The Emprical Method - Objectively defining what constitutes an "explanation".

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ever 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. &nbsp;&nbsp; All it would mean is that my opinion about that particular topic was "incorrect'.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; That's not even rational behavior.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.&nbsp;&nbsp; That would be like calling GR theory "pseudoscience"" because you disliked how I presented Einstein's theory.&nbsp; Your behaviors are utterly and completely irrational, and they are intentionally vindictive too.&nbsp; 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!&nbsp; It's people like you that ruin good things and turn science into religion. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Apparently EU theory, is something distinct from whatever it is that is represented on your web site.&nbsp; You claim that it is valid.&nbsp;But you make clearly erroneous statements regarding physical phenomena, such as the sun being powered by an&nbsp;external electrical current, such as electromagnetic forces rather than gravity controlling galactic orbits, and&nbsp;such as inability of magnetic fields to store energy. &nbsp;I can find no instance in which Alfven used the terminology "Electric Universe".&nbsp; But you say that EU theory&nbsp;is whatever Alfven says it is.&nbsp; This is a wee bit confusing.</p><p>What in the hell is "EU theory" in your view ?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobw]

<font color="#ff6600"><em>What in the hell is "EU theory" in your view ?</em></font><p>LOL!</p>It is what you pretend to write about after starting a thread that pretends to be about the philosophy of the scientific method. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Apparently EU theory, is something distinct from whatever it is that is represented on your web site.</DIV></p><p>Where do you get off judging an entire scientific theory, or Alfven's work, or Birkeland's work or Bruce's workd from some website you found in cyberspace? &nbsp; You're simply amazing.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You claim that it is valid.</DIV></p><p>My website is not the topic of this discussion.&nbsp; If you wish to discuss my website and the solar model presented on my website, start a new thread.&nbsp; This thread is specifically focused on EU theory and you claim that EU theory was "nonsense".&nbsp; You're attitude is nonsense. &nbsp; It is utterly irrational for you to judge any theory based on how "happy" you are about how I present that theory.</p><p>You and I have very different views about the meaning of GR theory too.&nbsp; You keep trying to stuff inflaiton and dark energy into GR and I resist the notion of stuffing metaphysics into GR.&nbsp; The fact we disagree about GR does not justfiy you claiming that GR is nonsense and that GR is pseudoscience or justify you going on crusade against GR theory.&nbsp; Your actions are unethical.&nbsp; They are unscientific.&nbsp; They are born of absolute ignorance and they are vengeful in nature. &nbsp; You would turn emprical science into "nonsense" only to get me virtually executed.&nbsp; You've done this community a huge disservice and you owe it an appology for attempting to judge any theory based on my presentation of that theory and whether or not it meets with your personal approval. &nbsp; </p><p>If you want to discuss my solar theories, start a new thread.&nbsp; I won't let you hijack this one or let you try to squirm out of the irrational nature of your blind bigotry toward a theory you don't even understand. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Where do you get off judging an entire scientific theory, or Alfven's work, or Birkeland's work or Bruce's workd from some website you found in cyberspace?&nbsp;&nbsp; Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Well, it's your website, and you are the most vocal proponant of EU in the known Universe.</p><p>Are you saying your website is worthless pseudoscience??</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[bobw]

<p><font color="#ff6600"><em>Well, it's your website, and you are the most vocal proponanet of EU in the known Universe.</em></font></p><p>No kidding about that!&nbsp;</p><p>M.M. My theory is the greats!!<br />SDC. What's your theory?<br />M.M. Read Charlotte's Web.<br />SDC. I don't think spiders really can think.<br />M.M. That's what all you secular scientists say!&nbsp; What about GUT, MHD, YEC and PCP?<br />SDC. There is no PCP in Charlotte's web.<br />M.M. You didn't read it, did you? <br /><br />Time to start a new thread Mike.&nbsp; Probably in Ask the Astronomer.&nbsp; That way you can spawn a few Why Did You Move My Thread threads while you're at it.&nbsp; Best way to avoid:<br /><em><font color="#ff6600">What in the hell is "EU theory" in your view ?</font></em><br />too.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, it's your website, and you are the most vocal proponanet of EU in the known Universe.No kidding about that!&nbsp;M.M. My theory is the greats!!</DIV></p><p>First statement, first error.&nbsp; It's not my theory.&nbsp; Let's recap how it's really going down.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>MM:&nbsp; GR is a great theory.</p><p>DR: What is GR.</p><p>MM; Here's a link on GR theory written by the author of the theory, Albert Einstein.</p><p>DR:&nbsp; I'm not going to read&nbsp; that pseudosciece.&nbsp; Tell me what it is.</p><p>MM:&nbsp; Well, DR, you'll need to actually read it from an expert on the topic because I'm not sure I'm actually qualified to explain to to your mathematical and physical satisfaction, but I know that Einstein has done that in the link I provided for you.</p><p>DR: Obviously GR theory is pseudoscientific nonsense and it should be moved the the "unexplained" forum because you can't personally explain it. </p><p>This has been an utterly irrational conversation because DrRocket insists in judging a scientific theory based on one idividuals preseentation of that idea. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, it's your website, and you are the most vocal proponanet of EU in the known Universe.No kidding about that!&nbsp;M.M. My theory is the greats!!SDC. What's your theory?M.M. Read Charlotte's Web.SDC. I don't think spiders really can think.M.M. That's what all you secular scientists say!&nbsp; What about GUT, MHD, YEC and PCP?SDC. There is no PCP in Charlotte's web.M.M. You didn't read it, did you? Time to start a new thread Mike.&nbsp; Probably in Ask the Astronomer.&nbsp; That way you can spawn a few Why Did You Move My Thread threads while you're at it.&nbsp; Best way to avoid:What in the hell is "EU theory" in your view ?too. <br /> Posted by bobw</DIV></p><p>One more point.&nbsp; I don't have any clue at all what DrRocket means when he says to the effect:&nbsp; GR theory is nonsense.&nbsp; I have no idea what theory he's even refering to because he won't educate himself on the topic before calling it nonsense and pseudoscience and insisting it get moved to the "unexplained" section dispite the fact that EU theory as Alfven presented it is based on pure emprical physics.&nbsp; I have no idea what they heck he means when he says "EU theory is nonsense".&nbsp; I have no idea what he thinks EU Theory is because he refuses to read or respond to the materials I have presented to him, dispite the fact that many of Alfven's papers on this topic are "published" and freely available to him.&nbsp; I have to know what he thinks EU theory is if he thinks it's "nonsense" because it is not nonsense, it is a form of pure empirical physics.&nbsp;&nbsp; His theories could still be "wrong", but they are not pseudoscience or nonsense and they should be able to be discussed on any hard science forum.&nbsp; Alfven published *hundreds* of papers on this topic. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, it's your website, and you are the most vocal proponant of EU in the known Universe.</DIV></p><p>&nbsp; Really?&nbsp; I'm the most vocal proponent of EU theory in the whole universe? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Are you saying your website is worthless pseudoscience?? <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>No, I'm saying it's not rational to judge Alfven's work or Birkeland's work, or Bruces work or Peratt's work on EU theory based on the contents of my personal website.&nbsp; I'll be happy to fully explain my theories, in fact I have attempted it here in the past.&nbsp; It is however utterly irrational to attempt to judge GR theory by a website I might have put up on that topic.&nbsp; Likewise it is irrational to judge EU theory (which is actually solar model independent) based upon the contents of a third person's website.</p><p>DrRocket is under the delusion that it's "rational" to judge the merits of EU theory based on a single individuals presentation of a very loosely related topic.&nbsp;&nbsp; Alfven's theories can and were applied by Alfven to a standard solar model.&nbsp; The model on my website is more of a "Birkeland purist" form of a solar model based more upon his work than upon Alfven's work, but Alfven's work can be applied to either solar model with equal ease, because the same MHD laws of physics would still apply to all objects in space.&nbsp; The discharges we observe in the atmosphere of the sun were "predicted" by Birkeland 100 years ago, and they were also "predicted and explained" by Alfven using a standard solar model.</p><p>The key point here Wayne is that I support GR theory as Einstein taught it to his students.&nbsp; I'm not a fan of inflation or DE, so I resist current efforts to reserrect a "greatest blunder" theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; If I therefore were to present GR theory on a website, I would not attempt to explain it *WITH* inflation, or WITH DE or in the context of Lambda-CDM theory.&nbsp; You and DrRocket may believe that presentation to be "lacking", or "incomplete", and you may even find some mathematical error I made and take exception to a few of my statements.&nbsp; That would not justify calling GR theory "nonsense" or "pseudoscience".&nbsp; It would just mean that I didn't apply Einstein's theories properly or correctly or to&nbsp; your satisfaction.&nbsp; The same is true of EU theory.&nbsp; It cannot be judged based upon my solar presentation on a website.&nbsp; That's not a rational thing to do. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...You and I have very different views about the meaning of GR theory too.&nbsp; You keep trying to stuff inflaiton and dark energy into GR and I resist the notion of stuffing metaphysics into GR.&nbsp; ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You have, as usual, lied abut my view of inflation and dark energy, which are very well documented in the SDC forums.</p><p>So why don't you just STUFF IT.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have, as usual, lied abut my view of inflation and dark energy, which are very well documented in the SDC forums.So why don't you just STUFF IT. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The same can be said for your views on EU theory. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The same can be said for your views on EU theory. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I'm working on that.&nbsp; But you may not like where they get stuffed.&nbsp; I need to get my copy of Cosmic Plasma first, but I anticipate receiving it soon.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm working on that.&nbsp; But you may not like where they get stuffed.&nbsp; I need to get my copy of Cosmic Plasma first, but I anticipate receiving it soon. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I find it simply fascinating that the only reason you bothered to order Alfven's book is because I literally shamed you into it.&nbsp; I find it fascinating that you would go on crusade against PC/EU Theory *before* actually reading the book that I told you was considered the "definitive book" on this topic.&nbsp;&nbsp; I also find it fascinating that you expect to "prove me wrong" about something when you haven't bothered to even read the book yet. &nbsp; How do you know I wasn't right all along if you haven't read the book yet?&nbsp;</p><p>The funny part of all this is that you of all people will get more "bang for your buck" with that book than anyone else in this forum.&nbsp; You'll get every penny's worth.&nbsp; You share an electrical engineering background with Alfven and you certainly have the math skills to follow right along effortlessly.&nbsp; I almost envy you.&nbsp; I would envy you except I know that sooner or later as you are reading his book it will finally dawn on you that you have ignorantly been crusading against emprical physics. &nbsp;&nbsp; That's likely to take some of the fun out of it for you, and actually I'm sorry that's the case.&nbsp; I wish you had not been campaigning against a theory written by a Nobel Prize winning author, without ever reading the material, but for some unexplained reason, that's exactly what you did, and that is exactly what you are continuing to do even now. </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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I find it simply fascinating that the only reason you bothered to order Alfven's book is because I literally shamed you into it.&nbsp; I find it fascinating that you would go on crusade against PC/EU Theory *before* actually reading the book that I told you was considered the "definitive book" on this topic.&nbsp;&nbsp; I also find it fascinating that you expect to "prove me wrong" about something when you haven't bothered to even read the book yet. &nbsp; How do you know I wasn't right all along if you haven't read the book yet?&nbsp;The funny part of all this is that you of all people will get more "bang for your buck" with that book than anyone else in this forum.&nbsp; You'll get every penny's worth.&nbsp; You share an electrical engineering background with Alfven and you certainly have the math skills to follow right along effortlessly.&nbsp; I almost envy you.&nbsp; I would envy you except I know that sooner or later as you are reading his book it will finally dawn on you that you have ignorantly been crusading against emprical physics. &nbsp;&nbsp; That's likely to take some of the fun out of it for you, and actually I'm sorry that's the case.&nbsp; I wish you had not been campaigning against a theory written by a Nobel Prize winning author, without ever reading the material, but for some unexplained reason, that's exactly what you did, and that is exactly what you are continuing to do even now. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>But, as you well know, I have read significant portions of the book already, and have <strong>shown</strong> you where you have grossly misunderstood it.&nbsp; I have also read Alfven's <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics</em> which contains the bulk of the work for which he was awarded his Nobel Prize, and I have read several of his papers.&nbsp; Yes, I can understand Alfven's mathematics.&nbsp; His mathematics is just fine, and so is his plasma physics and classical electrodynamics.&nbsp; It is because I <strong>do</strong> understand what he is written and because I <strong>have</strong> read a large amount of his work that I can say with confidence that you have badly misinterpreted his work.&nbsp; We have already seen that with respect to your complete misinterpretation of the use of "circuits", really "equivalent circuits" (per Alfven and per standard useage in electrical engineering).</p><p>I have not campaigned against Alfven's MHD or other plasma physics, but have merely pointed out the nonsensical conclusions that YOU have drawn based on a totally distorted view of those disciplines.&nbsp; I have pointed out your gross mistakes in terms of basic and well-known physics.&nbsp; I have no fear of Alfven's writings, since what we are talking about is basic physics.&nbsp; It really doesn't matter whether the source for plasma physics is Alfven, Chandresekhar or someone else, so long as the physics itself is correct.&nbsp; Since I understand the physics, I do not have to worry much about the particular author.&nbsp; Alfven's book will be interesting because Alfven is an interesting writer.&nbsp;&nbsp; I have said nothing in the SDC forums that cannot be supported by any number (all relevant) physics references, because the underlying science is correct.&nbsp;</p><p>So, the bottom line is that I have not been campaigning against Nobel Prize winning physics, but rather against a gross misrepresentation of real physics.&nbsp; I have been campaigning against pseudoscience and distortions of real&nbsp;physics being made by&nbsp;fools who have no real understanding of science.&nbsp; It is quite clear that the brand of "EU Theory" promulgated by Bruce, Scott, Mozina, Brynjolfsson and others of that ilk has little to do with the work of Alfven or even a reasonable interpretation of Birkeland in light of the knowledge of the latter half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first.</p><p>I know that you have not been right all along becaue I have provided<strong> proof</strong> all along that your statements in the main are completely and utterly false.&nbsp; They are readily contradicted by known and substantiated science -- what the rest of the planet recognizes as true empirical science and rock solid theory. I have <strong>shown</strong>&nbsp; you the correct physical explanation for the phenomena that we have discussed. I know that you have not been right all along because Alfven was not a fool.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But, as you well know, I have read significant portions of the book already,</DIV></p><p>Really?&nbsp; You haven't said a word, nor found one single flaw in his work.&nbsp; Why do you keep calling it pseudoscience?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and have shown you where you have grossly misunderstood it.</DIV></p><p>I think you actually must believe this statement but of course you cannot explain to us what I have "misunderstood" about his work, whereas you seem to be willing to call it "pseudoscience" and seem to fancy yourself as more of an expert on Alfven's work than a proponent of Alfven's work.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I have also read Alfven's Cosmical Electrodynamics which contains the bulk of the work for which he was awarded his Nobel Prize, and I have read several of his papers.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>And you've never found any flaw worth calling his work "pseudoscience" either, but that has never stopped you from trashing his application of MHD theory to objects in space.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, I can understand Alfven's mathematics.&nbsp; His mathematics is just fine, and so is his plasma physics and classical electrodynamics. </DIV></p><p>What part of it is "pseudoscience"?<br /><br /> </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is because I do understand what he is written and because I have read a large amount of his work that I can say with confidence that you have badly misinterpreted his work. </DIV></p><p>Assuming that wasn't just your own fantasy run amuck, how does that justify your crusade against his work again?&nbsp; It's like calling GR Theory pseudoscience because you don't like me presentation of Einstein's theory. What's up with that nonsense?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We have already seen that with respect to your complete misinterpretation of the use of "circuits", really "equivalent circuits" (per Alfven and per standard useage in electrical engineering).</DIV></p><p>When you get the book, you'll find that Chapter three is all about "Circuits".&nbsp; Evidently Alfven doesn't know what he's talking about either.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have not campaigned against Alfven's MHD or other plasma physics,</DIV></p><p>Yes you have.&nbsp; You have constantly and consistently stated that EU theory was pseudoscience. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but have merely pointed out the nonsensical conclusions that YOU have drawn based on a totally distorted view of those disciplines. </DIV></p><p>If that were true, you would have said EU theory is emprical physics, and Michael has misreprented Alfven's important work!&nbsp; That's not what you said, now was 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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> So, the bottom line is that I have not been campaigning against Nobel Prize winning physics, but rather against a gross misrepresentation of real physics. </DIV></p><p>I'm going to attempt to get you to address this head on this time instead of dodging it every time. &nbsp;</p><p>If you are "protecting" his work from misrepresentation then why are you calling EU theory pseudoscience when I personally told you that Cosmic Plasma was *the* definite book on EU theory over a year ago?&nbsp; Why then do you keep claiming that EU theory is nonsense when I claimed Alfven's work was the defining work of this theory? Why didn't you just claim that EU theory is pure emprical physics and I simply misrpresented it, like you accuse me of misrpresenting GR theory for not believing you that "space expands"? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have been campaigning against pseudoscience and distortions of real&nbsp;physics being made by&nbsp;fools who have no real understanding of science. </DIV></p><p>You mean like fools that never bother to read the material that was suggested and claim to be "experts" on the topic anyway? </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is quite clear that the brand of "EU Theory" promulgated by Bruce,</DIV></p><p>Name one single flaw in Bruce's work.</p><p>Bruce's discharge theories are certainly based on the application of Maxwell's equations and all of his "predictions" were right on the money.&nbsp;&nbsp; There you go again smearing a good man's representation just because I happened to mention his name.&nbsp; Your behaviors are pitiful and you should be ashamed of yourself. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you are "protecting" his work from misrepresentation then why are you calling EU theory pseudoscience when I personally told you that Cosmic Plasma was *the* definite book on EU theory over a year ago?&nbsp; Why then do you keep claiming that EU theory is nonsense when I claimed Alfven's work was the defining work of this theory?</DIV></p><p>You also claim Birkeland's work is *the* basis of EU and Peratt is *the* source for a lot of EU math and the same with people like Bruce.&nbsp; You also bring up, at best, fringe scientists like Brynjolffson and toss them into the mix.&nbsp; It is clear EU involves a LOT mroe than one book. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p>And BTW, as he stated, the Dr has never called ALfven's work pseudoscince. He has called you interpretion of that work pseudoscince, a distinction you have failed to grasp oh these many months.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Really?&nbsp; You haven't said a word, nor found one single flaw in his work.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Of course not, his work is quite good.&nbsp; But, based on Alfven's work and your distortion of it, I have <strong>pointed out&nbsp; many flasw YOUR work.&nbsp; </strong></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why do you keep calling it pseudoscience?Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>This is a deliberate and willful LIE.&nbsp; You sir, are a brazen liar.&nbsp;As you well know, I have never referred to Alfven's work as pseudoscience.&nbsp; I have most certainly referred to YOUR work as pseudoscience.&nbsp; That characterization is perhaps too kind, as the errors that you have made in physics ought to embarass a high school student. </p><p>In fact YOUR work is widely recognized as pseudoscience in the astronomical community, and is quite the laughing stock, as you might gather from the link that Wayne posted elsewhere(&nbsp;http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=673 ):</p><p>I" should note that it takes only basic Physics to find flaws in the idea of a solid iron surface to the Sun (for example the fact that iron is vapourized at the temperature of the Sun's surface). If you do want more details I would like to refer you to the Bad Astronomy and University Today Forum which hosted this thread in June-July 2005 in which the author of the surface of the sun.com debates his model with various other members of the forum." </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <div class="Discussion_PostQuote">So, the bottom line is that I have not been campaigning against Nobel Prize winning physics, but rather against a gross misrepresentation of real physics. --DrRocket</div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>"I'm going to attempt to get you to address this head on this time instead of dodging it every time. &nbsp;</p><p>If you are "protecting" his work from misrepresentation then why are you calling EU theory pseudoscience when I personally told you that Cosmic Plasma was *the* definite book on EU theory over a year ago?&nbsp; Why then do you keep claiming that EU theory is nonsense when I claimed Alfven's work was the defining work of this theory? Why didn't you just claim that EU theory is pure emprical physics and I simply misrpresented it, like you accuse me of misrpresenting GR theory for not believing you that "space expands"? " -- Michael Mozina</DIV></p><p>Address it head on ?&nbsp; I would have thougt that you would recognize that I have been doing just that.&nbsp; The master of dodging accused ME of avoiding the question ?&nbsp; </p><p>I have called EU pseudoscience despite your having told me that <em>Cosmic Plasma </em>is "the" definitive book on EU Theory, because I don't believe you.&nbsp; You have rather routinely lied in your posts, and you have alsr routinely advocated ideas that would utterly shock Alfven&nbsp;with their abject stupidity.&nbsp; Your claim that EU Theory as you represent it is simply Alflven's theory of MHD applied to objects in space is&nbsp;nothing more than&nbsp;a brazen lie, and an attempt to gain credibility for yourself by hiding behind Alfven's skirts.&nbsp; You advocate utter nonsense and then try to justify it by appealing to Alfven's name but not to Alfven's work.</p><p>As Origin has noted you are not concerned with science at all, but rather with some fanciful notion that you are a serious scientist.&nbsp; That is hardly the perception in the broader scientific community, as noted earlier.&nbsp; There is nothing that you can do at this point to attain any credibility, so you dodge questions and lie about the statements of your critics.&nbsp; Spin won't get it in the scientific community.&nbsp; Only objective science counts, and you have demonstrated a complete lack of scientific knowledge.&nbsp;Not just a lack, but rather a negative quantity -- much of what you "know" is simply false, and the falacies have been <strong>demonstrated</strong> in these forums.&nbsp; You don't understand the nature of plasma, you don't understand electrodynamics, you don't understand heat transfer, you don't understand fission, you don't understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand relativity, and above all you don't understand that you don't understand. </p><p>Don't worry, I am preparing a thorough review of your version of EU in comparison with Alfven's science.&nbsp; That should satisfy your desire for an evern more direct "head on" discussion of your pseudoscientific nonsense.&nbsp; Better put on your best crash helmet -- you&nbsp;run a real risk of receiving what you have asked for.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You also claim Birkeland's work is *the* basis of EU and Peratt is *the* source for a lot of EU math and the same with people like Bruce.&nbsp; You also bring up, at best, fringe scientists like Brynjolffson and toss them into the mix.&nbsp; It is clear EU involves a LOT mroe than one book. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>No scientific theory is done by a *single* individual, and no two individuals would necessarily apply MHD theory to objects in space in precisely the same way.</p><p>Birkeland's emprical experiments define what I would call "hard science".&nbsp; He used real "hardware".&nbsp; He took in situ-measurements.&nbsp; He built sophisticated mathematical models, and he showed how it all tied together.</p><p>Alfven came along and applied the principles of plasma physis to space.&nbsp; He did so in much the same manner as Bruce.&nbsp; Alfven, Bruce, and Birkeland were all electicical engineers. That is the field of science that brought us "EU theory". &nbsp; Peratt took Alfven's math and did the "software science" part of EU theory.&nbsp; He *applied* Alfven's theories on a "scaled up" version and showed how it created many of the observed behaviors of the unvierse.</p><p>Michael Mozina is just some guy that got interested in all of this stuff in 2005.&nbsp; It is not even logical to expect to judge the history of EU theory based upon my personal set of beliefs.&nbsp; I didn't invent, create, or ever try to take credit for "EU theory".&nbsp;&nbsp; It is a collection of efforts by many individuals who have applied MHD theory to objects in space and who have built sophisticated hardware and softare models of this theory. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Address it head on ? </DIV></p><p>Yes, I'd like you to "come clean" now and allow us to discuss MHD theory on the SS&A forum without throwing a tantrum.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have called EU pseudoscience despite your having told me that Cosmic Plasma is "the" definitive book on EU Theory, because I don't believe you.</DIV></p><p>There is your problem in a nutshell.&nbsp; Every EU proponent I know has recommended that book, and when I went around asking for the "consensus" in the EU theory community for a definitive work on this idea, that was the book that virtually everyone recommended.&nbsp; That's where I started.&nbsp; I had already read some of Birkeland's work at that point, but the two authors that intoduced me to EU/PC theory were Birkeland and Alfven.&nbsp;&nbsp; Bruce also taught me a lot.&nbsp; </p><p>It doesn't matter what you "believe".&nbsp; There is a "consensus" inside the EU community that Alfven's work and Birkeland's work and Bruce's work and the work of all of their students are important.&nbsp; These are the primary creators of this theory. &nbsp; Peratt is one of Alfvens living students who works at Los Alamos.&nbsp; He has modeled this theory on a computer.</p><p>I am unimportant to EU theory.&nbsp; It began more than 50 years before I was born, and it was going on for 100 years before I even became aware of it and began to study it.&nbsp; it is utterly irrational for you to "not believe me."</p><p>That would be like me saying "I don't believe you that GR theory is related to Einstein, so GR Theory is nonsense.&nbsp; The "consensus" you seem so fixated upon has already "chosen" it's leaders and I'm not one of them.&nbsp; Get over it. </p><p>You do not understand the difference between "hard" emprical physics, involving actual hardware, and physically impossible "pseudoscience", like a negative pressure vacuum.&nbsp; I don't care what you think of me and I do not have any respect whatsoever for your crusade against EU theory and emprical physics over what you percieve as my personal sins. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And BTW, as he stated, the Dr has never called ALfven's work pseudoscince. He has called you interpretion of that work pseudoscince, a distinction you have failed to grasp oh these many months. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>If that were true, he would not have gone after my head for saying 'EM fields cause plasma to ebb and flow" over in the SS&A forum and you would not have forbid the discussion of Alfven's work in the SS&A forum.&nbsp; You're sending a lot of mixed messages Wayne.&nbsp; I recognize my part in all this, and I have taken steps to clean up my act, but until you all allow Alfven's work to be discussed in the SS&A forum without fear of being lynched, your words ring a little hollow from my perspective.&nbsp;</p><p>When we can discuss his work openly again in any science forum, then I'll believe the two of you. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[bobw]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And BTW, as he stated, the Dr has never called ALfven's work pseudoscince. He has called you interpretion of that work pseudoscince, a distinction you have failed to grasp oh these many months. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I think the basic problem is "what is the root cause".&nbsp; It seems like the EU wackos think there is some all pervasive fields which power the sun etc. but can't be measured "on earth, in the solar system, in the galaxy and maybe inside the universe itself".&nbsp; While mainstream science says the motion of the constituent mass of the sun causes (or is, if ions) electric currents which cause magnetic fields which, in turn, influence the motion of said constituent mass.<br /><br />I found a power point thing that sort-of summarizes what I have always thought about the sun.<br /><br />http://astroweb.astr.cwru.edu/jeffk/ast201/oct14.ppt<br /><br />slide 48 coronal loop<br />slide 7&nbsp;&nbsp; convection with magnetic loop<br />slide 9&nbsp;&nbsp; loop under glass<br />slide 31 north leading south magnetic pole in sunspots/south leading north<br /><br />My question to MichaelMozina is: What is wrong with the powerpoint stuff?&nbsp; Where's the big mystery that makes you say the sun needs an external power source?&nbsp; How can it be so large and pervasive that it has more influence on the sun than these things we KNOW about yet be weak enough that my compass needle points north on the feeble magnetic field of the earth?<br /><br />Finally, my summation <br /><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/0/b9dc57b5-c93a-4279-b0f5-8526f574e680.Medium.png" alt="" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobw]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If that were true, he would not have gone after my head for saying 'EM fields cause plasma to ebb and flow" over in the SS&A forum and you would not have forbid the discussion of Alfven's work in the SS&A forum.&nbsp; Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p>The problem isn't Alfven's work.<br /><br />The problem is that what you say about it is exactly analogous to saying that instead of the motor driving the car, the motion of the car drives the motor.&nbsp; If I put it in first gear and let out the clutch then push the car then the motor turns, any fool can see that: therefore there is some external force that pushes the car turning the motor as a consequence when I drive.<br /><br />Sure, magnetic fields channel plasma but the fields are generated IN the sun by convetion and rotation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think the basic problem is "what is the root cause".&nbsp; It seems like the EU wackos</DIV></p><p>I love how it's "ok" to call Alfven a "wacko" even though he won the Nobel Prize.&nbsp; I love how it's "ok" in your mind to call Birkeland a "wacko" for conducting all those emrpical experiments in the lab.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>think there is some all pervasive fields which power the sun etc.&nbsp; system,</DIV></p><p>I don't personally know of a single person in the EU field that believes that the sun provides no energy.&nbsp; I've never seen an EU theory that did not presume the sun to be the primary energy source in fact.&nbsp;&nbsp; The "pervasive field" is there, but it not the primary energy source according to Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven, nor is that the implication from my website.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but can't be measured "on earth, in the solar in the galaxy and maybe inside the universe itself". </DIV></p><p>Um, I think you're talking about the idea of "expanding space", not EM fields.&nbsp; They can be "measured' just fine, we can "measure" the "current flow" that blows by Earth every day.&nbsp; We can "measure" how charge separation causes the charged particles of the solar wind to accelerate as the leave the photosphere and move toward the heliosphere.&nbsp; We can measure them *inside* the solar system right now.&nbsp; I'm sure we can measure them on the outside of the heliosphere too, but first we'd need to get there.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While mainstream science says the motion of the constituent mass of the sun causes (or is, if ions) electric currents which cause magnetic fields which, in turn, influence the motion of said constituent mass.I found a power point thing that sort-of summarizes what I have always thought about the sun.http://astroweb.astr.cwru.edu/jeffk/ast201/oct14.pptslide 48 coronal loopslide 7&nbsp;&nbsp; convection with magnetic loopslide 9&nbsp;&nbsp; loop under glassslide 31 north leading south magnetic pole in sunspots/south leading northMy question to MichaelMozina is: What is wrong with the powerpoint stuff? </DIV></p><p>I'll take a gander at it when I get time today. Does it mention 'magnetic reconnection" by any chance?&nbsp; If so, probably the only thing that is "wrong' with it, is that it should have said "circuit reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Where's the big mystery that makes you say the sun needs an external power source?</DIV></p><p>I have stated now on several occasions that it does not required an external power source and the solar model on my website is all internally driven just as Birkeland suggested.&nbsp; I didn't even include any mention of an external energy source on my website as far as I recall.&nbsp; I personally think some of the energy is not generated locally, but to my knowledge that's not even mentioned on solar presentation on my website.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> How can it be so large and pervasive that it has more influence on the sun than these things we KNOW about yet be weak enough that my compass needle points north on the feeble magnetic field of the earth?Finally, my summation <br /> Posted by bobw</DIV></p><p>Well, for one thing we live inside several double layers that do a lot of shielding. The heliosphere protects us from the interstellar winds, and the magnetopshere protects us from the currents flowing from the sun.&nbsp;&nbsp; Without such shield our equipment becomes vulnerable and many satellites have been physically damaged by CME events. </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>