<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is an outright and deliberate LIE. As you know very well, I have purchased and read Alfven's Cosmical Electrodynamics and have read quite a few of his papers. </DIV></p><p>So what? I told you that if you wanted to understand EU theory you would need to read the book where he *applies* MHD theory to *astronomy*. You refuse to read it, and you continue to badmouth his work in this field. Your attitude is pathetic and lazy and intellectually dishonest because you can't even explain what EU theoy is, let alone what is "garbage" about it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The fact that I have not purchased his Cosmic Plasma hardly means that I am not acquainted with his work.</DIV></p><p>Boloney. You didn't even know you could treat a magnetic rope as a "circuit". You got all uptight about even the simplest of things. The title of chapter three is "Circuits". You don't have a clue what EU theory is, so you look absurc calling it "garbage". They guy that wrote the theory won a Nobel. Do you have one too, or do you often dismiss stuff from experts in their field out of hand without even reading it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You may recall that parts of Cosmic Plasma are available on line and several of us, including me, pointed out serious misconception on your part as to what Alfven was saying in that book.</DIV></p><p>I have not misrpresented anything. I've quoted him from that book and posted parts of it to several threads. You keep ignoring the parts you don't like, including that explaination of how plasma can be treated as a "circuit" depending on the conditions.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You have continually misrepresented Alfven's work,</DIV></p><p>You wouldn't know because you never read it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and as I have pointed out on numerous occasions I agree with what I have read of his work,</DIV></p><p>But you refuse to read his work on EU theory before calling it garbage.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but at the same time totally disagree with your misrepresentations of that same work.</DIV></p><p>You disagree because you didn't do your homework DrRocket. You didn't read the material. You haven't a clue what's in that book beyond the first 20 pages or so.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, why don't you respond to my challenge in the twin thread to actually, and for the first time, clearly state and support your own version of EU theory ? Give a rigorous statement and back it up with real science, not cartoons and "looks like" but irrelevant photographs from ancient experiments. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I have done all of these things for you repeatedly, and you have repeatedly refused to read or respond meaningfully to the materials I have presented to you. You've never shown any mathematical error in Birkeland's work, in Alfven's work or in Peratt's work, or in that last paper I handed you on "dark energy". All you ever do is dismiss the idea out of hand in a derogatory way and act like an expert based on what evidently learned via osmosis or clairvoyance. Which is it by the way? </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>
The Emprical Method - Objectively defining what constitutes an "explanation".
Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So what? I told you that if you wanted to understand EU theory you would need to read the book where he *applies* MHD theory to *astronomy*. You refuse to read it, and you continue to badmouth his work in this field. Your attitude is pathetic and lazy and intellectually dishonest because you can't even explain what EU theoy is, let alone what is "garbage" about it.Boloney. You didn't even know you could treat a magnetic rope as a "circuit". You got all uptight about even the simplest of things. The title of chapter three is "Circuits". You don't have a clue what EU theory is, so you look absurc calling it "garbage". They guy that wrote the theory won a Nobel. Do you have one too, or do you often dismiss stuff from experts in their field out of hand without even reading it?I have not misrpresented anything. I've quoted him from that book and posted parts of it to several threads. You keep ignoring the parts you don't like, including that explaination of how plasma can be treated as a "circuit" depending on the conditions.You wouldn't know because you never read it. But you refuse to read his work on EU theory before calling it garbage.You disagree because you didn't do your homework DrRocket. You didn't read the material. You haven't a clue what's in that book beyond the first 20 pages or so.I have done all of these things for you repeatedly, and you have repeatedly refused to read or respond meaningfully to the materials I have presented to you. You've never shown any mathematical error in Birkeland's work, in Alfven's work or in Peratt's work, or in that last paper I handed you on "dark energy". All you ever do is dismiss the idea out of hand in a derogatory way and act like an expert based on what evidently learned via osmosis or clairvoyance. Which is it by the way? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>So, as usual, you duck the issue and refuse to explain and defend your particular brand of EU theory. Predictable. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I agree with DrRocket...we can't argue with you if you/we don't know what you are actually trying to say. You keep mentioning things like "Chapter 3 is titled "Circuits"" etc...how are we supposed to argue with that? Who cares what it's called? Try pointing out things that are actually AFTER the title. I recall him acknowledging many times that plasma can be treated approximately as a circuit under very specific conditions. It is those same conditions that make that argument irrelevant to what you are trying to say. I'm not buying a book to argue with you when you continually twist and misinterpret what is in it. I/DrRocket would simply read the book, post the excerpts that refute your arguments, you will say we read it "wrong" and we'll be right back where we are now. The problem here is you see Alfven as the writer of EU theory, while the mainstream sees Alfven as a great scientist who wrote the basis of MHD theory...MHD does not=EU. He is recognized for his work, not yours or anyone else's interpretation of said work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, as usual, you duck the issue and refuse to explain and defend your particular brand of EU theory. Predictable. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You are an amazingly and blatently ignorant individual DrRocket. You have now stated that EU theory is "nonsense" and "pseudoscience" on at least three different posts in the SS&A forum in the last two days. You've never bothered to even read the Nobel prize winning author's application of MHD theory to astronomy, so you are absolutely clueless what "EU theory" even is. Your personal ignorance is purely self imposed because you've had over a year to read his book on Plasma Cosmology theory and you utterly and completely refuse to do so. The worst part of all this pety nonsense is that every bit of Alfven's work is fully explained in terms of mathematics and Maxwell's equations. Nothing about EU theory is "nonsense". It is a form of pure emprical physics. It's not only "software science" and enjoys computer simulations, it's also "hardware science" because it works in a lab. It is in fact "emprical science".</p><p>You are being lazy and practicing couch potato science DrRocket. When I went looking for errors in papers on magnetic reconnection theory, I cited the specific line number from Preist's work where he violated Gauss's law of magnetism in his equations by introducing monopoles. I cited the specific line number where PPPL "assumed" that the electric field remain constant which they could not support given the conditions of the experiment. I have been extremely specific in my scientific criticisms, and I didn't attempt to claim that magnetic reconnection theory was "nonsense" only based on flaws on a single paper on that topic. I looked at *all* the references materials you cited for me, not just the ones I liked or wanted to read. You won't even be bothered to read my references on EU theory. </p><p>I have repeatedly explained to you that if you wish to understand that mathematical and scientific application of MHD theory to astronomy that you would need to study Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma and Birkeland's early work. To date you have not found a single error in either of their work. You've never cited a line number where either of them introduced any mathematical errors in their work, and you've never demonstrated that you have any clue at all what EU theory even is.</p><p>You absolutely *refuse* to educate yourself, but the worst part is not your ignorance, the worst part is your arrogance. Alfven won a Nobel prize on MHD theory and plasma physics DrRocket. You have not. You at least owe him the courtesy of reading his work before badmouthing it and referring to it as "nonsense". For the life of me I cannot being to figure out why in the world you would spend your free time bashing his theories when you've never even bothered to read them. You look foolish and ridiculous. You're not only ignorant by choice, you're being pety and vindictive without cause. This is exactly the combination of ignorance and arrogance that has nearly ruined this industry. It's now not even safe to talk about emprical physics in a physics forum without fear of you going on some ignorant crusade about something you know absolutely nothing about. </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'>I agree with DrRocket...we can't argue with you if you/we don't know what you are actually trying to say. </DIV></p><p>That's why I cited a specific book that explains the specifics to him. If he won't be bothered to read it, how in the world can he decide it's "pseudoscience" and "nonsense"? Clairvoyance? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You keep mentioning things like "Chapter 3 is titled "Circuits"" etc...how are we supposed to argue with that? </DIV></p><p>You aren't supposed to argue with it, you're supposed to read it and try to understand it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Who cares what it's called? </DIV></p><p>It's what the chapter *explains* that's important. DrRocket seems to have some adversion to reading materials before handwaving them away.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Try pointing out things that are actually AFTER the title. I recall him acknowledging many times that plasma can be treated approximately as a circuit under very specific conditions. It is those same conditions that make that argument irrelevant to what you are trying to say. I'm not buying a book to argue with you when you continually twist and misinterpret what is in it. I/DrRocket would simply read the book, post the excerpts that refute your arguments, you will say we read it "wrong" and we'll be right back where we are now. The problem here is you see Alfven as the writer of EU theory, while the mainstream sees Alfven as a great scientist who wrote the basis of MHD theory...MHD does not=EU. He is recognized for his work, not yours or anyone else's interpretation of said work. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I'm not asking you to buy anything, I'm asking you to go to a libaray and get an education. If you won't do that, then at least have the courtesy of not running around bashing a theory you don't understand. I've not had any problem with you or your attitude because you haven't taken it upon yourself to go crusading against the idea. </p><p>Alfven *applied* MHD theory to astronomy. If one wants to understand the mathematics and physics behind EU theory, one has to read and attempt to understand his work. If one has a specific objection, one is supposed to find the specific error (as I did in Preist's paper) and then be specific in the criticism. Sitting there calling it "nonsense" without even bothering to read it only makes DrRocket look like a spoiled little kid that refuses to do his homework and he is being a bully on the playground because he doesn't even want anyone to talk about it. </p><p>Birkeland was the first EU theoriest. His work is freely available for scrutiny. Alfven is to EU theory what Einstein is to GR theory. If you want to understand EU theory, you at least have to read the materials that define it. </p><p>Unlike many theories of astronomy, EU theory isn't shy around a lab. It's been simulated in software by Peratt and Alfven, and it's been tested with real "hardware" by Birkeland and Alfven. Most cosmology theories has one or more aspects like "inflation" that are "software only" sorts of theories that have no emprical support in controlled testing. EU Theory enjoys both software simulations, but hardware demonstratations of concept. That's head a shoulders better than what is possible with mainstream theory. I'm sick of DrRocket's ignorance. It's now getting in my way of having honest discusions about emprical science. </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>There is a great deal of confusion about the meaning of "science" and specifically the role of mathematical modelling in science.</p><p>EU theory as Alfven taught it includes a mathematical model. It is not without a "software model". In fact Anthony Peratt (another author DrRocket won't bother to read) has even taken Alfven's MHD theories and has build fairly sophisticated computer models in an attempt to "scale" MHD theory to cosmic scales with great results. The problem however is that software simulations alone, and mathematical models alone, do not constitute "emprical physics". Inflation is not "hard science" because it doesn't show up in any "hard"ware. It is a form of "software science". Inflation enjoys a mathematical "explanation", yet it is absolutely and positively shy around a laboratory and shy around hardware. It defies an experiment with any sort of control mechanism or any sort of emprical testing process. it is not a form of "hard" science because it does not show up in "hardware" simulation or any sort of emprical physical test of concept. One simply has to have "faith" that inflation operates as specified.</p><p>EU theory isn't shy around a lab. Birkeland built real physical hardware experiments. He also created "software" in the form of mathematical expressions of the energy exchanges taking place, just as Chapman had done. The problem however is that like the Chapman/Birkeland debate, software science alone cannot tell us how nature actually functions. Chapman's ideas looked fine on paper. They worked fine on a computer too. They just don't work in real life. Life and nature are "messier" than Chapman's elegant math formulas.</p><p>Birkeland demonstrated the "emprical" method of doing "science". He not only created mathematical models, he build physical experiments to "test" his ideas. He then could compare his mathematical models to his physical experiments. This however is not "enough" when we are talking about astronomy. HE took this one step further than simply empircially demonstrating that electricity causes auroras around spheres in a vacuum. He too *emprical measurements* in some of the harshest environments on the planet to show that his computer models and emprical tests did indeed "predict" behaviors of objects in space, in this case Earth.</p><p>This 3 part process, software science, hardware science, and in-situ verification is the cornerstone of EU theory. It is the basis by which all other EU oriented theories are and must be judged. There is nothing "pseudoscientific" about EU theory. It is based on software simulations, hardware simulations, and empirical verification.</p><p>Compare than three step process of EU theory to something like "dark energy" theory or "inflation" theory. Inflation is a "software science", and only a software science. Dark energy is the same way. There are no "hardware" simulations of these ideas because neither of them show up in a real experiment with a real control mechanism. The hardware "test" of concept was never done. These are not "hard sciences", they are "software simulations" and only software simulations. They *lack* emprical verification and in that sense are nothing even close to the level of "emprical science" that is exemplified by EU theory.</p><p>Alfven took Birkeland's emprical approach one step further. He applied his MHD theories to cosmology on a larger scale than Birkeland. If one wants to understand EU theory, one has to begin with their work. If there is a problem to be found in EU theory, it must be found in their work. To run around calling EU theory "nonsense" and "pseudoscience" is the epitomy of ignorance. Only someone who is completely unfamiliar with how EU theory developed and was created could believe that EU theory is anything other than pure emprical physics. Granted, Alfven's work "scales" MHD theory to size, but all of the basic premises of EU theory can be demonstrated in controlled emprical testing. It also enjoys "softare simulations", but unlike other "soft" forms of science like inflation and DE, it is not *limited* to *only* a mathematical presentation. </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 why I cited a specific book that explains the specifics to him. If he won't be bothered to read it, how in the world can he decide it's "pseudoscience" and "nonsense"? Clairvoyance? You aren't supposed to argue with it, you're supposed to read it and try to understand it.It's what the chapter *explains* that's important. DrRocket seems to have some adversion to reading materials before handwaving them away.I'm not asking you to buy anything, I'm asking you to go to a libaray and get an education. If you won't do that, then at least have the courtesy of not running around bashing a theory you don't understand. I've not had any problem with you or your attitude because you haven't taken it upon yourself to go crusading against the idea. Alfven *applied* MHD theory to astronomy. If one wants to understand the mathematics and physics behind EU theory, one has to read and attempt to understand his work. If one has a specific objection, one is supposed to find the specific error (as I did in Preist's paper) and then be specific in the criticism. Sitting there calling it "nonsense" without even bothering to read it only makes DrRocket look like a spoiled little kid that refuses to do his homework and he is being a bully on the playground because he doesn't even want anyone to talk about it. Birkeland was the first EU theoriest. His work is freely available for scrutiny. Alfven is to EU theory what Einstein is to GR theory. If you want to understand EU theory, you at least have to read the materials that define it. Unlike many theories of astronomy, EU theory isn't shy around a lab. It's been simulated in software by Peratt and Alfven, and it's been tested with real "hardware" by Birkeland and Alfven. Most cosmology theories has one or more aspects like "inflation" that are "software only" sorts of theories that have no emprical support in controlled testing. EU Theory enjoys both software simulations, but hardware demonstratations of concept. That's head a shoulders better than what is possible with mainstream theory. I'm sick of DrRocket's ignorance. It's now getting in my way of having honest discusions about emprical science. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Cant... resist... urge... to... debate...</p><p>A contraption salesman knocks on my door and says he has a better contraption than the contraption I already own. This contraption salesman says I should inconvenience myself to learn about his new fangled contraption. He says the smartest man in the world created this new contraption and I should buy it. He doesn't bring a contraption with him for me to study. He doesn't bring any literature for me to read. He simply tells me he has one. Should I bother learning about it when my contraption works just fine? It the job of the contraption salesman to teach me about his contraption. Entice me... make me intrigued. Capture my interest. It's not my job to go learn about it because he tells me to.</p><p>This is essentially what you are doing. We are not approaching you about the tenants of EU ideas. You are trying to sell the concept to us. It is your job to bring the material to the conversation and convince us... not make us go search for it and call us ignorant should we choose not to seek out information. Simply saying Alfven wrote a book and we should read it is not nearly a good enough selling point. You've read it... explain it to us. Quote context from the book while doing so. Provide links with a personal synopsis explain what it means.</p><p>Describe what the EU model is? I don't even know what it is. I believe most models and theories out there can be summarized in a few sentences or, at most, a moderate paragraph. What is the EU model in a few sentences? You keep saying the EU model explains the universe better than the Big Bang theory and the LambdaCDM model. How so? It should be fairly easy to express in layman's term, or feel free to be as precise as possible. There's some smart people here that have no aversions to physics and mathematics. It seems all you do is cry foul and use silly analogies. [edit: I just realized my entire first paragraph is a silly analogy... doh!]</p><p>And, Alfven/EU = Einstein/GR is quite the stretch. </p><p> </p><p>PS. You found no errors in Priest's paper. You think you did and keep repeating you did, but you didn't.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is a great deal of confusion about the meaning of "science" and specifically the role of mathematical modelling in science.EU theory as Alfven taught it includes a mathematical model. It is not without a "software model". In fact Anthony Peratt (another author DrRocket won't bother to read) has even taken Alfven's MHD theories and has build fairly sophisticated computer models in an attempt to "scale" MHD theory to cosmic scales with great results. The problem however is that software simulations alone, and mathematical models alone, do not constitute "emprical physics". Inflation is not "hard science" because it doesn't show up in any "hard"ware. It is a form of "software science". Inflation enjoys a mathematical "explanation", yet it is absolutely and positively shy around a laboratory and shy around hardware. It defies an experiment with any sort of control mechanism or any sort of emprical testing process. it is not a form of "hard" science because it does not show up in "hardware" simulation or any sort of emprical physical test of concept. One simply has to have "faith" that inflation operates as specified.EU theory isn't shy around a lab. Birkeland built real physical hardware experiments. He also created "software" in the form of mathematical expressions of the energy exchanges taking place, just as Chapman had done. The problem however is that like the Chapman/Birkeland debate, software science alone cannot tell us how nature actually functions. Chapman's ideas looked fine on paper. They worked fine on a computer too. They just don't work in real life. Life and nature are "messier" than Chapman's elegant math formulas.Birkeland demonstrated the "emprical" method of doing "science". He not only created mathematical models, he build physical experiments to "test" his ideas. He then could compare his mathematical models to his physical experiments. This however is not "enough" when we are talking about astronomy. HE took this one step further than simply empircially demonstrating that electricity causes auroras around spheres in a vacuum. He too *emprical measurements* in some of the harshest environments on the planet to show that his computer models and emprical tests did indeed "predict" behaviors of objects in space, in this case Earth.This 3 part process, software science, hardware science, and in-situ verification is the cornerstone of EU theory. It is the basis by which all other EU oriented theories are and must be judged. There is nothing "pseudoscientific" about EU theory. It is based on software simulations, hardware simulations, and empirical verification.Compare than three step process of EU theory to something like "dark energy" theory or "inflation" theory. Inflation is a "software science", and only a software science. Dark energy is the same way. There are no "hardware" simulations of these ideas because neither of them show up in a real experiment with a real control mechanism. The hardware "test" of concept was never done. These are not "hard sciences", they are "software simulations" and only software simulations. They *lack* emprical verification and in that sense are nothing even close to the level of "emprical science" that is exemplified by EU theory.Alfven took Birkeland's emprical approach one step further. He applied his MHD theories to cosmology on a larger scale than Birkeland. If one wants to understand EU theory, one has to begin with their work. If there is a problem to be found in EU theory, it must be found in their work. To run around calling EU theory "nonsense" and "pseudoscience" is the epitomy of ignorance. Only someone who is completely unfamiliar with how EU theory developed and was created could believe that EU theory is anything other than pure emprical physics. Granted, Alfven's work "scales" MHD theory to size, but all of the basic premises of EU theory can be demonstrated in controlled emprical testing. It also enjoys "softare simulations", but unlike other "soft" forms of science like inflation and DE, it is not *limited* to *only* a mathematical presentation. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Again you dodge the question and the challenge to explain your particular brand of EU theory. Predictable squared.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Again you dodge the question and the challenge to explain your particular brand of EU theory. Predictable squared. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>In other words, you don't have a clue what you're talkiing about, and the depth of your ignorance on EU theory is only exceeded by the heights of your outrageous arrogance. </p><p>You can't even tell us what is different about "dark energy" or "inflation" which qualifiy these things are "hard science" that is not true of EU theory. The only thing that's different about them is that that are "popular". In every other respect, they are not "hard science, they are nothing but "soft" science, specifically "software science" that is shy around all forms of emrpical testing with real "hard" ware. The bottom line here is most theories in astronomy are *not* "hard empirial science", they are "soft science", specifically "software science". They contain *only* a computer model/mathematical explanation, and do not have emprical support. EU theory has plenty of software support. The difference with EU theory is that it isn't shy around scientific hardware. </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>
The problem here is you have no respect for computer models. They are much more sophisticated than you seem to believe. They do in fact solve real physics problems in a valid way. Often people simplify the situation by not including supernovae feedback, magnetic fields, self-gravity, etc to speed things up, or if they decide its not necessary. You can still extract a lot of meaningful information from these simplified models though, or if they don't reproduce reality, then your assumptions were wrong and you have to include extra things. Initial conditions are also an important factor. If they are even slightly off, it can change the final result dramatically. That is why so many people publish simulations of the same thing(i.e. star forming regions, galaxies). If you saw the level of sophistication in simulation code and read through the 100,000+ lines of code, I think you'd be less likely to call it "software science". It is real, hard, physics. It's exactly the same thing as a human solving a problem analytically, but done to a level of accuracy and speed that is unattainable by us. It's not like someone makes a picture of a galaxy in photoshop and makes it into a .gif by rotating it around. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Cant... resist... urge... to... debate...A contraption salesman knocks on my door and says he has a better contraption than the contraption I already own. This contraption salesman says I should inconvenience myself to learn about his new fangled contraption. He says the smartest man in the world created this new contraption and I should buy it. He doesn't bring a contraption with him for me to study.</DIV></p><p>Ah, but Birkeland *did* bring his contraption for you to study. So did Alfven. Mainstream theory is the one that shows up at the door *without* any "hardware" to inspect. With a $20 dollar plasma ball from Walmart I can demonstrate the fundamental properties of MHD theory and show how it relates to "EU theory". What do you know of that runs on inflation?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He doesn't bring any literature for me to read. </DIV></p><p>I posted a link to Birkeland's work. I've seen UFMButler post links to the first few Chapters of Alfven's book. I've cited TONS of papers by Alfven and Peratt for you folks to read.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He simply tells me he has one. </DIV></p><p>You mean sort of like Guth showing up at my door *WITHOUT* any hardware to demonstrate his magical inflation? I've read the literature, but I'd like to inspect the contraption that uses inflation for something useful.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Should I bother learning about it when my contraption works just fine? </DIV></p><p>Um, last time I went to Walmart, not one scientific invention or consumer product "worked" on inflation or "dark energy". In fact folks are forbidded to claim anything works on inflation or dark energy. They would be sued for false advertizing if they did. Your contraption doesn't work, and in fact you don't even HAVE a contraption, just a piece of paper claiming how your contraption *would* work if we had special hardware we don't have today.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It the job of the contraption salesman to teach me about his contraption. Entice me... make me intrigued. Capture my interest. </DIV></p><p>Of course. That's why I cited Birkeland's work and started with Birkeland's work. That' why I cited work from a guy with a Nobel prize too. These things should intrigue you and pique your scientific curiousity.</p><p>The problem however is that DrRocket refuse to even read these materials before making outragously false statements about them.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's not my job to go learn about it because he tells me to.</DIV></p><p>Ignorance is free. Everone is born with it. Education takes effort and time and sometimes money too. Education is not free, it's EARNED.</p><p>I didn't expect you folks to educate me to "magnetic reconnetion" theory other than to provide me with some reading materials. I did the readng part so that I could understand the theory. That's the part that DrRocket refuses to do *before* going on crusade based on pure ignorance.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is essentially what you are doing. We are not approaching you about the tenants of EU ideas. You are trying to sell the concept to us. </DIV></p><p>I didn't invent the concept however. It's not the work of a single individual for that matter. I am not the mathematician of Alfven. I'm not the one that wrote MHD theory or EU theory. It is not my responsibility to duplicate all their work, it is your responsibility to educate yourself to their work *before* crusading against the theory as "pseudoscience".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is your job to bring the material to the conversation and convince us... not make us go search for it and call us ignorant should we choose not to seek out information. </DIV></p><p>If you personally were running around claiming that EU theory was "pseudoscience" and "nonsense" and making "claims" about EU theory, or any other theory for that matter, I would expect that you would have some basic understanding of that theory. I have sought out and found what I believe to be the most "compelling" works written on this topic and I have provided Birkeland's entire work for you to inspect. I have also provided you with and DrRocket and everyone else here with plenty of materials on this topic, none of which he's actually read or "disredited" in any way.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Simply saying Alfven wrote a book and we should read it is not nearly a good enough selling point. You've read it... explain it to us. </DIV></p><p>When I attempted to "explain" that plasma can contain "circuits", DrRocket went into pure denial. What then? Shall I believe the Nobel prize winning scientist or ol' Doc Rocket?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Quote context from the book while doing so. </DIV></p><p>I have done that. He ignored it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Describe what the EU model is? I don't even know what it is. </DIV></p><p>The only difference between you and DrRocket in that respect is that you have the intellectual integrity to simply admit that you don't understand it well enough to judge it, or skeptically review the idea. DrRocket's position is born from the same ignorance, but he makes "claims" about it which he cannot demonstrate or support and that are direct lies.</p><p>Whereas you show scientific integrity by simply admitting your ignorance on the topic, DrRocket has been on crusade against the idea for a long time now and he absolutely refuses to read the materials I have presented to him to inspect. Worse however is that he *imposes this ignorance on everyone* by attempting to control when and where the idea may even be discussed, while continuing to make deratory comments about the idea that he cannot support. He's the poster child for arrogant self imposed ignorance and he insists we all follow his lead.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I believe most models and theories out there can be summarized in a few sentences or, at most, a moderate paragraph.</DIV></p><p>Do you really think DrRocket's opinions will change over a sentence or based on a summary of some sort from me? Get real. If he won't be bothered to read and intelectually respond to the work of a man who won the Nobel prize, why would he listen to me? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> What is the EU model in a few sentences?</DIV></p><p>EU theory is the application of MHD theory to objects in space.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You keep saying the EU model explains the universe better than the Big Bang theory and the LambdaCDM model. How so?</DIV></p><p>Actually, I don't believe that any particular "big picture" theory is "better than" any other. EU theory is best when it's done as Birkeland did it, by taking in-situ measurements of objects in space and verifying the "software science" in "hardware tests". We can't venture out beyond our solar system yet, so anything that professes to "explain" our universe is bound to be "iffy" sooner or later.</p><p>All I'm noting is that Lambda-CDM theory is not "hard science" in any way that is not also true of EU theory. Unlike the components of Lambda-CDM theory, all the "forces" described in EU theory show up in real experiments.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It should be fairly easy to express in layman's term, or feel free to be as precise as possible. </DIV></p><p>It is easy to explain in layman's terms, but DrRocket want's math. The "best" mathematician's I know of that have worked on this theory are Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven and Peratt. To date he has never found any error in any of their work and he refuses to accept or find error in their work, yet still refers to it a "pseudoscience". How does one work with self imposed ignorance?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's some smart people here that have no aversions to physics and mathematics. </DIV></p><p>Then why wouldn't they want to read the book that explains EU theory in terms of math and physics from the author that won a Nobel prize in MHD theory? Why would my personal math skills be the least bit interesting to anyone who is actually interested in this topic when "better" resources are obviously available?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You found no errors in Priest's paper. You think you did and keep repeating you did, but you didn't. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Oh yes I did. I found a gross violation of the laws of physics, specifically Guass' law of magnetism. All magnetic fields form as dipole fields and monopoles do not exist in nature. He attempted to violate a known law of physics with his math. That's not science, that is mathematical mythos.</p><p>You'll note that I also found the specific line number in the PPPL paper that I objected to, I didn't just wave my hand and call the idea "nonsense" and "pseudoscience", I found *SPECIFIC* objections in the work that I found objectionable, and I noted where some work on that topic seemed to work in a "software" sense. In the real world however, magnetic fields form as a full continuum and they don't make and break connections to other magnetic lines. The "current flow" inside those magnetic lines can "change direction" and "circuit reconnection" is a demonstrated feature of electricity, but no form of energy is released by "magnetic reconnection" because magnetic fields never make or break connections. Even the "rate" of "magnetic reconnection" will be directly related to the amount of "current flow" inside of Birn's "magnetic lines". </p><p>DrRocket doesn't do actual critiques of work or papers or cite specific lines he finds objectionable. What he does is practice a brand of self imposed ignorant couch potato criticism, and he's intent on getting me burned at the stake now for even mentioning that CME's cause particle collisions and EM fields cause plasma to move around. I'm sick of that attitude. It is not a "scientific" attitude, it's ignorance on a stick. </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'>The problem here is you have no respect for computer models. They are much more sophisticated than you seem to believe.</DIV></p><p>IMO you have too much "blind faith" in "software science". A computer can be used to model almost anything, including make believe things that do not exist in nature. The level of sophistication of the computer model means nothing to me if you can't show how it physicall and tangibly relates to anything in nature.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> They do in fact solve real physics problems in a valid way. </DIV></p><p>Sure, but the only way to verify that a "software solution" is "correct" is to build "hardware" and try it out. The only way to know if the solution is correct to put it to the emprical test. Chapman's theories looked great on paper. They didn't accurately describe the way nature works. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Often people simplify the situation by not including supernovae feedback, magnetic fields, self-gravity, etc to speed things up, or if they decide its not necessary. You can still extract a lot of meaningful information from these simplified models though, or if they don't reproduce reality, then your assumptions were wrong and you have to include extra things. Initial conditions are also an important factor. If they are even slightly off, it can change the final result dramatically. That is why so many people publish simulations of the same thing(i.e. star forming regions, galaxies). If you saw the level of sophistication in simulation code and read through the 100,000+ lines of code, I think you'd be less likely to call it "software science". It is real, hard, physics. It's exactly the same thing as a human solving a problem analytically, but done to a level of accuracy and speed that is unattainable by us. It's not like someone makes a picture of a galaxy in photoshop and makes it into a .gif by rotating it around. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>The problem here if one is a "skeptic" of inflation is not that it lacks software and math. The problem is that it lacks emprical "physical" support in controlled experimentation. *If* you had a product that ran on inflation, I would not have much trouble accepting the notion that inflation might have some affect on distant observations. It's the fact you can't produce any inflation or any product that uses inflation that makes me "doubt" the existence of inflation. It doesn't matter how many computer models you throw at me, I want to see some "hard" science involving real "hardware" so we can compare the hardware results with the software models as we can do with MHD theory or neutrino experiments or anything that is "hard science" and not shy around "hardware".</p><p>IMO you are overly fixated on software science to the exclusion of hardware science, and there is no way to verify the existence of inflation in "software" alone. </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'>EU theory is the application of MHD theory to objects in space.</DIV></p><p>Uhh, no it's not. MHD is the application of MHD theory to objects in space(although, saying "objects" is a little misleading. MHD is only meaningful when talking about gas/dust/things that can be modelled as a fluid(hydrodynamic, the HD part) under the influence of a magnetic field). MHD is not EU. If it were, I would be a practitioner of EU theory. MHD is rarely used for anything BUT objects in space. How can you expect us to know what EU is if you don't even seem to? Your answer is meaningless. It'd be like asking someone "what is star formation theory?" and them answering "it's the application of star formation theories to stars in space". We know it involves MHD(or some twisted version of it), but thats not what it IS. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>I should have known better...</p><p>If Priest is violating known laws of physics, then so did Birkeland. He originally thought his cathode rays were being sucked in by his magnet. It was Poincare that pointed out to him that the charged particles were guided by the magnetic field. He used the field of a magnetic monopole for his calculations to show the particles trajectory (sound familiar?). Apparently, if the magnetic field is large enough, when a particle interacts with it, only one pole is necessary to define it's trajectory. </p><p>It was then that Birkeland build his terrelas and went forward with his experiments. Which, by the way, Birkeland's predictions of streams of charged particles coming directing from the Sun was not the correct one. The auroral currents obviously exist and Birkeland's work got the ball rolling in the right direction, but it took the work of many others to get it right. Only in the late 50's when we sent satellites and took in-situ measurements were the details of who got what prediction correct sorted out. In fact, Chapman started using Birkeland's idea of streams of charged particles only to be led a different, and ultimately correct, direction with the concept of "clouds" of charged particle and were electrically neutral... aka plasma. A concept that Alfven refined. It was the Chapman-Ferraro Cavity that was refined and became known as Earth's magnetosphere. Chapmen also defined the difference between substorms and geomagntic storms.</p><p>I don't know where you got the idea that Birkeland was right and Chapman was wrong. The truth is they all had a positive influence. Each of them got some of it right and some of it wrong. Even Alfven predicted the flow in the wrong direction because the activities in the geomagnetic tail were not know. </p><p>At least, that is what I gather from this paper which I presented to you in the other thread which you never addressed. Maybe you didn't because it points to flaws in your notion that your Idols are what perfect science is all about:</p><p>http://www.agu.org/journals/rg/v027/i001/RG027i001p00103/RG027i001p00103.pdf<br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ah, but Birkeland *did* bring his contraption for you to study. So did Alfven. Mainstream theory is the one that shows up at the door *without* any "hardware" to inspect. With a $20 dollar plasma ball from Walmart I can demonstrate the fundamental properties of MHD theory and show how it relates to "EU theory". What do you know of that runs on inflation?I posted a link to Birkeland's work. I've seen UFMButler post links to the first few Chapters of Alfven's book. I've cited TONS of papers by Alfven and Peratt for you folks to read.You mean sort of like Guth showing up at my door *WITHOUT* any hardware to demonstrate his magical inflation? I've read the literature, but I'd like to inspect the contraption that uses inflation for something useful.Um, last time I went to Walmart, not one scientific invention or consumer product "worked" on inflation or "dark energy". In fact folks are forbidded to claim anything works on inflation or dark energy. They would be sued for false advertizing if they did. Your contraption doesn't work, and in fact you don't even HAVE a contraption, just a piece of paper claiming how your contraption *would* work if we had special hardware we don't have today.Of course. That's why I cited Birkeland's work and started with Birkeland's work. That' why I cited work from a guy with a Nobel prize too. These things should intrigue you and pique your scientific curiousity.The problem however is that DrRocket refuse to even read these materials before making outragously false statements about them.Ignorance is free. Everone is born with it. Education takes effort and time and sometimes money too. Education is not free, it's EARNED.I didn't expect you folks to educate me to "magnetic reconnetion" theory other than to provide me with some reading materials. I did the readng part so that I could understand the theory. That's the part that DrRocket refuses to do *before* going on crusade based on pure ignorance.I didn't invent the concept however. It's not the work of a single individual for that matter. I am not the mathematician of Alfven. I'm not the one that wrote MHD theory or EU theory. It is not my responsibility to duplicate all their work, it is your responsibility to educate yourself to their work *before* crusading against the theory as "pseudoscience".If you personally were running around claiming that EU theory was "pseudoscience" and "nonsense" and making "claims" about EU theory, or any other theory for that matter, I would expect that you would have some basic understanding of that theory. I have sought out and found what I believe to be the most "compelling" works written on this topic and I have provided Birkeland's entire work for you to inspect. I have also provided you with and DrRocket and everyone else here with plenty of materials on this topic, none of which he's actually read or "disredited" in any way.When I attempted to "explain" that plasma can contain "circuits", DrRocket went into pure denial. What then? Shall I believe the Nobel prize winning scientist or ol' Doc Rocket?I have done that. He ignored it.The only difference between you and DrRocket in that respect is that you have the intellectual integrity to simply admit that you don't understand it well enough to judge it, or skeptically review the idea. DrRocket's position is born from the same ignorance, but he makes "claims" about it which he cannot demonstrate or support and that are direct lies.Whereas you show scientific integrity by simply admitting your ignorance on the topic, DrRocket has been on crusade against the idea for a long time now and he absolutely refuses to read the materials I have presented to him to inspect. Worse however is that he *imposes this ignorance on everyone* by attempting to control when and where the idea may even be discussed, while continuing to make deratory comments about the idea that he cannot support. He's the poster child for arrogant self imposed ignorance and he insists we all follow his lead. Do you really think DrRocket's opinions will change over a sentence or based on a summary of some sort from me? Get real. If he won't be bothered to read and intelectually respond to the work of a man who won the Nobel prize, why would he listen to me? EU theory is the application of MHD theory to objects in space.Actually, I don't believe that any particular "big picture" theory is "better than" any other. EU theory is best when it's done as Birkeland did it, by taking in-situ measurements of objects in space and verifying the "software science" in "hardware tests". We can't venture out beyond our solar system yet, so anything that professes to "explain" our universe is bound to be "iffy" sooner or later.All I'm noting is that Lambda-CDM theory is not "hard science" in any way that is not also true of EU theory. Unlike the components of Lambda-CDM theory, all the "forces" described in EU theory show up in real experiments.It is easy to explain in layman's terms, but DrRocket want's math. The "best" mathematician's I know of that have worked on this theory are Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven and Peratt. To date he has never found any error in any of their work and he refuses to accept or find error in their work, yet still refers to it a "pseudoscience". How does one work with self imposed ignorance?Then why wouldn't they want to read the book that explains EU theory in terms of math and physics from the author that won a Nobel prize in MHD theory? Why would my personal math skills be the least bit interesting to anyone who is actually interested in this topic when "better" resources are obviously available?Oh yes I did. I found a gross violation of the laws of physics, specifically Guass' law of magnetism. All magnetic fields form as dipole fields and monopoles do not exist in nature. He attempted to violate a known law of physics with his math. That's not science, that is mathematical mythos.You'll note that I also found the specific line number in the PPPL paper that I objected to, I didn't just wave my hand and call the idea "nonsense" and "pseudoscience", I found *SPECIFIC* objections in the work that I found objectionable, and I noted where some work on that topic seemed to work in a "software" sense. In the real world however, magnetic fields form as a full continuum and they don't make and break connections to other magnetic lines. The "current flow" inside those magnetic lines can "change direction" and "circuit reconnection" is a demonstrated feature of electricity, but no form of energy is released by "magnetic reconnection" because magnetic fields never make or break connections. Even the "rate" of "magnetic reconnection" will be directly related to the amount of "current flow" inside of Birn's "magnetic lines". DrRocket doesn't do actual critiques of work or papers or cite specific lines he finds objectionable. What he does is practice a brand of self imposed ignorant couch potato criticism, and he's intent on getting me burned at the stake now for even mentioning that CME's cause particle collisions and EM fields cause plasma to move around. I'm sick of that attitude. It is not a "scientific" attitude, it's ignorance on a stick. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Translation: I don't really understand EU theory and cannot even present it in a rational way. I don't understand what Alven said but he is my hero and I will continue to quote section heading from his books without any understanding of what is said in those sections. I don't like what DrRocket says, I don't understand the classical science that he uses, so it must be wrong. Maybe if I insult him enough I will win the argument without every having to discuss real science (and I certainly hope so since I don't understand any).</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Translation: I don't really understand EU theory and cannot even present it in a rational way. </DIV></p><p>Be that as it may, Alfven *has* presented it in a rational way for you to read anytime you wish. Ignorance, particular willful persistent ignorance only makes you look, well, just ignorant.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't understand what Alven said but he is my hero and I will continue to quote section heading from his books without any understanding of what is said in those sections.</DIV></p><p>I do understand what he said DrRocket, but you do not understand his theories because you never bothered to read them or to study them. You never found an error in Alfven's work, or in Peratt's work. You don't have a clue what he taught about applying MHD theory to objects in space because you won't be bothered to read or respond to any of it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't like what DrRocket says, </DIV></p><p>You mean when you say things like "EU theory is nonsense" or "EU theory is "pseudoscience"? No, I don't "like" what you are saying because it's a lie and it's stated from a place of pure, blind, willful ignorance. I wouldn't like anyone claiming that evolutionary theory is nonsense either, expecially if they never bothered to study it or actually critique it in any logical or rational manner. I guess I dont like it when someone simply "bashes" emprical science in general. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't understand the classical science that he uses, </DIV></p><p>You don't even understand what "classical science" is all about. All you undestand is what can only be called "software science". Anything with a math forumula you might be able to stuff into a computer software model is fine by you, unless of course it comes from Alfven and Peratt or involves the flow of electrons through space. For goodness sake,d you won't even be bothered to read Peratt's work because he's an "embarassment" to you. Your ignorance is purely self imposed and you don't have a clue what "classical science" (which includes hardware) is all about. Emprical science is not shy around a lab DrRocket, and emprically useful consumer products are built from emprically scientific principles. I can buy all sorts of devices that demonstrate the EM fields cause plasma to ebb and flow starting with a twenty dollar kid's toy. I've yet to see a single consumer product that runs on inflation or dark energy or monopoles, etc. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>so it must be wrong.</DIV></p><p>You are certainly wrong. You've made a number of incorrect and false statements about EU theory, starting with your claim that EU theory is "pseudoscience". There is no definition of "science" which you can come up with that let "inflation" through the door and not allow EU theory through the same door as well. Instead of being intellectually honest about any of this relentless criticism, and pointing out real flaws in Alfvens' work, you keep making false statements, going on crusade, and doing your best to find "EU heresy" in everything I say in hopes of getting me banned. I'm tired of that nonsense now, so we will just have to address these behaviors honestly and get to the heart of the problem.</p><p>You are ignorant by choice DrRocket You are welcome to educate yourself on this topic from the likes of Alfven, who won a Nobel prize for his work on MHD theory, or from Peratt who was a student of Alfven and wrote "software" to create computer models of how it works on larger scales. You won't of course do either, so you wallow in pure ignornace of the idea. You have no right to critize something you don't understand.</p><p>To then sit there and call Alfven's theories "pseudoscience" without pointing out a single flaw in Alfven's work just shows that your not only ignorant, you're an ignorant bully who's now on crusade to get anyone who dares even mention anything remotely related to the idea virtually executed. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe if I insult him enough I will win the argument without every having to discuss real science (and I certainly hope so since I don't understand any). <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>In any scientific debate, the one that makes the claim is the one that is required to demonstrate that claim. You have repeated and frequently and relentlessly "claimed" that EU theory is pseudoscience, insisting that it only be discussed here in the "unexplained" forum. All of this bizzare behavior without ever reading the book that explains it. You've called EU theory "nonsense" without ever citing a single line of bad math from Alfven, a single bad assumption Birkeland made, or Peratt made or Bruce made. You're practing couch potato pseudoscience DrRocket, like any good skeptic of evolutionary theory. </p><p> You refuse to openly address or accept or deal with the actual mathematical models created by Peratt. You refuse to address the papers and books written by Alfven that explain coronal loop activity in terms of electrical discharges and exploding double layers. You refuse to address any of the actual science that Alfven presented. Instead you are hell bent on burning the witch (in this case me) to the point that your twist my words with the experess intent of finding heresy in my every word in the hopes that yevaud will light the fire and fry me. Why do you keep throwing on the burnable material and keep sreaming about heresy irrespective of the actual content of my sentences?</p><p>It's now evidently a punishable offense around here to even mention the enormous amount of energy released in a CME, without being accused of heresy. God forbid I should mention that EM fields can cause plasma to ebb and flow. Evidently your brand of pseudoscience doesn't allow for free scientific discourse, or for emprical physics. It's all about imposing your personal will on everyone. That's a cult DrRocket, not a science forum. I refuse to allow you to destroy what has been a very good place to discuss science. I refuse to allow you to continue to state outright lies born of pure ignorance. You don't know what your talking about when you discuss EU theory bacause you refuse to educate yourself. </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'>Be that as it may, Alfven *has* presented it in a rational way for you to read anytime you wish. Ignorance, particular willful persistent ignorance only makes you look, well, just ignorant.I do understand what he said DrRocket, but you do not understand his theories because you never bothered to read them or to study them. You never found an error in Alfven's work, or in Peratt's work. You don't have a clue what he taught about applying MHD theory to objects in space because you won't be bothered to read or respond to any of it.You mean when you say things like "EU theory is nonsense" or "EU theory is "pseudoscience"? No, I don't "like" what you are saying because it's a lie and it's stated from a place of pure, blind, willful ignorance. I wouldn't like anyone claiming that evolutionary theory is nonsense either, expecially if they never bothered to study it or actually critique it in any logical or rational manner. I guess I dont like it when someone simply "bashes" emprical science in general. You don't even understand what "classical science" is all about. All you undestand is what can only be called "software science". Anything with a math forumula you might be able to stuff into a computer software model is fine by you, unless of course it comes from Alfven and Peratt or involves the flow of electrons through space. For goodness sake,d you won't even be bothered to read Peratt's work because he's an "embarassment" to you. Your ignorance is purely self imposed and you don't have a clue what "classical science" (which includes hardware) is all about. Emprical science is not shy around a lab DrRocket, and emprically useful consumer products are built from emprically scientific principles. I can buy all sorts of devices that demonstrate the EM fields cause plasma to ebb and flow starting with a twenty dollar kid's toy. I've yet to see a single consumer product that runs on inflation or dark energy or monopoles, etc. You are certainly wrong. You've made a number of incorrect and false statements about EU theory, starting with your claim that EU theory is "pseudoscience". There is no definition of "science" which you can come up with that let "inflation" through the door and not allow EU theory through the same door as well. Instead of being intellectually honest about any of this relentless criticism, and pointing out real flaws in Alfvens' work, you keep making false statements, going on crusade, and doing your best to find "EU heresy" in everything I say in hopes of getting me banned. I'm tired of that nonsense now, so we will just have to address these behaviors honestly and get to the heart of the problem.You are ignorant by choice DrRocket You are welcome to educate yourself on this topic from the likes of Alfven, who won a Nobel prize for his work on MHD theory, or from Peratt who was a student of Alfven and wrote "software" to create computer models of how it works on larger scales. You won't of course do either, so you wallow in pure ignornace of the idea. You have no right to critize something you don't understand.To then sit there and call Alfven's theories "pseudoscience" without pointing out a single flaw in Alfven's work just shows that your not only ignorant, you're an ignorant bully who's now on crusade to get anyone who dares even mention anything remotely related to the idea virtually executed. In any scientific debate, the one that makes the claim is the one that is required to demonstrate that claim. You have repeated and frequently and relentlessly "claimed" that EU theory is pseudoscience, insisting that it only be discussed here in the "unexplained" forum. All of this bizzare behavior without ever reading the book that explains it. You've called EU theory "nonsense" without ever citing a single line of bad math from Alfven, a single bad assumption Birkeland made, or Peratt made or Bruce made. You're practing couch potato pseudoscience DrRocket, like any good skeptic of evolutionary theory. You refuse to openly address or accept or deal with the actual mathematical models created by Peratt. You refuse to address the papers and books written by Alfven that explain coronal loop activity in terms of electrical discharges and exploding double layers. You refuse to address any of the actual science that Alfven presented. Instead you are hell bent on burning the witch (in this case me) to the point that your twist my words with the experess intent of finding heresy in my every word in the hopes that yevaud will light the fire and fry me. Why do you keep throwing on the burnable material and keep sreaming about heresy irrespective of the actual content of my sentences?It's now evidently a punishable offense around here to even mention the enormous amount of energy released in a CME, without being accused of heresy. God forbid I should mention that EM fields can cause plasma to ebb and flow. Evidently your brand of pseudoscience doesn't allow for free scientific discourse, or for emprical physics. It's all about imposing your personal will on everyone. That's a cult DrRocket, not a science forum. I refuse to allow you to destroy what has been a very good place to discuss science. I refuse to allow you to continue to state outright lies born of pure ignorance. You don't know what your talking about when you discuss EU theory bacause you refuse to educate yourself. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>That quite a long irrational rant. Rather in keeping with the rest of your posts.</p><p>The challenge remains for you to provide the specific tenets of your brand of EU theory and to defend them. You have steadfastly refused to do so, clearly because you are not able to.</p><p>You have also resorted to what we both know to be outright lies. Alflven's work has been discussed in some detail, included relevant sections that are available on line from <em>Cosmic Plasma. </em>I an others have demonstrated that your interpretation of Alfven's statements is simply bogus -- you don't know what you are talking about. You still seem to have a problem with my reluctance to spend $150 to purchase a copy of that book, which for some reason you seem to think is the only valid physics book on the planet.</p><p>I have challenged you to present your version of EU theory. Dereckmd and UFMbutler have done likewise. The onusis on you. You are clearly avoinding doing this because you are simply not capable. </p><p>Now, instead of parsing my sentences and responding to fragments of both sentences and thoughts why don't you simply address the scientific questions that have been asked of you?</p><p>Alfven's work in plasma physics is notable. It seems to have nothing to do with what goes by the name of EU theory, particularly that brand of EU theory espoused by your web site. I call EU theory "nonsense' because that is a polite name for what it is. Derekmcd posted a long and scholarly article debunking Don Scott's version of EU in another thread, and you will recognize in that article many of the same points that have been raised in the SDC forums. EU nonsense has been widely recognized as pseudoscience, and with good reason. If you can PROVE differently then do so.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Uhh, no it's not. </DIV></p><p>Um, yes it is. 
</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>MHD is the application of MHD theory to objects in space(although, saying "objects" is a little misleading. </DIV></p><p>I don't see how. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>MHD is only meaningful when talking about gas/dust/things that can be modelled as a fluid(hydrodynamic, the HD part) under the influence of a magnetic field).</DIV></p><p>That would include the sun's atmosphere too doesn't it? It would include anything where plasma was involved and EM fields are involved. That's pretty much everywhere in our solar system since high velocity charged particles are wizzing past us even as we speak, and having a direct influence on the Earth's magnetosphere.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> MHD is not EU. </DIV></p><p>In the sense that MHD theory can be applied to other things *besides* space, no, EU theory and MHD theory are not one and the same thing. However, if you attempt to apply MHD theory to objects in space, that is exactly what Alfven wrote about, and that is in fact covered in his book Cosmic Plasma. The application of MHD theory to objects in space is the definition of EU theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If it were, I would be a practitioner of EU theory. </DIV></p><p>You are, you just don't recognize it as such. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>MHD is rarely used for anything BUT objects in space. </DIV></p><p>Indeed. That's also what Alfven wrote about and that's how EU theory was developed, specifically by Alfven. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How can you expect us to know what EU is if you don't even seem to? </DIV></p><p>I know exactly what I'm talking about when I talk about EU theory. I have no idea what DrRocket is talking about when he claims that EU theory is nonsense or why EU theory would be banned as a topic of conversation. It is a branch of emprical physics!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your answer is meaningless. </DIV></p><p> No, it is not meaningless. It is also fully explained by Alfven in his papers and books for you to read anytime you're interested in the topic of applying MHD theory to objects in space.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It'd be like asking someone "what is star formation theory?" and them answering "it's the application of star formation theories to stars in space". We know it involves MHD(or some twisted version of it), but thats not what it IS. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>One of the obvious problems here is that you and I have very different ideas of what "EU theory" means. Evidently you seem to think it's something it's not because in fact you do use Alfven's formulas in your work and Alfven was the first individual to explained how he applied MHD theory to objects in space. </p><p>IMO even "magnetic reconnection" is actually a form of EU theory in the sense that it attempts to apply MHD to events in space, albeit a form of EU theory that Alfven himself called "pseudoscience" because he prefered to discuss current carrying plasma energy exchanges in terms of "circuits". We know that magnetic fields form a full continuum without beginning or ending. They don't disconnect or reconnect, only circuits and "current flow"' can "reconnect" in plasma. Even magnetic reconnection theory would fall under a branch of EU theory as I define EU theory. </p><p>Like I said, I have no idea how you folks define EU theory, or "hard sience". There is nothing "hard" about the science behind inflation or dark energy because both of these things are shy around hardware. They are "soft" science theories based *only* on a mathematical software program.</p><p>EU theory has been computer modeled by Peratt. There are many mathematical presentations of EU theory starting with Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma. Anytime you're interesting in understanding what I am talking about when I talk about EU theory, you're welcome to read his work.</p><p>FYI, I see a distinct different between someone like you or like Derek that accepts they don't really understand EU theory enough to critique it vs. someone like DrRocket that professes to know that the whole theory is 'nonsense" or "pseudoscience". There are different levels of scientific expectation required of any claim. Claiming "I don't know" if EU theory is valid is not a "claim". It's an ackowledgement of indecisions. Claiming that EU theory is nonsense is however a completely different story. It's a "claim" that requires justification, just like any other claim.</p><p>I don't really have any trouble with your attitude or Derek's attitude, but I do have a big problem when someone REFUSES to educate themselves, and spread outrageous lies about something they know nothing about. Please don't construe my frustration at DrRocket's attitude as being anything other than directed at his behaviors over a long period of time.</p><p>IMO EU theory is pure physics. It is MHD theory applied to objects in space, including plaasmas, suns and planets. There should be nothing "taboo" about it because it's a form of pure emprical physics. Whether the theory is ever proven right or wrong is unrelated to the fact that it is a theory born of pure emprical physics. </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'>MHD is the application of MHD theory to objects in space(although, saying "objects" is a little misleading. </DIV></p><p>I don't see how. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>MHD is only meaningful when talking about gas/dust/things that can be modelled as a fluid(hydrodynamic, the HD part) under the influence of a magnetic field).</DIV></p><p>That would include the sun's atmosphere too doesn't it? It would include anything where plasma was involved and EM fields are involved. That's pretty much everywhere in our solar system since high velocity charged particles are wizzing past us even as we speak, and having a direct influence on the Earth's magnetosphere.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> MHD is not EU. </DIV></p><p>In the sense that MHD theory can be applied to other things *besides* space, no, EU theory and MHD theory are not one and the same thing. However, if you attempt to apply MHD theory to objects in space, that is exactly what Alfven wrote about, and that is in fact covered in his book Cosmic Plasma. The application of MHD theory to objects in space is the definition of EU theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If it were, I would be a practitioner of EU theory. </DIV></p><p>You are, you just don't recognize it as such. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>MHD is rarely used for anything BUT objects in space. </DIV></p><p>Indeed. That's also what Alfven wrote about and that's how EU theory was developed, specifically by Alfven. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How can you expect us to know what EU is if you don't even seem to? </DIV></p><p>I know exactly what I'm talking about when I talk about EU theory. I have no idea what DrRocket is talking about when he claims that EU theory is nonsense or why EU theory would be banned as a topic of conversation. It is a branch of emprical physics!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your answer is meaningless. </DIV></p><p> No, it is not meaningless. It is also fully explained by Alfven in his papers and books for you to read anytime you're interested in the topic of applying MHD theory to objects in space.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It'd be like asking someone "what is star formation theory?" and them answering "it's the application of star formation theories to stars in space". We know it involves MHD(or some twisted version of it), but thats not what it IS. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>One of the obvious problems here is that you and I have very different ideas of what "EU theory" means. Evidently you seem to think it's something it's not because in fact you do use Alfven's formulas in your work and Alfven was the first individual to explained how he applied MHD theory to objects in space. </p><p>IMO even "magnetic reconnection" is actually a form of EU theory in the sense that it attempts to apply MHD to events in space, albeit a form of EU theory that Alfven himself called "pseudoscience" because he prefered to discuss current carrying plasma energy exchanges in terms of "circuits". We know that magnetic fields form a full continuum without beginning or ending. They don't disconnect or reconnect, only circuits and "current flow"' can "reconnect" in plasma. Even magnetic reconnection theory would fall under a branch of EU theory as I define EU theory. </p><p>Like I said, I have no idea how you folks define EU theory, or "hard sience". There is nothing "hard" about the science behind inflation or dark energy because both of these things are shy around hardware. They are "soft" science theories based *only* on a mathematical software program.</p><p>EU theory has been computer modeled by Peratt. There are many mathematical presentations of EU theory starting with Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma. Anytime you're interesting in understanding what I am talking about when I talk about EU theory, you're welcome to read his work.</p><p>FYI, I see a distinct different between someone like you or like Derek that accepts they don't really understand EU theory enough to critique it vs. someone like DrRocket that professes to know that the whole theory is 'nonsense" or "pseudoscience". There are different levels of scientific expectation required of any claim. Claiming "I don't know" if EU theory is valid is not a "claim". It's an ackowledgement of indecisions. Claiming that EU theory is nonsense is however a completely different story. It's a "claim" that requires justification, just like any other claim.</p><p>I don't really have any trouble with your attitude or Derek's attitude, but I do have a big problem when someone REFUSES to educate themselves, and spread outrageous lies about something they know nothing about. Please don't construe my frustration at DrRocket's attitude as being anything other than directed at his behaviors over a long period of time.</p><p>IMO EU theory is pure physics. It is MHD theory applied to objects in space, including plaasmas, suns and planets. There should be nothing "taboo" about it because it's a form of pure emprical physics. Whether the theory is ever proven right or wrong is unrelated to the fact that it is a theory born of pure emprical physics. </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 quite a long irrational rant. Rather in keeping with the rest of your posts.The challenge remains for you to provide the specific tenets of your brand of EU theory and to defend them. You have steadfastly refused to do so, clearly because you are not able to.</DIV></p><p>This is pure denial. I have spent years providing you and other with refererences to this topic. The fact you refuse to read the material, respond to or find fault in the material is not something I can control. I can't make you respond to Alfven's work. I can make you stop lying about his work by pointing out that you don't understand it well enough to criticize it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have also resorted to what we both know to be outright lies. </DIV></p><p>The only one telling lies around here is you when you claim EU theory is nonsense and pseudoscience. The only one lying around here is you when you twist my every word into some sort of EU rant. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alflven's work has been discussed in some detail, included relevant sections that are available on line from Cosmic Plasma. </DIV></p><p>You've never found a single fault in that work or any of his other work involving "circuits" in the magnetosphere or discharges in the solar atmosphere either, but you refuse to even allow me to discuss these things in the SS&A forum without turning into DrInquisition.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I an others have demonstrated that your interpretation of Alfven's statements is simply bogus</DIV></p><p>You've demontrated nothing of the sort. All youv'e demonstrated is a complete lack of education on this topic.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>-- you don't know what you are talking about. </DIV></p><p>It is you that don't know what you're talking about because you never read the book, you won't read the book, Peratt is an embarassment to you, and you've never meanigfully touched Birkeland's work even though it is freely accessable to you.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You still seem to have a problem with my reluctance to spend $150 to purchase a copy of that book, </DIV></p><p>No. If you didn't want to buy the book and you didn't try to play the role of EU critic, I wouldn't have a single thing to complain about. If however you want to explain what EU theory is about, and I suggest you read the book, then I expect you to read it at your library if necessary over the course of a whole year *before* you start making false claims about EU theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>which for some reason you seem to think is the only valid physics book on the planet.</DIV></p><p>It is the single "best" explanation of this theory that happens to have been written by the Nobel prize winning author of MHD theory. He explains *how* he applies MHD theory to objects in space. If you expect to understand EU theory from a mathematical and physics perspectve, you'll need to read that book, or Peratt's book, or something useful before you go crusading against the idea basd on pure ignorance alone. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have challenged you to present your version of EU theory. </DIV></p><p>And I have done so on a number of occasions. You repeat the same behavior. You ignore the material you do have free access to. You won't read anything that requires you to visit a library. You refuse to read the materials or comment on the materials from Birkeland. You won't read Peratt's work because he embarasses you, even though he works at Los Alamos and studied directly from Alfven. I can't make you do your homework.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Dereckmd and UFMbutler have done likewise. </DIV></p><p>They aren't running around making false claims about EU theory DrRocket. That particular irrational behavior is limited to you personally.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The onusis on you. </DIV></p><p>No it's not, because EU theory isn't about me. It's about Alfven and Birkeland and Bruce and others. I'm merely a messenger DrRocket. I can provide you with materials to read, but I can't put a gun to your head and make you read them, or agree with them. I would ask you to be specific in your criticisms, just as I have been specific with mine.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are clearly avoinding doing this because you are simply not capable. </DIV></p><p>You are simply incapable of accepting that this theory isn't about me or my personal math skills, or my person beliefs. You keep trying to make this personal, when in fact it is completely impersonal. It's only personal to you because you are intent on playing the role of Grand Inquisitor and you seem to be emotionally attached to getting me banned from here. As long as you continue to think of this as a "personal" issue, you're forver going to be missing the point. It does not matter if I am personally your mathematical equal DrRocket. Alfven was your mathematical equal and he fully expressed these ideas in MHD theory for you to read about if you wish. This issue and theory has nothing to do with me. Get 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>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><br /><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">MHD is only meaningful when talking about gas/dust/things that can be modelled as a fluid(hydrodynamic, the HD part) under the influence of a magnetic field). -- posted by UFMbutler</div><p> </p><p>That would include the sun's atmosphere too doesn't it? It would include anything where plasma was involved and EM fields are involved. That's pretty much everywhere in our solar system since high velocity charged particles are wizzing past us even as we speak, and having a direct influence on the Earth's magnetosphere.</p><p>Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Do you even bother to read Alfven's work, or do you just quote section heading without any knowledge of the underlying science.</p><p>MHD is a specific approximation made in physics, in which low frequency oscillations are assumed and one therefore makes the approximation that the displacement current term in Ampere's law (one of the Maxwell equations) can be neglected -- see paragraph 3.3.1 of <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics</em> by Hannes Alfven or section 10.1 oc <em>Classical Electrodynamics</em> by J.D. Jackson. It is what makes MHD a distinct subject from plasma physics, although there is overlap. So NO IT DOES NOT "include anything where plasma was involved and EM fields are involved." </p><p>So, yet again we see that you fail to understand Alfven's work, distort it, and misconstrue basic physics. Yet you call others "ignorant". Pitiful. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you even bother to read Alfven's work, or do you just quote section heading without any knowledge of the underlying science.MHD is a specific approximation made in physics, in which low frequency oscillations are assumed and one therefore makes the approximation that the displacement current term in Ampere's law (one of the Maxwell equations) can be neglected -- see paragraph 3.3.1 of Cosmical Electrodynamics by Hannes Alfven or section 10.1 oc Classical Electrodynamics by J.D. Jackson. It is what makes MHD a distinct subject from plasma physics, although there is overlap. So NO IT DOES NOT "include anything where plasma was involved and EM fields are involved." So, yet again we see that you fail to understand Alfven's work, distort it, and misconstrue basic physics. Yet you call others "ignorant". Pitiful. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>It is because I have actually read Alfven's more current work on MHD theory where he specifically applies MHD theory to cosmic plasma that I can unequivacably tell you that you know absolutely nothing about what you're talking about. Evidently you're going by a single sentence in a 50 plus year old book as your *excuse* for not continuing your education or to learn how he applied these ideas to objects in space. That particular behavior of yours is absolutely pitiful. If and when you get around to actually reading his more current book, you let me know. Until then you sound absolutely ridiculous talking about this topic since you've never bothered to read Alfven's work on this topic. Evidently you're happy ignorantly living in the 60's as it relates to MHD theory. </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'>It is because I have actually read Alfven's more current work on MHD theory where he specifically applies MHD theory to cosmic plasma that I can unequivacably tell you that you know absolutely nothing about what you're talking about. Evidently you're going by a single sentence in a 50 plus year old book as your *excuse* for not continuing your education or to learn how he applied these ideas to objects in space. That particular behavior of yours is absolutely pitiful. If and when you get around to actually reading his more current book, you let me know. Until then you sound absolutely ridiculous talking about this topic since you've never bothered to read Alfven's work on this topic. Evidently you're happy ignorantly living in the 60's as it relates to MHD theory. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You might note that I provided two references. One is the book written by Alfven during his prime and the subject of the work for which he received his Nobel Prize. The other is the standard text in electrodynamics used at many major universities for the graduate level classes. Both are pretty good sources for MHD.</p><p>Since you don't seem to like Alfven's original and often cited book, which contains much of the work for which he is recognized, are you suggesting that his Nobel Prize was undeserved ? That would seem to be a rather extreme position, though it is contrary to the position taken in mainstream physics, and we all know how much you despise mainstream physics. Personally, I think Alfven's contributions to plasma physics and MHD theory in particular were significant and his work deserves respect. I am surprised that you take such a contrary position. </p><p>I am afraid that it is you who, as usual, doesn't know what he is talking about. You cannot unequivocally tell me anything. If you think you can, then please tell me what the major tenets of your particular brand of EU theory are. Then you can stop denigrating Alfven with your nonsense, and start supporting your own bizarre notions with your interpretations of science. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You might note that I provided two references. One is the book written by Alfven during his prime</DIV></p><p>His prime? In what sense is someone "in their prime"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and the subject of the work for which he received his Nobel Prize.</DIV></p><p>Do you have one of those prizes DrRocket? Don't you think you should read his work before denegrating it in post after post?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The other is the standard text in electrodynamics used at many major universities for the graduate level classes. Both are pretty good sources for MHD.</DIV></p><p>Neither of them attempts to apply MHD theory to objects in space, as does Cosmic Plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Since you don't seem to like Alfven's original and often cited book, which contains much of the work for which he is recognized, are you suggesting that his Nobel Prize was undeserved ?</DIV></p><p>What? Why in the world do you do this kind of strawman nonsense? Are you so incapable of having an honest conversation that you can't just focus on the real issues? Why do you need strawman "props" all the time?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That would seem to be a rather extreme position, though it is contrary to the position taken in mainstream physics, and we all know how much you despise mainstream physics. </DIV></p><p>More pure nonsense on your part. It is you that seems to dispise the work written by Alfven. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Personally, I think Alfven's contributions to plasma physics and MHD theory in particular were significant and his work deserves respect. </DIV></p><p>So that's why you won't bother to even read his book before calling his theory "pseudoscience". You do it all out of respect eh? Give me me a break.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am surprised that you take such a contrary position.</DIV></p><p>I'm not surprise you created a strawman contradictory position. Afterall, you seem to show respect for trashing the Nobel prize winning scientists work without the necessity of ever reading it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am afraid that it is you who, as usual, doesn't know what he is talking about. </DIV></p><p>It's you that never read the book DrDenial. It's you that don't have a clue what he's talking about because you never read the work. Clairvoyance isn't your strong suit evidently. I suggest you stick to standard "tried and true" methods, like actually reading the material.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You cannot unequivocally tell me anything. If you think you can, then please tell me what the major tenets of your particular brand of EU theory are. Then you can stop denigrating Alfven with your nonsense, and start supporting your own bizarre notions with your interpretations of science. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I already told you all this Dr.</p><p>You still seem to be still be under the rediculace illusion that I am personally responsible for explaining every scientific theory for that theory to have scientific merit. That is not how it works. I can show you material on any subject, from MHD theory, to the theory of evolution without personally being able to mathematically explain it, or scientifically reproduce it, and that particular theory can still be "accurate" by scientific standards. It does not matter if lil' ol' me can do the math or explain it to your personal satisfaction. It only matters that it *has* been scientifically explained. You simply refuse to read it. That's pure denial on your part. </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 already told you all this Dr. You still seem to be still be under the rediculace illusion that I am personally responsible for explaining every scientific theory for that theory to have scientific merit. That is not how it works. .... It only matters that it *has* been scientifically explained. You simply refuse to read it. That's pure denial on your part. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>No, you haven't told me anything. Yes you are responsible for defining and explaining your rather unique views. Yes that is how it works. No I have not refused to read it, I have refused to buy it. We have discussed Alfven's writings in Cosmic Plasma in other threads and clearly demonstrated your misconceptions and distortions of those writings. </p><p>You are quite clearly in denial. You deny the simple need to define and explain your personal views of EU theory. In the post of dereckmcd there is rather complete dissection of Don Scott's particular brand of nonsense and a clear distinction between EU theory and Plasma Cosmology, both of which have been shown to be incorrect in light of modern evidence. The Plasma Cosmology of Alfven was once considered seriously, though finally set aside as better data came to light from modern experimental science -- see for instance the discussions that have been pointed out to you in <em>Principles of Physical Cosmology</em> by P.J.E. Peebles or <em>Gravitation </em>by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler. On the other hand the idiocy that goes by the name of the Electric Universe (EU) has never had any credibility as it is simply bizarre and is contradicted by boat loads of verifiable empirical data and the weight of proven physical theory.</p><p>For your convenience here again the link to the systematic debunking of Don Scott's particular delusion with respect to EU. It contains many arguments that have been presented to you before in these forums, but it is nicely summarized and expanded in this piece. <br />http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/anomalies/ElectricSky_20080322.pdf</p><p>If you would care to make more clear your particular hallucinations and contradictions to Alflven's original proposals we can do the same for you.</p><p>You don't understand physics. You don't understand Alfven. And most of all you don't understand that you don't understand.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, you haven't told me anything. </DIV></p><p>Pure denial. I'm not responsible for personally educating you, simply to provide you with material that explains the theory. This is true regardless of what theory we might be discussing. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes you are responsible for defining and explaining your rather unique views. </DIV></p><p>For the last time, these are not "my" views and this is not a "personal" theory. It is a theory written and created by Birkeland and Alfven and Bruce. it's not my theory. Get over that concept. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes that is how it works. </DIV></p><p>No, it's not. I'm not required to do every bit of math of every valid theory for it to be valid. There is no one to one correlation between my personal math skills, or my personal science skills and the validity of any given theory. You have science standing on it's head and seem to think my personal expression of an idea determines the validity of a given theory. That is NOT how it works.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No I have not refused to read it, I have refused to buy it. </DIV></p><p>Do you not have a library in your city?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We have discussed Alfven's writings in Cosmic Plasma in other threads and clearly demonstrated your misconceptions and distortions of those writings.</DIV></p><p>You would not know that because you never read his materials. Your position is based on pure, self imposed ignorance.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are quite clearly in denial. You deny the simple need to define and explain your personal views of EU theory.</DIV></p><p>My personal views are irrelevant DrRocket. You need to hear that. No theory rises or falls on my opinions about it. No theory is validated or falsified by my presentation of that theory. No theory is dependent upon the personal presentation of Michael Mozina for it to be valid. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In the post of dereckmcd there is rather complete dissection of Don Scott's particular brand of nonsense </DIV></p><p>Evidently when you can't find an actual mathematical or scientific flaw in something you simply resort to ad hominemems and call it "nonsense" hoping that nobody busts your show. Care to be specific or shall I assume this "criticism" represents the "best you can do" on this topic?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and a clear distinction between EU theory and Plasma Cosmology, both of which have been shown to be incorrect in light of modern evidence. </DIV></p><p>There isn't a distinction as far as I know, and what do you believe is "incorrect" based on modern evidence?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Plasma Cosmology of Alfven was once considered seriously, though finally set aside as better data came to light from modern experimental science </DIV></p><p>Such as?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>- see for instance the discussions that have been pointed out to you in Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles or Gravitation by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler. </DIV></p><p>Oh right, I'm supposed to read everything to throw at me, and you get to ignore everything Alfven wrote, is that how it works in your hypocritcal world?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>On the other hand the idiocy that goes by the name of the Electric Universe (EU) has never had any credibility as it is simply bizarre and is contradicted by boat loads of verifiable empirical data and the weight of proven physical theory.</DIV></p><p>Name one thing that is "contradicted" by empircial data.</p><p>[QUOTEFor your convenience here again the link to the systematic debunking of Don Scott's particular delusion with respect to EU. It contains many arguments that have been presented to you before in these forums, but it is nicely summarized and expanded in this piece.</DIV></p><p>Why should I bother to read or repsond to your references when you do not read or respond to mine? Why do you think your links are so "special" that everyone must read them, whereas the writings of a Nobel Prize winning scientist and his students are "Embarrasing" to you? Care to give me good serious explaination as to what was wrong with Alfven's presentation in Cosmic Plasma? You even have access to a couple of chapters for free. Maybe you could just dig up some flaw in his work for me in those chapters?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't understand Alfven. </DIV></p><p>I do understand him because I've taken the time to actually read his writings, all of them, or at least all of them that I could get my hands on. There are a few papers I'm still looking for, but I've actually done my homework whereas you've sat on your laurels and missed all the important parts of his work. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And most of all you don't understand that you don't understand. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Duh. At least I don't run around professing to be an expert on something I've never read and don't know anything about.</p><p>I understand Alfven just fine because he applied Maxwell's equations to events in space. it's pure science. </p><p> What I don't undestand are people like you that refuse to educate themselves on a topic and continue to spread lies and false statements about something they've never bothered to read. Worse yet is the fact you're now on crusade, attempting desparately to tie everything I say in the SS&A forum into something you can claim is EU related, just so you can be sure to get me banned. Your whole show is about control and sliffling free speech. You can't handle freedom or open debate. Therefore you bullly people and put ridiculous expectations on people to bark math at your command. I hate to break it to you DrRocket because I do respect your math skills, but you weren't even in the same league as Birkeland and Alfven and they wrote EU theory, not me. </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: 38
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram