Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It requires a rather astounding leap of illogic to to take a statement that the use of the notion of EQUIVALENT circuits is appropriate under certain circumstances and with clear qualifiers and conclude from it that ALL PLASMA INTERACTIONS in space can be described in terms of CIRCUITS. I am quite sure that Alfven did not do that in the manner that you suggest -- he was somewhat smarter than that.Your propensity to make conclusions based solely on terminology and to completely ignore the underlying physics is just unbelievable. You don't even bother to consider the definition of the terms involved. Where did you learn physics -- from a Thesaurus ? <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br />Electricity is a plus too; because, light is in our generation...LED!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It requires a rather astounding leap of illogic to to take a statement that the use of the notion of EQUIVALENT circuits is appropriate under certain circumstances and with clear qualifiers and conclude from it that ALL PLASMA INTERACTIONS in space can be described in terms of CIRCUITS. </DIV></p><p>When it comes to events in interpanetary, interstellar, and intergalactic space, that is exactly how Alfven explains it. I already posted the list of requirements that must be met to simply *ignore* the E component, and those requirements are not met anywhere in interplanetary, interstellar, and intergalactic space.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am quite sure that Alfven did not do that in the manner that you suggest --</DIV></p><p>I even posted the quote for you where he explains that his whole book Cosmic Plasma is based on the "particle" (elctrical) aspect of particle physics theory and how it applies to objects in space. He uses terms like "unipolar inductor" and "ciruits" throughout his book. You of course wouldn't know anything about that.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>he was somewhat smarter than that.</DIV></p><p>He was also the author of Plasma Cosmology theory. How exactly are you rationalizing any of this, expecially without ever having read the book? That has to be your single strangest behavior, and you have some really first class rationalizations going, like it's "ok" to use monopoles in relationship to plasma physics, but it's not ok to use the term "circuit. Those two are *doooooooozies*.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your propensity to make conclusions based solely on terminology and to completely ignore the underlying physics is just unbelievable. You don't even bother to consider the definition of the terms involved. Where did you learn physics -- from a Thesaurus ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>This is the only trick you seem to know. You attack the individual rather than the issue. It's sad really. It makes you look so pety and mean and ignorant.</p><p>I learned all these ideas from Hannes Alfven, a man who won a Nobel prize, and from his first generation students like Peratt. I learned these ideas from Irving Langmuir, Kristian Birkeland, Charles Bruce, and a host of other indivuduals who's books and matrials I've actually read for myself. </p><p>Evidently you feel so scientifically superior to Anthony Peratt, that you find him to be a scientific embarassment, even though he created computer models based on Alfven's mathematical models and published materials galore that showed all the similarities between these models and the physical universe around us.</p><p>You fancy yourself to be so much wiser than me on this topic, without bothering to even read the materials in question. </p><p>I didn't invent these ideas DrRocket. The started with Birkeland who demonstrated that there are "circuits" in space in his lab over 100 years ago. It continues in the work of Charles Bruce, Hannes Alfven and Anthony Peratt. You're welcome to read this material anytime you wish. </p><p>By the way, how exactly did you learn how Hannes Alfven applied MHD theory to space? Osmosis?</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sorry I missed your message about sending you his email. It looks like you found it though. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>No problem. It's all good. With his permission I'll post his response to the thread.</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't fully understand the difference and don't have time to research an answer for you, but there is a difference in the models Birn and Priest are explaining. Priest is modeling 2d reconnection while Birn is modelling 3d reconnection. </DIV></p><p>To even begin to appreciate how this might be "modeled" in any dimension, we need to understand something about how plasma behaves in nature. A plasma ball can demonstrate what a "circuit" looks like, and how it manifests itself in 3D. It's a spinning filament of moving plasma that has been "pinched" or constrained by the magnetic field that forms around the current flow. The 2D cross section should resemble a "slice" of that tornado like filament, and perhaps (seems to be unclear actually) a double layer might form between them. </p><p>The "reconnection" event is a kinetic and electrical reconnection event inside that double layer between the filaments, or between the two spinning filaments directly. There are no monopoles involved in this kinetic energy transfer process, just moving charged particles. Even if you attempted to model this process in 2D, we would still need to model it in terms of moving charged particles in a cross sections of that electromagnetic "twister'. There would still be no need at all to use the concept of monopoles.</p><p>Keep in mind that I freely accept that Priest has used better "analogies" in other papers, and I'm not suggesting that all papers by Priest on this topic are "bad". I'm sure he understood what he was trying to convey, but I certainly couldn't make heads of tails of what he was trying to convey from a physical perspective. I didn't like that paper because it conveyed almost nothing at all about he physics he was attempting to describe and you and I were both horribly confused by his use of that term. Birn's approach was more verbose and helpful. It described the events in terms of moving charged particles and it's an easier read in general. He didn't attempt to "oversimplify" everything to B, and they recognized the importance of E as it relates to this "reconnection" process. The Schindler, Hesse Birn paper was clear about the physics involved. IMO that's very important. I liked the S,H,B paper a great deal. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Apparently, 3d reconnection has stability issues, but I don't understand what those issues are. I've been terribly busy lately and don't have time to try to figure it out.</DIV></p><p>Keep in mind that high energy short circuits and CME's events also have "stability issues". I can't rule out any particular model they present only based on "stability issues", although Birn attempts to make that case. He opts for a "finite-B" version that suggests the magnetic field in the circuit is never zero (and E and amperage is therefore never zero) at any point in the process. This then becomes like a "short circuit" type of event that is bound to be "unstable" to some degree. Imagine two of those plasma ball plasma threads spinning in opposite directions and "short circuiting" inside the plasma. It would be an 'unstable" process by definition. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Any chance you could post what you emailed to Birn? <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I'd rather we not spend several days debating the merits of my email to him. I'd rather we just wait and let him respond to my email in his own way and I'll post his response along with my original email to him all at once. I did specifically ask his permission to post his response to this thread and I will do so with his permission. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When it comes to events in interpanetary, interstellar, and intergalactic space, that is exactly how Alfven explains it. I already posted the list of requirements that must be met to simply *ignore* the E component, and those requirements are not met anywhere in interplanetary, interstellar, and intergalactic space.I even posted the quote for you where he explains that his whole book Cosmic Plasma is based on the "particle" (elctrical) aspect of particle physics theory and how it applies to objects in space. He uses terms like "unipolar inductor" and "ciruits" throughout his book. You of course wouldn't know anything about that.He was also the author of Plasma Cosmology theory. How exactly are you rationalizing any of this, expecially without ever having read the book? That has to be your single strangest behavior, and you have some really first class rationalizations going, like it's "ok" to use monopoles in relationship to plasma physics, but it's not ok to use the term "circuit. Those two are *doooooooozies*.This is the only trick you seem to know. You attack the individual rather than the issue. It's sad really. It makes you look so pety and mean and ignorant.I learned all these ideas from Hannes Alfven, a man who won a Nobel prize, and from his first generation students like Peratt. I learned these ideas from Irving Langmuir, Kristian Birkeland, Charles Bruce, and a host of other indivuduals who's books and matrials I've actually read for myself. Evidently you feel so scientifically superior to Anthony Peratt, that you find him to be a scientific embarassment, even though he created computer models based on Alfven's mathematical models and published materials galore that showed all the similarities between these models and the physical universe around us.You fancy yourself to be so much wiser than me on this topic, without bothering to even read the materials in question. I didn't invent these ideas DrRocket. The started with Birkeland who demonstrated that there are "circuits" in space in his lab over 100 years ago. It continues in the work of Charles Bruce, Hannes Alfven and Anthony Peratt. You're welcome to read this material anytime you wish. By the way, how exactly did you learn how Hannes Alfven applied MHD theory to space? Osmosis? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Cutting up my post into little pieces so as to loose the thought and then attacking the individual words does not provide any sort of objective scientific defense of your ideas whatever. The fact remains that you, not Alfven, are using the terminology of circuit theory in a manner that is inconsistent with the proper scientific application of circuit models. Listing names of authors and ignoring the content of the work has no scientific merit whatever.</p><p>It matters little how many "o"s you striing together in doozie, the fact remains that circuit theory can be applied only in certain circumstances, that equivalent circuits are not physical circuits, and that Priest's use of magnetic monopoles as a mathematical device is not invalid on the basis of terminology. You continue to focus on semantics at the expense of physics. Pitiful.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... I liked the S,H,B paper a great deal. ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>May we conclude from this statement that you accept magnetic reconnection in the sense of Schindler, Hesse and Birn ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Cutting up my post into little pieces so as to loose the thought and then attacking the individual words does not provide any sort of objective scientific defense of your ideas whatever. The fact remains that you, not Alfven, are using the terminology of circuit theory in a manner that is inconsistent with the proper scientific application of circuit models. Listing names of authors and ignoring the content of the work has no scientific merit whatever.It matters little how many "o"s you striing together in doozie, the fact remains that circuit theory can be applied only in certain circumstances, that equivalent circuits are not physical circuits, and that Priest's use of magnetic monopoles as a mathematical device is not invalid on the basis of terminology. You continue to focus on semantics at the expense of physics. Pitiful. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Your rationalizations are amazing DrRocket, and your direct avoidance of my last question was also "pitiful". How exactly did you learn about how Alfven describes events in space? Osmosis? I'd really like to know since you've never bothered to actually read his own views on this topic, or you could not possibly be this ignorant of simple fact. You refuse to read Anthony Peratt's work, even though he was Alfven's close personal student. I don't have a clue how you could possibly have any idea how Alfven presented his material and his views because you've never read them, or gotten them from anyone that actually knew Alfven. That only seems to leave "osmosis" as far as I can tell.</p><p>What is also "pitiful" is your rationalization that is is "ok" to use "monopole" analogies in relationship to plasma physics, even though they don't exist in nature, and they violate the laws of physics, specifically Guass's law of magnetism. Somehow in your mind however it's not "ok" to apply the concepts of "circuits" in relationship to events in interplanetary, interstellar, and intergalactic space, even though Alfven explicitly did so and he wrote the books of MHD/PC/EU theories. </p><p>It's also pitiful that you would attempt to play devils advocate on this topic *without* bothering to even read the material that actually explains it from the individual that wrote it. It's pitiful that you put down his students too, without even bothering to read their matierals on this topic. That behavior is pitiful.</p><p>FYI I've really enjoyed even my disagreements with Derek and UFmbutler because they've always focused on the science part of the disagreement, and they aren't constantly attacking the individual. It's a normal, enjoyable online scientific relationship. On the other hand you have continuously attacked the individuals, not just me but also Peratt and every EU proponent who's enganged themselves in this conversation. That's evidently your single real "trick". I guess you figure if you're rude enough, nobody will notice you never bothered to do your homework. I noticed. Alfven would notice. Peratt would notice. Anyone who knows anything about this topic would notice. I think even Derek is noticing you have a problem with your "style".</p><p>Go read Alfven's own words DrRocket. You don't seem to believe me, but I have his book, and the PDF file of that book and his earlier book too. I used adobe to count the number of times he used the term "circuit" in his presentation of events in space in Cosmic Plasma. It was over 200 times DrRocket. Evidnently Alfven believed that the conditions in space required an understanding of MHD theory from a "particle" and electrical circuit perspective. You of course would not know anything about it howvever, because you never read it. Who do you really think you're really fooling here DrRocket? </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>May we conclude from this statement that you accept magnetic reconnection in the sense of Schindler, Hesse and Birn ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I accept that it is a valid description of "circuit reconnection". Whether we agree or disagree will depend on his response I suppose.</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... I'd rather we not spend several days debating the merits of my email to him. I'd rather we just wait and let him respond to my email in his own way and I'll post his response along with my original email to him all at once. I did specifically ask his permission to post his response to this thread and I will do so with his permission. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I take it from this that you are anticipating receiving a response. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I take it from this that you are anticipating receiving a response. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I would not have bothered writing him if I wasn't anticipating a response. If I'm right, he could answer my question with a single word. "Yes" would do. I did ask him to "briefly" explain a "no" answer, but I'm sure that would not take him very long.</p><p>I know that I would like to know his answer. I am almost certain Yevaud would like to know his answer right about now so that we can just move on if this is simply an issue of semantics. I think UFmbutler would like to hear his answer. I'm pretty sure Derek would like to know too. I answer emails all the time, and I'm sure he does too. Why wouldn't he respond? </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would not have bothered writing him if I wasn't anticipating a response. If I'm right, he could answer my question with a single word. "Yes" would do. I did ask him to "briefly" explain a "no" answer, but I'm sure that would not take him very long.I know that I would like to know his answer. I am almost certain Yevaud would like to know his answer right about now so that we can just move on if this is simply an issue of semantics. I think UFmbutler would like to hear his answer. I'm pretty sure Derek would like to know too. I answer emails all the time, and I'm sure he does too. Why wouldn't he respond? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You indicated earlier that the e-mail that you sent him was rather long. Is the end result really so simple as a "yes" or "no" ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You indicated earlier that the e-mail that you sent him was rather long. Is the end result really so simple as a "yes" or "no" ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I could easily see it being a one word answer. If it is yes, he'd just be agreeing with michael and there wouldn't need to be any clarification. If it is no, he'd probably not care enough to put any time into explaining why, because to him I'm sure it is obvious. He is pretty nice though so MAYBE if he says no, he'll include an explanation, but we'll see. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I could easily see it being a one word answer. If it is yes, he'd just be agreeing with michael and there wouldn't need to be any clarification. If it is no, he'd probably not care enough to put any time into explaining why, because to him I'm sure it is obvious. He is pretty nice though so MAYBE if he says no, he'll include an explanation, but we'll see. <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV><br /><br />Could you imagine if he got a reply to his maybe with michael dissecting his reply line by line in a 6 page e-mail?</p><p>See delete....</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I could easily see it being a one word answer. If it is yes, he'd just be agreeing with michael and there wouldn't need to be any clarification. If it is no, he'd probably not care enough to put any time into explaining why, because to him I'm sure it is obvious. He is pretty nice though so MAYBE if he says no, he'll include an explanation, but we'll see. <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>When have you ever seen a question from Michael that could be understood unambiguously and answered with a simple "yes" or "no"? Now, consider that the e-mail was something that even Michael considers to be a bit long. </p><p>Also consider Priest's situation. He receives a very long e-mail message from someone he doesn't know (or perhaps he recognizes Michael's name from the EU world), that will clearly bear the marks of an EU advocate, with a loaded question, and a request for permission to post the answer on an open amateur science forum. What possible good could come to Priest from responding to such a query? His name is well-known and a good deal of his livelihood is derivable from his reputation. By responding he puts an e-mail with his name on it in the hands of an outsider, and runs the risk of whatever might be done with it in public, knowing that there is some controversy that caused the letter to be written in the first place. In an open forum there are none of the controls, nor the usual academic decorum attendant to a journal article or to letters written in comment to an article and published in a journal. From his perspective the best thing that can happen is nothing -- which is the same result that comes with simply ignoring the e-mail.</p><p>If he responds I will be pleasantly surprised. I would love to see the letter from Michael and Priest's reply. But if I were in his shoes I would hit "delete" and get on with life. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When have you ever seen a question from Michael that could be understood unambiguously and answered with a simple "yes" or "no"? Now, consider that the e-mail was something that even Michael considers to be a bit long. Also consider Priest's situation. He receives a very long e-mail message from someone he doesn't know (or perhaps he recognizes Michael's name from the EU world), that will clearly bear the marks of an EU advocate, with a loaded question, and a request for permission to post the answer on an open amateur science forum. What possible good could come to Priest from responding to such a query? His name is well-known and a good deal of his livelihood is derivable from his reputation. By responding he puts an e-mail with his name on it in the hands of an outsider, and runs the risk of whatever might be done with it in public, knowing that there is some controversy that caused the letter to be written in the first place. In an open forum there are none of the controls, nor the usual academic decorum attendant to a journal article or to letters written in comment to an article and published in a journal. From his perspective the best thing that can happen is nothing -- which is the same result that comes with simply ignoring the e-mail.If he responds I will be pleasantly surprised. I would love to see the letter from Michael and Priest's reply. But if I were in his shoes I would hit "delete" and get on with life. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I think he is emailing Birn due to his mention of electric fields when modeling 3d reconnection. I asked Michael to post the content of his email, but he opted no to. I'm more concerned with the length and Birn's eyes just glazing over and moving on to the next email. I can only imagine Birn has read enough dissertations in his time, he certainly doesn't want to read another through an email.</p><p>When searching for an answer, sometimes it is best to keep the question simple and precise versus using a great wall of text. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I could easily see it being a one word answer. </DIV></p><p>Me too, particularly if the answer is "yes."</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If it is yes, he'd just be agreeing with michael and there wouldn't need to be any clarification. </DIV></p><p>Exactly. It would simply be an issue of semantics at that point. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If it is no, he'd probably not care enough to put any time into explaining why, because to him I'm sure it is obvious. He is pretty nice though so MAYBE if he says no, he'll include an explanation, but we'll see. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Well, I would hope that he would at least briefly explain to us why it would not be valid to call this same process "circuit reconnection". I would think a single paragraph would do the trick.</p><p>FYI, most of my email was background info about our conversation and myself. The actual question is technically a yes or no question. If it can also legitimately be called "circuit reconnection", a simple "yes" would be just fine by me. If the answer is no, a single paragraph explaining his answer would be sufficient. I'm not asking for anything more than clerification so we aren't all sitting here spinning our wheels over simple semantics. It seems like a reasonable request.</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Could you imagine if he got a reply to his maybe with michael dissecting his reply line by line in a 6 page e-mail?See delete.... <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I don't think even I could create a 6 page email from "Yes". 
</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>
</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><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also consider Priest's situation. </DIV></p><p>Why? I emailed Birn, not Priest. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He receives a very long e-mail message </DIV></p><p>I said it wasn't "short", I didn't say it was "very long". It's long enough to explain some backgound info on myself on this conversation. It's not a novel. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>from someone he doesn't know </DIV></p><p>Don't you ever recieve emails from people you don't know? I get emails all the time that I answer from people I've never met. Who cares whether he knows me or not? I'm asking for his help. Why wouldn't he help resolve a disupute that is directly related to his work?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>(or perhaps he recognizes Michael's name from the EU world),</DIV></p><p>Would that be some major problem from your perspective? There are people from the MOND world too, but normally one doesn't shun their questions only because one doesn't agree with their opinions.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>that will clearly bear the marks of an EU advocate, with a loaded question,</DIV></p><p>I love how you've taken to Taro card readings when making up your mind about the contents of various books and emails......</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and a request for permission to post the answer on an open amateur science forum. </DIV></p><p>Are you suggesting that legitimate questions related to a discussion at an open public science forum are somehow beneath him? You do realize this is one of the most widely read astronomy oriented websites on the planet?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What possible good could come to Priest from responding to such a query?</DIV></p><p>Beats me. I wrote Birn.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> His name is well-known and a good deal of his livelihood is derivable from his reputation.</DIV></p><p>So how exactly is Birn's reputation sullied by answering a legitimate scientific question to resolve a dispute on a public discussion of his ideas? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> By responding he puts an e-mail with his name on it in the hands of an outsider, and runs the risk of whatever might be done with it in public, knowing that there is some controversy that caused the letter to be written in the first place. </DIV> </p><p>Like the controversy would be any less if he doesn't respond? It seems to me that would only serve to feed the problem rather than to resolve it. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In an open forum there are none of the controls, nor the usual academic decorum attendant to a journal article or to letters written in comment to an article and published in a journal. </DIV></p><p>And?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>From his perspective the best thing that can happen is nothing </DIV></p><p>FYI, your mind reading skills are absolutely useless, at least if Alfven's views about "circuits", and who I am emailing are any indication. I'd stick to your day job if I were you. </p><p>I would think that "best" thing that might happen is that this issue is clerified, the question is answered, and we are all "enlightened" by his answer on a topic of mutual interest. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>-- which is the same result that comes with simply ignoring the e-mail.</DIV></p><p>Wouldn't that just look suspicious? How would that "enlighten" anyone or make the controversy go away?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If he responds I will be pleasantly surprised. I would love to see the letter from Michael and Priest's reply. </DIV></p><p>Well, I too would be rather shocked if Priest responded to my email to Birn. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But if I were in his shoes I would hit "delete" and get on with life. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>If I were in your shoes I'd read Cosmic Plasma and pay attention to who I am sending my emails to, but often people don't do what you expect them to do. </p><p>One almost gets the impressions that you *don't* want him to answer the question so you're trying to talk him out of it, or justify him not answering the question. Are you afraid of the answer perhaps? </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why? I emailed Birn, not Priest. I said it wasn't "short", I didn't say it was "very long". It's long enough to explain some backgound info on myself on this conversation. It's not a novel. Don't you ever recieve emails from people you don't know? I get emails all the time that I answer from people I've never met. Who cares whether he knows me or not? I'm asking for his help. Why wouldn't he help resolve a disupute that is directly related to his work?Would that be some major problem from your perspective? There are people from the MOND world too, but normally one doesn't shun their questions only because one doesn't agree with their opinions.I love how you've taken to Taro card readings when making up your mind about the contents of various books and emails......Are you suggesting that legitimate questions related to a discussion at an open public science forum are somehow beneath him? You do realize this is one of the most widely read astronomy oriented websites on the planet?Beats me. I wrote Birn.So how exactly is Birn's reputation sullied by answering a legitimate scientific question to resolve a dispute on a public discussion of his ideas? Like the controversy would be any less if he doesn't respond? It seems to me that would only serve to feed the problem rather than to resolve it. And?FYI, your mind reading skills are absolutely useless, at least if Alfven's views about "circuits", and who I am emailing are any indication. I'd stick to your day job if I were you. I would think that "best" thing that might happen is that this issue is clerified, the question is answered, and we are all "enlightened" by his answer on a topic of mutual interest. Wouldn't that just look suspicious? How would that "enlighten" anyone or make the controversy go away?Well, I too would be rather shocked if Priest responded to my email to Birn. If I were in your shoes I'd read Cosmic Plasma and pay attention to who I am sending my emails to, but often people don't do what you expect them to do. One almost gets the impressions that you *don't* want him to answer the question so you're trying to talk him out of it, or justify him not answering the question. Are you afraid of the answer perhaps? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Good. We have now established the identity of "him". We will have to wait to see if HE answers, what the question is and what the answer is. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">that will clearly bear the marks of an EU advocate, with a loaded question,</div><p> </p><p>I love how you've taken to Taro card readings when making up your mind about the contents of various books and emails......</DIV></p><p>Michael, everything that you write has the earmark of an EU advocate. You also are a known proponent of EU ideas. It takes no clairvoyance at all to guess that Birn will get that impression.</p><p>[QUOTE}Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">and a request for permission to post the answer on an open amateur science forum. </div><p> </p><p>Are you suggesting that legitimate questions related to a discussion at an open public science forum are somehow beneath him? You do realize this is one of the most widely read astronomy oriented websites on the planet?</p><p>Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I am not suggesting but am stating quite clearly that a scientist who is a specialist in the field has nothing to gain and something to lose from a direct posting in an uncontrolled amateur forum. You have already exhibited a propensity to twist words and dissect individual sentences ad nauseum. A specialist writing in an open forum might not want to take the risk of having his words so treated. But that is clearly up to Birn and his personal perceptions of the situation. I don't know what he will do. I would not be surprised if he takes no action whatever.</p><p>I think that his actions may in large depend on the specific questions, which we have not seen, that have been posed and how they were posed. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael, everything that you write has the earmark of an EU advocate.</DIV></p><p>Ya think?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You also are a known proponent of EU ideas. It takes no clairvoyance at all to guess that Birn will get that impression.</DIV></p><p>But my EU orientation has no bearing on the legitimacy of my scientific question. It's a valid scientific question no matter who asks it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am not suggesting but am stating quite clearly that a scientist who is a specialist in the field has nothing to gain and something to lose from a direct posting in an uncontrolled amateur forum.</DIV></p><p>If I were actively attempting to discredit his work in some way he might have something to lose. As it stands I have made it quite clear that I believe that he has physically and mathematically correctly expressed the concept of "circuit reconnection" between two current carrying circuits. I'm not trying to discredit his work in physics and math in any way. At worst case I'm complaining about terminology, not physics. There is nothing to lose here, only knowledge to be gained by those of us who'd like to know his answer. I'm certainly not about to turn around and try to discredit his work after just acknowledging it's validity. The only thing I'm asking for is a simple clerification about a use of terms. It's not a arguement about mathematics or physics as far as I can tell. The only "complaint" I seem to have is related to the "label" that is assigned to the process, not the process being described.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have already exhibited a propensity to twist words and dissect individual sentences ad nauseum. </DIV></p><p>Look who's talking! I'm attempting *not* to twist any words but rather to let him answer this issue for us in a scientific manner. I'm personally pulling for a single word answer, specically "yes". I have no desire to disect anything he might happen to write. Assuming he answers "no" with some explanation, then one would hope his explanation is going to convince me and I'll have no desire to dissect that answer either.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A specialist writing in an open forum might not want to take the risk of having his words so treated. </DIV></p><p>If I were attempting to belittle his work in some way, or attempting to discredit his work in some way, you might have a point. Since none of us here have any such intention, your attitude sounds positively paranoid. I made it quite clear I respect his work and his time DrRocket. I'm not like you, I don't bash individuals, and if I have a problem with the math or the physics I just say so. I have no hidden agendas.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But that is clearly up to Birn and his personal perceptions of the situation. I don't know what he will do. I would not be surprised if he takes no action whatever.I think that his actions may in large depend on the specific questions, which we have not seen, that have been posed and how they were posed. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I also believe that to be true, which is why I took a couple of days to think about how I wanted to phase my email. I wanted to be sure he understood my position very clearly. I have no "beef" with his mathematical or physical presentations of this idea. The only "question" I seem to have is whether or not he believes that it is scientifically acceptable to also describe this same process as "circuit reconnection", since everything else seems to fit my understanding of what happens in current carrying plasma when particles "reconnect" at the particle physical level. In every other way we seem to see eye to eye, and it's only the label we seem to have any disupute about.</p><p>IMO Birn's paper was about as close to flawless as you might ever hope to find when it comes to the physical explanations, the mathematical presentations, etc. About all I can find to complain about is the name of the process itself. I would expect that to be the case if Yevaud is right and this is only an issue of semantics. It was not the case in Preist's presentation, and I could not find any way to email Priest a legitimate scienitific question based on that one paper. I have no desire to badmouth Priest or anyone associated with "magnetic reconnection", I just would like to know if this is also legitimately called "circuit reconnection" by one or more of the authors of the theory because in that case, it really *is* just an issue of semantics and there is no point in debating the math or the physics. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't think even I could create a 6 page email from "Yes". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br />I'll bet you could create a 4-page one without breaking a sweat. One page for each letter and done to recap and summarize. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br />I'll bet you could create a 4-page one without breaking a sweat. One page for each letter and done to recap and summarize. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'll bet you could create a 4-page one without breaking a sweat. One page for each letter and done to recap and summarize. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Your sense of humor demonstrates that you do have at least one redeeming quality. </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>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'll bet you could create a 4-page one without breaking a sweat. One page for each letter and done to recap and summarize. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />With 5 repeat e-mails continuing the analysis <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>
<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><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your sense of humor demonstrates that you do have at least one redeeming quality. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Two. My BS meter is fully functional. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star- Started by Admin
- Replies: 6
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram