<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...I'm blown away that DrRocket would profess to understand Alfven's work better than I do when he's never read it. That sounds positively irrational from the start. I don't have a clue how he expects to understand Alfven's work when he evidently never reads it because he keeps claiming I never provided him with any math! He disagrees with all of Alfven's cosmology beliefs, whereas I agree with Alfven's views, but he somehow thinks he's more of an expert on Alfven's beliefs (as a skeptic) than I am. Why? What material has he actually *READ AND RESPONDED TO*?It's like a twilight zone episode from my perspective. ..<br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Michael, this statement is completely irrational. Are you OK ?</p><p>You accuse me of not reading and responding to Alfven's work while we are in fact discussing my response to two papers of Alfven's that you personally posted.</p><p>http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/On%20The%20Fimamentary%20Structure%20Of%20The%20Solar%20Corona.pdf</p><p>http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/A%20Three%20Ring%20Circuit%20Model%20OfThe%20Magnetosphere.pdf<br /><br />What statement on your part could possible be more falacious than accusing me of not reading and responding to Alfven when that is precisely what has been done? Or more ridiculous ? These are the papers. I read them. My response is posted above, and that seems to be what set you off on this rant, so cannot possibly have missed the response. </p><p>Apparently what you cannot get past is the FACT that in these papers Alfven is in truth using classical field theory to obtain his (valid) description of plasmas and only after a proper field-theoretic treatment does he invoke the imagery of circuits. However, he does not use circuit theory in the true sense, never once invoking Kirkoff's current or voltage laws. You have become fixated on the words and lost sight of the physics completely. Perhaps that is because one must understand the mathematics in order to really understand the words and pictures. </p><p>It seems that this tirade simply comes back to your slavish reliance on the single text <em>Cosmic Plasma</em>, just like a Chinaman and Mao's "Little Red Book". Get over it and discuss the underlying physics. Semantics is not physics. And there is a lot good physics outside of any single book.</p><p>Why do you find it difficult to believe that someone might understand what Alfven said in a manner different from you? His presentation is based on real physics and real mathematics, so why would it not be quite an ordinary occurrence for someone to understand that better than do you ? After all you have consistently attacked the mainstream and mainstream understanding of physics, so a presentation based on mainstream mathematics and physics might well be better understood by a practioner of that discipline; in fact such an occurrence ought to be quite likely. </p><p>I don't claim to have greater understanding of Alfven's beliefs than do you. I don't care about Alfven's "beliefs". I care about the underlying science. I care about Alfven's contributions to plasma physics. I care about what can be rigorously derived from fundamental physics. I care about what Alfven has personally derived from those principles. I don't give a tinker's damn about what he "believed" but only what he demonstrated. Science is not about beliefs or semantics. It is not about testimonial evidence. It is about fundamental principles and the implications of those principles. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael, this statement is completely irrational. Are you OK ?</DIV></p><p>I'm fine. Are you? Are you going to keep simply ignoring the important questions I ask you, like why you keep claiming that EU theory isn't well supported mathmatically and physically? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You accuse me of not reading and responding to Alfven's work while we are in fact discussing my response to two papers of Alfven's that you personally posted.http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/On%20The%20Fimamentary%20Structure%20Of%20The%20Solar%20Corona.pdfhttp://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/A%20Three%20Ring%20Circuit%20Model%20OfThe%20Magnetosphere.pdfWhat statement on your part could possible be more falacious than accusing me of not reading and responding to Alfven when that is precisely what has been done? Or more ridiculous ? </DIV></p><p>You never once addressed the line I highlighted for you DrRocket. WHy? Why did he believe there was a more "fundamental" way of looking at the same events? What more "fundamental" way was he refering to?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>These are the papers. </DIV></p><p>Yes, both of them on the exact instances where the mainstream claims that "magnetic reconnection' occurs. The one even mentions Parker by name and explains the more 'fundamental" approach that Alfven used.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I read them. </DIV></p><p>Really? You haven't seemed to respond to any question I've put to you about that paper. You're sort of handwaving at it a bit, much like what you did with Scott's work. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My response is posted above, </DIV></p><p>And all your non-responses are also posted above. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Apparently what you cannot get past is the FACT that in these papers Alfven is in truth using classical field theory to obtain his (valid) description of plasmas and only after a proper field-theoretic treatment does he invoke the imagery of circuits. </DIV></p><p>Notice that he did invoke circuits? Why then isn't this "circuit reconnection" just like Birkeland's experiments?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, he does not use circuit theory in the true sense, never once invoking Kirkoff's current or voltage laws. </DIV></p><p>You seem to be missing the point entirely and *assuming* from one paper that you understand the full scope of Alfven's work. Pitiful.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have become fixated on the words and lost sight of the physics completely.</DIV></p><p>No, that's backwards. I'm using the "particle" approach as did Alfven. It's you that are missing the "physics" because you're only looking at the "field" perspective as Alfven put it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Perhaps that is because one must understand the mathematics in order to really understand the words and pictures.</DIV></p><p>You also have to understand the real *physics* in order to understand the math. You seem to have the math part down pat, and no appreciatation for the "particle"" approach to MHD theory, starting with your resistance to circuits in space. (pun intended).</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It seems that this tirade simply comes back to your slavish reliance on the single text Cosmic Plasma, just like a Chinaman and Mao's "Little Red Book". Get over it and discuss the underlying physics. </DIV></p><p>You refuse to go there. EVerytime I go to the particle physicsl level, you ignore the underlying physics. You seem to believe it's "ok" to talk about these energy exchagnes as "monopoles", but not "circuits". It's irrational behavior on your part that is keeping us from having a useful conversation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Semantics is not physics.</DIV></p><p>The proper use of scientific terms is important to physics. If magnetic lines do not disconnect or reconnect then it is illogical to call this process "magnetic reconnection". Alfven looked at it as a particle physical exchange of kinetic energy. Period. No magnetic reconnection was required to explain these interactions in plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> And there is a lot good physics outside of any single book.</DIV></p><p>Sure, incluing Birkeland's emprical experiments with "circuit reconnection", which you simply ignore too.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why do you find it difficult to believe that someone might understand what Alfven said in a manner different from you? </DIV></p><p>I'm sure it happens a lot, particularly when some folks never bother to even read it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>His presentation is based on real physics and real mathematics,</DIV></p><p>Then why do you keep claiming that EU theory isn't well supported in terms of math and physics?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>so why would it not be quite an ordinary occurrence for someone to understand that better than do you ? </DIV></p><p>Sure, it's a possibility, assuming of course they actually have read the material and have some understanding of what they're talking about. You've never done your homework, and it shows, particlarly at the conceptual level of particle physics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>After all you have consistently attacked the mainstream and mainstream understanding of physics, so a presentation based on mainstream mathematics and physics might well be better understood by a practioner of that discipline; in fact such an occurrence ought to be quite likely. I don't claim to have greater understanding of Alfven's beliefs than do you. I don't care about Alfven's "beliefs". I care about the underlying science. I care about Alfven's contributions to plasma physics.</DIV></p><p>So how in the world is it that when I hand you an explanation of these events by Alfven that explain them in terms of "circuits' and "paritlces", can you still claim EU theory isn't well supported? If you understand it, you should not be saying these things. Clearly you don't understand the material because you never read it, or pondered it for more than a few seconds.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I care about what can be rigorously derived from fundamental physics. </DIV></p><p>Then you should be thrilled with Birkeland's work and Alfven's work, yet your reject it. Why?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I care about what Alfven has personally derived from those principles.</DIV></p><p>Then why do you reject EU theory as he personally explained it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I don't give a tinker's damn about what he "believed" but only what he demonstrated. Science is not about beliefs or semantics. It is not about testimonial evidence. It is about fundamental principles and the implications of those principles. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Yet when Birkeland emprically and fundamentally showed that "circuit reconnection" works, you ignore it. Why? </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'> <p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">I care about what Alfven has personally derived from those principles.</div><p> </p><p>Then why do you reject EU theory as he personally explained it?</p><p>Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I am willing to accept whatever anyone, Alfven included, can rigorously demonstrate as a consequence of physical principles. This is dependent solely on the physical arguments presented, and has nothing to do with the person who presents them. I have seen nothing so far in Alfven's extensive writings that supports EU as you have represented it thus far. Perhaps if you presented your theories in a rigorous fashion they might gain some acceptance. But semantic arguments are not convincing.</p><p>Snce you are implicitly claiming to be the one true prophet, seer and revelator of the great and omniscient Alfven, perhapy you might explain EU theory a bit more clearly. Physical arguments with all relevant mathematics please. </p><p>While you are at it, explain why you have a web site promoting the notion that the sun has a "hard and rigid ferite suface below the visible photosphere" while Alflven says:</p><p>"Hence the interior of the sun (andprobably stars in general) , including most of the photosphere, should be counted as high-density magnetic plasmas, whereas the chromosphere and the corona are characterized by medium-density plasmas."</p><p>So Alfven says that the sun is plasmas all the way down, while you espouse a solid rocky surface. A solid rocky surface is rather hard to reconcile with Alfven's view of plasmas, with the temperatures observed or with the classical physics of heat transfer and thermodynamics. Yet you claim to be a true disciple. Maybe the reconnection should be between you and Alfven. Or better yet, connect with physics. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am willing to accept whatever anyone, Alfven included, can rigorously demonstrate as a consequence of physical principles.</DIV></p><p>Then you must accept that "circuit reconnection" and "current flow" can be directly and emprically shown to be related to aurora, coronal loops and "jets" around spheres in a plasma vacuum. That is pure emprical physics DrRocket and it's been demonstrated in the "classic" fashion of emprical testing.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This is dependent solely on the physical arguments presented, and has nothing to do with the person who presents them. </DIV></p><p>Then drop the personal attacks and focus on the specific issues.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have seen nothing so far in Alfven's extensive writings that supports EU as you have represented it thus far.</DIV></p><p>That is because you won't read the materials I've suggested, nor respond to the materials I've posted in any meaningful way. When I ask you specific questions, you ignore them. What was the more "fundamental" way Alfven suggested we take when looking at these magnetospheric events?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Perhaps if you presented your theories in a rigorous fashion they might gain some acceptance. </DIV></p><p>Alfven and Peratt have done this already as did Birkeland. Rigourous arguments are no guarantee of changing mainsteam thinking.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But semantic arguments are not convincing.</DIV></p><p>I'm not arguing sematics with you because you don't seem to accept that magnetic reconnection and circuit reconnection are the same thing. If you agreed with me, we'd be arguing only about the semantics. More than semantics seems to be at stake here.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Snce you are implicitly claiming to be the one true prophet, seer and revelator of the great and omniscient Alfven,</DIV></p><p>Nothing like a good strawman to really get things going, eh? You're the one claiming to have a psychic ability to understand his viewpoints *without* ever reading them. It's you that seems to be claiming to br the "true prophet" of Alfven while rejecting his theories outright.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>perhapy you might explain EU theory a bit more clearly. </DIV></p><p>I could not have been more "clear" with you. If you wanted to understand EU theory you would by now, without my help in fact. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Physical arguments with all relevant mathematics please. </DIV></p><p>Did you ever actually study Birkeland's empirical experiments? Let's start there. He *physically* demonstrated a link between "current flow" and "circuit reconnection" and all the events that are being attributed to "magnetic reconnection". Coincidence?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While you are at it, explain why you have a web site promoting the notion that the sun has a "hard and rigid ferite suface</DIV></p><p>Sorry, not in this thead. If you want to have that conversation, post your question in the solar thread and be prepared to deal with those satellite images in a direct manner. Alfven didn't have access to SOHO, TRACE, Rhessi, Yohkoh and Hinode satellite images. Some ideas do change because of what we learn from our technologies in space. </p><br /><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>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/17sep_polarcrown.htm</p><p>A couple of points from the article caught my eye, particularly it's mention of "reconnection" and the sun's "magnetic fields" as the cause of these events.</p><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Solar astronomers have seen prominences like this before, thousands of them, but never so clearly. The new view is challenging long-held ideas: In the past, researchers thought of prominences as mainly static structures, held motionless above the surface of the sun by magnetic force fields. "Now we know those ideas are too simple. Just watch the movie!"</font> </DIV></p><p>Indeed. Plasma is not "frozen" in space, rather it's "flowing" electromagnetic "current". </p><p> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Berger lists the surprises:</font></p> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" width="130" align="right"> <tbody><tr> <td width="100%"> <table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width="115" height="66" align="center"> <tbody><tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff">
<p>The article didn't really say anything about the frozen line thing...all it said is prominences are not static structures. I don't think prominences are required to be static with frozen field lines. I think you are reading too much into the word "static" and "frozen". Of course prominences aren't going to be simple. Like the THEMIS article, you are trying to analyze a public news article scientifically. They leave all sorts of things out in the news and make analogies that may or may not be physically correct, just to try to relate a complicated process to the public. </p><p>This doesn't really have anything to do with your post but God you use quotation marks so much. Just had to say that. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The article didn't really say anything about the frozen line thing...all it said is prominences are not static structures. I don't think prominences are required to be static with frozen field lines. I think you are reading too much into the word "static" and "frozen". Of course prominences aren't going to be simple. Like the THEMIS article, you are trying to analyze a public news article scientifically. They leave all sorts of things out in the news and make analogies that may or may not be physically correct, just to try to relate a complicated process to the public. This doesn't really have anything to do with your post but God you use quotation marks so much. Just had to say that. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Just "pretend" it's William Shatner's "cadence" whenever you *see* the quote... makes for a more "interesting" read. </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'>The article didn't really say anything about the frozen line thing...all it said is prominences are not static structures. I don't think prominences are required to be static with frozen field lines. I think you are reading too much into the word "static" and "frozen". Of course prominences aren't going to be simple. Like the THEMIS article, you are trying to analyze a public news article scientifically. They leave all sorts of things out in the news and make analogies that may or may not be physically correct, just to try to relate a complicated process to the public. This doesn't really have anything to do with your post but God you use quotation marks so much. Just had to say that. <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p> Correct. Whether a valid approximation in a given circumstance or not, the idea behind "frozen" field lines is that the lines are static in a reference that is stationary in the flow of the plasma gas, flowing along with the plasma and carried by it. They are not frozen with respect to the usual reference frame in which the plasma is itself moving. As usual Mozina is relying too heavily on semantics and missing the physics. BTW the concept of frozen field lines in this regard is due to Alfven.</p><p>The argument as to whether or not the conditions necessary for the frozen field line approximatoin to be valid are present in a given situation is itself a valid argument. I have some problems myself with <em>a priori</em> justification for that approximation. But distorting the argument by misconstruing what is meant by frozen field lines and resorting once again to semantics in place of physics is simply bogus, and a recurring theme in Mozina's arguments in this thread.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The article didn't really say anything about the frozen line thing..</DIV></p><p>Sure, but lots of people do say plenty about the frozen line thing and they seem to be rather "surprised" that the process is actually very "fluid" and mobile.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.all it said is prominences are not static structures. </DIV></p><p>The article also notes that this is surprising to them. Why would that be surprising to them? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't think prominences are required to be static with frozen field lines.</DIV></p><p>The aren't frozen lines, they are moving plasma sheets that are blown around in the electrical currents. The electrical currents in the plasma generate all those "magnetic lines" they're looking at.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think you are reading too much into the word "static" and "frozen". </DIV></p><p>I was certainly not surprised by the fluid nature of these "structures". Why were they suggesting this was surprising to them?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of course prominences aren't going to be simple. Like the THEMIS article, you are trying to analyze a public news article scientifically. They leave all sorts of things out in the news and make analogies that may or may not be physically correct, just to try to relate a complicated process to the public. This doesn't really have anything to do with your post but God you use quotation marks so much. Just had to say that. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>This article is directly related to this conversation because they are claiming that the whole process is driven by 'reconnection'. These observations are directly related to the current flows from the heliospheric "circuits", including the auroral "rings" around the poles, the "jets" and the coronal loops that Birkeland duplicated in his lab. The "reconnection' process is circuit reconnection, and the fluid like nature of these events would certainly not have surprised Birkeland since he wrote about these behaviors over 100 years ago. </p><p>The problem here is that the mainstream is *avoiding* Birkeland's perspective on these events. Instead of noticing that there are larger "circuits" driving these atmospheric events, the mainstream is attempting to attributed the whole thing to a completely *internal* process from the sun. It doesn't work that way, and that's why nothing seems to make any sense to them. The moment you recognize that there is a larger *circuit* involved in these events (just like in Birkeland's experiments), none of this plasma behavior is particularly "mysterious" or "surprising". </p><p>The mainstream is constantly mystified by solar atmospheric events because they are attempting to explain and predict these events as though they are internally driven events. These solar atmospheric events are *externally* driven "circuit reconnection" events, and those polar aurora around the sun are exactly the same types of events in our own atmosphere. The external (to the solar system) currents drive these events, it's not an internal process related to the sun. Those auroral "crowns" are the same as the auroral areas around our own planet. The only difference is the the sun's heliosphere contains larger "currents" and is powered by larger "circuits". In every other respect, the current flow is the same. The magnetic field of the sun and the auroral areas of the sun direct the currents into and through the sun, just like the magnetic field and the magnetosphere direct the currents into and through the Earth. The whole physical universe is composed of interlaced and interwoven "circuits" that "reconnect" inside the plasmas inside our solar system.</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'>Just "pretend" it's William Shatner's "cadence" whenever you *see* the quote... makes for a more "interesting" read. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></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> <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'> Correct. Whether a valid approximation in a given circumstance or not, the idea behind "frozen" field lines is that the lines are static in a reference that is stationary in the flow of the plasma gas, flowing along with the plasma and carried by it. They are not frozen with respect to the usual reference frame in which the plasma is itself moving. As usual Mozina is relying too heavily on semantics and missing the physics. BTW the concept of frozen field lines in this regard is due to Alfven.</DIV></p><p>No, it's not due to Alfven because Alfven only attempted to apply the concept of "frozen" to very dense, non current carrying plasma, not light current carrying plasma. He attributed these events to "circuit reconnection" as the coronal loop paper I provided demonstrates.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The argument as to whether or not the conditions necessary for the frozen field line approximatoin to be valid are present in a given situation is itself a valid argument. I have some problems myself with a priori justification for that approximation. But distorting the argument by misconstruing what is meant by frozen field lines and resorting once again to semantics in place of physics is simply bogus, and a recurring theme in Mozina's arguments in this thread. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The "distortion" comes from the mainstream when they attempt to apply this "frozen" idea to light, hot, current carrying plasma. They are using his one idea like a sledgehammer and trying to apply it to *everything*, even instances where it does not fit, nor is it applicable. </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>Those "Birkeland currents" we observe traversing the lower atmosphere are current carrying filaments. The polarity of each of those "magnetic lines" is dictated by the direction of the curernt flow through that "loop", just like inside of an ordinary plasma ball. There is nothing "mysterious" about all the little discharges occuring along the surface. These are electrical discharge related activities and Bruce documented the propogation speed aspects of these events and showed how they correlated to lightening leaders speeds in our own atmosphere. Nothing here *should be* at all surprising to the mainstream. All of these events were "predicted" by EU theory, all the way back to Birkeland's first experiments with spheres in a vacuum. 100 years goes by, and the mainstream still acts like all of this is new and no one has ever "predicted" this behavior. Sheesh.</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'>Those "Birkeland currents" we observe traversing the lower atmosphere are current carrying filaments. The polarity of each of those "magnetic lines" is dictated by the direction of the curernt flow through that "loop", just like inside of an ordinary plasma ball. There is nothing "mysterious" about all the little discharges occuring along the surface. These are electrical discharge related activities and Bruce documented the propogation speed aspects of these events and showed how they correlated to lightening leaders speeds in our own atmosphere. Nothing here *should be* at all surprising to the mainstream. All of these events were "predicted" by EU theory, all the way back to Birkeland's first experiments with spheres in a vacuum. 100 years goes by, and the mainstream still acts like all of this is new and no one has ever "predicted" this behavior. Sheesh. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I think you are way oversimplifying everything and trying to relate it to Birkeland's experiments... everything. It's just not that simple. You also have a tendancy to try to imply meanings based on articles that are also oversimplified. You can't progress science this way. You are doing a disservice to yourself and your hypotheses and theories that you support.</p><p>Here's some relavent papers:</p><p>http://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.2649</p><p>http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.1958</p><p>http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.1956 </p><p>They all discuss helical structures (birkeland currents which term is generally reserved for earth physics) and vertical oscilations (due to Alfven waves and is related to reconnection [I think]) and where they are applicable and what they mean. It sounds to me like they can't quite pinpoint the root cause. However, they don't dismiss either of the hypotheses.</p><p>Unlike you, magnetic reconnection proponents don't apply there hypotheses to everything and anything related to MHD. You, on the other hand, magnetic fields be damned. It's all electrical in nature despite what the evidence shows. </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 think you are way oversimplifying everything</DIV></p><p>You have that backwards. It's the mainstream that is 'oversimplifying" the EM process to some sort of sterile "magnetic" process. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are not *internally* driven events in the first place. That too is an *oversimplification* of how the universe actually functions.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and trying to relate it to Birkeland's experiments... everything. </DIV></p><p>Well, it just so happens that "everything" they attribute to "reconnection" is in fact duplicated in Birkeland's experiments, *everything*.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's just not that simple. </DIV></p><p>Our universe is not as simple as the mainstream believes. It has external currents running through our solar system. It is that simple. The aurora around both the sun and the Earth demonstrate this point conclusively. These are observed phenonenon in Birkeland's experiments.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You also have a tendancy to try to imply meanings based on articles that are also oversimplified. </DIV></p><p>The mainstream is actually doing the oversimplification, not me. These things are "easy" to understand when you apply Birkeland's circuit reconnection theories and experiments to this process. Nothing here that Birkeland's experiments cannot explain. You do however have to recongnize that "electricity" is involved in that process, and that seems to be the one word that no one wants to utter. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can't progress science this way. You are doing a disservice to yourself and your hypotheses and theories that you support.</DIV></p><p>You can't progress science without conducting emprical experiments. Birkeland has done this. The mainstream does us all a great disservice by not mentioning or respecting his work in this regard. The conceptual understanding of these events is something that Birkeland possessed over one hundred years ago. He could have explained this stuff to them personally based on emprical experiments. They won't and never "test" their magnetic reconnection theories with spheres in a vacuum because they don't work and can't work. The circuit provides the energy, not the magnetic lines.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here's some relavent papers:http://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.2649http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.1958http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.1956</DIV></p><p>Do any of them happen to mention the "circuit energy" involved in this process?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They all discuss helical structures (birkeland currents which term is generally reserved for earth physics) and vertical oscilations (due to Alfven waves and is related to reconnection [I think]) and where they are applicable and what they mean. </DIV></p><p>The helical shape is a classic sign of currents in plasma. The electrical and magnetic fields run parallel through the plasma thread, just like they do in an ordinary plasma ball. The helical shape is typical of filaments you see in an ordinary plasma ball and typical of light plasma that carries electrical current.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It sounds to me like they can't quite pinpoint the root cause. However, they don't dismiss either of the hypotheses.Unlike you, magnetic reconnection proponents don't apply there hypotheses to everything and anything related to MHD. </DIV></p><p>That's not true. They do apply the "field" perspective to *everything* they see, whereas Alfven and Birkeland both recognized the ""particle" perspective behind this reconnection process. Both of them recognized the importance of the circuit energy whereas the mainstream is attempting to claim these events are exclusively *internally* driven processes. They have everything backwards because they refuse to acknowledge the circuit energy that Birkeland used in his experiments to create all these same effect in plasma around spheres in a plasma vacuum. Birkeland created all these same features with "circuit reconnection". Pure coincidence in your opinion?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You, on the other hand, magnetic fields be damned. It's all electrical in nature despite what the evidence shows. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I'm perfectly willing to discuss the "magnetic fields", I just don't try to make them do things they cannot do. This is an *ELECTROmagnetic* event, not a "magnetic" event. I'm not the one trying to oversimply this problem. I'm not trying to claim the sun is internally generating these processes. I'm not the one trying desparately to not use the term "electricity" in relationship to solar atmospheric events. I accept that there are magnetic fields involved, but I also fully realize that "current flow" is the driving force behind the process, just like it was the driving force in Birkeland's experiments. Everything the mainsteam is now trying to claim is related to 'magnetic reconnection" can be directly related back to Birkeland's descriptions of "circuit reconnection" with spheres in a vacuum. That' cannot possibly be a "coincidence" (imagine Kirk and Spock looking at you incredulously). </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>
I still don't understand why you are basing your claims about what the mainstream thinks on a news release. Professional astronomers are in general not very good at relating things to the public. I almost feel like I need to make a half hour powerpoint presentation to explain what I do to my family. Because of that, sometimes the quotes they make in the news articles are not entirely complete, or even correct sometimes. There is no substance in a press release. A press release does not summarize the mainstream's beliefs. The guy was acting surprised because that is part of learning. He didn't say he was surprised because he now has seen the light and embraces EU theory...just that he didn't expect it to be such a dynamic system. The fact that it doesn't surprise you is pretty irrelevant. I am willing to bet you have the same reaction to basically any news release regarding plasmas or stars or whatever where you just see an EU buzzword and just start makng ridiculous claims about what the mainstream does and doesn't think. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I still don't understand why you are basing your claims about what the mainstream thinks on a news release. </DIV></p><p>It's not just a single news release, it's all the news releases, and all the claims about how surprised they all seem to be. These are things that Birkeland himself could have easily explain based on only his personal work on EU theory. No one would have needed to explain this stuff to him. He would have immediately recognized the importance and significance of these observations. He would have immediately understood the importance of the "circuit energy" in these events too, something I never hear any comment about from the mainstream. They all treat these events as though they are *internally* driven processes. That is not the case. Trying to explain polar aurora in the solar atmosphere without acknowledging the *external* current flow is like trying to explain the Earth's aurora *without* trying to understand the electrical currents in the magnetosphere. Of course it's a "mystery" because it's not an *internally* driven proces in the first place! </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Professional astronomers are in general not very good at relating things to the public.</DIV></p><p>That are particularly not good at relating anything to electrical activity.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I almost feel like I need to make a half hour powerpoint presentation to explain what I do to my family. Because of that, sometimes the quotes they make in the news articles are not entirely complete, or even correct sometimes. There is no substance in a press release. A press release does not summarize the mainstream's beliefs. The guy was acting surprised because that is part of learning. He didn't say he was surprised because he now has seen the light and embraces EU theory...just that he didn't expect it to be such a dynamic system. The fact that it doesn't surprise you is pretty irrelevant. I am willing to bet you have the same reaction to basically any news release regarding plasmas or stars or whatever where you just see an EU buzzword and just start makng ridiculous claims about what the mainstream does and doesn't think. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>The point I'm trying to make here is that all of these observations are consistent with Birkeland's emprical experiments with "electricity". That however seems to the one word that is never mentioned in any of these press articles. They never mention Birkeland's work on these issues. They never call them "Birkeland currents" even though he personally described these helix formations in plasma in the presense of current flow. They always treat these as interally driven "magnetic" events when in fact they are externally driven *electro*magnetic events. </p><p>It's frusting for me to be able to explain these events in simple terms, and not be surpirsed by these images, and see these kinds of statements coming from the mainstream. Birkeland explained and "predicted" all these observations, and yet they almost never even mention his name other than to try to connect his work to "magnetic reconnection". That's more than little frustrating, particularly when I take the time to email the authors of these papers and they refuse to even respond to my public questions. How would you feel in my shoes? Just play the role of a skeptic of mainstream theory for 10 minutes and put yourself in my shoes. None of this would have "surpised" Birkeland. Why should it surprise them? Why do they keep attributing these events to *internal* rather than external energy sources? </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>I think it's pretty instructive that all the SOHO LASCO images show NO SIGNS WHATSOEVER of an incoming current flow, and only show outbound materials. That is why we all think the "the sun is being fed by cosmic current flow" hypothesis is so easily and thoroughly dismissed. Only those with electric glasses can see the imaginary current heating the sun to 6000C</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'>You have that backwards. It's the mainstream that is 'oversimplifying" the EM process to some sort of sterile "magnetic" process. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are not *internally* driven events in the first place. That too is an *oversimplification* of how the universe actually functions.Well, it just so happens that "everything" they attribute to "reconnection" is in fact duplicated in Birkeland's experiments, *everything*.You universe is not as simple as the mainstream believes. It has external currents running through our solar system. It is that simple. The aurora around both the sun and the Earth demonstrate this point conclusively. These are observed phenonenon in Birkeland's experiments.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Can you point me to one single piece of observational evidence that shows an external energy source for the sun to do the things it does? If we scale up Birkelands experiments and apply it to the sun, we should see an enormous, easily detecable flow of electrons into the sun. When you show me this influx of energy to the sun, I'll take the Electric Sun Hypothesis serious. </p><p>Hell... I'll become a full convert.</p><p>A simple link will suffice. No opinions or thoughts and no trying to turn the tables by asking a question with a question. Just a simple link.</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 think it's pretty instructive that all the SOHO LASCO images show NO SIGNS WHATSOEVER of an incoming current flow, and only show outbound materials. That is why we all think the "the sun is being fed by cosmic current flow" hypothesis is so easily and thoroughly dismissed. Only those with electric glasses can see the imaginary current heating the sun to 6000C <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>You beat me to the punch... </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'>It's not just a single news release, it's all the news releases, and all the claims about how surprised they all seem to be. These are things that Birkeland himself could have easily explain based on only his personal work on EU theory. No one would have needed to explain this stuff to him. He would have immediately recognized the importance and significance of these observations. He would have immediately understood the importance of the "circuit energy" in these events too, something I never hear any comment about from the mainstream. They all treat these events as though they are *internally* driven processes. That is not the case. Trying to explain polar aurora in the solar atmosphere without acknowledging the *external* current flow is like trying to explain the Earth's aurora *without* trying to understand the electrical currents in the magnetosphere. Of course it's a "mystery" because it's not an *internally* driven proces in the first place! That are particularly not good at relating anything to electrical activity.The point I'm trying to make here is that all of these observations are consistent with Birkeland's emprical experiments with "electricity".<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Nobody denies Birkeland currents are not important concerning Earth's aurora. This is you building a strawman. The same pheonomena is not seen on the Sun. </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'>You beat me to the punch... <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />It's really an obvious point, but I've stopped posting in this pointless thread until I was looking at some other threads, and wandered by SOHO to do a daily comet (and very low solar activity) search.</p><p>As Maxwell Smart would say....</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 think it's pretty instructive that all the SOHO LASCO images show NO SIGNS WHATSOEVER of an incoming current flow, and only show outbound materials. </DIV></p><p>http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=28996</p><p>That's not the case.</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'>Can you point me to one single piece of observational evidence that shows an external energy source for the sun to do the things it does?</DIV></p><p>Besides the acceleration of the solar wind particles as they leave the photosphere? How does that "magically" happen from an *internal* energy source? Why is He+2 selectively favored over He+1 by many multiples?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If we scale up Birkelands experiments and apply it to the sun, we should see an enormous, easily detecable flow of electrons into the sun.</DIV></p><p>That depends on a lot of variables. We do see easily detectable flows of electrons all along the surface of the sun and "blowing out" into space too, and even being accelerated as they leave the surface. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When you show me this influx of energy to the sun, I'll take the Electric Sun Hypothesis serious. </DIV></p><p>The fact you don't realize that you should be taking it seriously now is quite a problem. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hell... I'll become a full convert.A simple link will suffice. No opinions or thoughts and no trying to turn the tables by asking a question with a question. Just a simple link. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Look up the term "strahl" in relationship to solar wind. I think you'll find plenty of materials for us to discuss. </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'>http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=28996That's not the case. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />A FEW blobs of gas (which BTW, most of the images on the page you linked to don't work) does nothing to justify your position that the power source of the sun if from intergalactic currents. <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>
Cool videos from Soho... You can clearly see a reverse flow going into the Sun and explosions afterwards. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -=RichP=- </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
See a dead Chinese satellite burn up as a brilliant fireball across the night sky (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
-
How to follow Santa Claus this Christmas Eve with NORAD's 2024 tracker
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram