<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.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.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? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Hence, you do not get what a_l_p has tried to say to you.</p><p>End of Interest</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>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.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.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? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Your last two posts show us exactly why we are reluctant to read through every single thing you suggest we read. When we have read what you request us to read and disagree with what you say it says, then you claim we don't understand it. It seems the only way to end this argument is for us to agree with you, and I certainly do not see that happening. There is nothing wrong with Birkeland's work or Alfven's work. It is what you read into it that we have a problem with. You say they wrote the book on EU theory, but they didn't. They performed perfectly reasonable and correct experiments and developed/founded the theory of how plasma and its various properties interact with magnetic fields. So yes, they wrote books. If MHD was equivalent to EU, then myself and everyone else in the MHD theory field would be an EU proponent, given that you have to know quite a bit of MHD to run MHD simulations. You keep dancing around the issue, saying "tell me specifically what they say that you have a problem with", but you aren't getting it. There isn't anything that they say we have a problem with. It is entirely what YOU say. And we've pointed out our problems with what you say quite enough... </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your last two posts show us exactly why we are reluctant to read through every single thing you suggest we read. When we have read what you request us to read and disagree with what you say it says,</DIV></p><p>What exactly *do* you disgree with? Be specific! Alfven's work speaks by and for itself. It doesn't need me to "say' anything about it. That is true of Birkeland's work as well.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>then you claim we don't understand it.</DIV></p><p>If you haven't read Birkeland's work, it is highly unlikely you will understand it. If one hasn't read Bruce's work, it's highly unlikely they will understand it. If one hasn't read Alfven's work on Plasma Cosmology, it's unlike one will "undertsand it". How can you understand a book you've never read, or a huge couple of volumes of material you've never read? One has to actually read the material and respond to the material to "understand it". EU theory is predicated upon Birkeland's work. He was the world's first EU theorist as far as I know. Certainly he was the first individual to "experiment" with his beliefs in emprical tests. His ideas are enough to understand by that requires reading the material. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It seems the only way to end this argument is for us to agree with you, and I certainly do not see that happening. </DIV></p><p>Well, I don't see a clear path for that to occur either, but I've had uglier conversations resolve themselves nicely over time. You cerrtainly won't agree with me until you and I go back a few steps and start at the beginning with Birkeland's work. That's the only way this information *can* be truly "explained" in terms of emprical testing of concept.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is nothing wrong with Birkeland's work or Alfven's work. </DIV></p><p>Then there can be nothing wrong with EU theory because they wrote the books on the theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is what you read into it that we have a problem with. </DIV></p><p>It's not a matter of what *I* read into anything. Alfven flatly rejected "magetic reconnection" theory in numerous papers and books and I have quoted him for you. I've shown you papers where he explains the same events being chalked up to "reconnection" in terms of "circuits" and circuit energy. Any problem you have with EU theory is a problem you have with Alfven's work. He was one of EU theories biggest and most well respected proponents.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You say they wrote the book on EU theory, but they didn't. </DIV></p><p>Sure they did. If you knew anything at all about EU theory you would recognize that too. In fact when I went looking for references to EU theory, they were the two indivudals that came highly recommended by every EU proponent I have met. In fact their work is the one thing that we all seem to agree upon as being valid. Most folks also recognize Bruce and his students as well, and these three individuals and their students are generally recognized as the 'Founding fathers" of the theory. I certainly have never written an entire book devoted to the topic of astronomy. Both of these individuals did just that. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They performed perfectly reasonable and correct experiments and developed/founded the theory of how plasma and its various properties interact with magnetic fields. So yes, they wrote books. </DIV></p><p>They wrote more than that. This is why I insist you folks do some real reading.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If MHD was equivalent to EU, then myself and everyone else in the MHD theory field would be an EU proponent,</DIV></p><p>Well, Alfven was an EU proponent and he wrote EU theory. Now what?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>given that you have to know quite a bit of MHD to run MHD simulations.</DIV></p><p>Did you ever read any of those MHD simulations that Alfven and Peratt performed?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You keep dancing around the issue, saying "tell me specifically what they say that you have a problem with", but you aren't getting it. There isn't anything that they say we have a problem with. It is entirely what YOU say. And we've pointed out our problems with what you say quite enough... <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>The problem with this logic is that I've quoted them specifically. That sig line below comes straight from the lips of Birkeland. Those quotes denouncing magnetic reconnection came straight from the lips of Alfven. Those papers by Alfven describe his views on these same topics and it involves 'circuits" and "circuit energy".</p><p>The really weird part of this discussion is you claiming that Birkeland's work was fine, Alfven's work was fine, and DrRocket claiming there is no math and no physics behind EU theory. I tell you it's a twighlight zone episode from my vantage point. Either their work is valid or it's invalid. If it's valid, then EU theory is supported mathematically and physicslly. If it is not valid then DrRocket's claim may have merit. Both things however cannot be true. Their work cannot be valid and EU theory still be unsupported mathematically and physically.</p><p>Birkeland managed to do what all proponents of magnetic reconnection have failed to do. He created emprical tests of his ideas as used these emprical tests to "predict" observations you now assocate with "magnetic reconnection". Pure coincidence? </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'>Hence, you do not get what a_l_p has tried to say to you.End of Interest <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>No theory on the planet can be "judged" based upon how one specific individual barks math on command. End of story.</p><p>This whole idea that I have to bark math on command is pure human defense mechanism. I didn't make you folks reproduce Birn's work, or bark up math related to the PPPL experiment. I read the work myself and responded to it myself. I rejected Priests invokation of monopoles by myself, and I accepted the mathematical validity of Birn's presentation all by myself. I didn't need a math mommy holding my hand at every equation. Get over yourself. You aren't right simply because some specific individual you talk with has inferior math skills, or even no math skills at all! </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 aren't right simply because some specific individual you talk with has inferior math skills. Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>That is correct. However, when discussing the subject of math, it's most likely those with superior skills would be correct. The point is, as you can see, semantics will NOT solve this issue. The detractors are saying your interpretations are incorrect. They don't disagree with much of the published work, only in the manner in which you use it.</p><p>In order to prove differently, you are going to have to show them how it applies DIRECTLY to your claim. In order to do that, it's going to be necessary to move outside of semantics and into the maths and theory.</p><p>Understand something very important here - This is not a normal "internetz" discussion. This has moved beyond that. A semantic argument may be enough to convince someone "on the net" but, there has been 6 months of discussion on this and the candidates have been narrowed down to two groups of exclusive individuals possessing esoteric talents/familiarity with certain knowledge when compared with the normal interwebz population.</p><p>You do not share an agreement on semantics or interpretation.</p><p>There is only one commonly shared, supposedly, language to use left - That is the maths and straight out theory work.</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'>That is correct. However, when discussing the subject of math, it's most likely those with superior skills would be correct.</DIV></p><p>So then it becomes a question of whether Birkeland's math skills, and Alfven's math skills are superior to DrRocket's math skils. Unless DrRrocket has a specific problem with Birkeland's work mathematically, or Alfven's work from the standpoint of math, then I will have to assume that Alfven knew MHD theory better than DrRocket understands MDH theory. Alfven rejected "magnetic reconnection" and embraced (worte EU theory) whereas DrRocket rejects EU theory and believes in magnetic reconnection. Only one of them can be right about both topics. </p><p>It's not "my personal" math skills vs. DrRocket's personal math skills. It's *Alfven's math skills, Birkeland's math skills, Bruce's math skills, Peratt's math skills, etc, vs. DrRocket's math skills. Even if judged by these standards, it's the word of a Nobel Prize winning author vs. DrRocket and I'll take Alfven and Birkeland every day of the week.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The point is, as you can see, semantics will NOT solve this issue.</DIV></p><p>Nomrally speaking, *physics*, specifically *emprical physics* will resolve every issue. That's how it's done in other branches of science. That's why I intend to make them take a close look at the emrpical tests that Birkeland did and the real control mechanisms he used, and the real *predictions* that came out of that work.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The detractors are saying your interpretations are incorrect. </DIV></p><p>Which "interpretations" might those be? They seem to be handwaving something about knowing what he meant *wwithout* ever bothering to even read the actual material in question. How can I work with that? They need to be "specific" in their criticisms.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They don't disagree with much of the published work, only in the manner in which you use it.In order to prove differently,</DIV></p><p>I'm not proving anything differently. I'm saying that the author is *correct*. It's not about me or my opinions, it's about the authors opinions. In the case of Birkeland, it's about *Birkeland's* opinions. In the case of Alfven, it's about his opinions. I'm a bystander like everyone else. I'm not trying to "'prove" anything that the author did not prove.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>you are going to have to show them how it applies DIRECTLY to your claim.</DIV></p><p>Then my first "claim" in our "new approach" is going to be that EU theory is well supported in terms of math and physics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In order to do that, it's going to be necessary to move outside of semantics and into the maths and theory.</DIV></p><p>So it seems like the next logical step if for them to either find some problem with their math or to accept that their math (and theory) is correct. That's what they expected of me when they handed me Birn's work. That is what I expect of them as well.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Understand something very important here - This is not a normal "internetz" discussion. </DIV></p><p>Yes, I've noticed. 
</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This has moved beyond that. A semantic argument may be enough to convince someone "on the net" but, there has been 6 months of discussion on this and the candidates have been narrowed down to two groups of exclusive individuals possessing esoteric talents/familiarity with certain knowledge when compared with the normal interwebz population.You do not share an agreement on semantics or interpretation.There is only one commonly shared, supposedly, language to use left - That is the maths and straight out theory work. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>Yes, but Alfven and Birkeland and Bruce have presented such math. Why must any other individual (including me) have to duplicate work that has already been done on the internet, on command? That's not rational or logical, or typcical for any other scientific discussion. </p><p>Everyone is 'convinced' by knownledge and by facts of their choice. In my case it was Birkeland's emrpical physical tests that "convinced me" personally of the merits of EU theory. Alfven's additional work with "circuits" and MHD theory was simply a bonus, as was Bruce's work and Peratt's work. The math is interesting to me and all, but it's the *emprical tests* that I find to be most 'valuable" as it relates to "convincing" me of anything. I'm a "show me" sort of individual. Others are "show me the math" sort of individuals, and I have cited the best math I know of on this topic for them to study anytime they are interested. It is not logical however to expect me personally to bark up math on command, or to reinvent the math wheel for them in cyberspace only to make a point.</p><p>The first and only "claim" I'm making in this "new approach" is to "claim" that EU theory is well supported in terms of math and physics. We won't get anywhere until *everyone* recognizes this *fact*.</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>
</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This has moved beyond that. A semantic argument may be enough to convince someone "on the net" but, there has been 6 months of discussion on this and the candidates have been narrowed down to two groups of exclusive individuals possessing esoteric talents/familiarity with certain knowledge when compared with the normal interwebz population.You do not share an agreement on semantics or interpretation.There is only one commonly shared, supposedly, language to use left - That is the maths and straight out theory work. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>Yes, but Alfven and Birkeland and Bruce have presented such math. Why must any other individual (including me) have to duplicate work that has already been done on the internet, on command? That's not rational or logical, or typcical for any other scientific discussion. </p><p>Everyone is 'convinced' by knownledge and by facts of their choice. In my case it was Birkeland's emrpical physical tests that "convinced me" personally of the merits of EU theory. Alfven's additional work with "circuits" and MHD theory was simply a bonus, as was Bruce's work and Peratt's work. The math is interesting to me and all, but it's the *emprical tests* that I find to be most 'valuable" as it relates to "convincing" me of anything. I'm a "show me" sort of individual. Others are "show me the math" sort of individuals, and I have cited the best math I know of on this topic for them to study anytime they are interested. It is not logical however to expect me personally to bark up math on command, or to reinvent the math wheel for them in cyberspace only to make a point.</p><p>The first and only "claim" I'm making in this "new approach" is to "claim" that EU theory is well supported in terms of math and physics. We won't get anywhere until *everyone* recognizes this *fact*.</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><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> However, when discussing the subject of math, </DIV></p><p>One more key point that needs to be made here. This is not a discussion *only* about math. It is a discusion about *physics* and specifically *emprical physics*. Math alone cannot be used to "decide" how nature works. Mathematical models can be used to describe nature, but this is not simply a discussion about math alone. Math can be used to model the number of invisible elves on the head of a pin. That does not mean that elves exist or that some problem will be obvious in the math itself.</p><p>Physics is more than math. It's emprical by nature. Every key aspect of EU theory has been empirically *tested* using real control mechanisms and employed the use of controlled variables to preduce various results.</p><p>Math alone is not a valid substitute for emprical testing. Somewhere along the way this industry forgot that. It treats math as demigod, and ignores the need for emprical tests. Unlike most theories of astronomy, EU theory is not shy around a lab. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... Unless DrRrocket has a specific problem with Birkeland's work mathematically, or Alfven's work from the standpoint of math, then I will have to assume that Alfven knew MHD theory better than DrRocket understands MDH theory. {/QUOTE]</p><p>I don't believe that I have ever claimed to understand MHD better than Alfven. I have read his work as represented in <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics</em>and other papers and admire it. The issue is not whether Alven understood MHD. He was a master of the subject. The issue is what relevance that has to your brand of EU theory. So far I have agreed with Alfven in nearly everything, while simultaneously finding your assertions to be utterly fallacious. Your statements are not consistent with those of Alfven. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Alfven rejected "magnetic reconnection" and embraced (worte EU theory) whereas DrRocket rejects EU theory and believes in magnetic reconnection. Only one of them can be right about both topics.{/QUOTE]</p><p>I don't think that this statement is correct. Alfven died in 1995 and did his most productive work prior to 1960. Quite a bit has transpired since then. For one the tendency of astrophysicists to apply Alfven's notion of frozen magnetic field lines inappropriately has been mollified and it is now recognized that the frozen field line approximation must be made with care -- addressing one of Alfven's proper concerns. There are much more sophisticated physical models used now than were available in Alfven's era -- and Alfven himself recognized the benefit of such models when based on solid physics in <em>Cosmic Plasma. </em>One might reasonably believe that if Alfven were alive today and if he were to see the current rigorous work on magnetic reconnection he would be more accepting of it than he was years ago. The field has progressed and the underlying physics is better understood now. I have found no evidence whatever that Alfven embraced the brand of EU theory that you and others espouse. I think it quite possible that Alfven and I would agree on most things and that we are both right. What is wrong is your distortion of his views. </p><p>
Yes, but Alfven and Birkeland and Bruce have presented such math. Why must any other individual (including me) have to duplicate work that has already been done on the internet, on command? That's not rational or logical, or typcical for any other scientific discussion. Everyone is 'convinced' by knownledge and a facts of their choice. In my case it was Birkeland's emrpical physical tests that "convinced me" personally of the merits of EU theory. Alfven's additional work with "circuits" and MHD theory was simply a bonus, as was Bruce's work and Peratt's work. The math is interesting to me and all, but it's the *emprical tests* that I find to be most 'valuable" as it relates to "convincing" me of anything. I'm a "show me" sort of individual.Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>Translation: You have formulated a belief based on cartoons and misconceptions and are not prepared to either state your theories in rigorous, comprehensible and FALSIFIABLE form but wish to put the burden of proof on others. It does not work that way. It is your job to clearly and succinctly state the contnent of your theories and then it is up to you to provide the empirical and theoretical work that supports them. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Others are "show me the math" sort of individuals, and I have cited the best math I know of on this topic for them to study anytime they are interested. It is not logical however to expect me personally to bark up math on command, or to reinvent the math wheel for them in cyberspace only to make a point.The first and only "claim" I'm making in this "new approach" is to "claim" that EU theory is well supported in terms of math and physics. We won't get anywhere until *everyone* recognizes this *fact*.Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>No, you are are one who flees from the math, while claiming otherwise. You are one who promises to show the physical theory (as in the translation of magnetic reconnection to something that you call "circuit reconnection") and then failing completely resorts to pure semantics and claims "victory". It is your burden to clearly state the premises of EU theory and then provide the experimental evidence and theoretical support for it. Mathematics is the language of physics and your case must be made in that language. No word games. No cartoon illustrations. No unexplained snap shots. No nonsensical semantics. No denigrading the mainstream on the basis of terminology alone. Real physics. Real mathematics. Real logic.<br /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
</p><p>Alfven's math seems to be solidly applied to classical electrodynamics and plasma physics. Birkeland's mathematics has not been an issue, but application of Birkeland's laboratory experiments out of context has been. I would willingly take on Bruce and Peratt as far as mathematics goes with one hand tied behind my back after a six pack of beer. But it is not math skills per se that is important, but rather the rigorous treatment of physical principles using mathematics. I have not found anything yet of Alfven's with which I disagree. What I do disagree with is the wacko theories that have been erroneously justified using Alfven's name. </p><p> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Even if judged by these standards, it's the word of a Nobel Prize winning author vs. DrRocket and I'll take Alfven and Birkeland every day of the week.Nomrally speaking, *physics*, specifically *emprical physics* will resolve every issue. That's how it's done in other branches of science.</DIV></p><p>You need to understand the role of both theory and experiment in physics. Experiment serves to identify and develop a set of physical principles that can, via mathematical models, be widely applied. It can and has done that. One does not in a laboratory simulate the complex situations, involving many interacting parameters, that one finds in many physical situations. It is not enough that something "look like" what is observed but rather one must be able to relate the basic physical laws to the complex situation using the mathematics developed in the laboratory. Complex physical situations usually require sophisticated physics-based computer models for adequate explanations.</p><p>[QUOTE} That's why I intend to make them take a close look at the emrpical tests that Birkeland did and the real control mechanisms he used, and the real *predictions* that came out of that work.</DIV></p><p>It would be wonderful if you actually did this. But you have a history of promising such things only to fall short in the use of physics and mathematics and instead resorting to ridiculous arguments based on semantics. So if you can, provide models based on real physics and real mathematics that support your position. No semantics, no "looks like" arguments based on cartoons or snapshots, just real physics and real mathematics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Which "interpretations" might those be? They seem to be handwaving something about knowing what he meant *wwithout* ever bothering to even read the actual material in question. How can I work with that? They need to be "specific" in their criticisms.I'm not proving anything differently. I'm saying that the author is *correct*. It's not about me or my opinions, it's about the authors opinions. In the case of Birkeland, it's about *Birkeland's* opinions. In the case of Alfven, it's about his opinions. I'm a bystander like everyone else. I'm not trying to "'prove" anything that the author did not prove.Then my first "claim" in our "new approach" is going to be that EU theory is well supported in terms of math and physics.So it seems like the next logical step if for them to either find some problem with their math or to accept that their math (and theory) is correct.Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>That is not the way it works. You are already reneging on your proposal from a few lines earlier. It is up to you to clearly formulate your EU theory, and then to show how it is consistent with real physics and real mathematics. It is your burden to show that you are correct in your proposals and not up to anyone else to prove that you are wrong. The burden is on you. Period.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> That's what they expected of me when they handed me Birn's work. That is what I expect of them as well.Yes, I've noticed.
Yes, but Alfven and Birkeland and Bruce have presented such math. Why must any other individual (including me) have to duplicate work that has already been done on the internet, on command? That's not rational or logical, or typcical for any other scientific discussion. Everyone is 'convinced' by knownledge and a facts of their choice. In my case it was Birkeland's emrpical physical tests that "convinced me" personally of the merits of EU theory. Alfven's additional work with "circuits" and MHD theory was simply a bonus, as was Bruce's work and Peratt's work. The math is interesting to me and all, but it's the *emprical tests* that I find to be most 'valuable" as it relates to "convincing" me of anything. I'm a "show me" sort of individual.Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>Translation: You have formulated a belief based on cartoons and misconceptions and are not prepared to either state your theories in rigorous, comprehensible and FALSIFIABLE form but wish to put the burden of proof on others. It does not work that way. It is your job to clearly and succinctly state the contnent of your theories and then it is up to you to provide the empirical and theoretical work that supports them. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Others are "show me the math" sort of individuals, and I have cited the best math I know of on this topic for them to study anytime they are interested. It is not logical however to expect me personally to bark up math on command, or to reinvent the math wheel for them in cyberspace only to make a point.The first and only "claim" I'm making in this "new approach" is to "claim" that EU theory is well supported in terms of math and physics. We won't get anywhere until *everyone* recognizes this *fact*.Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>No, you are are one who flees from the math, while claiming otherwise. You are one who promises to show the physical theory (as in the translation of magnetic reconnection to something that you call "circuit reconnection") and then failing completely resorts to pure semantics and claims "victory". It is your burden to clearly state the premises of EU theory and then provide the experimental evidence and theoretical support for it. Mathematics is the language of physics and your case must be made in that language. No word games. No cartoon illustrations. No unexplained snap shots. No nonsensical semantics. No denigrading the mainstream on the basis of terminology alone. Real physics. Real mathematics. Real logic.<br /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You need to understand the role of both theory and experiment in physics.</DIV></p><p>The concept of "experiment" is something astronomers are pretty hit and miss with. Someone that works with neutrino detection understands "emprical physics". Someone that professes to be an expert on "inflation" doesn't have the slightest bit experimental evidence to support their case. The very nice thing about EU theory is that it's not shy around a lab. It works in real "experiments" with real control mechanisms and it is influence by real control variables.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Experiment serves to identify and develop a set of physical principles that can, via mathematical models, be widely applied. </DIV></p><p>So it's logical to mathematically model Birkeland's work with "electricity" in space. Where were any such "experiments" performed with "magnetic reconnection" that created "loops" and "jets" and constant acceleration of solar wind particles?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It can and has done that. One does not in a laboratory simulate the complex situations, involving many interacting parameters, that one finds in many physical situations. </DIV></p><p>I will grant you that we may not be able to duplicate all the parameters of space, but Birkeland did put in some effort to simulate the conditions of space. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is not enough that something "look like" what is observed but rather one must be able to relate the basic physical laws to the complex situation using the mathematics developed in the laboratory.</DIV></p><p>And Birkeland himself did this. Alfven refined his work too. Bruce also built upon Birkeland's work, as did Peratt. They even built computer models and the whole nine yards.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It would be wonderful if you actually did this.</DIV></p><p>It would be equally wonderful if you actually *read* what I presented to you and responded to in some logical or rational manner. How much of Birkeland's work have you actually read? A page? Two? 10?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> But you have a history of promising such things only to fall short in the use of physics and mathematics and instead resorting to ridiculous arguments based on semantics. </DIV></p><p>None of those arguments Birkeland makes, either from the perspective of his mathematical presenations, or his physical experiments "falls short". You simply fall short in reading them.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So if you can, provide models based on real physics and real mathematics that support your position. </DIV></p><p>I just did that with Birkeland's work. Are you even paying attention? What about Birkeland's work isn't "real physics"? What in that book isn't "real math"? Talk about being rediculous. I hand you 158 megabytes of math and physics and you remain utterly oblivious to it's existence.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No semantics, no "looks like" arguments based on cartoons or snapshots, just real physics and real mathematics.</DIV></p><p>I don't think you would know "real physics" if it hit you in the forehead. "Real physics" isn't an eleborate computer model DrRocket. Real physics isn't shy in the lab. Real physics involves real control mechanisms and real experiments.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, you are are one who flees from the math,</DIV></p><p>Excuse me? I picked apart the math used in the PPPL paper and in Priest paper just fine. I pointed out the line numbers where they introduced errors into their equations. You're the one fleeing from the math Birkeland presents in those volumes. You're the one fleeing from the math that Alfven has presented. You're the one fleeing from Peratt's computer modeling. Your're in full retreat and complete denial.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>while claiming otherwise. </DIV></p><p>Evidently you seem to think I'm you're math mommy who's supposed to lead you by the hand through every equation Birkeland or Alfven or Bruce or Peratt ever presented on this topic in order for you to believe that such math exists. This is completely irrational nonsense. There is no one to one correlation between the existence of math to support EU theory, and my personal presentation of math for your enjoyment at your command. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are one who promises to show the physical theory (as in the translation of magnetic reconnection to something that you call "circuit reconnection") </DIV></p><p>Birn's presentation makes that utterly unncessary. Unlike Priest, he didn't try to hide the fact that the current flow exists in the "magnetic line" and he didn't try to sneak monopoles into the energy exchange process. He never ignored the E field so no "translation" (to the E field) is required. Everywhere that Birn describes a "magnetic line", Alfven used the term "circuit". I showed you his "circuit" approach to coronal loop activity and magnetospheric activity.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Real physics. Real mathematics. Real logic. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Real physics is something you can duplicate in real experiments. When did MR proponents duplicate Birkeland's work with atmospheric loops, aurora, jets and solar wind acceleration with 'magnetic reconnection"? You don't have the first clue what "real physics" is about because"Real physics" requires "real control mechanisms" and "real experiments". That's never been done with "magnetic reconnection". Magnetic reconnection never created loops around the outer atmosphere of a sphere in a plasma vacuum. It's never accelerated "jets" of plasma or created helix shapes in plasma. It's never created constant solar wind acceleration. It's never generate aurora in a lab. It's never done anything to anything in any real experiment with real control mechanisms.</p><p>Birkeland's work is *real physics*. It employs *real control mechanisms*, and *real variation of those control mechanisms*. It includes lots of math, and plenty of pretty pcitures. It makes *real* "predictions", based on "real physics" of "real moving particles". </p><p>Math alone and computer modeling alone is not "real". Only real physical experiments with real control mechanisms can determine if a mathematical model is correct. </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'>The concept of "experiment" is something astronomers are pretty hit and miss with. Someone that works with neutrino detection understands "emprical physics". Someone that professes to be an expert on "inflation" doesn't have the slightest bit experimental evidence to support their case. </DIV></p><p>I feel it necessary to interject something here. It is disingenuous to somehow discount the contributions of Cosmology simply because it is extraordinarily difficult to contain a Universe in a laboratory and poke it with a stick. Cosmology may not be viewed as an experimental science (subject to change, of course), it is certainly an observational and empirical one. Cosmology shares much of its foundations with the experimental science community and it rests its principles on theories that are already firmly established in other disciplines. What is most important concerning Cosmology is that it shares the same ultimate requirements of any experimental science - Does what it have to say have predicitive value? In order to achieve predictive value, one of the things that Cosmology does is to construct models and then verify their predictive value through direct observations. That is real science and real observational evidence on the validity of predictive models.</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 Birkeland's work isn't "real physics"? What in that book isn't "real math"? Talk about being rediculous. I hand you 158 megabytes of math and physics and you remain utterly oblivious to it's existence.</DIV></p><p>And here's the problem. You need to point out WHICH parts of the book pertain to EU theory. Cite the arguments and mathematics from his work, traverse the logics one step at a time, showing us that YOU understand what Birkeland is saying and how those arguments apply. </p><p>So far you've only handwaved his work or semantic interpretation in our direction, at no point actually showing us any comprehension of the logic (maths) behind what he says.</p><p>If you are ever engage in a religious argument against someone, you'd better be able to cite the Bible and point out relevant passages. You won't persuade anyone by simply waving the book and saying "it's all in here, just read it". </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I feel it necessary to interject something here. It is disingenuous to somehow discount the contributions of Cosmology simply because it is extraordinarily difficult to contain a Universe in a laboratory and poke it with a stick.</DIV></p><p>IMO there is nothing wrong with 'scaling" things to size. It's when a non-identified (emprically) entitiy is stuffed into a math equation *without* emprical support that things get ugly. Scaling something that has never been shown to exist in nature to a greater size is a horse of a different color. </p><p>They are welcome to scale the amount of "magnetic reconnection" to size, so long as they can show that it works in a lab, as Birkeland showed that "current flow" and "circuit energy" (external to solar system) can create the observations in question, in controlled experimentation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Cosmology may not be viewed as an experimental science (subject to change, of course), it is certainly an observational and empirical one. </DIV></p><p>Observational, yes, emprical, not so much. Some branches of astronomy are indeed 'emprical". Take neutrino detection. That is a branch of real emprical science in real controlled experiments with known forces of nature. It's pure emprical physics. When was "magnetic reconnection" put to the test around spheres in a vacuum as Birkaland did all by himself over 100 years ago?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Cosmology shares much of its foundations with the experimental science community and it rests its principles on theories that are already firmly established in other disciplines.</DIV></p><p>When was the last "device" that was sold on the market that ran on "inflation", or "dark energy", or "magnetic reconnection"? What useful consumer product comes from any of these ideas? </p><p>Now that's let's look at the contibutions of plasma physics. There are plenty of consumer products that run on "electricity' and plasma based processes. An arc welder is one such device. An ordinary plasma ball is another such device. Tell me again how any of astronomies core "forces of nature" have ever been used to pruduce anything useful that I might purchase at Walmart or my hardware store in town?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> What is most important concerning Cosmology is that it shares the same ultimate requirements of any experimental science </DIV></p><p>Experimental science for inflation? Which experiment (complete with control mechanisms) shows that inflation actually has any effect on anything in the lab? Dark energy? Magnetic reconnection? The only real "experiment" done on magnetic reconnecton required lots of "circuits" to make it work, lots of "electricity' to make it function. A z-pinch filament in plasma, and a terrible assumption about a stable current density during a z-pinch process. No sphere experiments were done, no loops were formed around sphere with 'magnetic reconnection". No "helix shapes" were ever produced with 'magnetic reconnection" in a lab. All we have here are simple eletcrical interactions inside of a double layer, or between two current carrying "circuits' of energy flowing through the plasma. An ordinary plasma ball demonstrates that the energy inside the plasma filament, or in the magnetic reconnection lingo, the "magnetic line", is electrical in nature, and it is driven forward by the electrical field. Turn off the external circutis an the light show ends.</p><p>EU theory is not shy around a lab, and it has produced many useful consumer products. I've never seen anyone sell a product based on "magnetic reconnection". Let me know when that happens.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>- Does what it have to say have predicitive value? </DIV></p><p>Of course. That seems to the the only way that most sstronomers "test' (no control mechanism) their "theory". If their math matches the observation, they then claim it has "passed the test".</p><p>Some things in astronomy are in fact "untestable" because the rules keep changing every time a new observation contradicts the previous expectations, and everything becomes a 'slippery slope" of ever new sets of "postdicted" "predictions" that attempt to explain unexpected behaviors. That "dark flow" they found in the universe recently is the newest perplexing problem for "inflation" for instance.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In order to achieve predictive value, one of the things that Cosmology does is to construct models and then verify their predictive value through direct observations. </DIV></p><p>Yes, Birkeland did that, but he took it one step further. He took it to the lab. He created "loops" in the atmosphere of a positively charged sphere. He created "aurrora" around the same sphere by changing the polarity of the surface of the sphere. He created helix shaped "jets" from spheres, "Birkeland currernts" from spheres, rings around spheres, etc. All the same observations we find in our solar system are simulated in his experiments. </p><p>When was that ever done with "magnetic reconnection"?</p><p>Unlike many theories in astronomy, "magnetic reconnection" should in no way be shy around a lab. It presumably takes place along a whole "surface area" and it should be easily replicateably in plasma. The only "experiment" done to date (by PPPL) involved lots of "electricity", lots of "circuit energy", lots of "circuits' to make it work, and a z-pinch 'filament" in plasma. In essense they use all the same ingredients to make it work, including *external* (to the point of reconnection) circuit energy to make it work. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is real science and real observational evidence on the validity of predictive models. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>Magnetic reconnection has no real 'predicted" models from the realm of real *emprical physics*. In other words no one put magnetic reconnection spheres in a vacuum and pruduced such results. I guarantee you that if they did, it would require a lot of "electricity" to make it work.</p><p>The point here is that there is a distinct difference between "observational tests" (no control mechanism) and *emprical experimentation* of of Birkeland, including real control mechanisms, variable inside the experiment, and different configuirations of the experiment. </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 here's the problem. You need to point out WHICH parts of the book pertain to EU theory. </DIV></p><p>There's actually a bigger problem here and that is that you (and probably many others) fail to recognize that the *entire work* pertains to EU theory and "explains" *how* EU theory came about and how it was first formed. </p><p>Now don't panic. I do intend to point out specific pages and paragraphs once everyone has had some time to download and glance through it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Cite the arguments and mathematics from his work, traverse the logics one step at a time, showing us that YOU understand what Birkeland is saying and how those arguments apply.</DIV></p><p>This is good advice and that's what I intend to do. I think it's appropriate however to begin with his work since it is directly related to aurora, EU theory, and how EU theory came to exist. It's also freely available material so no one can complain about having to buy anything. It's also the "core" of all EU theory. Birkeland created the theory in his lab and through his in-situ measurements and his mathematically expressed these ideas for the very first time. Birkeland was not slouch in math or as it relates to emprical scientific testing. He was the quintissential scientist and his theories have stood the test of time and will continue to stand the test of time because they are not based *only* upon math, but upon real physics that shows up in a real lab.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So far you've only handwaved his work or semantic interpretation in our direction, at no point actually showing us any comprehension of the logic (maths) behind what he says.</DIV></p><p>This is actually irrelevant. It is absolutely irrelevant that any single individual understand the 'maths'. The only thing that is relevant is that the maths have been done, and they exist for you to inspect, or for anyone to inspect. If there is an error in the math's the Birkeland, you are welcome and invited to find them. it's not important that a single individual presenting EU theory necessarily understand all the math behind EU theory. The only imporant thing is that the math has been done by *someone* and that it is correct and that it supports the theory in question.</p><p>You guys defintely need to stop judging the merits of the whole of EU theory based on a *single individuals* presentation of that material. Science doesn't work like that. I didn't make each of you individual explain and duplicate all the math that Birn presented. Likewise you should not expect me to explain and duplicate every line of math that Birkeland presents. </p><p>More importantly it is not *only* math that Birkeland presents us with. He went a step further. He took it to the level of empirical science by creating real *experiments* with real *control mechanisms* that allow us to isolate the effects of various changes to the experiments. There is not only math here to consider but also *empirical physics* that generates actual *physics predictions* that come from this work. Math is not *only* thing that science is about. One can mathematically model how many invisible elves fit on the head of a pin, but can one demonstrate that invilsible elves exist in the first place in any emprical experiments?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you are ever engage in a religious argument against someone, you'd better be able to cite the Bible and point out relevant passages. </DIV></p><p>Yes and I am prepared to pick out he pages and the infromation that is relevant to the topic of "magnetic reconnection". On the other hand the entire PDF file *is in fact* the derivation of EU theory and explains how and why EU theory came to be in existence. If we're going to get anywhere in this conversation, you're going to need to accep that EU theory is not about one man (me) but about *emprical physics* and applied emprical physics and it is well mathematically expressed by *someone*. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You won't persuade anyone by simply waving the book and saying "it's all in here, just read it". <br /> Posted by damskov</DIV></p><p>I'm not intending to do that. I am however expecting you to have the same reading material to work with and I will expect folks to find "specific" flaws in any mathematical presentations that Birkeland, Alfven, Bruce, Perratt, etc might have made. It is not relevant however that I personally duplicate this work, or that I bark up math on command. The validity (or lack thereof) of EU theory is not predicated upon my personal math skills. It is irrational to even think that way about *any* scientific theory in *any* scientific discussion. One is not automatically right based on the relative level of each individuals math skills. There is not one to one correlation between my math skills and the question of whether or not EU theory is well expressed mathematically and well rooted in emprical physics. </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 feel it necessary to interject something here. It is disingenuous to somehow discount the contributions of Cosmology simply because it is extraordinarily difficult to contain a Universe in a laboratory and poke it with a stick. Cosmology may not be viewed as an experimental science (subject to change, of course), it is certainly an observational and empirical one. Cosmology shares much of its foundations with the experimental science community and it rests its principles on theories that are already firmly established in other disciplines. What is most important concerning Cosmology is that it shares the same ultimate requirements of any experimental science - Does what it have to say have predicitive value? In order to achieve predictive value, one of the things that Cosmology does is to construct models and then verify their predictive value through direct observations. That is real science and real observational evidence on the validity of predictive models. <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV><br /><br />Ladies and Gentlemen of the forum I would like to point you all to a interesting website...</p><p>http://www.phy6.org/Education/bh1-5.html</p><p>taken out of context...</p><p><font color="#ff0000"> The picture changed considerably after 1957, the start of the International Geophysical Year (IGY). The IGY was an international effort which included the launch of the first artificial satellites, and it formed a natural transition in the history of magnetospheric physics. </font></p><p><font color="#ff0000"> The implications of that transition are best appreciated in the context of other research on our physical environment. <font size="1">The surface of the Earth, the oceans, and atmosphere are completely accessible and can be directly studied, even experimented upon: in the jargon of Earth observation from space, we have "ground truth." The realm of the astrophysicist, on the contrary, can only be sensed remotely and imperfectly, and the amount of information we can ever hope to receive from it is severely limited [Harwit, 1981]. By necessity our explanations of astrophysical phenomena are laced with guesswork, and in many cases (e.g., the origin of cosmic rays) it is quite likely that such guesses will never find convincing confirmation. </font></font></p><p><font color="#ff0000"><font size="1"> Magnetospheric physics stands halfway between those extremes</font>. Until the IGY it was very much like astrophysics: the magnetosphere could only be sensed remotely, and much of what was believed about it was merely intelligent guesswork. Then came artificial satellites and provided some "ground truth," and it is interesting to compare what they revealed with what was believed beforehand. </font></p><p><font color="#ff0000"> </font><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">Many important magnetospheric features had indeed</font> been inferred before spacecraft were available, but in almost every case some important detail was missing or wrong</font>. <font color="#ff0000">The Chapman-Ferraro cavity was predicted as a temporary rather than permanent feature, and the same was true for the radiation belt. Alfvén's convection contained a nucleus of truth, but electric field effects supplemented rather than supplanted the Chapman-Ferraro picture, and the convection which they produced was found to flow from the tail sunward, opposite</font><font color="#ff0000"> to its direction in Alfvén's theory</font>. <font color="#ff0000">Birkeland's auroral currents did exist, but their configuration was not the one predicted. The existence and importance of the magnetospheric tail generally went unsuspected, and so did the existence of parallel electric fields along auroral arcs, although Alfvén later developed the theory of quasi-neutral equilibria, relevant to such fields. All this underscores the essential role of in situ observations: one can only speculate how much of this might be paralleled in astrophysics. </font></p><p><font color="#000000">So after what Birkeland and <font color="#000000">Alfvén</font> hypothesized, theoriezed and observed - science exonerated them to a small extent. <strong>But...But they were wrong</strong>and it took hard science to show that in the form of data from modern satellites and hard mathematical models derived from such data. Therefore Birkeland and <font color="#000000">Alfvén</font> as good as they were in their fields, damn good- they were not perfect and did not see the full picture. That's what happens when you rely completely on observation and looks similar too....you really don't see the full picture....</font></p><p> </p><p>Please look through the website and read each page...its very interesting work. Plus the information from this website I would say is quite valid in regards to the arguments being discussed in this thread - only I feel this person has more validity in what they are saying compared to some arguing in this thread...</p><p>and to all that's my two cents - take it for what its worth...</p><p><strong>ps </strong></p><p><strong>A_lost_packet you are doing a great job in trying to get this thread back on course not to mention some great advice....patience of Job...i swear the patience of Job you have.,,.. and a damn keen mind.</strong></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No theory on the planet can be "judged" based upon how one specific individual barks math on command. End of story.This whole idea that I have to bark math on command is pure human defense mechanism. ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>No. It is a (futile) expectation that you present your supposedly physical theories in the language of physics, which is mathematics. It is the expectation that you provide sound logic for your notions and support them in the manner that scientific theories are expected to be supported.</p><p>Your inability to do so is prima facie evidence that EU theories are proper material for "The Unexplained" and why EU theory is a pariah in mainstream physics.</p><p>If you want to be taken seriously then present serious support for your ideas.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>This is very important:</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...In order to achieve predictive value, one of the things that Cosmology does is to construct models and then verify their predictive value through direct observations....Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>Yes, Birkeland did that, but he took it one step further. He took it to the lab. He created "loops" in the atmosphere of a positively charged sphere. He created "aurrora" around the same sphere by changing the polarity of the surface of the sphere. He created helix shaped "jets" from spheres, "Birkeland currernts" from spheres, rings around spheres, etc. <u>All the same observations we find in our solar system are simulated in his experiments</u>...Posted by michaelmozina. </DIV> (Emphasis added)</p><p>Read your response carefully and particularly note the highlighted section. <u><strong>That</strong></u> is your premise. That and the other claims like that are the <u><strong>KEYS</strong></u> to your successful entrance into the serious discussion that you seek. That one sentence is the cornerstone which will begin your argument. In order to support that cornerstone, in order to move forward, what <u><strong>YOU</strong></u> must do is show that <u>direct</u> relationship. 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. <u>Demonstrate it. </u></p><p>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.</p><p>In order to move forward, you have to show evidence of<u><strong> your</strong></u> claims. Not Birklands, not anyone else's - <u>Yours</u>. 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." They've given you their requirements and, if what you claim is true, then you can meet those requirements. 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. <u>There is no other way</u>. 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.</p><p>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. </p><p>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.</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'>No. It is a (futile) expectation that you present your supposedly physical theories in the language of physics, which is mathematics. </DIV></p><p>The fallacy here is that *I PERSONALLY* must do this, rather than allowing the *real writers* of these theories to express these ideas mathmatically and physicslly for you. The fallacy is you pretending to judge *any* scientific theory based upon my personal math skills alone. My personal math skills are in no way related to the scientific validity of *any* scientific theory. In other words, were I attempting to promote GR theory to a skeptic and that skeptic happened to have greater math skills and *insisted* I bark math on command, my ability to do so, would in nw way be related to the validity of GR theory. In defending *any* scientific theory I wiould require that you learn the math and the physics from the author(s) of the theory, not from me personally. You're notion that I must back math on command for you in order for EU theory to be scientifically valid and well mathematically supported is nonsense. There is no one to one correlation between the validity of *any* scientific theory and my personal math skills.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is the expectation that you provide sound logic for your notions and support them in the manner that scientific theories are expected to be supported.</DIV></p><p>And I will show how *Birkeland* did this, including his *emprical experimentation*. In fact there is more emprical physics to support EU theory than there is to support inflation, dark energy and "magnetic reconnection" combined. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your inability to do so is prima facie evidence that EU theories are proper material for "The Unexplained"</DIV></p><p>Again, that is a purely false statement. Just because one individual cannot "explain" this to you mathematically is not evidence that *no one on earth has EVER done so*. You seem to be under the irrational belief that my personal math skills are in any way related to the validity of this theory. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact a single individual cannot "explain" it to your personal satisfaction on command in some thread in cyberspace, does not mean it's *never* been 'epxlained". Man are you stuck on some ego trip about your math skills insulating your from being wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. To my knowlwedge nobody ever handed either one of us a Nobel prize and I am not the author of EU theory DrRorket. Get over that idea that your superior math skills make you right by default. Your math skills are not superior to Birkeland's math skills, nor are they superior to Alfven's math skills, or Perratt's math skills. At very worst case, you just happen to be discussing this subject with someone who just happens to posses less of these important math skills. That does not mean that this theory lacks mathematical and physical support. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and why EU theory is a pariah in mainstream physics.</DIV></p><p>It's the pariah of mainstream astronomy because it threatens to expose the truth, not only on the idea of magnetic reconnection theory, but inflation, DE, etc. It's the *only* "big picture" theory that is based upon *KNOWN AND EMPRICALLLY DEMONSTRATED* forces of nature, and it's the only such theory that enjoys emprical support in a lab. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you want to be taken seriously then present serious support for your ideas. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I'm doing so, starting with Birkeland's work. EU theory has enjoyed mathematical and emprical support now for 100 years. When you accept this fact, we'll move on the the verious issues and observations, one by one and note how they tie back so some observed phenomenon in our solar system.</p><p>At no point in over 100 years has EU theory lacked mathematical and emprical support. In fact it still enjoys far more empirical physical support in a lab, in controlled experimentation, than inflation, dark energy, SUSY particles and "magnetic reconnection" combined. </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'> (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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ladies and Gentlemen of the forum I would like to point you all to a interesting website...http://www.phy6.org/Education/bh1-5.htmltaken out of context... The picture changed considerably after 1957, the start of the International Geophysical Year (IGY). The IGY was an international effort which included the launch of the first artificial satellites, and it formed a natural transition in the history of magnetospheric physics. The implications of that transition are best appreciated in the context of other research on our physical environment. The surface of the Earth, the oceans, and atmosphere are completely accessible and can be directly studied, even experimented upon: in the jargon of Earth observation from space, we have "ground truth." The realm of the astrophysicist, on the contrary, can only be sensed remotely and imperfectly, and the amount of information we can ever hope to receive from it is severely limited [Harwit, 1981]. By necessity our explanations of astrophysical phenomena are laced with guesswork, and in many cases (e.g., the origin of cosmic rays) it is quite likely that such guesses will never find convincing confirmation. Magnetospheric physics stands halfway between those extremes. Until the IGY it was very much like astrophysics: the magnetosphere could only be sensed remotely, and much of what was believed about it was merely intelligent guesswork.</DIV></p><p>Birkeland's beliefs about aurora and the cause of aurora was more than just "guess work", it was based on physics and physical experimentation. That is why his ideas succeed, whereas Chapman's theories did not. One individuals *experimented* (in the real scientific sense) with their theories and the other did not.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then came artificial satellites and provided some "ground truth," and it is interesting to compare what they revealed with what was believed beforehand. </DIV></p><p>Well, be careful about the "ground truth' idea. Something were "confirmed", such as the existence of currents in the aurora as Birkeland "predicted". Other aspects are still hotly disputed, even with satellites in space. A lot still comes back to 'interpretation".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Many important magnetospheric features had indeed been inferred before spacecraft were available, but in almost every case some important detail was missing or wrong. The Chapman-Ferraro cavity was predicted as a temporary rather than permanent feature, and the same was true for the radiation belt. Alfvén's convection contained a nucleus of truth, but electric field effects supplemented rather than supplanted the Chapman-Ferraro picture, and the convection which they produced was found to flow from the tail sunward, opposite to its direction in Alfvén's theory. </DIV></p><p>I'm not sure I understand this "convection" concept because Aflven talked more in terms of the flow of particle in "circuits" in the magnetopshere. It wasnt' really a 'convection" sort of arguement but I haven't read the thread in question yet. Perhaps you could elaborate here a bit.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birkeland's auroral currents did exist, but their configuration was not the one predicted. </DIV></p><p>Actually the basic configuration was the one he predicted. He could look at the circuit flows in space, but he did predict the basic idea quite well. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The existence and importance of the magnetospheric tail generally went unsuspected, and so did the existence of parallel electric fields along auroral arcs, although Alfvén later developed the theory of quasi-neutral equilibria, relevant to such fields.</DIV></p><p>Hmm. Not really. He really used Birkeland's original work to explain this in terms of interlaced and interwoven 'circuits" of energy that are intergalactic in scale. In other words Alfven never suggested the plasma was "neutral", rather than it carrried "current flows", just as Birkeland originally "predicted" from his emprical experiments.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All this underscores the essential role of in situ observations: one can only speculate how much of this might be paralleled in astrophysics. So after what Birkeland and Alfvén hypothesized, theoriezed and observed - science exonerated them to a small extent. But...But they were wrongand it took hard science to show that in the form of data from modern satellites and hard mathematical models derived from such data.</DIV></p><p>The concept of "wrong" here is more than a bit "misleading'. Neither of them (Birkeland or Alfven) may have accurately predicted the exact flow patterns of particles, but both of them predicted the existence of "flying electrons and ions of all kinds" in space. They both predicted things that are sill in disupte and in dispute in this very thread. The final chapter isn't written yet, and it's not clear they were actually "wrong' on any key "'predictions" that make or break EU theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Therefore Birkeland and Alfvén as good as they were in their fields, damn good- they were not perfect and did not see the full picture. </DIV></p><p>Indeed. Then again that's not a requirement. It's enough that they "predicted" plenty of things in this solar system which we can begin to corroborate or falsify by in-situ observation. It's possible to be "wrong" about minor issues and still be "right" about the "bigger picture".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's what happens when you rely completely on observation and looks similar too....you really don't see the full picture....</DIV></p><p>You don't get the full picture *without* emprical experimentation. You can't even judge a "looks like" arguement until you create "observation" is an "experiment" that would be useful to then "look for" the observation that might "look like" evidence of this phenomenon. Magnetic reconnection theory makes no "physical" predictions based on emrpical experimentation. It's a math arguement from start to finish. I guarantee you that magnetic reconnection won't occur in the absense of 'current flow" and external "circuits". I also guarantee you that when they turn off the external circuits the magnetic reconenction process described will cease.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Please look through the website and read each page...its very interesting work. Plus the information from this website I would say is quite valid in regards to the arguments being discussed in this thread - only I feel this person has more validity in what they are saying compared to some arguing in this thread...and to all that's my two cents - take it for what its worth...ps A_lost_packet you are doing a great job in trying to get this thread back on course not to mention some great advice....patience of Job...i swear the patience of Job you have.,,.. and a damn keen mind. <br /> Posted by lildreamer</DIV></p><p>I absolutely agree with ou about A_L_P. When I get time I'll see about looking at the thread, but I have some of Birkeland's work to discuss next which is pretty much on target with the rest of this conversation and to your comments as well. Stay tuned. You too might want to download that 158 meg PDF file of Birkekand's work because I will be referencing 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>
<p>If I may.</p><p>Michael, I have stayed out of this thread following it's move so as not to provoke you. I understand you aren't pleased; I can't help that. That being said, however...</p><p>I think a great deal of the problem here is that you've essentially been trying to explain <em>all</em> of Alfaven, rather than aspects of his science. Thus, instead of discreet points being discussed, hashed out, and then resolved, the conversation has wandered around and nothing was ever resolved.</p><p>Pick something, anything: magnetic reconnection, coronal loops, current flow, but choose <em>something</em>, and stick with it for a while.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I may.Michael, I have stayed out of this thread following it's move so as not to provoke you. </DIV></p><p>I understand that and I appreciated it. I give you points for doing the "wise" thing (most of the time). </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I understand you aren't pleased; I can't help that.</DIV></p><p>Well, I may still not exactly be "happy" but actually there is something you could (eventually) do about it. On the other hand I'm over the bulk of it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> That being said, however...I think a great deal of the problem here is that you've essentially been trying to explain all of Alfaven, rather than aspects of his science. Thus, instead of discreet points being discussed, hashed out, and then resolved, the conversation has wandered around and nothing was ever resolved.Pick something, anything: magnetic reconnection, coronal loops, current flow, but choose something, and stick with it for a while. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Hmm. I'm not sure how to respond to that since I was trying to "stick" to magnetic reconnection prior to the movement of the thread. That seemed to provoke a lot of frustration and you're right, things were not getting 'resolved". I would move on to coronal loops, but that would eventually lead us right back to magnetic reconnection vs. circuit reconnection during CME type events.</p><p>As I see things we remain "stuck' on key two points, and my detractors seem to falsely believe that:</p><p>1) My personal math skills somehow determine the mathematical and physicsl legimacy of any of the following fields of science, Quantum Mechanics, MHD theory, GR theory, or EU theory. I happen to agree with all of these theories, but they are all well supported in terms of math and physics, irrespective of my ability to do these math's on command, or to personally conduct the empical experiments that have validate their scientific legitmacy. </p><p>2) EU theory is not well supported in terms of math and physics.</p><p>These two issues must be resolved before we go back to the circuit reconnect vs. magnetic reconnection debate or we aren't going to get anywhere.</p><p>IMO the second misconception is particularly unfortunate. Not only has EU Theory been 'explained" in terms of mathematical modeling and computer modeling, it is "explained" in emprical experimentation, complete with control mechanisms and controlled variations of conditions in the experiments. It should never be in doubt that EU theory is well supported in terms of *real* (lab) physics, but also real mathematical models. The fact these things are still in doubt suggests to me that I "skipped too many steps", and went into Alfven's work without explaining the real history behind EU theory. EU theory has *never* lacked for either emprical *explanations* or *mathematical models*, not since the time of Birkeland. Bruce, Alfven and their students built upon these mathematical models presented by Birkeland, but at no time has EU theory ever lacked for mathematical or emprical support, at least not in the last 100 years. This group needs to understand something about the history of EU theory, and the "predictions" that Birkeland made based upon his emprical experimentation. </p><p>Lots of theories have mathematical support, MOND theory for instance, but lack any sort of emprical support in terms of 'controlled testing". They remain "unexplained" in terms of emprical physics. This is true of many theories in astronomy. It is not true of EU theory. EU theory has both emprical support, and mathematical support. It is "explained" physically and mathematically. That is something we will all have to agree upon before we can move forward with this discussion IMO. </p><p>I think the fact that my personal math skills in no way validate or invalidate any of my favorite physics theories will be resolved pretty quickly. The other point however may take a bit of time, but from the perspective of real "science", Birkeland's work is first rate and you will all come to recognize it sooner or later. His work is also freely available to anyone with access to a computer.</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><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I understand you aren't pleased; I can't help that.</DIV></p><p>Well, I may still not exactly be "happy" but actually there is something you could (eventually) do about it. On the other hand I'm over the bulk of it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> That being said, however...I think a great deal of the problem here is that you've essentially been trying to explain all of Alfaven, rather than aspects of his science. Thus, instead of discreet points being discussed, hashed out, and then resolved, the conversation has wandered around and nothing was ever resolved.Pick something, anything: magnetic reconnection, coronal loops, current flow, but choose something, and stick with it for a while. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Hmm. I'm not sure how to respond to that since I was trying to "stick" to magnetic reconnection prior to the movement of the thread. That seemed to provoke a lot of frustration and you're right, things were not getting 'resolved". I would move on to coronal loops, but that would eventually lead us right back to magnetic reconnection vs. circuit reconnection during CME type events.</p><p>As I see things we remain "stuck' on key two points, and my detractors seem to falsely believe that:</p><p>1) My personal math skills somehow determine the mathematical and physicsl legimacy of any of the following fields of science, Quantum Mechanics, MHD theory, GR theory, or EU theory. I happen to agree with all of these theories, but they are all well supported in terms of math and physics, irrespective of my ability to do these math's on command, or to personally conduct the empical experiments that have validate their scientific legitmacy. </p><p>2) EU theory is not well supported in terms of math and physics.</p><p>These two issues must be resolved before we go back to the circuit reconnect vs. magnetic reconnection debate or we aren't going to get anywhere.</p><p>IMO the second misconception is particularly unfortunate. Not only has EU Theory been 'explained" in terms of mathematical modeling and computer modeling, it is "explained" in emprical experimentation, complete with control mechanisms and controlled variations of conditions in the experiments. It should never be in doubt that EU theory is well supported in terms of *real* (lab) physics, but also real mathematical models. The fact these things are still in doubt suggests to me that I "skipped too many steps", and went into Alfven's work without explaining the real history behind EU theory. EU theory has *never* lacked for either emprical *explanations* or *mathematical models*, not since the time of Birkeland. Bruce, Alfven and their students built upon these mathematical models presented by Birkeland, but at no time has EU theory ever lacked for mathematical or emprical support, at least not in the last 100 years. This group needs to understand something about the history of EU theory, and the "predictions" that Birkeland made based upon his emprical experimentation. </p><p>Lots of theories have mathematical support, MOND theory for instance, but lack any sort of emprical support in terms of 'controlled testing". They remain "unexplained" in terms of emprical physics. This is true of many theories in astronomy. It is not true of EU theory. EU theory has both emprical support, and mathematical support. It is "explained" physically and mathematically. That is something we will all have to agree upon before we can move forward with this discussion IMO. </p><p>I think the fact that my personal math skills in no way validate or invalidate any of my favorite physics theories will be resolved pretty quickly. The other point however may take a bit of time, but from the perspective of real "science", Birkeland's work is first rate and you will all come to recognize it sooner or later. His work is also freely available to anyone with access to a computer.</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'>... MOND theory for instance, but lack any sort of emprical support in terms of 'controlled testing"....Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Maybe we need a better understanding of what is meant by mathematical support.<br /><br />MOND has no mathematical support or theoretical support whatever. It is purely and simply a curve fit, which says that it we change Newton's law of universal gravitation to say such and such then we can explain certain observed rotational rates in certain galaxies.</p><p>Mathematical support, if it were to exist, would start with a set of physical principles that have experimental verification in either a laboratory or in precise measurements of nature and from those principles apply mathematics to derive the MOND laws. What MOND lacks is a solid premise. It provides equations with no rationale. That is neither mathematics nor physics. It only becomes physics if the MOND modifications can be applied in some situation different from those that they were contrived to explain and provide correct predictions not obtainable by other methods, or if it can be shown to describe all observed galactic rotation rates and all other gravitational phenomena, and that would requre a LOT of observational data. MOND at this stage is completely ad hoc, expressible with equations but not supportable with mathematical logic.</p><p>In many respects it shares that attribute with inflation, except that inflation is being applied in a situation in which there is no good existing theory while MOND would supplant Newtonian gravity and general relativity. Both are working hypotheses that need much more experimental data and more theoretical modeling to test their predictive capability and consistency with all that is observed.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe we need a better understanding of what is meant by mathematical support.</DIV></p><p>That would probably be a good idea.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>MOND has no mathematical support or theoretical support whatever. It is purely and simply a curve fit, which says that it we change Newton's law of universal gravitation to say such and such then we can explain certain observed rotational rates in certain galaxies.</DIV></p><p>That could be said of almost *every* theorized entity stuffed into Lambda-CMD theory. Inflation? Now they will be curve fitting a "dark flow" into the process and claiming it "predicts" that too. Come on. Every theory in astronomy is "modified" to fit the observations. There are a few rare exceptions mind you. Neutrino detection is "pure physics" in that the sense that it is not shy around a lab, and control mechanisms demonstrate that neutrinos exist, not just math alone. Inflation, dark energy, SUSY particles, and soon "dark flow" are a "variables" used to make the math fit.</p><p>Mond theory is mathematically 'defined'. Whether it is right or wrong, or reflects nature's behaviors remains to be seen, but it does have a 'mathematical expression". In that sense it is no different than inflation theory or magnetic reconnection theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Mathematical support, if it were to exist, would start with a set of physical principles that have experimental verification in either a laboratory or in precise measurements of nature and from those principles apply mathematics to derive the MOND laws.</DIV></p><p>The derive from a 'precise measurement' of galaxy rotation speeds and behaviors, just like 'dark matter' theories.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What MOND lacks is a solid premise. </DIV></p><p>How is that any different that going with the premise 'dark matter did it"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It provides equations with no rationale.</DIV></p><p>You mean it has no *empirical physicsl support*? I agree. Then again, this is true of many of the things stuffed into Lamba-CDM theory. When was "inflation" ever used in a consumer product? How come is so shy around a lab? Neutrinos aren't shy around a lab. What gives?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is neither mathematics nor physics.</DIV></p><p>It is math that is *devoid* of physics. In other words it is a mathematical expression that is shy around a lab and anything to do with an "experiment" complete with control mechanisms, etc.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It only becomes physics if the MOND modifications can be applied in some situation different from those that they were contrived to explain and provide correct predictions not obtainable by other methods, or if it can be shown to describe all observed galactic rotation rates and all other gravitational phenomena,</DIV></p><p>I can and has been shown to "curve fit' the galactic rotation. Granted, it's a curve fit like dark matter, and granted that 'dark matter" better fits the bullet cluster date, but it is incorect to suggest that MOND theory is not mathematically expressed and capable of making "predictions". I agree however that it lacks *emprical* support and is a great example of something that is based *only* on math, and not on physical testing.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and that would requre a LOT of observational data. MOND at this stage is completely ad hoc, expressible with equations but not supportable with mathematical logic.</DIV></p><p>They are mathematical equations. Period. Logic is a matter of subjective interpretation in many cases, although I agree that MOND theory seems to 'fail' the lensing data from the Bullet Cluster survays and such. On the other hand it does make 'predictions" like any other mathematical expression that can be compared to observational data. It is no different than dark matter 'explanations" of galaxy rotation observations. The thing that favors one over the other is another set of data related to "lensing". </p><p>Now I'm going to acknowledge that I do accept the idea of "dark matter" (MACHO brand), and it emprically is shown to exist in nature, albeit not necessarily in the quantities required to explain every bit of data out there. On the other hand mass we can't see yet with our primitive technologies certainly exist in our universe. How much and in what quantitiy will have to be determined, but we aren't invoking anything unknown to nature to suggesting MACHO type "dark matter" (unseen standard matter) </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In many respects it shares that attribute with inflation, except that inflation is being applied in a situation in which there is no good existing theory </DIV></p><p>How s that any better? The fact that no good explanation exists in not a valid reason to invoke a supernatural entity anymore than it's valid to try to modify gravity to "make it fit".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>while MOND would supplant Newtonian gravity and general relativity. Both are working hypotheses that need much more experimental data and more theoretical modeling to test their predictive capability and consistency with all that is observed. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Well, I actually agree with that point, but IMO it applies to almost every variable i the Lambda-CMD model as well. The invokation of multiple entities that are shy around a lab makes it's "predictions" rather "supernatural" rather than "natural" extensions of gravity theory.</p><p>The key point in this discussion is that there is a distinct difference between a curve fit excersize and a laboratory test of concept with real control mechanisms. None of Birkeland's theories were shy around a lab. In fact most of them were derived from the observations he made in the lab and most of the math was "curve fit" to make it fit, just like it's done today. The difference howeer is that Birkeland didnt' simply point at the sky and whip out some math, he created emprical experiments, used control mechanisms, turned on and off his "circuits" and watched the changes that occured as the results of the changes in the control mechanisms. Nothing was left to chance, and nothing he came up with was 'lab shy" in at all. Each and every idea came from what he was able to reproduce in the lab. Let's revisit this statement of yours again now:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Mathematical support, if it were to exist, would start with a set of physical principles that have experimental verification in either a laboratory or in precise measurements of nature and from those principles apply mathematics to derive the MOND laws.</DIV> </p><p>Birkeland's theories were derived from *emprical tests* and also in-situ measurements, and mathematical models. Unlike MOND theory or inflation theory or magnetic reconnection theory, it's not shy around a lab. It can be "tested" in real experments and shown to create aurora around spheres in a plasma vacuum. I can be shown to generate high energy discharge "loops" in the atmospheres of spheres in a plasma vacuum. I can be shown to create jets and Birkeland currents galore. It can be shown to create ring around planets. and high energy atmospheric discharges on other planets besides just our own. All of Birkeland's key ideas enjoyed emprical support, in-situ measurement support and a mathematical expression. This has been true for EU theory since this volume was first published. </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>The situation for "EU theory" ought to be a bit easier to handle than that for something like MOND or inflation.</p><p>EU purports to be consistent with classical physics. It should have and easier time in demonstrating validity than an proposal that requires modification or replacement of fundamental laws of physics.</p><p>So, to demonstrate validity of EU theory you need only:</p><p>1) Clearly state the EU tenets that you wish to validate. They must be formulated in a manner that is in principle falsifiable and verifiable. </p><p>2) Start with the appropriate established classical physical laws -- Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics, fluid flow in terms of the Navier-Stokes equations, Newtonian universal gravitation, etc. (Or if you wish you can also invoke quantum theories and general relativity but that should not be necessary as the physics involved seems to be classical).</p><p>3) Make use of available observational data of a quantitative nature that can be directly related to the basic physical laws. That means use of numerically-valued measurements and not simply anecdotal or "looks like" information.</p><p>4) Apply rigorous mathematics and physical reasoning to show that your EU tenets follow from the physical laws of item 3. Approximations are acceptable if justified and supported by the mathematics applied to the physical laws. They key is that there must be demonstrated a valid train of logic from which the originally tenets are derived from basic physical law via mathematics with any additional information from measurements clearly shown to be accurate ane applicable.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The situation for "EU theory" ought to be a bit easier to handle than that for something like MOND or inflation.</DIV></p><p>I agree. That *should be* true of 'magnetic reconnection" too. If it is as wide spread in the solar system as is claimed, it should be easy to reproduce this effect in plasma in a lab.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>EU purports to be consistent with classical physics.</DIV></p><p>That is because the guy that invented it (Birkeland) used "classical physics" to create it and define it and "test it" using real control mechanisms in real emprical experiments. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It should have and easier time in demonstrating validity than an proposal that requires modification or replacement of fundamental laws of physics.</DIV></p><p>Like inflation? What other known vector or scalar field in nature retains near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume? Even if EU theory faltered here in some way, it would not be any "worse" than any "popular" astronomy theories. It is however true what you say, and it does not require us to invoke new forces of nature to make it work.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, to demonstrate validity of EU theory you need only:1) Clearly state the EU tenets that you wish to validate. They must be formulated in a manner that is in principle falsifiable and verifiable.</DIV></p><p>How was magnetic reconnection "verified" in a lab? Don't even think about referencing that PPPL paper. It was nothing but a z-pinch filament in plasma that was driven by huge (external) circuits. Once they cut the power, the light show was over. </p><p>Birkeland did a lot more than that with spheres in a vacuum, all by himself, using only the technologies that were available to him over 100 years ago.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>3) Start with the appropriate established classical physical laws -- Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics, fluid flow in terms of the Navier-Stokes equations, Newtonian universal gravitation, etc. (Or if you wish you can also invoke quantum theories and general relativity but that should not be necessary as the physics involved seems to be classical).</DIV></p><p>Didn't Birkeland do that? Didn't Bruce do that? Didn't Alfven do that? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>4) Make use of available observational data of a quantitative nature that can be directly related to the basic physical laws. </DIV></p><p>Check. There are plenty of satellite observations, complete with quantification that verify Birkeland's "predictions" about the sun and the Earth and various planets. We'll get there again.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That means use of numerically-valued measurements and not simply anecdotal or "looks like" information.</DIV></p><p>How do you suppose Birkeland came up with those mathematical models in his writings?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>5) Apply rigorous mathematics and physical reasoning to show that your EU tenets follow from the physical laws of item </DIV></p><p>The irony here is that volume set I handed you does exactly that. It explains exactly how Birkeland created EU theory from scratch, based upon in-situ measurements on earth, emprical tests, and mathematical modeling. I've actually already given you everything you're asking for. I guess you're still stuck on that notion that *I personally* am responsible for validating GR theory, QM, MHD theory, ect or they are all without scientific merit.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>3. Approximations are acceptable if justified and supported by the mathematics applied to the physical laws. </DIV></p><p>So how does that work with inflation exactly? I can understand Birkeland's invokation of 'electricity' because he explained how he added it to his experiments and he explained the effects it had on his experiments. He explained the control mechanisms and how he used used it and how he changed the variables to verify each "property" he was trying to ascribe to current carrying plasma. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They key is that there must be demonstrated a valid train of logic from which the originally tenets are derived from basic physical law via mathematics with any additional information from measurements clearly shown to be accurate ane applicable. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>IMO it's not a problem for EU theory because it was concieved and created in a lab. On the other hand IMO you are not applying these same standards equally to all theories related to astronomy. Inflation certainly passed none of those requirements. Magneitc reconnection has never been linked to high energy emissions from spheres in a plasma vacuum or sustained auroras around spheres in a vacuum. You put a hight requirement on EU theory than any other theory. Fortunately it just so happens that it's not a problem for EU theory because EU theory was developed in the "classical' manner, complete with real emprical experiments, real mathetical "postdicted"" formulas, and real "predictions" that come out of laboratory experimention, not computer models and math formulas alone. </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
-
What time is the NASA Parker Solar Probe's closest sun flyby ever on Christmas Eve?- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram