<p>A question for the group:</p><p>I want to know if, by general consensus, I am wrong in claiming that "EU Theory" is not Alfven's but is, instead, a mishmash of different propositions and theories loosely connected with Alfven's work but, by no means, intended as a general cosmology model sufficient for presentation to peers by Alfven.</p><p>By my understanding, which is limited in what Alfven has presented to Science for its consideration, Alfven has put together several ideas including the Alfven-Klein model of cosmology which, I think, some of his plasma cosmology ideas have branched from or built on.</p><p>My problem is this: Are my previous statements, which assess EU Theory Proponent's actions in promoting Alfven as the originator of their theory as seeking false legitimacy, a correct judgement or, at least, supported by the evidence at hand? Am I warranted to propose they are making a false claim?</p><p>Since the thread where I made my statements is now closed, there is no further ability for anyone to add to the argument. If I have made an error, I don't want that error to stand without correction and would like to edit my statement to correct it if that is the case.</p><p>NOTE: Please, do not use this as yet another derailing point of argument. I don't have the ability to PM anyone and ask their opinion yet I do feel a certain responsibility to be sure that whatever contributions I make to a thread are, at least, valid regardless of whether or not they are particularly valuable. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A question for the group:I want to know if, by general consensus, I am wrong in claiming that "EU Theory" is not Alfven's but is, instead, a mishmash of different propositions and theories loosely connected with Alfven's work but, by no means, intended as a general cosmology model sufficient for presentation to peers by Alfven.By my understanding, which is limited in what Alfven has presented to Science for its consideration, Alfven has put together several ideas including the Alfven-Klein model of cosmology which, I think, some of his plasma cosmology ideas have branched from or built on.My problem is this: Are my previous statements, which assess EU Theory Proponent's actions in promoting Alfven as the originator of their theory as seeking false legitimacy, a correct judgement or, at least, supported by the evidence at hand? Am I warranted to propose they are making a false claim?Since the thread where I made my statements is now closed, there is no further ability for anyone to add to the argument. If I have made an error, I don't want that error to stand without correction and would like to edit my statement to correct it if that is the case.NOTE: Please, do not use this as yet another derailing point of argument. I don't have the ability to PM anyone and ask their opinion yet I do feel a certain responsibility to be sure that whatever contributions I make to a thread are, at least, valid regardless of whether or not they are particularly valuable. <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiplasma<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiplasma Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I realize this is somewhat unanswerable until we get a "defnition." But, is EU = Alfven? Is it the same? Is what Alfven has presented to science (Not simply the speculative work) equitable to what EU proponents are saying? Are they simply rehashing Alfven's ideas or has EU mutated into something different? Sure, people build on other's ideas. But, if I come up with a new theory of peanut butter using GR, I don't call it Einstein's Theory of Peanut Butter even though I used his work to do it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I realize this is somewhat unanswerable until we get a "defnition." But, is EU = Alfven? Is it the same? Is what Alfven has presented to science (Not simply the speculative work) equitable to what EU proponents are saying? Are they simply rehashing Alfven's ideas or has EU mutated into something different? <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV><br /><br />I really don't know. To paraphrase Michael - ever EU individual has there own 'take' on what EU means. In which case it is not much of a theory.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Micheal, just wondering are you going to respond to my response to your response to my post (the second post from the bottom of page 4)? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then what precisely is YOUR version of EU since you now seem to have disavowed both Alfven and Birkeland."A man's got to stand for something or he'll fall for anything" -- Aaron Tippin <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Which of the three are you still crusading against, Alfven's Cosmology Theories, Birkeland's Solar model, or my opinions?</p><p>Keep in mind that to say that it was exclusively "Alfven's" work or exclusively "Birkeland's solar model" is a gross oversimplification of history. Alfven wasn't the lone ranger when it comes to the theories you pretty accurately described and even the lone ranger had tanto. Alfven had friends that he talked to about his ideas that shared his views. The same is true of Birkeland and his friends. They hiked around the most remote and hostile parts of the planet to collect in-situ measurements of the Earth's magnetic fields during solar storms. His theories aren't just his theories, they come from a team of individuals that described these theories 100 years ago. The only thing you could possibly have left to complain about are my personal opinions, and if that's the case, get over it. I have *never* (not since day one of my website either) attemped to take credit for either Alfven's cosmology theories or Birkeland's solar model. I may have missed some details in Birkeland's model as presented *on my personal website*. My own papers, my own stated opinions on this forum and everything else I may have said are my own personal opinions on Alfven's cosmology model and Birkeland's solar model.</p><p>Alfven's cosmology theory actually comes with interchangeable solar models, neither of which were developed by yours truly.</p><p>Like I said, if all you have to complain about is me, stop crusading against emprical physics and email me with your complaints. I'm tired of hearing you complain, just as I'm sure everyone here is sick of Michael Mozina on crusade. I've beaten my sword into a plowshare at this point, so feel free to do what you want with that sword, but stop distorting the differences between cosmology theories, solar theories and individuals. </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>Sorry, I must have missed this earlier. It was busy at work. </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are going to have to hold my hand - I can find no where that he discusses positive ions in the paper. </DIV></p><p>Have you ever read my signature line? What do you figure he means by "all kinds" of ions? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>From Birkeland "This splendid phenomenon recalls our hypothesis according to which sun-spots sometimes send out into space long pencils of cathode-rays [electrons].</DIV></p><p>Sure. The sphere was a cathode after all, but after it was left on awhile he had to clean the glass due to all the particle build up from the discharge process. You seem to believe it's only electrons, but that's not the case. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"I asked you if Birkeland really predicted million degree coronal loops as you stated. </DIV></p><p>He "simulated" discharge "arcs" in the atmosphere of the sphere. These discharges tended to congregate around the "bumps" of the sphere, and he experimented with a number of textures, magnetic field strengths, etc. Alfven later explained a CME in terms of an exploding double layer in the paper I cited in my opening presentation of EU Theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The above reply does not answer that question. Did you mean Birkelands model was able to closely simulate the coronal loops that are seen on the sun,</DIV></p><p>I would have to go back through and read if he ever "predicted" the temperature of solar loops. I think he did. I am pretty sure that Alfven wrote all about it in those papers. Alfven actually saw x-ray images of the sun taken from Skylab, and in Cosmic Plasma it shows that x-ray image and he said that it was most likely due to a dischage in the atmosphere. Birkeland and his team predated the space age, but IMO they came with a "better" (in terms of explaining satellite images) solar model.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What doppler images are you talking about? The movies on this site? http://quake.stanford.edu/~sasha/sasha.html If I can't explain the 'rigid thing' does that mean EU is correct by default?</DIV></p><p>No, it means that Birkeland's solar model seems to be a better fit than the solar model that Alfven used in his books and papers. EU theory is solar theory neutral. Alfven replaced Birkeland's solar model with the standard solar model. All I did on my website is swap the standard model with Birkeland's model. EU theory would apply to any and all solar models, including the more "exotic" varieties mentioned in some of my papers.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is true that no consumer products run on inflation. Is the term advanced put in quotes because you don't think science has advanced?</DIV></p><p>No, it simply means that I personally lack belief in inflation. If and when someone shows me how to make my car run on this stuff, I'll be all ears.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>His model did not predict the temperatures or the velocities of the particles seen in the solar wind.</DIV></p><p>I think you're expecting a little too much "precision" to begin with. Birkeland did all this 100 years ago, using only technologies avialable to him at that moment. Fortunately he held several patents and had some money, so his lab was pretty much "state of the art" for it's time. Even today it would take work to do a better job. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> He accurately showed that the cause of the aurora was charged particles streaming from the sun.</DIV></p><p>He was the only one at that time "predicting" high velocity particles streaming from the sun due to a discharge between the surface and the heliosphere. I have to tell you, once I read his book I was *way* impressed with his work and his scientific prowess and dedication to science. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The mainstream grudgingly agrees with this, and is not perplexed. <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Ok. 
</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> <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'>.My problem is this: Are my previous statements, which assess EU Theory Proponent's actions in promoting Alfven as the originator of their theory as seeking false legitimacy, a correct judgement or, at least, supported by the evidence at hand? </DIV></p><p>I guess it would depend entirely on the claim being made. If I was personally trying to build *my own* solar theory rather than using one that has been show to work from 100 years ago, you might be able to make a case. I can't say I would blame anyone for attempting to use standard solar theory based on Alfven's EU theories, since that is what Alfven himself prefered, but personally I think I can do a better job explaining solar satellite images with Birkeland's model than I can do with a standard solar theory. </p>I'm not really making a lot of "personal claiims" quite frankly, nor have I ever tried to take credit for, or responsibility for Birkeland's solar model or Alfven's cosmology theories. I'm frankly most happy with the CNO fusion paper, and it too is solar theory neutral.<br /><p><br /></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'>I really don't know. To paraphrase Michael - ever EU individual has there own 'take' on what EU means. In which case it is not much of a theory. <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>I beg to differ. I've been posting to enough forums for long enough to know that every theory has individual disenters on various aspects a theory, even mainstream theory. Individuality is to be expected regardless of which cosmology theory we might happen to discuss. We are all unique individuals with unique "belief systems" that vary from person to person. As long as we can all learn to accept variety in human thinking, it should not be surprising the EU theory has some "out there" variety of proponents, just like any group or any subset of the population. </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've always thought there was a rather significant gap between Plasma Cosmology as defined by Alfven (didn't he coin the phrase "Plasma Universe" in an article?) and The Electric Universe. I see EU as more of the fringe stuff you find on youtube and websites dealing with electric comets, lightning bolt carving the grand canyon, Saturn's rings, electric suns, etc, etc. while Plasma Cosmology, though non-mainstream, is at least grounded with some real physics. <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've always thought there was a rather significant gap between Plasma Cosmology as defined by Alfven (didn't he coin the phrase "Plasma Universe" in an article?) and The Electric Universe. I see EU as more of the fringe stuff you find on youtube and websites dealing with electric comets, lightning bolt carving the grand canyon, Saturn's rings, electric suns, etc, etc. while Plasma Cosmology, though non-mainstream, is at least grounded with some real physics. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I would grudgingly agree that in it's current infancy, EU theory is a little like a "hippie movement" that is in desparate need of some real mathematicians. </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'>I guess it would depend entirely on the claim being made. If I was personally trying to build *my own* solar theory rather than using one that has been show to work from 100 years ago, you might be able to make a case. I can't say I would blame anyone for attempting to use standard solar theory based on Alfven's EU theories, since that is what Alfven himself prefered, but personally I think I can do a better job explaining solar satellite images with Birkeland's model than I can do with a standard solar theory. I'm not really making a lot of "personal claiims" quite frankly, nor have I ever tried to take credit for, or responsibility for Birkeland's solar model or Alfven's cosmology theories. I'm frankly most happy with the CNO fusion paper, and it too is solar theory neutral. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I'm trying to ensure that I do not commit an injustice in a post that is unanswerable due to threadlock. I am not addressing Solar Theories unless you are now combining them with EU in a broad spectrum approach. I thought that was something you were vehemently against? Yet, you stress it in your post and then allow for several different models of solar theory as if any would suit the EU model. <u>That is confusing if you are lumping all of this under EU!</u> My question revolves around the general claim that "Alfven Wrote the EU Theory." If you are bringing in Birkeland, your explanation via Birkeland, every solar theory under the Sun and <em>et al</em> then that only justifies my claim that associating Alfven continuously with EU Theory as being its author is deceptive and I have no need to correct my post in the other thread. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would grudgingly agree that in it's current infancy, EU theory is a little like a "hippie movement" that is in desparate need of some real mathematicians. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Then answer the question that has been posed dozens of times and define what YOUR VERSION of EU Theory really is. It is quite clearly not just "what Alflven wrote".<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A question for the group:I want to know if, by general consensus, I am wrong in claiming that "EU Theory" is not Alfven's but is, instead, a mishmash of different propositions and theories loosely connected with Alfven's work but, by no means, intended as a general cosmology model sufficient for presentation to peers by Alfven.By my understanding, which is limited in what Alfven has presented to Science for its consideration, Alfven has put together several ideas including the Alfven-Klein model of cosmology which, I think, some of his plasma cosmology ideas have branched from or built on.My problem is this: Are my previous statements, which assess EU Theory Proponent's actions in promoting Alfven as the originator of their theory as seeking false legitimacy, a correct judgement or, at least, supported by the evidence at hand? Am I warranted to propose they are making a false claim?Since the thread where I made my statements is now closed, there is no further ability for anyone to add to the argument. If I have made an error, I don't want that error to stand without correction and would like to edit my statement to correct it if that is the case.NOTE: Please, do not use this as yet another derailing point of argument. I don't have the ability to PM anyone and ask their opinion yet I do feel a certain responsibility to be sure that whatever contributions I make to a thread are, at least, valid regardless of whether or not they are particularly valuable. <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>It is not Alfven's. Alfven would be spinning in his grave at the notion of an externally powered sun, a sun with a solid surface, electrically powered comets, etc. He would equally be spinning at the ridiculuous re-stating of even those opinions that he held at the time of the writing of this book in light of more modern data showing that it is wrong. The RPM level would increase to relativistic levels at the use of his name to sustain pure pseudoscientific nonsense that is being spewed forth in his name by a bunch of wild kooks with NO knowledge of basic physics. And you can add to his posthumous discomfort the attacks on well-established physicists and physical principles. The complete rubbish being put forth by Mozina and his ilk would sent him into fits.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<span style="font-size:6.5pt;font-family:Verdana"><font size="1"> <BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Origin - There is no evidence of high energy discharges, if by discharges you mean electrical discharges.</font></span> <p><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana">MM - You mean except for those million degree coronal loops Birkeland and Alfven both "predicted"?</DIV></span></p><p><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana">This an incorrect statement. </span></p><p><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana">You said of Birkeland, "I think you're expecting a little too much "precision" to begin with". You are the one that said he predicted these temperatures, I am expecting only the precision you claimed. Birkeland did not in fact predict million degree coronal loops.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana">As for Alfven the best that can be said is that he put forward an <em><strong>explanation</strong></em> for the million degree coronal loops. He did not predict these temperatures - it was already known. Alfven did not in fact predict million degree coronal loops.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana">A theory makes predictions, if these predictions turn out to be accurate this validates the theory. Saying that these men predicted these tempertures is wrong and misleading. It gives credence to EU theory that is not warranted. You need to be very precise in your terminology. This is NOT semantics this goes to the core of validating theories.</span></p><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana"><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><font size="1">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Origin - From Birkeland "This splendid phenomenon recalls our hypothesis according to which sun-spots sometimes send out into space long pencils of cathode-rays [electrons].</font></div><p> </p><p>MM - Sure. The sphere was a cathode after all, but after it was left on awhile he had to clean the glass due to all the particle build up from the discharge process. You seem to believe it's only electrons, but that's not the case.</DIV></p><p>I'm sorry but of what I have read that is the case - Birkeland thought that the sum was streaming primarily electrons and that is incorrect.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> MM - Have you ever read my signature line? What do you figure he means by "all kinds" of ions?</DIV></p><p>We are talking about his solar model not space, and his solar model assumes that the solar wind is primarily made up of electrons.</p></span><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This an incorrect statement. You said of Birkeland, "I think you're expecting a little too much "precision" to begin with". You are the one that said he predicted these temperatures, I am expecting only the precision you claimed. Birkeland did not in fact predict million degree coronal loops.As for Alfven the best that can be said is that he put forward an explanation for the million degree coronal loops. He did not predict these temperatures - it was already known. Alfven did not in fact predict million degree coronal loops.A theory makes predictions, if these predictions turn out to be accurate this validates the theory. Saying that these men predicted these tempertures is wrong and misleading. It gives credence to EU theory that is not warranted. You need to be very precise in your terminology. This is NOT semantics this goes to the core of validating theories.I'm sorry but of what I have read that is the case - Birkeland thought that the sum was streaming primarily electrons and that is incorrect.We are talking about his solar model not space, and his solar model assumes that the solar wind is primarily made up of electrons. <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>IMO it is time to reopen the sun thread and close this one. I think most folks now recognize the difference between Alfven's cosmology theories, Birkeland's solar model, and my personal opinions. As long as we can proceed with the solar model thread in a civil and "communicative" manner, I will be happy to continue that discussion. The entire SOTS thread was presented in such a manner until it was moved over to this forum, and I would insist that it remain a civil discusion.</p><p>I don't know about anyone else here, but frankly I need some "space" from this specific topic at the moment. If you want to petition the mods to reopen Birkeland's solar theory thread, I would be happy to continue that discussion with you. I like your questions and I like where this is going. I would prefer that the materials associated with Birkeland's solar model stay collected in one place, so all the good questions (like your's and bob's) and answers are in one thread. I would prefer it stay together in one thread as much as possible. </p><p>For the moment I think I will try to engage myself in less controversial topics and let things cool off a bit. </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>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A question for the group:I want to know if, by general consensus, I am wrong in claiming that "EU Theory" is not Alfven's but is, instead, a mishmash of different propositions and theories loosely connected with Alfven's work but, by no means, intended as a general cosmology model sufficient for presentation to peers by Alfven.Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV><br /><br />That's about right, and Alfven would likely be irate at how his ideas have been twisted and misused. <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'>That's about right, and Alfven would likely be irate at how his ideas have been twisted and misused. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I don't believe he would think that at all. He himself "swapped" Birkeland's solar model out for standard solar theory. I think he was pretty "flexible" in the way he approached science. He did not seem to believe that we have all the answers, and he approached it in a relatively cautious manner. I think he'd agree that it's been abused by various infividuals, but what cosmology theory does that not apply to?</p><p>Alfven was actually pretty "creative" on many levels, and pretty "flexible" IMO as well. I think he realized that MHD theory would apply to just about any condition in space. His basic cosmology theory about the separation of matter and antimatter and such would apply to almost any solar theory one might come up with. Birkeland's model was powered by fission. You can search his pdf book for the term "uranium" and find some mention of this by the way. IMO that is the "simplest" power source possible for such a solar theory, and that is the power source on my website.</p><p>While there are some pretty "out there" ideas, one's I'e even put forth myself, the basic cosmology theory is quite flexible, and 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'>I think he realized that MHD theory would apply to just about any condition in space. </DIV></p><p>That's an exaggeration. There are many situations where it would be incorrect to use MHD theory, and/or where MHD is simply not necessary. There's a reason why there are still HD simulations around, and it's not entirely because of the added difficulty of treating magnetic fields. Sometimes you don't need that "M". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birkeland's model was powered by fission. You can search his pdf book for the term "uranium" and find some mention of this by the way. IMO that is the "simplest" power source possible for such a solar theory, and that is the power source on my website.</DIV></p><p>So the answer to the question you were asked countless times(what elements are involved in the fission in the sun) is uranium? </p><p>By the way, do you intend to at least acknowledge(preferably answer) my question/comments on your proposed mechanism for solar wind acceleration? I really think you should before you try to answer the other guys' questions, because you seem to have the mechanism all wrong. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>Despsite the intention in the creation of this thread, nothing is being clarified, let alone resolved.</p><p>Despite what appeared to be a start, Mr. Mozina has answered NONE of the original 3 questions that were posed and instead seems to have taken liberty to do not much more than continue his rants against the mainstream. </p><p>I therefore request that either the 3 original questions be addressed clearly and completely, within 24 hours, or that this thread also be closed.</p><p>I will not participate further in any threads until this issue is resolved.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is not Alfven's.</DIV></p><p>The cosmology theory belongs to Alfven and his friends.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Alfven would be spinning in his grave at the notion of an externally powered sun,</DIV></p><p>He personally proposed an inflow near the poles. It was not necessarily an "externally" powered version, but there were external inputs into the circuits in the heliosphere in the form of interstellar winds. That's where all the external energy concepts originate. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>a sun with a solid surface,</DIV></p><p>Birkeland and his team produced a working model. Alfven did not have access to modern satellite images, so I cannot *assume* that to be true. He did however use a standard solar theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>electrically powered comets, etc.</DIV></p><p>I'll have to check it out to see if he wrote about them himself, but I kind of doubt it. </p><p>Alfven's basic cosmology theory would apply to almost any solar model one might dream up. Alfven himself simply substituted standard solar theory in place of Birkeland's working lab model. I'm personally a bit skeptical of that move myself, but he certainly did his own "mixing and matching" of his own. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> He would equally be spinning at the ridiculuous re-stating of even those opinions that he held at the time of the writing of this book in light of more modern data showing that it is wrong.</DIV></p><p>Which part might that be? You have provided us with a pretty good overview of his basic cosmology theory as outlined in CP.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The RPM level would increase to relativistic levels at the use of his name to sustain pure pseudoscientific nonsense that is being spewed forth in his name by a bunch of wild kooks with NO knowledge of basic physics. And you can add to his posthumous discomfort the attacks on well-established physicists and physical principles. The complete rubbish being put forth by Mozina and his ilk would sent him into fits. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Even at worst case DrRocket, even if everything you say is absolutely true, it would have absolutely no affect whatsoever on the scientific legimacy of Alfven's original cosmology theory which you desribed for us. EU theory is a *cosmology theory* DrRocket, not a solar theory. The solar theory on my website is Birkeland's solar model, including the energy source (look up uranium in his PDF file). </p><p>The worst you could really complain about are my own personal opinions on Alfven's cosmology theories and on Birkeland's solar model, but I have never professsed to be the originator of either Alfven's cosmology theory or Birkeland's solar model. Get over it. </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'>Despsite the intention in the creation of this thread, nothing is being clarified, let alone resolved.Despite what appeared to be a start, Mr. Mozina has answered NONE of the original 3 questions that were posed and instead seems to have taken liberty to do not much more than continue his rants against the mainstream. I therefore request that either the 3 original questions be addressed clearly and completely, within 24 hours, or that this thread also be closed.I will not participate further in any threads until this issue is resolved. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Or just ignore it....</p><p>I would do so at this point, but my moderator duties require that I keep an eye on things.</p><p>I looked through some of mm's conributions to other fora, and you could pretty much just change the names of those he "argues" with and take all the hundreds of pages and duplicate them. We will never get through, nor get him to admit that his view EU is not justified by Alfven's work, whatever his view is. It just will never happen, IMHO. </p><p>I found 3 different endpoints. Either he was banned, he took his marbles and went home (asking his posts be deleted) or people just ignored it and the conversation expired for lack of interest.</p><p>Food for thought....</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'>Despsite the intention in the creation of this thread, nothing is being clarified, let alone resolved.</DIV></p><p>That is because despite your promise that you could tell the difference betten a cosmology theory, a solar theory, and an individual's personal opinions, you still refuse to do so. You promised to clearly represent a cosmology theory, a solar theory and an individual separately, and you have not done so. You have made no attempt in good faith to distinguish between these three things.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Despite what appeared to be a start, Mr. Mozina has answered NONE of the original 3 questions</DIV></p><p>That is a false statement. I have even written a little intro that explains that EU theory is a *cosmology theory* DrRocket, which is something you refuse to accept. It's not a solar theory, it's not the opinions of Michael Mozina. It is a *COSMOLOGY THEORY* written a long time ago.</p><p>The solar theory questions are irrelevant to EU theory because EU Theory has interchangeble solar theories. It's not dependent upon any specific solar theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>that were posed and instead seems to have taken liberty to do not much more than continue his rants against the mainstream. </DIV></p><p>Nope. I already beat my sword into a plowshare. You're the only one still on crusade.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I therefore request that either the 3 original questions be addressed clearly and completely, within 24 hours, or that this thread also be closed.I will not participate further in any threads until this issue is resolved. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>So demandeth the Grand Inquistor of space.com. </p><p>The right thing to do here DrRocket is to give up your crusade against emprical physics only because you want a piece of my personal hide. The right thing to do would be to honestly note the difference between a cosmology theory I didn't create, a solar theory I didn't create, and my personal opinions on those topics. You have no interest in communicating or finding truth. You are only interested in blood. </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 because despite your promise that you could tell the difference betten a cosmology theory, a solar theory, and an individual's personal opinions, you still refuse to do so. You promised to clearly represent a cosmology theory, a solar theory and an individual separately, and you have not done so. You have made no attempt in good faith to distinguish between these three things.That is a false statement. I have even written a little intro that explains that EU theory is a *cosmology theory* DrRocket, which is something you refuse to accept. It's not a solar theory, it's not the opinions of Michael Mozina. It is a *COSMOLOGY THEORY* written a long time ago.The solar theory questions are irrelevant to EU theory because EU Theory has interchangeble solar theories. It's not dependent upon any specific solar theory.Nope. I already beat my sword into a plowshare. You're the only one still on crusade.So demandeth the Grand Inquistor of space.com. The right thing to do here DrRocket is to give up your crusade against emprical physics only because you want a piece of my personal hide. The right thing to do would be to honestly note the difference between a cosmology theory I didn't create, a solar theory I didn't create, and my personal opinions on those topics. You have no interest in communicating or finding truth. You are only interested in blood. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> </p><p>DrRocket can dismantle your concepts as much as he wants as long as he does not break the rules</p><p>you have no right to demand that he stop nor should you expect him to stop..</p><p>in fact the only "rights" a poster has here are outlined in the comunity guidelines.</p><p>if you can't deal with that go somewhere else.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birkeland's model was powered by fission. You can search his pdf book for the term "uranium" and find some mention of this by the way. IMO that is the "simplest" power source possible for such a solar theory, and that is the power source on my website.</DIV></p><p>I think this is probably the most incredible thing that Birkeland ever came up with. Who cares about auroras, Birkeland currents or any of that piddly stuff.</p><p>Birkeland died in 1917 and the fission of uranium was not discovered until 1938. </p><p>Birkeland proposed that the fission of uranium was the power source of the sun 50 years before uranium fission was discovered. Now that is what I call genius!</p><p> </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