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

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The problem isn't Alfven's work.</DIV></p><p>Then we should be able to discuss his work in all the science forums without fear of being lynched.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>Actually, you have that backwards.&nbsp; It is "current flow" that drives "magnetic reconnection" and the "flow rate" will be directly related to the "current flow" inside that magnetic line, otherwise known as the "circuit energy" of both of the reconnecting circuits.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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;When we can discuss his work openly again in any science forum, then I'll believe the two of you. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />First of all, the "ebb and flow" comment was made today (or yesterday) which has NOTHING to do with the restriction to The Unexplained.</p><p>Second, You are saying "YOU" like I had much to do with the decision. I was a very small part (as a new mod) of the decision. While I agreed with it, I had very little input as I was still settling in. So don't blame me. You body of work required that action.</p><p>When you prove you have the ability to respond to specific questions in a direct manner, your discussions might be allowed in the science fora.</p><p>So far, you have not demonstrated that ability, so you shall remain here. Isn't that preferable to banning, which has occurred in almost every board you have participated in?</p><p>SDC has given you far more leeway than any other site. You should be damn grateful, IMHO.</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'>&nbsp; It is "current flow" that drives "magnetic reconnection" and the "flow rate" will be directly related to the "current flow" inside that magnetic line, otherwise known as the "circuit energy" of both of the reconnecting circuits.&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>As usual with your semantic arguments your terms go undefined from a scientific perspective.&nbsp; The result --- gibberish.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As usual with your semantic arguments your terms go undefined from a scientific perspective.&nbsp; The result --- gibberish. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>My terms have always been defined.&nbsp; You only find giberish, because that's all you ever intend to find.&nbsp; The gibberish is all coming from you when you call Alfven's work "pseudoscience". </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'>My terms have always been defined.&nbsp; You only find giberish, because that's all you ever intend to find.&nbsp; The gibberish is all coming from you when you call Alfven's work "pseudoscience". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>At least you are consistent liar.&nbsp; As you well know, I have never called Alfven's work pseudoscience.&nbsp; I have called YOUR work pseudoscience.&nbsp; Accurately.</p><p>And you have studiously avoided providing any sort of clear definition for any of your terms, in a vain attempt to avoid having them probed and destroyed.&nbsp; It has not worked.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As you well know, I have never called Alfven's work pseudoscience.</DIV></p><p>This is a false statement.&nbsp; You called EU/PC theory pseudoscience, and I am not the author of that theory.&nbsp; You are still in hard core denial on this point.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have called YOUR work pseudoscience.</DIV></p><p>If that were so, then you should have said...</p><p>Michael's opinion on this statement ....(I will expect an actual quote by the way) is in error according to Alfven.&nbsp; Here are Alfven's statements.....(I will expect another direct quote by the way).</p><p>You're wrecklessly attacking a theory that began over 100 years ago with Birkeland.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And you have studiously avoided providing any sort of clear definition for any of your terms,</DIV></p><p>I gave you a clear definition and I've repeated myself literally *DOZENS* of times.&nbsp; You just refuse to embrace the fact that you've been on crusade against empirical physics and you have blamed Alfven, Bruce and Birkeland for my "sins" as you percieve them.&nbsp; You can't even be specfic in your criticisms by actually finding any fault in my actual presentation, and you couldn't provide Alfven's quote if you wanted to, because you're probably still waiting for his book on the application of MHD theory to objects in space.</p><p>I have a better "solution" by the way.&nbsp; This place needs a "bar brawl" forum where you and I can just go and duke it out and provide public entertainment.&nbsp; I slso suggest that *you personally* put your money where your mouth is and present "Cosmic Plasma" to the SS&A forum in the "right way" and show me how it should be done. </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'>&nbsp; This place needs a "bar brawl" forum where you and I can just go and duke it out and provide public entertainment.&nbsp; I slso suggest that *you personally* put your money where your mouth is and present "Cosmic Plasma" to the SS&A forum in the "right way" and show me how it should be done. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I rather thought that this forum would meet your needs.&nbsp; The only problem with the "bar room brawl" concept is that you refuse to answer direct questions, so it rather looks like Mike Tyson vs Peewee Herman, with Peewee's only tactic being a poor version of the "rope-a-dope".</p><p>I don't see much reason to carry this into the SS&A forum and somewhow give you an excuse to bring EU nonsense, out of context, into a legitimate science forum.&nbsp; You are properly confined to the padded walls of The Unexplained.&nbsp; I doubt that will ever change. You seem to be on&nbsp;a perfectly&nbsp;flat learning curve.&nbsp; </p><p>However, I do intend, as promised, to read <em>Cosmic Plasma</em>, and evaluate it from the perspective of a hard physics monograph.&nbsp; I have done that with Alfven's <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics</em> and have found it to be quite good.&nbsp; Alfven and Chandresekhar both enriched astrophysics with their insight into plasma physics.&nbsp; What I have found bears NO resemblance to YOUR brand of "EU Theory" which is, of course the rankest sort of pseudoscience. I am quite certain that hard science whether in Alfven's <em>Cosmic Plasma</em> or from other sources will not support your brand of EU theory -- I have been taking notes, with lots of quotes from you,&nbsp;so as to be able to clearly relate hard science, with clear explanations&nbsp;and specific references,&nbsp;to your gibberish.&nbsp; Completion of that critique awaits receipt of Alfven's book.&nbsp; </p><p>My report will be presented in The Unexplained, which is the proper place since, despite numerous requests and challenges you have repeatedly <strong>refused to explain</strong> the relevance of Alfven's work to the nonsense that continually spew as your brand of "EU Theory".&nbsp; It threfore remains "unexplained".&nbsp; Perhaps, once we have evaluated and interred your brand of "EU Theory", the grownups can retire to the SS&A forum for a serious discussion of real science --&nbsp;some from Alflven, some from Guth, some from Einstein, some from Chandresekhar, some from Feynman, but none from the community of EU wackos.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I can't stop you from discussing anything anywhere.&nbsp; I can only voice my personal objections to inappropriate discussions of topics in forums designated for legitimate science.</p><p>So far as I know there is no prohibition whatever against the discussion of MHD theory in the SS&A forum.&nbsp; The only prohibition of which I am aware is against the discussion of pseudoscience, such as EU Theory in that forum.&nbsp; But then MHD theory and EU theory are quite different animals.</p><p>If you want to discuss Ampere's law under the assumption that one can neglect the displacement current term (the MHD approximation), I doubt that anyone would object.&nbsp; Perhaps one could initiate a discussion of Chandresekhar's set of lecture notes, <em>Plasma Physics</em>.&nbsp; That might be an interesting thread, so long as you don't start up with that EU crap.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I rather thought that this forum would meet your needs.&nbsp; The only problem with the "bar room brawl" concept is that you refuse to answer direct questions, so it rather looks like Mike Tyson vs Peewee Herman, with Peewee's only tactic being a poor version of the "rope-a-dope".</DIV></p><p>Except you're the one who's never actually read how Alfven applied MHD theory to objects in space, and you can't actually find any specific error in anything he had to say about the "EU crap" he wrote about where he applied MHD theory to objects in space and dared to use the term "circuits" and stuff.</p><p>You can't seem to grasp the difference between "hard science' involving real "hardware" and physical impossibilities like a "negative pressure vaccuum". &nbsp;&nbsp; How long did you intend to blame Alfven and Birkeland and Bruce for what you percieve as my personal sins, and when will you present the work "properly" yourself so we can see how it's supposed to be done by a real "expert" on the subject (evidently an expert via clairvoyance since he has never&nbsp; actually read the material)?</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>Specifically what part of Alfven's work do you believe that I have personally misrepresented?</p><p>How does that error on my part equate in your mind to the belief that all work on EU theory is "crap"?&nbsp; When are you going to accept reality and notice that I'm not the author of the theory that you keep trashing?&nbsp; When will you accept that these theories were first written by the guy that won the Nobel Prize and was the first man to apply MHD theory to objects in space? &nbsp; </p><p>Running around calling EU Theory "crap" because you don't like my presentation of Alfven's material is like calling GR theory "crap" because you don't like the fact that I don't believe you when you claim that space expands, or because I reject the notion of a "negative pressure vacuum"?</p><p>Your crusade against EU theory is utterly irrational.&nbsp; It's not my theory Einstein.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...and when will you present the work "properly" yourself so we can see how it's supposed to be done by a real "expert" on the subject ..<br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I will&nbsp;present it in my own way, as noted above and when I am damn good and ready.&nbsp; In the meantime why don't you entertain us by providing YOUR definition of EU Theory, consistent with the posts that you have made over the last 9 months or so?&nbsp; You might try to point out how those statements are consistent with what Alfven has written.&nbsp; Be specific.&nbsp; Be clear,&nbsp; Be objective.&nbsp; Be scientific.&nbsp; Use all the math that you want to. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>You cannot even come up with a physical justification for a "negative pressure vacuum".&nbsp; It is literally physically impossible for such a thing to exist.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>I'm also fascinated to find out what you figure is "reconnecting" in that plasma, since we all know that magnetic lines lack physical substance and they are physically incapable of "reconnecting".&nbsp; You reject the notion that this is 'particle reconnection" or "circuit reconnection", so exactly which physical particles (real physics) do you figure is involved in this "reconnection" process?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Your idea of "hard science" is not even remotely related to real "hardware" or real "emprical science".&nbsp; It evidently requires nothing more than an imagination and and some math which is why I'm sure Guth's negative pressure vacuum looks so appealing to you.&nbsp; Of course it never even dawned on you that a "vacuum" cannot have a "negative pressure", but you don't care about physics.&nbsp; You'll keep stuffing a minus sign in those math formulas anyway, physics (real particle physics) be damned.</p><p>Care to explain how a vacuum actually physically achieves a "negative" pressure? &nbsp; In postive pressure scenarios, the atomic and subatomic particles provide the "pressure".&nbsp; How did you and Guth physically get negative pressure out of a vacuum again? </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I will&nbsp;present it in my own way, as noted above and when I am damn good and ready.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>And in the mean time you intend to crusade against it I suppose?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In the meantime why don't you entertain us by providing YOUR definition of EU Theory, consistent with the posts that you have made over the last 9 months or so?</DIV></p><p>I have done that for you now dozens of times.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't have my own EU theory anymore than I have my own GR theory or my own QM theory.&nbsp; I have my own opinions about all of these theories, and some of my opinions may even be wrong, but none of these theories has anything to do with me, and all of them were written before I was born.&nbsp; EU Theory happens to be the oldest one.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You might try to point out how those statements are consistent with what Alfven has written.&nbsp; Be specific.&nbsp; Be clear,&nbsp; Be objective.&nbsp; Be scientific.&nbsp; Use all the math that you want to. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I have already done that for you many times.&nbsp; It's easy to play the role of a couch potato critic and intentionally not listen to my answers.&nbsp; I'd like to see you actually explain Cosmic Plasma from your own perspective. </p><p>I'd love to see how you would explain Alfven's theories any differently that I have done here over the past few months.&nbsp; All of my words are recorded here, so when you find any quote of mine that conflicts with what you find in Cosmic Plasma, you let us know.&nbsp; Point out my quote and point out Alfven's statements side by side so we can all see my error in black and white. </p><p>I know for a fact that you aren't damn good and ready yet, in fact you probably don't even have the book yet, and you certainly haven't read the whole thing yet.&nbsp; Of course that has never stopped you from criticizing my presentation of his work, so I fail to see why you need any more time to get ready.&nbsp; You seem to think you already know his viewpoints better than I do without even reading the book.&nbsp; You must be quite the expert to be able to do that nifty trick DrRocket.&nbsp; I usually have to actually read the material to understand 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'>I will&nbsp;present it in my own way, as noted above and when I am damn good and ready. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Do we have your word on that? </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>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't have my own EU theory anymore than I have my own GR theory or my own QM theory.&nbsp; I have my own opinions about all of these theories, and some of my opinions may even be wrong, but none of these theories has anything to do with me, and all of them were written before I was born.&nbsp; EU Theory happens to be the oldest one.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>If EU theory is the application of MHD to objects in space, how can it predate GR and QM??? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If EU theory is the application of MHD to objects in space, how can it predate GR and QM??? <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Prior to Birkeland, it was believed that space was pretty much a "near zero pressure" environment, and the energy exchanges between the Sun and the Earth were mostly in the form of photons.&nbsp; Birkeland was the first to postulate that space was filled with flying ions and electrons in a high velocity "slightly higher pressure" scenario.&nbsp; Of course at the time he worked with Newton's equations rather than Einstein's equations.&nbsp; In every other respect his work is all about the affect of these flying particles on objects in space.&nbsp;&nbsp; Birkeland essentially layed the mathematical groundwork that Alfven built upon and that later became MHD theory.&nbsp; Birkeland also another very important step.&nbsp; He *emprically* (with real "hardware") experimented with his physical models and his theories.&nbsp; He could turn on and off the circuits in his experiments and watch the effect on his simulated objects in space.</p><p>Birkeland's work predates GR, and his work is expressed in pure Newtonian physics.&nbsp; Even Alfven actually tended to use a Newtonian approach, and to this day we probably still use Newton's formulas in our space program.</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'>If EU theory is the application of MHD to objects in space, how can it predate GR and QM??? <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Mozina is actually right on this one, but for all the wrong reasons.</p><p>Magnetohydrodynamics is nothing more that the application of classical physics, specifically fluid dynamics and electrodynamics simultaneously to the problem of fluid flow of ionized gas.&nbsp; Gas dynamics is described at the most fundamental level by the Navier-Stokes equation which determines the flow of a fluid treated as a continuum, under the forces imposed on it.&nbsp; Ionized gas feels the Lorentz force of electrodynamics.&nbsp; So looking at the forces and the resulting flow is an application of nothing more than fundamental Newtonian and Maxwellian physics.&nbsp; Neither quantum mechanics nor general relativity are necessary.&nbsp; Only seldom are velocities sufficiently high that even special relativity is important, and MHD is generally a wholly classical physical theory.&nbsp; The fundamental MHD approximation lies in the assumption that the displacement current term, dD/dt of Ampere's law can be neglected.&nbsp; Beyond that there are a number of approximations that are made in order that the complex partial differential equations can be solved.&nbsp; Alfven's genius lay in an ability to intuitvely grasp some of the complelx&nbsp; drivers and flow patterns that can occur in plasmas, and to quantify them.&nbsp; Acoustic waves in plasmas, Alfven waves are one of his more notable discoveries.&nbsp; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfven_waves</p><p>There is nothing contnradictory about the study of such phenomena pre-dating or post-dating QM or GR.&nbsp; QM and GR are not particularly relevant.&nbsp; What is necessary is an understanding of the atom at the level of a positively charged nucleus surrounded by a cloud of electrons.&nbsp; Unfortunately that understanding also post-dated Birkeland.&nbsp; Birkeland's book was published in 1908 describing the expedition of 1902-1903 and Ernest Rutherford's discovery of the central nucleus surrounded by and electron cloud did not come out until 1911.&nbsp; The electron was discovered in 1897 and it was known that there were positive charges in the atom resulting in a neutral structure, but the modern model of the atom had to await Rutherford's discoveries. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Magnetohydrodynamics is nothing more that the application of classical physics, specifically fluid dynamics and electrodynamics simultaneously to the problem of fluid flow of ionized gas.</DIV></p><p>So when we attempt to apply these physical principles to objects in space, we get "crap"? </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'>So when we attempt to apply these physical principles to objects in space, we get "crap"? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>For the love of God, get over it.&nbsp; Do you think we didn't hear you say this the other 500 times you posted this exact question or a slight variation of it?&nbsp; DrRocket, myself, nor anyone has said anything of the sort.&nbsp; ALL we have said is that your interpretations are "crap".&nbsp; When we say EU, we are referring to EU as you presented it.&nbsp; Stop wasting your writing time and especially our reading time by trying to bicker with DrRocket and answer the real questions that have been posed to you. &nbsp;</p><p>I don't think you even want to be able to discuss EU in SS&A.&nbsp; Then you wouldn't be able to go on and on about "DrInquisition" as you call him and how you are so persecuted.&nbsp; Get over your persecution complex, and your obsession with DrRocket, if you ever want to be taken seriously here.&nbsp; You posted an apology thread but haven't followed up on its promises whatsoever.&nbsp; All you have been doing the past day or so is attempting to rile up DrRocket and steer all of your threads away from science and toward personal bickering. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For the love of God, get over it.&nbsp; Do you think we didn't hear you say this the other 500 times you posted this exact question or a slight variation of it?&nbsp; DrRocket, myself, nor anyone has said anything of the sort.&nbsp; ALL we have said is that your interpretations are "crap".</DIV></p><p>That is all that you personally have ever said, but DrRocket keeps say "EU theory is crap" and he refuses to even be specific in explaining *exactly* which specific statement I made was incongruent with Alfven's writings.&nbsp; Not once has he put his money where his mouth is and been specific in explaining *exactly* which idea he believes I got wrong.</p><p>Regardless of what I may or may not have gotten wrong in his opinion, it has absolutely no bearing on the legitimacy of Alfven's writings, Birkeland's writings, Bruce's writings, or Peratt's writting or any of the authors that defined "EU theory".&nbsp;&nbsp; It is irrational to condemn a whole scientific theory for the sins of one guy. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When we say EU, we are referring to EU as you presented it.</DIV></p><p>*Specifically* cite the *exact* sentence of mine that you believe is incorrect and explain exactly why you believe it is incorrect.&nbsp; I'm getting tired of the unspecific handwave accusations.&nbsp; I need something specific to work with.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Stop wasting your writing time and especially our reading time by trying to bicker with DrRocket and answer the real questions that have been posed to you.</DIV></p><p>I have already done so.&nbsp; He refuses to *SPECIFY* the specific issue he believe that I have misreprsented.&nbsp; I can't work with an unspecific accusation.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I don't think you even want to be able to discuss EU in SS&A. </DIV></p><p>Of course I do.&nbsp; Up until a month ago I have always had that freedom. I would like it back. I would like it back so much that I have started to clean up my act, adopt a "live and let live" attitude about all theories on the hard science forums and I've reserved my criticisms of DrRocket's beliefs for DrRocket.</p><p>I do want my freedom back and I'm willing to change my behaviors to get it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then you wouldn't be able to go on and on about "DrInquisition" as you call him and how you are so persecuted. </DIV></p><p>Until DrRocket took it upon himself to crusade against EU Theory, I was able to have a civil discussion on this topic and in fact I had enganged in many of them before he got here.&nbsp; Only after he arrived did it become impossible to have an adult conversation on this topic, because ever since his arrival, I've had a spoiled ignorant child dogging me around the forums, claiming to be an expert on Alfven's material.&nbsp; He's never actually read the material and he calls it "crap" and tries to ignore the fact that the existence of EU theory preceeds my knowledge of that theory by 100 years. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Get over your persecution complex,</DIV></p><p>I'll get over it when DrRocket stops getting all huffy and puffy about anything related to MDH theory applied to objects in space and I cans speak freely again on all the forums.&nbsp; There is no logical reason to single out EU theory as being "unexplained" because *every* cosmology theory has "unexplained" elements.&nbsp; It is irrational to claim EU theory is crap only because DrRocket believes I have somehow misrepresented that theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; Since I never tried to take credit for any scientific theory, it is irrational to judge any theory based *strictly* on my personal presenation of that theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and your obsession with DrRocket,</DIV></p><p>DrRocket is obsessed with *me*, so much so, that he's willing to impune a whole branch of emprical physics just to gain some ego gratification at my personal expense.&nbsp; I wish he'd just go away so things would just go back to normal, but now everytime I mention EM fields in space on a science forum he goes all Grand Inquisitor on me and accuses me of "crap" and never even bothers to be specific in his criticism or cite the specific issue he's talking about.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>if you ever want to be taken seriously here.&nbsp; You posted an apology thread but haven't followed up on its promises whatsoever.</DIV></p><p>That is false.&nbsp; I have not attacked *any* astronomy theory on any "hard science" forum since the beginning of the year and I have kept my criticisms of DrRocket's personal beliefs limted to this specific forum.&nbsp; I did *not* go after Guth's theory in a "hard science" forum.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All you have been doing the past day or so is attempting to rile up DrRocket and steer all of your threads away from science and toward personal bickering. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>If DrRocket would allow me to discuss plasma physics in space, I would be happy to "let it go" and move on.&nbsp; Since every mention of EM fields in space is now being used by DrRocket as a launching point to attack EU theory, and call it "crap", it's a little hard to ignore it. </p><p>The bickering here is not my choice.&nbsp; I'd much rather have a "normal" conversation with a "normal" person, like the kind of person that would actualy *read* the suggested material before calling an entire theory of science "crap".&nbsp; EU theory predates me involvement in EU theory by 100 years.&nbsp; It is utterly irrational to blame a science theory for the percieved "sins" of single individual unless of course that indidual is claiming that this theory belongs to them.&nbsp; I never suggested anything of the sort.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The worst part is that he is "arbitrary" about how and why he goes on crusade.&nbsp; GR Theory predates me too, and I don't believe in expanding space.&nbsp;&nbsp; DrRocket isn't claiming that GR theory is crap because he thinks I misrepresented Einsteins work.&nbsp; He's not claiming QM theory is crap because we disagree about the nature of a vacuum.&nbsp; It's only EU theory that seems to be stuck in his craw and that he seems interested in crusading against.</p><p>His charge that I have misrepresented Alfven's work is no excuse for his behavior.&nbsp; It's also a false statement and I can demontrate it.&nbsp; Ask him to *specifically* cite the *exact* sentence where I misrepresented Alfven's work in Cosmic Plasma.&nbsp;&nbsp; He can't do it.&nbsp; He's never read the book so he can't possibly answer your question. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>*Specifically* cite the *exact* sentence of mine that you believe is incorrect and explain exactly why you believe it is incorrect.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />OK</p><p>1. The only thing that seems to be universal is that most of us believe that some of the energy we see flowing in the coronal loops is coming from an external source (heliosphere) <font color="#0000ff">There is no evidence to support this.&nbsp; </font></p><p>2.&nbsp; IMO Birkeland was at least 100 years ahead of where the mainstream is today.&nbsp;<font color="#0000ff">No comment needed.</font></p><p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;I tend to believe that the cosmic wind is charged, and that charge flows through the physical structures of the universe.&nbsp; In other words, the phyiscal universe is simply a conductor of current.&nbsp;<font color="#0000ff">The cosmic wind is essentially neutral, and there is no evidence that the *physical universe* is a conductor.</font><font color="#0000ff">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></p><p><font color="#000000">4.&nbsp; I have recently come across some Doppler images of the sun from Stanford that I will be posting on my website later this week.&nbsp; The video shows what seems to be one of the clearest images of volcanic activicy that I have seen.&nbsp;</font><font color="#0000ff">I am not sure (since you won't tell us) if this is part of your EU concept (ash does spawn lightning!) but I just had to add&nbsp;it cause it is just so funny.</font></p><p><font color="#000000">5.&nbsp; If however one puts a Birkeland model sun in context with EU theory, and theorizes it to be a simple conductor of electrical current, then a sun with a crust doesn't seem far fetched at all.&nbsp; It can still radiate heat from the current it conducts, and we should not be surprised that the heliosphere is roughly the same temperature as the photosphere.&nbsp; </font><font color="#0000ff">Evidence (besides 'looks like')?</font></p><p><font color="#000000">6.&nbsp; The mainstream seems to believe that a computer software simulation is equal to "controlled scientific test".&nbsp;&nbsp; </font><font color="#0000ff">False</font></p><p><font color="#000000">7.&nbsp; most EU theories begin with the premise that the electrical current running through the physical universe is the primary energy source of stars.&nbsp; </font><font color="#0000ff">Crap no evidence</font></p><p>8.&nbsp; The mainstream does not understand plasma because they never expermiment with it in a lab like Birkeland did and like Alfven did.&nbsp; <font color="#0000ff">Of course the mainstream understands plasma.</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><font color="#000000">9.</font>&nbsp; </font><font color="#000000">The sun's atmosphere is charged because it carries the bulk of the electrical current through our solar system.&nbsp; There is no "build up".&nbsp; There is a constant electrical flow of energy through the sun.&nbsp; </font><font color="#0000ff">Evidence?</font></p><p><font color="#000000">10.&nbsp; I imagine that it doesn't fit well at all into current theory about stellar evolution.&nbsp; In fact, if the universe supplies all the energy in the form of electrons, then a sun could last forever, at least in theory.&nbsp;</font><font color="#0000ff">Crap</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>OK1. The only thing that seems to be universal is that most of us believe that some of the energy we see flowing in the coronal loops is coming from an external source (heliosphere) There is no evidence to support this. </DIV></p><p>I'd like to see a quote on that.&nbsp; The coronal loops are certainly discharges in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; Whether it's "internal" or "external" is irrelevant.&nbsp; I'd also like to see a quote from Alfven that said *no energy* comes into the solar system from the heliosphere.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2.&nbsp; IMO Birkeland was at least 100 years ahead of where the mainstream is today.&nbsp;No comment needed.</DIV></p><p>Nope, none needed.&nbsp; Birkeland knew *exactly* what causes a coronal loop and why the solar wind accelerates as it leaves the photosphere. He would never have called it "magnetic reconnection" because I'm *positive* from his writings that he realized that magnetic fields have no physical substance and they form a a full continuum and are physically incapable of "reconnecting".&nbsp; I'm sure he could recognize a discharge when he saw one.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;I tend to believe that the cosmic wind is charged, and that charge flows through the physical structures of the universe.&nbsp; In other words, the phyiscal universe is simply a conductor of current.&nbsp;The cosmic wind is essentially neutral,</DIV></p><p>If that were true, it would not continue to accelerate as it moved toward the heliosphere.&nbsp; The moving particle *are themselves* a form of "current flow".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and there is no evidence that the *physical universe* is a conductor.</DIV></p><p>Except those "jets" in the center of galaxies you mean?&nbsp; You mean except for all those magnetic fields in space? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 4.&nbsp; I have recently come across some Doppler images of the sun from Stanford that I will be posting on my website later this week.&nbsp; The video shows what seems to be one of the clearest images of volcanic activicy that I have seen.</DIV></p><p>I have repeatedly explained to you that my solar model is unrelated to Alfven's theories. &nbsp; I won't disucss my solar model in this thread.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>6.&nbsp; The mainstream seems to believe that a computer software simulation is equal to "controlled scientific test".&nbsp;&nbsp; False</DIV></p><p>It's true.&nbsp; When I asked DrRocket to define "hard science", it didn't involve any "hardware" whatsoever, and he can't seem to even personally distinguish between "observation" and "interpretation".&nbsp; Evidently it's fine to apply "negative pressure vacuums" to GR theory, but God forbid we should even mention EM fields in relationship to space.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>7.&nbsp; most EU theories begin with the premise that the electrical current running through the physical universe is the primary energy source of stars.&nbsp; Crap no evidence</DIV></p><p>I would actually have to agree with you, but then I didn't really see a quote from me and I can't be sure if it was my fault or your strawman.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>8.&nbsp; The mainstream does not understand plasma because they never expermiment with it in a lab like Birkeland did and like Alfven did.&nbsp; Of course the mainstream understands plasma.</DIV></p><p>If it did, it wouldn't call it "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; If it understood plasma it would not be mystified by solar wind acceleration or CME events or solar atmospheric discharges.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>9.&nbsp; The sun's atmosphere is charged because it carries the bulk of the electrical current through our solar system.&nbsp; There is no "build up".&nbsp; There is a constant electrical flow of energy through the sun.&nbsp; Evidence?</DIV></p><p>I'm not sure I can provide evidence, but this was Alfven's opinion as well.&nbsp; He expected the flow to follow a "unipolar induction" process where inflow occured near the poles. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>10.&nbsp; I imagine that it doesn't fit well at all into current theory about stellar evolution.&nbsp; In fact, if the universe supplies all the energy in the form of electrons, then a sun could last forever, at least in theory.&nbsp;Crap </p><p> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Not crap.&nbsp; The universe is here and for all I know it has always existed.&nbsp; If you personally have some personal need for a "creation event", you will have to come up with one that isn't dependent upon a physical impossibility like a negative pressure vacuum. </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'>Except those "jets" in the center of galaxies you mean?&nbsp; You mean except for all those magnetic fields in space?</DIV></p><p>Peratt et al. 1992 states the jets are overall neutral in charge.&nbsp; Are you disagreeing with one of your sources?&nbsp; Please elaborate. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p>Great!&nbsp; I now have come up with the premise you can work on!</p><p>EU Theory is Crap.</p><p>Falsify that and the problem is solved.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>IOW, dropping your reaction to whatever disparaging remarks you might think someone may have used in assaulting EU theory would probably be a good idea.&nbsp; Focus on falsifying that statement or, at least, casting significant doubt on its validity.&nbsp; But, continuing to run in circles trying to defend against it and subsequently reinforcing it by doing nothing in the way of falsifying it doesn't really help. </p><p>I think that finding a <u>specific</u> question and providing a <u>specific</u> answer would be a good start.&nbsp; Then, you can delve deeper into questions regarding that answer, settle any doubts there and then move on to the next one, one by one.&nbsp; So, flip back to whatever questions may have been posed, quote one and then provide an answer that directly addresses the points in the question.&nbsp; That is, after all, what many people appear to desire.&nbsp; Just stick to <strong>ONE</strong> question at first and move on when whoever inquires about it say's "OK, you've answered that to my satisfaction."&nbsp; If the answer requires a bit more than just a simple binary response, make sure to return to the original question and apply your answer to it so it is very clear. </p><p><span style="font-weight:bold">Note:</span> Answering a question with a question is not an answer btw.&nbsp; I've noticed that happening a lot in these threads in general.&nbsp; Usually, it's in the form of "But what about so-and-so's theory on whatzits?"&nbsp; That's not an answer.&nbsp; An appropriate answer introducing a supporting argument would be concrete and unmistakeable, not requiring further contemplation for the reader to have to figure out.&nbsp; You would simply state whatever it is about so-and-so's theory which applies to your specific presentation, reference the original theory if necessary and then move on.&nbsp; That provides a <span style="font-weight:bold">VERY</span> specific supporting point which is unmistakeable, unarguable from a presentation standpoint and not easily confused.&nbsp; In that way, you limit queries to very specific points instead of opening an entire Pandora's box with every answer.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Great!&nbsp; I now have come up with the premise you can work on!EU Theory is Crap.Falsify that and the problem is solved.</DIV></p><p>EU theory works in a lab.&nbsp; Problem solved.</p><p>Any questions? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>