar models.&nbsp;&nbsp; Alfven simply applied the theory to a standard solar model and swapped it with Birkeland's original solar model.&nbsp; I'm simply swapping it back, but the cosmology theory applies to that object no matter what.&nbsp; It doesn't matter how or why the sun acts as a cathode, it only matters that it does act as a cathode.&nbsp; The solar model is irrelevant to EU theory.&nbsp; Aflven interchanged them at will.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You advocate ideas that are clearly in conflict with both mainstream physics and with Alfven's writings.</DIV></p><p>So what?&nbsp; Why can't you live and let live like everyone else?&nbsp;&nbsp; Birkeland's solar model does not negate Alfven's writings, and Alfven's writings do not negate the possibility that Birkeland was correct from the start.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> There is certainly nothing wrong with developing one's own perspective, and supporting it with real science.&nbsp; But to try to hide behind the skirts of Alfven and Birkeland is just plain silly.&nbsp; You clearly advocate your own ideas, and misconstrue those of others as well. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You're still doing it!&nbsp; I can't hide behind Alfven's skirts on EU theory.&nbsp; He wrote it. His opinions and writings make it a valid form of science, not mine.&nbsp; It doesn't matter what I think about EU theory or how I apply EU theory personally.&nbsp; It in no way affects Alfven's cosmology theory.&nbsp; It's not mine.</p><p>The same is true of Birkeland's solar theory. I've never claimed ownership of it either.</p><p>Same question now.&nbsp; Do you withdraw your statements about EU theory, the *COSMOLOGY THEORY* that Alfven wrote and that is described in Cosmic Plasma? </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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You most certainly do have your own brand of EU Theory. </DIV></p><p>No. I do not!&nbsp; I have EU theory combined with Birkeland's solar model. There is nothing "personal" about it.&nbsp; Both the solar model and the cosmology theory were created before my birth.&nbsp; I may put together emprical ideas in a unique manner, but I do not and never have claimed to have my own brand of a cosmology theory.&nbsp; You are still confusing me with the theory itself.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You advocate ideas that are clearly in conflict with both mainstream physics and with Alfven's writings.</DIV></p><p>No, they are completely congruent with Alfven's writings.&nbsp; His *cosmology theory* is solar model independent!&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is certainly nothing wrong with developing one's own perspective, and supporting it with real science. </DIV></p><p>Even Birkeland's solar model is backed by real *hard* science involving real *hardware* DrRocket.&nbsp; There is nothing "personal" about my beliefs.&nbsp; You keep trying to make them personal. They are not my personal beliefs. They are the beliefs of Alfven combined with the beliefs of Birkeland.&nbsp; Period.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is nothing "personal" about it.&nbsp;&nbsp; I didn't take credit for either theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But to try to hide behind the skirts of Alfven and Birkeland is just plain silly.&nbsp; You clearly advocate your own ideas, and misconstrue those of others as well. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I can't hide behind Alfven's skirts on the topic of EU theory. It is a valid theory regardless of my personal beliefs.</p><p>Do you now withdraw your statements 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>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.&nbsp; That's been a major block. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br /><font size="1">Micheal, this is a title of the model section of your site, think it clouds the logical separation:</font></p><p><font face="Arial" size="2" color="#000000">The Birkeland Solar Model: EU Theory And The Plasma Layers Of The Sun</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Micheal, this is a title of the model section of your site, think it clouds the logical separation:The Birkeland Solar Model: EU Theory And The Plasma Layers Of The Sun&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Point noted.&nbsp; When I get time I'll update the website. </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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Bob, your questions are right on the money and I will come back to them, I promise you.&nbsp; I'm at work however and I will have to lookup Birkeland's explanation of this process and post it here.&nbsp; I think DrRocket posted these exact comments in another thread.&nbsp; I'll go check and post them here if that is the case.&nbsp; I'm not sure if the quote DrRocket cited explain the solar wind acceleration, but it did explain the charge separation aspects.&nbsp; In essense, yes, you are correct.&nbsp; There is current flow between the surface of the sun and the heliopsphere, so even though the solar wind appears to be approximately neutral over the short term and distance, there are actually more electrons flowing outward than protons, and more than one electrons is responsible for accerating any given positvely charged ion. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Unless you can show me that your explanation is consistent with the modern interpretation of an acceleration mechanism, I still don't buy it.&nbsp; Even if we had thousands of electrons per proton, I don't believe it would work.&nbsp; I do not believe the ideas are consistent at all, considering one states the kinetic energy comes from the magnetic field, and yours implies the energy that accelerates the solar wind is due to charge separation.&nbsp; Here is a more detailed explanation for you to consider, from the same paper:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While some of these energetic electrons are produced as a result of acceleration by parallel electric fields near the magnetic separatrices and subsequent injection into the islands, electrons within the islands continue to gain energy. The energy gain, however, is not the result of a parallel electric field, which is very small within magnetic islands^8,⁹. The outflows from the magnetic X-lines cause the ends of the islands to move inward at the Alfv&eacute;n speed. Particles circulating within the magnetic islands gain energy in a classic Fermi manner as they reflect from the moving ends of the islands.&nbsp; </DIV> </p><p>where "Fermi manner" refers to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_acceleration (note:&nbsp; the wiki is a very crude explanation of it but it should suffice)</p><p>Also, another interesting statement from the conclusions:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>An important conclusion from solar satellite observations is that up to half of the energy released during solar flares is transferred to electrons.</DIV></p><p>Please explain(detailed) if your interpretation is consistent with these findings.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfven used Birkeland's emprical experiments to justify his 'discharge' ideas Derek.&nbsp; He personally "swapped" Birkeland's solar model for standard solar theory.&nbsp; 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 think you missed the point of my thread entirely, but I'd rather not labor on that point.&nbsp; However, I will address what I have quoted above:</p><p>I don't think EU theory is as comprehensive as you would like us to believe if it can accomodate three vastly different solar models.&nbsp; Maybe I'm misreading what you are saying.&nbsp; The BBT is pretty specific about it's prediction of the abundance of light elements and the SSM fits quite perfectly within the BBT and nucleosynthesis.</p><p>My point being is that if a solar model contradicts any statements made by a cosmological theory, then there are issues somewhere and it is perfectly reasonable to question either one to figure out the other.&nbsp; They should be instrisic to each other. </p><p>&nbsp;</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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Do you withdraw your statements about EU theory, the *COSMOLOGY THEORY* that Alfven wrote and that is described in Cosmic Plasma? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Absolutely not.&nbsp; Why should I?&nbsp; They are absolutely correct, and I have provided more than adequate rationale and substantiation.</p><p>Do you intend to address the three key questions that were posed prior to the start of this thread and that have been repeated herein several times ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Point noted.&nbsp; When I get time I'll update the website. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Instead of covering your tracks, why not just address the issues ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But for some reason on EU theory is "off limits" for normal discussion?</DIV></p><p>I could careless if this thread is over in Newarama surround by thread about comic books and graphic novels... a normal discussion can still be had.&nbsp; It's not my job to question the Mods' decision to move this topic regardless of my opinion whether it is justified or not.&nbsp; Personally, I have no issues with this topic existing in SS&A as long as the discussion remains scientific and doesn't devolve as all these threads seem to do. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is a "cosmology theory" that is larger than, and works with, every single physical object in the universe.&nbsp;&nbsp; It is not a solar theory, and in fact it is solar theory independent. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>If it is, in fact, a theory, what are some of the quantitative statements and predictions?&nbsp; I still think EU is more a model for current observations than it is a definitive, comprehensive theory.&nbsp; Theories are rather specific in their statements and predictions. </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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I can't hide behind Alfven's skirts on EU theory.&nbsp; He wrote it. His opinions and writings make it a valid form of science, not mine.&nbsp; It doesn't matter what I think about EU theory or how I apply EU theory personally.&nbsp; It in no way affects Alfven's cosmology theory.&nbsp; It's not mine.The same is true of Birkeland's solar theory. I've never claimed ownership of it either.Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You can and you are hiding behind Alfven's skirts.</p><p>No one has ever claimed that you have the intelligence, knowledge of physics or creative scientific ability to have written Alfven's books, or Birkeland's books.&nbsp; But you have clearly made yourself an advocate for "EU Theory".&nbsp; Therefore the onus is on you to clearly state what it is that you are advocating.&nbsp; Whatever it is, it most certainly is not, by your own admission, your many posts in SDC and your own web site simply "whatever Alfven wrote."</p><p>Now you have further tried to restrict attention to only Alfven's <strong>cosmology</strong> theory which is only a small part, a single extremely speculative chapter, in the one book, <em>Cosmic Plasma, </em>that you seem to take as the source of all wisdom.&nbsp; <em>Cosmic Plasma</em> is a presentation of some rather conventional plasma physics combined with a bit of very unconventinal, speculative thoughts on cosmology which has since been shown to be invalid.&nbsp; You will note that in the biography written by Falthammar, his co-author for <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics</em> that a&nbsp;key idea, that of critical velocity, which has been found in the laboratory seems to not be a valid concept in space plasma.</p><p>The issue is not ownership, but advocacy.&nbsp; So far as I know you have no ownership anywhere of any sort of valid physics.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p>This thread is just as pointless as all preceding threads on the subject of "EU Theory".&nbsp; Three specific questions have been posed for Mr. Mozina to answer.&nbsp; He has not provided satisfactory answers to any of them.</p><p>His attempt at a definition of "EU Theory"" lacks any statements that are, even in principle, verifiable by appeal to any physical experiment or theoretical&nbsp; model.&nbsp; He has not even attempted to address the questions regarding the alleged neutron star core of the sun or fissible materials in the sun.</p><p>Instead he has continued his attacks on mainstream physics and physicists and individual participants in the threadd.</p><p>Unless and until the requirement to address pertinent and clearly stated questions is met or enforced, I see no benefit that can come from this latest attempt to focus discussion on "EU Theory".</p><p>If EU theory is science let Mr. Mozina present a scientific case.&nbsp; Until then I shall continue to be of the well-substantiated opinion that it is not.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think you missed the point of my thread entirely, but I'd rather not labor on that point.&nbsp; However, I will address what I have quoted above:I don't think EU theory is as comprehensive as you would like us to believe if it can accomodate three vastly different solar models.&nbsp; Maybe I'm misreading what you are saying.&nbsp; The BBT is pretty specific about it's prediction of the abundance of light elements and the SSM fits quite perfectly within the BBT and nucleosynthesis.My point being is that if a solar model contradicts any statements made by a cosmological theory, then there are issues somewhere and it is perfectly reasonable to question either one to figure out the other.&nbsp; They should be instrisic to each other. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I think you are also missing the point.&nbsp; I am under no illusions about the lack of a "comprehensive" EU theory, one that has *extremely* sophisticated computer models, and a lot of individuals with your math skills and science skills putting energy into the effort. &nbsp;</p><p>I do not approach astronomy from the perspective of needing to know that I have all the answers all figured out already.&nbsp; I don't care if or when the universe was created.&nbsp; I'd like to understand how our solar system functions, why the solar wind accerates to a million miles per hour by the time it reaches Earth.&nbsp; I want to know why CME's occur, why coronal loops reach millions of degrees Kelvin above a 6 thousand degree photosphere.&nbsp; These are the sorts of things that I am personally interested in understanding at the moment.</p><p>I'm sure that over time that EU theory can become extremely well expressed in terms of math or physics, but only if it is given "room to grow" and to be "nurished" as an important part of "astronomy" as a whole.&nbsp; I'm just trying to make sure it doesn't get snuffed out altogether before people really investigate these theories with the same energy as DrRocket has put into tearing it apart. </p><p>Every single cosmology theory has unexplained elements.&nbsp; No theory is immune.&nbsp; EU theory is certainly no different.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>My crusading days on space.com are over.&nbsp; All I want to ensure is that EU Theory is accurately represented so that everyone understands the difference between Alfven's cosmology theories, Birkeland's solar models, and my personal opinions on these topics.&nbsp; Is that really too much to ask? </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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Absolutely not.&nbsp; Why should I? </DIV></p><p>Because Alfven's EU cosmology theories have nothing to do with Birkeland's solar model and neither of these things gains it's legitimacy from anyone other than the original *AUTHORS (PLURAL)* of these theories, and both theories were written long before I even became aware of them.</p><p>It is also the "right" thing to do. &nbsp;</p><p>That's why.</p><p>It's time to turn in your sword too 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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p>Mr. Mozina has in the past stated that the energy of magnetic fields is nothing more than the kinetic energy of the current that creates them.&nbsp; This idea seems to be central to his concept of the behavior of plasmas.</p><p>It has been pointed out to him on numerous occasions that the energy in the magnetic field is completely unrelated to the kinetic energy of the charged particles that create the current.&nbsp; This should be quite obvious since both the flow of protons and the flow of electrons at exactly the same speeds and in exactly the same densities creates exactly the same magnetic fields despite a gross difference in mass and hence in kinetic energy between the two.</p><p>However, it might be instructive to demonstrate this point using classical CIRCUIT THEORY, since Mr. Mozina seems so enamored of circuits.&nbsp; This site contains some of the material information that is required and also does a calculation for a somewhat different circuit which is consistent with what I present below.</p><p>Consider a very simple circuit.&nbsp; Let us have a 100 Watt light bulb, a resistor, in series with a 100 V&nbsp; DC voltage source.&nbsp; The resulting circuit will have a 1 Ohn resistor representing the light bulb through which flows a 1 Ampere current for a net power of 100 Watts. Let us use 12 gauge copper&nbsp;wire for the connection between the voltage source and the light bult. A 12 gauge wire has a diameter of 2.05232 mm.&nbsp; Copper has 8.46*10^28 conduction electrons per cubic meter.&nbsp; 1 Amp is 1 Coulomb per second and 1 Coulomb is 1.6 *10^-19 electron charges.&nbsp; From this we can calculate the average speed (what is called the drift velocity) the of the electrons in the wire.&nbsp; It is given by</p><p>vel = current/(cross-sectional area x conduction electron density) = 0.0233 milimeters/second</p><p>That is considerably less than the speed of a walking&nbsp;man (more like a drunken snail).&nbsp; So one can now apply Newtonian mechanics (these speeds are not even vaguely relativistic) to calculate the kinetic energy per electron, and per coulomb.&nbsp; The rest mass of an electron is 9.11 *10 ^-31 kg so the kinetic energy per electron is ( 1/2 mv^2) just 2.265*10^-40 Joule and the energy per Coulomb is 1.414*10^-21 Joule.&nbsp; Since the current is 1 Ampere or 1 Coulomb/second the power available from the kinetic energy is 1.414*10^-21 Watt.&nbsp; That is completely insignificant in terms of the energy dissipated in the 100 Watt light bulb.&nbsp; So where is the energy ?&nbsp; It is in the electromagnetic field associated with the current. which is driven by the applied voltage from the source.</p><p>Now what is the point of this?&nbsp; It is quite simply that Mr. Mozina's statements regarding plasma physics cannot be given any credibility since he claims that the kinetic energy in the magnetic fields is simply a result of the kinetic energy present in the movement of the plasma particles.&nbsp;</p><p>"IMO Yevaud accurately assesed the situation, but drastically underestimated the confusion that is caused by this poor choice of terms.&nbsp; We all agree that magnetic lines don't disconnect or reconnect, so there is no logical or rational reason to call this process ""magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; The reconnection takes place at a more "fundamental" (than field) level, it takes place at the level of particle physics.&nbsp; It's simply a kinetic energy transfer process between two circuits of flowing plasma.&nbsp; Birkeland demonstrates that the basic concept has merit."-- Michael Mozina here</p><p>And here</p><p>"Yes, there is.&nbsp; He takes a more "fundamental" (particle physics) approach to these "reconnection" events.&nbsp; He calls these current carrying magnetic lines "circuits".&nbsp; This is no coincidence.&nbsp; He does this to keep MHD theory consistent with other branches of science, specifically particle physics and electrical engineering.&nbsp; The *fundamental* issue you keep ignoring is that any "stored magnetic energy" is found inside that stream of particles that flows through the "circuits"." --Michael Mozina</p><p>and here</p><p>"What you're missing here IMO is the fact that the "elecromagnetic field energy" you're talking about is simply stored "kinetic energy" in the pinched flow stream of particles.&nbsp; It's like the kinetic energy of the water coming out of the hose. &nbsp; The magnetic field acts like the hose to contrain the flow of particles, whereas the total circuit energy is related to the kinetic energy of the particle flow coming through the hose/circuit." -- Michael Mozina</p><p>To understand what is happening in plasmas you must understand the boundary conditions that are represented by the current (note that in the above example we started with the current and figured out the rest from that knowledge plus the materials involved) as Alfven demanded, but the energy and much of the physics demand that one understand the fields that contain the energy.</p><p>Mozina doesn't understand Alfven, he doesn't understand circuits and he doesn't understand plasmas.&nbsp; But most of all he doesn't understand that he doesn't understand.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Because Alfven's EU cosmology theories have nothing to do with Birkeland's solar model and neither of these things gains it's legitimacy from anyone other than the original *AUTHORS (PLURAL)* of these theories, and both theories were written long before I even became aware of them.It is also the "right" thing to do. &nbsp;That's why.It's time to turn in your sword too DrRocket. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Then what precisely is YOUR version of EU since you now seem to have disavowed both Alfven and Birkeland.</p><p>"A man's got to stand for something or he'll fall for anything" -- Aaron Tippin<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>