<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. 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 Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles or Gravitation 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.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. http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/anomalies/ElectricSky_20080322.pdfIf you would care to make more clear your particular hallucinations and contradictions to Alflven's original proposals we can do the same for you.You don't understand physics. You don't understand Alfven. And most of all you don't understand that you don't understand. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I am reading through that link and find it eery how well it can be applied to this thread if you repalce every reference to "Scott" with "Mozina". This is basically our responses in every EU thread, put together into one article. </p><p>I'd also like to point out that it isn't fair to be so adamant about DrRocket reading Alfven's book while simultaneously ignoring completely every suggestion by DrRocket in response. Also, it's a bit(and by "a bit" I mean REALLY REALLY) hypocritical to be criticize DrRocket for using a "60 year old reference" when you yourself are doing the EXACT same thing, and in the case of Birkeland, you are using a ~100 year old reference. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
The Emprical Method - Objectively defining what constitutes an "explanation".
Page 4 - 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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am reading through that link and find it eery how well it can be applied to this thread if you repalce every reference to "Scott" with "Mozina".</DIV></p><p>Er, might that be because we share similar views? So much for it being a "personal" theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This is basically our responses in every EU thread, put together into one article. I'd also like to point out that it isn't fair to be so adamant about DrRocket reading Alfven's book while simultaneously ignoring completely every suggestion by DrRocket in response.</DIV></p><p>I asked DrRocket to respond to a specific paper Scott wrote on the topic of magnetic reconnection. I did not ask for a review of his book, and I'll bet I'm the only one who's actually read that book too.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Also, it's a bit(and by "a bit" I mean REALLY REALLY) hypocritical to be criticize DrRocket for using a "60 year old reference" when you yourself are doing the EXACT same thing, and in the case of Birkeland, you are using a ~100 year old reference. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Birkeland's work was *empirical* by nature. It can be reproduced in a lab. It's *tried and true* empirical physics. Alfven specifically applied MHD theory to objects in space after the first book in DrRocket's collection. He did not stop in his education where DrRocket stopped in his. </p><p>I have no problem reading this critique of Scott's book, but it is completely and utterly unrelated to the paper I cited by Scott on the topic of magnetic reconnection theory. It's disingenous for him to keep throwing unrelated links at me when we're discussing a completely different paper. </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>
D
DrRocket
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... I have no problem reading this critique of Scott's book, but it is completely and utterly unrelated to the paper I cited by Scott on the topic of magnetic reconnection theory. It's disingenous for him to keep throwing unrelated links at me when we're discussing a completely different paper. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>We dispensed with that paper of Scott's some time ago. It is not a scientific paper at all, but an attack on mainstream astrophysicists as scientists. What it does is set up a false straw man purporting to represent the knowledge base of mainstream astrophysicists and their approach to electrodynamics and then simply quote knowledge that is common to every undergraduate physics student claiming to discredit the mainstream. The only thing necessary to set aside that paper is to simply note that astrophysicists are physicists and they know full well Maxwell's equations and the implications of those equations.</p><p>It is you who are being disingenous, and in fact downright deceitful, not to mention illogical. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
D
DrRocket
Guest
<p>Note the topic of this thread, which you started.</p><p>First and foremost, in order to have an explanation, one must have a clear definition of that which is to be explained.</p><p>Your question is clearly directed towards what is required for an explanation of what you call "EU theory".</p><p>So, the very first thing that is required of you if you wish to be taken seriously is a clear statement of the fundamental tenets of your particular brand of EU theory. Now, we know that you don't want to make such a statement, since it would be subject to scrutiny, evaluation in light of well-known and proven science, and thereby debunked. Nevertheless, as the advocate of "alternative" science the onus is on you to provide a credible explanation for your "theory". One must further insist that your theory be consistent with that which you have espoused on your personal web site. http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/</p><p>You have often referenced Don Scott's work. That has been debunked in this thread and others. Scott has been revealed as a fool and a charlatan. But that is he and you are you. </p><p>We need an understanding of your own version of EU "theory". A clear statement of what you take as the fundamentals of this so-called theory.</p><p>It is not acceptable to simply reference Alfven's work as quote that as being EU theory. For as we have shown you many times, Alfven's work is not in question here, but rather it is your bogus interpretation of that work. You have made the false claim many times that I have denigrated Alfven's work. That is simply not true. I hold the work of his that I have read, including many papers, <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics, </em>and the large portions of <em>Cosmic Plasma </em>that I have read in high regard. I regard Alfven as a great scientist. It is your interpretation that I regard as foolish, and it is your work that I hold in low esteem.</p><p>So, define and defend your own work, not Alfven's. You are not Alfven. Alfven's work includes none of the solar physics that you espouse on your web site. Alfven was no fool. Perhaps you can demonstrate with hard science that neither are you. Come on, give it a try. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We dispensed with that paper of Scott's some time ago. </DIV></p><p>No, you handwaved away at it a bit and never found a single real objections worth remembering.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is not a scientific paper at all, but an attack on mainstream astrophysicists as scientists.</DIV></p><p>No, it was a specific objection to the notion of "magnetic reconnection" and the idea of deriving energy from "magnetic reconnection". Scott's book is far more generic and covers more topics, but his paper is specific to a topic. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> What it does is set up a false straw man purporting to represent the knowledge base of mainstream astrophysicists and their approach to electrodynamics and then simply quote knowledge that is common to every undergraduate physics student claiming to discredit the mainstream. </DIV></p><p>Only because it is "common knowledge" that magnetic lines form as a full continuum, and they don't make and break connections like circuits. The mainstream simply discredit's their own theory by giving it a very poor name. It certainly *requires* the flow of "current" in those "magnetic lines" to make it work!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only thing necessary to set aside that paper is to simply note that astrophysicists are physicists and they know full well Maxwell's equations and the implications of those equations.It is you who are being disingenous, and in fact downright deceitful, not to mention illogical. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The only person being deceiptful is you. You're on crusade and you know abolutely nothing about EU theory in spite of your ridiculous claims about it being "nonsense". You can't even define it, let alone tell us what is "nonsense" about it. You are also being deceiptful by attempting to twist and misrepresent every statement I make in the SS&A forum into some kind pro-EU diatribe just so you can rant against it some more without ever bothering to read 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>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Note the topic of this thread, which you started.First and foremost, in order to have an explanation, one must have a clear definition of that which is to be explained.Your question is clearly directed towards what is required for an explanation of what you call "EU theory".</DIV></p><p>No, actually my second question should apply to *all* theories, regardless of their "popularity".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, the very first thing that is required of you if you wish to be taken seriously is a clear statement of the fundamental tenets of your particular brand of EU theory.</DIV></p><p>My "brand" of EU theory is not unique. It can best be summed up by Alfven's writings. Shall we take those seriously?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Now, we know that you don't want to make such a statement, since it would be subject to scrutiny, evaluation in light of well-known and proven science, and thereby debunked.</DIV></p><p>You are welcome to attempt to debunk any of Alfven's papers, his book, Peratt's papers or books or Birkeland's work. These folks described the math and physics behind "EU theory". It's not personal and the validity of their theories is not predicated upon my personal math or science skills, but theirs.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Nevertheless, as the advocate of "alternative" science </DIV></p><p>Talk about "deceipt"! Hoy. You aren't an advocate of anything but your own belief systems.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>the onus is on you to provide a credible explanation for your "theory". </DIV></p><p>And I have done so, you just refuse to read it or comment on it, even though the first two chapters are free and you've had months to read them and comment on them. So far you've said nothing.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One must further insist that your theory be consistent with that which you have espoused on your personal web site. </DIV></p><p>EU theory isn't predicated upon my personal belief system about the composition and makup of the sun. Again, this is nothing but a red herring devoid of scientific meaning. You are again attempting to personalize this discussion when I has specifically kept it "generic" and specifically focused on the matierals presented by Alfven, Peratt and Birkeland. Why? Why do you keep insisting that my opnions have any bearing on the legitmacy of EU/PC theory? Thanks for the plug however.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have often referenced Don Scott's work. That has been debunked in this thread and others.</DIV></p><p>You evidently don't know the meaning of the term "debunk". You can't debunk something you haven't read. Have you actually read Scott's book or did you "debunk" that book by clarivoyance too?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Scott has been revealed as a fool and a charlatan.</DIV></p><p>Only a fool would claim to have "debunked" a theory they've never read DrRocket. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But that is he and you are you.</DIV></p><p>But of course you couldn't resist the opportunity to compare me and EU theory in general to "charlatans and fools"? Your debate tactics are pathetic, below the belt, and about as desparate as it gets. You're so transparent it's pathetic. You won't do your homework so you "cheat" and smear by association and liberal use of ad hominems.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We need an understanding of your own version of EU "theory". </DIV></p><p>I don't have my "own version of EU theory". My beliefs are congruent with Alfven's presentation of the theory in Cosmic Plasma. If and when you wish to understand EU theory, I suggest you start there.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A clear statement of what you take as the fundamentals of this so-called theory.</DIV></p><p>Been there, done that, you just won't read it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is not acceptable to simply reference Alfven's work as quote that as being EU theory.</DIV></p><p>Of course it is. If you asked me about GR theory, I could also cite Einsteins work, regardless of whether I can personally duplicate the work. it would still be valid regardless of whether I could even explain it as long as Einstein did explain it in the book or paper I recommended. No theory rises or falls on Michael Mozina's presentation of that theory, and the originator of the theory is always a good place to start if you are attempting to understand a theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> For as we have shown you many times, Alfven's work is not in question here, but rather it is your bogus interpretation of that work. </DIV></p><p>You wouldn't know if my theories were bogus because you don't know what he said. You can't compare his belief to mine because you haven't read his work. You can't tell me what is "bogus" about my interpretation of that work because you don't know what that work is in the first place.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have made the false claim many times that I have denigrated Alfven's work. That is simply not true. </DIV></p><p>Yes, it certianly is true because he invented the theory and give it mathematical expression, not to mention "software" simulations. You won't read thosse of course either. It would bust your whole show about "hard science" to admit there are valid computer models of Alfven's theories. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I hold the work of his that I have read, including many papers, Cosmical Electrodynamics, and the large portions of Cosmic Plasma that I have read in high regard. </DIV></p><p>Then you should not call EU theory "nonsense" and "pseudoscience". You don't have a clue what EU theory is if you believe this to be true.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I regard Alfven as a great scientist.</DIV></p><p>Which clearly explains why you keep calling his theory "nonsense" and "pseudoscience".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is your interpretation that I regard as foolish,</DIV></p><p>Which "interpretion"? His extensive use of "circuits" in his work?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and it is your work that I hold in low esteem.</DIV></p><p>At least I'm not ashamed to admit who I am in public and let people review my published papers. I don't really care what you think of my work since I see how you treat Alfven's work and Birkeland's work. You're reckless and irresponsible with your criticisms and you hide behind your annonmity. I have no respect for your attitute towards EU theory or my beliefs.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, define and defend your own work, not Alfven's. </DIV></p><p>EU theory is no "my work", it is Alfvens work, it is Birkeland's work, it is Peratt's work, it is Bruces work. I'm just a Johnny-come-lately to the theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are not Alfven.</DIV></p><p>Neither are you and it shows. Alfven showed initiative and his criticisms were specific.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Alfven's work includes none of the solar physics that you espouse on your web site. </DIV></p><p>And I have carefully pointed that out on numerous occassions. So what? I'm simply a "Birkeland purist" as I see it but Alfven explained the math of EU theory and applied it to astronomy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfven was no fool.</DIV></p><p>Yes, but your actions have been foolish. You keep denegrating his work and putting it down without reading it. That's foolish behavior DrRocket, by anyone's standards. You're only making yourself look bad.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Perhaps you can demonstrate with hard science that neither are you. Come on, give it a try. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You can't even define "hard science" in the first place. The thing you call "science" isn't "hard" science it's "software science" devoid of "hard"ware support. You wouldn't know "hard science" if it hit you in the forehead IMO.</p><p>Define for us exactly what constitutes "hard science" and explain to us how inflation qualifies as "hard 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>
U
UFmbutler
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Only because it is "common knowledge" that magnetic lines form as a full continuum, and they don't make and break connections like circuits. The mainstream simply discredit's their own theory by giving it a very poor name. It certainly *requires* the flow of "current" in those "magnetic lines" to make it work!</DIV></p><p>Come on, could you knock it off with this garbage? Do you not recall the ~40 pages of us telling you how wrong that sentence is? It does what Scott's book does...claim the mainstream believes something that they absolutely do not, and then refutes it. He isn't refuting the mainstream, he is only attacking his "strawman" as you guys like to say. Nobody who studies the modern definition of magnetic reconnection known since the 60s believes field lines reconnect in a literal sense...that doesn't even make sense because field lines aren't even physical things! You are continuing along the same stupid line of semantical argument that got your electricity thread moved here in the first place. And you wonder why people are getting fed up. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You wouldn't know if my theories were bogus because you don't know what he said. You can't compare his belief to mine because you haven't read his work. You can't tell me what is "bogus" about my interpretation of that work because you don't know what that work is in the first place.</DIV></p><p>How can you claim to be an advocate of a theory when you won't even tell us explicitly what it is? YOU brought EU to this forum and others for discussion. We are not your students in a class, so giving us a reading list required to participate in a discussion is unrealistic. Even people in the field couldn't be bothered to respond to your diatribe on reconnection. Is it so much to ask to even give an abstract-style summary of EU as a whole? I know it doesn't believe in your definition of magnetic reconnection, I know it likes Birkeland's work and I know it has some wacky ideas about stellar structure and galactic dynamics. But that's all I know. With that information all I can say is "that's wrong", but not specifically why it's wrong. I don't know about Peratt and Bruce, but I do know there is nothing wrong with Alfven's work or Birkeland's work. I am familiar with a lot of it(practically every paper involving gas flows etc at least mention Alfven speed, Alfven mach number, Birkeland currents, you name it), but I associate that with MHD, not EU. </p><p>Obviously EU has some striking differences from MHD, otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument. Nobody doubts the validity of the field of MHD. It is your responsibility to tell us why EU is different. Where do you get your stellar structure assumptions from for example? I certainly have not seen such assumptions in any of Alfven's work. </p><p>The bottom line is, you are taking a position in the argument that makes no sense. You bring some loosely defined theory here, and tell us to prove it wrong. Like Derek's analogy, why should we waste our time on it if there's nothing majorly wrong with the existing theory? Don't even bring up inflation because that has nothing to do with magnetospheric physics or solar physics. I'm sure if you actually tried to explain your theory to us we would address it accordingly...when people asked me questions on my paper that I posted, I answered them, I didn't just say "go read x and y and z and all the references therein". That may have been what I had to do to learn what I wrote about, but its ridiculous to demand that of everybody who reads the paper. The reason papes give contact information for the authors is so the authors can clear up misunderstandings. Our misunderstanding is "what the hell is EU, exactly". You keep saying it's not your theory, but, star formation isn't my theory. Interstellar medium science is not my theory. Gas flows/turbulence is not my theory. That doesn't mean I am not willing to explain what I used from those fields to get my results. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
D
DrRocket
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, actually my second question should apply to *all* theories, regardless of their "popularity".My "brand" of EU theory is not unique. It can best be summed up by Alfven's writings. Shall we take those seriously?You are welcome to attempt to debunk any of Alfven's papers, his book, Peratt's papers or books or Birkeland's work. These folks described the math and physics behind "EU theory". It's not personal and the validity of their theories is not predicated upon my personal math or science skills, but theirs.Talk about "deceipt"! Hoy. You aren't an advocate of anything but your own belief systems.And I have done so, you just refuse to read it or comment on it, even though the first two chapters are free and you've had months to read them and comment on them. So far you've said nothing.EU theory isn't predicated upon my personal belief system about the composition and makup of the sun. Again, this is nothing but a red herring devoid of scientific meaning. You are again attempting to personalize this discussion when I has specifically kept it "generic" and specifically focused on the matierals presented by Alfven, Peratt and Birkeland. Why? Why do you keep insisting that my opnions have any bearing on the legitmacy of EU/PC theory? Thanks for the plug however.You evidently don't know the meaning of the term "debunk". You can't debunk something you haven't read. Have you actually read Scott's book or did you "debunk" that book by clarivoyance too?Only a fool would claim to have "debunked" a theory they've never read DrRocket. But of course you couldn't resist the opportunity to compare me and EU theory in general to "charlatans and fools"? Your debate tactics are pathetic, below the belt, and about as desparate as it gets. You're so transparent it's pathetic. You won't do your homework so you "cheat" and smear by association and liberal use of ad hominems.I don't have my "own version of EU theory". My beliefs are congruent with Alfven's presentation of the theory in Cosmic Plasma. If and when you wish to understand EU theory, I suggest you start there.Been there, done that, you just won't read it.Of course it is. If you asked me about GR theory, I could also cite Einsteins work, regardless of whether I can personally duplicate the work. it would still be valid regardless of whether I could even explain it as long as Einstein did explain it in the book or paper I recommended. No theory rises or falls on Michael Mozina's presentation of that theory, and the originator of the theory is always a good place to start if you are attempting to understand a theory.You wouldn't know if my theories were bogus because you don't know what he said. You can't compare his belief to mine because you haven't read his work. You can't tell me what is "bogus" about my interpretation of that work because you don't know what that work is in the first place.Yes, it certianly is true because he invented the theory and give it mathematical expression, not to mention "software" simulations. You won't read thosse of course either. It would bust your whole show about "hard science" to admit there are valid computer models of Alfven's theories. Then you should not call EU theory "nonsense" and "pseudoscience". You don't have a clue what EU theory is if you believe this to be true.Which clearly explains why you keep calling his theory "nonsense" and "pseudoscience".Which "interpretion"? His extensive use of "circuits" in his work?At least I'm not ashamed to admit who I am in public and let people review my published papers. I don't really care what you think of my work since I see how you treat Alfven's work and Birkeland's work. You're reckless and irresponsible with your criticisms and you hide behind your annonmity. I have no respect for your attitute towards EU theory or my beliefs.EU theory is no "my work", it is Alfvens work, it is Birkeland's work, it is Peratt's work, it is Bruces work. I'm just a Johnny-come-lately to the theory.Neither are you and it shows. Alfven showed initiative and his criticisms were specific.And I have carefully pointed that out on numerous occassions. So what? I'm simply a "Birkeland purist" as I see it but Alfven explained the math of EU theory and applied it to astronomy.Yes, but your actions have been foolish. You keep denegrating his work and putting it down without reading it. That's foolish behavior DrRocket, by anyone's standards. You're only making yourself look bad.You can't even define "hard science" in the first place. The thing you call "science" isn't "hard" science it's "software science" devoid of "hard"ware support. You wouldn't know "hard science" if it hit you in the forehead IMO.Define for us exactly what constitutes "hard science" and explain to us how inflation qualifies as "hard science". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>This is simply amazing. You have basically stated that you don't know what "EU theory" is, you just believe in whatever you think Alfven wrote in the single book <em>Cosmic Plasma</em>. You can't even tell us what it is that you think he said. Or perhaps you are afraid to do so and reveal your ignorance and your delusions.</p><p>Yet you have created a web sit filled with absurd notions regarding solar physics in the name of "EU theory". You have published questionable work with an even more questionable co-author, who presumably supplied the "science" while you supplied some photos from the SOHO project (as I gather from the paper). So you claim to be a scientist, yet you refuse to explain your understanding of "EU theory". I really don't care if the ideas are your own or if you ascribe them to Peratt, Alfven or the Easter Bunny. Just make clear what it is that you mean by "EU theory", and why you think it is valid. </p><p>So, what is it that you believe ? Is your belief limited to a persecution complex, claiming that the mainstream conspires to suppress the "one true thing" -- EU theory ? It is rather strange that you feel that they are suppressing a notion that you yourself refuse to reveal. Why do you suppress it, whatever "it" is ?</p><p>One more time to correct your LIE. I have not denigrated Alfven's work. I hold him in high regard. He was no fool. It is YOUR statements that are utterly foolish. It is YOUR statements that are deliberately wrong -- utter lies.</p><p>I have explained to you before what "hard" science is. But I will do it again. Please do likewise and explain your version of "EU theory".</p><p>I will restrict my discussion of hard science to physics, since that is the topic at hand. Within physics "hard science" is that body of physical knowledge that exists as accepted theories with proven predictive power that is backed up by a body of verified empirical data, and the pursuit of further understanding of physics through the application of imagination, the knowledge of those accepted theories, and solid mathematics. There is a clear demarcation between what is accepted as "known" and what is put forth as hypotheses awaiting verification or falsification.</p><p>Accepted theories of physics, with known domains of validity and known limitations are: Newtonian mechanics, Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation, Maxwell's classical electromagnetism, quantum electrodynamics, the theory of the electroweak force, quantum chromodynamics (the electroweak theory plus quantum chromodynamics are the Standard Model of particle physics), and general relativity. Theories based on this foundation that provide descriptions of macroscopic behavior include fluid dynamics, thermodynamics (both classical and statistical), heat transfer, optics, etc. The study of combined effects of fluid flow and electrodynamics in ionized substances is undertaken in plasma physics and magnetohydrodynamics. All of these disciplines qualify as hard science.</p><p>Physics is still a vibrant area of research. The hard science theories are not sufficient to explain all that is observed, and there are difficulties in consistency among the foundational theories of general relativity and the quantum field theories that constitute the Standard Model. There are also phenomena requiring better explanation at a macroscopic level, the nature of turbulent fluid flow being one such phenomenon. Inflation is one attempt to provide an explanation that is consistent with the Standard Model and with general relativity for the observed expansion of the universe, the large scale homogeneity of the cosmic background radiation (CMBR), the smaller scale anisotropy of the CMBR, and the observed asymmetry in Maxwell's equations (lack of magnetic monopoles). It is not established and accepted science, but it is a hypothesis that is made in the finest traditions of research in hard science. It does not attempt to contradict known physical principle in circumstance where those principles are known to be valid. It may provide a clue to the eventual development of a theory that combines general relativity and quantum field theories, or it may eventually be shown to be false. That is how research works.</p><p>Research in hard science is a combination of imagination and discipline. Imagination is required to formulate new concepts and new mathematical models. Discipline is required in that the new ideas must conform to what is known and what has been verified many times. Discipline is also required in the application of empirical methods in the effort to confirm or falsify hypotheses. Confirmation requires quantitative measurements that can be replicated, and it requires that candidate theories agree with all measurements within the limits of measurement capability. Note the emphasis on quantitative measurements -- "looks like" is not enough, or even relevant. </p><p>It is now your turn. Explain what "EU theory" is and why you think it is valid. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is simply amazing. You have basically stated that you don't know what "EU theory" is, you just believe in whatever you think Alfven wrote in the single book Cosmic Plasma.</DIV></p><p>You are absolutely amazing at your abiliity to twist my words and spin everything into a personal attack. Amazing. I guess your notion of "truth" is like Bush. If you lie enough times, people just might believe you, is that the idea?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can't even tell us what it is that you think he said.</DIV></p><p>I'm not going to allow you to attempt to derail this debate on the validity of EU theory by making it about me. Birkeland and Alfven, Bruce and Peratt wrote this theory, not me. If you wish to understand EU theory, you'll have to study if from the folks that created it. If you wish to find fault in their work, that's up to you, but there is no point in finding fault in my beliefs. I didn't write EU theory. It would be like judging the validity of GR theory based on my personal presentation of GR theory and you would never stand for such a thing if this were GR theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Or perhaps you are afraid to do so and reveal your ignorance and your delusions.</DIV></p><p>Not me. I've acutally read the book whereas your ignorance and delusions are clear for all the world to see. You won't read the book, in fact you refuse to do so even when some of it is actually freely available to you. You don't know what he said. You can't define EU theory and you don't have a clue what is "nonsense" about it. You're simply an ignorant guy with an ignorant opinion and everyone who's following this conversation can see this based on your unwillingness to even edcuate yourself.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yet you have created a web sit filled with absurd notions regarding solar physics in the name of "EU theory".</DIV></p><p>You wouldn't know that either because you run from the two first images on my website. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You have published questionable work with an even more questionable co-author, who presumably supplied the "science" while you supplied some photos from the SOHO project (as I gather from the paper). </DIV></p><p>If you mean the work that was published in the Journal of Fusion energy or the Physics of Atomic Nuclei, yes Dr. Manuel's work on particle physics was front and center. So what? What was "questionable" about the work? At least I'm not hiding behind a handle and I have provided you with links to my published work. You won't do that much.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So you claim to be a scientist, yet you refuse to explain your understanding of "EU theory". </DIV></p><p>I refuse to let you judge the validity of any theory, including GR theory, based on my personal presentation of the idea. If you wanted a definition of GR, I would likely cite Einstein as your best source of information. If you ask me about how MHD theory should be applied to objects in space, I would refer you to Alfven. If you wanted an emprical test of concept, I would cite Birkeland's work. EU theory is based on me, nor is it dependent upon my presentation of the idea.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I really don't care if the ideas are your own or if you ascribe them to Peratt, Alfven or the Easter Bunny. </DIV></p><p>So you figure it's rational and fair to compare Alfven and Peratt to the Easter bunny? You're amazing. You don't debate fairly. I guess it's the only way you even score any points at all is with these cute shock value comments, because you don't have any clue about the science behind the theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just make clear what it is that you mean by "EU theory", and why you think it is valid. </DIV></p><p>I have done that. It is he application of MHD theory to objects in space. It's valid because it works, including working in a lab, and it has real emprical support.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, what is it that you believe ? </DIV></p><p>It is irrelevant what I personally belief. Why can't you get that. GR does not rise and fall based on Michael Mozina's presentation of GR theory. The theory is bigger than me and the validty of the theory is not predicated upon me or on my math or science skillset. It is "real science" regardless of whether I can personallly explain it to your personal satisfaction. Get over the idea that any theory rises or falls based on my presentation of the idea.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is your belief limited to a persecution complex, claiming that the mainstream conspires to suppress the "one true thing" -- EU theory ?</DIV></p><p>The only person here interested in persecution is you. You've gone so far as to twist the most innocent statements into some backdoor support for EU Theory. You're the one trying to get me banned here DrRocket. It's not everyone here who's out to see me get banned. That behavior is limited to you. It's also not my imagination that EU theory is the one mathematically defined theory that is now "off limits" as a topic of conversation here thanks to you.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is rather strange that you feel that they are suppressing a notion that you yourself refuse to reveal. Why do you suppress it, whatever "it" is ?</DIV></p><p>EU theory isn't mine, nor did I create it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One more time to correct your LIE. I have not denigrated Alfven's work. I hold him in high regard. He was no fool. It is YOUR statements that are utterly foolish. It is YOUR statements that are deliberately wrong -- utter lies.</DIV></p><p>You are the only one of us who lies, and who foolishly refuses to do their homework. You didn't claim *my personal views* were pseudoscience, you said the whole of EU theory was nonsense and pseudoscience. Alfven wrote and created this theory. Everytime you say stupid ignorant statements about EU theory, you are in fact denegrating Alfven's work because it's his work not mine.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have explained to you before what "hard" science is. But I will do it again. Please do likewise and explain your version of "EU theory".I will restrict my discussion of hard science to physics, since that is the topic at hand. Within physics "hard science" is that body of physical knowledge that exists as accepted theories </DIV></p><p>Accepted theories? Are you implying this is a popularity contest or does EU theory exist as an accepted theory in your mind? I can't figure that out because you seem to think EU theory is going to be proven or disproven by my personal efforts.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>with proven predictive power </DIV></p><p>You mean like how Birkeland "predicted" coronal loop activity or how Alfven "predicted" explosive double layers on the sun? Do you mean like Birkeland's prediction of fast moving solar wind and currents in space? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>that is backed up by a body of verified empirical data, </DIV></p><p>Verified emprical data? What? You have verifed empirical data to support inflation? How did you come by something that doesn't exist?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and the pursuit of further understanding of physics through the application of imagination, </DIV></p><p>It's very imaginative to believe that inflation is like magic, able to undergo multiple exponential increases in volume and retain near constant density, but don't you think some "proof of concept" might be in order since no known vector or scalar field in nature does this? So "imagination" is "good", with or without emprical support?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>the knowledge of those accepted theories, </DIV></p><p>You don't have any knowledge of EU theory because you won't study it, not because no literature exists on thet topic.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and solid mathematics. </DIV></p><p>Unless of course it comes from Peratt because he embarasses you? Didn't Alfven provide math in Cosmic Plasma?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is a clear demarcation between what is accepted as "known"</DIV></p><p>How exactly is inflation "known" to exist? I can even cite the specific human imagination that dreamed up that particular supernatural contruct. How can you be sure inflation is even real or that it exists in nature? What product can I purchase that does something useful with inflation? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and what is put forth as hypotheses awaiting verification or falsification.</DIV></p><p>There is no emprical way to either verify or falsify inflation. If you don't believe it exists in the first place, there is no emprical demonstration it's not a figment of Guth's overactive imagination and there is no way to falsify the idea because it was never empircially verified in the first place. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Accepted theories of physics, with known domains of validity and known limitations are: Newtonian mechanics, Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation, Maxwell's classical electromagnetism, quantum electrodynamics, the theory of the electroweak force, quantum chromodynamics (the electroweak theory plus quantum chromodynamics are the Standard Model of particle physics), and general relativity.</DIV></p><p>Great. EU theory is limited to only these forces of nature. I don't see inflation on that list. Is that "accepted theory" too? As a skeptic, how do I emprically verify that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's imagination? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Theories based on this foundation that provide descriptions of macroscopic behavior include fluid dynamics, thermodynamics (both classical and statistical), heat transfer, optics, etc. The study of combined effects of fluid flow and electrodynamics in ionized substances is undertaken in plasma physics and magnetohydrodynamics. </DIV></p><p>How does this apply to inflation? Did you folks bother to test any of these presumed properties of inflation in emprical test, or just make them up in an ad hoc manner as you went? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All of these disciplines qualify as hard science.Physics is still a vibrant area of research. </DIV></p><p>Is so, the EU theory is definitiely "hard science' becuase it is simply the application of MHD theory and Maxwell's equations to plasma. There's nothing about it that cannot be emprically verified with real hardware.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The hard science theories are not sufficient to explain all that is observed, and there are difficulties in consistency among the foundational theories of general relativity and the quantum field theories that constitute the Standard Model.</DIV></p><p>So you just stuff the gaps with "dark" gap fillers and inflation, is that it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are also phenomena requiring better explanation at a macroscopic level, the nature of turbulent fluid flow being one such phenomenon. Inflation is one attempt to provide an explanation that is consistent with the Standard Model and with general relativity for the observed expansion of the universe, the large scale homogeneity of the cosmic background radiation (CMBR), the smaller scale anisotropy of the CMBR,</DIV></p><p>You mean except for those "dark flows" and those holes in the universe and the fact you can't even demonstrate the inflation is real in the first place let alone that it would lead to a homogenous distrution of matter. Every "property" of inflation was simply "made up" and all of it has to be taken on faith because nobody on earth has any inflation to study.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and the observed asymmetry in Maxwell's equations (lack of magnetic monopoles). </DIV></p><p>That is an absurd arguement. Monopoles do not exist, not becuase of inflation, but because they simply don't exist in nature. Suggesting that inflation led to asymmetry in Maxwelll's equations due to inflation is like claiming that magic did it. There is no emprical correlation between the existence of monopoles and the presumed existence of inflation. That arguement is totally and computely bogus.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is not established and accepted science, but it is a hypothesis that is made in the finest traditions of research in hard science. </DIV></p><p>Evidently your definition of "hard science" includes no requirement for any sort of "hardware" to demonstrate the idea emprically. Evidently any sort of mathematical mythos will do.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It does not attempt to contradict known physical principle in circumstance where those principles are known to be valid. </DIV></p><p>Except when the added inflation you mean?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It may provide a clue to the eventual development of a theory that combines general relativity and quantum field theories, or it may eventually be shown to be false.</DIV></p><p>It's never been shown to be valid in the first place, so I don't see how it could be shown to be false. Inflation has never distruted anything uniformly in any empirical test, so it's never been shown to be true to begin with, and it can't be falsified either because evidently it doesnt actually have to be homonegously distubuted and "dark flows" are evidently no way to falsify the idea. How can anyone falsify Lambda-CMD theory?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is how research works.Research in hard science is a combination of imagination and discipline. Imagination is required to formulate new concepts and new mathematical models. </DIV></p><p>So inflation, being a product of one man's imagination, was 'good', regardless of the fact you can't demonstrrate it isn't a figment of his imagination, only because it comes with a math formula? He didn't just invent new mathematical models, he literally invented a new force of nature! </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Discipline is required in that the new ideas must conform to what is known and what has been verified many times. </DIV></p><p>And if they don't conform to your idea, you're going to make sure you dole out the discipline, is that it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Discipline is also required in the application of empirical methods in the effort to confirm or falsify hypotheses.</DIV></p><p>What kind of displine might I use to verify that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Confirmation requires quantitative measurements that can be replicated, and it requires that candidate theories agree with all measurements within the limits of measurement capability. </DIV></p><p>So you can of course replicate an experiment that verifies that inflation exists?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Note the emphasis on quantitative measurements -- "looks like" is not enough, or even relevant. It is now your turn. Explain what "EU theory" is and why you think it is valid. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Holy Cow, it looks to me like you've defined "hard science" as any imaginative idea that has a math formula with it and that happens to be "popular". Is that about 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>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is now your turn. Explain what "EU theory" is and why you think it is valid. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>UFMButler was kind enough to provide you with links to the first two chapters of Alfven's book, Cosmic Plasma. That is IMO the "best" introductory explantion of EU theory that I can think of. Please read the material that you can freely access, and if you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them to the best of my personal ability.</p><p>As we continue this discussion, keep in mind, that the validity of GR theory is not predicated upon my personal presentation of GR theory. Likewise my personal presentation of EU/PC theory is irrelevant. If you wish to understand EU/PC theory, particularly someone who is mathematically inclined and versed in Maxell's equations, the only logical choice of authors are Alfven and/or Peratt. There is no "better" explanation of this theory that I am aware of, particularly as it relates to the mathematical application of MHD theory to objects in space.</p><p>Once you have read the first two chapters of Alfven's book, please then explain to us what you learned about PC/EU theory from the material that you read.</p><p>You are evidently under the false illusion that it is intellectually valid to judge the validity of an entire work of physics based upon the presentation of that theory by one single individual, an individual who did not write the theory, nor take credit for the theory. This is an irrational behavior on your part. If we are going to have a rational, logical, honest discussion on this topic, you are going to have to do some reading, and you will have to demonstrate to us that you have some understanding of EU theory.</p><p>It is likewise completely irrational behavior on your part to have never ever read or commented on the first two chapters of Alfven's work of applying MHD theory to objects in space, when this part of his work has been freely available to you now for at least a month or two. To my knowledge you've never lifted a finger to comment on the material, to explain anything about it, or to explain to us what you believe is "nonsense" about it. Considering the fact he's got a Nobel prize on MHD theory, I would have to believe you at least owe him the courtesy of reading his material before calling it nonsense.</p><p>As I said earlier, it is utterly irrational of you to attempt to judge EU theory based upon my personal presentation of the idea, just as it would be irrational of you to judge GR theory by my personal presentation of the idea. I did not invent the theory, nor was I the first to apply MHD theory to objects and space. Alfven did that himself. His work is "EU/PC theory". It's not my work DrRocket, just as GR theory is not my work. </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>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Come on, could you knock it off with this garbage? Do you not recall the ~40 pages of us telling you how wrong that sentence is? It does what Scott's book does...claim the mainstream believes something that they absolutely do not, and then refutes it. He isn't refuting the mainstream, he is only attacking his "strawman" as you guys like to say. Nobody who studies the modern definition of magnetic reconnection known since the 60s believes field lines reconnect in a literal sense...that doesn't even make sense because field lines aren't even physical things! You are continuing along the same stupid line of semantical argument that got your electricity thread moved here in the first place. And you wonder why people are getting fed up.</DIV></p><p>With all due respect, I think you missed the point of my sentence entirely. I'm not accusing your industry of "bad math" or "bad physics" for that matter, I'm simply accusing them of yet *another* really poor choice of words. If we all agree that magnetic lines don't disconnect or reconnect, it is illogical and self conflicted to call this energy release process "magnetic reconnection". It's just another example of a confusing naming convention. There does however seem to be a fixation upon STRICTLY the what Alfven called the "field" (magnetic field) orientation of MHD theory, and a complete lack of regard for what Alfven called the "particle" side of MHD theory. Where he used terms like "circuits", Birn uses terms like "magnetic line (with current running through it)". There's simply a naming convention problem here that dates back all the way back to Parker's original presenation of the idea. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How can you claim to be an advocate of a theory when you won't even tell us explicitly what it is? </DIV></p><p>Well, for one thing, when I did explain to you what it was in a single sentence, you immediately disagreed with me. That makes it hard to communicate. I think it would be best if you and DrRocket both read the first couple of chapters of Alfven's book because that is in fact the best introduction to the application of MHD theory to objects in space that I can think of. I can tell you what it is, but Alfven would do a better job frankly.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>YOU brought EU to this forum and others for discussion. We are not your students in a class, so giving us a reading list required to participate in a discussion is unrealistic.</DIV></p><p>No, it's entirely expected in a scientific discussion. I didn't make you personal explain Birn's defintion of "magnetic reconnection". I didn't make you personally explain the PPPL paper to me. I was a "big boy' and I went and read the material on my own time, I found the line of math where the errors were introduced in those papers. I cited the specific error of physics involved and I cited the specific line of math involved. If you were asking me for help in understanding GR theory I might suggest you read some published material by Einstein. It's only natural to cite the original author of any theory and to expect you to educate yourself to all topics, including ones that I happen to promote.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Even people in the field couldn't be bothered to respond to your diatribe on reconnection. </DIV></p><p>Are you judging me for asking Birn legitimate scientific questions or because he chose not to respond?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is it so much to ask to even give an abstract-style summary of EU as a whole?</DIV></p><p>I have done so in the one sentence version. Why can't you just read the material from Alfven that I suggested and comment on it and ask questions about it? You're the one that provided us with the link, didn't you bother to read it? It's only 20 pages or so. That last paper on Scott's book was something like 40 pages long! I'm not asking for the moon here. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I know it doesn't believe in your definition of magnetic reconnection,</DIV></p><p>I don't follow you. I don't have a personal definition of magnetic reconnection, and in fact I would call Birn's presentation "Circuit reconfiguration". </p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> With that information all I can say is "that's wrong", but not specifically why it's wrong.</DIV><p>That would be the equivelent of me handwaving at Birn's paper and claiming "It's wrong, but I cannot say specifically what is wrong". I spent the time to actually go through his entire paper and the only actual "flaw" I could find was his choice to call this process "magnetic reconnection". At least I did him the courtesy of reading the material and citing the specific flaw as I percieve it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I don't know about Peratt and Bruce, </DIV></p><p>So if you've never read the bulk of the material that makes up EU theory, how could you (actually anyone) begin to judge it? I've read Peratt's book too. I've read a lot of material by Bruce. I therefore can say that none of it is "nonsense" or "pseudoscience". Right or wrong, the theory is entirely based upon emprical physics, specifically MHD theory applied to objects in space.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but I do know there is nothing wrong with Alfven's work or Birkeland's work. I am familiar with a lot of it(practically every paper involving gas flows etc at least mention Alfven speed, Alfven mach number, Birkeland currents, you name it), but I associate that with MHD, not EU. </DIV></p><p>The problem here is that while you percieve there to be a difference between what you call MHD and EU, I don't percieve there to be any difference at all. You are simply applying MHD theory to objects in space just as Alfven did in Cosmic Plasma. PC/EU theory is the application of MHD theory to objects in space. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Obviously EU has some striking differences from MHD,</DIV></p><p>Actually, it doesn't, at least not in my opinion.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument. </DIV></p><p>From my perspective however, it's always been simply an issue of semantics. I don't percieve there to be any difference between MHD theory and EU theory, in fact I would call any application of MHD theory to objects in space a variation of EU theory as Alfven first proposed it. You however seem to be under the illiusion that there is some difference between these two things, but there is no difference. That is why I cannot figure out how to even participate in the SS&A forum at this point, and I can't for the life of me understand why emprical physics is being banned from discusion in the SS&A forum. It's utterly illogical from my perspective. It's like banning the discussion of GR theory from the SS&A forum. You can't separate MHD theory from astronomy and it's not my fault that EM fields move plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nobody doubts the validity of the field of MHD. </DIV></p><p>Then nobody should doubt the validity of EU/PC theory. Alfven simply applied MHD theory to objects in space. That is what EU/PC theory is all about.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is your responsibility to tell us why EU is different.</DIV></p><p>Gahh! They are not different! That's the problem. You percieve there to be some difference when no difference exists. I can't tell you why you personally perscieve there to be a difference between them, because IMO they are one and the same idea.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Where do you get your stellar structure assumptions from for example? </DIV></p><p>Birkeland's work, Manuels' work on nuclear physics, SERTS data, satellite images, heliosiesmology data, etc. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I certainly have not seen such assumptions in any of Alfven's work.</DIV></p><p>Nor have I, which is exactly why I have cafefully explained that EU theory can be applied to the standard solar model, not simply to Birkeland's solar model.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The bottom line is, you are taking a position in the argument that makes no sense. </DIV></p><p>It makes sense to me, even if it makes no sense to you. Technically however, my solar theories are not even directly related to EU theory as Alfven presented the idea and while it might be nice if EU theory was a homogenous belief system, unfortunately like all theories there are subtle (and gross) variations of specific personal beliefs.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You bring some loosely defined theory here,</DIV></p><p>It is not loosely defined in any sense. My personal beliefs may be loosely connected from your perspective, but that is not relevant to the validity of EU theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and tell us to prove it wrong. </DIV></p><p>I'm not asking you to prove anything right or wrong. I'm simply suggesting specific material if you want to educate yourself on this specific topic. I would do the same thing with any topic, although the reading material might be different and come from a different author. This is typical in any discussion.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Like Derek's analogy, why should we waste our time on it if there's nothing majorly wrong with the existing theory? </DIV></p><p>Your opinion that there is nothing majorly wrong with current theory is highly subjective. Your theories don't work without several metaphysical "fudge factors" like inflation and "dark energy", which DrRocket is somehow certain is not related to EM fields.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Don't even bring up inflation because that has nothing to do with magnetospheric physics or solar physics.</DIV></p><p>Fine, but standard solar physics isn't much better at making "prediction" right now. When can we expect the next CME for instance? How about the next start of the solar active phase? Can the standard model explain solar wind acceleration, million degree coronal loops, etc? Some aspects of solar physics (heliosiesmology) are fairly well understood. Many aspects of solar physics are not. It is not as though standard theory has all the answers.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I'm sure if you actually tried to explain your theory to us we would address it accordingly...when people asked me questions on my paper that I posted, I answered them, I didn't just say "go read x and y and z and all the references therein". </DIV></p><p>That's because you wrote the paper. I didn't write EU theory. Surely you can see that difference. DrRocket is constantly suggesting reading materials to people who ask questions on the forums on a variety of topics. This is SOP for these sorts of online discussions.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That may have been what I had to do to learn what I wrote about, but its ridiculous to demand that of everybody who reads the paper. The reason papes give contact information for the authors is so the authors can clear up misunderstandings. Our misunderstanding is "what the hell is EU, exactly". </DIV></p><p>If I had written EU theory, or been the author of that paper/book, your expectations would be valid. As it stands, it is like you're expecting me to explain GR theory for you and refusing to read the matierals I suggested, and then trying to judge the validity of GR theory based on your lack of understanding. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You keep saying it's not your theory, but, star formation isn't my theory.</DIV></p><p>I'll be happy to defend my paper on CNO fusion in the solar atmosphere if you like but EU theory is a bit "big" for one individual. If you ask me questions about fusion however, I may in fact suggest you do some reading on that topic too. YOu can't judge any theory based upon how I personally present it. That would be irrational.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Interstellar medium science is not my theory. Gas flows/turbulence is not my theory. That doesn't mean I am not willing to explain what I used from those fields to get my results. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Like I said, I'll answer questions on my published works, but EU theory is not my theory. I can't personally take credit for it, nor can it be judged based on how I personally present the theory. I'm only asking you to read the first 20 pages of the book. I just read 40 pages of YEC rant today for you alone. I think your'e being a bit melodramatic frankly and falling into DrRocket's irrational illusion that a scientific theory can be judged based upon an amatuers' presentation of that theory on a website somewhere in cyberspace. That's not even reasonable behavior. </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>
D
DrRocket
Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <br /><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">I certainly have not seen such assumptions in any of Alfven's work. --UFMbutler</div><p> </p><p>Nor have I, which is exactly why I have cafefully explained that EU theory can be applied to the standard solar model, not simply to Birkeland's solar model.</p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">The bottom line is, you are taking a position in the argument that makes no sense.-- UFMbutler</div><p> </p><p>It makes sense to me, even if it makes no sense to you. Technically however, my solar theories are not even directly related to EU theory as Alfven presented the idea and while it might be nice if EU theory was a homogenous belief system, unfortunately like all theories there are subtle (and gross) variations of specific personal beliefs.<br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>1. You have just admitted that your brand of EU theory is not Alfven's but is derived from his via some process. We are asking you to describe what you believe that you have derived from Alfven's work and to also describe the associated derivation. Is that too much to ask ?</p><p>2. You also just admited that EU theory is not a single entity and that it varies from indivicual to individual. We are asking you to describe your particular brand of EU theory and to support it with science. Is that too much to ask ?</p><p>3. Of course your theories of solar physics are relevant. You have clearly stated that they are part of your brand of EU theory, and therefore ought to be supportable with the scientific foundation that supports it. So, for instance you believe that the surface of the sun is a solid ferritic material, you should be able to point to scientific principles that support that conclusion. We are asksing you to describe those principles, which you say make sense to you. Is that too much to ask?</p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
D
DrRocket
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.. Holy Cow, it looks to me like you've defined "hard science" as any imaginative idea that has a math formula with it and that happens to be "popular". Is that about it? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I that is what it "looks like" to you then you need some serious help. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1. You have just admitted that your brand of EU theory is not Alfven's but is derived from his via some process.</DIV></p><p>No, I don't have a "brand" of EU theory all my own. I have specific beliefs that are unique to me as an indivual, but those individual beliefs have nothing to do with EU Theory. You keep trying to associate EU theory with me, but I'm not the author of the theory. You are still trying to judge a theory based on *my personal* presentation fo the idea. That is irrational behavior on your part.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We are asking you to describe what you believe that you have derived from Alfven's work </DIV></p><p>All the important stuff came from Birkeland or Bruce or Alfven. I've provided you with links to all these materials save Alfven's book. UFMButler was even kind enough to provide you with the first two chapters of that book for free. Have you read them?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and to also describe the associated derivation.</DIV></p><p>How I got to my personal set of solar beliefs is not relevant to the topic of EU theory. If you want to discuss my solar model, and my rationale for supporting that solar model, start a new thread on that topic. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Is that too much to ask ?2. </DIV></p><p>It's not too much to ask, it's just irrevant to this particular topic.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You also just admited that EU theory is not a single entity and that it varies from indivicual to individual.</DIV></p><p>You should try being a skeptic of dark energy theory and inflation sometime and listen to different people try to describe these things. The beliefs systems of even mainstreamers varies from individual to individual. The basic ideas may be similar, but many of the specific descriptions are wildly different.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We are asking you to describe your particular brand of EU theory and to support it with science. </DIV></p><p>You are still under the false illusion that I have a "brand" EU theory. I do not. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is that too much to ask ?3. Of course your theories of solar physics are relevant. You have clearly stated that they are part of your brand of EU theory, and therefore ought to be supportable with the scientific foundation that supports it. So, for instance you believe that the surface of the sun is a solid ferritic material, you should be able to point to scientific principles that support that conclusion. We are asksing you to describe those principles, which you say make sense to you. Is that too much to ask? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You are evidently attempting to create a distinction between my personal beliefs and EU theory as Alfven taught it. That is irrelevent to the validity of what Alfven actually taught. </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>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I that is what it "looks like" to you then you need some serious help. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You're the one peddling inflation as "hard science", when in fact it is nothing but "software science" and it never shows up in any 'hardware" experiments. The whole idea came from Guth's overactive imagination. His justification for inflation was absurd, and his application of this idea was nothing but a mental excersize based on a literally "supernatural" entitiy that is unlike any known vector or scalar field in nature. The only 'requirements' you actually imposed on the idea is that it be:</p><p>A) Imaginative</p><p>B) It comes with software</p><p>C) It's popular.</p><p>That's not "hard science" DrRocket, that's a popularity fallacy. Like I said earlier, you don't have the first clue about what constitutes "hard science". Hard science isn't shy around hardware. Emprical evidence wasn't even on your list of requirements, so any imaginative math formula that happens to become popular would qualify as "hard science" according to your definition.</p><p>Alfven's approach was "imaginative". It comes with software written by Peratt. It's "popular" among a small subset of astronomers. The only reason it doesn't seem to qualify as "hard science" based on your definition is due to the fact it hasn't become "as popular" as mainstream theory. In every other respect, it's "hard science' even by your definion. You won't bother to do any reading, but I assure you that Alfven's work is both imaginative, and comes with math. The only thing it lacks is "popularity". </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>
D
DrRocket
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You're the one peddling inflation as "hard science", when in fact it is nothing but "software science" and it never shows up in any 'hardware" experiments. The whole idea came from Guth's overactive imagination. His justification for inflation was absurd, and his application of this idea was nothing but a mental excersize based on a literally "supernatural" entitiy that is unlike any known vector or scalar field in nature. The only 'requirements' you actually imposed on the idea is that it be:A) ImaginativeB) It comes with softwareC) It's popular.That's not "hard science" DrRocket, that's a popularity fallacy. Like I said earlier, you don't have the first clue about what constitutes "hard science". Hard science isn't shy around hardware. Emprical evidence wasn't even on your list of requirements, so any imaginative math formula that happens to become popular would qualify as "hard science" according to your definition.Alfven's approach was "imaginative". It comes with software written by Peratt. It's "popular" among a small subset of astronomers. The only reason it doesn't seem to qualify as "hard science" based on your definition is due to the fact it hasn't become "as popular" as mainstream theory. In every other respect, it's "hard science' even by your definion. You won't bother to do any reading, but I assure you that Alfven's work is both imaginative, and comes with math. The only thing it lacks is "popularity". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Sir, this sort of thing clearly belongs in The Unexplained. You are arguing for your personal EU agenda and misrepresenting mainstream science in general and inflation in particular. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sir, this sort of thing clearly belongs in The Unexplained. You are arguing for your personal EU agenda and misrepresenting mainstream science in general and inflation in particular. Please confine this crap to The Unexplained. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You can't empircially demonstrate that inflation is not a pure figment of your imagination. That is not "hard science" DrRocket, that is mathematical mythos run amuck that is devoid of emprical support. </p><p>In every conscievable way, the application of MHD theory to objects in space is pure empirical physics. EU theory is based upon what can be observed in a lab, and what can be computer modelled based on what has been learned in the lab. It is applied (to objects in space) MHD theory, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.</p><p>The only reason I am restricted to discussing pure emprical MHD science in this forum is due to the willful and irrational ignorance of individual like you who continue to vocally critize something they know absolutely nothing about and who are intent on imposing their personal ignorance on everyone. I'm tired of your attitutude and and I'm not taking your baloney anymore. If you wish to remain ignorant of EU theory, that's your business. Your irrational crusade against emprical physics howeer is simply bizzare and I will continue to point out that your beliefs are based on willful blind ignorance.</p><p>You evidently haven't got a clue what "hard science" even is. You don't have a clue about the scientific method in general for that matter. You've evidently never put any value on emprical testing or emprical support of concept, and you haven't any rational beef with applying MHD theory to objects in space other than the fact you've made up your mind that you're smarter than Alfven without even reading his material. Your attitude stinks. </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>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
Have you even bothred to read the first two chapters of Alfven's book, yes or no? <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>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sir, this sort of thing clearly belongs in The Unexplained. You are arguing for your personal EU agenda and misrepresenting mainstream science in general and inflation in particular. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I can't misrepresent inflation because it does not exist in nature. It is a figment of Guth's imagination and a figment of your imagination, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't exist in nature. It doesn't have any affect on anything in a controlled test. It is literally a "supernatural" construct with supernatural abilities, like it's ability to undergo multiple exponential increases in volume while maintaining a near constant density. No known vector or scalar field nature does that supernatural trick. Inflation is a magical myth with nice "software".</p><p>Even Guth's justification for inflation was utterly absurd. He claimed to have solved a missing monopole problem with inflation. That's like claiming to have solved the missing unicorn problem by introducing invisible elves with supernatural properties. Hoy. </p><p>Your definition of "hard science" was nothing more than "imagination", "math" and "popularity".</p><p>MHD theory is imaginative, it's mathematically expressed and it's gaining in popularity. By your own definition it is "hard science" too, but of course you'd never admit that, even though I can easily demonstrate that MHD theory works in a lab with real control mechanisms. </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>
U
UFmbutler
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Have you even bothred to read the first two chapters of Alfven's book, yes or no? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I seem to recall him responding to specific statements in it when I posted it. I also recall him saying not a couple pages ago that he has read it. I am personally confident that nothing major is wrong with his book. I'm sure some things have been corrected/improved upon with more modern knowledge, but I'm sure most of the book is still valid. That said, our problem is not with his work for the millionth time. I've seen a lot of Alfven's paper and parts of this book and others, and I just don't understand how you could arrive at the conclusions you do. </p><p>I don't understand why you view EU as being identical to MHD. When people run MHD galaxy formation simulations or cosmology simulations, I'm quite certain they don't treat the galaxy as a "unipolar inductor", and I've never heard of them including some current flow into the galaxy, yet they are still running MHD simulations. Also when stars are treated in MHD simulations, they are assumed to follow the standard model of stellar structure, not some iron/neon thing as you've suggested here and on your website. How can MHD be equivalent to EU if there are such striking differences? Are you suggesting that nobody in the mainstream is truly applying MHD to their simulations? Please answer this question directly. It is not meant to be "melodramatic", I just truly do not understand how you can honestly believe they are the same. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
D
DrRocket
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Have you even bothred to read the first two chapters of Alfven's book, yes or no? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I have read what is available on the internet. I agree with what I have read and totally disagree with your interpretation of that material, as I have shown you in the past. You misrepresnt Alfven as badly as you misrepresnt mainstream science. This seems to be largely a result of your reliance on semantics and lack of understanding of the specialized definitions used by mainstream scientists, including Alfven. </p><p>Mercifully your misrepresentations are now confineed here to your own little padded cyber room.<br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
D
DrRocket
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can't misrepresent inflation because it does not exist in nature. It is a figment of Guth's imagination and a figment of your imagination, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't exist in nature. It doesn't have any affect on anything in a controlled test. It is literally a "supernatural" construct with supernatural abilities, like it's ability to undergo multiple exponential increases in volume while maintaining a near constant density. No known vector or scalar field nature does that supernatural trick. ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Just to be clear, would please tell us what the known scalar fields might be ?</p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
D
DrRocket
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...My "brand" of EU theory is not unique. It can best be summed up by Alfven's writings. ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>So, just where in Alfven's writings does he claim that the primary source of energy for the sun comes from an external electric current ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I seem to recall him responding to specific statements in it when I posted it. I also recall him saying not a couple pages ago that he has read it. I am personally confident that nothing major is wrong with his book. </DIV></p><p>Then you are also confident in the mertis of EU theory. EU/PC theory is Alfven's theory.</p><p>If you do some day find fault in my personal belief systems, it will not be due to an error in EU theory, but an error on my personal part. One cannot judge the merits of EU Theory based upon my personal explaination of EU theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm sure some things have been corrected/improved upon with more modern knowledge, but I'm sure most of the book is still valid.</DIV></p><p>So why can't we discuss this book and his theories on the SS&A forum like any other emprical theory of the universe? Right or wrong, the theory is based upon empirical laws of physics. It may still be "invalidated" someday, but in every other respect, it's a theory based entirely upon empirical physics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That said, our problem is not with his work for the millionth time. </DIV></p><p>Then EU theory is a valid theory, regardless of whether you find fault in my personal opinions on some other topic.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've seen a lot of Alfven's paper and parts of this book and others, and I just don't understand how you could arrive at the conclusions you do. I don't understand why you view EU as being identical to MHD.</DIV></p><p>Rather than go through this one line at a time, and rather than frustrate you, let me simply explain it this way. </p><p>I'm sure that DrRocket (and lot's of folks) understand MHD theory from what Alfven calls the "field" orientation of MHD theory. Maxwell's equations allow us to look at any MHD problem that involves current flow from either the field (B) or what Alfven calls the "particle" or (E) orientation. Both viewpoints are viable and useful depending on the specific conditions of the plasma.</p><p>In the opening chapters of Cosmic Plasma Alfven carefully explains the importance of boundary conditions and the importance of using the "particle" viewpoint, particularly when describing current carrying plasma. Due to his background in electrical engineering, Alfven was also careful to keep MHD theory consistent with electrical theory, and consistent with particle physics theory. Anytime he was discussing current carrying plasma, he automatically switched to what he calls the "particle" orientation of MHD Theory and he describe the energy states in terms of moving charged particles inside of of flowing "circuits".</p><p>Evidently DrRocket's understanding of MHD theory is limited to Alfven's first book that is primarily oriented around the "field" (magnetic field) orientation of MHD theory. What he is clearly lacking is an education on the "particle" orientation of MHD theory and how Alfven applied the particle orientation of MHD theory to objects in space.</p><p>When Alfven described current carrying plasma, particularly a current carrrying filament inside of plasma, he used the term "circuit". What Birn describes as a "magnetic line with current running through it", Alfven would have described as a "circuit". The total circuit energy will determine the events at the point of "reconnection", and the reconnection process takes place at the particle physics level, as charged particles interact, and transfer kinetic energy to one another at the point of reconnection.</p><p>As an electrical engineer, Alfven understood the importance of electrical engineering as a field of science, and the importance of keeping MHD theory consistent with that field of science, and also the importance of keeping MHD theory consistent with the field of particle physics. He was also personally familiar with Parker's presentation of magnetic reconnection, but prefered the "particle" orientation because it was consistent with other branches of science. What Birn calls a magnetic line, Alfven would call a circuit. The point of reconnection is indeed a high energy reconnection event, but it is occuring at the particle physics level, and the total circuit energy is going to determine the rate and flow of "reconnection". </p><p>IMO a lot of people, Birn included understand the field orientation of MHD theory very well, and in Birn's case at least he was very consistent at the particle physics level and in his use of Maxwell's equations. The only actual "error" I could find in that paper was his choice of terms. By calling this reconnection process "magnetic reconnection", it fails to describe the circuit energy, and it is completely inconsistent with the field of electrical engineering. It also is a highly confusing term because magnetic field lines cannot and do not "reconnect". Only circuits and particles can do that. Magnetic lines have no substance. Only particles have substance and "stored energy' in the form of kinetic energy and charge attraction/repulsion.</p><p>The only error that I could find in Birn's paper, was semantic, but unfortunately the name leads to even more confusion than is obvious at first glance.</p><p>You for instance should in fact agree with everything I just said, but for some reason you believe there to be a difference between "circuit reconnection" and "magnetic reconnection", and you percieve there to be some difference between EU theory and applied MHD theory. Therefore, we're having major communication problems, where we should have only needed to "quibble" a little to begin to understand each other's position. By using the term "magnetic reconnection", it becomes difficult to even bridge the gap between the way Birn presented his theory using MHD formulas, and how Alfven described these same events. We shouldn't be having this disagreement at all.</p><p>DrRocket isn't helping this discussion either because his opinions are born of ignorance and blind bogotry. He *assumes* there is some difference between "EU theory" and Alfven's presentation of that theory. That is nonsense. There is no difference between EU theory and what Alfven wrote. He literally wrote the book on applying MHD theory to objects in space.</p><p>What DrRocket is hoping to do is to find fault in my personal opinions somewhere and thereby justify his claim that EU theory is nonsense. That would not demonstrate that EU theory is nonsense it would only demonstrate that my personal opinion on that particular topic was "nonsense". It is irrational for him to even attempt to correlate the two things, just as it would be irrational to attempt to judge GR theory based upon my personal presenation of this idea.</p><p>IMO the two 'best' references on this topic are Alfven and Birkeland. The next two would be Peratt and Bruce (and Bruce's students) because they also mathematically quantified their work.</p><p>It is not even rational IMO to attempt to "ban' EU theory from the SS&A forum because it is a form of pure emprical science, with laboratory support, unlike many other "theories' in astronomy. </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>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have read what is available on the internet. I agree with what I have read and totally disagree with your interpretation of that material, as I have shown you in the past. </DIV></p><p>Even were that actually the case (and not pure fantasy on your part) it would not justify your irrational claim that "EU Theory is pseudoscience and EU theory is nonsense. All it would mean is that my opinion about that particular topic was "incorrect'. Somehow in your twisted logic however, you seem to think you can judge whole theories based on whether or not I present them in a way that is to your personal satisfaction. That's not even rational behavior.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You misrepresnt Alfven as badly as you misrepresnt mainstream science. </DIV></p><p>Even if you weren't completely ignorant to the "particle" side of MHD theory, and it was actually me that misrepresented EU theory is some way, you are still doing him a huge disservice and this whole scientific community a huge disservice by blaming EU theory for my personal ignorance. That would be like calling GR theory "pseudoscience"" because you disliked how I presented Einstein's theory. Your behaviors are utterly and completely irrational, and they are intentionally vindictive too. Now we can't even talk about emprical science in the science forums due to you arrogance and pure ignorance and utterly rediculace way you judge whole theories! It's people like you that ruin good things and turn science into religion. </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
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 545
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 365
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 2K
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
Space.com is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site.
© Future Publishing Limited Quay House, The Ambury, Bath BA1 1UA. All rights reserved. England and Wales company registration number 2008885.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram