Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are more comprehensive books out there that are a little more useful to me. </DIV></p><p>That "depends".&nbsp; If Alfven was correct, then his book will be more long term "useful" to you than anything else you might ever read.&nbsp;&nbsp; He did afterall apply MHD theory to the larger universe and to the plasma between the stars and galaxies.&nbsp; If he was right, you should read his work.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of course they all incorporate and mention Alfven's early work. </DIV></p><p>They only incorporate and mention Alfven's work on the "field" side of MHD theory.&nbsp; They never mention the particle side of MHD theory except in passing mention or in reference to the auroral activities themselves.&nbsp; They are never mentioned in relationship to any other events in space. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, none of them treat things in terms of circuits.</DIV></p><p>Exactly.&nbsp; They *ignore* half of MHD theory!</p><p>Maxwell's equations describe the relationship between electricity and magnetism.&nbsp; They show us that they are related phenonon. &nbsp; Maxwell's equations can be simpliifed either for B or for E.&nbsp; Both simplification routes are possible because we can subsitute for each variable.&nbsp; Priest's approach in his paper attempted to simplify for B, leaving E out of the equation altogether.&nbsp; This created a problem at the point of reconnection, because it is the charged particles that actually do the energy transfer.&nbsp; He "improvised".</p><p>Birn was more to the point, He didn't "oversimplify".&nbsp; As a result, things worked pretty well, but the naming convention he chose was a 'field' orientation naming convention.</p><p>Alfven gracefully worked between both the field orientation of MHD and what he called the "particle" view of MHD theory, the B and E simpified variations of Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; In dense, non current carrying plasma he tended to favor a *field* oriented viewpoint.&nbsp; In light, hot, current carrying plasma however, he typically preferred the particle/circuit approach. &nbsp; The naming convetions he worked with were consistent with principles of electrical engineering and particle physics and it is an equally "valid" way of describing events in plasma.&nbsp; You need to accept this point.&nbsp; There is more than one way to simplify for any equation that contains E and B from the outset and both viewpoints are valid. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> What my work will focus on is developing the physics involved in cold, dense star forming regions.</DIV></p><p>And if there is powerful current flowing through this plasma, do you think it will have any effect?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This has more to do with radiative transfer and chemistry(i.e. atomic->molecular gas transition, cooling curves, etc) than E&M. </DIV></p><p>Of course a consistent or even intermittent electrical current flow could have an an effect on "cooling" don't you think?&nbsp; My point here is that if Alfven/Birkeland's views of space are correct, it will have a direct effect upon these events.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>B fields do have a large effect on structuring the regions, so of course there will be some.</DIV></p><p>E fields on the other hand would have some noticiable and interesting effects on events in plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> My intended implication was not that reading Alfven's entire body of work would not be useful, just that there are better, more modern and applicable books for what I will be studying.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Personally I think Perratt's work is an easier read, and somewhat modernized (includes computer software simulations) but his book is out of print and it's *extremely* expensive. &nbsp;&nbsp; Alfven's work however would have a direct effect on events in your area of expertize.&nbsp; The only real question is: Was Alfven right about current flows in space?&nbsp; If the answer is yes, his work has a direct effect on your work as well.&nbsp; If the answer is no, then you may be right.&nbsp; I personally think it's highly important to get both sides of any debate, and the "predictions" each theory makes will ultimately determine the validity of the theory. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ZereoZero <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>What is the specific physical cause of neutron capture signatures and gamma radiation in the solar atmosophere?</p><p>Zero my eye! </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That "depends".&nbsp; If Alfven was correct, then his book will be more long term "useful" to you than anything else you might ever read.&nbsp;&nbsp; He did afterall apply MHD theory to the larger universe and to the plasma between the stars and galaxies.&nbsp; If he was right, you should read his work.They only incorporate and mention Alfven's work on the "field" side of MHD theory.&nbsp; They never mention the particle side of MHD theory except in passing mention or in reference to the auroral activities themselves.&nbsp; They are never mentioned in relationship to any other events in space. Exactly.&nbsp; They *ignore* half of MHD theory!Maxwell's equations describe the relationship between electricity and magnetism.&nbsp; They show us that they are related phenonon. &nbsp; Maxwell's equations can be simpliifed either for B or for E.&nbsp; Both simplification routes are possible because we can subsitute for each variable.&nbsp; Priest's approach in his paper attempted to simplify for B, leaving E out of the equation altogether.&nbsp; This created a problem at the point of reconnection, because it is the charged particles that actually do the energy transfer.&nbsp; He "improvised".Birn was more to the point, He didn't "oversimplify".&nbsp; As a result, things worked pretty well, but the naming convention he chose was a 'field' orientation naming convention.Alfven gracefully worked between both the field orientation of MHD and what he called the "particle" view of MHD theory, the B and E simpified variations of Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; In dense, non current carrying plasma he tended to favor a *field* oriented viewpoint.&nbsp; In light, hot, current carrying plasma however, he typically preferred the particle/circuit approach. &nbsp; The naming convetions he worked with were consistent with principles of electrical engineering and particle physics and it is an equally "valid" way of describing events in plasma.&nbsp; You need to accept this point.&nbsp; There is more than one way to simplify for any equation that contains E and B from the outset and both viewpoints are valid. And if there is powerful current flowing through this plasma, do you think it will have any effect?Of course a consistent or even intermittent electrical current flow could have an an effect on "cooling" don't you think?&nbsp; My point here is that if Alfven/Birkeland's views of space are correct, it will have a direct effect upon these events.E fields on the other hand would have some noticiable and interesting effects on events in plasma.Personally I think Perratt's work is an easier read, and somewhat modernized (includes computer software simulations) but his book is out of print and it's *extremely* expensive. &nbsp;&nbsp; Alfven's work however would have a direct effect on events in your area of expertize.&nbsp; The only real question is: Was Alfven right about current flows in space?&nbsp; If the answer is yes, his work has a direct effect on your work as well.&nbsp; If the answer is no, then you may be right.&nbsp; I personally think it's highly important to get both sides of any debate, and the "predictions" each theory makes will ultimately determine the validity of the theory. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>The answer to most of those questions is no.&nbsp; The majority of giant molecular clouds is, as the name implies, molecular, not ionized as would be required if you wanted to call it a plasma.&nbsp; They are certainly not "light, hot plasma"...they are very dense and have temperatures on the order of ~10K(in the cores).&nbsp; Now, there are some ions in these regions due to, for example, incident UV radiation that can strip electrons off of the molecules, but they are in general short-lived.&nbsp; As such, it is highly unlikely that these clouds are heavily influenced by any sort of current flow.</p><p>Their physics are already well-described(kind of) when they are thought of as highly magnetized, turbulent regions. &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The answer to most of those questions is no.&nbsp; The majority of giant molecular clouds is, as the name implies, molecular, not ionized as would be required if you wanted to call it a plasma.&nbsp; They are certainly not "light, hot plasma"...they are very dense and have temperatures on the order of ~10K(in the cores).&nbsp; Now, there are some ions in these regions due to, for example, incident UV radiation that can strip electrons off of the molecules, but they are in general short-lived.&nbsp; As such, it is highly unlikely that these clouds are heavily influenced by any sort of current flow.Their physics are already well-described(kind of) when they are thought of as highly magnetized, turbulent regions. &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/hot_stars_001110.html </p><p>http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2002/20020108aurigae.html</p><p>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276072,00.html</p><p>I don't know.&nbsp; It seems to me that the star formation process in particular seems to be full of "surprises" from the mainstreams current perspetive.&nbsp; What's generating those high temperatures and those jets?&nbsp; It seems to me that many of the current theories seem to be in need of "tweaking" to explain more recent observations. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/hot_stars_001110.html http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2002/20020108aurigae.htmlhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276072,00.htmlI don't know.&nbsp; It seems to me that the star formation process in particular seems to be full of "surprises" from the mainstreams current perspetive.&nbsp; What's generating those high temperatures and those jets?&nbsp; It seems to me that many of the current theories seem to be in need of "tweaking" to explain more recent observations. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Well of course when stars are actually forming, ions are present and it is better to treat it as a plasma...The cores of GMCs are thought to be the precursors to star clusters, meaning no significant star formation has started yet.&nbsp; I've made column density distribution functions based on Spitzer data of many of these regions and compared them to theoretical distributions, and the result was that the structure of these regions is not being dominated by protostellar outflow yet.&nbsp; As such, my statement that what I study is almost entirely molecular is still valid. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Well of course when stars are actually forming, ions are present and it is better to treat it as a plasma...The cores of GMCs are thought to be the precursors to star clusters, meaning no significant star formation has started yet.&nbsp; I've made column density distribution functions based on Spitzer data of many of these regions and compared them to theoretical distributions, and the result was that the structure of these regions is not being dominated by protostellar outflow yet.&nbsp; As such, my statement that what I study is almost entirely molecular is still valid. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Be that as it may, "magnetic reconnection" presumably takes place in very light, very hot, and heavily current carrying plasma.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Be that as it may, "magnetic reconnection" presumably takes place in very light, very hot, and heavily current carrying plasma.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;I'm aware.&nbsp; I was just responding to the assertion that work relevant to reconnection is relevant to what I study, and defending my assertion that buying Cosmic Plasma is not on the top of my priority list. &nbsp;</p><p>Regardless though, I think we don't have much more to discuss until myself or DrRocket reads Cosmic Plasma, but I don't count on it happening any time soon.&nbsp; DrRocket tried to argue against your interpretation specifically, basing his arguments on the part of Cosmic Plasma we have read, and you didn't really address anything he said in detail.&nbsp; So understand that, faced with that kind of response, there doesn't seem much of a point to reading it in terms of this thread.&nbsp; I, and I'm sure he, is quite confident that even after reading the book, we'd still accuse you of misinterpreting it, and we'd be back at square one. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<p>At Space Dot Com, we have a great deal of latitude in what topics are allowed, and under what circumstances they move forward.&nbsp; It's one of those things that make this message board somewhat unique.</p><p>While in no way is this a "forbidden" topic, neither has this continual argument really solved anything, save to help virtually drive all other debate clean out of this forum.&nbsp; Therefore I regret to say, after some debate at higher levels, it has been decided to move this thread to "The Unexplained."&nbsp; You all may continue your debate on this topic there.</p><p>One caveat: this does mean, please do not re-start the same topic - or any near-variation of it - in this forum. </p><p>Thank you. </p><p>Note:&nbsp; I am temporarily closing this thread so that all may read this message; I will move this thread to the "Unexplained" forum later today, and re-open it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>At Space Dot Com, we have a great deal of latitude in what topics are allowed, and under what circumstances they move forward.&nbsp; It's one of those things that make this message board somewhat unique.While in no way is this a "forbidden" topic, neither has this continual argument really solved anything, save to help virtually drive all other debate clean out of this forum.&nbsp; Therefore I regret to say, after some debate at higher levels, it has been decided to move this thread to "The Unexplained."&nbsp; You all may continue your debate on this topic there.One caveat: this does mean, please do not re-start the same topic - or any near-variation of it - in this forum. Thank you. Note:&nbsp; I am temporarily closing this thread so that all may read this message; I will move this thread to the "Unexplained" forum later today, and re-open it. <br /> </p><p>Posted by <em>yevaud</em></DIV></p><p>This thread is reopened. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>At Space Dot Com, we have a great deal of latitude in what topics are allowed, and under what circumstances they move forward.&nbsp; It's one of those things that make this message board somewhat unique.While in no way is this a "forbidden" topic, neither has this continual argument really solved anything, save to help virtually drive all other debate clean out of this forum.&nbsp; Therefore I regret to say, after some debate at higher levels, it has been decided to move this thread to "The Unexplained."&nbsp; You all may continue your debate on this topic there.One caveat: this does mean, please do not re-start the same topic - or any near-variation of it - in this forum. Thank you. Note:&nbsp; I am temporarily closing this thread so that all may read this message; I will move this thread to the "Unexplained" forum later today, and re-open it. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I rest my case. </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>

 

[yevaud]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I rest my case. <br /> </p><p>Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>No Sir, your case must plead <em>nolo Contendre</em>.&nbsp; We provide a place for people to discuss things, and state their cases.&nbsp; Or, as in this topic, act as a proxy for it's proponents and current propounders.&nbsp; But we do not provide endless time for people to plead their case either.</p><p>This topic was begun by you on April 23.&nbsp; Today is October 3.&nbsp; Close enough to 1/2 a year.</p><p>Were this subject matter in this thread moving along in a linear progression - yes, item #1 we have hashed out an agreement; yes, item #2 we have hashed out an agreement... - this would be an entirely different conversation.&nbsp; However, the same core nomenclature are going around and around in dispute, endlessly.&nbsp; It is time, therefore, for a venue change.&nbsp; Those are our (informal but long applied) rules.&nbsp; Hard Science forums are for <em>proven and accepted</em> sciences, not those under bitter controversy. </p><p>Michael, we simply cannot allow one bitterly divise topic to drown out all of the other topics in a hard science forum.&nbsp; </p><p>So here we are: your thread still exists, you are all free to debate it as you see fit, it has merely been decided it can no longer continue in the SS&A forum.</p><p>So please continue your discussion; you've merely changed rooms. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No Sir, your case must plead nolo Contendre.&nbsp; We provide a place for people to discuss things, and state their cases.&nbsp; Or, as in this topic, act as a proxy for it's proponents and current propounders.&nbsp; But we do not provide endless time for people to plead their case either.This topic was begun by you on April 23.&nbsp; Today is October 3.&nbsp; Close enough to 1/2 a year.Were this subject matter in this thread moving along in a linear progression - yes, item #1 we have hashed out an agreement; yes, item #2 we have hashed out an agreement... - this would be an entirely different conversation.&nbsp; However, the same core nomenclature are going around and around in dispute, endlessly.&nbsp; It is time, therefore, for a venue change.&nbsp; Those are our (informal but long applied) rules.&nbsp; Hard Science forums are for proven and accepted sciences, not those under bitter controversy. Michael, we simply cannot allow one bitterly divise topic to drown out all of the other topics in a hard science forum.&nbsp; So here we are: your thread still exists, you are all free to debate it as you see fit, it has merely been decided it can no longer continue in the SS&A forum.So please continue your discussion; you've merely changed rooms. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>You mean I've been politely *escorted* from the room.&nbsp; Big difference.</p><p>EU theory *is* hard science Yevaud.&nbsp; It's all been *emprically* demonstrated in contolled exrperimentation.&nbsp; Do you now intend to ban all discussion of EU theory in the SS&A forum from this point foward?</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>

 

[yevaud]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You mean I've been politely *escorted* from the room.&nbsp; Big difference.EU theory *is* hard science Yevaud.&nbsp; It's all been *emprically* demonstrated in contolled exrperimentation.&nbsp; Do you now intend to ban all discussion of EU theory in the SS&A forum from this point foward? <br /> </p><p>Posted by <em>michaelmozina</em></DIV></p><p>Michael, any further complaints on this issue should be directed to: community@imaginova.com - I merely work here.&nbsp; But my above comments are pretty much how the bottom line is.&nbsp; I'm sorry that's unacceptable to you.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael, any further complaints on this issue should be directed to: community@imaginova.com - I merely work here.&nbsp; But my above comments are pretty much how the bottom line is.&nbsp; I'm sorry that's unacceptable to you.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p><br />I don't even know if it's "acceptable" to me at this point in time.&nbsp; Do you now intend to ban all discussion of EU theory in the SS&A forum from this point forward? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't even know if it's "acceptable" to me at this point in time.&nbsp; Do you now intend to ban all discussion of EU theory in the SS&A forum from this point foward? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I understand why you're upset, given the company this thread now shares...but does it really matter where the thread is?&nbsp; It will make newcomers take the thread less seriously, but there haven't been any newcomers for quite some time so I don't think that matters.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I understand why you're upset, given the company this thread now shares...but does it really matter where the thread is?&nbsp; It will make newcomers take the thread less seriously, but there haven't been any newcomers for quite some time so I don't think that matters.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Contrary to public opinion, I'm actually not overreacting.&nbsp; I do however need to understand whether or not Yevaud intends to ban all discussion of EU theory from the SS&A forum. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It will make newcomers take the thread less seriously</DIV></p><p>Is that the point of moving 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>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Contrary to public opinion, I'm actually not overreacting.&nbsp; I do however need to understand whether or not Yevaud intends to ban all discussion of EU theory from the SS&A forum. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I didn't say you were...I'm just saying I can understand why you wouldn't be happy about a thread with a lot of good science(although our definition may differ) being discussed being moved.&nbsp; My interpretation of yevaud's actions/words is that this particular topic, i.e. that of magnetic reconnection, can no longer be discussed in the previos forum.&nbsp; He didn't move your thread on stellar structure, and I'd imagine that any thread that doesn't turn into a 70 page monster and is based on hard science would be acceptable there.&nbsp; But that's just my take on it.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is that point of moving the thread? <br /> </p><p>Posted by <em>michaelmozina</em></DIV></p><p>I repeat:&nbsp; Please email the above address, if you have any issues with this decision.</p><p>Thank you. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I didn't say you were...I'm just saying I can understand why you wouldn't be happy about a thread with a lot of good science(although our definition may differ) being discussed being moved.</DIV></p><p>Well, I do believe this thread contains a lot of good science so the "motive" of the move becomes very important. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> My interpretation of yevaud's actions/words is that this particular topic, i.e. that of magnetic reconnection, can no longer be discussed in the previos forum.</DIV></p><p>You'd close an entire topic of conversation just because you don't like it being "questioned" in the open?&nbsp; Or will I simply be banned from discussing it on the SS&A forum due to my heretical beliefs?&nbsp; There are lots of unanswered questions I have about the motive behind moving this thread. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He didn't move your thread on stellar structure, and I'd imagine that any thread that doesn't turn into a 70 page monster and is based on hard science would be acceptable there.&nbsp; But that's just my take on it.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I would personally think that the single most active discussion on the forum for almost 6 months would remain on that particular forum.&nbsp; I've gone to great lengths to make my case about the bias against EU theory in the mainstream and moving this thread now, after being the single biggest thread since it's inception is, well, a bit "suspicious".</p><p>If entire topics of conversation become "prohibited" from SS&A discussion, what exactly is being prohibited?&nbsp; Me?&nbsp; EU theory in general?&nbsp; Magnetic reconnection discussions?&nbsp; Can I respond to someone else's question on the SS&A forums about these topics if the question is posed by someone else?&nbsp; Do you see my predicament?&nbsp; I need a bit more information about the scope of this change. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I repeat:&nbsp; Please email the above address, if you have any issues with this decision.Thank you. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I really don't know if I even have any "issues" with this decision because I do not yet understand the full scope of this decision.&nbsp; If you could reply to a few of the points I raised with UFMButler, that would be quite helpful in deciding how to proceed. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

If entire topics of conversation become "prohibited" from SS&A discussion, what exactly is being prohibited?&nbsp; Me?&nbsp; EU theory in general?&nbsp; Magnetic reconnection discussions?&nbsp; Can I respond to someone else's questions on solar topics in a pro-EU fashion on the SS&A forums about these topics if the question is posed by someone else?&nbsp; Do you see my predicament?&nbsp; I need a bit more information about the scope of this change. <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>

 

[nimbus]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Contrary to public opinion, I'm actually not overreacting.&nbsp; I do however need to understand whether or not Yevaud intends to ban all discussion of EU theory from the SS&A forum. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />He's not banning EU. He's moving a discussion that's going in circles - effectively going nowhere, which in a hard science forum == not reaching any explanation - to a forum made just for those.&nbsp; I wager (a beer, e.g.) that if this discussion makes it out of its rut and doesn't cause too much grief in the process, it'll be moved back to the astronomy forum where it'll <em>then </em>definitely belong. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nimbus]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If entire topics of conversation become "prohibited" from SS&A discussion, what exactly is being prohibited?&nbsp; Me?&nbsp; EU theory in general?&nbsp; Magnetic reconnection discussions?&nbsp; Can I respond to someone else's questions on solar topics in a pro-EU fashion on the SS&A forums about these topics if the question is posed by someone else?&nbsp; Do you see my predicament?&nbsp; I need a bit more information about the scope of this change. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br />Like I said above and like I doubt you could deny, it's not the topic nor you that's the problem, nor is it a matter of anything being banned; the discussion was going in circles and degrading as it did so.&nbsp; Both sides of the debate simply weren't getting thru to each other anymore.. There was barely anything constructive happening.</p><p>I would have liked Borman from uplink.space.com to have chimed in.. He had a good way with these sorts of dead ends.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Like I said above and like I doubt you could deny, it's not the topic nor you that's the problem, nor is it a matter of anything being banned; the discussion was going in circles and degrading as it did so.&nbsp; Both sides of the debate simply weren't getting thru to each other anymore.. There was barely anything constructive happening.I would have liked Borman from uplink.space.com to have chimed in.. He had a good way with these sorts of dead ends. <br /> Posted by nimbus</DIV></p><p>But the "dead end' is not with me.&nbsp; I have accepted that Birn's presentation of 'magnetic reconnection" could simply be an arguement about semantics.&nbsp; If someone seriously believes that 'magnetic reconnection' is something other than the "circuit reconnection" that Birkeland used in his emprical experiments, let them come forth and explain *exactly* what is "unique" about 'magnetic reconnection" that isn't explained by Alfven's "circuit" orientation to MHD theory.&nbsp; I've yet to hear a cohesive argument that demonstrates that magnetic reconnection isn't identical to "circuit reconnection', or "current sheet acceleration" as Alfven described it.</p><p>The dead end here is not really from my end.&nbsp; I've certainly provided ample quotes from Alfven, and ample physical expermients to support my case.&nbsp; That seems to be lacking on the other side of the aisle.</p><p>I do however hear your other arguments and frankly I agree that the conversation has deevolved in ways that are unfortunate.&nbsp; We should be focused only on the *physics*, not on the indivudual personalities.&nbsp; I've presented my case in terms of *physics* complete with real emprical experiments with real control mechanisms, and supported by MHD theory as Alfven taught it. </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>