Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Care to qualify this statement without using the logical fallacy of negative proof?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>In emprical science, the onus of responsibility always falls to the one who is making the claim.&nbsp; Unless you can physically demonstrate that "dark energy" has anything to do with accelerating plasma, I can safely assume it doesn't exist and has no effect on anything 'physical".&nbsp; From an emprical science perspective, I can safely assume that magic doesn't exist.&nbsp; I can safely assume that invisible elves do not exist.&nbsp; Unless there is emprical evidence to support the claim that "dark energy" causes expansion to happen in a plasma sheet, I have no logical or scientific reason to believe "dark energy" exists or has any effect on nature.&nbsp; I can't disprove metaphysicsl ideas, which is why emprical physics requires the individual or group who makes the claim to demonstrate that claim.&nbsp; Astronomers didn't do that, and it's not my fault they didn't do that part, but since they never showed any correlation between "dark energy" and plasma acceleration, I can safely assume it doesn't exist in any emprical scienctifc conversation. &nbsp;</p><p>Care to demonstrate that DE exists and can do anything to plasma before pointing to a universe made of plasma and claiming "DE did it'?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Please, go ahead and explain.&nbsp;Regards <br /> Posted by chode</DIV></p><p>Any electrical discharge will accelerate plasma. Why do I need dark energy to explain acceleration of a plasma universe?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>My guess is that Alfven regretted ever using the term 'frozen in" when it comes to magnetic fields and plasma.&nbsp; It seems like the mainstream never quite grasped the movement of particles as a result of his use of the term "frozen".&nbsp; In certain instance (like dense plasma) the notion of "frozen" was a useful construct since there was little or no kinetic movement of the particles in that scenario.</p><p>What Alfven never seemed to expect was for the mainstream to attempt to use his idea of 'frozen' magnetic fields inside of very *light* plasma like we find in the solar atmosphere or the Earth's magnetosphere.&nbsp; Unfortunately what happened is that some astronomers failed to recognize the current flows, and kinetic energy that are involved in stable magnetic magnetic fields inside of light plasma.&nbsp; They failed to recognize the winding threads and the kinetic energy aspect of this process inside of light plasma.&nbsp; When you turn on a plasma ball you can watch small filaments form in the plasma.&nbsp; If we were to look at these threads with a magnetic field detector, we would see they form semi-stable "magnetic fields" around these threads.&nbsp; Any flow of current will form a magnetic field.&nbsp; Current flow in plasma causes current filaments to form inside light plasma, just as we observe in an ordinary plasma ball.&nbsp; These threads are *moving* and *flowing* and they carry *eletrical current*. That is what creates the semi-stable "frozen" magnetic field.&nbsp; It's not "frozen" at all however, it like a tornado inside the plasma full of kinetic energy.&nbsp; There's nothing really "frozen" at all however since all the particles are moving and flowing inside the current carrying filament.&nbsp; It's like trying to understand a tornado by treating it as a "frozen" object.&nbsp; It's like trying to understand the magentic field around a copper wire without accepting that there is current flow inside the wire.</p><p>There's nothing 'frozen" in light plasma.&nbsp; The current flow causes filaments to form, and these filaments are moving and flowing.&nbsp;&nbsp; Astronomers today are still trying to use Alfven's dense plasma formulas on light atmospheric plasma.&nbsp; They therfore are ignorant of the kinetic energy and the current flow that generates "electrical reconnection" and "kinetic energy reconnection" inside the current sheet.&nbsp; They label this kinetic energy and electrical energy transfer process as "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; It's not "magnetic" fields that are reconnecting, it is electrical current streams that are "reconnecting". &nbsp; The magnetic field is simply a function of that current flow inside these threads.&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>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In emprical science, the onus of responsibility always falls to the one who is making the claim.&nbsp; Unless you can physically demonstrate that "dark energy" has anything to do with accelerating plasma, I can safely assume it doesn't exist and has no effect on anything 'physical".&nbsp; From an emprical science perspective, I can safely assume that magic doesn't exist.&nbsp; I can safely assume that invisible elves do not exist.&nbsp; Unless there is emprical evidence to support the claim that "dark energy" causes expansion to happen in a plasma sheet, I have no logical or scientific reason to believe "dark energy" exists or has any effect on nature.&nbsp; I can't disprove metaphysicsl ideas, which is why emprical physics requires the individual or group who makes the claim to demonstrate that claim.&nbsp; Astronomers didn't do that, and it's not my fault they didn't do that part, but since they never showed any correlation between "dark energy" and plasma acceleration, I can safely assume it doesn't exist in any emprical scienctifc conversation. &nbsp;Care to demonstrate that DE exists and can do anything to plasma before pointing to a universe made of plasma and claiming "DE did it'?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>The responsibility has been taken and the evidence provided.&nbsp; That you choose to interpret the evidence differently than mainstream does not invalidate it.&nbsp; Do you recognize the difference between stating "dark energy does not exist" and what you stated above in your <strong>assumptions</strong> and <strong>beliefs</strong> that it does not exist?&nbsp; There's a monumentally huge differencce between the two and you provide nothing to support your assumptions and beliefs except for your hyperboles.&nbsp; </p><p>And again, for the 3075th time... scientists don't claim that dark energy exists with any certainty.&nbsp; They offer observational evidence that there is a cause for the apparent acceleration.&nbsp; No scientists has simply pointed to the sky and claimed "DE did it".&nbsp; That is simply a gross over-simplification of what is really happening and a rather immature debating tactic.&nbsp; You are above that.</p><p>[edit] And, oh by the way, you still resorted to the negative proof fallacy. </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>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Care to demonstrate that DE exists and can do anything to plasma before pointing to a universe made of plasma and claiming "DE did it'?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Isn't this a rather loaded question?&nbsp; Asking me to demonstrate how something from one model affects a completely different model.<br /> </p><p>Sort of reminds me of the "Did you shoot your wife because she was cheating on you?" type of question. </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]

<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.&nbsp;It seems to me that the only way to settle this is a manned sample and return mission to the surface of the sun.&nbsp; <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>Too expensive.&nbsp; And I GUARANTEE that if there is a return, nothing will be settled.&nbsp; How about pistols at 15 paces ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Too expensive.&nbsp; And I GUARANTEE that if there is a return, nothing will be settled.&nbsp; How about pistols at 15 paces ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Nah, that wouldn't settle it either, and the conversations would become boring. &nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The responsibility has been taken and the evidence provided. </DIV></p><p>No, it was not.&nbsp; You may be under some illusion here, but I promise you that you never showed that 'dark energy' can move even two atoms apart, so it's irrational to point at distant observations of plasma movements and suggest they have anything whatsoever to do with "dark energy".&nbsp; You simply skipped the emprical test of concept altogether.&nbsp; Birkeland didn't just pont at the aurora chalk it up to unknown forces, he build an aparatus to test his emprical theory.&nbsp; Where would I even get any 'dark energy" to experiment with?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That you choose to interpret the evidence differently than mainstream does not invalidate it.</DIV></p><p>I don't actually *necessarily* interpret the acceleration observation any differently than you do, I simply have no faith that "dark energy" causes plasma to expand or accelerate.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you recognize the difference between stating "dark energy does not exist" and what you stated above in your assumptions and beliefs that it does not exist?&nbsp; There's a monumentally huge differencce between the two and you provide nothing to support your assumptions and beliefs except for your hyperboles.</DIV></p><p>In empirical physica, I don't have to disprove your idea.&nbsp; You are obligated to *demonstrate* that "dark energy" can have some effect on plasma.&nbsp; I can't disprove that magic has an effect on plasma.&nbsp; I can't disprove the claim that elves move plasma.&nbsp; I can't dispove invisisble stuff doesn't move plasma.&nbsp; You must show that it *does* move plasma before you claim it has some effect on a plasma universe.&nbsp; You didn't do that.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> And again, for the 3075th time... scientists don't claim that dark energy exists with any certainty.</DIV></p><p>Well, that's just fine except you stuffed it into a math formula and there's no justification for that action in the realm of emprical physics.&nbsp; Dark energy has never moved any plasma anywhere,&nbsp; I can easily move plasma with EM fields, gravity, etc, but dark energy has never done anything to anything in any emprical test.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They offer observational evidence that there is a cause for the apparent acceleration.</DIV></p><p>There has never been a "cause and effect' relationship established between "acceleration" and "dark energy".&nbsp; I can show you a cause and effect relationship between acceleration and EM fields, or gravity quite easily and using standard empirical methods of science.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> No scientists has simply pointed to the sky and claimed "DE did it".&nbsp; That is simply a gross over-simplification of what is really happening and a rather immature debating tactic.</DIV></p><p>Well, I suppose that one's perspective makes all the difference here.&nbsp; From a skeptics perspective it looks exactly like that's what they did. &nbsp; Whether the statement is mature or immature is another point entirely.&nbsp; I actually hear you on that issue frankly because I see that the hard feelings that are generated by that kind of statement often seem to outweigh eny benefits in the discussion, and I'm not really trying to offend you.&nbsp; I cannot help but believe however that your faith in DE as an "explanation" of acceleration is highly misguided.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You are above that.[edit]</DIV></p><p>Well, evidently I have some work to do on myself. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And, oh by the way, you still resorted to the negative proof fallacy. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>The fallacy of proof is actually yours, not mine.&nbsp; I cannot ever disprove the infinite number of thing you might posit to explain acceleration of distant objects.&nbsp; In emprical physics, you are obligated to show that DE has an emprical effect on physical reality.&nbsp; I don't have to demonstate that dark energy does not exist.&nbsp; You have to demonstrate that it does exist *and* that it can lead to an observation of acceleration.&nbsp;&nbsp; A simple distant and uncontrolled observation of acceleration is certainly not evidence of DE or evidence that DE has any effect on plasma.&nbsp; You must justify your claim that DE has some tangible effect on nature, *BEFORE* you put it into a math formula and try to make it match up with a distant and uncontrolled observation of acceleration. &nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Isn't this a rather loaded question?&nbsp; Asking me to demonstrate how something from one model affects a completely different model. Sort of reminds me of the "Did you shoot your wife because she was cheating on you?" type of question. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Not really.&nbsp; It's a totally legitimate scientific question.&nbsp; I've never seen any evidence that DE does anything to anything in any controlled test.&nbsp; I therefore lack confidence that DE has anything to do with acceleration of a mostly plasma universe.&nbsp; If you posited expanding EM fields, I could ask you that same question and you could easily cite me an example of a controlled test that shows that EM fields can move plasma.&nbsp; You simply *assumed* that DE exists *and* that it can cause expansion to happen, but you never justified this claim in any empirical way.&nbsp; Pure acceleration can be caused by any known force of nature, but unless you have evidence that DE is a force of nature, I have no confidence that DE is involved in the acceleration of anything.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>It's more like me asking "Do you mind if I take a look at your wife to make sure you even have a wife"?&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>

 

[derekmcd]

<strong>The fallacy of proof is actually yours, not mine.</strong><br /><br />Using a negative proof fallacy is claiming something doesn't exist because there is no evidence it does exist.&nbsp; You are trying to reverse it by invoking&nbsp; burden of proof.&nbsp; The problem with your method is that I have not claimed it does exist.&nbsp;&nbsp; I have provided evidence it may exist.&nbsp; Maybe it would be better to say that I have provided insufficient evidence for its existance.&nbsp; Either way, no claim has been made that it does, in fact, exist.&nbsp; No final conclusion has been put forth, therefor you can not argue against a non-existant conclusion.&nbsp; You may, however, argue against the evidence presented.&nbsp; I am fully aware that you can not prove something does not exist, but if the evidence supporting it's possible existence is faulty, then you can conclude the claim is based on faulty evidence and therefor invalid.<br /><br />The original question was:<br /><em><strong><br />"Care to demonstrate that DE exists and can do anything to plasma before pointing to a universe made of plasma and claiming "DE did it'?"</strong></em><br /><br />I claimed it to be a loaded question and you disagreed.&nbsp; You claim it to be a legitimate scientific question.&nbsp; I still say it is not legitimate and is loaded with a false correlation.&nbsp; Dark energy is not claimed to expand matter and every time you ask the question you demand evidence the dark energy expands plasma.&nbsp; Let me try to explain... again.&nbsp; The observed acceleration of space is due a hypothetical form of energy that has been given the name dark energy (magical invisible elves... I don't care what you call it).&nbsp; General relativity states that spacetime is a manifold.&nbsp; This manifold is curved based on the density of the universe in proportion to the critical density.&nbsp; The metric is what describes the geometrical properties of the manifold.&nbsp;&nbsp; The curvature of the manifold is what causes the metric to expand or contract.&nbsp; Dark energy doesn't directly affect matter, rather it affects the manifold where the matter resides.&nbsp; Someone correct me if I explained that incorrectly or was not clear enough.<br /> <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'>Using a negative proof fallacy is claiming something doesn't exist because there is no evidence it does exist. </DIV></p><p>I'm afraid that's how emprical science works.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are trying to reverse it by invoking&nbsp; burden of proof. </DIV></p><p>I'm not trying to "reverse" anything.&nbsp; The burden of proof always falls to the individual or group that makes the claim.&nbsp; I cannot ever begin to disprove an infinite number of things that "might" be responsible for acceleration, but there are only a few logical options as it relates to known forces of nature.&nbsp; If you were positing EM field expansion for this observation of acceleration, and I asked you to demonstate that EM fields could change the distances between objects and plasma, you could easily do so.&nbsp;&nbsp; Any known force of nature might be logically inserted into your constant, but magic and the infiinite number of unknown forces of nature are not logical additions to an emprical physics formula. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The problem with your method is that I have not claimed it does exist.&nbsp;&nbsp; I have provided evidence it may exist.</DIV></p><p>But you have not actually provided any evidence that it may exist.&nbsp; All you've shown us thus far is that is probable that "acceleration happens' in our plasma filled universe.&nbsp; You in no way require any new forces of nature to explain acceleration of a mostly plasma universe. &nbsp; There is no cause and effect "physicsal" relationship that has ever been established between an observation of acceleration of plasma (or any physical objects) and any new forces of nature.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe it would be better to say that I have provided insufficient evidence for its existance.</DIV></p><p>That would be true of anyone who requires emprical physical evidence.&nbsp; You haven't provided any evidence that necessitates new forces of nature, so any skeptic is going to reject the concept.&nbsp; If you could provide a physical test that physically links a new force of nature to expansion of objects, I'd feel very differently.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Either way, no claim has been made that it does, in fact, exist. </DIV></p><p>So essentially Lambda-CDM theory cannot really be considered to be a form emprical physics because you don't even know if "dark energy" exists, so it could just be a gap filler in an otherwise failed physics theory.&nbsp; EU theory on the other hand is an emprical form of pure physics and could indeed one day help you to explain your acceleration problem could it not?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No final conclusion has been put forth, therefor you can not argue against a non-existant conclusion. </DIV></p><p>You're perfectly willing to teach this theory to my children and publish countless papers on this topic, to the eclusions of EU theory entirely in the mainstream publications, and you want me to believe that you've reached no final conclusion?&nbsp; Why isn't your industry hedging it's bets a bit and being more open minded to pure forms of emprical physics if you folks aren't sure that DE even exists?&nbsp; Why isn't EU theory also being taught to astronomy students?&nbsp;&nbsp; Why won't the mainstream publications publish EU materials? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You may, however, argue against the evidence presented.&nbsp; I am fully aware that you can not prove something does not exist, but if the evidence supporting it's possible existence is faulty, then you can conclude the claim is based on faulty evidence and therefor invalid.</DIV></p><p>I have explained to you that the evidence of acceleration would not immediately necessitate any sort of "dark energy".&nbsp;&nbsp; You keep suggesting it's necessary.&nbsp; Why?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The original question was:"Care to demonstrate that DE exists and can do anything to plasma before pointing to a universe made of plasma and claiming "DE did it'?"I claimed it to be a loaded question and you disagreed.&nbsp; You claim it to be a legitimate scientific question.&nbsp; I still say it is not legitimate and is loaded with a false correlation.&nbsp; Dark energy is not claimed to expand matter and every time you ask the question you demand evidence the dark energy expands plasma. </DIV></p><p>The universe is in fact filled with plasma.&nbsp; If you don't like the term "plasma", pick *ANY* physical objects you like, and show that "DE" has the effect that you claim it has in a controlled test. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Let me try to explain... again.&nbsp; The observed acceleration of space is due a hypothetical form of energy that has been given the name dark energy (magical invisible elves... I don't care what you call it).</DIV></p><p>This hypothesis is illogical IMO since you don't need hypothetical forms of energy to explain an observation of acceleration of objects.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>General relativity states that spacetime is a manifold.&nbsp; This manifold is curved based on the density of the universe in proportion to the critical density.&nbsp; The metric is what describes the geometrical properties of the manifold.&nbsp;&nbsp; The curvature of the manifold is what causes the metric to expand or contract.&nbsp; Dark energy doesn't directly affect matter, rather it affects the manifold where the matter resides.&nbsp; Someone correct me if I explained that incorrectly or was not clear enough.</p><p>Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I clearly understand what you're saying, As a skeptic, I just don't believe the claim.&nbsp; I don't believe that any form of "dark energy" is operating on the manifold.&nbsp; I'm not ever sure if your idea is even plausible or technically even "physical" unless you can show me an instance where this occurs in some controlled test of concept.&nbsp; It sounds positively impossible to tie this idea back to emprical physics quite frankly, at least without suggesting DE is some form of superluminal aether.&nbsp; I have no evidence that such a thing exists or that DE has any effect on anything.</p><p>I don't really care how you go about demonstrating that this kind of thing can happen in a controlled experiment, I just want to see you show it can occur before you point at a simple observation of acceleration and chalk it up to some new form of energy.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Any emprical demonstration of the concept will do, but you can't point at uncontrolled observatons of accelation (anywhere) and claim they immediately require us to resort to this explanation in order to explain the acceleration.</p><p>Birkeland had no problem demonstrating a physical link between aurora and coronal loops and electrical current.&nbsp; He built controlled experiments to show this correlation.&nbsp; If you could do that with "DE", I'd be happy to let you insert DE into GR theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; No astronomer yet has ever told me where I might find some dark energy to work with and how I might physically test this concept in a controlled experiment.&nbsp; In fact they've made it clear I might *never* be able to test it because evidently it only happens when no one is around.&nbsp; It's evidently very shy around test equipment.</p><p>This makes your idea essntially unflasifyable, and unverified.&nbsp; It's therefore not a form of emprical physics, just a hypothetical fudge factor since you don't even know if it exists.&nbsp; I don't see how anyone could consider such a theory to be "scientifically superior" to EU theory, or any other emprical physics theory for that matter.&nbsp;</p><p>I'm just fed up with never seeing any mention of electrical current in mainstream publications, and being told that Lambda-CDM theory is "superior" to EU theory.&nbsp; It's absurd.&nbsp; Lambda-CDM theory is not superior to any form of theory that limits itself to pure emprical physics, only because it somehow curve fits some distant and uncontrolled observation. </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]

I'm done.<br /> <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>FYI Derek, I've met a lot of astronomers and scientists online over the past few years, and I must say, I like you and your communication style quite a bit and a have a lot of respect for you personally.&nbsp; I'm sorry I don't share your views on DE or Lambda theory, but once one becomes a skeptic Lamda-CDM theory, it's not really something that one can easiily put much faith in anymore.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>If and when you can physically demonstrate that DE acts on the manifold in any controlled experiment, I'd be happy to revisit the idea.&nbsp; On the other hand, I've been waiting for that to occur for 15 years, and thus far there hasn't been much progress on that front.&nbsp; Nobody really seems to be sure if it exists, where it might come from if it does exist, how we might emprically test it in any way, etc.&nbsp; That really makes it difficult to get behind the idea.</p><p>I've been around long enough to know that "big picture" astronomy theories come and go, and new information tends to have a fairly dramatic effect on old theories.&nbsp; Empirical plasma physics on the other hand is a form of emprical science that never loses it's appeal over time. &nbsp; I may not be able to really give you any "big picture" explanations of our universe that will hold up over time, but Alfven and Birkeland's have actually actually already explained coronal loop activity and solar wind acceleration, and things that are emprically demonstratable and will hold up over time.&nbsp; IMO that makes EU theory a viable candidate to one day replace mainstream beliefs.&nbsp; I've always prefered hard core physical science to unverifiable and unfalsifyable ideas, and I really don't see that changing anytime soon.&nbsp; Certainly my opinions could change if someone could emprically demonstrate DE does things to drive expansion, but thus far we aren't anywhere close to that happening, and it's already been about 15 years.&nbsp; I'd rather spend the next 15 years figuring out ways to apply EU theory to more cosmology observations because I'm quite certain at this point that the universe is filled with current flows.&nbsp; Gravity may still play a decisive role in the operations of the physicsl universe, but according to Lambda theory, gravity it is bit player, and whatever DE might be, it's far more important that mass alone.&nbsp; My guess is that DE is simply an expansion of the overall EM field that bathes the galaxies and pervades the entire physical universe that we can curent observe.&nbsp; There may be more too this acceleration than can be explained by EU theories, but EU theory can explain many things that contemporary theory cannot.&nbsp; IMO that makes EU superior in some ways, even if not in all ways.&nbsp; </p><p>Thanks again for a great conversation.&nbsp; Shalom.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/11/4/0b4d9f91-fe1d-4808-a4c2-89dbd1dc3b81.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm done. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4797</p><p>This paper caught my attention today on Arxiv.&nbsp; It's a fairly classic example of the lengths that the mainstream is going to, in an effort to avoid using the terms "Birkeland Current" or "current flows" in their papers.&nbsp; The helix shape that they describe in their paper is the classic shape of a "Birkeland current' in plasma. &nbsp; The magnetic field winds around the current flow and helps to constrict the current flow.&nbsp; The helix shape is a direct result of this interaction between the current flow in the plasma and the magnetic constriction effect of field that forms around the current. There's nothing mysterious about this shape in EU theory, it's the most basic example of a "Birkeland current" that exists in nature.&nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current</p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/d6d0c9d4-bb0f-4f0a-aef2-4b089b62e348.Medium.png" alt="" /> <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'>http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4797This paper caught my attention today on Arxiv.&nbsp; It's a fairly classic example of the lengths that the mainstream is going to, in an effort to avoid using the terms "Birkeland Current" or "current flows" in their papers.&nbsp; The helix shape that they describe in their paper is the classic shape of a "Birkeland current' in plasma. &nbsp; The magnetic field winds around the current flow and helps to constrict the current flow.&nbsp; The helix shape is a direct result of this interaction between the current flow in the plasma and the magnetic constriction effect of field that forms around the current. There's nothing mysterious about this shape in EU theory, it's the most basic example of a "Birkeland current" that exists in nature.&nbsp; &nbsp; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I don't understand where they are avoiding it.&nbsp; The paper is referring to a helical magnetic field.&nbsp; Isn't the helical structure just one of many examples of a Birkeland Current?&nbsp;</p><p>If I were to write a detailed scientific paper about a specific species of tiger, I wouldn't refer to them as felines throughout the paper without mentioning what species of tiger I was discussing.&nbsp; I probably wouldn't even waste my time mentioning they belong to the Felidae family of cats.&nbsp; I would just assume they know they belong to the cat family.&nbsp; </p><p>I would assume when I'm writing about a helical magnetic field, the readers of the paper are already familiar with Birkeland Currents.</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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4797This paper caught my attention today on Arxiv.&nbsp; It's a fairly classic example of the lengths that the mainstream is going to, in an effort to avoid using the terms "Birkeland Current" or "current flows" in their papers.&nbsp; The helix shape that they describe in their paper is the classic shape of a "Birkeland current' in plasma. &nbsp; The magnetic field winds around the current flow and helps to constrict the current flow.&nbsp; The helix shape is a direct result of this interaction between the current flow in the plasma and the magnetic constriction effect of field that forms around the current. There's nothing mysterious about this shape in EU theory, it's the most basic example of a "Birkeland current" that exists in nature.&nbsp; &nbsp; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>The helical path described by the charged particles is the result of the Lorentz force&nbsp;&nbsp;F = q(E + V X B ) and a computation showing that this results in a helical path when V is perpendicular to B is usually a homework or test problem for any sophomore taking a physics class for engineers or physicists.&nbsp; This calculations applies to cathode ray tubes, as well a Birkeland currents.&nbsp; This is very standard and very elementary electrodynamics.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't understand where they are avoiding it.&nbsp; The paper is referring to a helical magnetic field. </DIV></p><p>It's not a "magnetic" field, it's an *ELECTRO*magnetic field.&nbsp; These folks always oversimplify everything to a "magnetic" viewpoint, even in light plasma, where you *cannot* do that!&nbsp; By treating plasma as though it is a superconductor rather than just an ordinary conductor, and by claiming plasma is "frozen", they attempt to describe plasma's elecrical behaviors as "magnetic" events. They are not "magnetic" fields, they are *electromagnetic* fields.&nbsp; The word "electricity" is the forbidden topic.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Isn't the helical structure just one of many examples of a Birkeland Current?</DIV></p><p>Yes.&nbsp; Why didn't they mention the term "Birkeland current" then?&nbsp; Why does your industry always leave out the current flow aspect of these "fields"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I were to write a detailed scientific paper about a specific species of tiger, I wouldn't refer to them as felines throughout the paper without mentioning what species of tiger I was discussing.&nbsp; I probably wouldn't even waste my time mentioning they belong to the Felidae family of cats.&nbsp; I would just assume they know they belong to the cat family.&nbsp; I would assume when I'm writing about a helical magnetic field, the readers of the paper are already familiar with Birkeland Currents. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Sorry, but that doesn't fly when your industry repeatedly treats plasma as though it is a solid superconductor that carries no current, rather than a moving "good conductor" of flowing plasma columns. &nbsp;&nbsp; I guess it's easier to mathematically model plasma as *if* it was a superconductor, but it's not.&nbsp; It's never a superconductor, so you can't set one side of these eqwuations to 0, ever, not in the real world.&nbsp;&nbsp; You certainly can't apply this stuff to solar physics.&nbsp;&nbsp; Your industry doesn't actually understand the physics of what is occuring inside the plasma, and they don't understand electrical theory at all.&nbsp; It's a dangerous combination.&nbsp; They therefore begin with false assumptions (plasma is a perfect and "frozen" conductor), and they carry those false assumptions right through their mathemaical presentation.&nbsp; Let me demonsrate what I mean:</p><p>http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/74950-frozen-magnetic-field-lines.html</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>tusenfem<br /> <strong>E</strong> + <strong>v</strong> x <strong>B</strong> = &eta; <strong>J</strong><br /> <br /> This says that the current density <strong>J</strong> is dependent on the electric field E and the velocity of the plasma and the magnetic field in the plasma. A moving or changing magnetic field generates an electric field, this is how the dynamo on your bicycle works. Here &eta; is the resistivity of the plasma. You see that, if the plasma is very conducting then the value of &eta; is very very small and the right hand term of the equation is negligible and we end up with: <br /> <br /> <strong>E</strong> + <strong>v</strong> x <strong>B</strong> = 0<br /> <br /> This is the "frozen in condition" as found by Alfv&eacute;n. If the above holds, then you have to do some math here which I will only describe here in words. Take a surface that consists of magnetic field lines, and so that all the field lines lie in that surface. Then you move this surface with the flow and because of the flow the surface can have changed. However, because of the condition above, you will find that still all field lines are in that surface, non of them has suddenly obtained a direction perpendicular to that surface. This means that the magnetic field moves along with the flow of the plasma and thus can be said to be frozen in.</DIV></p><p>Thie explanation clearly demonstrates exactly why your industry is having so much trouble, and why it's so confused. I don't know who tusenfem is, but evidently he understand ths math behind MHD theory really well, but he doesn't understand properties of plasma at all.&nbsp; Plasma is not a "perfect" conductor of electrical current.&nbsp; n will never be zero.&nbsp; J will always exist in the real world.&nbsp; In the real world of plasma physics, plasma is not a superconductor, and it moves around freely.&nbsp; It's not a solid.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's not ever 'frozen'.&nbsp; This is the criitical mistake your industry in making today and has been making for more than 30 years.&nbsp; Alfven clearly explains this point in the opening chapters of his book "Cosmic Plasma".&nbsp; Since your industry never seems to bother to take any electrical theory classes (where magnetic fields form full continuums), and they collectively never seem to have ever read any of Alfven's books (No astronomer I've met yet has read one before our conversations began) , they just don't get it.&nbsp; They keep *assuming* something that is not true, and then they apply endless amounts of math to a ridiculacely false belief.&nbsp; tusenfem is a wealth of misinformation in this thread. &nbsp; You'll notice that the reaction to these basic questions is hostile and adversarial even though this individual made it clear they were looking for help:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, this clearly shows you just jump into plasma physics without even knowing the basics.<br /> <br /> Any charged particle with a velocity <strong>v</strong> in a magnetic field <strong>B</strong> will experience a Lorentz force <strong>F</strong>_L = - <strong>v</strong> &times; <strong>B</strong>, which means perpendicular to the velocity and to the field. And thus this charged particle will start to gyrate around the field with the cyclotron frequency f_c,a = q B / m_a where a stands for the species of ion/electron you are looking at.<br /> <br /> Thus the particle will gyrate around the field line and the aligned component of the velocity will let the gyration center move along the magnetic field line.<br /> <br /> Now get thee to a library and pick up a plasma physics book.<br /> <br /> I will let <strong>korjik</strong> comment on the rest of the <strong>nonsense</strong> you are writing.</DIV></p><p>Notice the strong arm tactics when this person asked few logical questions?&nbsp; The only "nonsense" going on in that thread is all the misinformation that is being shoved down rgclinsk's throat.&nbsp; Tsuenfem literally "pretended" to understand this topic (know the basics), but he/she blew the most basic and critical issue there is as it relates to the properties of plasma.&nbsp; Plasma is NEVER a perfect conductor, J is always going to exist.&nbsp; Any movement of electrons *will* cause the magnetic fields in the flat plane he describes to change shape an go vertical from one instant to the next, and a Birkeland current will form in the thread as a result.&nbsp; Every statement tsenfem made about "magnetic reconnection" was absolutely false and misleading, and everything about his pompus attitude stinks to high heaven. &nbsp; Anyone who knows MHD theory any better and might refute this "nonsense" is banned, and this misinformation and brainwashing continues!&nbsp; Gah!&nbsp;&nbsp; Your industry is intentionlly misinforming the public on the "basics" of plasma physics, and attempts to force that misinformation on people by brute force and personal intimidation.&nbsp; That's unacceptable.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The helical path described by the charged particles is the result of the Lorentz force&nbsp;&nbsp;F = q(E + V X B ) and a computations showing that this results in a helical path when V is perpendicular to B is usually a homework or test problem for any sophomore taking a physics class for engineers or physicists.&nbsp; This calculations applies to cathode ray tubes, as well a Birkeland currents.&nbsp; This is very standard and very elementary electrodynamics. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Yes, it is basic *electro*dynamics alright, but the mainstream keeps forgetting to mention the "electricity" that drives these events and treats them, and presents them as being simply "magnetic" events.&nbsp;&nbsp; Never do they mention the particle flow that drives the magnetic parade.&nbsp; Nowhere is that more clear than the tsenfems presentation of "magnetic reconnection". That is exactly the type of thing that Alfven called "pseudoscience".&nbsp; Tusenfum clearly knowns nothing whatsoever about electrical theory or plasma movement, or he would never claim the things he claimed.&nbsp; Hannes Alfven would have given him a terrrible lecture and would have failed him for those statements.&nbsp; Of course Alfven himself wouldn't be able to discuss the topic of current flow in plasma there anyway. &nbsp; </p><p>It's the blatant strong arming, and gross and misleading oversimplifications that I resent.&nbsp; When the APJ and Nature start publishing some "current flow" based "explanations" for such observations, then we'll know that your industry has changed.&nbsp; Until then it's pure misinformation, and pure oversimplification that is preventing your industry from understanding simple things like "coronal loops" and charged solar wind particle accelation.&nbsp; Birkeland knew how to explain that stuff 100 years ago!&nbsp; As long as your industry refuses to acknowledge the role of the *electron flow* part of&nbsp; electrodyamics, theory, these observations probably seem like mysterious events.&nbsp; The moment your realize that Birkeland and Bruce were correct about these being discharges in the solar atmosphere, it's not a mystery at all.&nbsp; We see similar events in discharges in the Earth's atmosphere where plasma heats up to high temperatures and the plasma emits x-rays and even gamma rays.&nbsp; It's only a "mystery" as to why your industry refuses to acknowledge the electrical current that causes these events to occur. &nbsp;&nbsp; It's only a helix shape because electrical current in plasmas will form into Birkeland currents and the current flow creates the magnetic field, which in turn pinches the plasma into spiraling columns.&nbsp; When will I expect to see any mention of the current flow that generates these "helix" shapes in plasma? &nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...I don't know who tusenfem is, but evidently he understand ths math behind MHD theory really well, but he doesn't understand properties of plasma at all.&nbsp; Plasma is not a "perfect" conductor of electrical current.&nbsp; n will never be zero.&nbsp; J will always exist in the real world.&nbsp;...<br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br />&nbsp;</p><p>No, apparently tusenfem understands even less mathematics than do you.&nbsp; If you take his starting point, </p><p>E + V X B = mu *J</p><p>which is basically Ohm's law, and let mu tend to zero you cannot conclude that E + V X B tends to zero.&nbsp; What you can conclude is that J could get really big.&nbsp; Think about the circuit analog, which is just&nbsp; E = IR.&nbsp; If the resistance goes to zero, you don't get to conclude that E also tends to zero.&nbsp; You may&nbsp;instead get a very large current.&nbsp; If you would like a demonstratioin, go lay a screwdriver across the terminals of your car battery.&nbsp; You can only conclude that E tends to zero or E + V X B tends to zero as mu tends to zero if there is some mechanism that limits the current.&nbsp; </p><p>Secondly, why should we care what some fool in another forum says ?&nbsp; I don't know who tusenfem is either, but it doesn't bother me because I don't care who he is or what he thinks.&nbsp; And calling him a representative for "my industry" or anybody's industry is rather foolish.&nbsp; If your perceived persecution is due to some anonymous guy in some amateur forum, then you are likely to feel persecuted for a long time.&nbsp; The world is full of people who don't understand electrodynamics or mathematics.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chode]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Any electrical discharge will accelerate plasma. Why do I need dark energy to explain acceleration of a plasma universe?&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Even if the Universe is a "plasma universe", you need to explain where the "electrical disharges" that cause the &nbsp;acceleration of expansion of a "plasma universe" originate. Or, we could call it "dark plasma".</p><p>Regards</p>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;No, apparently tusenfem understands even less mathematics than do you. </DIV></p><p>I really don't know why you assume that any of this conceptual confusion is even remotely related to the individuals "math skills" in the first place.&nbsp; Since the industry of astronomy is so heavily math oriented, I've come to realize that the industry's problems have nothing whatsoever to do with their math skills.&nbsp; I'd be willing to bet he's in your league on the math, and in your same position as it relates to theory.&nbsp; (Since your reading Alfven's books, I suspect he's not quite in your league on the "theory" of electromagnism, but only because you don't seem to be quite as shy around electron flow.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you take his starting point, E + V X B = mu *Jwhich is basically Ohm's law, and let mu tend to zero you cannot conclude that E + V X B tends to zero.&nbsp; What you can conclude is that J could get really big. </DIV></p><p>Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!&nbsp; Exactly.&nbsp; Even if there was no restance of any sort, it would mean that all the electrons cruising through the plasma, make it out the other end of the circuit without ever hitting anything in the plasma.&nbsp;&nbsp; Every electron fed into the circuit would get out the other side intact, but there would still be a huge current flow moving through the plasma, assuming that current flows in the plasma.</p><p>The basic assumption of your industry seems to be that all plasma in space are "neutral", whereas in reality they are "current carrying" plasmas, as evidenced by those "Helix shaped Birkeland currents" we keep finding all over the place.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Think about the circuit analog, which is just&nbsp; E = IR.&nbsp; If the resistance goes to zero, you don't get to conclude that E also tends to zero.&nbsp; You may&nbsp;instead get a very large current. </DIV></p><p>And indeed that's true.&nbsp; The issue then comes down to how much curent is traversing the plasma at eny given instant.&nbsp; Most electrons will flow through plasma without kinetically interactng much with other object in the plasma.&nbsp; Plasma is nearly a perfect conductor.&nbsp; It's not a solid however, so things move around and there are collisions inside the plasma that radiate heat and photons galore. &nbsp; What we see in coronal loop activity is a very large current flowing through almost perfectly conducting plasma.&nbsp; It's imperfections however do lead to kinetic energy collisions and electrical reconnection inside the plasma which result in high energy discharges from the plasma.&nbsp; That's why Rhessi sees gamma rays from discharges in the Earth's atmosphere and from discharges in the solar atmosphere too.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you would like a demonstratioin, go lay a screwdriver across the terminals of your car battery.&nbsp; You can only conclude that E tends to zero or E + V X B tends to zero as mu tends to zero if there is some mechanism that limits the current.&nbsp; Secondly, why should we care what some fool in another forum says ?&nbsp; I don't know who tusenfem is either, but it doesn't bother me because I don't care who he is or what he thinks.&nbsp; And calling him a representative for "my industry" or anybody's industry is rather foolish.&nbsp; If your perceived persecution is due to some anonymous guy in some amateur forum, then you are likely to feel persecuted for a long time.&nbsp; The world is full of people who don't understand electrodynamics or mathematics. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Go look at his profile and tell me he doesn't represent your industry.&nbsp; I just looked him up, and it saddens me a great deal.&nbsp; He does not seem to understand the kinetic energy aspect of what's happening because he's not acknowledging the kinetic energy of the moving electrons or any other ions for that matter.&nbsp; There is nothing "frozen" in very light plasmas.&nbsp; The ideas this individual is espousing about "magnetic reconnection" were called pseudoscience by Hannes Alfven. &nbsp; This individividual of all individuals should know better, but obviously he does not.&nbsp; It's actually quite sad IMO.&nbsp; As long as this kind of misinformation is considered "mainstream thinking", the industry of astronmy will be stuck in the "dark" ages forever.&nbsp; Notice that nobody in that thread corrected him DrRocket, nobody.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p>Personally, several dozen pages ago, I was tired of your ill applied term "industry" as a pejorative.</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>

 

[yevaud]

Just an aside, Michael, but I would say by DrRocket's own frequent postings, he is a Physicist, not an Astronomer.&nbsp; And the study of this area under discussion would be Magnethydrodynamics, not per se Astronomy. <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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Personally, several dozen pages ago, I was tired of your ill applied term "industry" as a pejorative. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I hear you Wayne, I really do.&nbsp; I just don't know how to be more specific.&nbsp; I can't help but notice that the mainstream astronomy publications are unwilling to publish EU material, and they publish paper after paper of misinformation and outright false information related to MHD theory.&nbsp; All the articles and papers I read from the Cluster team and the Hinode team are pushing "magnetic reconnection' as a source of high energy particles.&nbsp; There is no such thing as "magnetic reconection".&nbsp; The only thing going on in these high energy current sheet energy release events are electrical reconnections and kinetic transfers of energy.&nbsp; Even when we observe Birkeland currents in space, all the quotes in the article speak only of the 'magnetic helix".&nbsp; Sooner or later it's hard not to see this oversimplification of everything as being "magnetic" as being intentional.&nbsp; It seems the one word that cannot be mentioned and is never mentioned in these articles is 'electricity". &nbsp;&nbsp; How can coronal loops and solar atmospheric discharges be a 'mystery" today when Birkeland figured them out 100 years ago and Bruce wrote about them 50 years ago?&nbsp; The IEEE publications have certianly figured this stuff out.&nbsp; Why is it that the mainstream astronomy publicatons haven't figured it out as well?</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>