<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> (Emphasis added)Read your response carefully and particularly note the highlighted section. That is your premise. </DIV></p><p>Indeed. It is also emprical scientific fact. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That and the other claims like that are the KEYS to your successful entrance into the serious discussion that you seek.</DIV></p><p>Yes, I agree.</p><p>First of all, I want you to know that your communcations skills are not lost on me. I'm in awe of your ability to 'disarm' the conversation by your communication style. Beleive me when I tell you that I know I have a lot to learn from your communcation style, and I will attempt to "clean up my act" as I go. I can see that your approach is far superior to the one I've been using, but keep in mind old habits die hard, and it will take me awhile to change. I do however see that your approach is superior and it's a great example of how this discussion *should* be approached.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That one sentence is the cornerstone which will begin your argument. </DIV></p><p>IMO there seem to be several fallacies that are preventing this conversations from progressing logically and scientifically. My detractors generally seem to believe:</p><p>A) EU theory is not mathematically or physicslly supported (clearly untrue since the time of Birkeland)</p><p>B) my personal math skills are somehow related to the validity of this or *any* theory (absolutely false)</p><p>C) I am personally obligated not only to reference the materials requested, but also do them myself on command. (false)</p><p>These three false beliefs on the part of my detractors are preventing us from moving forward at this point, so these issues must be dealt with in an open and honest manner. Just as I did not require any of my detractors to "explain' the math and physics behind any of the papers they presented to me, I too will expect them to read and comment on the material and not expect me personally to hold their hand, or bark math on command. If they have a *specific* problem with the math in the referrence material, let them find these errors and present them as I did with Priest paper and the PPPL paper. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In order to support that cornerstone, in order to move forward, what YOU must do is show that direct relationship. </DIV></p><p>I agree. I intend to start with aurora and coronal loops since there are two things commonly being linked to "magnetic reconnection". The "jets"", the "rings", etc are bonus predictions and serve to demonstrate the merits of the overall the overall theory. I agree with you on this point.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you are offering that his experiments and others like his have predictive value when applied directly to observations then you must do more than just say it is true. Demonstrate it. It is NOT sufficient to say "is like." A baseball shares many similarities with an orange. It is spherical, it has mass, it contains organic compounds, it has an exterior covering, etc.. But, it is not an orange. It is like one.In order to move forward, you have to show evidence of your claims. Not Birklands, not anyone else's - Yours. Others here have told you specifics, they have told you what they require. </DIV></p><p>I agree with you on these specific points. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not Birklands, not anyone else's - Yours.</DIV></p><p>That's not quite how things work. Birkeland made these "predictions", not me. I intend to show the satellite and observational evidence to support these ideas and the mathematical models that Alfven used to physicslly describe these events. This information doesn't actually originate with me at any level. I'm a relative "newbie" to EU theory. My "conversion"" as it were to EU Theory took place in 2005, about 100 years *after* Birkeland came up with the ideas, and 30+ years since Alfven, Bruce and their students first started mathematicaly improving on Birkeland's work and started creating computer models to "predict" events in space. EU theory is not created by, nor developed by, nor dependent upon the beliefs or mathematical skills of a single individual. It is a "group effort" like every other scientific theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Others here have told you specifics, they have told you what they require. In fact, all of your major detractors have offered to you the requirements necessary to engage them further. In short, they have told you "If you do X, we will examine it." </DIV></p><p>This requirement 'x" (that I bark math on command) is not a valid or rational requirement. The validity of no theory on the planet is dependent upon my personal math skills. This is a fallacious requirement from the start. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They've given you their requirements and, if what you claim is true, then you can meet those requirements. </DIV></p><p>I can meet the requirements of providing papers and books and physical tests that explain the math and physics in great detail. My personal math skills are irrelevant to the scientific validity of their work.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But, it is extremely important that you present this in the language of science - You're going to have to delve into the theory and the maths and apply that directly to what it is you maintain. </DIV></p><p>Yes, but it is not necessary that I personally do all the math, or do all the physical experiments all by myself. That is not the way science works. It is not a requirement that every individual in cyberspace discussing some idea duplicated every physical experiment personally, or do all the math personally for them to be correct about that theory.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no other way. This discussion has gone outside of the boundaries of simple "intrawebz" science talk and is dealing directly with elevated concepts which require a higher level of detail.I will not discuss past battles with you. Obviously, they were lost. If you can not leave those battles and strategies behind and start anew using the approach that your detractors have insisted upon in these past couple of pages, then you will meet with the same result you had after six months of effort. Note: A response containing "But" will not be sufficient to change the theme of my posts to you. Six months of observational data have proved that the past method which you have used is ineffective. The evidence strongly suggests you must change that method if you wish to meet with success. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>The only way to achieve "success" as I see it, is to start with the core fallacies that seem to be blocking this conversation from moving forwards.</p><p>The primary "fallacy" here is them believing that my personal math skills have anything to do with the validity of this or any other scientific theory. There is no such correlation between my personal math skills and the validiy of any theory. A skeptic of some other theory may have doubts about the math, but I can provide links to such math. If however the skeptic *requires* that do it all myself, there is no guarantee that a single specific individual can do that, nor does it validate or invalidate the theory in question. If I provided links to papers on Lamda-CDM theory to a skeptic, that skeptic of Lambda-CMD theory would be expected to read and respond to the paper on Lamda-CDM theory, not expect me to bark the math myself on command, or claim victory simply by virue of their superior math skills. There is no one to one corralation between the validity of any theory from the standpoint of math and physics and the ability of a single individual to duplicate that work in terms of math and emprical physics. This particular fallacy is going to have to be addressed before we move forward, because it the single most irrational fallacy in play, and it's obviously become a significant problem.</p><p>I didn't require them to "explain" Priests math. I rejected his invocation of monopoles all by myself. I didn't expect them to explain the PPPL paper to me either, and I found the specific equation where I believe they introduced a significant error into their calculations. That's a logical expectation of any scientific discussion. Likewise I required no one in this thread to explain Birn's presenation of 'magnetic reconnection", before I agreed it was a mathematically correct explanation, albeit with a bad name.</p><p>There is no corrrelation between the ability of single individuals in this thread to explain all the math of a given theory and the validity of that theory. All theories are *group* projects that are not presented by *single* individuals on command in a forum.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature">
It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>