Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

michaelmozina · Jun 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am sure that mathematics seems magical to you.  But a little education might cure that.  It is really kind of neat once you understand it. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>When math is being applied to real physical objects and known forces of nature it does not seem "magical" at all to me.  I enjoy math quite a bit.  I actually got college credit for taking the first two semesters of calculus while I was still in high school.  I'm not put off by math that is applied to real physical objects.  When someone tries to apply math to metaphysics however, it's a complete different story. </p><p> I can for instance write a software program to calculate how many invisible elves can fit on the head of an ordinary pin.  The math may be perfectly fine, but there is absolutely no way to falsify my claim about the existence of invisible elves, their size, etc.  That kind of math is in fact quite "magical" to me, yes, but it's not because I can't follow the math, it's because I can't falsify the idea itself nor verify it's existence based strictly on the math. The math might look just fine, but how would you falsify my claim as to how many invisible elves fit on the head of a pin of a particular size?   That's the key and important difference between math related to physics and math related to mythology.  Only the mythological type of math seems "magical" to me. </p><p>When you start trying to apply math to inflation and dark energy and things that do not exist in nature it is no longer kind of "neat", it's kind of "unbelievable".   How might I confirm that inflation exists in nature? </p><p>You're welcome to apply math to all the known forms of matter we can identifiy and all the known forces of nature that we have identified.  If however you think some neat looking math is going to resolve my basic problem with metaphysical concepts, you're mistaken.   Mathematical lipstick is not going to change the nature of the metaphysical beast.  It's still a metaphysical (and unfalsifyable) idea and the math is therefore mythological in nature, not a form of emprical physics.   In that case, yes it looks like magic math to me.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Jun 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you ask me to describe '10' using math, I could come up with various way to do it.  I could not, however, use math to make 10=11 (maybe DrRocket could, but I wouldn't know where to begin) .  With that said, though... my description doesn't make '10' the right answer to the original assumption, it just supports it as being possible.</DIV></p><p>Ok, now assign some mathematical properties to "invisible energy" for me and you'll have an excellent example of mathematical mythos.  (Unless you say Invisible energy = 0 of course)</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I can't make the math work to explain dark energy, then the assumption is wrong. </DIV></p><p>Since you are free to assign any mathematical quality to "dark matter' that you wish, you can just fudge the number all you like until it fit what you were trying to describe and I couldn't falsify any of it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I can make it work, then the assumption is valid. (not necessarily correct).</DIV></p><p>If I assume "invisible energy" exists and stuff it into Lambda-CDM theory in place of "dark energy" and get it to "work".  That doesn't mean my assumption that "invisible energy" had anything to do with the observation of acceleration.   Your assumption that "dark energy' is in any way linked to acceleration of plasma is the assumption I cannot verify or falsify because you can't even tell me where I might find some to even begin to test your mathematical ideas.  It's no longer an emprically testable idea, it's methaphsical mythology with nifty math.  The math isn't the issue.  The assumption that DE had anything to do with acceleration of the universe is the issue.  i can't verify or falsify the idea stictly from the math, nor can you falsify my "invisible energy" using the same math.  The work you're creating does not exist in nature, just as the word I'm creating does not exist in nature, so math related to these things is unfalsifyable and unverifyable in an emprical test.  That's the problem, not the math.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You most certainly can invalidate an assumption by attacking the math and/or physics supporting it.</DIV></p><p>But there's not a problem with math!  The problem is in the metaphysical nature of the entity in questions.  Look at my response to DrRocket and magic math.  My math related to invisible elves might be perfect, but you could never falsify my premise using the math only.  It's not possible to falsify a metaphysical idea based on math alone.  </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Both math and physics are not things you can attack piece by piece. </DIV></p><p>Sure they are.  You can leave my elf math alone and attack the concept that invisible elves exist and have the effect (in this case their size) I claim they have.  My math might be perfect *if* you first *assumed* the existence of invisible elves, and that you also accepted my claim about their size.   You can't disprove good math that's been attached to a bad idea by attacking the math.  I can only attack the bad idea, not the math.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They exist as a whole, </DIV></p><p>No, they don't.  They exist as separate things.  I can separate any math I do with invisible elves from the concept of invisible elves.  The math is ultimately irrelevant, expecially if there's no problem with the math.  The problem is in my assumption itself, not the math.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>all of its parts have to be considered,</DIV></p><p>Empirical existence must also be considered.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and how they work together to support any assumptions. </DIV></p><p>In my invisible elf calculation, it's the assumption of elves and the assumption of size that is the problem, not necessarily the math.  The math might be perrfect in every detail, and yet the idea is still unfalsifyable.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the physics and/or math don't fit the assumption, then the assumption is wrong. </DIV></p><p>So I can still change the size of my elves anytime I want to.  Even if I did the math wrong at first, I could still come back to you later with at "correct' method for counting elves by surface area, adjust their size all I want, and then all the math would be right.  Now what?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok.  I'll concede I  put faith in it. </DIV></p><p>And I do not.  That's the key difference.  If you're a skeptic, you're stuck.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have faith that the mountains of observations supported by mathematical models may be leading in the right direction. Fair enough? </DIV></p><p>Well, it's "fair' to acknowledge there's an act of faith involved.  It's not really fair IMO to characterize these observations as being supportive of your model.  Imagine me pilfering your DE math, and claiming magic energy did it using exactly your same mathematical model?  Would that convince you that magic energy exists in nature or that it had anything to do with the acceleration you're observing?  Do you see what I mean?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you show me the observations are flawed and the math is unsupportive, I'll conclude that the current direction in which the methods being persued to verify the assumptions are wrong.</DIV></p><p>Your assumption that DE had anything to do with accelerating a plasma universe is what I question, not the math, not the observations, not even the intepretation of those observations.  I can't falsify your faith in DE by attacking your math any more than you can falsify my invisible elves theory by looking at my math.   I can't see any physical connection between acceleration of plasma and "dark energy''.  I can't see any connection between magic energy and acceleration.  I don't see any connection between "divine energy" and acceleration.  If you can show me any emprical evidence that any of these things can move plasma, I'll be happy to let you include them in mathematical calculations galore.  Without an emprical test of concept however, it's like my elves on a pin scenario.  I can't verify or falsify your assertion that DE causes acceleration based on strictly on the math. </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

DrRocket · Jun 4, 2008

<p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">I received my copy of <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics </em>by Alfven and Falthammar today,<span>  </span>and have had time to read a bit of it.<span>  </span>Many of my suspicions have now been confirmed:</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">1.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'">       </span></span></span><font size="3"><font face="Calibri"><span> </span>There is precious little resemblance between the physics presented in this book and the nonsense being promulgated under the banner of the “Electrical Universe”.</font></font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">2.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'">       </span></span></span><font face="Calibri" size="3">Alfven recognizes the value of direct observation of nature, the cosmos in particular, in developing and validating physical theories.<span>  </span>“Theoretical investigations based on space probe measurements will certainly be one of the most powerful approaches to cosmical electrodynamics.” <span>  </span>He also recognizes the limitations of laboratory experiments and the value of mathematical theory:</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt0.75in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">“If we want to understand all these phenomena and make physical theories about them we must first realize that our present knowledge of physics is mainly based on experience gained in the laboratory. When we try to apply to cosmic phenomena the laws in which this experience is condensed, we make an enormous extrapolation, the legitimacy of which can be checked only by comparing the theoretical results with observations.<span>  </span>Classical mechanics was once extrapolated into the realm of astronomy so successfully that only the most refined observations of the last decades have revealed phenomena for which it does not hold.”</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">3.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'">       </span></span></span><font size="3"><font face="Calibri"><span> </span>I am confident that Alfven would recognize a dark enery hypothesis for what it is, and reasonable working hypothesis and nothing more.<span>  </span>Alfven does not appear to suffer from math anxiety.<span>  </span>His general approach seems quite solid and not at all delusional.</font></font></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">4.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'">       </span></span></span><font face="Calibri" size="3">Alfven’s treatment of electrodynamics and plasma physics in the book is largely mathematical in nature.<span>  </span>He clearly recognizes the critical role of mathematics and theory in physics. </font></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">5.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'">       </span></span></span><font face="Calibri" size="3">He promotes no oddball notion that the sun has a solid crust lying just below the photosphere, which would be wildly inconsistent with what is known of the properties of iron (like the melting point) and of heat transfer.<span>  </span>“Hence the interior of the sun (and probably stars in general), including most of the photosphere, should be considered as high-density magnetic plasmas, whereas the chromospheres and the corona are characterized by medium density plasmas.”</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">6.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'">       </span></span></span><font face="Calibri" size="3">Alflven clearly recognizes the critical and dominating role played by magnet fields in plasmas, and recognizes that the source of those fields is the current flow in the plasma itself. <span> </span>He also recognizes the proper role of approximations and the limitations of approximations , and example of which is his position on frozen-in magnetic field lines.</font></p><font size="3"><font face="Calibri">“ Hence , <em>in low-density plasmas the concept of frozen-in lines of force is questionable.</em></font></font> <p style="margin:0in0in10pt0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Tthe concept of frozen-in lines force may be useful in solar physics where we have to deal with high and medium density plasmas (cf. 5.1.4) but may be grossly misleading if applied to the magnetosphere of earth.<span>  </span>To plasma in interplanetary space it should be applied with some care.”</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">7.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'">       </span></span></span><font face="Calibri" size="3">I can find no mention of magnetic reconnection in the text of this book.<span>  </span>But I do find fundamental mathematics applied to physics and magnetic fields.<span>  </span>I think that Alfven might find a physical discussion of magnetic reconnection ( as a change in the topology of the magnetic vector field) in the context of driving electrical currents and current sheets to be more palatable than what has been characterized by Mr. Mozina.<span>  </span>I have been unable to find any discussion of magnetic reconnection that does not address current sheets and electrical currents as the source for magnetic flux and for changes in the flux.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt1in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"><font face="Calibri" size="3">http://books.google.com/books?id=KfIr-f1YbdIC&pg=PA399&dq=Cosmic+Plasma&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1&sig=_yAg9SSEmlP9-ObO8xuV8oILsVs#PPA398,M1</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Calibri">Alfven and the community of astrophysicists seem to be working with the same description of electrodynamics as formulated by Maxwell and reflected in special relativity, and the same approach to plasma physics, in large part pioneered by Alfven himself.<span>  </span><span>   </span><span> </span>I think the conflicts are more imagined than real.<span>  </span></font></font></p><font face="Calibri" size="3"> </font> <p style="margin:0in0in0pt0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">8.</font><span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'">       </span></span></span><font size="3"><font face="Calibri">I find no notion anywhere that the sun is powered by an outside electrical current or that the photosphere is composed of neon, so as to view the sun as a giant neon light bulb.<span>  </span></font></font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt1in" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"><span><font face="Calibri" size="3">                </font></span></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">All in all I find Alfen’s text to be well-reasoned and consistent with the data that was available at the time that it was published, 1963.<span>  </span>I also find P.J.E. Peebles <em>Principles of Physical Cosmology</em> to be well reasoned and consistent with what was known at the time of its publication, 1993.<span>  </span>He presents a good case as to why the plasma universe approach to cosmology is not supported by the observed uniformity of the cosmic background microwave or x-ray radiation.<span>  </span>I find that Alfven appreciates the proper role of theory, precise observation and laboratory experiment.<span>  </span>I find almost no relationship between his view of physics and that of the vociferous EU proponents who purport to represent his views.</font></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jun 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...I could not, however, use math to make 10=11 (maybe DrRocket could, but I wouldn't know where to begin) ....Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>That is usually done by dividing by zero somewhere.  It can be subtle.  Einstein did it and Friedman caught the mistake.  And that it is in part where the dynamic model of an expanding universe came from.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Jun 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My math related to invisible elves might be perfect, but you could never falsify my premise using the math only.  It's not possible to falsify a metaphysical idea based on math alone.    <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>What phenomena are your invisible elves attempting to describe within your model?  Is the assumption logical in furthering the understanding of the phenomena?  Does the assumption of invisible elves contradict anything else in the model?  Assuming the math to show that the invisible elves may exist is valid, is that math contradictory to anything in the overall model?  Adequate answers to these questions would provide enough substance to allow for further pursuit.</p><p>Now replace the term 'inivisible elves' with 'dark energy' and this is what is happening in reality. </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>

DrRocket · Jun 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>,,, Adequate answers to these questions would provide enough substance to allow for further pursuit.Now replace the term 'inivisible elves' with 'dark energy' and this is what is happening in reality.  <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>He's all yours.  Good luck.</p><p>"I've had all I can stands.  I can't stands no more." -- Popeye</p><p>"Nuts" -- Terry McAuliffe </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jun 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I received my copy of Cosmical Electrodynamics by Alfven and Falthammar today,  and have had time to read a bit of it.  Many of my suspicions have now been confirmed:1.        There is precious little resemblance between the physics presented in this book and the nonsense being promulgated under the banner of the “Electrical Universe”.</DIV></p><p>You might try being more specific in your objections.  I too would agree that there is a lot of misinformation out there in cyberspace. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2.       Alfven recognizes the value of direct observation of nature, the cosmos in particular, in developing and validating physical theories.  “Theoretical investigations based on space probe measurements will certainly be one of the most powerful approaches to cosmical electrodynamics.”   He also recognizes the limitations of laboratory experiments and the value of mathematical theory:“If we want to understand all these phenomena and make physical theories about them <strong>we must first realize that our present knowledge of physics is mainly based on experience gained in the laboratory</strong>. <strong>When we try to apply to cosmic phenomena the laws in which this experience is condensed, we make an enormous extrapolation, the legitimacy of which can be checked only by comparing the theoretical results with observations.  </strong>Classical mechanics was once extrapolated into the realm of astronomy so successfully that only the most refined observations of the last decades have revealed phenomena for which it does not hold.”</DIV></p><p>Nice quote.   Emphasis mine.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>3.        I am confident that Alfven would recognize a dark enery hypothesis for what it is, and reasonable working hypothesis and nothing more.</DIV></p><p>And I'm equally certain he would not find it reasonable at all because of the lack of laboratory confirmation before you started extropolationg outward.  He'd have groaned at that move.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfven does not appear to suffer from math anxiety.</DIV></p><p>And likewise I have no anxiety about his math until you get to that chapter on ambiplasma, and then things aren't so clear.  Antimatter does exist in nature, but I have no idea if ambiplasma exists or does not exist.  I'm not particularly enamoured on that point, but the rest of his presentation is relatively straight foward and it's mathematically spelled out in great detail.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>His general approach seems quite solid and not at all delusional.</DIV></p><p>His Nobel prize is also a pretty good clue that he wasn't delusional.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>4.       Alfven’s treatment of electrodynamics and plasma physics in the book is largely mathematical in nature.  He clearly recognizes the critical role of mathematics and theory in physics.</DIV></p><p>He also emphasizes the importance of laboratory confirmation of concept as well.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>5.       He promotes no oddball notion that the sun has a solid crust lying just below the photosphere,</DIV></p><p>Er, I pointed that out to you much earlier in this thread when I noted he favored a "standard" solar model.  Of course he had none of the satellite images to work with that I have, and he had none of the current information from solar satellite programs to work with.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>which would be wildly inconsistent with what is known of the properties of iron (like the melting point) </DIV></p><p>The surface is much cooler than the melting point of iron.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and of heat transfer.</DIV></p><p>You'll notice when he talks about coronal loops and the x-ray images of the sun that he attibutes them to electrical discharges, not "magnetic reconnection".  In fact he spends a number of paragraphs bashing the whole idea.  Care to explain where he went wrong on that topic of heat transfer in plasma?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> “Hence the interior of the sun (and probably stars in general), including most of the photosphere, should be considered as high-density magnetic plasmas, whereas the chromospheres and the corona are characterized by medium density plasmas.”</DIV></p><p>EU theory can be looked at via standard solar theory or from a Birkeland solar model with equal ease.  It doesn't even matter much on a theoretical level whether you treat the sun as a plasma body or you treat it as a Birkeland model, complete with a solid surface.   </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>6.       Alflven clearly recognizes the critical and dominating role played by magnet fields in plasmas, and recognizes that the source of those fields is the current flow in the plasma itself.</DIV></p><p>This is the part your industry doesn't seem to want to come to terms with.  The current drives the magnetic field, and Alfven points that out repeatedly.  The mainstream keeps trying to ignore the kinetic energy and charge attraction going on in the current sheet, and therefore when they claim that "magnetic reconnection" occurs *without* a current sheet, they are completely off base.  It's certainly possible for a current sheet to experience all sorts of *electrical reconnections' and "kinetic energy transfers", but without any movement in the plasma, there is no energy transfer that is even possible as a result of "magnetic reconnection".  That's the pseudoscience part of current mainstream theory.  Evidently it hasn't changed much in the last 30 years.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He also recognizes the proper role of approximations and the limitations of approximations , and example of which is his position on frozen-in magnetic field lines.“ Hence , in low-density plasmas the concept of frozen-in lines of force is questionable. Tthe concept of frozen-in lines force may be useful in solar physics where we have to deal with high and medium density plasmas (cf. 5.1.4) but may be grossly misleading if applied to the magnetosphere of earth.  To plasma in interplanetary space it should be applied with some care.”</DIV></p><p>Note that this also applies to the light plasma of the corona as well.  That's why he attributed these high energy discharges to electrical activity, not "frozen in" anything.  There's nothing "frozen" about light plasma. That's like treating an extremely light gas like a solid.  Your industry doesn't seem to make any distinction between light plasma like we find in the solar atmosphere, and dense plasma like we might find in the core.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>7.       I can find no mention of magnetic reconnection in the text of this book. </DIV></p><p>It was called "magnetic merging" in his day.  Look in the index on page 162 under "magnetic merging, reconnection' and refer to pages 29 and 33.  </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But I do find fundamental mathematics applied to physics and magnetic fields.</DIV></p><p>Ya, he did in fact pretty much write the mathematical book on MHD theory.  </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think that Alfven might find a physical discussion of magnetic reconnection ( as a change in the topology of the magnetic vector field) in the context of driving electrical currents and current sheets to be more palatable than what has been characterized by Mr. Mozina.</DIV></p><p>I'll let you read the quotes you evidently missed and then let's talk again.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have been unable to find any discussion of magnetic reconnection that does not address current sheets and electrical currents as the source for magnetic flux and for changes in the flux.</DIV></p><p>I've already quoted him from this specific book from pages 29 and 33.  You need to read them and this should be the first thing we talk about once you've read his quotes.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfven and the community of astrophysicists seem to be working with the same description of electrodynamics as formulated by Maxwell and reflected in special relativity, and the same approach to plasma physics,</DIV></p><p>Boloney.  Alfven flatly denied that "magnetic reconnection" could occur *without* a current sheet.  He called the idea pseudoscience and claimed it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of MHD theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>in large part pioneered by Alfven himself.  </DIV></p><p>He certainly was well ahead of his time as it relates to plasma physics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I think the conflicts are more imagined than real. </DIV></p><p>I think you haven't read very far in the book yet.

</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Jun 4, 2008

<p><span><span><span style="font-family:'TimesNewRoman';font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> <BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>   </span></span></span><font size="3"><font face="Calibri">I find no notion anywhere that the sun is powered by an outside electrical current or that the photosphere is composed of neon, so as to view the sun as a giant neon light bulb.<span> </DIV></span></font></font></p><p>You need to read through at least chapter 3 and note his reaction to x-ray images from Skylab.  That's current flow DrRocket.  Current flows are known to heat plasma to millions of degrees.  They are known to cause plasma to emit x-rays and gamma-rays and even pinch out free neutrons from plasma.   All of these things are observed in the solar atmosphere and Alfven *unmistakably* associates these events with current flow, and he flatly refuses any sort of energy release from "magnetic merging/reconnection".  </p><p>I can't ask he what he thinks of the new satellite data, the heliosiesmology findings, ect, so I'll just cop to the fact that he worked with a standard solar model in his presentations and EU theory can be applied to either a standard solar model or a Birkeland solar model.   </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 · Jun 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What phenomena are your invisible elves attempting to describe within your model? </DIV></p><p>What difference does it make?  If I blamed your accleration on invisible elves and used Lambda math to show how it "fits" the observation, how would that make invisible elves responsible for acceleration?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is the assumption logical in furthering the understanding of the phenomena?</DIV></p><p>The answer is "no", both in the case of elves and dark energy/inflation, because none of these things exist in nature, and nothing emprically demonstrates that they can move a single atom, let alone a whole universe.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Does the assumption of invisible elves contradict anything else in the model?</DIV></p><p>How does that matter?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Assuming the math to show that the invisible elves may exist is valid, is that math contradictory to anything in the overall model?  Adequate answers to these questions would provide enough substance to allow for further pursuit.Now replace the term 'inivisible elves' with 'dark energy' and this is what is happening in reality.  <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Dark energy is no more responsible for acceleration than my elves, with math, with no math, with a lot of math or even with a ton of math.   If you can't show us that DE does anything to one atom, why would you expect a skeptic to believe it accelerates anything, anywhere?   What have you learned about "dark energy" in the last 15 years? Can you even tell me where it comes from?</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 · Jun 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...You'll notice when he talks about coronal loops and the x-ray images of the sun that he attibutes them to electrical discharges, not "magnetic reconnection".  In fact he spends a number of paragraphs bashing the whole idea.  ... Look in the index on page 162 under "magnetic merging, reconnection' and refer to pages 29 and 33.  Ya, he did in fact pretty much write the mathematical book on MHD theory.  I'll let you read the quotes you evidently missed and then let's talk again.I've already quoted him from this specific book from pages 29 and 33.  You need to read them and this should be the first thing we talk about once you've read his quotes....plasma physics.I think you haven't read very far in the book yet.

  <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Nope.  162 in the index does not exist, in fact that is section 5.12.  No mention of magnetic merging in the index at all.  No bashing or even mention of either magnetic merging or magnetic reconnection.  You must have the first edition of the book.   I have the later second revision, apparently greatly revised.  Perhaps Alfven changed his views.  Not much left to talk about.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

yevaud · Jun 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He presents a good case as to why the plasma universe approach to cosmology is not supported by the observed uniformity of the cosmic background microwave or x-ray radiation.</p><p>  <br /> Posted by <em>DrRocket</em></DIV></p><p>I presume by that, he means the <em>relative</em> uniformity of the cosmic background radiation, since there is observable anistropy.</p><p>No, not a EU proponent, merely asking to clarify this point for myself. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

DrRocket · Jun 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I presume by that, he means the relative uniformity of the cosmic background radiation, since there is observable anistropy.No, not a EU proponent, merely asking to clarify this point for myself.  <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Yes.  It is both extremely uniform on average and slightly anisotropic locally.  Both aspects are considered in evaluating potential cosmological theories.  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Jun 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What difference does it make?  If I blamed your accleration on invisible elves and used Lambda math to show how it "fits" the observation, how would that make invisible elves responsible for acceleration?The answer is "no", both in the case of elves and dark energy/inflation, because none of these things exist in nature, and nothing emprically demonstrates that they can move a single atom, let alone a whole universe.How does that matter?Dark energy is no more responsible for acceleration than my elves, with math, with no math, with a lot of math or even with a ton of math.   If you can't show us that DE does anything to one atom, why would you expect a skeptic to believe it accelerates anything, anywhere?   What have you learned about "dark energy" in the last 15 years? Can you even tell me where it comes from? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Those were rhetorical questions in an attempt to show one of several logical avenues of discovery.  I didn't expect answers for them, however had I required answers, you answered them precisely as I would expect...<br /><br /><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/8/3eeedcfa-3110-46f1-88e0-3321a3dfd66d.Medium.gif" alt="" /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

michaelmozina · Jun 4, 2008

When you get to chapter 3 DrRocket you'll see that Alven's induction circuit model scales all the way up to a galactic level, including the idea that galaxies are surrounded by an all pervasive EM field.  He would have absolutely no need of any "dark energy" to explain an observation of acceleration or any sort of expansion. He would have undoubtedly attributed the acceleration of plasma bodies (he did treat the sun as a plasma) to an expansion in the all pervasive EM field.  He would have absolutely no need of anything "dark" to explan a simple expansion of an EM field that surrounds all the objecs in space. <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 · Jun 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nope.  162 in the index does not exist, in fact that is section 5.12.  No mention of magnetic merging in the index at all.  No bashing or even mention of either magnetic merging or magnetic reconnection.  You must have the first edition of the book.   I have the later second revision, apparently greatly revised.  Perhaps Alfven changed his views.  Not much left to talk about. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>??????</p><p>This is "Cosmic Plasma"?  Light blue cover, white bottom?  I do have the electronic version of this work and it also includes all these items.  Unless you and I are reading from different books I don't see how that is possible.  I'm actually not paranoid enough to believe anyone edited anything, especially since it's in both the print and digital version. </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Jun 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Those were rhetorical questions in an attempt to show one of several logical avenues of discovery.  I didn't expect answers for them, however had I required answers, you answered them precisely as I would expect...   <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I don't know where to go from here at this point Derek.  As you noted, belief in 'dark' anything requires an act of faith on the part of the individual.  Acceleration of plasma can easily be explained in the absense of "dark energy", so I remain a skeptic.  I like you a lot, but hard as I might try, I simply can't take the leap of faith with you.  It's too metaphysical for my tastes.  I can explain acceleration of plasma with expansion in EM fields and I have no need of anything "dark".  It's not in my nature to simply accept that something exists in nature without some evidence to support the idea.   Since not one astronomer on the planet can tell me where dark energy even comes from, I simply lack belief in the idea.  it's not emprically real as far as anyone knows. </p><p>I am certainly ready to stop whipping this dead dark horse and focus on coronal loops and issues that are closer to my thread topic.  Perhaps it's best if we just moved on and focus on things that are more emprical in nature, and less theoretical. </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 · Jun 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>??????This is "Cosmic Plasma"?  Light blue cover, white bottom?  I do have the electronic version of this work and it also includes all these items.  Unless you and I are reading from different books I don't see how that is possible.  I'm actually not paranoid enough to believe anyone edited anything, especially since it's in both the print and digital version.    <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>If you had actually read my post before starting to argue you would have seen that the book is <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics.</em><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jun 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you had actually read my post before starting to argue you would have seen that the book is Cosmical Electrodynamics. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>That book is actually quite a bit older than Cosmic Plasma, so I'm not sure if "magnetic reconnection" had even been suggested or that it was really an "issue" at that point in time.  His later work seem to be progressively more hostile toward the idea.  If there was any change in heart, it was against the idea of "frozen' lines in the plasma, and it was against the notion of "magnetic reconnection.  I can't really say much about that book haven't read it yet, but I'm sure the basics are are still there.  There must be some mention of unipolar inductors, and you might begin there.  IAt some point I'd like you to email me from my website and I'll see if I can round you up some additional material from Alfven.   </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

chode · Jun 5, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I can explain acceleration of plasma with expansion in EM fields and I have no need of anything "dark".  Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> Please, go ahead and explain.</p><p> </p><p>Regards<br /></p>

derekmcd · Jun 5, 2008

<p><strong>I don't know where to go from here at this point Derek.</strong></p><p>Neither do I. </p><p><strong>As you noted, belief in 'dark' anything requires an act of faith on the part of the individual.</strong>  </p><p>Keep in mind, my usage of 'faith' is not a sweeping as yours.  I don't have blind faith that either dark matter, or dark energy exists.  I do, however, have faith mainstream science is taking the proper steps to figure it out based on available evidence and observations. </p><p><strong>Acceleration of plasma can easily be explained in the absense of "dark energy", so I remain a skeptic.</strong>  </p><p>I would argue against the easiness of it.  If it was easily explained, why is it not widely persued?  I would have to believe there would be a large swatch of the scientific community scrambling to get their names attached to it.  Instant immortalization. </p><p><strong>I like you a lot, but hard as I might try, I simply can't take the leap of faith with you.  It's too metaphysical for my tastes.  I can explain acceleration of plasma with expansion in EM fields and I have no need of anything "dark".  It's not in my nature to simply accept that something exists in nature without some evidence to support the idea.   Since not one astronomer on the planet can tell me where dark energy even comes from, I simply lack belief in the idea.  it's not emprically real as far as anyone knows.</strong></p><p>You seem to be arguing against the premise that mainstream science has claimed that dark energy/matter exist with 100% certaintly.  If that was their claim based on current evidence, I would agree with you completely.  The problem with your reasoning, though, is that they don't make the claim this 'stuff' exists.  Based on what is known, there are no scientists worht a grain of salt that will claim that either exists with absolute certainty.  All they claim is that "something" is responsible for the observations... cause and effect.  The steps they are currently on is figuring out what that "something" is.  It's not equivalent to invisible elves fitting on the head of a pin.  Telling me the number of elves that can fit doesn't answer any question other than how many elves fit on the head of pin.  It would be pointless for me to argue against it as it provides nothing furthering the understanding of the bigger picture.</p><p>The way I see it, you have three options:</p><p>1.  Accept the methods and directions based on observations to show the model is correct which you don't seem to accept.</p><p>So that leaves...</p><p>2.  Show that the same methods, direction and observations are flawed.</p><p>or</p><p>3.  Provide a better model.</p><p>Options 2 and 3 will show that dark energy/matter do not exist.  You claim they don't exist because mainstreamers can't provide you with any to work with in a lab.  Obviously, if they could, this debate would be over.  Science doesn't always work that way.  When a phenomena is observed, science is flooded with ideas to explain the observation.  The easiest first step is to eliminate those ideas that simply don't work.  Then you work with whatever is left standing.  Right now, the LambdaCDM model is on top of the mountain.  It's the best one to work with. </p><p><strong>I am certainly ready to stop whipping this dead dark horse and focus on coronal loops and issues that are closer to my thread topic.  Perhaps it's best if we just moved on and focus on things that are more emprical in nature, and less theoretical.</strong> </p><p>I've got no issues with that. </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>

kg · Jun 5, 2008

<p>

I don't know where to go from here at this point Derek.Neither do I. </p><p>It seems to me that the only way to settle this is a manned sample and return mission to the surface of the sun.  </p>

origin · Jun 5, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't know where to go from here at this point Derek.Neither do I. It seems to me that the only way to settle this is a manned sample and return mission to the surface of the sun.  <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>Just be careful not to land near one of the erupting sun volcanoes!<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jun 5, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><br /><p>The way I see it, you have three options:</p><p>1.  Accept the methods and directions based on observations to show the model is correct which you don't seem to accept.</p><p>So that leaves...</p><p>2.  Show that the same methods, direction and observations are flawed.</p><p>or</p><p>3.  Provide a better model.</p><p> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>IMO this is a false set of options.  There is no such thing as "dark energy", so option 1 isn't even an option for a skeptic.  I have shown you that obserservations can be "interpreted" differently than you are doing, and you have failed to provide any evidence that "dark enregy" has anything to do with acceleration of plasma objects.  I'd say I've already done number 2 for you, but you refuse to accept it.   Item three is not required to reject your theory.  I can reject any model for logical reasons and still have no 'better' solution to the observations.</p><p>Your association of 'dark energy' with plasma acceleration remains completely undemonstrated.  It is in fact a pure act of faith on your part because "dark energy" has never moved even a single atom of plasma in a controlled test.  It isn't necesssary to explain acceleration either.  EM fields (and other forces of nature) have been shown to have an effect on real objects and real plasma.  Any of the known forces of nature would be logical choices to explore, but since "dark energy" doesn't exist in nature, it's not a logical or rational option to explain an observation of acceleration.  Your lack of emprical support to show that "DE" has any effect on material objects is the primary problem with your theory, and no amount of math is going to fix that.  Only emprical evidence can show that "DE" isn't a fudge factor of epic proportions.  Since this part was never done, DE looks snd smells like nothing more than a metaphysical gap filler in an otherwise failed physical theory. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Jun 5, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It seems to me that the only way to settle this is a manned sample and return mission to the surface of the sun.  <br /> Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>

  Bring your asbestos underwear.   </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

derekmcd · Jun 5, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no such thing as "dark energy"<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p><p>Care to qualify this statement without using the logical fallacy of negative proof? </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>

Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

yevaud

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

chode

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

kg

Guest

origin

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page