Electric Universe, The Iron Sun, and Plasma Cosmology thread

[michaelmozina]

It would probably be correct to say that the insertion of Birkeland's solar model into Alfven's EU theory is not even a majority position in the EU/PC community.&nbsp;&nbsp; There are now quite a few of us that believe the idea has merit, but if I had to bet, I would say I'm probably still in the minority on this point even within the EU community. <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><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can only speak for the EU community on this topic, but inside the EU community the terms are used interchangebly.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Hmm, well on this Plasma Cosmology.net site they say there is a difference:</p><p>"PC versus EU&nbsp;<span style="white-spacere" class="Apple-tab-span"> </span> <span style="white-spacere" class="Apple-tab-span"> </span>&nbsp;</p><p>The Electric Universe is a variant of Plasma Cosmology, and it is necessary to differentiate between the two. While they share more similarities than differences, it should be noted that EU ideas tend to go a step further than the generally more conservative approach of Plasma Cosmology.</p><p>While both viewpoints permit many ideas previously excluded by Big Bang Cosmology, The Electric Universe looks at the bigger picture, and promotes more radical ideas about the role of electricity in the universe, from ancient mythology to the mind-body connection."</p><p>So is there a difference, or is there not? &nbsp;Did Alfven ever use the term "Electric Universe" to describe his work?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hmm, well on this Plasma Cosmology.net site they say there is a difference:"PC versus EU&nbsp; &nbsp;The Electric Universe is a variant of Plasma Cosmology, and it is necessary to differentiate between the two. While they share more similarities than differences, it should be noted that EU ideas tend to go a step further than the generally more conservative approach of Plasma Cosmology.While both viewpoints permit many ideas previously excluded by Big Bang Cosmology, The Electric Universe looks at the bigger picture, and promotes more radical ideas about the role of electricity in the universe, from ancient mythology to the mind-body connection."So is there a difference, or is there not? &nbsp;Did Alfven ever use the term "Electric Universe" to describe his work?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV></p><p>Evidently it depends on whom you ask. </p><p>Alfven did not use the term "Plasma Cosmology" or "Electric Universe" theory as far as I know.&nbsp; The book "Cosmic Plasma" is the root of both terms, so I personally see no distinction between the two terms, and I've never personally met anyone inside the EU/PC community that didn't use the terms pretty much interchangably. &nbsp; If that specific individual wants to take his/her brand of "EU theory" a "step further" than most, who am I to judge them for 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>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If that specific individual wants to take his/her brand of "EU theory" a "step further" than most, who am I to judge them for it? </DIV></p><p>You're someone who, I assume, wants this theory to be taken seriously. &nbsp;If it's some touchy-feely thought experiment, I'm sorry but it sounds like a waste of time.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You're someone who, I assume, wants this theory to be taken seriously. &nbsp;If it's some touchy-feely thought experiment, I'm sorry but it sounds like a waste of time.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV></p><p>It's not a touch-feely thought experiment, it works in a lab with real hardware and it's been modelled with real software as well.&nbsp;&nbsp; Alfven wasn't some touchy feely flake. He won the Nobel, and applied his MHD theories to cosmology using the standard solar model.&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>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's not a touch-feely thought experiment, it works in a lab with real hardware and it's been modelled with real software as well.&nbsp;&nbsp; Alfven wasn't some touchy feely flake. He won the Nobel, and applied his MHD theories to cosmology using the standard solar model.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I'm not talking about Alfven, I'm talking about the Electric Universe people that make all kinds of proclaimations about the universe that go way beyond Alfven's lab experiments.</p><p>As you just said, you're not willing to judge anyone in the "EU community" - why the hell not? &nbsp;Why would you not ensure the claims and views people are attributing to Alfven don't stay grounded in science?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not talking about Alfven, I'm talking about the Electric Universe people that make all kinds of proclaimations about the universe that go way beyond Alfven's lab experiments.As you just said, you're not willing to judge anyone in the "EU community" - why the hell not? &nbsp;Why would you not ensure the claims and views people are attributing to Alfven don't stay grounded in science? <br /> Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV></p><p>It is generally frowned upon within the EU community to step outside the bounds of emprical physics, involving actually hardware and such.&nbsp; It is therfore typically not necessary to do a lot of "grounding" in this community, it's more a less a given.&nbsp; Some of the statements however about how much energy is externally generated, vs how much is coming from the sun can and do vary widely/ Some attempt to apply the basic idea to things that are technically unrelated to cosmology theory per se, like Earth's weather patterns for instance.&nbsp; This is where folks tend to "specialize" and I'm not really qualified to speak much about Earth's weather patterns.&nbsp; I'm more into solar theory.&nbsp; Everybody sort of gets into their own "thing', but there is a general understanding that whatever the idea might be, it *should* necessarily be grounded in emprical physics.&nbsp; If it is not, it is far less likely that the idea will be accepted at all. </p><p>Whereas there is some possibility that a "Birkeland" solar model may be accepted by the EU community, a solar theory written entirely by Michael Mozina would probably be a complete dud, even within the EU community unless I had done everything that Birkeland did. </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>

 

[bobw]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <strong>I was simply explaining why I was "stalling" on dealing with your question before we can all agree upon the term "EU theory"</strong>.&nbsp; Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Q. What is EU cosmology?<br /> A.&nbsp; Application of MHD to objects in space.<br /> <br /> Q.&nbsp; What is Big Bang Cosmology?<br /> A.&nbsp; Application of observation and mathematics to objects in space.<br /> <br /> Both answers are equally vapid.&nbsp; When I look up the latter I can find big explanations about it, timelines, graphs with dates, milestones.<br /> <br /> Q.&nbsp; What is Big Bang Cosmology?<br /> A.&nbsp; Big Bang Timeline<br /> ..................................................<br /> <strong>0 to 10-43 s</strong> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; infinitely small, infinitely dense Primeval fireball 1 force in nature - Supergravity<br /> <br /> <strong>10-43 s</strong> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Earliest known time that can be described by modern physics 2 forces in nature, gravity, GUT<br /> <br /> <strong>10-35 s </strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3 forces in nature, gravity, strong nuclear, electroweak Quarks and leptons form (along with their anti-particles)<br /> <br /> <strong>10-35 to 10-33 s</strong> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Size of the Universe drastically increased, by factor of 1030to 1040<br /> <br /> <strong>10-12 s</strong> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 4 forces in nature, protons and neutrons start forming from quarks<br /> <br /> <strong>10-7 s</strong> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; proton, neutron production in full swing<br /> <br /> <strong>10-4 s </strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; electrons and positrons form <br /> <br /> <strong>100 s (a few minutes)</strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; helium, deuterium, and a few other elements form<br /> <br /> <strong>380,000 years</strong> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Matter and radiation seperate End of radiation domination, start of matter domination of the Universe<br /> <br /> <strong>500 million yrs </strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; galaxies and other large structures form in the universe </p><strong>14 billion years or so</strong>&nbsp; You are reading this table, that's what's happening.<br /> ....................................<br /> <br /> When people ask "What is your version of EU?" they don't want you to invent a new one, they want you to explain what the heck it is like the list above&nbsp; explains what Big Bang is about.&nbsp; Can you manage that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is generally frowned upon within the EU community to step outside the bounds of emprical physics, involving actually hardware and such.&nbsp; It is therfore typically not necessary to do a lot of "grounding" in this community, it's more a less a given.&nbsp; Some of the statements however about how much energy is externally generated, vs how much is coming from the sun </DIV></p><p>Most of the sites I can find on the subject concentrate on subjective correlations of photography, not empirical physics. &nbsp;Reality does not seem to jive with your claims.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> When people ask "What is your version of EU?" they don't want you to invent a new one, they want you to explain what the heck it is like the list above&nbsp; explains what Big Bang is about.&nbsp; Can you manage that? <br /> Posted by bobw</DIV></p><p>Alfven wrote his own BB theory.&nbsp; It was not as detailed on the timelines, nor is it a "creation event" per se, it's more of a cyclical sort of contaction and "Bang" Theory.</p><p>I would venture to guess that most EU proponents do not believe the timelines of curent mainstream theory for various and sundry reasons that I will not bother you with yet again.&nbsp; The point is that most EU folks tend to be more interested in solar system activity than in trying to figure out the whole universe down to the last 3cm, and the last 100,000 years.&nbsp; It's just not generally believed inside the EU community that we have the technology to answer those questions using the known forces of nature.&nbsp; It's therefore ok just to say "I don't know".&nbsp; In fact "I don't know" used to be a lot more common in astronomy when I was a kid than it is today.&nbsp; I'm not personally convinced it's possible to provide such a timeline if we are limited strictly to the known forces of nature.&nbsp; I'm therefore happy to admit "I don't know" the answer to most of those bigger picture questions. </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'>Most of the sites I can find on the subject concentrate on subjective correlations of photography, not empirical physics. &nbsp;Reality does not seem to jive with your claims. <br /> Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV></p><p>No scientific theory should be appraised by what you read on a website.&nbsp; I have provided a link to Birkeland's extensive work, and I personally recommend Cosmic Plasma as an introduction to EU theory.&nbsp; Birkeland's work and Alfven's work will and do jive with my claims.&nbsp; I can't vouch for any website other than my own, and it is focused on Birkeland's solar model, not EU theory per se. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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?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.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.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. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />It's hopeless, no amount of reason could ever make the slightest difference to you delusions.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfven wrote his own BB theory.&nbsp; It was not as detailed on the timelines, nor is it a "creation event" per se, it's more of a cyclical sort of contaction and "Bang" Theory.I would venture to guess that most EU proponents do not believe the timelines of curent mainstream theory for various and sundry reasons that I will not bother you with yet again.&nbsp; The point is that most EU folks tend to be more interested in solar system activity than in trying to figure out the whole universe down to the last 3cm, and the last 100,000 years.&nbsp; It's just not generally believed inside the EU community that we have the technology to answer those questions using the known forces of nature.&nbsp; It's therefore ok just to say "I don't know".&nbsp; In fact "I don't know" used to be a lot more common in astronomy when I was a kid than it is today.&nbsp; I'm not personally convinced it's possible to provide such a timeline if we are limited strictly to the known forces of nature.&nbsp; I'm therefore happy to admit "I don't know" the answer to most of those bigger picture questions. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Definition of cosmology: &nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><strong>Cosmology</strong> (from Greek <span>&kappa;&omicron;&sigma;&mu;&omicron;&lambda;&omicron;&gamma;ί&alpha;</span> - <span>&kappa;ό&sigma;&mu;&omicron;&sigmaf;</span>, <em>kosmos</em>, "universe"; and <span>-&lambda;&omicron;&gamma;ί&alpha;</span>, <em>-logia</em>, "study") is study of the Universe in its totality, and by extension, humanity's place in it.</DIV></p><p>If EU is truly only focused on local events within the past 100,000 years(even if you believe otherwise, you said in this post that that is the general consensus in the community), how can you possibly call it a cosmology theory?&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Why not do this?</p><p>First, it seems to me that you are presenting EU not as a "how we got here" theory but as a "how it works" theory.&nbsp; Fine.&nbsp; DO THAT.</p><p>Describe what EU has to say about cosmology.&nbsp; What does EU say about galaxy formation, expansion, etc.</p><p>HOWEVER, when you do this, be very careful to separate out your opinions from others, especially Alfven/Birkeland/etc.&nbsp; IF you are making a claim that is an extrapolation from their work and NOT a direct quote then VERY clearly indicate that.&nbsp; Don't simply say "Alfven did this and it looks like that therefore Alfven proved it."&nbsp; If Alfven said something directly regarding this cosmology, then you can say he originated it and provide the necessary reference.&nbsp; But, if it is an extrapolation of an experiment or theory not directly involved with cosmology (that includes WallMart plasma balls) then clearly indicate that.</p><p>Why the need for separation?</p><p>Because, it is exceedingly difficult to understand what it is you are saying and where your reason for saying it comes from.&nbsp; If it comes from Alfven and is a result of his direct work with cosmology, then we can go look it up.&nbsp; But, if you're extrapolating from his work and someone tries to look it up, they may have issues with the validity of such a presumption because they may feel they have good reason it does not apply..&nbsp; That is where a lot of the problems are coming from.&nbsp; Now that everyone is clamoring for explanations of EU, you're hitting the speedbumps and roadblock you put up by associating so many diverse topics without proper attribution. </p><p>Help people focus on the critical points by correctly attributing their origins. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Definition of cosmology: &nbsp;If EU is truly only focused on local events within the past 100,000 years(even if you believe otherwise, you said in this post that that is the general consensus in the community), how can you possibly call it a cosmology theory?&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I believe my poor wording is responsible for some confusion.&nbsp; Let me try to explain.</p><p>Most EU theorists are more interested in explaining events *inside* our solar system.&nbsp; Alfven and Peratt (to this day) continue to model the larger scale events, but individual enthusiasts like me are typically attracted to EU theory due to events inside our solar system.&nbsp; In my case, my interest is solar satellite imagery. That's what I enjoy.&nbsp; I personally am not convinced we have all the answers yet, and I'm "ok" with "I'm not sure", and multiple options.&nbsp; In fact that is how I was taught astronomy to begin with, and it is always been how I have approached this subject.</p><p>I'm personally more interested in solar activity.&nbsp; I want to "understand" why solar wind particles are streaming by Earth at over a million miles per hour, in some cases up to a significant portion of the *speed of light*!&nbsp; I'd like to understand those million degree coronal loops above a 6K photosphere.&nbsp;&nbsp; I want to understand sunspots and why and how they form.&nbsp; I want to understand the solar cycles, and why the energy output of the sun is changing on a cyclical basis.&nbsp; These are the sorts of 'astronomy' questions that I personally am most interested in answering.</p><p>Galaxy formation theories are interesting to me, but frankly not nearly as interesting to me as solar physics.&nbsp; It therefore isn't that "big of a deal' that EU theory hasn't elegantly explained all the details of the universe just yet.&nbsp; It has some very good explanations to be found in Peratt's computer models.&nbsp; If you have those sorts of questions, I suggest you direct that at Anthony Peratt.&nbsp; He's probably the world's foremost leading expert on large scale computer modeling of EU/PC theory.&nbsp; I think he personally uses the term PC theory by the way.</p><p>I'll be happy to discuss solar satellite images with you, and how I came to prefer Birkeland's original solar model if you prefer, but we must all understand that EU theory is based on a standard solar model. The next logical question (and the debate even within the EU community) is whether or not it is logical or acceptable to use Birkeland's original solar model rather than the standard solar model.&nbsp; Iron sun theory originates with Birkeland, and if I checked, there were probably philospers that talked about an iron sun 2000 years ago.&nbsp; The point here is that Alfven used a standard solar model when developing EU theory.&nbsp; It is therefore not logical to "judge" his cosmology theory based on a Birkeland solar model.&nbsp; It is a logical question to ask whether or not it is logical or acceptable to use Birkeland's solar model rather than a standard solar model, but it is irrational to call EU theory "crap" only because I personally choose to do so. </p><p>I'll probably be waiting for all eternity to hear DrRocket retract his statements, but his statements are evidently based on complete ignorance.&nbsp; Evidently he believes that Alfven used 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'>It's hopeless, no amount of reason could ever make the slightest difference to you delusions.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>It is only hopeless if you never sit down and read Birkeland's work.&nbsp; If you continue to insist on judging the merits of a scientific theory created 100 years ago based on my personal presentation of that material, well, maybe in that case it is "hopeless".&nbsp; Scientific theory are not meant to be judged by a website presentation of a single individual.&nbsp;&nbsp; Birkeland's work represents the wrok of not one man, but a whole team of very talented and dedicated scientists.&nbsp; You'll never understand that unless you read his work, but it's certainly "possible' for you to chose to do so. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is only hopeless if you never sit down and read Birkeland's work.&nbsp; If you continue to insist on judging the merits of a scientific theory created 100 years ago based on my personal presentation of that material, well, maybe in that case it is "hopeless".&nbsp; Scientific theory are not meant to be judged by a website presentation of a single individual.&nbsp;&nbsp; Birkeland's work represents the wrok of not one man, but a whole team of very talented and dedicated scientists.&nbsp; You'll never understand that unless you read his work, but it's certainly "possible' for you to chose to do so. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Nah, it is more like Birkeland never says that the sun is powered by fission, it is actually not even possible that he thought the sun was powered by fission.&nbsp; But you will go on your merry way making this absurd claim regardless of the facts presented to you.&nbsp; That is only one of the many examples why it is hopeless to discuss these subjects&nbsp;with you.</p><p>You have your mind made up and no amount evidence to the contrary can change your mind.</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rubicondsrv]

I would like to point out that items placed in "the unexplained" have often&nbsp;failed to stand up to scrutiny in other areas of the forum. as there is no burden of proof in "the unexplained" subjects here should not be taken as fact.&nbsp;&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why not do this?First, it seems to me that you are presenting EU not as a "how we got here" theory but as a "how it works" theory.&nbsp; Fine.&nbsp; DO THAT.Describe what EU has to say about cosmology.&nbsp; What does EU say about galaxy formation, expansion, etc.HOWEVER, when you do this, be very careful to separate out your opinions from others, <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>Exactly.</p><p>I'm trying to be *very* careful now to explain the subtle but important distinctions between a cosmology theory written by Alfven, a solar model created 100 years ago by Birkeland and my personal opinions.&nbsp; To this point in time, they've been all stuffed in one bag, beaten with a baseball bat for 9 months, and now nobody here has a clear picture of anything.</p><p>Iron sun theory was actually "popular" 100 years ago. It's not a "new" theory, or "my" theory.&nbsp; The idea has been around probably since ancient times. &nbsp; It is unrelated to EU theory however because EU theory *assumes* a "standard solar theory".&nbsp; As long as everyone else understand this, I will next try to separate out the difference between Birkeland's "iron sun" theory and the personal opinions of Michael Mozina.&nbsp;&nbsp; I can't do that part however until everyone agrees that the legitacy of Alfven's cosmology theories are completely unrelated to Birkeland's solar model.&nbsp;&nbsp; It is a logical question to ask whether it is acceptable to use Birkeland's solar model *instead of* standard solar theory, but the outcome of this debate has no affect on the legimacy of EU theory.&nbsp; EU theory could be adapted to Birkeland's solar model, but even that idea is most likely still a minority viewpoint even inside the EU community. </p><p>In terms of separating out Birkeland's solar model from my personal opinions, I would explain it this way:</p><p>The website presentation is as accurate and true to Birkeland's original solar model as I could possibly make it.</p><p>My own papers tend to describe "exotic" models of "possible" variations on a solar model, and they express my own personal opinions and the open minded thinking of my own personal opinions, but they in no way attempt to accurately represent Birkeland's solar model.</p><p>As long as we can all agree that my website presentation is a "Birkeland solar model" as Birkeland described it, and my own papers and statements on this website are my own opinions, I'm pretty sure I can separate a Birkeland solar model from the opinions of Michael Mozina.</p><p>That will also undoubtedly take some time, since ol' DrRocket hasn't even "seen the light" yet about EU theory. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not talking about Alfven, I'm talking about the Electric Universe people that make all kinds of proclaimations about the universe that go way beyond Alfven's lab experiments.As you just said, you're not willing to judge anyone in the "EU community" - why the hell not? &nbsp;Why would you not ensure the claims and views people are attributing to Alfven don't stay grounded in science? <br /> Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV></p><p>Well, for one thing I haven't personally lived on Earth over it's whole history to see the events take place for myself, and the most "out there" ideas tend to be related to massive changes in the solar system operations due to massive changes in the density of interstellar space as Earth travels around the galaxy.&nbsp; I can't confirm or dismiss these idea, but I tend to "live and let live" none the less.&nbsp; I guess it's this "intolerance" that we have all experienced from the mainstream that makes us more tolerant toward one anothers ideas.</p><p>My personal interest is solar satellite imagery.&nbsp; That's what I like to do in my spare time.&nbsp; My wife can't believe I would stare at grey satellite images for hours on end, but she's "tolerant" as well. &nbsp; I appreciate that.</p><p>It seems to me that the next discussion needs to be whether or not it is appropriate or logical to replace standard solar theory with Birkeland's solar model based on satellite imagery and what we have learned with modern technology. </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'>Nah, it is more like Birkeland never says that the sun is powered by fission, it is actually not even possible that he thought the sun was powered by fission.&nbsp; But you will go on your merry way making this absurd claim regardless of the facts presented to you.&nbsp; That is only one of the many examples why it is hopeless to discuss these subjects&nbsp;with you.You have your mind made up and no amount evidence to the contrary can change your mind.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>I am not suggesting his model has not been "updated" by what has been learned over the last 100 years.&nbsp; I'm simply sugggesting that you read his whole book before you *assume* so much about Birkeland.&nbsp; He may not have had the same level of knowedge that we have today, but he certainly understood solar wind acceleration and solar atmospheric discharges when he observed them.&nbsp; </p><p>Out of curiousity, are you personally willling to state for the record that the scientific validity of EU theory is not predicated on a Birkeland's 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 would like to point out that items placed in "the unexplained" have often&nbsp;failed to stand up to scrutiny in other areas of the forum. as there is no burden of proof in "the unexplained" subjects here should not be taken as fact.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by rubicondsrv</DIV></p><p>It is a fact however that Birkeland personally "lab tested" his ideas using standard scientific techniques and real hardware and real control mechanisms.&nbsp; His core model has been emprically lab tested. </p><p>EU cosmology theory as a whole cannot in fact be completely lab tested anymore than any other cosmology theory we might come up with could be "lab tested".</p><p>The basic requirement of anything to be put into EU theory however, is that the idea being discussed must be able to be demonstrated on Earth in real controlled tests.&nbsp; The single exception is the presense of equal amounts of antimatter.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am not suggesting his model has not been "updated" by what has been learned over the last 100 years.&nbsp; I'm simply sugggesting that you read his whole book before you *assume* so much about Birkeland.</DIV></p><p>Is that your way of saying Birkelands model did not&nbsp;have&nbsp;anithing to do with fission?&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He may not have had the same level of knowedge that we have today, but he certainly explain solar wind acceleration and solar atmospheric discharges when he observed them.</DIV></p><p>He did not explain the <strong>velocities</strong> of the&nbsp;charged particles&nbsp;in the solar wind.&nbsp; He said that charged particles were emitted by the&nbsp;sun and they are the cause of the auroras -&nbsp;and he was correct.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Out of curiousity, are you personally willling to state for the record that the scientific validity of EU theory is not predicated on a Birkeland's solar model? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Yes, since EU is not a scientifically valid theory.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is that your way of saying Birkelands model did not&nbsp;have&nbsp;anithing to do with fission?</DIV></p><p>No, it's my way of saying to you that you need to spend less time debating me in cyberspace, and more time reading Birkeland's work. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> He did not explain the velocities of the&nbsp;charged particles&nbsp;in the solar wind. </DIV></p><p>Yes he did. Read the book. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He said that charged particles were emitted by the&nbsp;sun and they are the cause of the auroras -&nbsp;and he was correct.</DIV></p><p>He knew *why* the particle accelaration from the sun occured origin.&nbsp; It's not like he just "guessed".&nbsp; He "predicted" a charge separation between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere.&nbsp; He built a "simulation" of this process.&nbsp; That is how he was able to "predict" that space was not empty, but filled with high velocity streaming particles.&nbsp;&nbsp; He didn't just "wing it".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Yes, since EU is not a scientifically valid theory.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>In what respect is it any less valid than any other cosmology 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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, since EU is not a scientifically valid theory.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Please explain the "Yes" part of your answer to DrRocket so that we can all move on to Birkeland's 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>