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

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Peratt et al. 1992 states the jets are overall neutral in charge.&nbsp; Are you disagreeing with one of your sources?&nbsp; Please elaborate. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Which paper/book are you referencing? </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>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My model works in a lab.&nbsp; Problem solved.Any questions? Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I'll let you know as soon as I read the answer.</p><p></p><p>(Not trying to antagonize you btw, just trying to cut through some of the clutter.&nbsp; It's extremely hard to follow when the discussion doesn't seem to focus on a single point and clear it up before starting on another completely different aspect.&nbsp; I'm not so sure it's entirely due to my unfamiliarity with the subject matter either. But, I do understand the dynamics of being assailed with so many questions and perceived attacks and the resulting confusion which can ensue.&nbsp; It would be immensely helpful if things just went one step at a time.&nbsp; If it can't get past the first step, then more stumbling steps, tripping downhill into obscurity, isn't going to make it any clearer.) </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'>I'll let you know as soon as I read the answer.(Not trying to antagonize you btw, just trying to cut through some of the clutter.&nbsp; It's extremely hard to follow when the discussion doesn't seem to focus on a single point and clear it up before starting on another completely different aspect.&nbsp; I'm not so sure it's entirely due to my unfamiliarity with the subject matter either. But, I do understand the dynamics of being assailed with so many questions and perceived attacks and the resulting confusion which can ensue.&nbsp; It would be immensely helpful if things just went one step at a time.&nbsp; If it can't get past the first step, then more stumbling steps, tripping downhill into obscurity, isn't going to make it any clearer.) <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>I hear you on that point, I really do.&nbsp; IMO the first "step" is getting DrRocket to recognize that Michael Mozina did not invent QM, GR theory or EU Theory, so blaming any of the authors of these theories for what he percieves as my personal sins is illogical and irrational.&nbsp; If I were claiming that I personally *invented* EU theory all on my own, his crusade against the whole of EU Theory based on my description of it might make some sense.&nbsp; As it stands, he might as well be crusading against GR theory because we disagree over the "space expansion' debate or Guth's "negative pressure vacuum".&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Which paper/book are you referencing? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Sorry, meant Peratt et al. 1990.</p><p>http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1990IAUS..140..143P&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;whole_paper=YES&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf</p><p>In the introduction, he states the relativistic electrons in the jets are balanced by ions such that the overall charge is neutral.&nbsp; I just wanted to know if you agree with this because you seem to have been implying that they are charged jets. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I hear you on that point, I really do.&nbsp; IMO the first "step" is getting DrRocket to recognize that Michael Mozina did not invent QM, GR theory or EU Theory, so blaming any of the authors of these theories for what he percieves as my personal sins illogical and irrational.&nbsp; If I were claiming that I *invented* EU theory all on my own his crusade against the whole of EU Theory based on my description of it might make some sense.&nbsp; As it stands, he might as well be crusading against GR theory because we disagree over the "space expansion' debate or Guth's "negative pressure vacuum".&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I don't think he has said anything of the sort.&nbsp; I can't speak for him though.&nbsp; But, I think you'll note that he has made that statement himself many times.&nbsp; Why not just accept it and move on from there?</p><p>Now, if you call something "EU" Theory and other's perceive it is not because they do not believe you are applying it correctly, that does not mean they are calling it "crap."&nbsp; That's something I think you need to realize.&nbsp; If you, for instance, applied an interpretation concerning gravity to EU theory and someone calls that "crap" they're not calling the theory of gravitation "Crap."&nbsp; They're calling your interpretation and application of it "crap."&nbsp; <u>THAT</u> is something that seems to occur time and time again in these threads - You supply a well established theory as a supporting point and there is an outcry in regards to how you are applying that theory.&nbsp; They have nothing against the well established science behind that theory - only the application you are maintaining is valid.</p><p>Does that make any sense to you?&nbsp; (Please, don't bring up specific talking points.&nbsp; It's a general question but a simple binary answer will suffice or a request for clarification is acceptable as well.) </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'>I'll let you know as soon as I read the answer.<br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>Me too.</p><p>FYI, DrRocket's next step would be to recognize that the physical particles in a vacuum or in a plasma are the things that posses kinetic energy and produce "positive pressure" and that make "reconnection" possible.&nbsp; In the case of the vacuum the atomic and subatomic particles in the vacuum chamber provide the positive pressure, and there is no way to add or subtract anything from a zero pressure vacuum to achieve a "negative pressure" state inside the vacuum. &nbsp; Likewise it is the "physical particles" inside of plasma that actually "reconnect.&nbsp; While DrRocket's math skills are excellent, his grasp of what is going on at the level of actual physics and physical particles leaves much to be desired. &nbsp;</p><p>The only point I was trying to make to DrRocket is that *all* theories are 'unexplained' at some level.&nbsp; There is absolutely no rational basis for singling out one theory for persecution. </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 don't think he has said anything of the sort.&nbsp; I can't speak for him though.&nbsp; But, I think you'll note that he has made that statement himself many times.&nbsp; Why not just accept it and move on from there?</DIV></p><p>Suppose I ran around calling Lambda-CDM theory "crap" and regardless of what literature was presented to me, I refused to read it, I refused to recant my statement.&nbsp; I refused to address any of the points anyone made on any issue related to Lambda-CMD theory, and I continued to claim Lambda-CDM theory was 'crap' until he personally demonstred every single element of Lamba theory?</p><p>How does one "move on" from irrational behaviors?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, if you call something "EU" Theory and other's perceive it is not because they do not believe you are applying it correctly, that does not mean they are calling it "crap." </DIV></p><p>Surely DrRocket is intelligent enough to be able to say "Michael Mozina is incorrect about this element of EU theory" instead of "EU theory is crap", don't you think?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's something I think you need to realize.</DIV></p><p>I realize what he's claiming, but then he's refused to cite a specific example of where I have misquoted Alfven, and he refuses to acknowledge the fact that EU theory isn't *my theory*.&nbsp; This is *bizzare* behavior.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If you, for instance, applied an interpretation concerning gravity to EU theory and someone calls that "crap" they're not calling the theory of gravitation "Crap."</DIV></p><p>That is because 99.9999999999999999% of the time when someone disagrees with me about a theory, they don't claim the theory is crap because they disagree with me on some specific issue related to that theory.&nbsp; I would have said 100%, but DrRocket is the one single exception I have ever met.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They're calling your interpretation and application of it "crap." </DIV></p><p>Then they should say that, instead of saying EU theory is crap.&nbsp; Science requires a precise use of language.&nbsp; Saying EU theory is crap is entirely different than saying MM is full of it and the theory is still good.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>THAT is something that seems to occur time and time again in these threads - You supply a well established theory as a supporting point and there is an outcry in regards to how you are applying that theory.&nbsp; They have nothing against the well established science behind that theory</DIV></p><p>If that were so, DrRocket wouldn't be claiming that whole theory is crap.</p><p>Nothing here makes a lot of sense to me quite honestly because I have never been in this situation before.&nbsp; I've never had someone ask me for help understanding a theory of science, steadfastly refuse to read the information I have provided for them, and then went on crusade against the theory based on my personal statements.&nbsp; It's the single most irrational scenario I can ever remember running across in cyberspace.&nbsp; The worst part is that everyone seems to be making excuses for DrRockets improper and inflamatory and incorrect use of the english language.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Why not give him some advice as well?&nbsp; Can't he learn to say "EU theory is good science and Michael is full of 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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sorry, meant Peratt et al. 1990.http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1990IAUS..140..143P&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;whole_paper=YES&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdfIn the introduction, he states the relativistic electrons in the jets are balanced by ions such that the overall charge is neutral.&nbsp; I just wanted to know if you agree with this because you seem to have been implying that they are charged jets. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I would hate to comment on the abstrct without reading the whole paper.&nbsp; I'll comment on it once I've read it.&nbsp; I don't recall reading this specific paper before. </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>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>..Can't he learn to say "EU theory is good science and Michael is full of crap"? Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>*No.</p><p>Why?</p><p>Because, EU hasn't been established by anyone as "good science" to begin with.&nbsp; Look around, it isn't there.&nbsp; There are scientific "elements" used to support various EU ideas but even though they are based on good science, merely associating them with EU doesn't mean it has some spontaneous legitimacy.&nbsp; They have to be associated "appropriately" FIRST and I think that is where the disconenct is coming from here.&nbsp; Heck, even nailing down a definition of what EU Theory actually is seems to be near impossible.&nbsp; How is that "good science?"&nbsp; How many pages did it take to succinctly associate MHD/whatever with EU even if such an association is questionable? </p><p>*It's inappropriate for me to answer for DrRocket and I won't respond to such queries in the future.&nbsp; It's not good manners.&nbsp; I think you should simply drop such referrences altogether anyway.&nbsp; He certainly isn't the only one with questions or criticisms.&nbsp; So, it would simply be more appropriate to address such issues as a matter of general opinion instead when not directly responding to the poster in question.&nbsp; It makes it much easier to respond to such questions and doesn't lend a constant appearance of a personal conflict/rivalry. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is very simple.&nbsp; A theory is set of principles that produces a predictive model, almost always a mathematical model, the predictions of which have been verified by a large body of empirical evidence.&nbsp; That empirical evidence can be in the form of laboratory experiments or it can be in the form of precision measurements of phenomena observed in nature.&nbsp; The key element is predictive capability that is in agreement with experimental data.Predictive capability in physics is accomplished by means of mathematical models that allow the basic principles of the theory to be applied to a wide variety of situations.</p><p>Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Some people, SDC being a good example, would call this "BS science" and put you on a blacklist for presenting it.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>*No.Why?Because, EU hasn't been established by anyone as "good science" to begin with.&nbsp; Look around, it isn't there.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Um, look around you, it is there.&nbsp; *Any* theory that attempts to use MHD theory and apply it to objects in space is simply another attempt to do what Alfven already did in Cosmic Plasma.&nbsp; The theory of "magnetic reconnection" is one such example, albeit with a really self-conflicted title.&nbsp; Everyone uses his same basic approach, they simply label things differently and do things somewhat differently than Alfven.&nbsp; His MHD theories *ARE* being applied to space even by the mainstream.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are scientific "elements" used to support various EU ideas but even though they are based on good science, merely associating them with EU doesn't mean it has some spontaneous legitimacy.</DIV></p><p>That's certainly true in the case of how the mainstream also applies MHD theory to objects in space.&nbsp; Nevertheless, it's still not "crap" even if it turns out to be incorrect.&nbsp; it's all based on emprical physics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They have to be associated "appropriately" FIRST and I think that is where the disconenct is coming from here.</DIV></p><p>The "disconnect" needs to occur between "EU theory" and "Michael Mozina".&nbsp; Although I have repeatedly explained to DrRocket that EU theory preceeded me by 100 years, and ironically even he admits it's older than GR theory or QM, he still refuses to acknowledge the difference between the two.</p><p>Science is all based on the *CORRECT* use of language, and the *SPECIFIC* use of language.&nbsp; It is logical to state "Michael is wrong about Alfven's work and therfore his opinion on this point is "crap".&nbsp; It is another thing entirely to claim that an entirely 100 year history is "crap" only because he doesn't like my presentation somehow in some vague and undescribed way.&nbsp; Every time I ask for a specific he runs for cover.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Heck, even nailing down a definition of what EU Theory actually is seems to be near impossible. </DIV></p><p>It was "possible" for me to define it in one single english sentence.&nbsp; How hard can it be to understand that EU theory is the application of MHD theory to objects in space?</p><p>There will of course be variation of belief within *ANY* and *EVERY* scientific subset. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How is that "good science?"</DIV></p><p>Good science begins with "good use" of the english language.&nbsp; DrRocket needs to be *specific* in his criticims. He needs to recognize the difference between a 100 year old theory, and Michael Mozina.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, it would simply be more appropriate to address such issues as a matter of general opinion instead when not directly responding to the poster in question.</DIV></p><p>But the questions need to be "specific" and the discussion has to be an intelligent two way conversation based on a rational understanding of the difference between any specific scientific theory, and my personal opinions on that theory.&nbsp; There is no rational justification for judging any theory I did not claim to create based upon my description of that theory.&nbsp; That is not rational behavior.</p><p>I have answered *many* specific questions put to me, and I will continue to do so.&nbsp; It is however not reasonable to ignore the distinction between a scientific theory and a third persons opinion about that theory.&nbsp; I'm not the author of EU theory, or GR theory or QM theory, therfore it is irrational to judge any of them based on my presentation of that material.</p><p>There actually are some new specific questions in the Sun thread at the moment which I have not addressed, but if you take a gander at the *whole* thread, you'll find plenty of answer, including the"new ones" that have probably already been answered several years ago.</p><p>I can't work with a handwave.&nbsp; If DrRocket wants to have an intelligent conversation on this topic then he has to A) recognize the difference between the theory and the individual, and B) be specific about what *exactly* I said that he believes is incongruent with Alfven's writings. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It makes it much easier to respond to such questions and doesn't lend a constant appearance of a personal conflict/rivalry. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>Unfortunately however DrRocket has made this a very "personal" conflict because steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the difference beteen EU theory and Michael Mozina.</p><p>I'm not even going to answer any more solar thread questions until EVERYONE accepts that my solar model and EU theory are independent theories and neither one depends upon the other. </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'>Mozina is actually right on this one, but for all the wrong reasons.<br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>There's more to my original question.&nbsp; It was sort of a lead in.&nbsp; I understand what you are both saying, but my intent is to pin-point what "EU theory" is.&nbsp; Michael has repeatedly stated: "EU theory is the application of MHD to objects in space".&nbsp; That's all well, fine and dandy.&nbsp; When was this theory presented as a named, scientifically rigorous theory?&nbsp; I'm not looking for an exact date as dates with theories of this magnitude can not really be defined.&nbsp; But within a few years would be a good start.&nbsp; At this point we could begin extracting information from this time period to define "EU theory".&nbsp; I think we are all using the word 'theory' a little haphazardly in the context of "The Electric Universe".&nbsp; We also might want to try to define if there is a difference between "Plasma Cosmology" and "The Electric Universe".&nbsp; I believe there is.</p><p>Take QED for example.&nbsp; I can make a parallel statement to Michael's by stating "Quantum Electrodynamics is the application of Special Relativity to sub-atomic particles."&nbsp; A pretty broad statement.&nbsp;&nbsp; What I most absolutely can not say is that the theory of QED predates General Relativity despite Special Relativity and the birth of quantum mechanics arising a decade earlier.&nbsp; Although, sub-categories of QED may have been explored by the likes of Planck, Einstein, Bohr, et al.,&nbsp; QED is a well defined, rigorously tested, scientific <em>Theory</em> by every scientific standard of whose definition was present in the early 40's.&nbsp; The theory of QED can make whole host of rigorous statements.</p><p>How does the scientific theory of "EU theory" parallel this?&nbsp;&nbsp; How does "EU theory" parallel the likes of the theories of Special and General Relativity, the Theory of Evolution, Quantum Mechanics, the Big Bang Theory, Quantum Chromodynamics, Quantum Electrodynamics, etc, etc.&nbsp; All these theories are well defined and have stood up against an enormous amount of rigorous skepticism.&nbsp; Each of these theories can not only be described briefly in a single statement or two, they can also be exhaustively described quantitatively with accompanying qualitative statements about what the theories claim and predict.&nbsp; I'll add, just as a little caveat, that all these theories may be shown to be wrong;&nbsp; However, as of this very day, they still function as adequate explanation/approximation for what we can observe.</p><p>I'd like to suggest, the someone present a list of qualitative and/or quantitative statements regarding what EU theory is.&nbsp; Then maybe, just maybe, we could start separate threads that specifically apply to those statements and rigorously discuss them without this 3rd grade banter being tossed around. </p><p>And, Michael... please don't pick this post apart sentence by sentence.&nbsp; Just make honest effort to describe EU theory making more than just one statement.&nbsp; A handful of statements, claims and predictions would be nice.&nbsp; If the EU theory is a valid, scientific theory, this shouldn't be too difficult a request to fulfill. </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'>It is very simple.&nbsp; A theory is set of principles that produces a predictive model, almost always a mathematical model, the predictions of which have been verified by a large body of empirical evidence.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I think I have finally figured out why you and I see the universe so differently.</p><p>It occurs to me that while you personally place a high emphasis on the mathematical side of life, I tend to put a greater emphasis on conceptually understanding the physics involved in "physical reality".&nbsp;&nbsp; I place a greater emphasis on the "large body of empirical evidence" than on the mathematical evidence.</p><p>My father started his own business installing electric gate systems, alarm systems and built in vacuum cleaning systems in the San Diego area.&nbsp; When I was a kid, my dad installed a vacuum cleaning system in our home, and I "helped him", mostly by holding pipes and asking him a million or so question about how a vacuum cleaning system worked.&nbsp; He explained the process in complete detail.&nbsp; He opened up the vacuum system for me and showed me how it worked. He explained the concept of "pressure" to me and he talked in terms of the "air pressure" inside the canister being "lower than" the outside air pressure.&nbsp; He showed me the vacuum motors that removed air from the canister.&nbsp; He plugged it in for me, and turned it on and let me watch the motors run, and cover the main opening with my hand.&nbsp; He explained the process in great detail.</p><p>Had Guth come along when I was 12 and told me about negative pressure in the vacuum canister, I would have probably told him that was impossible unless he had "negative air" or something.&nbsp; I'm not sure exactly how I would have responded, but I can tell you I would have been *really skeptical* of "negative pressure" at 12. </p><p>I need to know *how* things work, and *why* they work.&nbsp; The math is interesting and highly valueable to be able to "predict" something, but unless I first "conceptually understand" how and why something physically functions, I would not have a clue how to mathematically model it.</p><p>The reason you believe that it is "ok" for Guth to be putting a minus sign in there and talking about negative pressure is because neither you nor he understands a vacuum.&nbsp; It is physically impossible to create a negative pressure in that vacuum.&nbsp; You could stuff antimatter in there and you'd blow out the walls of the chamber when it touches the chamber, but then this is not "negative pressure", that is "antimatter/matter" annihilation.</p><p>If you believe Guth is your savior and mentor, email him and ask him exactly what *physical thing* he intends to add to or subtract from our hypothetical "zero pressure" chamber, where no atomic or subatomic particles are present to create "negative pressure"?&nbsp; I believe that I emailed him (maybe another author on his paper) about this after first reading inflation theory some 20+ years ago in the 80's, but I did not receive an answer.&nbsp; Maybe you'll have better luck.</p><p>Your lack of focus on understanding the "physics" of what is occuring in nature is also why we are having a hard time with the "magnetic reconnection" issue.&nbsp;&nbsp; As we both agree, magnetic lines lack physical substance, and they form as a full continuum, without beginning or end &nbsp; They are physically incapable of "reconnecting".&nbsp; &nbsp; The energy exchange that occurs occurs at the level of particle physics, between ions and electrons at the point of "reconnection".&nbsp; It's a "kinetic energy/ circuit energy" process.&nbsp; The magnetic lines contain "current flow" and Alfven consistently presents such processes as "circuits" in his book.&nbsp; At the level of particle physics, the ions and electrons "connect", disconnect and reconnect. &nbsp;&nbsp; The circuits also "reconnect".&nbsp; The magnetic lines are physically incapable of "reconnecting".</p><p>IMO, you need to get a far better understanding of the actual "physics" involved in "physical reality" and start paying attention to the actual physical processes that are occuring.&nbsp; You are so fixated on the math, you're completely ignoring the physics, so much so that you now cannot tell the difference between actual "hard science' involving empirical "hardware" like neutrino astrophysics, and mathematical impossibilities like inflation based on a poor and flawed understanding of the nature of a vacuum.&nbsp; There is no "physical" justification for Guth's inflation theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; He attempts to justify it via a vacuum chamber, but that minus sign he put in there demontrates that he does not understand how a vacuum actually functions.&nbsp; Even at 12 I'd have been skeptical of his claim unless he could produce "negative air".</p><p>Go ask him exactly what he intends to add or subtract from our zero pressure vacuum to achieve "negative pressure". I'm really interested in hearing his answer and your answer.&nbsp; I really would also like to know exactly what you you believe "disconnects" and "reconnects" in plasma, because we both agree it's not the magnetic lines and you reject my definition of particle reconnection, so what's left to work with at the level of physics? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How does "EU theory" parallel the likes of the theories of Special and General Relativity, the Theory of Evolution, Quantum Mechanics, the Big Bang Theory, Quantum Chromodynamics, Quantum Electrodynamics, etc, etc.&nbsp; All these theories are well defined and have stood up against an enormous amount of rigorous skepticism. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>That all depends on how you define each of these theories.&nbsp; If you stuff GR theory full of inflation, it's not going to hold up to rigorous skepticism.&nbsp; If you stuff it full of "space expansion", you'll never be able to emrpically demonstrate it.&nbsp; If you stick to Einstein's brand of GR, it is pure emprical physics.</p><p>Likewise, if we define EU theory as the application of MHD theory to objects in space, it is a "broad" theory that can indeed be built upon by anyone.&nbsp; Magnetic reconnection theory is such a theory and the mainstream seems to believe that it has great value and great importance.&nbsp; Evidently it's a useful endeavor, even if magnetic lines don't reconnect.</p><p>No theory is "pure" in astronomy.&nbsp; GR theory is being stuffed with all sorts of non emprically demonstrateable entities.&nbsp; Adding inflation to GR is not physically justifyable in emprical experimation.&nbsp; Adding MHD theory to GR theory CAN BE EMPIRICALLY VERIFIED in a lab. </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'> He opened up the vacuum system for me and showed me how it worked. He explained the concept of "pressure" to me and he talked in terms of the "air pressure" inside the canister being "lower than" the outside air pressure.&nbsp; He showed me the vacuum motors that removed air from the canister.&nbsp; He plugged it in for me, and turned it on and let me watch the motors run, and cover the main opening with my hand.&nbsp; He explained the process in great detail.Had Guth come along when I was 12 and told me about negative pressure in the vacuum canister, I would have probably told him that was impossible unless he had "negative air" or something.&nbsp; I'm not sure exactly how I would have responded, but I can tell you I would have been *really skeptical* of "negative pressure" at 12. I need to know *how* things work, and *why* they work.&nbsp; The math is interesting and highly valueable to be able to "predict" something, but unless I first "conceptually understand" how and why something physically functions, I would not have a clue how to mathematically model it.The reason you believe that it is "ok" for Guth to be putting a minus sign in there and talking about negative pressure is because neither you nor he understands a vacuum.&nbsp; It is physically impossible to create a negative pressure in that vacuum.&nbsp; You could stuff antimatter in there and you'd blow out the walls of the chamber when it touches the chamber, but then this is not "negative pressure", that is "antimatter/matter" annihilation. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />You are one of the most frustrating people I have ever encountered.&nbsp; No matter how many times it is explained to you, you just don't seem to hear.</p><p>We are not talking about air pressure.</p><p>WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT AIR PRESSURE</p><p><font size="3">WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT AIR PRESSURE.</font></p><p><font size="1">Understand?</font></p><p><font size="1">My prediction is that you do not understand and will continue to post pointless rants that completely miss the point.&nbsp; History is on my side.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are one of the most frustrating people I have ever encountered.&nbsp; No matter how many times it is explained to you, you just don't seem to hear.We are not talking about air pressure.WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT AIR PRESSUREWE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT AIR PRESSURE.Understand?My prediction is that you do not understand and will continue to post pointless rants that completely miss the point.&nbsp; History is on my side. <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>The only difference at the subatomic realm is the particles are smaller.</p><p>Let's assume that we achieve a zero pressure vacuum where there are no atomic or subatomic particles present in the vacuum.&nbsp; What *physical thing* did you Guth, and DrRocket intend to add to or subtract from the vacuum to achieve "negative pressure"? </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]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only difference at the subatomic realm is the particles are smaller.Let's assume that we achieve a zero pressure vacuum where there are no atomic or subatomic particles present in the vacuum.&nbsp; What *physical thing* did you Guth, and DrRocket intend to add to or subtract from the vacuum to achieve "negative pressure"? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />An energy density of about 10^-9 joules in per cubic meter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>An energy density of about 10-9 joules in per cubic meter. <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Energy in what physical form? </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]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Energy in what physical form? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Read the links that have been provided to you, and try to understand it enough to at least ask questions that relate to the subject.&nbsp; I do not have time to hold your hand and explain it to you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Read the links that have been provided to you, and try to understand it enough to at least ask questions that relate to the subject.&nbsp; I do not have time to hold your hand and explain it to you. <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>In other words *you don't know" and it's "unexplained".</p><p>I find it ironic you don't have time to "explain" your theories to me, but I'm supposed to explain every single detail of EU Theory for it to have any scientific merit whatseover.&nbsp; Shesh.&nbsp; You guys are absolutely amazing.</p><p>FYI, all known form of energy produce "positive pressure". </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'>In other words *you don't know" and it's "unexplained".I find it ironic you don't have time to "explain" your theories to me, but I'm supposed to explain every single detail of EU Theory for it to have any scientific merit whatseover.&nbsp; Shesh.&nbsp; You guys are absolutely amazing.FYI, all known form of energy produce "positive pressure". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />No, in other words, you can't take the time to even make the slightest effort to understand the "in the box" physics you criticize. It's not even a book to purchase, just spend a few minute&nbsp;and freakin' understand the concept.</p><p>Sheesh...You are hopeless.</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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, in other words, you can't take the time to even make the slightest effort to understand the "in the box" physics you criticize. It's not even a book to purchase, just spend a few minute&nbsp;and freakin' understand the concept.Sheesh...You are hopeless. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>No Wayne, that's what DrRocket is doing, not me.&nbsp; I've read all that matieral, and the answer is not in there.&nbsp; There is no known form of "energy" that has a "negative pressure".&nbsp;&nbsp; No such thing exists in nature.&nbsp; It's literally a physical impossibility.&nbsp; I can say all of this *because I have studied it, and I have debated this point many many times. </p><p>There is no cosmology theory that is not "unexplained" at some level.&nbsp; You can't stuff Inflation into GR and claim that's "ok" and then forbid the addition of MHD theory to GR theory.&nbsp; That's not even rational.&nbsp; I can empirical verify that EM fields will cause object and plasma to "ebb and flow".&nbsp; You can't produce one physicallly identified form of energy that would produce negative pressure, and it is physically impossible to even verify this theory because bulding even a "zero pressure' vacuum is beyond our technical ability. </p><p>There is no form of energy that produces negative pressure Wayne.&nbsp; If you disagree, demonstrate it, quote the approrpiate paper and author and be *specific*.&nbsp; Handwaves don't count.</p><p>I am absolutely floored that you complain that I won't read your material, but you let DrRocket get away with not even bothering to read Aflven's books and calling his theories "crap".&nbsp; Absolutely amazing.</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'>Adding MHD theory to GR theory CAN BE EMPIRICALLY VERIFIED in a lab. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Huh?&nbsp; Please explain how MHD theory can be added to a theory of gravity and be empirically verified.&nbsp; That is just plain silly.&nbsp; I know that you won't actually explain or prove anything.&nbsp; You will either rant about Guth or tell me to read Alfven.&nbsp; Do you even realize how absurd the above statement is?</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Huh?&nbsp; Please explain how MHD theory can be added to a theory of gravity and be empirically verified.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Pick up a plasma ball at Walmart sometime.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>I can emprical test "gravity" with the device.&nbsp;&nbsp; All you have to do is hold it up and let it fall into your other hand.&nbsp; That's an emprical demonstration of the *attractive* force of "gravity". &nbsp; Plug it in and turn it on.&nbsp; You'll notice that EM fields cause the plasma in the ball to "ebb and flow".&nbsp; Turn off the power now and watch what happens.&nbsp; You'll notice nothing much happens inside the ball.&nbsp; Turn it on again and the light show starts again. &nbsp; Hold that object in your hand now and carefully let it fall into your other hand.&nbsp; As you observe it fall into your other hand, you are observing an emprical verification of GR and MHD theory combined, otherwise known as "EU Theory". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

Now kindly explain to me how I can create a "negative pressure' from a vacuum and demonstrate a "repulsive" force of gravity for me.&nbsp; Show me how I would emprically demonstrate this for under $30.&nbsp; How about I give you a billion dolllar budget instead?&nbsp; Would that help you to demonstrate inflation in an emprical way? <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>