Electric Universe, The Iron Sun, and Plasma Cosmology thread

[MeteorWayne]

<p>Since you have failed to respond to this, while continuing to make other posts, I assume your martyrdom is now complete?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">mm:</div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">"And to think you accuse me of unfair and unfounded accusations!&nbsp; This coming from a moderator?&nbsp; Don't you think you could have asked someone there if was ever banned from here before making that accusation?&nbsp;&nbsp; You do this an establishment a great dishonor IMO.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</div><p><br /><br />MW: "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>&nbsp;</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 You may have withdrawn the Unethical Behavior, but you still call me dishonorable based on your misreading of what I said, and has already been pointed out to you by others.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> <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'>Since you have failed to respond to this, while continuing to make other posts, I assume your martyrdom is now complete?&nbsp;mm:"And to think you accuse me of unfair and unfounded accusations!&nbsp; This coming from a moderator?&nbsp; Don't you think you could have asked someone there if was ever banned from here before making that accusation?&nbsp;&nbsp; You do this an establishment a great dishonor IMO.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Posted by michaelmozinaMW: "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. &nbsp;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 You may have withdrawn the Unethical Behavior, but you still call me dishonorable based on your misreading of what I said, and has already been pointed out to you by others. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I am sorry. </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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am sorry. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />But you do not retract the statement.</p><p>Light the Funeral Pyre, boys and girls... </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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But you do not retract the statement.Light the Funeral Pyre, boys and girls... <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I did and do retract that statement Wayne.&nbsp; I've said I'm sorry.&nbsp; What more can I do? </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'>I thought you said that Birkeland was completely separate from EU.&nbsp; Why does your version of EU include Birkeland???WTF?Edited&nbsp; - I guess we are allowed to discuss Birkeland, but not his model of the sun - so ignore this post. <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>All Alfven did was to swap Birkeland's original solar model with a standard solar model, and he *assumed* a plasma sphere would serve exactly the same function as Birkeland's model. &nbsp; Birkeland's model however happens to be lab demonstrated, and it jives better with solar satellite images IMO.&nbsp; If Alfven can swap out Birkeland's solar model for standard solar model, then I can swap it right back and assume it still does the same function as it did in Birkeland's lab, and Alfven's cosmology 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>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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?</DIV></p><p>Of course I read your thread.&nbsp; It just floors me that YOU of all people accuse someone of not reading posts on this forum before asking a question. &nbsp;</p><p>There's a damn good reason I asked the question more than once: you haven't even ACKNOWLEDGED that I asked it a single time, yet when other people ask you less confrontational questions, you respond right away.&nbsp; It is a very important question.&nbsp; You are wrong about the mechanism of solar wind acceleration and you continue to spout your misinformed explanation to people who ask about it.&nbsp; It has nothing to do with the solar model and everything to do with the topic of reconnection, specifically its ability to accelerate particles to suprathermal energies.&nbsp; I gave you not just one link outlining the mainstream theory of how this acceleration happens(Drake et al. 2006) but a whole host of other papers since then that observe the effect EMPIRICALLY.&nbsp; You claim to want to discuss empirical science, but you ignore it when it is detrimental to your argument. &nbsp; Then you accuse me of asking a question you imply you already answered in your sun thread while STILL not acknowledging the post.&nbsp; Why is it OK for everyone else to ask you questions like "what is EU?" thousands of times, yet when I ask you ~three times a "hard" question, you get all uppity with me?&nbsp; As you would say, "HOY!". &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[origin]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All Alfven did was to swap Birkeland's original solar model with a standard solar model, and he *assumed* a plasma sphere would serve exactly the same function as Birkeland's model. &nbsp; Birkeland's model however happens to be lab demonstrated, and it jive better with solar satellite images IMO.&nbsp; If Alfven can swap out Birkeland's solar model for standard solar model, then I can swap it right back and assume it still does the same function as it did in Birkeland's lab, and Alfven's cosmology theories. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Yes I know, that is why I said to ignore the post.&nbsp; You certainly write alot but refuse to adress the substantive issues.&nbsp; Why answer that post with a rehash of what you have posted many times before?&nbsp; Oh crap, now you are going to respond to this post... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rubicondsrv]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've said I'm sorry.&nbsp; What more can I do? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />you can change your behaviour.</p><p>as of now meteorwayne is the only reason you are still here and you are fast losing him as an advocate.</p><p>I suggest you consider that.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of course I read your thread.&nbsp; It just floors me that YOU of all people accuse someone of not reading posts on this forum before asking a question. </DIV></p><p>I didn't *accuse* you of anything, I just asked you a question, and noted that I've already answered many questions on this topic.&nbsp; Right now I'm just trying to make sure that everyone understands where EU theory ends and Birkeland's solar model begins.&nbsp; I promise you that I will address all the solar theory questions as I get time, but first we all have to agree on terms here.&nbsp; EU theory and Birkeland's solar model are not interchangeable terms.&nbsp; One is a cosmology theory that is solar theory independent and *assumes* a "standard" solar model.&nbsp; The other is a solar model that could also be used in place of standard theory and still fit within the definition of EU theory.&nbsp; Alfven already swapped solar models once.&nbsp; I'm just doing it a second time, or not doing it at all, depending on how you look at it.</p><p>I've been "grilled" on Birkeland's solar model a number of times now on a number of forums. I don't ever remember where all the answers may be posted.&nbsp; I would therefore prefer that we reopen the solar thread so everything gets addressed in one place.</p><p>Once we can all agree that EU theory is a cosmology theory unrelated to Birkeland's solar model, I'll be glad to let this particular thread die a natural death.&nbsp; I am really sick and tired of all the hard feelings around here, but EU theory is not a solar theory, it&nbsp; is a cosmology theory that is solar theory neutral.&nbsp; That is a highly important and even "critical" issue in understanding what EU Theory is all about. </p><p>&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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I did and do retract that statement Wayne.&nbsp; I've said I'm sorry.&nbsp; What more can I do? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Not really, this is what is still posted. You still have't admitted that you misread what I wrote (a high crime and misemeanor you accuse others of with great enthusiasm.</p><p>It's called understanding and admitting that you did something wrong, and stating it clearly.</p><p>{flick,flickflick}</p><p>PS, you STILL have not responded to even the first question, explaining the difference between the random views of your Electric Universe, and Alfven's Cosmic Plasma, as Dr Rocket has clearly documented in the debuninkig EU thread.</p><p>You can't ignore the question any longer.</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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>you can change your behaviour.as of now meteorwayne is the only reason you are still here and you are fast losing him as an advocate.I suggest you consider that.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by rubicondsrv</DIV></p><p>It may not seem like it, but I am trying to change my behavior, and I've even asked for suggestions.</p><p>EU theory is predicated upon a standard solar theory, so I simply can't ignore the distinction between a cosmology theory and a solar theory.&nbsp;</p><p>I do not profess to be blameless in this process by any stretch of the imagination.&nbsp; I did in fact intend to spend my day on less controversial posts, but here we are, because if I stop now, I will be accused of abandoning the thread entirely.&nbsp; I'm stuck now in this thread until it's done.&nbsp; As long as we can all agree that EU theory and Birkeland's solar theories are separate theories, I'm done with this particular thread and I'm ready to move on.&nbsp; If however we cannot agree on this point, what can I logically do now?</p><p>Believe me, I don't like this anymore than you do and I wish I could simply change the past but I can't.&nbsp; All I can do is try to differentiate between a cosmology theory that is based on a standard solar theory, and a solar theory described 100 years ago by Birkeland.&nbsp; They are different things. </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'>Not really, this is what is still posted. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I will go back and edit or delete the post if you like, or you are welcome to do it yourself.&nbsp; I made a mistake.&nbsp; I've said I'm sorry.&nbsp; I've been busy responding to other questions rather than to go back and change anything, but you are welcome to do so it still bothers you. </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'>Yes I know, that is why I said to ignore the post.&nbsp; You certainly write alot but refuse to adress the substantive issues.</DIV></p><p>What "substantive issues"? &nbsp;&nbsp; EU theory is not predicated upon Birkeland's solar model.&nbsp; These are not substantive issues related to EU theory, they are questions and issues related to Birkeland's solar model. </p><p>Yes, I did respond to your post. </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]

FYI, I removed the post entirely. <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]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What "substantive issues"? &nbsp;&nbsp; EU theory is not predicated upon Birkeland's solar model.&nbsp; These are not substantive issues related to EU theory, they are questions and issues related to Birkeland's solar model. <strong>Yes, I did respond to your post. </strong> <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br /><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">Orgin said:</div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><em>&nbsp;This an incorrect statement.&nbsp; You said of Birkeland, &nbsp;"I think you're expecting a little too much "precision" to begin with".&nbsp;&nbsp; You are the one that said he predicted these temperatures, I am expecting only the precision you claimed.&nbsp;&nbsp;<strong>Birkeland did not in fact predict million degree coronal loops</strong>.As for Alfven the best that can be said is that he put forward an explanation for the million degree coronal loops.&nbsp; He did not predict these temperatures - it was already known.&nbsp;<strong> Alfven did not in fact predict million degree coronal loops.</strong></em></div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><em>A theory makes predictions, if these predictions turn out to be accurate this validates the theory.&nbsp;&nbsp;Saying that these men predicted these tempertures is wrong and misleading.&nbsp; It gives credence to EU theory that is not warranted.&nbsp; You need to be very precise in your terminology.&nbsp; This is NOT semantics this goes to the core of validating theories.<strong>I'm sorry but of what I have read that is the case - Birkeland thought that the sum was&nbsp;streaming primarily electrons and that is incorrect.</strong>We are talking about his solar model not space, and his solar model assumes that the solar wind is primarily made up of electrons.&nbsp; <br />Posted by origin</em></div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">This was what your&nbsp;wrote:&nbsp;</div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><em>IMO it is time to reopen the sun thread and close this one.&nbsp; I think most folks now recognize the difference between Alfven's cosmology theories, Birkeland's solar model, and my personal opinions.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.</em><em>I don't know about anyone else here, but frankly I need some "space" from this specific topic at the moment.&nbsp; If you want to petition the mods to reopen Birkeland's solar theory thread, I would be happy to continue that discussion with you.&nbsp; I like your questions and I like where this is going.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;&nbsp; I would prefer it stay together in one thread as much as possible. </em><em>For the moment I think I will try to engage myself in less controversial topics and let things cool off a bit.</em> </div><p>This is what you call your answer the statements I made?&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>FYI, I removed the post entirely. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />But you still haven't admitted that you were wrong in your accusations. You've said you were sorry, and now deleted it, but you still don't appear to grasp the concept that your assertion was due to your misreading of my post.</p><p>That is in fact the entire problem as I see it. You can never admit you are wrong about anything.</p><p>It turns out to be one of the more common reasons people back themselves into corners they can't extricate themselves from here at SDC.</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>

 

[origin]

<p>In light of what I wrote earlier do you now agree that Birkeland did not think that the sun was powered by fission - specifically Uranium?</p><p>He apparently thought the sun may have been powered by radioactive decay, but this is clearly not fission.&nbsp; Radium and thorium do not undergo fission and the fission of uranium was not discovered until after his death</p><p>If you think the&nbsp;sun is powered by fission I guess that is your right but clearly you cannot attribute that belief to Birkeland.</p><p>Do we agree?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Right now I'm just trying to make sure that everyone understands where EU theory ends and Birkeland's solar model begins.&nbsp; I promise you that I will address all the solar theory questions as I get time, but first we all have to agree on terms here.&nbsp; EU theory and Birkeland's solar model are not interchangeable terms.&nbsp; One is a cosmology theory that is solar theory independent and *assumes* a "standard" solar model.</DIV></p><p>You do read what you are responding to, don't you?&nbsp; My question had nothing to do with Birkeland's solar model and I pointed that out explicitly multiple times...&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But you still haven't admitted that you were wrong in your accusations.</DIV></p><p>I was wrong in my accusations.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You've said you were sorry, and now deleted it</DIV></p><p>I only deleted the post, not part where I said I was sorry. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> but you still don't appear to grasp the concept that your assertion was due to your misreading of my post.</DIV></p><p>I understand that Wayne, which is why I agreed with you in the first place.&nbsp; I agree that I misread your post. We're all human and prone to mistakes and in the heat of the discussions, I made one.&nbsp; Can we be done with this now?</p><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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was wrong in my accusations.I only deleted the post, not part where I said I was sorry. I understand that Wayne, which is why I agreed with you in the first place.&nbsp; I agree that I misread your post. We're all human and prone to mistakes and in the heat of the discussions, I made one.&nbsp; Can we be done with this now? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />OK, I'll let it go. So back to the 1st big question. Since everone agrees that what you have been documented saying that the Electric Universe is does not agree with what Alfven said, what are the primary principles of EU theory TO YOU.</p><p>What predictions are made that differ from MSM, which asserts that Plasma is not the driving force of the universe,&nbsp;&nbsp;which it appears is what your perception of EU does?</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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In light of what I wrote earlier do you now agree that Birkeland did not think that the sun was powered by fission - specifically Uranium?</DIV></p><p>Um, no, I can't say I actually agree with that assessment.&nbsp; I've read the document. I'm not sure that you have done so.&nbsp; What exactly do you believe that he believed was the energy source?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He apparently thought the sun may have been powered by radioactive decay, but this is clearly not fission.</DIV></p><p>It would have required an enormous amount of uranium to get that much decay and yet he rejected that idea.&nbsp; I think you should go back and read those two pages from the PDF file before making up your mind.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Radium and thorium do not undergo fission and the fission of uranium was not discovered until after his deathIf you think the&nbsp;sun is powered by fission I guess that is your right but clearly you cannot attribute that belief to Birkeland.Do we agree?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Birkeland seemed to believe it was possible to generate that much heat *without* all that much uranium.&nbsp; He was not suggesting that the whole surface was uranium, but rather the sun contained uranium, perhaps somewhere in the core.&nbsp; I don't know how you could hope to generate that much heat without fission, but he seemed to be keenly aware that atoms and even other atoms could radate heat in large enough quantities for the sun to be solid and still be able to radiate that kind of heat.&nbsp; Most of the necessary "extra" energy would need to come from the atmosphere rather than a solid surface, and he was aware of this idea as well.</p><p>I'm not so sure you should judge Birkeland's work by my presentation of that work.&nbsp; You should read it for yourself.&nbsp; It's incredibly impressive material for it's day, and even today.&nbsp; I was absolutely blown away when I finally sat down and read his theories.&nbsp;&nbsp; I had already pieced together a very similar idea, and I was absolutely shocked that a team of individuals had beaten me to the idea by over 100 years. </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'>OK, I'll let it go. So back to the 1st big question. Since everone agrees that what you have been documented saying that the Electric Universe is does not agree with what Alfven said, </DIV></p><p>This is incorrect.&nbsp; EU theory is what Alfven said, well not *just* Alfven of course, all his friends, including the one I mentioned in my opening presention.&nbsp;</p><p>It is my personal beliefs that are incongruent with his EU theory.&nbsp; I have replaced, actually failed to replace, Birkeland's solar model, with standard solar theory. &nbsp; Think about these few statements a bit.&nbsp; There is a subtle but important distinction that I think you are missing.</p><p>EU theory is techically based on a standard solar model.&nbsp;&nbsp; I just happen to believe that Birkeland's solar model works better and is more congruent with satellite images. </p><p>EU theory is a cosmology theory based on standad solar theory and the application of MHD thoery to objects in space. &nbsp;</p><p>Whether or not it is acceptable or reasonable to replace standard theory (as written) with a Birkeland solar model is a reasonable debate, but the validity of EU Theory is not predictated upon the outcome of that particular discusion. </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>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p>I asked this earlier but it wasn't answered so I'll ask again. &nbsp;It appears Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe Theory are being used interchangeably, but everything I've been to find on the subject makes an important distinction between the two. &nbsp;Is that incorrect?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You do read what you are responding to, don't you?&nbsp; My question had nothing to do with Birkeland's solar model and I pointed that out explicitly multiple times...&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I understand that.&nbsp; I was simply explaining why I was "stalling" on dealing with your question before we can all agree upon the term "EU theory".&nbsp; I repect that your questions are entirely valid and important questions, and I will answer them as soon as everyone recongizes and agrees that EU theory is not predicated upon the validity of a Birkeland solar model. </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'>I asked this earlier but it wasn't answered so I'll ask again. &nbsp;It appears Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe Theory are being used interchangeably, but everything I've been to find on the subject makes an important distinction between the two. &nbsp;Is that incorrect?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV></p><p>I can only speak for the EU community on this topic, but inside the EU community the terms are used interchangebly.&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>