Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[michaelmozina]

<p>It just so happens that I personally believe that GR theory, quantum mechanics, MHD theory, and EU theory all have scientific merit.&nbsp; Not a single one of these theories was developed by me personally, and not a single one of them rises or falls or is any way dependent upon my personal math skills.&nbsp; In other words even if I could not bark the math's of any of these theories on command, they are all still well defined in terms of math *and* physics.&nbsp; None of these theories are shy around a lab with real control mechanisms. That is in fact a "requirement" fot any theory to be on my personal "faves" list.&nbsp; There is absolutely, positively no connection between my personal math skills and the validity or viability of any of these theories.&nbsp; Each of them was authored by people who understood the basic math better than I do.&nbsp; Each of these theories enjoys emprical support.&nbsp; Each of these theories has specifc "champions" that have written extensive mathematical models and each of them has enjoyed empirical verification in a lab. </p><p>It is absolutely not a requirement that I personally do all the maths of all these theories in order for them to be valid, well explained in terms of math, and well "tested' in a lab.</p><p>The idea that *I personally* must bark math on command for any theory to be valid is logically flawed.&nbsp; That is not the way science works.&nbsp; I do not expect each and every one of you to be responsible for providing me personally with mathematical models in this thread beyond what is written in papers and books.&nbsp; I don't expect you all to personally conduct every emprical test of concept either.&nbsp; Likewise I am not presonally required to bark math on command, I am simply required to provide references that provide this information for your consideration.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>In no way, shape or form are my personal math skils in any way related to the validity of *any* scientific theory.&nbsp; I did not invent any of them, and I don't have to personally be able to do the maths for each of these fields of science for them to be valid and well "explained" in terms of math and physics.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>You folks are going to have to get over this idea once and for all.&nbsp; It's an irrational expectation on your part, and it's an utterly irrational belief to correlate my math skills to the validity of any scientific theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; EU theory is not dependent upon the math skills of Michael Mozina.&nbsp; I didn't create the theory. I didn't mathematically quantifiy it. I didn't scientifically explain it in terms of MHD theory applied to space.&nbsp; These things were all done long before I was born by Birkeland and Bruce.&nbsp; Alfven refined these ideas during my lifetime.&nbsp; They explained the math and they also conducted the emprical experiments and "explained" it through physics.</p><p>In no way is any theory dependent upon my personal math skills.&nbsp; QM stands and falls on it's own merits, irrespective of my personal math skills.&nbsp; GR theory stands on it's own merits as well.&nbsp; No theory is dependent upon the math skills on one individual. They are all "collective group efforts" that moved forward by a series of individuals.</p><p>Any belief that my math skills are in any way related to the validity of *any* scientific theory is false.&nbsp; There is no such connection. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p>For the last time, please search ADS for "tokamak magnetic reconnection" and read through some of the papers.&nbsp; The idea that magnetic reconnection hasn't been demonstrated in the lab is just a testament to your unwillingness to listen.&nbsp; I told you countless times that the PPPL paper is not the only experiment.&nbsp; Here is a paper I found(trust me, it is really easy) that shows EMPIRICALLY that reconnection can accelerate electrons to suprathermal energies.&nbsp; </p><p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PhRvL..86.3036S</p><p>&nbsp;Also, read this</p><p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PPCF...49....1K</p><p>Note the words </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The total kinetic energy of fast electrons generated during a sawtooth crash is comparable to the magnetic energy released during the crash.</DIV> </p><p>In fact, read all the citations to the first paper. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-ref_query?bibcode=2001PhRvL..86.3036S&amp;refs=CITATIONS&amp;db_key=PHY</p><p>I know I'm wasting my time posting this because it will soon be buried by one of your walls of text but I'm getting tired of you mentioning the PPPL paper.&nbsp; Your objection to it didnt even make sense, and you just handwave every other tokamak experiment as being the same.&nbsp; However the generation of magnetic reconnection in tokamak reactors is and has long been a large field involving many other laboratories other than Princeton's.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For the last time, please search ADS for "tokamak magnetic reconnection" and read through some of the papers. </DIV></p><p>Each and every single one of these 'experiments" required:</p><p>A) External circuit energy to make it function.&nbsp; Break the external circutis that power the porcess and the light show is over. </p><p>B) Current flow inside of plasma threads.</p><p>C) z-pinch processes in plasma.</p><p>D) "stored" magnetic energy in the form of "moving" (kinetically energized) charged particles.</p><p>Show me one that didn't *assume* that the current density remained constant.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The idea that magnetic reconnection hasn't been demonstrated in the lab is just a testament to your unwillingness to listen. </DIV></p><p>I have 'listened', but I have not "seen' anything even *remotely* of the scientific calibur of Birkeland's work with "circuit reconnection" and spheres in a vacuum.</p><p>A z-pinch process produced by "external" circuit energy is not evidence of "magnetic reconnection" because magnetic lines never "disconnect" or "reconnect".&nbsp; The particles and circuits "reconnect" inside the plasma, not the magnetic lines.&nbsp; The magnetic field is simply constricting the flow of current inside the filament and is typically described as "magnetic flux" by magnetic reconnection proponents.&nbsp; This "magnetic flux" is actually particle flow inside the "line/filament".&nbsp; Period. &nbsp;</p><p>There is no physical difference between what you are calling "magnetic reconnection" and what Alfven referred to as "current sheet acceleration" or that he explained in terms of "circuits" that may or may not 'reconnect" with other "circuits".&nbsp; There is no fundamental difference between these ideas. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I told you countless times that the PPPL paper is not the only experiment.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>So how were any of them any different in their use of *external* circuit energy to make it work?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here is a paper I found(trust me, it is really easy) that shows EMPIRICALLY that reconnection can accelerate electrons to suprathermal energies.&nbsp; http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PhRvL..86.3036SAlso, read thishttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PPCF...49....1KNote the words In fact, read all the citations to the first paper. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-ref_query?bibcode=2001PhRvL..86.3036S&amp;refs=CITATIONS&amp;db_key=PHYI know I'm wasting my time posting this because it will soon be buried by one of your walls of text but I'm getting tired of you mentioning the PPPL paper.&nbsp; Your objection to it didnt even make sense, and you just handwave every other tokamak experiment as being the same.&nbsp; However the generation of magnetic reconnection in tokamak reactors is and has long been a large field involving many other laboratories other than Princeton's.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I will be happy to read *one* of them that that you believe is *fundamentally* different than the other paper we've already been through in terms of the following key issues:</p><p>Which one is not dependent upon "circuit energy" that comes from a source that is external to the point of 'reconnection;"?</p><p>Which of them didn't require *huge* amounts of "current flow" inside the plasma thread?</p><p>Which of them did not require a "z-pinch' in plasma?</p><p>If you can cite me one that doesn't depend on these things, I'll read it.&nbsp; If not, it's just a variation of the same theme, and z-pinches require *current flow* and a powerful E field.</p><p>There is absolutely no emprical doubt that electrical dishcarges in plasma can:</p><p>A) cause "loops" to form in the atmospheres of spheres in a plsama vacuum.</p><p>B) Cause gamma radiation</p><p>C) Cause neutron capture emissions to occur.</p><p>D) Cause plasma to heat to 10's of millions of degrees</p><p>E) Create aurora around negatively charged spheres.</p><p>F) Create high speed "jets" from the surface of positively charged surfaces.</p><p>G) Generate continious acceleration of charged particles that selective favors a positive charge/mass ratio of elements just like we observe in the solar wind process.</p><p>H) Generate powerful discharges around larger planets.</p><p>I) Sustain all these events for hours on end.</p><p>All of these things have been "observed" in our solar system.&nbsp; All of these things are things that you now seem to be trying to "explain' with "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; In what fundamental way are these ideas any different? </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PhPl...13g2108S</p><p>In that last link you provided a came across this particular paper which explains the same events in terms of a critical E field.</p><p>The obvious fact here is that Maxwell's equations allow us to simplify for E or for B, not just one or the other.&nbsp; Both the E field and B field play a critical role in plasma instabilities, but these high speed 'collisions' between particles is dependent upon the whole "circuit energy", not simply upon the thread itself. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PPCF...49....1K</p><p>This paper looks to cut to the heart of matter in terms of the outbound kinetic energy is directly related to decrese in the magnetic field energy.&nbsp; The question then becomes 'what exactly *is* "stored" magnetic energy"?</p><p>The energy that is "stored" in the plasma thread is *kinetic* in nature.&nbsp; The "line" is a twister like filament in the plasma that is created by the electrons flowing through the plasma.&nbsp; The electrons flow through the "line" to the point of "reconnection", at which point they "collide' and the electrons flow outside of the line and are flung away from the point of collision.&nbsp; Meanwhile, this loss of electrons then causes the magnetic line to decrease in strength because fewer electrons are now flowing through the "line". &nbsp;</p><p>This all comes right back to particle physics at the *point* of "reconnection".&nbsp; There is nothing about this type of reconnection that is "unique" and not already explained in terms of "circuits" and circuit energy, and particle collisions in plasma.&nbsp; Plasma is an excellent but not perfect conductor.&nbsp; Some collisions occur at the point of '"reconnection' between the two circuits, but the total circuit energy, not simply the magnetic lines themselves will determing the longevity of the process, the speed of the process, and the amount of energy that is ultimately released in the process of 'reconnection". </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>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p>You keep saying the same thing over and over.&nbsp; Obviously a powered experiment will stop working when you turn the power off.&nbsp; Obviously current flow is involved in reconnection.&nbsp; Obviously there is an E field component. </p><p>However, the existence of the E field component neither validates your claim or invalidates ours.&nbsp; Do you think the mainstream is stupid?&nbsp; How could there NOT be current flow in a process that, in its very definition, claims to accelerate ELECTRONS?&nbsp; The mainstream knows the definition of current.&nbsp; Your arguments are baseless and flawed.&nbsp; We already went through why the current density assumption doesn't mean much.&nbsp; Assumptions are just assumptions.&nbsp; Birkeland assumed planetary bodies could be approximated as hollow metal spheres.&nbsp; I could name a ton of assumptions that may or may not be physically correct that scientists use all the time.&nbsp; The point being, you are just hinging your entire argument on some minute detail that doesnt matter because that saves you from having to address the issue at hand. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You keep saying the same thing over and over.&nbsp; Obviously a powered experiment will stop working when you turn the power off.&nbsp; Obviously current flow is involved in reconnection.&nbsp; Obviously there is an E field component.</DIV></p><p>Coincidently (not really of course) all of Birkeland's experiments involved current flow, included a E field component, includied a B field component too, and when you turned off the ectrernal power, the light show was also over.&nbsp; You see no similarities here at all?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, the existence of the E field component neither validates your claim or invalidates ours.</DIV></p><p>It does validate my claim because the E field would be *required* in Birkeland's notion of EU theory.&nbsp; It would be a "prediction", a major "requirement" of EU theory in fact. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Do you think the mainstream is stupid?&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>No, I think they are confused by terminology just like you.&nbsp; I think they are highly intelligent individuals who happened to pick a truly terrible name to call this process.&nbsp; It has nothing to do with 'intelligence" and everything to do with perspective.&nbsp; If you *assume* an EU orientation it looks like a much different problem than if you *assume* that the sun is the sole energy source of the solar system.&nbsp; It's not a problem with intelligence at all, simplya problem with "perspective".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How could there NOT be current flow in a process that, in its very definition, claims to accelerate ELECTRONS? </DIV></p><p>There has to be current flow in *both* your brand of reconnection, and in Birkeland's "circuit reconnection" experiments.&nbsp; There is no way that either of these will function in the absense of the E field. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The mainstream knows the definition of current. </DIV></p><p>Yes, but it assumes that the sun itself is the sole source of energy in the solar system.&nbsp; It's not that they don't have *any* understanding of plasma, it's just that they have a limited understanding of how the universe is *wired* together.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your arguments are baseless and flawed.</DIV></p><p>My argument are all backed by emprical experimentation with "circuit reconnection' in a lab, using real control mechisms, real forces of nature, real control variables, and real emprical experiments.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We already went through why the current density assumption doesn't mean much.&nbsp; Assumptions are just assumptions. </DIV></p><p>But they *assumed* that the current density remained 'constant' yet it could not be constant.&nbsp; Any electrons "lost" (flung out) from the reonnection process would cause a decrease in the current density.&nbsp; There is no way for them to justify that particular *assumption*.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birkeland assumed planetary bodies could be approximated as hollow metal spheres.</DIV></p><p>They were not actually hollow, they typically had a strong magnetic field inside the sphere.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I could name a ton of assumptions that may or may not be physically correct that scientists use all the time.&nbsp; The point being, you are just hinging your entire argument on some minute detail that doesnt matter because that saves you from having to address the issue at hand. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Sometimes (usually in fact), the devil is in the details.&nbsp; You can't *assume* something about the current density and then *assume* the event must now be the result of a new form of energy release in plasma.&nbsp; There is no evidence that the current density remained constant during the sawtooth phenomenon, and every kind of evidence to suggest it was not constant, including the discharged electrons, and the change in the diameter of the z-pinch filament.</p><p>There are two important requirements that are exactly the same for "magnetic reconnection" and Birkeland's experiments, powerful E fields, and "current flow". &nbsp; These are minimum requirements for both processes to function.&nbsp; Both of them require "electricity" and "external circuit energy" in order to function.&nbsp; The rate of electron ejections is directly related to the loss of the magnetic field strength, because the magnetic field strength is directly related to the density of electrons traversing the "circuit". &nbsp; Fling a few out into space, and you loose some *electromagnetic* energy.&nbsp; The point here is that all of this is *eletromagnetic* energy from beginning to end and *all of it requires 'electricity" to function, and would not work without "electricity".&nbsp; Electrons are flowing through the plasmas of spacetime.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You keep saying the same thing over and over. </DIV></p><p>I just gave you 158 megabytes of material that presents EU theory in a very "different way" than I have done and it's free and freely acceasable.&nbsp; How much of it have you actually read so far?&nbsp; Have you even had a chance to even glance at any of the mathematical expressions in his presentation?</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I just gave you 158 megabytes of material that presents EU theory in a very "different way" than I have done and it's free and freely acceasable.&nbsp; How much of it have you actually read so far?&nbsp; Have you even had a chance to even glance at any of the mathematical expressions in his presentation?&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>So where is this "free and freely accessable" information?&nbsp; I found only sites willing to sell a couple of papers in what you posted.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I agree.&nbsp; That *should be* true of 'magnetic reconnection" too.&nbsp; 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.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. Like inflation?&nbsp; What other known vector or scalar field in nature retains near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume?&nbsp;&nbsp; Even if EU theory faltered here in some way, it would not be any "worse" than any "popular" astronomy theories.&nbsp; It is however true what you say, and it does not require us to invoke new forces of nature to make it work.How was magnetic reconnection "verified" in a lab?&nbsp; Don't even think about referencing that PPPL paper.&nbsp; 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. &nbsp;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.Didn't Birkeland do that?&nbsp; Didn't Bruce do that?&nbsp; Didn't Alfven do that? Check.&nbsp; There are plenty of satellite observations, complete with quantification that verify Birkeland's "predictions" about the sun and the Earth and various planets.&nbsp; We'll get there again. How do you suppose Birkeland came up with those mathematical models in his writings?The irony here is that volume set I handed you does exactly that.&nbsp; It explains exactly how Birkeland created EU theory from scratch, based upon in-situ measurements on earth, emprical tests, and mathematical modeling.&nbsp; I've actually already given you everything you're asking for.&nbsp; 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.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.&nbsp; 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. IMO it's not a problem for EU theory because it was concieved and created in a lab.&nbsp; On the other hand IMO you are not applying these same standards equally to all theories related to astronomy.&nbsp; Inflation certainly passed none of those requirements.&nbsp; Magneitc reconnection has never been linked to high energy emissions from spheres in a plasma vacuum or sustained auroras around spheres in a vacuum.&nbsp;&nbsp; You put a hight requirement on EU theory than any other theory.&nbsp; 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. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>So why don't you execute steps 1-4 instead of just commenting on them?&nbsp; Do you have a scientific case or not?&nbsp; If you have one then present it.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[origin]

<p>Just checking Michael, but would you say that you have presented a very strong case for EU theory and basically *shown up* the mainstream as represented by the dissenting voices on this thread?</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just checking Michael, but would you say that you have presented a very strong case for EU theory and basically *shown up* the mainstream as represented by the dissenting voices on this thread?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>No, actually I would say I have done a very poor job presenting a cohesive case for EU theory in this particular thread.&nbsp; I've done a better job presenting EU theory comprehensively in other threads. We missed too much relevant material in this thread and I skipped ahead to Alfven before explaining Birkeland's basic ideas.&nbsp; I intend to rectify that problem.&nbsp; I don't suppose you've actually read any of Birkeland's work, or taken a gander at his mathematical presentations? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So where is this "free and freely accessable" information?&nbsp; I found only sites willing to sell a couple of papers in what you posted. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p>http://ia340919.us.archive.org/2/items/norwegianaurorap01chririch/norwegianaurorap01chririch.pdf <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So why don't you execute steps 1-4 instead of just commenting on them?&nbsp; Do you have a scientific case or not?&nbsp; If you have one then present it. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>http://ia340919.us.archive.org/2/items/norwegianaurorap01chririch/norwegianaurorap01chririch.pdf</p><p>Let's start here.&nbsp; Does Birkeland present a "scientific case" in your opinion, yes or no? </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>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>..Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You know, DrRocket presented a good outline in those four steps.&nbsp; I bet if you made a stab at it, stayed on course and asked questions when you hit a snag, you could present something that was a lot more intelligible than a few hundred pages of text over 6 months.&nbsp; I'd be willing to bet that even if you hit a snag on maths and relating them to your premise, you'd get some help from somewhere on what direction it had to go.</p><p>I don't believe anyone would answer you falsely regarding an honest question about theory or the maths.</p><p>Of course, nobody is going to write or prove your premise for you.&nbsp; Only you can do that.&nbsp; But, I think if you had a question regarding maths or theory or how to apply them you'd get some honest commentary.&nbsp; It may not be in agreement once you reach a critical point.&nbsp; You might get an answer "You can't do that."&nbsp; But, then you could ask why regarding something very specific instead of having twenty questions pop out for every post. </p><p>How about starting on step 1?&nbsp; Get that flushed out.&nbsp; Present a rough draft?&nbsp; I'd bet someone would comment on how it could be improved just to see where you were going to go with it.&nbsp; Nail down step one and work it until it is ready and then move on. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You know, DrRocket presented a good outline in those four steps.&nbsp; I bet if you made a stab at it, stayed on course and asked questions when you hit a snag, you could present something that was a lot more intelligible than a few hundred pages of text over 6 months.&nbsp; I'd be willing to bet that even if you hit a snag on maths and relating them to your premise, you'd get some help from somewhere on what direction it had to go.</DIV></p><p>My, aren't you the optimist. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't believe anyone would answer you falsely regarding an honest question about theory or the maths.</DIV></p><p>No, what they tend to do is *ignore* every important honest question, like the "cause" of gamma ray emissions and the "cause" of neutron capture signatures in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; When I point out that Rhessi also observes gamma rays from disharge in the Earth's atmosphere, everyone sort of ignores the obvious "cause" of such events in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp;&nbsp; The tough questions simply get ignored in my experience and the notion of "empirical" support is altogether one sided. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of course, nobody is going to write or prove your premise for you.&nbsp; Only you can do that.&nbsp; But, I think if you had a question regarding maths or theory or how to apply them you'd get some honest commentary. </DIV></p><p>Honest comentary is would be everyone agreeing that discharges in the solar atmosphere *could* be causing the gamma ray emissions in the solar atmosphere just like dishcarges in the Earth's atmosphere emit gamma rays.&nbsp; Honest commentary is noting the numberous predictions of Birkeland that have observational counterparts in satellite images.&nbsp; We need to "get honest" about the emprical nature of Birkeland's orignal experiments and his original premises and then get honest about what Bruce and Alfven did from there.&nbsp; We need to "get honest' about the fact that my personal math skils are in no way related to the mathematical or physical viability of *any* scientific theory.</p><p>I'm afraid I miss too many "honest" bits of science that need to be looked at now in earnest.</p><p>There are many aspects of EU theory, and I will eventually choose to "lock on' to coronal loop activity and demonstrate how these are discharge events in plasma.&nbsp;&nbsp; First however I think we need a quick "overview" of the empical nature of Bikeland's work, and a quick look at the physical 'predictions" that come out of that work.&nbsp; We should not be arguing about the mathematical and physical validity of EU theory.&nbsp; It is a form of pure emprical physics and it is well expressed mathematically. It has even been computer modelled. &nbsp; </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It may not be in agreement once you reach a critical point.&nbsp; You might get an answer "You can't do that."&nbsp; But, then you could ask why regarding something very specific instead of having twenty questions pop out for every post. How about starting on step 1?&nbsp; Get that flushed out.&nbsp; Present a rough draft?&nbsp; I'd bet someone would comment on how it could be improved just to see where you were going to go with it.&nbsp; Nail down step one and work it until it is ready and then move on. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>I'm still working on making sure DrRocket, origin and some of the more vocal critics of EU theory actually do some reading.&nbsp; I'm tired of this being a one way, circular conversation. </p><p>Step 1, when I get there will be to specific the "specific" solar observation and "prediction" from Birkeland's work that I wish to focus on next, but first we need a bit of a history lesson on Birkeland's work and his range of predictions. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://ia340919.us.archive.org/2/items/norwegianaurorap01chririch/norwegianaurorap01chririch.pdfLet's start here.&nbsp; Does Birkeland present a "scientific case" in your opinion, yes or no? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>No. Let's start with step 1.</p><p>There is no point in "starting" with a general citation of a document that runs nearly 1000 pages and contains a historical description of a year-long expedition.</p><p>Start with a succint statement of your premise for whatever tenets of EU "theory" you care to select.&nbsp; You may use Birkeland's work to support your thesis but you cannot just make a general reference to the document.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;No. Let's start with step 1.</p><p>There is no point in "starting" with a general citation of a document that runs nearly 1000 pages and contains a historical description of a year-long expedition.Start with a succint statement of your premise for whatever tenets of EU "theory" you care to select.&nbsp; You may use Birkeland's work to support your thesis but you cannot just make a general reference to the document. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Well, when I begin to demonstrate that his "coronal loop" experiments and dicharge explanation was viable, I will do that, and I will cite specific page numbers and quote him appropriately.</p><p>IMO you're still missing the purpose of me citing this *whole* work for you.&nbsp; It's a "long" volume because Birkeland methodically explains all the thought processes that led him to his conclusions, all the the in-situ measurements he methodically gathered, all the experiments he ran, all the variations he did in these experiments, all the math he provides, the whole ball of wax.&nbsp; Your belief that EU theory (in general) is not well expressed mathamatically or physicslly is absolutely false.&nbsp; This particular volume, and the length of this volume demonstrates that this is false, and it's been false for more than 100 years.&nbsp;</p><p> Birkeland was the ultimate "scientist".&nbsp; He integrated equations by night, hiked around the harshest environments on the planet by day collecing data, and he spent his "free time" building emprical experiments to 'test" his beliefs out in a lab.&nbsp; He did everything in the "classical" sense.&nbsp; He conducted real "experiments" with real "control mechanisms".&nbsp; He took in-situ measurements.&nbsp; He created mathematical models to explain these observations.&nbsp;&nbsp; He did everything "by the book" and did everything the "right way", including emprical experimentation, and mathematical modeling. Right or wrong, the math is there for you to inspect.&nbsp; He didn't just offer you a series of physicsl experiments to consider DrRocket, he offered you math to inspect too.&nbsp; All of his theories are directly related to EU theory.&nbsp; Everything in that book is an attempt to explain how "flying electrons and ions" manifest themselves on Earth and in our solar system. &nbsp; At no point in time has EU theory lacked for either mathematical models, or emprical support.&nbsp; The guy that invented the theory made sure of that.</p><p>I'll discuss the coronal loop experiments next, and we'll get into the details as we go, but the fact you still claim that EU theory is not well supported mathmatically and physically demonstrates that you're not being objective or fair.&nbsp; I handed you an entire book on this subject which you don't have to purchase.&nbsp; It's full of the very math and physics that you claim to admire.&nbsp; Spend some time and read through it a bit and don't expect me to do everything for you. Show a little curiosity of your own.</p><p>If you were to actually read his work for yourself, there is no logical or rational reason for you to still believe that EU theory is not well supported in terms of math or physics.&nbsp; The fact that you insist that I personally do more work for you before you'll even admit that EU theory is well defined in terms of math and physics without reading the book is evidence that you aren't being scientifically objective.&nbsp; It does not matter if I personally do more for you in cyberspace.&nbsp; EU theory would still be well expressed mathematically and physically in Birkeland's work.&nbsp; It doesn't matter which parts I happen to focus on next, the parts I focus on will come right from his work and right from his experiments. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<div class="Discussion_PostQuote">My Quesions:</div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">&nbsp;</div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">http://ia340919.us.archive.org/2/items/norwegianaurorap01chririch/norwegianaurorap01chririch.pdf</div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">Let's start here.&nbsp; Does Birkeland present a "scientific case" in your opinion, yes or no? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></div><p>Your response: </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No. Let's start with step 1.</DIV></p><p>I did not ask you if *I* personally presented a "scientific case".&nbsp; I asked you specifically if Birkeland did that in books.&nbsp; You answered no, and the proceed to suggest that we need to do something more.</p><p>IMO this is simply an irrational response. Birkeland was *METHODICAL* and verbose about the the case he built for EU theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; He explained the in-situ measurements, their relationhip to this theories, their relationship to his experiments, etc.&nbsp; He conducted emprical tests, changing the control variables to see their effects on his experiments.&nbsp; He built a comprehensive case, brick by brick, data set by data set, experiment by experiment, and line by line of math.&nbsp; How you can answer "no" to that question is mystery to me.&nbsp; How much of it have you even read at this point? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My Quesions:&nbsp;Your response: I did not ask you if *I* personally presented a "scientific case".&nbsp; I asked you specifically if Birkeland did that in books.&nbsp; You answered no, and the proceed to suggest that we need to do something more.IMO this is simply an irrational response. Birkeland was *METHODICAL* and verbose about the the case he built for EU theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; He explained the in-situ measurements, their relationhip to this theories, their relationship to his experiments, etc.&nbsp; He conducted emprical tests, changing the control variables to see their effects on his experiments.&nbsp; He built a comprehensive case, brick by brick, data set by data set, experiment by experiment, and line by line of math.&nbsp; How you can answer "no" to that question is mystery to me.&nbsp; How much of it have you even read at this point? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>No.&nbsp; I responded "no" to your "let's start here".</p><p>Now please begin with step 1 and clearly state the EU tenets that you intend to support with real physics and real logic.&nbsp; If you wish to cite specific passages from Birkeland in that effort, then so be it.&nbsp; Just be sure that you provide specific passages and that they are relevant.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No.&nbsp; I responded "no" to your "let's start here". </DIV></p><p>Ah, it's a simple statement of pure denial then?&nbsp;&nbsp; What you refuse to read, you don't have to respond to, is that the idea?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now please begin with step 1 and clearly state the EU tenets that you intend to support with real physics and real logic.&nbsp; If you wish to cite specific passages from Birkeland in that effort, then so be it.&nbsp; Just be sure that you provide specific passages and that they are relevant. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;You still don't seem to "get it". &nbsp; *I* don't have to do anything that Birkeland and Bruce and Alfven and others have not already done DrRocket.&nbsp; The validity and the tenets of EU theory are not determined by me nor are they in any way dependent upon me, my beliefs, or my math skills.&nbsp;&nbsp; EU theory is well supported in terms of math and physics, irrespective of what I personally might happen to post in this particular thread.&nbsp; I can focus on specific issues related to his work, but his work stands on it's own merit DrRocket. </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>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No.&nbsp; I responded "no" to your "let's start here".Now please begin with step 1 and clearly state the EU tenets that you intend to support with real physics and real logic.&nbsp; If you wish to cite specific passages from Birkeland in that effort, then so be it.&nbsp; Just be sure that you provide specific passages and that they are relevant. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I don't know about you but I find it impossible to continue arguing with someone who has no understanding of physics.&nbsp; Before I had a solid understanding of physics I used to argue the same way, just pointing at something mathematically dense and hoping it said what I said it did.&nbsp; I have learned long ago though that it doesn't work that way.&nbsp; </p><p>Michael, there is nothing wrong with Birkeland's or Alfven's work.&nbsp; Everything in that enormous text you posted is fine.&nbsp; You are again missing our point.&nbsp; EU will probably never be entirely eliminated because its foundation is actually(mostly, at least in terms of what we've been discussing...lets leave the cosmology/solar model stuff out of this) solid physics.&nbsp; The problem is the interpretation.&nbsp; To prove EU wrong would involve proving to someone that their interpretation is flawed.&nbsp; This is an impossible task because michael's interpretation changes whenever a certain aspect has been proven wrong.&nbsp; This is why we all feel the onus of proof is on your shoulders.&nbsp; EU's interpretation is some nebulous idea only known to you and EU's proponents.&nbsp; Pointing to Birkeland's work doesn't work.&nbsp; We've all seen his work.&nbsp; We've all seen a lot of Alfven's work.&nbsp; We say they don't say today's definition of magnetic reconnection is false.&nbsp; It is therefore up to you to flesh out your argument, because it exists nowhere else but in your mind.&nbsp; We can't prove something wrong if all we know is some vague concepts about it. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ah, it's a simple statement of pure denial then?&nbsp;&nbsp; What you refuse to read, you don't have to respond to, is that the idea?&nbsp;You still don't seem to "get it". &nbsp; *I* don't have to do anything that Birkeland and Bruce and Alfven and others have not already done DrRocket.&nbsp; The validity and the tenets of EU theory are not determined by me nor are they in any way dependent upon me, my beliefs, or my math skills.&nbsp;&nbsp; EU theory is well supported in terms of math and physics, irrespective of what I personally might happen to post in this particular thread.&nbsp; I can focus on specific issues related to his work, but his work stands on it's own merit DrRocket. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>So what?&nbsp; No one has said that Birkeland's work is incorrect.</p><p>If your sole point is that Birkeland and Alfven were good scientists, then we agree.</p><p>If you are trying to make the case for EU theory in the form of external currents that power the sun, a solid surface for the sun, etc. then you need to clearly state your case and support it.&nbsp; Birkeland provides no support for such nonsense.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So what?&nbsp; No one has said that Birkeland's work is incorrect.If your sole point is that Birkeland and Alfven were good scientists, then we agree.</DIV></p><p>They are two two of the three or four primary proponents of EU theory DrRocket. They each wrote about the topic rather extensively in their writings.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you are trying to make the case for EU theory in the form of external currents that power the sun, a solid surface for the sun, etc. then you need to clearly state your case and support it.&nbsp; Birkeland provides no support for such nonsense. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>How did Birkeland "power" his terella experiments DrRocket?&nbsp; How exactly did he make the spheres light up inside the chamber? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't know about you but I find it impossible to continue arguing with someone who has no understanding of physics. </DIV></p><p>I do know the difference between *emprical* physics like Birkeland used in his experiments and *theoretical* physics like we see in "magnetic reconnection" theory, "inflation", "dark energy", etc, where the thing being studied is constantly shy around a lab.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Before I had a solid understanding of physics I used to argue the same way, just pointing at something mathematically dense and hoping it said what I said it did. </DIV></p><p>Well, I don't work that way.&nbsp; I first like to understand what I'm talking about and *then* I'll discuss it. That's why I actually *read* Alfven's book *before* "hoping" is said what I though t it said.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have learned long ago though that it doesn't work that way.</DIV></p><p>Then one would think you would appreciate a real empirical scientist like Birkeland and Alfven.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Michael, there is nothing wrong with Birkeland's or Alfven's work. </DIV></p><p>Since you haven't even read it, I suppose that's a logical place to begin.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Everything in that enormous text you posted is fine.&nbsp; You are again missing our point.&nbsp; EU will probably never be entirely eliminated because its foundation is actually(mostly, at least in terms of what we've been discussing...lets leave the cosmology/solar model stuff out of this) solid physics.</DIV></p><p>But Birkeland was the orinator of EU theory.&nbsp; You can't claim the physics is fine and turn right around and claim the whole concept lacks emprical and physical support!&nbsp; It's an irrational position.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The problem is the interpretation. </DIV></p><p>Who's, "intertrepation"?&nbsp; Alfven wrote a whole book on this topic, of which you've only read a maxium of 12 pages.&nbsp; How do you know what his "interpretation" was exactly if you haven't even read his book? How do you know how Birkeland "interpreted" this information if you haven't had time to read his work?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To prove EU wrong would involve proving to someone that their interpretation is flawed.&nbsp; This is an impossible task because michael's interpretation changes whenever a certain aspect has been proven wrong.</DIV></p><p>What was I ever "proven wrong" about in your mind?&nbsp;&nbsp; How does proving one guys opinion on this topic preclude you from reading the materials that actually describe EU theory?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This is why we all feel the onus of proof is on your shoulders.&nbsp; EU's interpretation is some nebulous idea only known to you and EU's proponents. </DIV></p><p>I can certainly do demonstrate that EU theory has scientific merit too.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Pointing to Birkeland's work doesn't work.&nbsp; We've all seen his work. </DIV></p><p>And none of you have read his work, yes I know.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm sure I've read more of that book than all of you put together.&nbsp; I admit I skiiped some of the reduntant stuff early on, but I've read most of first and last half of the volume.&nbsp; I'll be you and DrRocket haven't read 100 pages yet.</p><p>Evidently you expect me to do more than you ask of yourself.&nbsp; You didn't personally present all the math in Birn's paper, you just handed me a link to his paper.&nbsp; Care to explaln every line of math for us?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We've all seen a lot of Alfven's work.</DIV></p><p>You've seen exactly 12 pages of the book I recommended, and you handwaved away at a couple of papers.&nbsp; That's hardly the bulk of his work.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> We say they don't say today's definition of magnetic reconnection is false.&nbsp; It is therefore up to you to flesh out your argument, because it exists nowhere else but in your mind.&nbsp; We can't prove something wrong if all we know is some vague concepts about it. &nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I have fleshed out my arguements.&nbsp; I've shown you where some papers on this topic *did* violate the laws of physics, specifically Gauss's law of magnetism.&nbsp; I'm shown you where some presentations of this idea require *current flow* inside the "lines" and I've shown you how Alfven equated these current flows with "circuits". </p><p>Unlike Birkeland, your side of the aisle never took the next step.&nbsp; You never created coronal loops in the atmosphere of spheres in a vacuum with this idea.&nbsp;&nbsp; Birkeland had no problem creating loops in the atmosphere and he took images of these high energy discharge events. &nbsp;&nbsp; </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>