<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And to think you accuse me of unfair and unfounded accusations! This coming from a moderator? Don't you think you could have asked someone there if was ever banned from here before making that accusation? You do this an establishment a great dishonor IMO. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />we searched your username.</p><p>If you want to add another site to the list of sites you have been banned from, keep doing what you are doing.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And to think you accuse me of unfair and unfounded accusations! This coming from a moderator? Don't you think you could have asked someone there if was ever banned from here before making that accusation? You do this an establishment a great dishonor IMO. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>There are far more substantive posts and questions you could be spending your time on. Calling a moderator dishonorable only furthers my long-held belief that you want to get banned as a means of escaping all the questions you won't/can't answer. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And to think you accuse me of unfair and unfounded accusations! This coming from a moderator? Don't you think you could have asked someone there if was ever banned from here before making that accusation? You do this an establishment a great dishonor IMO. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Again your reading comprehensions skills let you down. He never said you were banned from this site. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> DrRocket can dismantle your concepts as much as he wants as long as he does not break the rules</DIV></p><p>Of course. It is not reasonable or acceptable however for him to keep ignoring the distinction between a cosmology theory as Alfven wrote it and he and I have both presented it, a solar model that was created by Birkeland 100 years ago, and my own personal opinions on these two topics. "Dismantling" this will require the separation of these different theories into organized and managable parts. As long as DrRocket insists on stuffing a cosmology theory into a bag with a completely different solar model, and then stuffing my ideas into it for fun, and then he beats on it with a baseball bat, we will not make any headway. I would simply like him to accept that there are two theories here to discuss and one individuals personal opinions here to discuss, not just one thing called "EU theory". EU theory is a cosmology theory outlined by Alfven in Cosmic Plasma, and frankly DrRocket presented it fairly accurately with the exception of the items I mentioned.</p><p>Birkeland's solar model is presented on my website. It is a different theory, and an entirely different solar model than Alfven used in Cosmic Plasma. It is a solid surface model with a plasma atmosphere and is powered by fission. It is as true to his original idea as I could make it and I added modern satellite observational evidence to support it. </p><p>Alfven however used a standard solar model when devloping "EU theory", not Birkeland's solar model. He used Birkeland's original work of discharges between the surface and the heliospehre, but he substituded the standard solar model in place of Birkeland's model inside of a solar system. At no time did Alfven advocate an iron sun theory to my knowledge.</p><p>It is therefore not even appropriate to try to treat the solar theory and the cosmology theory as the same thing. They are not the same thing. The are demonstrably different. </p><p>I have personal opnions about both of these two theories, but neither of these two theories gets it legitimacy from any individual besides the original individuals that created these theories. I do not profess to have ownership of either Alfven's cosmology theories or Birkeland's solar model, just my own personal opinions. He must acknowledge the difference between these three things or we cannot have a normal scientific discussion.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>you have no right to demand that he stop</DIV></p><p>I'm demanding he stop giving me personal deadlines while intentionally ignoring the distinction between a cosmology theory, a solar theory and the personal opinions of a single individual who is otherwise unrelated to either of the two afformentioned theories.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>nor should you expect him to stop..</DIV></p><p>I don't expect him to stop discussing these different ideas. In fact I might get bored if he did. I simply expect him to acknowledge and respect the distinction between cosmology theories, solar theories, and my personal opinions.</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 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.Birkeland died in 1917 and the fission of uranium was not discovered until 1938. 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! <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Me too. </p><p>From Birkeland's book (the link is in my opening presentation) </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This amount corresponds, as already stated, to the amount of energy which the sun sends out in the form of light and heat. If the solar constant equals 3, we find a radiation from every square centimetrer of the sun's surface of about 13 horse-power. A disintegration such as this in the sun does not necessarily presuppose the presence there of great quantities of radium, uranium, or thorium. </p><p>Rutherford, in his work entitled "Radio-Activity" (3<br />), says :There seems to be every reason to suppose that the atomic energy of all the elements is of a<br />similar high order of magnitude. With the exception of their high atomic weights the radio-elements<br />do not possess any special chemical characteristics which differentiate them from the inactive elements.<br />The existence of a latent store of energy in the atoms is a necessary consequence of the modern viewdeveloped by J. J. Thomson (1), Larmor and Lorentz, of regarding the atom as a complicated structure<br />consisting of charged parts in rapid oscillatory or orbital motion in regard to one another".<br />Under the temperature-conditions prevailing in the sun, it is possible that ordinary matter may be<br />so radio-active, that it is not necessary to assume the presence in great quantities of the radio-elements<br />known in ordinary temperatures. </DIV></p><p>Pages 314-315</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'>There are far more substantive posts and questions you could be spending your time on. Calling a moderator dishonorable only furthers my long-held belief that you want to get banned as a means of escaping all the questions you won't/can't answer. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I have a job, a family, two wonderful daughters and a life besides space.com. I have probably already answered all of these solar questions in the Surface Of The Sun thread, and I know of at least two other presentations of all of these solar ideas on other forums that were actually pretty intense. I've been through these questions, and I will continue to answer them, but we must all first accept that Alfven's EU theories used a standard solar model, so technically EU theory and Birkeland's solar model are two entirely different topics of conversation. I can only handle one battlefront at a time right now due to time contraints at work. All I'm trying to do is to get DrRocket to realize that Alfven used a *standard solar model* when creating 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'>I have a job, a family, two wonderful daughters and a life besides space.com. I have probably already answered all of these solar questions in the Surface Of The Sun thread, and I know of on other presentationof all of these solar ideas on one other forum that was actually pretty intense. I've been through these questions, and I will continue to answer them, but we must all first accept that Alfven's EU theories used a standard solar model, so technically EU theory and Birkeland's solar model are two entirely different topics of conversation. I can only handle one battlefront at a time right now due to time contraints at work. All I'm trying to do is to get DrRocket to realize that Alfven used a *standard solar model* when creating EU theory! <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>That's all well and great, but entirely irrelevant. I'm not saying you should neglect your family and live on here 24/7. What I AM saying is that you should spend the time you do spend here more constructively. There are a lot of unanswered questions regarding solar wind acceleration(which has nothing to do with a solar model, really, unless we are talking about the origin of the solar wind, which we aren't), and the EU cosmology theory in general, but you are choosing to attack Wayne and DrRocket personally instead. </p><p>Frankly I would be disappointed if you banned yourself by being too stubborn to stick to the issues and not the people you are debating with. Wayne mentioned you were banned from other forums and you bit his head off. DrRocket is surely aware that Alfven used a standard solar model, given that you've said it hundreds of times. </p><p>Burying all the questions you promised to answer under pages upon pages of personal bickering isn't going to make us forget we asked them. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>As a layman only introduced to this subject recently, it seems as though there is a lot of argument of semantics as opposed to arguments of science when this subject comes up.</p><p>But based upon my very basic understanding of the subject matter, I have a few questions:</p><p>1) It seems as though Plasma Cosmology and EU Theory are being used interchangeably, but what material I can find on Alfven's work does not make many of the claims associated with EU Theory. Also the characterization of Electric Universe as a theory suggests it is backed up with fundamental physics and math, but that does not appear to the be case. At best EU Theory seems to be backed up with correlative, qualitative argument, which frankly makes it more of a thought experiment than a theory.</p><p>2) When it comes to Alfven's Plasma Cosmology, at best it seems to be out of date and incomplete. It also appears to be largely based upon correlative observation, not predictive mathematics. While an interesting hypothesis, it appears to lack the rigor of the scientific method.</p><p>3) Several substantial roadblocks seem to stand of the way of Plasma Cosmology (not to mention EU "theory") including the incapability to mathematically predict recorded data as opposed to visually correlating observable phenomenon. For instance the data collected by the COBE satellite was predicted by traditional Big Bang cosmology, and does not appear to be supported by Plasma Cosmology. Until some of these fundamental issues are resolved, I don't see why there needs to be any additional discussion of Plasma Cosmology. If it cannot back up verifiable data with physics and math, what's the point in arguing about it?</p><p>4) There are some substantial philosophical difficulties surrounding the notion of the universe having always existed, and I admittedly am not aware of what role temporal causality plays in Plasma Cosmology since it appears to depart from the notions of general relativity so drastically.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>we searched your username.If you want to add another site to the list of sites you have been banned from, keep doing what you are doing. <br /> Posted by rubicondsrv</DIV></p><p>Ok, what exactly would you have me do at this point? Put yourself in my shoes for a second.</p><p>I know for a fact that Alven's EU theories as presented in Cosmic Plasma are based on a standard solar model.</p><p>I know for a fact that Birkeland's solar model is a separate topic of conversation from "EU theory" as Alfven actually presented it.</p><p>I have my own personal opinions and ideas as well.</p><p>I understand that difference between all these things.</p><p>What would you do in my place here? I really am open to constructive feedback at this point. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Me too. From Birkeland's book (the link is in my opening presentation) Pages 314-315 <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Birkeland was not talking about fission he was talking about spontaneous radiation from uranium and radium. I realize that this probably seems like a small point to you, but this is just another example of you not understanding what you are reading and then stuffing (to use your terms) these falsehoods into your theory.</p><p>I could have 1/2 pound of uranium in my office giving off radiation - it is primarily alpha decay - and not be overly concerned, however 1/2 pound of uranium undergoing fission would ruin my whole day.</p><p>By the way you did not respond to my earlier post because you said you were done with this thread - are you done with this thread or just ignoring my post. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>I am honestly open to suggestions here gentlemen. What exactly would you have me do?</p><p>Aflven's EU Theories were built upon a standard solar theory, not Birkeland's solar model. Where do we go from here? </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's all well and great, but entirely irrelevant. </DIV></p><p>It cannot be entirely irrelevant that Alfven used a standard solar model when Alfven created EU theory as 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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am honestly open to suggestions here gentlemen. What exactly would you have me do?Aflven's EU Theories were built upon a standard solar theory, not Birkeland's solar model. Where do we go from here? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>-Stop making the moderators angry by calling them dishonorable</p><p>-If DrRocket's attitude/posts make you angry, ignore them</p><p>-If someone asks a direct question about any of your assertions, including but most importantly NOT LIMITED TO questions about EU, answer it to the best of your ability or admit that you don't know, don't just ignore it</p><p>-Try to read through this thread and your other threads, trying to look at it from our perspective so you can understand why we are getting so frustrated</p><p>-Understand that among academics, arguments and insults are flung around endlessly. It is often not the case that they despise the person on a personal level, it is merely frustration that the other person/people refuse to listen to their academic argument. In other words, and I can only speak for myself here, don't take things I say so personally. I didn't intend to imply that you should ignore your family to answer my questions. My intention was to point out that while this thread COULD have been a reasonable academic discussion, it is almost hopelessly cluttered now. If we went through and deleted every post that didn't contain some scientific request or statement(admittedly including this one), we would probably only be on page 2 right now.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>-Stop making the moderators angry by calling them dishonorable</DIV></p><p>Done. For the record I do not confuse individual actions and whole individuals.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>-If DrRocket's attitude/posts make you angry, ignore them-</DIV></p><p>I'm doing my best.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If someone asks a direct question about any of your assertions, including but most importantly NOT LIMITED TO questions about EU, answer it to the best of your ability or admit that you don't know, don't just ignore it-</DIV></p><p>Just out of curiosity, did you read the sun thread before asking me questions, or do you expect me to bark on command for every single individual every single time they ask the same question over and over and over again?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Try to read through this thread and your other threads, trying to look at it from our perspective so you can understand why we are getting so frustrated-</DIV></p><p>I have tried to do that already which is why you don't see me off crusading in the science forums anymore. In fact I've given it up entirely and I've become and a 'live and let live" EU California hippie. 
</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Understand that among academics, arguments and insults are flung around endlessly.</DIV></p><p>I realize that. I made the mistake of trying to fight fire with fire in a science forum and I made a public spectical of myself. I will never allow that to happen again. I try to own up to and admit my mistakes *and take appropriate action* so that it never happens again. I can't change the past, nor undo the damage I have done over a 9 month period of time in a single day, or a single month. All I can do is admit my mistake and move on. I am sorry I did that, and I will not do it ever again. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is often not the case that they despise the person on a personal level,</DIV></p><p>I've never felt like anyone "despised" me until DrRocket arrived at space.com. His actions however seem very "personal" because Alfven's EU theories were built upon a standard solar theory, so calling them "crap" because of my beliefs seems completely "personal". I didn't handle that "attack style" very well because it's not common around here, and I admit I handled it badly.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is merely frustration that the other person/people refuse to listen to their academic argument. In other words, and I can only speak for myself here, don't take things I say so personally. I didn't intend to imply that you should ignore your family to answer my questions. My intention was to point out that while this thread COULD have been a reasonable academic discussion, it is almost hopelessly cluttered now. If we went through and deleted every post that didn't contain some scientific request or statement(admittedly including this one), we would probably only be on page 2 right now. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I honestly believe that my original presentation of *BIRKELANDS* solar model on this website was done with very little hostility. I'm sorry for my past actions, but I can't change the fact that EU Theory is predicated on a standard solar theory, not Birkeland's solar model, and we therefore must distinguish between them. </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><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Understand that among academics, arguments and insults are flung around endlessly.</DIV></p><p>I realize that. I made the mistake of trying to fight fire with fire in a science forum and I made a public spectical of myself. I will never allow that to happen again. I try to own up to and admit my mistakes *and take appropriate action* so that it never happens again. I can't change the past, nor undo the damage I have done over a 9 month period of time in a single day, or a single month. All I can do is admit my mistake and move on. I am sorry I did that, and I will not do it ever again. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is often not the case that they despise the person on a personal level,</DIV></p><p>I've never felt like anyone "despised" me until DrRocket arrived at space.com. His actions however seem very "personal" because Alfven's EU theories were built upon a standard solar theory, so calling them "crap" because of my beliefs seems completely "personal". I didn't handle that "attack style" very well because it's not common around here, and I admit I handled it badly.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is merely frustration that the other person/people refuse to listen to their academic argument. In other words, and I can only speak for myself here, don't take things I say so personally. I didn't intend to imply that you should ignore your family to answer my questions. My intention was to point out that while this thread COULD have been a reasonable academic discussion, it is almost hopelessly cluttered now. If we went through and deleted every post that didn't contain some scientific request or statement(admittedly including this one), we would probably only be on page 2 right now. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I honestly believe that my original presentation of *BIRKELANDS* solar model on this website was done with very little hostility. I'm sorry for my past actions, but I can't change the fact that EU Theory is predicated on a standard solar theory, not Birkeland's solar model, and we therefore must distinguish between them. </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'>Ok, what exactly would you have me do at this point? Put yourself in my shoes for a second.I know for a fact that Alven's EU theories as presented in Cosmic Plasma are based on a standard solar model.I know for a fact that Birkeland's solar model is a separate topic of conversation from "EU theory" as Alfven actually presented it.I have my own personal opinions and ideas as well.I understand that difference between all these things.What would you do in my place here? I really am open to constructive feedback at this point. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />For one thing, answer the question, what is your version of EU. Ignore you foolish "fission on the sun" stuff for now.</p><p>The fact you have never answered that either is now a separate issue.</p><p>It is obvious to EVERYONE BUT YOU that it differs from the more rigorous of Alfven's books, though you keep denying that.</p><p>Since it is obvious to EVERYONE BUT YOU, perhaps you should consider the possibility that you are wrong, and you should clearly state , not by referring to Alfven, what the Electric Universe means to you.</p><p>That question has been asked at least a hundred times since you came here, and you have never answered it to anyone's satisfaction but your own. I repeat, you have never answered that question to anyone's satisfaction but your own.</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'>And to think you accuse me of unfair and unfounded accusations! This coming from a moderator? Don't you think you could have asked someone there if was ever banned from here before making that accusation? You do this an establishment a great dishonor IMO. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />That is not what I said; once again the reading comprehension lack of skill you accuse others of rears it's ugly head. The fact is, if you had been banned from here, you'd already be gone; once banned, you can never come back. Keep that well in mind.</p><p><strong>You accused me of dishonor, the last time it was Unethical Behaviour. You may have withdrawn the Unethical Behavior, but you still call me dishonorable based on your misreading of what I said, and has already been pointed out to you by others.</strong></p><p>You can no longer count on me to urge patience with you. When and if the other mods decide to ban you, I will no longer lift a finger.</p><p>Once you are successful, all of your posts will be permanently deleted, and you will be just another humerous anecdote in SDC history. Congratulations.</p><p>Here you have been rewarded with spirited conversation. Dr Rocket spent $150 of his own money to buy the book you demanded, read it, and summarized it clearly.</p><p>In that summary, he clearly stated that the later book contained (by Alfen's own statements in the book) a lot of speculation, a lot of if, and could be's. Yet you latch onto that as the Gospel.</p><p>If you go away, it will be no great loss. After reading your cv elsewhere, I have come to realize any further discussion with you is pointless, since you will never admit that anyone's views but your own are right.</p><p>{End MHO.}</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'>Of course. It is not reasonable or acceptable however for him to keep ignoring the distinction between a cosmology theory as Alfven wrote it and he and I have both presented it, a solar model that was created by Birkeland 100 years ago, and my own personal opinions on these two topics. "Dismantling" this will require the separation of these different theories into organized and managable parts. As long as DrRocket insists on stuffing a cosmology theory into a bag with a completely different solar model, and then stuffing my ideas into it for fun, and the he beats on it with a baseball bat, we will not make any headway. I would simply like him to accept that there are two theories here to discuss and one individuals personal opinions here to discuss, not just one thing called "EU theory". EU theory is a cosmology theory outlined by Alfven in Cosmic Plasma, and frankly DrRocket presented it fairly accurately with the exception of the items I mentioned.Birkeland's solar model is presented on my website. It is a different theory, and an entirely different solar model than Alfven used in Cosmic Plasma. It is a solid surface model with a plasma atmosphere and is powered by fission. It is as true to his original idea as I could make it and I added modern satellite observational evidence to support it. Alfven however used a standard solar model when devloping "EU theory", not Birkeland's solar model. He used Birkeland's original work of discharges between the surface and the heliospehre, but he substituded the standard solar model in place of Birkeland's model inside of a solar system. At no time did Alfven advocate an iron sun theory to my knowledge.It is therefore not even appropriate to try to treat the solar theory and the cosmology theory as the same thing. They are not the same thing. The are demonstrably different. I have personal opnions about both of these two theories, but neither of these two theories gets it legitimacy from any individual besides the original individuals that created these theories. I do not profess to have ownership of either Alfven's cosmology theories or Birkeland's solar model, just my own personal opinions. He must acknowledge the difference between these three things or we cannot have a normal scientific discussion.I'm demanding he stop giving me personal deadlines while intentionally ignoring the distinction between a cosmology theory, a solar theory and the personal opinions of a single individual who is otherwise unrelated to either of the two afformentioned theories.I don't expect him to stop discussing these different ideas. In fact I might get bored if he did. I simply expect him to acknowledge and respect the distinction between cosmology theories, solar theories, and my personal opinions. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> </p><p>you cannot continue to make such demands.</p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For one thing, answer the question, what is your version of EU. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p style="text-align:center" class="MsoNormal" align="center"><strong>EU Cosmology Theory –The Application Of MHD Theory To Objects In Space.</strong></p> <p style="text-align:center" class="MsoNormal" align="center"><strong>A Brief Introduction</strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">EU/PC theory is a <strong>cosmology theory</strong> that was developed by the Nobel Prize winning author, Hannes Alfven (1908-1995) and his friend Carl-Gunne Fälthammar.(b 1931) Professor Emeritus at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden<span> </span>Their cosmology theory is based upon the application of MHD theory to objects in space as described in Alfven’s book Cosmic Plasma, published in 1981.<span> </span>Alfven and Fälthammar have also written many papers on this topic, including Alfven’s introductory paper entitled “Cosmology Of The Plasma Universe”.<span> </span><span> </span>Cosmic Plasma is the second of two books published by Alfven, the first being the work that won him the Nobel Prize in Plasma physics called Cosmical Electrodynamics published in 1963 (second edition).<span> </span>Alfven was not only the creator of MHD theory, he was also one of the first individuals to create a cosmology theory that is based upon MHD theory.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">EU <strong>cosmology theory</strong> is founded upon empirical physics with roots that actually begin with the lab work of Kristian Birkeland (1867-1917) in the early 1900’s. <span> </span>Birkeland lived in Norway and was fascinated by the aurora.<span> </span>He and some close friends undertook a polar expedition in 1902-1903 to collect in-situ measurements of the Earth’s polar magnetic field alignments during solar storms.<span> </span><span> </span>Birkeland meticulously took in-situ measurements of the polar aurora and his empirical work with terellas in a vacuum and he published a two volume set in 1908 entitled The <em><span style="font-style:normal">Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903.<span> </span>In this work he describes some of the hardships he and his companions endured to take in-situ ground measurements of the magnetic fields of Earth during aurora activity.<span> </span>In his volumes, he also explains in great detail, his various terrela experiments. <br /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-style:normal">During Birkeland’s lifetime it was assumed that space was pretty much an empty vacuum.<span> </span>Birkeland was one of the first to propose that the universe is filled with electrons and flying electric ions and was filled with plasma.<span> </span>More importantly. his physical experiments in the lab enabled him to make some key “predictions’ about the nature of space that were later born out in modern satellite measurements.<span> </span>For instance, Birkeland believed that the sun was discharging from it’s cathode surface to the more positively charged heliosphere.<span> </span>He believed that this discharge process would create high speed particles that interact with the Earth’s magnetosphere.<span> </span>He also “predicted” and wrote about high energy discharges in the solar atmosphere as a result of this ongoing discharge process between the sun’s surface and the heliosphere.<span> </span><span> </span>He also “predicted” and wrote about “jets” in the solar atmosphere and also described the tornado like filaments he observed in his experiments that are today known and “Birkeland currents”.<span> </span>All of these observations have also been observed in modern satellite images.<span> </span>While Birkeland did give mathematical expression to his theories, they were somewhat complicated, and “messy”. </span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-style:normal">Despite the empirical verification of Birkeland’s ideas in a lab, and it’s many interesting and unique predictions, Chapman’s “empty space” theories continued to prevail in mainstream thinking for many decades until satellites launch into space in the sixties finally demonstrated the presence of vertical electrical currents in the Earth’s upper polar atmosphere. <br /></span></em></p> <p><em><span style="font-style:normal">Alfven later built upon Birkeland’s early discharge experiments by applying MHD theory to many of these same topics described by Birkeland and by giving them a more detailed mathematic expression in terms of MHD theory.<span> </span>Alfven wrote about CME’s and the Earth’s magnetosphere.<span> </span>Alfven took this process much further however.<span> </span>He <span> </span>developed an entire <strong>cosmology theory</strong> based upon these ideas which DrRocket described in great detail, all built around the standard solar model.</span></em></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />If that's a duplicate of your post earlier in the thread, IT DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION, since as has been clearly demostrated to everyone but you, whatever your Electrical Universe is, it does not conform to Alfven's fundemental MHD theory. <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'> you cannot continue to make such demands. <br /> Posted by rubicondsrv</DIV></p><p>How can I ignore the fact that EU theory used a standard solar model so DrRocket's crusade against "EU theory" is pointless? </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>I thought you said that Birkeland was completely separate from EU. <strong>Why does your version of EU include Birkeland???</strong></p><p><strong>WTF?</strong></p><p>Edited - I guess we are allowed to discuss Birkeland, but not his model of the sun - so ignore this post.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How can I ignore the fact that EU theory used a standard solar model so DrRocket's crusade against "EU theory" is pointless? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />The more important question is how can you not realize that the solar model question is really unelated to the EU question, except for the fact that you have stated that one major source of the sun's power is from energy derived from cosmic plasma? That is the assertion that needs to be addressed to justify your view of EU! <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'>If that's a duplicate of your post earlier in the thread, IT DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION, since as has been clearly demostrated to everyone but you, whatever your Electrical Universe is, it does not conform to Alfven's fundemental MHD theory. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>It does answer your question, and Alfven's fundamental cosmology theory is "EU theory". If you're now claiming that his cosmology theory as outlined in Cosmic Plasma is the "mainstream" theory, go right ahead. There is a fundamental difference here between a "cosmology theory" and a solar theory. Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma is based on a standard solar model. EU theory is therefore solar theory independent because it is a cosmology theory, not a 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>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It does answer your question, and Alfven's fundamental cosmology theory is "EU theory". If you're now claiming that his cosmology theory as outlined in Cosmic Plasma is the "mainstream" theory, go right ahead. There is a fundamental difference here between a "cosmology theory" and a solar theory. Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma is based on a standard solar model. EU theory is therefore solar theory independent because it is a cosmology theory, not a solar theory. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Never mind...see ya! <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'>The more important question is how can you not realize that the solar model question is really unelated to the EU question,</DIV></p><p>Huh? I certainly do realize this which is why I'm now completely stumped on what to do with DrRocket's criticisms of Alfven's EU theories. </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
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