<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. After all, it's not something I feel qualified to comment on regarding specifics.Other than what I have already mentioned, another avenue of approach might possibly taking only one point of contention at a time.</DIV></p><p>I agree. IMO the primary point of 'contention" seems to be whether or not a "magnetic line" composed of flowing streams of charged particles can also rightfully be called a "circuit". Other than that point, there seems to be little disagreement. I can accept that "magnetiic reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" are the same concept from the field and particle viewpoint of MHD respectively, but they seem unwilling to budge or to explain the reasons for their resistance to calling a continiously flowing current stream of plasma a "circuit'. I have already provided ample examples of where Alfven used this term in precisely the same places they are attibributing to their process of "reconnection". Their process is dependent upon these flowing "currents" as well. </p><p>This seems to be the most important "issue" at the moment, because they refuse to embrace the "particle/circuit" side of MHD theory. My detractors only seem to appreciate what Alfven called the "field" orientation of MHD theory. The field description is only half the story.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> For instance, what is the primary point of contention between both groups?</DIV></p><p>It seems to be the one I specified first. In other words, can a "magnetic line" filled with "current flow" from moving charged particles be called a "circuit". The analogy I used was an ordinary plasma ball, where I cite the fact that the energy inside the current line is caused by the energy flow from a "circuit" that manifests itself inside the plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Examine that closely on your end. Is it a matter of semantics or empirical evidence? Why? </DIV></p><p>IMO it is a matter of empirical evidence. I can break the circuits in the plasma by turning off the switch on the side of the plasma ball and therby end the light show. The emissions from the plasma thread are directly related to the circuit energy. They "light up" internally, and can emit very high energy wavelengths of light, particularly during "princh" processes that are readily observed in the ordinary plasma ball.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then, answer the point of contention very, very specifically without any deviation into other subjects.</DIV></p><p>The individual "thread/line" inside the plasma is moving circuit energy through the plasma.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just like with every new concept, it must be proven on its own merit. </DIV></p><p>The "proof" IMO comes from turning on and off the circuit by using the switch on the side of the plasma ball. Turn off the "electricity' and the "light show" is over. IMO that is emprical proof of concept.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It must be successfully defended against being invalidated or otherwise falsified.</DIV></p><p>How does one "falsify" "magnetic reconnection? It's mathematically well supported, but magnetic lines do not make and break or disconnect or reconnect. They form as a full continuum. There is no way to therefore 'falsify" the idea. It's the "particles" and the "circuits" however that drive the light show and do the "reconnecting". That's what Alfven meant when he talked about a more 'fundamental" (at the particle level) approach to these energy exchanges. The energy exchange process and the point of reconnection is between "particles", and "circuits" but no magnetic lines ever disconnect or reconnect. Just the flow channels of charged particles change topology. The magnetic lines simply follow the current flow and wind around the current flow in a helix through the plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no onus of responsibility to prove a counter-theory on the part of a detractor. No other explanation for observations, unless it is offered to falsify your premise, is necessary. It is only necessary to successfully contend what you present. </DIV></p><p>I think you're right. I think I've fixated far to much effort on "disproving" their position, as with that whole monopole arguement, when I should have been more focused on my own points. I hear you on this point.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As one-sided as that may appear, it has been working fairly well for a very long time. After all, it's your idea, not theirs. It is up to you to prove that idea and not up to them to prove one of their own. To be honest, I think your best opportunity is going to be to delve into the maths.</DIV></p><p>That was my intention when presenting Alfven's papers on coronal loops nd such. It didn't seem to have much of an impact from my perspective and the 'problem" from my perspective seems to be more "conceptual" in nature. It's the whole "particle" approach to MHD theory they seem to reject, not the math. No one presented any flaws in Aflven's math when he described these same events in terms of "circuits".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>Both parties however have to begin with some basic understandings of the field. In other words MHD theory is not simply a "field" (B) oriented theory, it also has a "particle/circuit" (E) side to it. I can't get them to even ackowledge the E field is there and it is an equally valid approach. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Those who are examining your position have, from what I have seen, repeatedly referred to this particular point. By establishing an empirical methodology supporting your premise, semantics is no longer an issue. Misunderstandings regarding interpretation will be immediately evident to a skilled observer.</DIV></p><p>Well, IMO a skilled observer should certainly note that Birkeland's emperical experiments "predict" the existence of loops in the solar atmosphere. It "predicts" jets and Birkeland currents, and aurora and all the things they now attribute to "magnetic reconnection" events. I'm willing to admit that the field approach is mathematically valid, and we *could* be arguing only about semantics but there is more at stake here since they resist this idea. They somehow believe that "magnetic reconnection" is not the same as "circuit reconnection" as Birkeland used in his experiments, but they have never emprically demonstrated that magnetic reconnection is a unique form of energy exchange. It is not any different than circuit reconnection in any emprically way.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In short, the Hail Mary pass for you resides in the maths.</DIV></p><p>Then Alfven's work or Birkeland's work should ahve convinced them by now. Both of them explained the maths. I'm not reqiured to personally duplicate their emprical or mathematical work on these subjects.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is it easy? Well, not being familiar with the subject I would say it is not. But, nothing which is rewarding is easy and knowledge, rewarding or not, is never easy to come by.Note: A "But, I have done xxxx" isn't something I think you should dwell on right now. If whatever it was you have already done was not enough to then make a convincing argument, how will it be sufficient now? A new approach is called for if you wish to press your case and referring to old battlegrounds will probably not be effective. Look at it as a "fresh start." <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>I hear you, but I admit I'm somewhat discouraged. It seems as though all the math and all the writings of Alfven were not enough to convince the mainstream of the value of EU theory. It seems to me that all the math and all the emprical tests done by Birkeland have not been enough to convince the mainstream of the value of EU theory, even though he "predicted"" all these same high energy events in the same places that the mainstream claims that 'magnetic reconnection' is occuring.</p><p>I'm not really sure what else it takes to push this through. Alfven's math didn't have any effect. The math in the return currernts paper was never addressed or mentioned by my detractors. None of the maths I have presented has had the slightest affect on anyone, nor has any emprical test of concept had any effect on their position. They have never emprically demonstrated "magnetic reconnection" is a unique form of energy exchange, and an ordinary plasma ball shows us what a "current carrying" stream of plasma looks like. It's energy comes from a whole "circuit", not just the energy that is contained inside the thread at any given instant.</p><p>If I felt that math or physics had any real hope of achieving anything, I'd look for more math to present, but thus far they've been unresponsive to all the maths and all the physics I've presented. Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven and Peratt have produced the most "maths" and the most physical tests and the most in terms of computer modeling, and all of these guys have been summarily dismissed with a handwave, and the whole of EU theory is called "nonsense" by people that claim to not even understand the whole process in the first place. It's like a twighlight zone episode from my vantage point. No amount of emprical evidence is enough. No amount of maths is ever enough. No amount of appeal to common sense is enough. No evidence is even being seriously dealt with, starting with the "cause" of those gamma rays in the solar atmosphere. If math and emprical physics isn't enough, what's left? </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>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>..If I felt that math or physics had any real hope of achieving anything, I'd look for more math to present, but thus far they've been unresponsive to all the maths and all the physics I've presented. Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven and Peratt have produced the most "maths" and the most physical tests and the most in terms of computer modeling, and all of these guys have been summarily dismissed with a handwave, and the whole of EU theory is called "nonsense" by people that claim to not even understand the whole process in the first place...</DIV></p><p>Look at this from their perspective for a moment. You may have had experience with this phenomenon as well. Many people who have specialized areas of knowledge run into this at some point, sometime, if they ever engage others in technical conversations.</p><p>You enter into a discussion concerning your field of expertise, or a closely related one, with someone you do not know. No educational pedigrees are discussed. At first, the conversation passes it's opening stages where general concepts are discussed and bantered back and forth. All goes well except you notice a few common mistakes in the person's topics. You let that pass, understanding everyone forgets and stumbles from time to time. Maybe they had a bad day or a bad cup of coffee. However, you notice that this person builds on these mistakes and takes a common yet mistaken route towards a ill founded conclusion. It's a mistake a novice is expected to make yet, this person is not speaking about novice topics and has presented an air of assumed competence. So, you offer a baited question that would be easily answered with an assumed competence level yet would be difficult for a novice to answer. You get a novice answer. Then, you move to the <u>Philosopher's Stone</u> question: The question that firmly establishes competence. You don't receive an answer, lead is not transformed into gold.</p><p>The Philosopher's Stone question, IMO, is the maths. That is the language of Science. Even the "soft" sciences require it to some degree and base their research on it. You can't get away from it. Whether it is chemistry, biology, psychology, physics, sociology, ology, isms... the central stalk from which the vine grows and bears fruit is the maths.</p><p>So far, what is contended is that you have presented an opinion regarding some research that is not "directly" related to Solar activity. Your opinion is that some of it is. Well, nobody is saying you do not understand EU. What I see is being said is that you don't understand some aspects of MHD and some other disciplines which conventional science relates to Solar activity. An opinion is fine. However, without establishing "competence" first, then your opinion has no credibility. In order to establish you have a demonstrated competence in the subject which will help to lend more interest and credibility to your opinion, you're going to have to uncover the Philosopher's Stone in this discussion: Show the maths.</p><p>Have you shown the maths which heavily weight your argument? There is much more than just copy/paste here. For instance, it appears that some benchtop demonstrations and conclusions are not viewed as being applicable. (My interpretation, which may be wrong.) You can only present past experimental evidence which relates directly to the subject at hand. If the experimental/observational evidence isn't specifically related to the question at hand, you must demonstrate that it IS related. You can't do that with just semantics or "is like." That type of judgement relies on "opinion" and, if competence is not established, then opinion doesn't carry much weight. In some instances "semantics" can be enough to, at least, establish some questionable relevancy. But, it's like trying to drive a truck through a keyhole - It's extremely difficult to make it fit. </p><p>To sum it up, you are going to have to do the 2+2 in order to prove relevancy yourself. Unless you can present a workable series of published papers which firmly establish that this work has been done and your example applies, you're going to have to do it yourself or, at the very least, make the effort to demonstrate that you truly understand the primary "language." But, if you could do that then this entire discussion would be fairly mundane, wouldn't it? After that, then you can argue the semantics which are of secondary importance. There are some things you can't really explain with words and many things you certainly can not demonstrate an opinion based on competence without engaging in them. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It's like a twighlight zone episode from my vantage point. No amount of emprical evidence is enough. No amount of maths is ever enough. No amount of appeal to common sense is enough. No evidence is even being seriously dealt with, starting with the "cause" of those gamma rays in the solar atmosphere. If math and emprical physics isn't enough, what's left? Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I don't believe the issue here is whether or not evidence, math and other empirical proofs have been presented. I believe the issue is one of relevance. If you can not connect your proffered evidence as being relevant semantically, because of some misunderstanding, then you're going to have to do it using the maths. That is difficult, I know. If it wasn't, then maybe one of your EU proponents would have done it already?</p><p>But, it's not a matter of proving EU and getting a Nobel prize from your posts on SDC. It's about showing, at least, that the basic concepts you are using as evidence apply. Since that does not seem to be possible using semantic arguments, you're going to have to do it mathematically. Or, at the very least, take a good stab at it. There's nothing wrong with trying. </p><p>Think on it and see if you can develop a line of thought that includes the maths which demonstrate relevancy. </p><p>*I am really not qualified here to give answers regarding specifics. All I can say is that the semantic argument has broken down. The only recourse is an argument directly illustrated by established theory and its relevance to the subject at hand. That's going to have to be painted in the language necessary to fully communicate the relevance. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...If I felt that math or physics had any real hope of achieving anything, I'd look for more math to present, but thus far they've been unresponsive to all the maths and all the physics I've presented...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Despite your delusions to the contrary, you have so presented NO math and NO physics. Not one equation, not one quantitative physical principle. None, nada, nil.</p><p>You have made one or two erroneous comments on mathematics presented by others, but have presented NONE of your own. Worse, you have claimed to have presented mathematical arguments when in fact no such presentation was made.</p><p>ALP is absolutely correct. If you want to be taken seriously you must start with known physical principles, Maxwell's equations for instance, and from them procede to show using rigorous mathematics that your ideas hold water. You claimed to have started such an effort with the claim to construct a relationship between magnetic reconnection and some interpretation in terms of the electric field alone, but in the end you produced nothing except rhetoric -- not surprising.</p><p>So as we have been saying for over 70 pages and as ALP has recognized the onus is on you to support your EU views with real physics and real mathematics and not just illustrations of things that "look like" some specific phenomena but rather that can be directly and quantitatively related to that phenomena with rigorous argument (physics and math).</p><p>It is not that your mathematical arguments have been ignored. It is that they simply do not exist. If you present a true rigorous argument, using real mathematics and based on real physics it will be evaluated objectively and rigorously. But if you persist in basing your arguments only on semantics you will be dismissed. </p><p> </p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Despite your delusions to the contrary, you have so presented NO math and NO physics.</DIV></p><p>This is pure denial on your part. I presented you with both volumes of Birkelands work. His work is *full* of math, *full* of emprical physicsl tests, and *full* of scientific information. I doubt you've read even a few pages of it. I presented you with an entire directory full of papers written by Alfven that are also *full* of math, *full* of physics, and *full* of explanations in terms of "circuits" and "particles" that you refuse to even address in an open and honest manner. Holy Cow.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Not one equation, </DIV></p><p>Have you read *any* of the papers I've presented to you?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>not one quantitative physical principle. None, nada, nil.</DIV></p><p>This is pure and absolute denial on your part. Evidently you seem to think that *I* personally must provide math on command and you are refusing to consider math from Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven, Perett, etc. This is absolutely absurd behavior on your part.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have made one or two erroneous comments on mathematics presented by others,</DIV></p><p>No, I quoted Alfven himself on this topic.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but have presented NONE of your own.</DIV></p><p>Evidently you seem to believe I'm your math mommy and I'm supposed to bark math at your command. Get over yourself.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Worse, you have claimed to have presented mathematical arguments when in fact no such presentation was made.</DIV></p><p>See, this is where your denial problem is so out in left field it's impossible to even have a rational conversation with you. I present you with entire books to read that your refuse to read. I present you with papers full of mathematical presentations and electrical presentations in terms of circuts, circuit energy, etc, and you ignore it outright. You're so out to lunch on this point it's sad. For an intelligent guy, this particular denial routine is particularly ugly business.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ALP is absolutely correct. If you want to be taken seriously you must start with known physical principles,</DIV></p><p>I did that. I started with Birkeland's emprical experiments that are also *loaded* with math. You ignored it. I presented Alfven's perspectives on these topics. You ignore it too. I showed you Bruce's work. I doubt you even bothered to read it. I suggested Peratt's work. You *refused* to consider it, calling a Los Alamos employee an "embarassment" to you. I'm afraid you're beyond help because you refuse to even read anything at all. Evidently you figure if you don't read it, I never presented you with any math. Hoy!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maxwell's equations for instance, and from them procede to show using rigorous mathematics that your ideas hold water. </DIV></p><p>Alfven used Maxwell's equations to explain EU theory. Why didn't you ever read them?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You claimed to have started such an effort with the claim to construct a relationship between magnetic reconnection and some interpretation in terms of the electric field alone,</DIV></p><p>I claimed nothing other than it was possible to simplify a Maxwellian set of formulas for E or B, what Alfven called the "particle" and "field" sides of MHD theory. I hoped to be able to convert Priest's magnetic field orientation to an E field orientation, but his introduction of monopoles made that scientifically and mathematically impossible to do.</p><p>I then emialed Birn to get his opinion, and it turns out you're right. You're industry is so worried about the implications of discussing their work publicly that the refuse to respond to simple questions.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> but in the end you produced nothing except rhetoric </DIV></p><p>Ya, that and two papers by Alfven you wouldn't read. Two volumes by Birkeland you wouldn't read. A whole book by Alfven you wouldn't read, and bunch of papers by Bruce and Peratt you wouldn't read, etc.</p><p>It's now gotten to the point DrRocket that even origin has more credibility in my book than you do, and I thought that would be impossible. At least he doesn't seem to be in pure denial of the math and physics that support EU theory and the links to that work which I have provided in this thread. You're in complete and total denial. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Look at this from their perspective for a moment. You may have had experience with this phenomenon as well. Many people who have specialized areas of knowledge run into this at some point, sometime, if they ever engage others in technical conversations.You enter into a discussion concerning your field of expertise, or a closely related one, with someone you do not know. No educational pedigrees are discussed. At first, the conversation passes it's opening stages where general concepts are discussed and bantered back and forth. All goes well except you notice a few common mistakes in the person's topics.</DIV></p><p>But this isn't even a normal scientific discussion! Normally when you present someone with references to support an idea that are loaded with math and physics, they respect and acknowledge the fact that the theory is supported by math and physics. Alfven won the Nobel prize for MHD theory and he wrote the book on EU theory. DrRocket however seems to reject everything ever written on the topic and is living in pure denial of the existence of this material, even when it's been presented to him over and over and over again. It's not a rational discussion and he's not making 'minor' mistakes, nor correcting any of his mistakes. I can't have a rational discussion with someone that isn't being rational.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You let that pass, understanding everyone forgets and stumbles from time to time.</DIV></p><p>Stumbling is acceptable. We are all human. Outright denial is not acceptable. There is no excuse for it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Maybe they had a bad day or a bad cup of coffee. However, you notice that this person builds on these mistakes and takes a common yet mistaken route towards a ill founded conclusion. </DIV></p><p>But when someone concludes that no math or physics was presented, it's not just a bad day, it's a bad case of denial. how does one work with that?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's a mistake a novice is expected to make yet, this person is not speaking about novice topics and has presented an air of assumed competence. </DIV></p><p>Sure, it's a "novice" mistake to claim that MHD theory can't be looked at from both a field *and* from a particle perspective. If however one tries to explain to the novice that such a viewpoint is also valid, and presents papers from Alfven on this very topic, it's expected that the novice will read the work and acknowledge the work, not claim no work has been presented. Hoy. This is not a standard conversation. It's a twilight zone episode run amuck that keeps resetting itself back to zero.</p><p>I really do hear and understand what you're trying to say, but you also need to put yourself in my shoes for awhile. Most astronomers specialize in one area of expertize, maybe a couple of areas of expertize, but MHD theory is not something that a lot of astronomers claim to be competent in. I've yet to even meet an astronomer that had even read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven, and few that have read his first book. It's not like every astronomer is automatically more enlightened on this topic that someone who's actually read Alfven's work and has some understanding of his work. I don't claim to be the kind of 'expert" that Alfven was, or that Peratt is, but I do understand a few basic ideas. Of all the folks I've met in cyberspace, only DrRocket seems to think that he can understand what Alfven really meant without ever reading the material and while in pure denial of the existence of said material. I'm telling you it's a twilight zone episode, not a normal scientific discussion, with normal scientific give and take. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>You are the one presenting your case. You have read the books. You have read the papers. You claim to understand the meat and potatos of said books and papers. Instead of telling us to go buy a book or go out of our way to go to the library or making us pay a subscription to access the papers, why don't YOU present YOUR case. If you understand as well as you say you do, then you should have no problems discussing the physics and math... in your own words. On the rare occasion that you present something that is accessible to all, it is addressed.</p><p>The onus is on you to make your case. Providing names of books and inaccessible papers to support your case is not acceptable in a forum. Constantly repeating "Alfven said", "Birkeland said", "Peratt said"... just doesn't cut it.</p><p>Maybe now is a good time to start a new, FOCUSED, thread on something specific. Present your case with some math and physics via your own words and formulae or present useful papers that are accessible. </p><p>DrRocket's complaint is not that there is no math or physics availible... His complaint is that YOU haven't presented any. I think it is even deeper than that. Not only have you not discussed anything in the language of math and physics, you haven't shown the competence to be able to do so. I have no illusions that I have the competence to understand what you may present, but I'll never know unless you actually present something.</p><p>Once again. The responsbility is yours to make your case. You shouldn't expect us to do the work for you... especially if we have to open up our wallets to do so. Despite DrRocket actually opening his up to buy "Cosmical Electrodynamics" by Alfven which is directly related to his work for which he won his Nobel that you constantly and annoyingly refer to, you still claim he is in denial about his work. I find that odd. I commend him for actually doing that. However, you can't expect any of us to open up our wallets just to debate you on the internet... that's just plain silly.</p><p> </p><p>If you've read the books and papers, you should be able present your case. QED. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's now gotten to the point DrRocket that even origin has more credibility in my book than you do, and I thought that would be impossible. At least he doesn't seem to be in pure denial of the math and physics that support EU theory and the links to that work which I have provided in this thread. Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />2 points here,</p><p>1. I am just a Chemical Engineer and have no where near the physics knowledge that Dr. Rocket has, so if you think I have more credibility than him this is just another indication of your complete disconnect.</p><p>2. It is obvious that there isn't any math and physics that supports EU theory. I think in your world that means I am in pure denial. Glad that we could at least clear that up! </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But this isn't even a normal scientific discussion! Normally when you present someone with references to support an idea that are loaded with math and physics, they respect and acknowledge the fact that the theory is supported by math and physics. </DIV></p><p>That is incorrect. They do not respect and acknowledge the fact that the theory is supported by math and physics. First, and foremost, it has to be relevant math and physics. You can present half a ton of math and physics papers stretching back to the time that Ug first threw a rock into the air and if it is not germane to the specific claims being made it won't make a bit of difference or lend any credibility whatsoever. That's one of the problems with "teh intrawebz." It's chock full of math and physics that don't have any relation to many of the claims being made. That is where the term "psuedoscience" comes from. </p><p>You must separate yourself from that and prove that what you have presented is relevant to the claims. You can not do that with semantics. You can't do that strictly through comparisons. If you're dealing with the mathematics and the application of theory then you have to apply the mathematics and the theory directly, without fail, or no amount of cajoling will lend your ideas credibility. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>DrRocket...</DIV></p><p>I am not commenting on who did what or why so&so is wrong. That's not my purpose for entering the discussion. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I really do hear and understand what you're trying to say, but you also need to put yourself in my shoes for awhile... Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I am not taking any sides. I am only trying to present you with views that do not come from a perceived prejudiced source. I take no position on the subject of EU in this thread. To do so would be detrimental to the objectives I am trying to reach - Namely, the illumination of a method for you to present your ideas concisely for review and commentary by knowledgeable people.</p><p>Again, this is an opportunity for you to gather your thoughts and instead of reviewing past failures at communication, come up with a new method that concisely demonstrates your ideas. As I said earlier, in order to really accomplish that, you're going to have to directly apply theory and math to show a relationship between the experimental data present in your "evidence" to the claims you are making. Semantics will not accomplish this and has continually failed to accomplish this for six months.</p><p><u>Your <em>Basic</em> Step by Step Guide</u></p><p>1) Review the published data you have presented, familiarize yourself with it and its principles. </p><p>2) Review the published data on solar studies, familiarize yourself with it and its principles. </p><p>3) Find where your EU "evidence" is possibly related to observed solar phenomenon.</p><p>4) Demonstrate that the theory can apply directly to the observed phenomenon. </p><p>5) Do the maths showing that theory is empirically related to the observed phenomenon.</p><p>6) Do your ideas have predictive value? If so, demonstrate it and prove they have predictive value. </p><p>7) Post it.</p><p>You can not only do steps 1-3 and then move to step 7. That only ends with "is like."</p><p>If you can not complete all the steps, which I assume would be exceedingly difficult otherwise you'd be on the Nobel road by entering into a full scientific investigation into the matter, then you must try to make a good effort at it. I don't believe anyone expects you to produce publishable results. That is not the point. The point is to present enough relevant evidence directly demonstrating that it is related to the observed phenomenon so that a discussion can move forward. </p><p>You're going to have to generate a good deal of that on your own as, as has been alluded to before, some of the evidence you have presented has been contested due to its lack of relevancy and semantic arguments have been unable to overcome that. You can not move forward by defending against that position by proving relevancy only with semantics. Look above. In order to move forward, you're going to have to tackle steps 4 & 5. For the purposes of this discussion, you may not have to demonstrate step 6. I'm not saying you have to produce a fully functioning model. It'd be really nice if you could but, you're not trying to get published. You're simply trying to present enough information within a properly constructed format to move forward. </p><p>In short, you want someone who is knowledgeable to look at your post and say "Intriguing." If semantics is involved with it at all, they'll only be asking for clarifications and explanations, not challenging the basic tenents your ideas revolve around. If you can not get past a semantic argument, further semantics aren't going to be helpful. You NEED the 2+2 to back up the semantic argument around the theories you use. Without it, your semantic argument is an empty scabbard.</p><p>Take a breather. Clear your mind, take a break, think about something else for a couple of days and then sit down with your material. Find answers to questions and investigate those answers to be familiar with them. Then, start working on the steps to move forward.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2 points here,1. I am just a Chemical Engineer and have no where near the physics knowledge that Dr. Rocket has, so if you think I have more credibility than him this is just another indication of your complete disconnect.2. It is obvious that there isn't any math and physics that supports EU theory. I think in your world that means I am in pure denial. Glad that we could at least clear that up! <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Well, thanks for clearing that up for us, and for putting yourself solidly back at the bottom of the list. 
</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, thanks for clearing that up for us, and for putting yourself solidly back at the bottom of the list. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />No response the a_l_p's very thoughtful and constructive posts?</p><p>Oh, you probably have to dissect them line by line....that will take some time.</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>
<br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />No response the a_l_p's very thoughtful and constructive posts?</p><p>Oh, you probably have to dissect them line by line....that will take some time.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are the one presenting your case. You have read the books. You have read the papers. You claim to understand the meat and potatos of said books and papers. </DIV></p><p>And I provided you with free links to his relevant papers, and UFMButler provided a link to several pages of the book I have recommended. I doubt any of you have read those pages yet. None of you have commented on them. None of you have really addressed the papers Alfven wrote about the magnetosphere or coronal loops. This is not an interactive conversation, it's a one directiional proposition where I supply the matieral and you all ignore it and claim it's not there in the first place! DrRocket and origin are in absolute and pure denial at this point. I have no idea where you're at on this topic, but it might be very enlightening to hear your opinion on this topic. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Instead of telling us to go buy a book or go out of our way to go to the library or making us pay a subscription to access the papers, why don't YOU present YOUR case.</DIV></p><p>But I have done that now over and over and over again. I showed you Birkeland's work, and Alfven's work, and Bruce's work. Birkeland's work is free. Alfven's relevant points are "free". The papers I cited on CME's and magnetosphere activity are "free". You can download and read them anytime you wish. </p><p>In scientific discussions however, one is expected to read and comment on the material being presented, just as I commented on the relevant points of the Princeton papers, Priest's papers and Birn's presenation. I didn't make you each indifidually do all the math for us right here in this thread did I? Why would you expect me to do that? There is no one to one correlation between the existence of said material on the subject and wihether or not a paritcular individual can duplicated it on command!</p><p>This is an irrational concept in the first place. I need not be able to duplicate Bruce's work to show that this work exists on this topic! It is not true that an individuals ability to duplicate this work on command is required in order for this information to exist in the public domain. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you understand as well as you say you do, then you should have no problems discussing the physics and math.</DIV></p><p>Sure, and I started with the "physics". I explained the "particle/circuit" side of MHD theory. You all went into pure denial that Aflven wrote about it, and DrRocket balked at the whole idea of talking about circuits in plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.. in your own words. </DIV></p><p>I tried that. I used a plasma ball analogy in fact to describe the "physics' of what happens in light current carrying plasma, like we might find in the solar atmosphere. You folks seem to ignore the physics part entirely. It doesnt matter to any of you that Birkleland physically reproduced these physical phenomenon in a lab in emprical tests. There is no "physics' you will listen to.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>On the rare occasion that you present something that is accessible to all, it is addressed.</DIV></p><p>Which of you addressed the coronal loop and magnetosphere paper from Alfven? Which of you addressed the free material available from Birkeland? Which of you addressed the free materials I presented by Bruce? Which of you meaningfully responded to Peratt's work? Point me to the page. Come on!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The onus is on you to make your case. </DIV></p><p>I've done that already in several different ways. I can't make you read Alfven's work on MHD theory and accept that the 'particle" side of MHD theory is equally relevant and valid as the "field" orientation. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Providing names of books and inaccessible papers to support your case is not acceptable in a forum. </DIV></p><p>And if I had done that, you might have a case. Since I provided you all with a PDF of Birkeland's work, a PDF of several of Alfven's releveant papers, and a PDF of many of Peratt's papers, you haven't got a leg to stand on. It would be like me ignoring Priest's work, Birn's work, and the work at Princeton, never commenting on any of the material, and then claiming that no math or physics supports the idea. Holy Cow, it's pure denial.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Constantly repeating "Alfven said", "Birkeland said", "Peratt said"... just doesn't cut it.</DIV></p><p>But quoting them personally *should* cut it because these are three of the most important folks involved in EU theory. Ignoring their collective lifes work just doesn't cut it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe now is a good time to start a new, FOCUSED, thread on something specific.</DIV></p><p>Fine, lets ALL focus on Birkeland's first expermients. They are freely available on the web. I'll find you the link again if you like. Tell me why his work is not applicable to this topic?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Present your case with some math and physics via your own words and formulae or present useful papers that are accessible.</DIV></p><p>Your belief that I have not already done so is demonstratebly false as can be seen by rereading this thread. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>DrRocket's complaint is not that there is no math or physics availible... </DIV></p><p>And that is demonstratebly false starting with Birkeland's work.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>His complaint is that YOU haven't presented any. </DIV></p><p>And that is the part that is pure denial. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I think it is even deeper than that.</DIV></p><p>Me too, but it has nothing to do with me or what I have presented. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Not only have you not discussed anything in the language of math and physics, you haven't shown the competence to be able to do so. </DIV></p><p>Well, this pretty much answers my question about where you stand. I have discussed this whole topic in the language of math and physics. You foliks have never responded to any of the math or physics. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have no illusions that I have the competence to understand what you may present, but I'll never know unless you actually present something.</DIV></p><p>Yes or no, will we find *any* links to EU theories presented by *ANYONE* other than me in this thread that are freely accessable, and contain math and physicsl arguements? I'd like to understand how deep this denial thing goes exactly.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Once again. The responsbility is yours to make your case.</DIV></p><p>Sure, but I am not required to make this case all by myself, on command, in this thread anymore than any of you are required to reproduce Birn's work on command. Scientific theories are a communiity endeavor.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You shouldn't expect us to do the work for you...especially if we have to open up our wallets to do so. </DIV></p><p>I don't. I just expect you to read and comment on the papers I present and the physical arguments that these authrors present. I have provided you with ample papers that are freely available for download. Part of Alfven's book is also freely accessable to you. Have you even yet commented on the pages that you *can* read? Does he make *no* physical or mathematical arguments in those few pages? None at all?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Despite DrRocket actually opening his up to buy "Cosmical Electrodynamics" by Alfven which is directly related to his work for which he won his Nobel that you constantly and annoyingly refer to, you still claim he is in denial about his work. I find that odd.</DIV></p><p>I find it odd that he would shell out the big bucks for a different book, one I didn't recommend and then deny that the other book exists or that it contains math or physics. His personal ignorance of this work is not evidence that none exists. It's an irrational attitude from start to finish. He's never even commented on the few pages of Alfven's book that are freely availble to him thanks to UFMButler, and neither have you.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I commend him for actually doing that. However, you can't expect any of us to open up our wallets just to debate you on the internet...</DIV></p><p>I'm not asking you to open your wallet, just your mind. I am expecting you to actually *read* and *respond* to the papers I have provided and will continue to provide.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>that's just plain silly. If you've read the books and papers, you should be able present your case. QED. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I have even copied and pasted the relevant parts from Alfven's books and papers for you. The fact you all deny this material exists or that it is freely available to you is demonstratebly false by anyone curious enough to actually read this thread and click on the links I have provided in this thread.</p><p>I do agree with on point you make. It is time to FOCUS this conversation on *A* piece of work and *force* you all to acknowledge it. I think I'll start with Birkeland's work since he was the first one to propose EU theory and it's freely available to anyone interested in reading it. I'll round up the link and post in my next post so everyone knows that it's free and it's been "presented" to you in this thread. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
I am expecting you to actually *read* and *respond* to the papers I have provided and will continue to provide.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>that's just plain silly. If you've read the books and papers, you should be able present your case. QED. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I have even copied and pasted the relevant parts from Alfven's books and papers for you. The fact you all deny this material exists or that it is freely available to you is demonstratebly false by anyone curious enough to actually read this thread and click on the links I have provided in this thread.</p><p>I do agree with on point you make. It is time to FOCUS this conversation on *A* piece of work and *force* you all to acknowledge it. I think I'll start with Birkeland's work since he was the first one to propose EU theory and it's freely available to anyone interested in reading it. I'll round up the link and post in my next post so everyone knows that it's free and it's been "presented" to you in this thread. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p>http://ia340919.us.archive.org/2/items/norwegianaurorap01chririch/norwegianaurorap01chririch.pdf</p><p>No wallet opening is required, but be sure to "save" the downloaded file so you have it as reference material. I will be be quoting him from this PDF file presentation of this lab experiments, and his in-situ measurements and specifically the math and physics he presents in this work. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And I provided you with free links to his relevant papers, and UFMButler provided a link to several pages of the book I have recommended. I doubt any of you have read those pages yet. None of you have commented on them. None of you have really addressed the papers Alfven wrote about the magnetosphere or coronal loops. This is not an interactive conversation, it's a one directiional proposition where I supply the matieral and you all ignore it and claim it's not there in the first place! DrRocket and origin are in absolute and pure denial at this point. I have no idea where you're at on this topic, but it might be very enlightening to hear your opinion on this topic. But I have done that now over and over and over again. I showed you Birkeland's work, and Alfven's work, and Bruce's work. Birkeland's work is free. Alfven's relevant points are "free". The papers I cited on CME's and magnetosphere activity are "free". You can download and read them anytime you wish. In scientific discussions however, one is expected to read and comment on the material being presented, just as I commented on the relevant points of the Princeton papers, Priest's papers and Birn's presenation. I didn't make you each indifidually do all the math for us right here in this thread did I? Why would you expect me to do that? There is no one to one correlation between the existence of said material on the subject and wihether or not a paritcular individual can duplicated it on command!This is an irrational concept in the first place. I need not be able to duplicate Bruce's work to show that this work exists on this topic! It is not true that an individuals ability to duplicate this work on command is required in order for this information to exist in the public domain. Sure, and I started with the "physics". I explained the "particle/circuit" side of MHD theory. You all went into pure denial that Aflven wrote about it, and DrRocket balked at the whole idea of talking about circuits in plasma.I tried that. I used a plasma ball analogy in fact to describe the "physics' of what happens in light current carrying plasma, like we might find in the solar atmosphere. You folks seem to ignore the physics part entirely. It doesnt matter to any of you that Birkleland physically reproduced these physical phenomenon in a lab in emprical tests. There is no "physics' you will listen to.Which of you addressed the coronal loop and magnetosphere paper from Alfven? Which of you addressed the free material available from Birkeland? Which of you addressed the free materials I presented by Bruce? Which of you meaningfully responded to Peratt's work? Point me to the page. Come on!I've done that already in several different ways. I can't make you read Alfven's work on MHD theory and accept that the 'particle" side of MHD theory is equally relevant and valid as the "field" orientation. And if I had done that, you might have a case. Since I provided you all with a PDF of Birkeland's work, a PDF of several of Alfven's releveant papers, and a PDF of many of Peratt's papers, you haven't got a leg to stand on. It would be like me ignoring Priest's work, Birn's work, and the work at Princeton, never commenting on any of the material, and then claiming that no math or physics supports the idea. Holy Cow, it's pure denial.But quoting them personally *should* cut it because these are three of the most important folks involved in EU theory. Ignoring their collective lifes work just doesn't cut it.Fine, lets ALL focus on Birkeland's first expermients. They are freely available on the web. I'll find you the link again if you like. Tell me why his work is not applicable to this topic?Your belief that I have not already done so is demonstratebly false as can be seen by rereading this thread. And that is demonstratebly false starting with Birkeland's work.And that is the part that is pure denial. Me too, but it has nothing to do with me or what I have presented. Well, this pretty much answers my question about where you stand. I have discussed this whole topic in the language of math and physics. You foliks have never responded to any of the math or physics. Yes or no, will we find *any* links to EU theories presented by *ANYONE* other than me in this thread that are freely accessable, and contain math and physicsl arguements? I'd like to understand how deep this denial thing goes exactly.Sure, but I am not required to make this case all by myself, on command, in this thread anymore than any of you are required to reproduce Birn's work on command. Scientific theories are a communiity endeavor.I don't. I just expect you to read and comment on the papers I present and the physical arguments that these authrors present. I have provided you with ample papers that are freely available for download. Part of Alfven's book is also freely accessable to you. Have you even yet commented on the pages that you *can* read? Does he make *no* physical or mathematical arguments in those few pages? None at all?I find it odd that he would shell out the big bucks for a different book, one I didn't recommend and then deny that the other book exists or that it contains math or physics. His personal ignorance of this work is not evidence that none exists. It's an irrational attitude from start to finish. He's never even commented on the few pages of Alfven's book that are freely availble to him thanks to UFMButler, and neither have you.I'm not asking you to open your wallet, just your mind. I am expecting you to actually *read* and *respond* to the papers I have provided and will continue to provide.I have even copied and pasted the relevant parts from Alfven's books and papers for you. The fact you all deny this material exists or that it is freely available to you is demonstratebly false by anyone curious enough to actually read this thread and click on the links I have provided in this thread.I do agree with on point you make. It is time to FOCUS this conversation on *A* piece of work and *force* you all to acknowledge it. I think I'll start with Birkeland's work since he was the first one to propose EU theory and it's freely available to anyone interested in reading it. I'll round up the link and post in my next post so everyone knows that it's free and it's been "presented" to you in this thread. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> </p><p>"Oh, you probably have to dissect them line by line....that will take some time."</p><p><br /><br />Bingo!!</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>
I am expecting you to actually *read* and *respond* to the papers I have provided and will continue to provide.I have even copied and pasted the relevant parts from Alfven's books and papers for you. The fact you all deny this material exists or that it is freely available to you is demonstratebly false by anyone curious enough to actually read this thread and click on the links I have provided in this thread.I do agree with on point you make. It is time to FOCUS this conversation on *A* piece of work and *force* you all to acknowledge it. I think I'll start with Birkeland's work since he was the first one to propose EU theory and it's freely available to anyone interested in reading it. I'll round up the link and post in my next post so everyone knows that it's free and it's been "presented" to you in this thread. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> </p><p>"Oh, you probably have to dissect them line by line....that will take some time."</p><p><br /><br />Bingo!!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No response the a_l_p's very thoughtful and constructive posts?Oh, you probably have to dissect them line by line....that will take some time. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Huh? No, actually I have found his/her advice to be quite valuable and insightful. I will respond, but I have to catch up on other conversations too. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is incorrect. They do not respect and acknowledge the fact that the theory is supported by math and physics. </DIV></p><p>Yes, and from my vantage point that is why this conversation has been like a twighlight zone episode. I have provided the links I will provide in the next few pages already in this thread. Either they didint' read them (UFMButler probably joined later in this tread and never saw the Birkeland link), or they didn't see them, or they simply refuse to acknowledge them. I know for a fact that DrRocket has downloaded at least part of Birkeland's work and has quoted from it, yet he claimes EU theory is not supported by math or physics in spite of the fact the Birkeland himself did both of these things. EU theory has never *not been* supported by math or physics since the time of Birkeland. How do I have an intelligent and meaningful discussion with a group that won't acknowledge the validity of his work?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First, and foremost, it has to be relevant math and physics. </DIV></p><p>Well, we're talking about how aurora are powered, and Birkeland's work has been shown to be "relevant" to this topic.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can present half a ton of math and physics papers stretching back to the time that Ug first threw a rock into the air and if it is not germane to the specific claims being made it won't make a bit of difference or lend any credibility whatsoever. </DIV></p><p>But that would not be the case with Birkeland's work, since he was in fact the founding father of EU theory, his work has been shown to actually relate to auroral activity and it also addresses his other terella experiments. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's one of the problems with "teh intrawebz." It's chock full of math and physics that don't have any relation to many of the claims being made. That is where the term "psuedoscience" comes from. You must separate yourself from that and prove that what you have presented is relevant to the claims. </DIV></p><p>Even the mainstream acknowledges that at least *some* of Birkeland's work is "true" and it is certainly relevant to EU theory as a whole, and to auroral activity. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can not do that with semantics. You can't do that strictly through comparisons. </DIV></p><p>The think here however is that I can compare Birkeland's predictions with satellite observations. It may not be *enough* but the fact it can be done at all shows that there is an emprical physical correlation here between the "predictions" Birkeland makes and the phenenon in question. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you're dealing with the mathematics and the application of theory then you have to apply the mathematics and the theory directly, without fail, or no amount of cajoling will lend your ideas credibility.</DIV></p><p>I'll be happy to focus on Alfven's work next, but I'm tired of hearing there is not "physics" or "math" behind EU theory and Birkeland's work conclusively demonstrates that this is false, and it's "free" to everyone who wants to read it. The more refined math of Alfven and Peratt is great, but it's only an improvement on what Birkeland originally presented. I also intend to repost links to Bruce's relevant work as we get to coronal loops.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I am not commenting on who did what or why so&so is wrong. That's not my purpose for entering the discussion. I am not taking any sides. I am only trying to present you with views that do not come from a perceived prejudiced source. I take no position on the subject of EU in this thread. To do so would be detrimental to the objectives I am trying to reach - Namely, the illumination of a method for you to present your ideas concisely for review and commentary by knowledgeable people.Again, this is an opportunity for you to gather your thoughts and instead of reviewing past failures at communication, come up with a new method that concisely demonstrates your ideas. As I said earlier, in order to really accomplish that, you're going to have to directly apply theory and math to show a relationship between the experimental data present in your "evidence" to the claims you are making. Semantics will not accomplish this and has continually failed to accomplish this for six months.Your Basic Step by Step Guide1) Review the published data you have presented, familiarize yourself with it and its principles. 2) Review the published data on solar studies, familiarize yourself with it and its principles. 3) Find where your EU "evidence" is possibly related to observed solar phenomenon.4) Demonstrate that the theory can apply directly to the observed phenomenon. 5) Do the maths showing that theory is empirically related to the observed phenomenon.6) Do your ideas have predictive value? If so, demonstrate it and prove they have predictive value. 7) Post it.You can not only do steps 1-3 and then move to step 7. That only ends with "is like."If you can not complete all the steps, which I assume would be exceedingly difficult otherwise you'd be on the Nobel road by entering into a full scientific investigation into the matter, then you must try to make a good effort at it. I don't believe anyone expects you to produce publishable results. That is not the point. The point is to present enough relevant evidence directly demonstrating that it is related to the observed phenomenon so that a discussion can move forward. You're going to have to generate a good deal of that on your own as, as has been alluded to before, some of the evidence you have presented has been contested due to its lack of relevancy and semantic arguments have been unable to overcome that. You can not move forward by defending against that position by proving relevancy only with semantics. Look above. In order to move forward, you're going to have to tackle steps 4 & 5. For the purposes of this discussion, you may not have to demonstrate step 6. I'm not saying you have to produce a fully functioning model. It'd be really nice if you could but, you're not trying to get published. You're simply trying to present enough information within a properly constructed format to move forward. In short, you want someone who is knowledgeable to look at your post and say "Intriguing." If semantics is involved with it at all, they'll only be asking for clarifications and explanations, not challenging the basic tenents your ideas revolve around. If you can not get past a semantic argument, further semantics aren't going to be helpful. You NEED the 2+2 to back up the semantic argument around the theories you use. Without it, your semantic argument is an empty scabbard.Take a breather. Clear your mind, take a break, think about something else for a couple of days and then sit down with your material. Find answers to questions and investigate those answers to be familiar with them. Then, start working on the steps to move forward. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>FYI, I really and honestly appreciate the time and effort you have put into your comments. Believe me I'm hearing you, and I apprecate what you're doing. I will certainly try to present this case again, one free link at a time, one relevant point at a time and we'll have to see how it goes. I appreciate the fact that you give great advice and you're tyring hard to remain neutral. That is a welcome addition to this thread. Thanks. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I doubt any of you have read those pages yet. None of you have commented on them.</DIV></p><p>What about those posts where DrRocket refers specifically to the pages in the book and forms an argument you never addressed directly? I guess that never happened...maybe I was hallucinating. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Both parties however have to begin with some basic understandings of the field. In other words MHD theory is not simply a "field" (B) oriented theory, it also has a "particle/circuit" (E) side to it. I can't get them to even ackowledge the E field is there and it is an equally valid approach.</DIV></p><p>What about those times when we gave you a number of papers that discuss in detail the E field contribution to reconnection? I guess that never happened either. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... Believe me I'm hearing you, and I apprecate what you're doing. I will certainly try to present this case again, one free link at a time, one relevant point at a time and we'll have to see how it goes. I appreciate the fact that you give great advice and you're tyring hard to remain neutral. That is a welcome addition to this thread. Thanks. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I want you to review, if possible, what I said in the above posts. Notice the continuing theme of "A New Begining."</p><p>Reviewing the past battles, as has been done ad nauseum in this thread, has not been productive. There is no reason to review the same material yet again if it is going to be presented in the same way it has been. That will be futile. Past efforts have not yielded the desired fruit. Therefore, future efforts must be made in a different manner which are focused on accomplishing the same objective.</p><p>I do understand how difficult it is to forget old arguments when discussing a topic that one is passionate about and has a history of contention amongst those discussing it. However, that is what you must do. It's the smart thing to do, really, as unless the material is presented in some radically new way, there is no avoiding of the old arguments and pitfalls. They are best forgotten if you wish to move forward.</p><p>Look at the Basic steps I listed. That's what you're going to need to do, or some reasonable facsimile thereof, in order to be able to attain the goal of provoking any further thoughtful discussion amonst the learned.</p><p>Take a break. I'm sure you could use it. Relax a bit and don't dwell on this particular subject for awhile. Let the fervor of the moment die down a bit so you can be better able to approach the subject from a new perspective. Most critical is going to be approaching it using the language of science and that would require demonstration of theory and maths pertaining <u>exclusively to your <em>specific</em> claims</u>. That's a tall order and it's best approached by allowing oneself to clear one's mind of distractions along with getting a healthy dose of relaxation and recreation beforehand.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What about those times when we gave you a number of papers that discuss in detail the E field contribution to reconnection? I guess that never happened either. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>You accept it is there, but you do not aagree that the particle/circuit side of MHD theory is equally valid. What you are calling 'magnetic reconnection' is something Alfven describe in terms of particles and circuits and he paid particular attention to the circuit energy, not simply the particle energy at the point of contact. </p><p>The problem is that you refuse to call a "magnetic line" that contains a flow of charge particles a "circuit". The moment one recognizes that what you call a magneticl line, Alfven called a circuit, it becomes obvious that magnetic reconnection is identical to circuit reconnection. They are one and the same process.</p><p>My primary beef is not with you unless you too are contending that I have provided *no* math and *no* physics to support my position. I have in fact provided you with papers by Alfven on these same topics. </p><p>You may have come in late enough in the conversation that you missed the link to Birkeland's work, but you now have access to that information as well. There is plenty of math and physics contained in Birkeland's writings.</p><p>I am however growing tired of this claim that EU theory isn't supported by math and physics. That is pure nonsense. Even Birkeland himself provided us with ample mathematical explanations for his observations and experiments. Alfven and his students built upon this work, as did Bruce and his students. To now claim that EU theory is not supported by math or physics is to be in pure denial. It is the *only* theory here that we have discussed that *actually is* "explained" in real emprical experiments, and in mathematical detail. Many theories have mathematical detail and no emprical support. EU theory has both mathematical support and expression, but also enjoys emprical support in a lab. It's not shy around the laboratory. It can be "tested' in every emprical sense. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What about those posts where DrRocket refers specifically to the pages in the book and forms an argument you never addressed directly? I guess that never happened...maybe I was hallucinating. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I did address them directly by quoting Alfven directly. He specifically and explicitly talked about the "circuits' that provide and carry the energy, the same "circuits" that DrRocket refuses to believe exist in plasma.</p><p>An ordinary plasma ball demonstrates this idea conclusively. Those filaments are "powered" by the circuit energy, not the "lines" in the plasma. Any 'reconfiguration' of two of the externally powered "lines"" is necessarily going to be influenced by the "total circuit energy" at the point of "connection". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I want you to review, if possible, what I said in the above posts. Notice the continuing theme of "A New Begining."Reviewing the past battles, as has been done ad nauseum in this thread, has not been productive. There is no reason to review the same material yet again if it is going to be presented in the same way it has been. That will be futile. Past efforts have not yielded the desired fruit. Therefore, future efforts must be made in a different manner which are focused on accomplishing the same objective.I do understand how difficult it is to forget old arguments when discussing a topic that one is passionate about and has a history of contention amongst those discussing it. However, that is what you must do. It's the smart thing to do, really, as unless the material is presented in some radically new way, there is no avoiding of the old arguments and pitfalls. They are best forgotten if you wish to move forward.Look at the Basic steps I listed. That's what you're going to need to do, or some reasonable facsimile thereof, in order to be able to attain the goal of provoking any further thoughtful discussion amonst the learned.Take a break. I'm sure you could use it. Relax a bit and don't dwell on this particular subject for awhile. Let the fervor of the moment die down a bit so you can be better able to approach the subject from a new perspective. Most critical is going to be approaching it using the language of science and that would require demonstration of theory and maths pertaining exclusively to your specific claims. That's a tall order and it's best approached by allowing oneself to clear one's mind of distractions along with getting a healthy dose of relaxation and recreation beforehand. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>The problem as I see it is that michael truly believes he has shown us the math. We've all looked at the math(despite his claims to the contrary which show he is revising history or just simply doesn't read what we say), and we do not agree that the math says what he says it does. He agrees our math says what we say it does, but is contending it also says something else(the circuit viewpoint). In this situation, it is certainly reasonable to expect him to produce the math. We are not required to do the same because there is nothing unclear about the math we have presented. Nobody disagrees with it, not even michael(where "it" refers to the general definition of reconnection as defined by Schindler, Hesse, and Birn). So the only logical next step is for michael to explain in detail why he feels that Alfven and Birkeland et al are saying what we contend they are not. Birkeland's experiments told us a lot of things, as did Alfven, but I do not believe the wild assumptions coming from EU theory are among those things. Everyone still involved in the thread at least looked through the pages of Cosmic Plasma I posted, the ones even michael himself said contain the main points he is trying to make, and we argued they did not say what he says they did. He has yet to directly respond to these arguments and explain in detail why he believes we are wrong. No appeals to authority, no appeals to Birkeland's work, just plain and simple in the language of science why we are wrong. That is the ONLY logical next step in my opinion. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I want you to review, if possible, what I said in the above posts. Notice the continuing theme of "A New Begining."Reviewing the past battles, as has been done ad nauseum in this thread, has not been productive. </DIV></p><p>I actually do hear you on this point. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no reason to review the same material yet again if it is going to be presented in the same way it has been. That will be futile. </DIV></p><p>I agree. Evidently I will have to be specific this time through and make sure they actually read the matieral and respond to it and that all recognize that it exists. Evidently that didn't even get that far the first time through this discussion. We do however need to start with Birkeland because all our theories "connect" at the aurora and Birkeland wrote the early book on this phenomenon. I can't very well ignore it only because they ignored it the first time through. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Past efforts have not yielded the desired fruit. Therefore, future efforts must be made in a different manner which are focused on accomplishing the same objective.</DIV></p><p>Indeed. Once they've downloaded the file, I intend to point them to specific pages that are full of mathematical expressions on this topic and to specific physical experiments that he conducted on this topic. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I do understand how difficult it is to forget old arguments when discussing a topic that one is passionate about and has a history of contention amongst those discussing it. However, that is what you must do. It's the smart thing to do, really, as unless the material is presented in some radically new way, there is no avoiding of the old arguments and pitfalls.</DIV></p><p>There really weren't any "arguements or pitfalls" because none of them seem to know that this matieral exists, and that it can be downloaded for free. Evidnetly we missed some important steps last time through. I don't intend to make that mistake and I will require they read some of the pages I refer to from this document, and to respond to the points that Birkeland makes.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They are best forgotten if you wish to move forward.</DIV></p><p>A move 'forward' at this point would simply be for them to accept that EU theory is well expressed in terms of math and physical testing. We haven't gotten to first base yet. I can't move forward to second base (Bruce) until they recognize the existence of Birkeland's work. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Look at the Basic steps I listed. That's what you're going to need to do, or some reasonable facsimile thereof, in order to be able to attain the goal of provoking any further thoughtful discussion amonst the learned.Take a break. I'm sure you could use it. Relax a bit and don't dwell on this particular subject for awhile. Let the fervor of the moment die down a bit so you can be better able to approach the subject from a new perspective. Most critical is going to be approaching it using the language of science and that would require demonstration of theory and maths pertaining exclusively to your specific claims. That's a tall order and it's best approached by allowing oneself to clear one's mind of distractions along with getting a healthy dose of relaxation and recreation beforehand. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>I hear you on all these points. I guess however that the only way to get them to recognize that EU theory is well supported mathematically and physically and that the information is freely accessable it to take each reference one reference at a time and make sure they respond this time to the relevant material. It would be fuitle to simply ignore Birkeland's work and Alfven's work only because they chose to do so the first time through. I don't mind "starting new", but this time through I'm going to insist that the materials be acknowledge and responded to in a meaningful manner. Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven and Perratt are still the primary producers of math and physics related to EU 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>
<p>You just don't get it. </p><p>Provide you own proofs, and stop referring to papers from a century ago.</p><p>If you understand it, demonstarte what you understand, clearly, using your understanding.</p><p>I will keep checking the weather forecast for hell to see whn it will freeze over, but so far that's not in the long range forecast, so I must assume that will never happen in my lifetime.</p><p> I'm glad this has been placed in the unexplained.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The problem as I see it is that michael truly believes he has shown us the math. </DIV></p><p>Well, I have produced the math to origin and DrRocket, but you may not have read any of Birkeland's work as far as I know. You entered the convrsation a bit later in the conversation. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We've all looked at the math</DIV></p><p>You've personally looked at Birkeland's math? You've personally looked at Bruce's math? You've personally looked at math from Peratt?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>(despite his claims to the contrary which show he is revising history or just simply doesn't read what we say), and we do not agree that the math says what he says it does. </DIV></p><p>It's not what *I* say, it's what Birkeland says, what Bruce says? Alfven expressed these energy exchanges in terms of "Circuits" and "circuit energy". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He agrees our math says what we say it does, but is contending it also says something else(the circuit viewpoint).</DIV></p><p>I agree that the "field" side of MHD theory is valid (to a point), but you refuse to acknowledge that the particle and circuit approach to MHD theory is equally valid. That's where we seem to be stuck. I showed you specific papers on specific topics written by Alfven himself on this subject. I'm not asking you to take *my personal* word for any of this.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> In this situation, it is certainly reasonable to expect him to produce the math. </DIV></p><p>Did Birkeland produce "math" in that link I posted? Did Bruce produce math in the papers I've provided? </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We are not required to do the same because there is nothing unclear about the math we have presented. </DIV></p><p>That is because I actually *read* it, and I *responded* to it, and I *accept* that it is accurate. You've never acknowledged the same about Alfven's presenation of these same events. You've never acknowledge Birkeland's work on this front.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nobody disagrees with it, not even michael(where "it" refers to the general definition of reconnection as defined by Schindler, Hesse, and Birn). </DIV></p><p>Right. We also all agree that magnetic lines never disconnect or reconnect. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So the only logical next step is for michael to explain in detail why he feels that Alfven and Birkeland et al are saying what we contend they are not.</DIV></p><p>I will have to make sure that each of you first understand that Birkeland produced math on this subject and produced emprical experiments that make specific "predictions" on this topic. When we're all on that same page, it's work talking about other EU authors. If however everyone keeps expecting me personally to reproduce all these equations on command, we won't get anywhere. I didn't make you do that with Birn's paper, I simply read what was there and responded to it, just like I responded to the PPPL paper and Priest's presentation. That's the way any scienrtific conversation is supposed to work.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birkeland's experiments told us a lot of things, as did Alfven, but I do not believe the wild assumptions coming from EU theory are among those things.</DIV></p><p>Then I can only conclude that you do not comprehend the meaning or the scope of their work because they literally wrote the books on EU theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Everyone still involved in the thread at least looked through the pages of Cosmic Plasma I posted, the ones even michael himself said contain the main points he is trying to make, and we argued they did not say what he says they did.</DIV></p><p>What did I say they said that you disagree with? Be specific.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> He has yet to directly respond to these arguments and explain in detail why he believes we are wrong. No appeals to authority, no appeals to Birkeland's work, just plain and simple in the language of science why we are wrong. That is the ONLY logical next step in my opinion. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Gah. I don't even know what you think I got wrong. I simply quoted Alfven on this topic and presented papers on the this same topic that involved "circuits" and "circuit energy". What exactly don't you agree with? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You just don't get it. Provide you own proofs,</DIV></p><p>That is not a requirement, nor it it logical. It would be like me *insisting* that one of you reproduce Birn's work before I read it or acknowlege it's existence. That's absurd.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and stop referring to papers from a century ago.</DIV></p><p>Why? Birkeland knew more about the way our universe functions a century ago than most maintreams realize today IMO. His work is still highly relevant. He did something a century ago, all by himself that has eluded all the proponents of "magnetic reconnection" on the planet today. He created real empical tests and "predicted" these high energy events from these experiments.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you understand it, demonstarte what you understand, clearly, using your understanding.I will keep checking the weather forecast for hell to see whn it will freeze over, but so far that's not in the long range forecast, so I must assume that will never happen in my lifetime. I'm glad this has been placed in the unexplained. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>This notion that I'm supposed to bark up math on command *before* you acknowledge that it exists is ridiculous. There is no one to one correlation between an individuals ability to bark math on command and the validity of the theory they have presented (through other people's work). This idea that I must bark math on command is bogus. It's a self defense mechanism on your part. EU theory remains viable, well defined mathmatically, well evidenced physically, irrespective of my personal math skills. Get 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>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram