Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

michaelmozina · Oct 3, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Were this subject matter in this thread moving along in a linear progression - yes, item #1 we have hashed out an agreement;</DIV>We do all seem to agree that magnetic lines do not "disconnect" or "reconnect".  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>yes, item #2 we have hashed out an agreement... </DIV>We do all seem to agree that there are valid physicsl and mathematical presentations of "magnetic reconnection".  Beleive me when I say that was in doubt, particularly after reading Priest's paper that invoked monopoles (granted as a "device") of some kind.  We all seem to agree that Birn's presentation has merit in terms of the math and physics being presented.  That's progress IMO.The third thing that we all seem to agree upon by the way is that "current" is flowing through those "magnetic lines".We all seem to agree that current flow is a necessary component in this process.  We do seem to be making some progress.Where we seem to be getting "stuck" at the moment is the notion of whether or not it is scientifically acceptable to describe this current stream in the magnetic line as a "circuit".    We've made progress, but there seems to be a lot that is still unresolved, but only for the moment. I did in fact make an attempt to contact the author of the paper we all agree is useful in an attempt to resulve this disagreement.  I have made every good faith effort to see things from the "field" orientation from MHD theory.  The place were are getting stuck is not personally related to my own beliefs, but rather the beleifs of the founder of MHD theory.  What can I rationally do here, take the word of people who've never even bothered to read his work in earnest?Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>- this would be an entirely different conversation. </DIV>I think it is a different conversation than you seem to percieve it to be.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, the same core nomenclature are going around and around in dispute, endlessly.</DIV>Is that my fault?  Did I email Birn in good faith?Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It is time, therefore, for a venue change. </DIV>IMO that is a dangerous decision.  Assuming EU theory is valid (and I believe it to be) this has been the most interesting conversation about that topic that has occured on this website in my two and a half years of participation on this website.  Not all conversation are 'easily resolved', or "instantly resolved".  Some change takes time.  I've not seen any pro-EU papers published by the mainstream during the timeline of this discussion, have you?IMO, Rome wasn't built in a day, and the bias against EU theory isn't likely to be resolved real soon. Shouldn't this forum be a bastion of free speech and tolerant and patient enough to allow a thread to run it's course and serve it's purpose? <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>

dougstuff · Oct 3, 2008

We can't split an electron... or can we? If it is 'un-split-able', wouldn't that make it a singularity? If it's a singularity, wouldn't that imply infinite gravity? Isn't light just the 'noise' of electrons shifting shells? If the noise is limited to specific frequencies (visible light), why then is the speed of light the ultimate constant? I'd expect higher frequencies to move faster... but they don't. Hmmmmn. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I want what I want I get what I want You don't want me when I don't get what I want </div>

UFmbutler · Oct 4, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We can't split an electron... or can we? If it is 'un-split-able', wouldn't that make it a singularity? If it's a singularity, wouldn't that imply infinite gravity? Isn't light just the 'noise' of electrons shifting shells? If the noise is limited to specific frequencies (visible light), why then is the speed of light the ultimate constant? I'd expect higher frequencies to move faster... but they don't. Hmmmmn. Posted by dougstuff</DIV>There seems to be a trend of new people posting completely unrelated posts in random threads lately...but anyways Well, first you'd need to define "split"...if we could say cut it in half, it would not be a singularity.  Electrons have a finite mass and are in fact made of even smaller more fundamental particles.  Light(photons) can be produced when an electron is excited or de-excited to different levels, yes, but that is not the only source of photons.  And, photons are not limited to specific frequencies, otherwise the fields of infrared, radio, gamma ray, millimeter, etc astronomy would not exist.  The energy of a photon is given by plancks constant(h)*frequency, so in theory, with an energetic enough event, the photon could be any frequency it wants.    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dougstuff · Oct 4, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There seems to be a trend of new people posting completely unrelated posts in random threads lately...but anyways Well, first you'd need to define "split"...if we could say cut it in half, it would not be a singularity.  Electrons have a finite mass and are in fact made of even smaller more fundamental particles.  Light(photons) can be produced when an electron is excited or de-excited to different levels, yes, but that is not the only source of photons.  And, photons are not limited to specific frequencies, otherwise the fields of infrared, radio, gamma ray, millimeter, etc astronomy would not exist.  The energy of a photon is given by plancks constant(h)*frequency, so in theory, with an energetic enough event, the photon could be any frequency it wants.    Posted by UFmbutler</DIV> Oh my... I'm sorry! I didn't know I was to get permission before posting in a thread. My bad!Mother May I? And, per my 'unrelated' post, maybe you can help me understand the other type of electricity you guys are discussing... the type that doesn't involve electrons? I do know electron movement can emit many different frequencies of noise, many of which our eyes can't hear but I never knew they could be split, oh... excuse me - "cut in half".  If so, what are these sub-electron particles and how do they stick together? If you "cut in half" an electron, do you have two mini electrons or does it cease to be an electron altogether? I'm not any type of expert on the subject of "The Unexplained", rather, just a simple man trying to learn and understand as much I can. Please forgive my curiosity.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-foot-in-mouth.gif" border="0" alt="Foot in mouth" title="Foot in mouth" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I want what I want I get what I want You don't want me when I don't get what I want </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Oct 4, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh my... I'm sorry! I didn't know I was to get permission before posting in a thread. My bad!Mother May I? And, per my 'unrelated' post, maybe you can help me understand the other type of electricity you guys are discussing... the type that doesn't involve electrons? I do know electron movement can emit many different frequencies of noise, many of which our eyes can't hear but I never knew they could be split, oh... excuse me - "cut in half".  If so, what are these sub-electron particles and how do they stick together? If you "cut in half" an electron, do you have two mini electrons or does it cease to be an electron altogether? I'm not any type of expert on the subject of "The Unexplained", rather, just a simple man trying to learn and understand as much I can. Please forgive my curiosity. Posted by dougstuff</DIV>IMO, this is a good introduction to the Standard Model: http://www.particleadventure.org/frameless/startstandard.html (Requires Flash) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

UFmbutler · Oct 4, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh my... I'm sorry! I didn't know I was to get permission before posting in a thread. My bad!Mother May I? And, per my 'unrelated' post, maybe you can help me understand the other type of electricity you guys are discussing... the type that doesn't involve electrons? I do know electron movement can emit many different frequencies of noise, many of which our eyes can't hear but I never knew they could be split, oh... excuse me - "cut in half".  If so, what are these sub-electron particles and how do they stick together? If you "cut in half" an electron, do you have two mini electrons or does it cease to be an electron altogether? I'm not any type of expert on the subject of "The Unexplained", rather, just a simple man trying to learn and understand as much I can. Please forgive my curiosity. Posted by dougstuff</DIV>My "cut in half" phrase was clearly not meant to be taken literally.  As I said, it depends what you mean by split.  As of now, electrons are believed to be an elementary particle, but there are some theories which would say otherwise.  It's not entirely relevant though because this thread isn't about electrons really, it's more about "EU" theory.  A mod may disagree but your question is better suited for a new thread(assuming one about that specifically doesnt already exist). I have no problem with the question or your curiosity, just where you put it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 5, 2008

Yevaud’s moving of this thread to obscurity is certainly the best “demonstration” of the irrational bias towards EU theory that I can possibly think of.   Evidently I’ve stepped on too many toes, for too long now, and I’ve touched upon the “holy grail” of solar physics, namely “magnetic reconnection”.   Everything that astronomers do not understand about solar physics, from solar wind acceleration, to coronal loop formation, to CME’s, to fast moving “helical jets”, to extreme plasma heating, etc, is being “explained” by the mainstream in terms of “magnetic reconnection”.  This “topic” has evidently become too hot to handle because it’s threatening to a key “dogma” of astronomy.   Astronomers *assume* that the plasma of the universe is “neutral”, where EU theory presumes that the plasma of the universe is carrying electrical current and that flows through our solar system.  Our solar system is but one of the solar systems that is at least partially “powered” by these external electrical currents.   So what did we learn in this thread about magnetic reconnection theory?  We learned that magnetic lines never actually disconnect or reconnect.  We learned that all these magnetic “lines” which presumably “reconnect” actually contain strong current flows according to Birn.  We learned that “current flows” inside these “lines” are necessary components in “magnetic reconnection”.  Without this current flow, reconnection would not occur in plasma.   We also learned that Alfven explicitly “explained’ all these exact same high energy discharge phenomenon, and energy transfer processes in terms of “circuits”.  He explicitly accounted for the “circuit energy” that each of the circuits contains.  He too knew that there was current flow and movement in these “lines” and therefore he used the term ‘circuit” to describe them, even individual coronal loops.   We also learned that all these high energy events are intimately linked back to Birkeland’s empirical experiments.  Birkeland created fast moving “helical jets” in the lab.  He simulated solar wind acceleration.  He created high temperature, high energy “loops” in the atmosphere of spheres.  In short, everything that the mainstream is now trying to link to “magnetic reconnection” has already been empirically shown to be directly related to “current flow” and “circuit reconnection”.  That is empirical fact.   We also learned that Rhessi observes gamma rays from the Earth’s atmosphere that have been shown to be related to electrical discharges in the Earth’s atmosphere.  We have learned that z-pinch, current carrying processes can pinch free neutrons from plasma.  We have learned that both of these events occur in the solar atmosphere, in the same configurations predicted by Birkeland.   We’ve learned that coronal loops appear in the solar atmosphere just as Birkeland originally “predicted”.  We learned that helical “jets” (AKA Birkeland currents) shoot off the surface of the sun, just as Birkeland “predicted”.  We learned that solar wind acceleration is constant as Birkeland “predicted”.    In short we see that the key “predictions” of Birkeland’s EU model have been observed in nature, in the atmosphere of the Earth, and in the atmosphere of the sun.  We also learned that electricity is indeed the “forbidden” topic of astronomy.   How important is this topic of magnetic reconnection?  Evidently it’s so important that it was necessary to move this thread and never talk about it again in the SS&A forum.  Why?  Well, this is the where the mainstream’s dogmatic belief system about the neutrality of space plasma meets reality head on, and it’s not pretty, in fact it’s a train wreck.   The mainstream is attempting to explain all these events from an “internal” perspective, as though the sun is the sole power source of energy in this solar system.  That is not the case according to Birkeland.  The energy of the universe flows into and through our solar system in Birkeland’s experiments, it is not all “internally” produced.   That is why the outer atmosphere around the sun is much hotter rather than cooler than the photosphere.   We’re getting too close now to the holy grail of solar physics.  If we now begin to understand that each magnetic “line’ is just a current carrying “circuit”, then the mainstream’s belief systems begin to crumble.  Why?  How?  Well, now the mainstream will have to admit that these are not simply ‘open magnetic lines” we see flowing toward the heliosphere, but rather they are current carrying “circuits” of energy flowing though our solar system.  Those high energy solar events are not simply ‘magnetic” in nature, instead they are “electromagnetic discharges” in the solar atmosphere.   Those “jets” are *electromagnetically* connected to the heliosphere, not just simple “magnetic lines”.  In short, the whole of Birkeland’s work becomes applicable to the topic of solar physics and solar astronomy.  We would then have to admit that some guy from 100 years ago had a better understanding of solar physics and solar system physics than the whole of the mainstream today.  We can’t have that.     This topic is also “hot” because it conclusively demonstrates that EU theory is empirically scientifically valid, and it’s a demonstrably “better” scientific explanation for solar atmospheric physics than the one being used by the mainstream.  It shows that EU theory has actually “predicted” all these events and it has already “explained” all of these events, right down to the empirical “testing” of concept, something the mainstream is loathe to even attempt with “magnetic reconnection”.   I want you to think about something Yevaud.  I met this group half way.  I didn’t just toss all forms of magnetic reconnection aside based on Priest’s invocation of “monopoles”.  I kept reading papers until I found a presentation of magnetic reconnection that did meet the criteria of real physics.  I quoted Birn from his paper when he pointed out that “obviously” these magnetic lines contained streams of moving plasma.   I showed where Alfven equated such streams of current with “circuits”, in the same places the mainstream attributes them to “magnetic reconnection”, namely coronal loops and auroral activity.  I did everything I could think of to resolve this debate, including emailing Birn himself.   I met these folks half way.  In other words I’m willing to admit that you could be right and this “could be” simply a question about semantics, not physics.  The opposition however hasn’t budged an inch.  They completely and utterly refuse to see that the “particle/circuit” viewpoint (the E viewpoint rather than the B field viewpoint) is equally valid. They refuse to embrace the “particle” side of MHD theory that Alfven used to explain these same high energy events.   Birn won’t respond either.  What can I logically do then to resolve this debate that I have not already done?  How has the other side moved in any way, or even responded to the key points Alfven makes?   Your moving this thread to obscurity is the best example of this irrational bias that I can think of.  This thread is *loaded* with excellent references from both sides of this magnetic reconnection debate.  It absolutely deserves to be in the SS&A thread until there is a resolution to this debate.   By moving this thread you’re setting a dangerous precedent, by requiring resolution to follow some particularly timeline, or that it be a “comfortable” discussion.  Science doesn’t always work that way.   Don’t you think that Galileo got yelled at, and created hard feelings when he claimed that the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe?  It took the mainstream 70 years to realize that Birkeland’s ‘circuit reconnection” model was more valid that Chapman’s ideas.  It could take them another 70 years at this rate before they realize  that his solar theories were equally valid.   You can’t judge the merit of a thread by how fast it is “resolved’ or by how quickly things proceed toward resolution.   I admit that I’m highly disappointed by your decision.   As a businessman, as a husband and as a father, I consider my time to be very valuable.  I’ve put a tremendous amount of time and effort into presenting EU concepts in the most scientific way I can think of.     I feel personally “ripped off” now by you moving this thread to the wilderness where as UFMBulter notes it will not be taken seriously.  I think that stinks on a personal level.  Oh well, I’ll get over it.   What’s far worse IMO is that free speech has been dealt a heavy blow this weekend.  I know of know other primary astronomy forums on the internet that have protected free speech as much as this website.  That has always impressed me over the years.   Today however it has become “taboo” to discuss the topic of “magnetic reconnection” and its relationship to EU theory on the SS&A forum, and that is a loss for everyone.  EU theory is pure empirical physics.  It’s been “lab tested” with real control mechanism in real empirical experiments.  “Circuit reconnection” has been shown to create each and every phenomenon that the mainstream now associates with “magnetic reconnection”, right down to the gamma radiation and neutron capture signatures in the solar atmosphere.  Coincidence?   Absolutely not!   I’m sad that this forum has compromised its values and its integrity on this specific issue due to political pressure.  I realize you're just doing your "job" Yevaud, but that's exactly the problem.  MOND theories are never dumped here only because they don’t jive with mainstream beliefs.   It's now fine to discuss non emprically demonstrated ideas on the SS&A forum, but emprically demonstrated science is rejected.   I won’t bother posting to this thread over here in the wilderness beyond this point.   The sad part from my perspective is that I’m sure my time on this website is now severely “limited”.  No doubt now that every time I mention in the SS&A threads that EU theory can be applied to some specific observed phenomenon in the universe (including “magnetic reconnection&rdquo

I’ll be accused of ‘hijacking’ the thread and breaking the new rules.   Soon EU discussions and of course my input will simply be “curtailed” whether I like it or not.  That's the way free speech is always stiffled.    <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 · Oct 5, 2008

Ah yes, it begins: the problem is not someone's inability to prove their points, or not get into weeks-long arguments about nomenclature and minutae, it naturally must be the work of someone "out to get you."Perhaps, instead of seeking to finger blame, you should consider how it is that in six months, you were unable to convince well-trained people in scientific disciplines as to the correctness of your points.I repeat for the final time: if you have any further complaints, contact the email address you were provided. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 5, 2008

I must adnit I was wrong. This endless, pointless thread is much easier to ignore in "The Unexplained"Mea Culpa. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 5, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ah yes, it begins: the problem is not someone's inability to prove their points, or not get into weeks-long arguments about nomenclature and minutae, it naturally must be the work of someone "out to get you."</DIV>It has nothing to do with me personally and everything to do with "electricity" as it relates to solar astronomy or anything outside of the aurora itself.  It is the forbiden topic, the one thing nobody is allowed to talk about, "or else".     We can all see what happens when someone gets out of line and disagrees with the party line.   Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Perhaps, instead of seeking to finger blame, you should consider how it is that in six months, you were unable to convince well-trained people in scientific disciplines as to the correctness of your points.</DIV>For 70 years Birkeland's emprical and incredible work was unable to convince well trained people in scientific disciplines.  They prefered Chapman's ideas.   It wook satellites in space to resolve that dispute.  Alfven won the Nobel Prize, and he was unable to convince the mainstream.  Six months is the blink of an eye in terms of "convincing' people of anything.  I guess you figure every debate has to be "settled" by a certain length of time or something?   Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I repeat for the final time: if you have any further complaints, contact the email address you were provided. Posted by yevaud</DIV>I'm done with this particular topic.  This thread, and what you ultimately did with this thread, demonstrates my point better than I could have ever hoped to do in words alone.    <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 · Oct 5, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I must adnit I was wrong. This endless, pointless thread is much easier to ignore in "The Unexplained"Mea Culpa. Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV>And of course, that was in fact the whole point of moving this thread to this forum in the  first place.

<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 · Oct 5, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is the forbiden topic, the one thing nobody is allowed to talk about, "or else".Posted by michaelmozina</DIV>Pardon me, but you had a half a year in this thread to talk about it freely. You seem to believe you are the first who has had a thread moved from a science forum to here.  That would be dead-wrong.  And in many of those cases, exactly the same thing occured: blame being laid at our feet; the statements of dark conspiracy trying to quash the topic; the self-justification.A brief Google search of your username reveals that you have spent quite a long time (years) attempting to convince people you are correct. Michael, no one - NO ONE - in this world is going to allow you forever to convince people.  No one.  These boards are businesses, and they have a limited patience for one topic, one person, hogging up all discussion in their fora.  That's a simple fact of life.Now, Sir, what perhaps did you expect the environment on a science message board would be?  Here, as in a "peer review lite," you are trying to convince people who are equally well-trained as you in the correctness of your theory.  Think about that for a moment.  Those science forums are not a soapbox, to be used to "get the message out."  They are a battlefield of competing ideas, and yours simply ran out of time by our simple rules.[Edited several times for clarity and tone] <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 5, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Pardon me, but you had a half a year in this thread to talk about it freely.</DIV>So why take away those freedoms now?  What exactly did I do wrong or to offend you?Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Seeking to transfer blame for the inability to convince people.</DIV>There is no guarantee that a scientific argument is going to convince others.  Birkeland's aurora theories were shoved into the background by the mainstream in favor of Chapman's theories for nearly 70 years.  Alfven spent his entire life arguing the validity of EU theory.  Since when was "truth" measured in how "convincing" one is over a six month window?Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are utilizing someone's message board, for which they pay out of their own pocket to run.</DIV>So this is not a scientific decision, but a financial one, is that it?Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Assuming you have an infinite amount of time in which to keep re-stating and re-stating again the same issue runs into a wall sooner or later.  Your thread did.</DIV>It wasn't my fault it stalled however, and that was only a temporary condition.  I used new refernece material and UFMButler has just posted the first few pages of Alfven's book as well.  It's not like there was "no hope" for a resolution.  I bent over backwards looking for a legitimate presenation of "magnetic reconnection" and I emailed the author in search of clerication.  I can't make people respond, nor agree with Alfven's 'circuit" explanations.   I was however willing to concede that we "could be" simply arguing about semantics, whereas other believed some new form of "reconnection" was taking place in plasma.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And finally the obligatory blaming of someone else as being some nefarious force operating "against you," </DIV>It's not personal, nor have I ever claimed it was personal.  The bias isn't directed at me, but rather it is directed at EU theory as a whole.   Birkeland's work on solar theory for instance is simply "not welcome" on many mainstream forums, unlike MOND theories and a host of other "against the mainstream" topics.  There is a real hostility toward the notion of 'electricity" in space.  It's not some "nefarious" force, just a monetary one evidently.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>followed by ignoring all of the previous I posted and (again) blaming someone else.</DIV>What exactly did I do wrong?  I went the extra mile to find a suitable paper on "magnetic reconnection" that I felt was scientifically viable.  I emailed the author of this paper.  I "agreed" that the "field" orientation of MHD theory is viable, whereas no one here seems to want to admit that the "particle/circuit" orientation of MHD is equally viable.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You seem to believe you are the first who has had a thread moved from a science forum to here.  That would be dead-wrong. </DIV>That's not surprising but I never believed my thread was the first to be moved.  It was however the first of *my* threads that have been moved.  Hopefully it's the last one too.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And in many of those cases, exactly the same thing occured: blame being laid at our feet;</DIV>The only "blame" I happen to lay our your person feet is I suppose I "blame" you for not being more patient.  I had already agreed that we could be arguing semantics.  It wasn't me that got us "stuck" and we had not exhasted all options.  I don't "blame" you that I couldn't convince the three other primary participants of the thread.  I don't even know for a fact that you and I personally disagree on this topic.  I certainly don't blame you for anything but being "impatient", and that could be easily recitified if you so chose.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>the statements of dark conspiracy trying to quash the topic; the self-justification.</DIV>If you weren't trying to "quash" the topic, why bothering making the effort to move the thread in the first place?  It really was not as "stuck"" as you seem to make it out to be.  The part that was "stuck" wasn't from my end.  I accepted that the field orientation of MHD is scientifically valid, but it's not the *only* orientation that is valid.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A brief Google search of your username reveals that you have spent quite a long time (years) attempting to convince people you are correct. </DIV>Who hasn't?  How long have you posted here?  Don't you believe that your beliefs are accurate and worth "convincing" others?Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Inasmuch as almost every board you have done so has numerous, scientifically well-trained people responding to you, and they all disagreed with you should perhaps have told you something. </DIV>The don't agree with Birkeland or Alfven either.  So what?  Birkeland was right and Chapman was wrong.  Birkeland was right and "magnetic reconnection' proponents are "sort of right" depending on whether or no one agrees that magnetic reconnection and circuit reconnection are one and the same principle.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I regret that it didn't.</DIV>Well, me too, but if Alfven didn't convince them after all his years, and Birkeland's writings haven't convinced them in over 100 years, I certainly can't say I "expected" to do a lot of convincing in the first 6 months.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael, no one - NO ONE - in this world is going to allow you forever to convince people.  No one.</DIV>It's not me that will do the convincing anyway, it's the universe itself that will eventually convince you that it is electrical in nature.  It's behaviors are "predictiable" and understandable as Birkeland demonstrated. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>These boards are businesses, and they have a limited patience for one topic, one person, kludging up their fora.  That's a simple fact of life. Posted by yevaud</DIV>Banning the first individual for their "beliefs" is relatively difficult.  After than it becomes a slipperly slope of "protecting" your own beliefs and it gets a lot "easier".  Science isn't always "easy", nor is it always "cordial", or "fast'.  Some things take time, some things require more evidence.  Those gamma rays won't stop coming from the solar atmosphere, and Rhessi will continue to observe more neutron capture signatures in the solar atmosphere.  Sooner or later other people like Bruce will connect the dots and the chorus of EU proponents will get louder and harder to ignore.  Until then, I'm simply the "messenger' who's noticing that Birkeland's work and Alfven's work is applicable to solar theory and to other topics related to aatronomy.  No amount of silencing the individual will solve your problem.  More people will dare to speak heretical beliefs and you will have to deal with them too.  How you choose to treat those who dissent with mainstream opinions says a lot about the character of this board.   Thus far you, Wayne, Calli and everyone else that moderates here has impressed me greatly, but this is certainly a "low water" mark from my vantage point.  I hope you at least realize that I have every bit as much conviction in EU theory as you have in your personal beliefs.   My motives are not dishonable, and they are no different from yours.   I believe that EU theory is the "wave of the future".  I too am one of it's "converts".  The concept was created a long time ago by a guy in a lab who turned out to know more than the mainstream and the followers of Chapman.  He knew more than the mainstream today too IMO.   Sooner or that that will become apparent and my 'motives' won't seem as "sinister' from your perspective anymore. <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 · Oct 5, 2008

Ah, OK.  You were replying while I was editing my post into a more polite form. All of which beggars the issue, Michael.  This message board is not your property, it belongs to someone(s), and they have their own rules.  You and I and everyone else here must abide by them.You joined the previous board on 3/22/2006, and this has been a continual and nearly sole topic of yours since.  So in reality, you haven't had only six months to state your case, you have actually had around 2 1/2 years opportunity to discuss this lone topic, on this one message board, in the same forum. This topic is moved to a more appropriate forum, where the rules are a bit more wide open. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 6, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ah, OK.  You were replying while I was editing my post into a more polite form. All of which beggars the issue, Michael.  This message board is not your property, it belongs to someone(s), and they have their own rules.</DIV>Sure, and as a self employed businessman I respect that fact.  I also respect the fact that I am a "guest" at this forum.  I am not aware however of any rules which I have violated.  Can you cite me the specific one(s) that I violated so that I can be careful not to do it again?Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You and I and everyone else here must abide by them.</DIV>Of course, but to the best of my knowledge I have abided by all of them.  To my knowledge I have been careful not to violate any of the posted rules of the SS&A forum.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You joined the previous board on 3/22/2006, and this has been a continual and nearly sole topic of yours since.</DIV>I've  participated in a lot of different threads over the past 2 1/2 years, so I don't really know what "sole" topic you might be talking about.  The magnetic reconnection thing is relatively new.  It wasn't even on my radar screen when I started this particular thread.  The THEMIS paper seemed to get that debate started.   I've discussed a range of topics on this forum, from dark energy, to inflation, to dark matter, to magnetic reconnection, and of course EU theory in general. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> So in reality, you haven't had only six months to state your case, you have actually had around 2 1/2 years opportunity to discuss this lone topic, on this one message board, in the same forum,</DIV>Which "lone" topic are we talking about exactly, EU theory?  Is there a posted rule prohibiting the advocacy of EU theory (or MOND theory or any other scientific theory) in the SS&A forum theory that I am unaware of?Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This topic is moved to a more appropriate forum, where the rules are a bit more wide open. Posted by yevaud</DIV>This sentence would again suggest that there was a specific rule which I violated on the SS&A forum and it would help me to understand what that rule was.  I am still unclear about the scope of this change you have made and what it means to my participation on the SS&A forum.  I have posted to the SS&A forum rather exclusively over the past few years since I have a love of astronomy.  I've never even participated in this particular forum that I can recall, so I don't really see why it is any "better" here, or which rules here are more "wide open" exactly.  I'm quite confused at this point. Is is just this one thread (forbidden topic concept) that I can't discuss on the SS&A forum, or am I no longer allowed to even discuss the topic of "magnetic reconnection" on the SS&A forum?  Am I banned from discussing the whole topic of EU theory in general on the SS&A forum, or what?  I have no idea what you expect me to do now.  Since I'm still interested in astronomy, I could start a new thread on the SS&A forum about the "cause" of coronal loops, or the "cause" of solar wind acceleration, but would that just get you angry or what?   Care to clerify any of these things in public so we can all be clear on what you expect of me so this does not happen again in the future? <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>

doublehelix · Oct 7, 2008

I support Yevaud's decision to move this thread.  The EU theory is generally housed in forums like The Unexplained/Phenomena elsewhere, so I have no issue with it living there. There is no censorship going on, either.  We have not prohibited you from stating your case, and you are free to continue posting in this thread.  The Unexplained does have more flexibility in its overall subject matter, and I think the EU thread fits well here. I think this is a compromise between those who indeed want the thread closed, and those who want to continue to discuss.  It is not perfect, but it will have to do for now. We do not plan to move it back to SS&A. Please do not start another thread in SS&A on this same topic, as that would be considered crossposting and against the community guidelines, and will be deleted.-dh   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> doublehelix, Community Manager Imaginova </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I support Yevaud's decision to move this thread.  The EU theory is generally housed in forums like The Unexplained/Phenomena elsewhere, so I have no issue with it living there.</DIV>So you are now telling me that I am not at liberty to discuss, not only the topic of magnetic reconnection in the SS&A forum (which is the topic that got "stuck), but *any* aspect of EU theory in the SS&A forum? Which exact rule of the SS&A forum did I violate?  Where does it say that EU theory as a whole is not to be discussed on that forum? <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 · Oct 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>After reading Arxiv.org for several years, and after participating on these astronomy oriented websites for the past few years, I've noticed a repeating pattern.  Fortunately that pattern is not universal, and it does not apply to this particular message board IMO.  I am therefore curious if the moderators (and everyone else for that matter) have noticed a similar problem in astronomy as a whole?</DIV>Note that this is the opening paragraph of my original post to this thread.   You are now suggesting that instead of noticing (as a moderator) that it is a problem, you decide to participate in the problem yourself?  You can't be serious. Which specific parts of Birkeland's emprical experiments am I personally not allowed to discuss in the SS&A forum?  Why am I not allowed to discuss those specifically identified parts of his emprical experiments in the SS&A forum? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Note that this is the opening paragraph of my original post to this thread.   You are now suggesting that instead of noticing (as a moderator) that it is a problem, you decide to participate in the problem yourself?  You can't be serious. Which specific parts of Birkeland's emprical experiments am I personally not allowed to discuss in the SS&A forum?  Why am I not allowed to discuss those specifically identified parts of his emprical experiments in the SS&A forum? Posted by michaelmozina</DIV> You know Michael, your paranoia and style of posting have gotten you banned on every other board you have been on.At least here you are being allowed to continue the thread.Quit whining while you are ahead, unless you want more fodder for "the whole world is against me" argument. Everyone here is tired of it.It is possible that is your ultimate goal, but I don't think that would help you continue to get your message out.If you posted relevant arguments on something in the SS&A forum, I'm sure it would be permitted. If you posted irrelevant and line by line dissections of others posts with no useful contribution to the content of the threrad, as you have in this one, I would suspect there would be repercussions.Just 2 cents from the cheap seats.I'm not a mod, just trying to give friendly and useful advice. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You know Michael, your paranoia and style of posting have gotten you banned on every other board you have been on.At least here you are being allowed to continue the thread.Quit whining while you are ahead, unless you want more fodder for "the whole world is against me" argument. Everyone here is tired of it.It is possible that is your ultimate goal, but I don't think that would help you continue to get your message out.If you posted relevant arguments on something in the SS&A forum, I'm sure it would be permitted. If you posted irrelevant and line by line dissections of others posts with no useful contribution to the content of the threrad, as you have in this one, I would suspect there would be repercussions.Just 2 cents from the cheap seats.I'm not a mod, just trying to give friendly and useful advice. Wayne Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV>You typically do give good friendly advice and I do hear you on several of those points. All I'm actually trying to understand is what I am allowed and not allowed to discuss next on the SS&A forum.  The topic I'm most interested in at the moment is "coronal loops".  I would be happy to start a new thread on the SS&A forum and present an EU oriented viewpoint of that particular topic starting with Birkeland's "explained" empircal experiments and Alfven's paper on this topic, and simply move along.  If however that is going to "irk" the moderators and end up back in this forum rather than the one related to topics that are related to space, I'd like to know about it ahead of time.   I don't read minds, so I do have to ask questions. <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>

doublehelix · Oct 7, 2008

is that threads that discuss the EU theory belong in The Unexplained. Thanks. -dh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> doublehelix, Community Manager Imaginova </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>is that threads that discuss the EU theory belong in The Unexplained. Thanks. -dh Posted by doublehelix</DIV>But it's not "unexplained".  In fact it is the only theory about coronal loops that *is empricallly explained and replicated in a lab*!  You mean to tell me that emprical, lab tested physics is "off limits" in the SS&A forum? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 7, 2008

michael becomes Icarus... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

derekmcd · Oct 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But it's not "unexplained".  In fact it is the only theory about coronal loops that *is empricallly explained and replicated in a lab*!  You mean to tell me that emprical, lab tested physics is "off limits" in the SS&A forum? Posted by michaelmozina</DIV>Nice loaded question you already know the answer to.  There's nothing wrong with Birkeland's experiments.  It's when you make leaps of faith that because Birkeland required and external power source to light up his experiments, then the Sun must be powered by external sources.  The Sun is not powered by the Norweigen power grid.It's when you start making wild interpretations of what you think is explained and what you think you see is when your threads devolve.Now you are going to sit here and relentlessly complain and ultimately irritate the mods when you where specifically told to discuss their motives in private.  You are going to push it like you have done in nearly every other forum I have seen you in and get yourself banned.  Every thread, throughout the various forums you have participated in, evolves and devolves in the same pattern.  You get banned for violating their rules or simply because you irritate the hell out them with your incessant, disruptive ranting.  Then you move on to the next forum, start the same threads, ask the same questions, get the same answers and question those same answers using the same grating tactics that you so much enjoy... and ultimately get yourself banned again.  You blame this banning because you are discussing EU, but this is not the case.  You either violate the rules and simply test the patience of the Mods.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

bobw · Oct 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But it's not "unexplained".  In fact it is the only theory about coronal loops that *is empricallly explained and replicated in a lab*!  You mean to tell me that emprical, lab tested physics is "off limits" in the SS&A forum? Posted by michaelmozina</DIV>Well; when those guys with SOHO look at the doppler shift of the big old globules of acoustically suspended plasma,  calculate the shape of the big old globules on the other side of the sun and tell us "A big old CME is comin' round the bend and it is going to hit us" I have to figgure they know a thing or two.  Isn't the sun a big enough lab for you? I have to admit  the question "Why is EU woo-woo?" might belong in SS&A and I did read the first few posts but then the proselytizing started and I was surprised how long it lasted there. If Alfven and Birkeland think they can do better then why don't the predictions come from them?  Why don't the SOHO guys use EU equations?  Sounds unexplained to me.  Either that or the EU guys are woo-woo science.  I like EU here with the creos, ufo nuts and moon hoaxers.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

michaelmozina

Guest

dougstuff

Guest

UFmbutler

Guest

dougstuff

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

UFmbutler

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

yevaud

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

yevaud

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

yevaud

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

doublehelix

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

doublehelix

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

bobw

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page