Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>michael becomes Icarus... <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>&nbsp; That is really pretty funny were I not one that was about to melt. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; That is really pretty funny were I not one that was about to melt. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Unfortunately, you seem to be the one deliberately flying too close to the sun.... <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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nice loaded question you already know the answer to.&nbsp; There's nothing wrong with Birkeland's experiments. </DIV></p><p>Glad to here you agree on that point at least.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></p><p>That "external" power sources created a weath of expected "predictions" about various observations that should be visible in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; &nbsp; With an external power source he could explain high energy atmospheric dishcarges that occur in "loops", "jets",solar wind acceleration, etc.&nbsp; We should just ignore those predictions in your opinion?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The Sun is not powered by the Norweigen power grid.</DIV></p><p>And of course no one ever claimed that it was.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's when you start making wild interpretations of what you think is explained </DIV></p><p>Define "explained" vs. "unexeplained"?&nbsp; Alfven provided lots of math about the "circuits" that generate these events.&nbsp; Birkeland emprically "explained" them in real emprical tests.&nbsp; When was that done with "magnetic reconnection'?&nbsp; You can't even "explain"" what's different or unique in "magnetic" reconnection that is any different than the ordinary particle/circuit reconnection used in Birkeland's experiments.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and what you think you see </DIV></p><p>I think I see discharges in the solar atmosphere in exactly the same formations and locations that Birkeland "predicted" with his emprical experiments with external curent flow.</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'>Unfortunately, you seem to be the one deliberately flying too close to the sun.... <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Well, I'm doing it here, rather than there, which would seem to prevent me from melting too quickly. </p><p>The problem here Wayne is that those million degree coronal loops stick out like a giant sore thumb.&nbsp; You can't ignore them forever.&nbsp; They are not caused by "magnetic reconnection" because we all agree that magnetic lines do not disconnect or reconnect. &nbsp; We point Rhessi at the Earth and notice that electrical discharges near it's surface release gamma rays.&nbsp; We see the same gamma rays coming from the sun.&nbsp; Isn't it simply logical to investigate the possibility that they are due to "discharges' in the solar atmosphere? </p><p>Techically your industry can't "explain" them, whereas Birkeland actually "predicted" them and simulated them in his lab! </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'>Well; when those guys with SOHO look at the doppler shift of the big old globules of acoustically suspended plasma,&nbsp; 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. </DIV></p><p>I'm sure they do know a thing or two, but evidently not much about solar wind acceleration, coronal loops, the temp of the corona, etc.&nbsp; There seems to be a lot they don't understand too.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Isn't the sun a big enough lab for you?</DIV></p><p>It's not actually a "lab" unless you have some control mechanisms for the sun up your sleeve. &nbsp;&nbsp; Birkeland could turn on and of his 'sun" in a lab.&nbsp; That's not possible with the real one. </p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If Alfven and Birkeland think they can do better then why don't the predictions come from them? </DIV></p><p>They do.&nbsp; Birkeland "predicted" the existence of "jets", loops, solar wind acceleration, ect.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why don't the SOHO guys use EU equations? </DIV></p><p>I imagine they do use a lot of Alfven's equations.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sounds unexplained to me. </DIV></p><p>"Unexplained" is not having an emprical test of concept.&nbsp; In other words a math formula alone is not an "explanation', it is a theory that must be "verified' by observation and emprical experimentation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Either that or the EU guys are woo-woo science.&nbsp; I like EU here with the creos, ufo nuts and moon hoaxers.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by bobw</DIV></p><p>You mean except for the fact that Birkeland was wrong while Chapman's theories bit the dust after 70 years, and Alfven won the Nobel prize for MHD 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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, I'm doing it here, rather than there, which would seem to prevent me from melting too quickly. The problem here Wayne is that those million degree coronal loops stick out like a giant sore thumb.&nbsp; You can't ignore them forever.&nbsp; They are not caused by "magnetic reconnection" because we all agree that magnetic lines do not disconnect or reconnect. &nbsp; We point Rhessi at the Earth and notice that electrical discharges near it's surface release gamma rays.&nbsp; We see the same gamma rays coming from the sun.&nbsp; Isn't it simply logical to investigate the possibility that they are due to "discharges' in the solar atmosphere? Techically your industry can't "explain" them, whereas Birkeland actually "predicted" them and simulated them in his lab! <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Don't think for a minute I will be sucked into discussing the issue seriously with you. I ain't stupid. I have seen your posts over 75 pages, and 1200 posts. You are still defending the same myopic view you always have. You don't work and play well with others. You have been given a great opportunity here at SDC to endlessly defend your ideas. And still, you seem to be unable to stop pissing everyone off. </p><p>You are in control of your own fate.</p><p>Once again, you are bringing in other issues, while the current (haha) discussion concerns your inability to accept the fact that owners can put you in what they think is an appropriate place. You seem to be detrmined to be banned.</p><p>Go for it.</p><p>I no longer care.</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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Don't think for a minute I will be sucked into discussing the issue seriously with you. I ain't stupid. I have seen your posts over 75 pages, and 1200 posts. You are still defending the same myopic view you always have. </DIV></p><p>EU thoery is not a "myopic" viewpoint.&nbsp; It's just a "different one".&nbsp; I haven't seen anything in the last 3 years to convince me it's not a valid theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't work and play well with others.</DIV></p><p>You mean I don't "agree" with the dogma when I'm supposed to agree?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have been given a great opportunity here at SDC to endlessly defend your ideas. And still, you seem to be unable to stop pissing everyone off. </DIV></p><p>Skeptics tend to "irk' the "beleivers".&nbsp; The problem isn't related to me personally, but rather to the ideas I happen to be presenting.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are in control of your own fate.Once again, you are bringing in other issues, while the current (haha) discussion concerns your inability to accept the fact that owners can put you in what they think is an appropriate place. You seem to be detrmined to be banned.Go for it.I no longer care. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>What is with you and Derek on the banning thing and all your pointless comments about "other" (draconian) boards that we are not supposed to even talk about?&nbsp; On it's worst day (take today for instance) this board and this website and it's team of moderators is still *light years* ahead of any astronomy board out there.&nbsp;&nbsp; No one has ever even closed one of my threads here, let alone threatened to ban me here.&nbsp; Talk about overreacting....Sheesh. </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>

 

[bobw]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That "external" power sources created a weath of expected "predictions" about various observations that should be visible in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; &nbsp; With an external power source he could explain high energy atmospheric dishcarges that occur in "loops", "jets",solar wind acceleration, etc.&nbsp; We should just ignore those predictions in your opinion?<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Think about it.&nbsp; If there is an electric field permeating the solar system which is strong enough to have more effect on the Sun than the effects from the local gravitationally contained thermonuclear explosion then why doesn't that field cause sparks to jump out of my skull?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Think about it.&nbsp; If there is an electric field permeating the solar system which is strong enough to have more effect on the Sun than the effects from the local gravitationally contained thermonuclear explosion then why doesn't that field cause sparks to jump out of my skull?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by bobw</DIV>&nbsp;</p><p>What?&nbsp; Why would 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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><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&nbsp;the other type of electricity you guys are discussing... the type that doesn't involve electrons? I do know electron movement can&nbsp;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".&nbsp; 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?&nbsp;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. <br />Posted by dougstuff</DIV></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">You came to this thread a bit late and because of that probably have not read the preceding 70-odd pages, for which I cannot blame you in the least.<span>&nbsp; </span>Because of that your question might seem to be a bit out of context, but is actually rather reasonable.<span>&nbsp; </span>So here is a brief summary of how the present circumstances have come to pass and an answer to your specific questions.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">There is no electricity being discussed that does not involve electrons in some way.<span>&nbsp; </span>Current is the movement of charged particles, either negatively charged particles or positively charged particles.<span>&nbsp; </span><span>&nbsp;</span>The currents being discussed in this thread arise in plasmas.<span>&nbsp; </span>Plasmas are ionized gasses.<span>&nbsp; </span>They consist of dissociated electrons and positively charged ions.<span>&nbsp; </span>Ions are simply atoms from which one or more electrons have been stripped.<span>&nbsp; </span>The electrons are stripped from the atoms in plasma due to the excitation provided by high temperature.<span>&nbsp; </span>Thus the current flow consists of either flow of electrons, flow of ions, or a combination of the two.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Calibri">The general subject of this thread is plasma physics, and in particular application of plasma physics to astronomy and cosmology.<span>&nbsp; </span>Plasmas are governed by two major physical processes.<span>&nbsp; </span>One is fluid flow, and fluid flow is governed by the Navier-Stokes equation.<span>&nbsp; </span>The other process is electrodynamics which is described by Maxwell&rsquo;s equations.<span>&nbsp; </span>Thus plasma behavior at the most fundamental level is described by a set of couple partial differential equations.<span>&nbsp; </span>These equations are quite complex, and in order to understand plasma behavior physicists use a number of approximations to simplify the analysis and<span>&nbsp; </span>permit approximate solutions of the complete set of governing equations.<span>&nbsp; </span></font></font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Plasma physics is a significant part of modern astrophysics.<span>&nbsp; </span>As such there is nothing &ldquo;Unexplained&rdquo; about plasma physics as practiced by mainstream physicists.<span>&nbsp; </span>Indeed, it is a central topic in astrophysics and many astrophysicists specialize in applications of plasma physics and the sub-discipline of magneto hydrodynamics (MHD).</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">MHD is the physics of plasmas in circumstances in which the displacement current of Ampere&rsquo;s Law can be neglected, simplifying Maxwell&rsquo;s equations a bit.<span>&nbsp; </span>One of the major physicists who formulated and studied MHD was Hannes Alfven. <span>&nbsp;</span>He received a Nobel Prize for his work on MHD and wrote a widely referenced book on the subject, <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics.<span>&nbsp; </span></em><span>&nbsp;</span>Another was Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar who also was a Nobel Laureate and who applied MHD to stellar processes and wrote the definitive work on that subject <em>Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability. </em>MHD and both of these books are widely known and cited in the mainstream astrophysics literature. </font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Alfven also wrote other books, notably <em>Cosmic Plasma</em> which has become a point of discussion in this thread.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is not so widely cited in mainstream physics.<span>&nbsp; </span>Alfven work outside of MHD is controversial, and has become more so because a group of people, collectively known as the Electric Universe (EU) community have used that work to put forward notions that are decidedly not accepted by mainstream physicists.<span>&nbsp; </span>While not clearly codified EU premises include the following rather bizarre ideas: 1) The sun is powered primarily, not by fusion, but by an externally supplied electric current, the source of which remains a mystery.<span>&nbsp; </span>2) The surface of the sun is a solid ferrite-like material, despite the fact that temperatures are far too high to permit existence of such a solid.<span>&nbsp; </span>3) The photosphere of the sun is not composed primarily of hydrogen as maintained by the mainstream but is rather composed largely of neon, which is excited by the external current to fluoresce.<span>&nbsp; </span>3)<span>&nbsp; </span>Comets are electric in nature.<span>&nbsp; </span>4)<span>&nbsp; </span>Electromagnetic forces, rather than gravitational forces, are dominant in the formation of galaxies despite the acknowledgement that materials on the large scale are electrically neutral.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">The EU notions are generally internally inconsistent and at odds with well-established physics within domains in which that physics is known to be accurate.<span>&nbsp; </span>EU &ldquo;theory&rdquo; is most certainly not accepted by serious physicists and is properly a topic for the &ldquo;Unexplained&rdquo; forum.</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">This thread has encompassed discussions on several aspects of EU theory.<span>&nbsp; </span>It started with the question as to why mainstream journals do not generally publish articles based on the EU concepts of astrophysics.<span>&nbsp; </span>The answer is simple &ndash; EU concepts have been evaluated, rejected and discredited.<span>&nbsp; </span>One can find evaluations of EU ideas in such serious books as P.J.E. Peebles&rsquo;s book <em>Principles of Physical Cosmology </em>or in <em>Gravitation</em> by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. </font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">More recently there has been a long and unproductive discussion of the study of magnetic reconnection as practiced by mainstream physicists.<span>&nbsp; </span>Magnetic reconnection is simply a change in the topology of the magnetic field that results in a reduction of the energy stored in that field, the released energy serving to accelerate plasma particles through application of the Lorentz Force of classical electrodynamics.<span>&nbsp; </span>However, Mr. Mozina, based on purely semantic arguments has sought to either discredit the mainstream concepts or co-opt them in support of his rather odd perspective on plasma dynamics.<span>&nbsp; </span>Again using semantic arguments he has fostered that circuit theory as practiced by electrical engineers somehow provides a perspective on plasma physics that has been overlooked by plasma physicists.<span>&nbsp; </span>This is simply nonsense --<span>&nbsp; </span>Alfven has used circuit imagery effectively but the derivations that have been made available to participants in this forum are based on classical field theory as embodied in Maxwell&rsquo;s equations and are not in any way derived using Kirkoff&rsquo;s Laws which define circuit theory. </font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">So the discussion has based become defocused as a result of Mr. Mozina&rsquo;s reliance on semantic arguments and neglect of basic physics.<span>&nbsp; </span>Alfven&rsquo;s work has been taken out of context and distorted in order to lend support to a general thesis that mainstream astrophysicists have completely missed the important physics and are conspiring to suppress the &ldquo;true word&rdquo; as embodied in EU theory.<span>&nbsp; </span>This is simply ridiculous and the discussion has been justifiably removed from the hard science venues and placed in the &ldquo;Unexplained.&rdquo; </font></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Calibri">Yveaud&rsquo;s decision to move the thread was a sound one, based on what I perceive to be a solid grasp of the situation.<span>&nbsp; </span><span>&nbsp;</span></font></font></p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<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>Yveaud</p><p>For what it is worth, I think this is a terrific decision.&nbsp; </p><p>Thanks.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[why06]

<p>Thanks for the explanation DrRocket,</p><p>&nbsp;I wanted to join this discussion earlier, but I didn't want to read 70pgs of stuff... Your summary helps out nicely. And now we're talking about coronal loops. Those are those huge solar flares that come out of the sun; am I correct? And Mr.Mozina is saying they occur due to what? electrical differences on the surface of the sun. And I take it everyone else is trying to get him to see that this is not true and what actually happens is what then?</p><p>I'm going to do a little research on coronal loops before I rejoin this argument. Don't want to sound like I don't know what I'm talking about.... which I don't </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks for the explanation DrRocket,&nbsp;I wanted to join this discussion earlier, but I didn't want to read 70pgs of stuff... Your summary helps out nicely. And now we're talking about coronal loops. Those are those huge solar flares that come out of the sun; am I correct? And Mr.Mozina is saying they occur due to what? electrical differences on the surface of the sun.</DIV></p><p>That is a pretty fair summation of my position actually.&nbsp; The coronal loops are current carrying filaments, much like you might find in an ordinary plasma ball.&nbsp; The north and south orientations of the magnetic field images of the sun that dot the surface are positively and negatively charged points on the surface.&nbsp; The gamma rays we see at the footprints of these discharge events is due to the volume of electrons passing through that location and the neutron capture signatures in the solar atmosphere are due to fusion from the z-pinch inside the loop.&nbsp; Alfven and Bruce (and Birkeland) referred to this behavior in terms of discharges in the solar atmosphere, with electrons raining on the heliosphere.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And I take it everyone else is trying to get him to see that this is not true and what actually happens is what then?I'm going to do a little research on coronal loops before I rejoin this argument. Don't want to sound like I don't know what I'm talking about.... which I don't <br /> Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>You might ask then when their idea was actually emprically 'tested" (including control mechanisms) in a lab as Birkeland did.&nbsp;&nbsp; Note that z-pinch processes in plasma have been empirically shown to release free neutrons, and it is also known that discharges in the Earth's atmosphere cause gamma-rays to be emitted from the discharge event. </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>Since this thread somehow ended up in the "unexplained" forum rather then the one it's been in for the last 6 months, you might ask them exactly what "explained" means in terms of emprical physics.&nbsp; Keep in mind that Birkeland *emprically* in a lab, "explained" how "current flow" and "circuit reconnection" could create:</p><p>A) coronal loops</p><p>B) High speed "jets"</p><p>C) Birkeland currents (helix shapes in plasma)</p><p>D) solar wind acceleration.</p><p>E) Aurora around negatively charged spheres.</p><p>F) Planetary rings.</p><p>Alfven and Bruce (and their students) have "explained' the math and physics in terms of "circuits' and "particle flow", and "double layer acceleration". &nbsp;</p><p>EU theory has "explained" these events including emprically demonstrating them in a lab.&nbsp; You might compare and contrast that laboratory experimentation done by Birkeland with wihatever they come up with.</p><p>Note too that Los Alamos has easily heated plasma well beyond the 20Million degrees we find in coronal loops.&nbsp; They have shown z-pinch proceses will literally "pinch' free neutrons from the plasma column.&nbsp; The z-pinch filament is what Alfvan suggested was the 'cause" of these high energy events, and he and Bruce both claimed that they were due to 'discharges" in the solar atmosphere, just as Birkeland also "predicted". </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>

 

[origin]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Since this thread somehow ended up in the "unexplained" forum rather then the one it's been in for the last 6 months, you might ask them exactly what "explained" means in terms of emprical physics.&nbsp; Keep in mind that Birkeland *emprically* in a lab, "explained" how "current flow" and "circuit reconnection" could create:A) coronal loopsB) High speed "jets"C) Birkeland currents (helix shapes in plasma)D) solar wind acceleration.E) Aurora around negatively charged spheres.F) Planetary rings.Alfven and Bruce (and their students) have "explained' the math and physics in terms of "circuits' and "particle flow", and "double layer acceleration". &nbsp;EU theory has "explained" these events including emprically demonstrating them in a lab.&nbsp; You might compare and contrast that laboratory experimentation done by Birkeland with wihatever they come up with.Note too that Los Alamos has easily heated plasma well beyond the 20Million degrees we find in coronal loops.&nbsp; They have shown z-pinch proceses will literally "pinch' free neutrons from the plasma column.&nbsp; The z-pinch filament is what Alfvan suggested was the 'cause" of these high energy events, and he and Bruce both claimed that they were due to 'discharges" in the solar atmosphere, just as Birkeland also "predicted". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Ah yes, but can "your boys" explain the volcanoes that sit on the iron surface of the sun?&nbsp; Or&nbsp;is that&nbsp;<em>unexplainable</em>?? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks for the explanation DrRocket,&nbsp;I wanted to join this discussion earlier, but I didn't want to read 70pgs of stuff... Your summary helps out nicely. And now we're talking about coronal loops. Those are those huge solar flares that come out of the sun; am I correct? And Mr.Mozina is saying they occur due to what? electrical differences on the surface of the sun. And I take it everyone else is trying to get him to see that this is not true and what actually happens is what then?I'm going to do a little research on coronal loops before I rejoin this argument. Don't want to sound like I don't know what I'm talking about.... which I don't <br />Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>I'm quite sure that there will be lots of discussion and Michael will provide"the answer" in terms of EU nonsense.</p><p>Keep two things in mind.&nbsp; 1) Coronal loops and the coronal heating problem are active research topics in solar physics.&nbsp; No one can provide a complete answer to the formation of the loops or the preicise mechanism by which the observed temperatures are reached.&nbsp; 2)&nbsp; EU theory is mostly BS and is inconsistent with known physics.&nbsp; Modern physics cannot explain everything, but that is no excuse to resort to beads and rattles, or worse, EU babble.</p><p>So there will not be a forthcoming explanation of coronal loops and temperatures that anyone would want Michael to accept.&nbsp; But fear not in that regard, as he has not accepted classical physics explanations in the past, and there is not reason to expect that to change in the near future.&nbsp; He will undoubtedly derive great enjoyment from talking to himself, and complementing himself on his perspicacity.</p><p>Here is some info on the basic problem from a mainstream perspective.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_loop</p><p>http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/mysteries_l1/corona.html</p><p>http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0511/0511841.pdf</p><p>http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qcorona.html</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>EU theory in general, and magnetic reconnection theory aren't even related to s apecific solar model, so what exactly is your point as it relates to this particular thread?FYI, I have a whole website "explaining" Birkeland's solar model and how it "predicts" what we observe in satellite images.&nbsp; Like I'm sure you guys can "explain" where "inflation" comes from and how we might "test" for it, or where "dark energy" comes from, or "explains" how you know they even emprically exist in nature?&nbsp; Please..... <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />I just bring up&nbsp;your theory of&nbsp;volcanoes on the iron shell of the sun for 2 reasons:</p><p>1.&nbsp; It just "cracks" me up.</p><p>2.&nbsp; It is a clear indication, IMO, of why your "ideas" should be presented in the "unexplained" section of this forum.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm quite sure that there will be lots of discussion and Michael will provide"the answer" in terms of EU nonsense.</DIV></p><p>Notice the loaded language here?&nbsp; EU theory isn't "nonsense' as it relates to coronal loops in the atmosphere of a sphere, it is emprically demonstrated "science".&nbsp; It's pure physics in motion and Birkeland demonstrated this point over 100 years ago.&nbsp; It's mathematically explained by Alfven as well in terms of MHD theory.&nbsp; EU theory is *empirical science*.&nbsp; It's not shy around a laboratory like most mainstream theories.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Keep two things in mind.&nbsp; 1) Coronal loops and the coronal heating problem are active research topics in solar physics.</DIV></p><p>Yet somehow DrRocket has ruled out the one thing that has already been shown to emit x-rays and 'pinch' neutrons from plasma?&nbsp; In other words, he's already ruled out the single most logical chocie to explain these events, in spite of the fact that Birkeland simulated them in his work, and Alfven explained them in terms of "circuits" and circuit energy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> No one can provide a complete answer to the formation of the loops or the preicise mechanism by which the observed temperatures are reached. </DIV></p><p>Yet somehow DrRocket *can* rule out the one thing that is known to cause gamma ray bursts in the Earth's atmosphere?&nbsp; How does he rationalize that one?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2)&nbsp; EU theory is mostly BS and is inconsistent with known physics. </DIV></p><p>Talk about irrational bias. EU theory is in fact *known* physics, starting with Birkeland's work.&nbsp; The bias here is blinding DrRocket (and the mainstream as a whole IMO) to the obvious.&nbsp; Discharges in the Earth's atmosphere will heat plasma in the atmosphere to temperatures far in excess of the surface temperature of Earth.&nbsp; They emit gamma ray bursts and high energy wavelengths galore.&nbsp; Discharges can pinch free neutrons from plasma and indeed we see neutron capture signatures in the solar atmosphere in and around the loops.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Modern physics cannot explain everything, </DIV></p><p>100 year old physics *can* explain all these events. In fact these events were "predictions" made by Birkeland himself.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but that is no excuse to resort to beads and rattles, or worse, EU babble.</DIV></p><p>It's his pure irrational bias against all things related to electricity and EU theory that makes him blind.&nbsp; You need not follow his example.&nbsp; It's not very "scientific" to note you can't explain these events but turn around and rule out the most logical explanation is it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So there will not be a forthcoming explanation of coronal loops and temperatures that anyone would want Michael to accept.</DIV></p><p>Actually, that is also a fundamentally false statement.&nbsp; I have 'accepted' that "magnetic reconnection" is a euphamistic term for "current sheet acceleration" and "circuit reconnection" in plasma.&nbsp;&nbsp; One thing that all "magnetic reconnection" theories have in common is that they *require* vast flows of current inside the 'magnetic line".&nbsp; We all realize and accept that magnetic lines form a full and complete field, without beginning and without end. We all agree that they never "disconnect" or reconnect.&nbsp; </p><p>For some reason they just refuse to accept Aflven's "particle" views on MHD theory.&nbsp; I guess denial is sort of the last line of defense.&nbsp; I however do recognize that the "field" orientation is also a valid way of expressing the energy transfers in plasma, but the energy release is between the moving charged particles inside the "lines", like cars in the lanes of a freeway.&nbsp;&nbsp; At the point of "reconnection", the particles can "collide" or more likely interact electromagnetically and particles fly everywhere until flow order is restored.</p><p>It's not the magnetic lines that "reconnect", and the "circuit energy' at the point of the reconnection is what determines the flow rate and outcome of these events.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> But fear not in that regard, as he has not accepted classical physics explanations in the past, and there is not reason to expect that to change in the near future. </DIV></p><p>The irony here is I'm the one that *does* accept "classical physics", including active experimenation and real control mechanisms.&nbsp; I honor Birkeland's work.&nbsp; It&nbsp; is DrRocket that rejects classical physics. </p><p>Keep in mind that Alfven also took a 'particle' approach to all such current carrying events.&nbsp; He used the term "circuits" because he was an electrical engineer, and electrical engineers know that magnetic lines don't "reconnect".&nbsp; Only particles and circuits can 'reconnect".&nbsp; That is emprical fact. </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 just bring up&nbsp;your theory of&nbsp;volcanoes on the iron shell of the sun for 2 reasons:1.&nbsp; It just "cracks" me up.2.&nbsp; It is a clear indication, IMO, of why your "ideas" should be presented in the "unexplained" section of this forum.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Birkeland pretty much 'explained' all of this in a lab over 100 years ago.&nbsp; The solar model I presented is almost identical to the one the Birkeland used in his work. That absolutely floored me when I finally read his work.</p><p>About all I can say about you is that there is none so blind as those who refuse to see.&nbsp; Electrical discharges release gamma rays in the Earth's atmosphere, and gamma rays in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; Electrical dishcarges heat plasma to millions of degrees.&nbsp; Electrical discharges pinch neutrons from plasma.&nbsp; Electrical dischages produce "jets" and "helix shapes' in the plasma.&nbsp; Birkleand's work "predicted" solar wind acceleration.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>Somehow however you and DrRocket and the majority of the mainstream have ruled out the one obvious explanation for these high energy events.&nbsp; That's simply irrational behavior, and it's really the heart of the bias I'm describing in this thread.</p><p>If you don't know the answer, how can you rule out one that has been emprically demonstrated to do all these exact same things in plasma? </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'>Thanks for the explanation DrRocket,&nbsp;I wanted to join this discussion earlier, but I didn't want to read 70pgs of stuff... Your summary helps out nicely. And now we're talking about coronal loops. Those are those huge solar flares that come out of the sun; am I correct? And Mr.Mozina is saying they occur due to what? electrical differences on the surface of the sun. And I take it everyone else is trying to get him to see that this is not true and what actually happens is what then?I'm going to do a little research on coronal loops before I rejoin this argument. Don't want to sound like I don't know what I'm talking about.... which I don't <br /> Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>Almost everything you need to "know" about a coronal loop can be learned from an inexpensive plasma ball.&nbsp; The threads that form in the plasma are "current carrying' filaments.&nbsp; We all agree that the 'currents" are flowing in those "lines".&nbsp; The magnetic field is not a simple straight line, but rather it's coiling around the thread as the plasma is moving through the space between the glass surface and the anode in the center.</p><p>The term "magnetic reconnection" refers to an event where two of these 'current carrying" theads "reconnect" and change topology.</p><p>The 'circuit energy" will determine the outcome of the "reconnection" event. It will determine the strength of the paritcle acceleration&nbsp;&nbsp; Those threads you see in the plasma ball are small scale representation of what "current flow' does in light plasma.&nbsp; It's not that mysterious frankly.</p><p>Note too that they point the Rhessi satellite at Earth and have observed gamma rays from discharges in the Earth's atmosphere.&nbsp; They point the same instrument at the sun and see gamma rays in it's atmosphere too.&nbsp; The one obvious "explaination' for those solar gamma rays is "electrical discharges' in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; How exactly did they rule out "electricity" again? </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>http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/rhessi_tgf.html</p>http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/09/02_flares.shtml<p>Why06, you might ask yourself how these folks ruled out, as so called "nonsense', the one thing that is empircally known to release gamma rays in an atmosphere? &nbsp;&nbsp; The answer is, Electricity is the forbidden topic of astronomy.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>DrRocket, you can laugh at Birkeland's work all you like.&nbsp; It won't change any of the "predictions" that come from his models.&nbsp; These were not "mysterious' events to Birkeland, rather they are "predicted" by the "classical physics" you claim to honor on one hand, and badmouth on the other. </p><p>Birkeland "predicted" those coronal loops, and those "jets" DrRocket.</p><p>http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg </p><img src="file:///C:/Users/owner/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg" alt="" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p> michaelmozina,</p><p>I haven't entered into this discussion because I am not at all familiar with the field of science being discussed.&nbsp; But, I have been following the discussion for quite some time now.</p><p>Here is where I think the problem lies and <span style="text-decoration:underline">anyone</span> should please feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood:</p><p>Your detractors seem to have little, if any, problems with any of the recognized published papers that have been presented.&nbsp; Many are authoritative works in their fields.&nbsp; I don't see many, if any, criticisms denouncing them or attempting to directly invalidate them.&nbsp; That may not hold true for mass distribution works (like some books, webarticles, etc) and other commentary that has not been rigorously examined by peers within the field or is of questionable application.</p><p>However, the biggest problem that I see is that your detractors want you to show, empirically, how your supporting evidence applies to circumstances that were not the object of direct experimentation/investigation.&nbsp; An "is like" qualitative rebuttal is not sufficient for proof especially if there are questions regarding the use of certain terminology.&nbsp; Basically, they want to see how you extrapolate unrelated experimental evidence to support your conclusion.</p><p>It appears, and I may be wrong, that certain terminology and concepts in some works were used for illustrative or demonstrative purposes and were not meant to be used as specifically applying to the data at hand in the study.&nbsp; Hence, the difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of some of the evidence that you have maintained supports your conclusions.&nbsp; An "is similar to" qualifier can be used to describe a specific event without having to accept the entire process if it is just illustrative.</p><p>In my opinion, this is why the discussion has stalemated.&nbsp; There is only <span style="text-decoration:underline">one</span> avenue left which could yield any productive fruits and that would be to see an empirical demonstration applying the experimental evidence you are using in such a way as it directly (or even suggestively) supports your premise.</p><p>In that way, there would be no confusion at all regarding an interpretation of <span style="font-style:italic">language</span>.&nbsp; Simple misunderstandings concerning the use of certain words or principles would not be confusing: The concepts used would reside directly in your empirical extrapolation and would be readily identifiable to someone experienced in the field.</p><p>In final word, your methodology needs to specifically and appropriately deal with the empirical evidence you are using to support your premise.</p><p>* I have no personal opinion to present on the subject at this time other than to try to illuminate what I believe are the stumbling blocks which resulted in the moving of the thread. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> michaelmozina,I haven't entered into this discussion because I am not at all familiar with the field of science being discussed.&nbsp; But, I have been following the discussion for quite some time now.Here is where I think the problem lies and anyone should please feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood:Your detractors seem to have little, if any, problems with any of the recognized published papers that have been presented.&nbsp; Many are authoritative works in their fields.&nbsp; I don't see many, if any, criticisms denouncing them or attempting to directly invalidate them.&nbsp; That may not hold true for mass distribution works (like some books, webarticles, etc) and other commentary that has not been rigorously examined by peers within the field or is of questionable application.However, the biggest problem that I see is that your detractors want you to show, empirically, how your supporting evidence applies to circumstances that were not the object of direct experimentation/investigation.&nbsp; An "is like" qualitative rebuttal is not sufficient for proof especially if there are questions regarding the use of certain terminology.&nbsp; Basically, they want to see how you extrapolate unrelated experimental evidence to support your conclusion.It appears, and I may be wrong, that certain terminology and concepts in some works were used for illustrative or demonstrative purposes and were not meant to be used as specifically applying to the data at hand in the study.&nbsp; Hence, the difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of some of the evidence that you have maintained supports your conclusions.&nbsp; An "is similar to" qualifier can be used to describe a specific event without having to accept the entire process if it is just illustrative.In my opinion, this is why the discussion has stalemated.&nbsp; There is only one avenue left which could yield any productive fruits and that would be to see an empirical demonstration applying the experimental evidence you are using in such a way as it directly (or even suggestively) supports your premise.In that way, there would be no confusion at all regarding an interpretation of language.&nbsp; Simple misunderstandings concerning the use of certain words or principles would not be confusing: The concepts used would reside directly in your empirical extrapolation and would be readily identifiable to someone experienced in the field.In final word, your methodology needs to specifically and appropriately deal with the empirical evidence you are using to support your premise.* I have no personal opinion to present on the subject at this time other than to try to illuminate what I believe are the stumbling blocks which resulted in the moving of the thread. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>Thank you very much for your thoughtful and insightful response. &nbsp; I really do appreicate the time and effort you put into that response. &nbsp; I'm still "prorcessing" on some of it, particular this statement:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, the biggest problem that I see is that your detractors want you to show, empirically, how your supporting evidence applies to circumstances that were not the object of direct experimentation/investigation.&nbsp; An "is like" qualitative rebuttal is not sufficient for proof especially if there are questions regarding the use of certain terminology.&nbsp; Basically, they want to see how you extrapolate unrelated experimental evidence to support your conclusion.</DIV></p><p>I'm not certain I fully understand the point you're making here and it seems important.&nbsp; Birkeland did not directly experiment with gamma rays in his lab, at least not to his knowledge.&nbsp; My point in citing Rhessi data on this topic is to emprically demonstrate that there are unrelated pieces of evidence (outside of Birkeland's work) that expressly suggests that discharges near the surface can generate similar types of emissions that we observe in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; There are plenty of quantitative papers on the Rhessi data both in terms of the production of gamma rays seen in Earth based discharges and the gamma rays observed in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp;&nbsp; I've even cited a published paper about return current in these solar discharges.&nbsp; Bruce's work directly relates to this topic, as does Alfven's.&nbsp;</p><p>I also mentioned and cited papers about neutron capture signatures in the solar atmosphere and the fact that electrical activity has been shown to "pinch" free neutrons from plasma.&nbsp; These are all related events, that are not necessarily directly addressed by Birkeland's work, or Alfven's work, they are simply "observations" of the behaviors of current carrying plasma. </p><p>I am therefore at a loss to fully grasp what you believe that my detractors are expecting of me.&nbsp; In other words, they did *not* produce similar emprical experiments to support their "magnetic reconnection" theory.&nbsp; They did *not* produce any evidence that "magnetic reconnection" generates gamma rays in controlled experimentation, or that magnetic reconnection pinches free neutrons from plasma.&nbsp; In short they produced no emprical experiments to support their theory and yet I am required to do more?&nbsp;&nbsp; Doesn't that seem like a double standard?&nbsp; Shouldn't they be required to produce a similar set of "predictions" about the behaviors of high energy emissions around spheres using 'magnetic reconnection" before simply "claiming' that it can do these things?&nbsp; What is the value of emprical experimentation? </p><p>I'm still "fuzzy" on what it is that my detractors need or expect of me on this issue.&nbsp; I've provided Birkeland's emprical experiments.&nbsp; I've provided the prediction sets that come from the work.&nbsp; I've provided explanations of these high energy events in terms of "circuits" and 'particles" from the author of MHD theory.&nbsp; I've provided unrelated pieces of information, like gamma ray bursts and neutron capture signatures that also support the idea of electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; I've provided my detractors with the work of Bruce and Perratt.&nbsp; What more am I supposed to do?</p><p>It seems to me that I'm doing all the work here.&nbsp; I've provided ample emprical experiments that "predict" coronal loops, that predict jets, that predict helix shaped "Birkeland currents" in the solar atmosphere, that 'predict" solar wind acceleration.&nbsp; I've provided ample explanations from the work of Alfven and Bruce and others to support my position.&nbsp; I've shown where "magnetic reconnection" is predicated upon the existence of "current flow" inside the "magnetic line". We all seem to agree that magnetic lines never disconnect or reconnect, so what more can I rationally do here? </p>In short, I'm very confused.&nbsp; I'm not sure what more I might actually do to demonstrate this point.&nbsp; Do you have any suggestions? <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>

 

[origin]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> there is none so blind as those who refuse to see.&nbsp;<br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />How exquisitely ironic.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.... We all seem to agree that magnetic lines never disconnect or reconnect, so what more can I rationally do here? In short, I'm very confused.&nbsp; I'm not sure what more I might actually do to demonstrate this point.&nbsp; Do you have any suggestions? Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I couldn't really suggest what you could do in order to substantiate your point beyond what I've interpreted the major points of contention are.&nbsp; After all, it's not something I feel qualified to comment on regarding specifics.</p><p>Other than what I have already mentioned, another avenue of approach might possibly taking only one point of contention at a time.&nbsp; For instance, what is the primary point of contention between both groups?&nbsp; Examine that closely on your end.&nbsp; Is it a matter of semantics or empirical evidence?&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Then, answer the point of contention very, very specifically without any deviation into other subjects. </p><p>Just like with every new concept, it must be proven on its own merit.&nbsp; It must be successfully defended against being invalidated or otherwise falsified.&nbsp; There is no onus of responsibility to prove a counter-theory on the part of a detractor.&nbsp; No other explanation for observations, unless it is offered to falsify your premise, is necessary.&nbsp; It is only necessary to successfully contend what you present.&nbsp; As one-sided as that may appear, it has been working fairly well for a very long time.&nbsp; After all, it's your idea, not theirs.&nbsp; It is up to you to prove that idea and not up to them to prove one of their own. </p><p>To be honest, I think your best opportunity is going to be to delve into the maths.&nbsp; Semantics is not sufficient and principles possibly used for demonstration or illustration or that may not be relevent to the venue can not be hidden away from a skilled student of the field.&nbsp; Those who are examining your position have, from what I have seen, repeatedly referred to this particular point.&nbsp; By establishing an empirical methodology supporting your premise, semantics is no longer an issue.&nbsp; Misunderstandings regarding interpretation will be immediately evident to a skilled observer.</p><p>In short, the Hail Mary pass for you resides in the maths.</p><p>Is it easy?&nbsp; Well, not being familiar with the subject I would say it is not.&nbsp; But, nothing which is rewarding is easy and knowledge, rewarding or not, is never easy to come by.</p><p>Note: A "But, I have done xxxx" isn't something I think you should dwell on right now.&nbsp; If whatever it was you have already done was not enough to then make a convincing argument, how will it be sufficient now?&nbsp; A new approach is called for if you wish to press your case and referring to old battlegrounds will probably not be effective.&nbsp; Look at it as a "fresh start." </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>