<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.Well, I don't work that way. 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.Then one would think you would appreciate a real empirical scientist like Birkeland and Alfven.Since you haven't even read it, I suppose that's a logical place to begin.But Birkeland was the orinator of EU theory. You can't claim the physics is fine and turn right around and claim the whole concept lacks emprical and physical support! It's an irrational position.Who's, "intertrepation"? Alfven wrote a whole book on this topic, of which you've only read a maxium of 12 pages. 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?What was I ever "proven wrong" about in your mind? How does proving one guys opinion on this topic preclude you from reading the materials that actually describe EU theory?I can certainly do demonstrate that EU theory has scientific merit too.And none of you have read his work, yes I know. I'm sure I've read more of that book than all of you put together. I admit I skiiped some of the reduntant stuff early on, but I've read most of first and last half of the volume. I'll be you and DrRocket haven't read 100 pages yet.Evidently you expect me to do more than you ask of yourself. You didn't personally present all the math in Birn's paper, you just handed me a link to his paper. Care to explaln every line of math for us?You've seen exactly 12 pages of the book I recommended, and you handwaved away at a couple of papers. That's hardly the bulk of his work.I have fleshed out my arguements. I've shown you where some papers on this topic *did* violate the laws of physics, specifically Gauss's law of magnetism. 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". Unlike Birkeland, your side of the aisle never took the next step. You never created coronal loops in the atmosphere of spheres in a vacuum with this idea. Birkeland had no problem creating loops in the atmosphere and he took images of these high energy discharge events. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>More nonsense. I don't need to explain Birn's paper because there is no dispute about what it says. If someone objected to something in it I would explain it. The number of pages we have read is irrelevant. I claim to be aware of Alfven's work and Birkeland's work because, while I have not read the original work, I am well-versed in modern physics, magnetospheric and otherwise, which incorporates their work. I never read the work of Copernicus, or the work of Kepler but that doesn't mean I know nothing about solar system dynamics. The only one who thinks magnetic reconnection hasn't been demonstrated in the lab is you. If you think they are demonstrating something else then you clearly don't understand what magnetic reconnection really is yet, which I personally find amazing given the great lengths we have gone to define it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>More nonsense. I don't need to explain Birn's paper because there is no dispute about what it says.</DIV></p><p>So what exactly is in dispute about what Birkeland has to say?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If someone objected to something in it I would explain it. </DIV></p><p>Likewise, if you object to anything Birkeland has to say I will attempt to explain it. Give me a page number and quote and I will get right on it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The number of pages we have read is irrelevant.</DIV></p><p>Then please let me know when you find something in Birkeland's presentation that you object to, and don't expect me to explain it all to you. Find out for yourself how he created high energy atmospheric "loops" in his solar model.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I claim to be aware of Alfven's work and Birkeland's work because, while I have not read the original work, I am well-versed in modern physics,</DIV></p><p>That's not an excuse for not reading this material because "modern physics" in your vocabulary seems to be a venacular slang for "mainstream theory". You do need to read this work to understand how it is different from what you are calling "modern physics", of which "magnetic reconnection" is evidently a part of, yet no consumer products are based upon. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>magnetospheric and otherwise, which incorporates their work.</DIV></p><p>They didn't just "incorporate"" it, they literally *hijacked* part of it (the actual aurora itself), and ignored all the rest of it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I never read the work of Copernicus, or the work of Kepler but that doesn't mean I know nothing about solar system dynamics. </DIV></p><p>If however you had no knowledge of their actual work, and no real understanding of how they explained anything, then it would matter. In this case it does matter. Birkeland did power his experiments with "magnetic reconnection". In fact he relied upon a "tried and true" power source, and simple electricity. Nothing exotic is required to explain coronal loops. Birkeland simulated them in his experiments. How did he do that? You seem to believe you know enough, so tell me something simple. Tell me how he created coronal loops in his experiments.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only one who thinks magnetic reconnection hasn't been demonstrated in the lab is you. </DIV></p><p>Then show me a simulated coronal coronal loop in the atmosphere of a sphere that is caused by 'magnetic reconnection' in an experiment on par with Birkeland's work. Explain how they made it stay their over an extended period of time.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you think they are demonstrating something else then you clearly don't understand what magnetic reconnection really is yet,</DIV></p><p>I really thinks it's a bad name and should be called "circuit reconnection". The energy release from the reconnection event will be directly related to the entire circuit energy and the "particle reconnection process at the point ot intersection. Magnetic lines never disconnect or reconnect, so none of these events are related to "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>which I personally find amazing given the great lengths we have gone to define it. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>What length did you do to define it exactly? You handed me a paper and I can't even get a simple yes or no answer from the author. You have never actually explained what is physically unique at the level of paticle physis between "magnetic reconnection" or ordinary current sheet acceration as Alfven explained it. All you've done is handwave a paper at me and you have ignored my references from Alfven entirely.</p><p>I'll grant you that Alfven's book is pricey and that I skipped too many steps before proceeding into Alfven's work. I'll grant you that Birkeland's work is extensive, but it's also free. There is nothing you need to purchase to study EU theory in earnest. Just explain how Birkeland created loops in the atmosphere of his terella for now. You can search the PDF file for lines from the quote in my sig line to find the general vicinity of the book where he disucsses these experiments. I'm not looking for any math, just a general explanation of how he got loops to appear in the atmosphere of his sphere. </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>
His solar theories/experiments start in Chapter VI on page 661. <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'>Ah, it's a simple statement of pure denial then? What you refuse to read, you don't have to respond to, is that the idea? You still don't seem to "get it". ..Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>If I interepret correctly, DrRocket is only responding in the negative to your approach in that statement. As in "Let's go to town" which would be responded to by "No, let's first get some gas." Understand? </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'>Likewise, if you object to anything Birkeland has to say I will attempt to explain it. Give me a page number and quote and I will get right on it.<br /></DIV></p><p>How many times do I/we have to say this to get it through your thick skull? There is nothing we object to in Birkeland's work, or Alfven's. The only objection we have is how YOU interpret their work. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I interepret correctly, DrRocket is only responding in the negative to your approach in that statement. As in "Let's go to town" which would be responded to by "No, let's first get some gas." Understand? <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>No, I don't really understand this logic. I asked him if Birkeland's approach was "scientific". I didn't ask him anything about my personal beliefs. </p><p> I did not "invent" EU theory. It stands on it's own scientific merits irrespective of my personal beliefs on the subject. In other wwords, I may very well disagree with Alfven's views or Birkeland's views in some way, but none of these folks have any way of knowing this because they've never read the original work in question. They seem to "disagree" with my "interpretation" somehow, but they can't indentify the disagreement between myself and Birkeland, or myself and Alfven. </p><p>FYI, EU theory is not actually a "single" theory. There are many subtle and gross variations on the EU theme. It is entirely possible (actually it is true) that some of my opinions do not jive with one or more of the authors of these theories. In such cases, it is not that EU theory is no longer scientific, or that my opinions on the same topic are no longer scientific. It just means that they are "different" opinions based on logical variations of the same laws of physics. </p><p>There are in fact differences between the "models" that Birkeland experiments with in his lab, and the solar models that Alfven desribes in Cosmic Plasma. EU theory is not a homogenous belief system. Everyone has "opinions", some of which vary from indivudual to individual. The only way to begin to understand those differences is to take a look at the opinions of the original authors of EU theory to see how their experiments were "wired", and to begin to understand their opinions on these various topics. </p><p>DrRocket's attitude seems to be one of "If I never read it, it doesn't exist". He believes EU theory is not well supported in terms of math and physics because he refuses to actually study the topic in earnest. Instead he *insists* that some guy in cyberspace personally explain it all to him, complete with mathematical formulas, in my own words, and then he intends to judge the validity of th entire theory based on on individuals opinions about that theory. That is an absolutely irrational behavior and no, I don't understand it. My personal presentation of QM would in no way affect the scientific legitmacy of QM theory. Any error I might make in presenting the theory would in no way invalidate the entire theory. No theory is dependent upon the presenation skills of a one single individual. It is irrational IMO that he requires me to do everything myself, and it is irrational IMO to judge *any* scientific theory based on a single presentation of that theory by one individual on a forum in cyberspace. </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'>How many times do I/we have to say this to get it through your thick skull?</DIV></p><p>It has nothing to do with me being "thick". You're being unresponsive to my direct questions and you refuse to be "specific" in any way. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is nothing we object to in Birkeland's work, or Alfven's. The only objection we have is how YOU interpret their work. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>What *EXACTLY* is different between Birkeland's presentation of a solar model, and my beliefs on this topic? Your statement is completely meaningless without specific examples. Note that there are actually differences between the solar model that Birkeland used in his experiments and the solar model that Alfven described and there is no *single* "interpretation" of EU theory. You're oversimplifying this issue from the start.</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'>It has nothing to do with me being "thick". You're being unresponsive to my direct questions and you refuse to be "specific" in any way. What *EXACTLY* is different between Birkeland's presentation of a solar model, and my beliefs on this topic? Your statement is completely meaningless without specific examples. Note that there are actually differences between the solar model that Birkeland used in his experiments and the solar model that Alfven described and there is no *single* "interpretation" of EU theory. You're oversimplifying this issue from the start. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>As you've stated before, the solar model one assumes has absolutely nothing to do with reconnection. My SPECIFIC assertion is that I don't think Birkeland or Alfven would have any problems with today's definition of magnetic reconnection if presented with the evidence we now have. </p><p>I agree that there is no "single" interpretation of EU, much like there is no single interpretation of a lot of areas of science. We aren't talking about EU in general...we are talking about your take on things. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, I don't really understand this logic. I asked him if Birkeland's approach was "scientific". I didn't ask him anything about my personal beliefs....Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You have discussions with people about subjects besides EU, correct? All he was doing was to suggest another "Starting" point for your discussion and, IMO, it was also intended to be illustrative. This is normal, conversational language he was using, nothing more. Read his response above for yourself. Really. There's no need to reinterpret every other word five times until you finally end up with one that you think you might have the opportunity to get upset about. It was simple "straight talk" and nothing more than that, IMO. (I can't speak for him. He has spoken above on the matter.)</p><p>As as the rest of it, I'm not in that portion of the discussion. So far, there have been pages written since the "move" that go nowhere because you refuse to relinquish past battles and strategies that failed. </p><p>How can anyone help you if you insist on restating the same arguments in the same exact manner when that approach has been historically proved to fail to achieve the desired result?</p><p>That's one reason why I suggested as a final solution a "lock" on this thread after calling a final question and closing remarks - The odds were low past arguments would be dropped in favor of a new approach to the discussion. </p><p>However, I do have to applaud all involved in the main discussion and their willingness to not simply call each other poopyheads. I will also point out that DrRocket, who you seem to believe is your main detractor in this thread, has actually offered you constructive advice on how to structure your argument. He didn't have to do that and is not required to participate in this thread. Yet, he has and he has offered you constructive feedback and so have others. UFMbutler, dereckmcd, yevaud and many others have offered constructive advice on how to present your information and the necessary points they felt would need to be covered in order to move forward. But, you're the only one that can act on that feedback. If you insist on using it to fuel the dying embers of past fires, you'll get nowhere and that's where this thread has been going since it was moved.</p><p>Take the constructive advice of just about everyone who has posted since the move and maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to move past the presentation phase and into a real discussion. If you don't, pretty soon nobody will bother replying.</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'>You have discussions with people about subjects besides EU, correct? All he was doing was to suggest another "Starting" point for your discussion and, IMO, it was also intended to be illustrative. This is normal, conversational language he was using, nothing more. Read his response above for yourself. Really. There's no need to reinterpret every other word five times until you finally end up with one that you think you might have the opportunity to get upset about. It was simple "straight talk" and nothing more than that, IMO. (I can't speak for him. He has spoken above on the matter.)As as the rest of it, I'm not in that portion of the discussion. So far, there have been pages written since the "move" that go nowhere because you refuse to relinquish past battles and strategies that failed. How can anyone help you if you insist on restating the same arguments in the same exact manner when that approach has been historically proved to fail to achieve the desired result?That's one reason why I suggested as a final solution a "lock" on this thread after calling a final question and closing remarks - The odds were low past arguments would be dropped in favor of a new approach to the discussion. However, I do have to applaud all involved in the main discussion and their willingness to not simply call each other poopyheads. I will also point out that DrRocket, who you seem to believe is your main detractor in this thread, has actually offered you constructive advice on how to structure your argument. He didn't have to do that and is not required to participate in this thread. Yet, he has and he has offered you constructive feedback and so have others. UFMbutler, dereckmcd, yevaud and many others have offered constructive advice on how to present your information and the necessary points they felt would need to be covered in order to move forward. But, you're the only one that can act on that feedback. If you insist on using it to fuel the dying embers of past fires, you'll get nowhere and that's where this thread has been going since it was moved.Take the constructive advice of just about everyone who has posted since the move and maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to move past the presentation phase and into a real discussion. If you don't, pretty soon nobody will bother replying. <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Amen<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>ALP,</p><p>A question. Or three.</p><p>Is there a record for the longest thread in SDC ?</p><p>Is there a record for the longest single post in SDC?</p><p>If so, are both records reflected here?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As you've stated before, the solar model one assumes has absolutely nothing to do with reconnection. My SPECIFIC assertion is that I don't think Birkeland or Alfven would have any problems with today's definition of magnetic reconnection if presented with the evidence we now have.</DIV></p><p>And yet this "belief" on your part is not supported by the statements from Alfven who did have access to the basic "reconnection" models during his lifetime and consistently rejected that theory in favor of current sheet accleration and "circuit/particle" MHD explanations. I've quoted him many times in this thread where he refers to the idea of magnetic reconnectionn as pseudoscience and where he notes that a not a single magnetic line is disconnected or reconnected, and that explain the same exact events in terms of circuits and particles. I showed you coronal loop/CME explainations by Alfven that were based no on "magnetic reconnection', but rather upon "circuits" and plasma flow. In Alfven's case in particular , you're intentially ignoring his own statements on this very topic.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I agree that there is no "single" interpretation of EU, much like there is no single interpretation of a lot of areas of science. We aren't talking about EU in general...we are talking about your take on things. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>What *specifically* is different about "my take on things" that is demonstrateably different from Birkeland's beliefs or Alfven's beliefs? Hint: They disagreed on certain points, so it is certain that my beliefs are different from at least one of their 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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ALP,A question. Or three.Is there a record for the longest thread in SDC ?Is there a record for the longest single post in SDC?If so, are both records reflected here? Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Hmm.. longest thread?</p><p>I don't think this one is it. I can't remember the longest "real" thread but, I'm sure someone will chime in. (I KNOW it has been discussed before.) Most likely, one of the threads from the battles with the Legion of Hoaglandites over Enceledus, Mimas, the <em>Face</em> on Mars or similar topics would be longer than this. There's a couple that have been in M&L that would probably qualify as well.</p><p>The longest single post in history would probably be one in a thread started by a member of a "agency" that tried to associate itself with forming a coalition of space agencies under its organization. IIRC, there was some litigation involved there so I'll forego specifics. But, the post that I am thinking of was entirely composed by the poster and wasn't a simple copy/paste. It was most definitely "scroll-worthy." Some "Aliens Stole My Bike" posts could also be considered if the category was left wide-open. </p><p>Yet, this one most surely deserves watching by those who keep track of such things. 
</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
</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 *specifically* is different about "my take on things" that is demonstrateably different from Birkeland's beliefs or Alfven's beliefs? </DIV></p><p>Read this </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I've quoted him many times in this thread where he refers to the idea of magnetic reconnectionn as pseudoscience and where he notes that a not a single magnetic line is disconnected or reconnected, and that explain the same exact events in terms of circuits and particles. </DIV></p><p>If you read the pages that you are referring to(which I have), you would see he never calls it pseudoscience. All he says is that certain definitions of reconnection under specific circumstances can be misleading. </p><p>It is clear that despite your claims of understanding the modern definition of magnetic reconnection that you still do not. Why do you still feel it is necessary to remind us that field lines don't physically disconnect and reconnect? Nobody ever said they do. This is the perfect example of what I'm talking about...I have read what you are talking about and I don't feel it discredits today's definition of reconnection in any way whatsoever. You say Alfven had access to the work on reconnection we have now...he retired in 1991, and his activity certainly was declining in the years prior to that. Can you really say with a straight face that no developments have been made in the past ~20 years in one of the most active fields of modern magnetospheric physics? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have discussions with people about subjects besides EU, correct? All he was doing was to suggest another "Starting" point for your discussion and, IMO, it was also intended to be illustrative. This is normal, conversational language he was using, nothing more. Read his response above for yourself. Really. There's no need to reinterpret every other word five times until you finally end up with one that you think you might have the opportunity to get upset about. It was simple "straight talk" and nothing more than that, IMO. (I can't speak for him. He has spoken above on the matter.)As as the rest of it, I'm not in that portion of the discussion. So far, there have been pages written since the "move" that go nowhere because you refuse to relinquish past battles and strategies that failed.</DIV></p><p>IMO that is innacurate. I specifically 'switched gears" and moved towards Birkeland's original work rather than staying fixated on Alfven's perspective. I'm willing to try new strategies, but I should not be required to *personally* reinvent the wheel or reinvent EU theory. I switched to Birkeland's work because it's also freely accessable to everyone here, and requies no financial investment of any sort and this was obviously a significant problem as it relates to Alfven's work in Cosmic Plasma. I am trying a new strategy since the thread was moved. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How can anyone help you if you insist on restating the same arguments in the same exact manner when that approach has been historically proved to fail to achieve the desired result?</DIV></p><p>My point on focusing on Birkeland's work rather than Alfven's work was to move away from the approach of using only Alfven's work in MHD theory to illustrate my point. I could just as easily start with Bruce's work if you all prefer, but there is no point in me personally trying to recreate known and discussed parts of EU theory in any particular thread, including this one.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's one reason why I suggested as a final solution a "lock" on this thread after calling a final question and closing remarks - The odds were low past arguments would be dropped in favor of a new approach to the discussion.</DIV></p><p>Actually as long as I am allowed to open a new thread (preferably on the SS&A forum) on the topic of "The cause of coronal loops", I too would prefer to simply start a specific topic on a specific idea and move on from this particular thread. I would have done that the day the thread was moved to here in fact were it not for the fact I was asked to not do that.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, I do have to applaud all involved in the main discussion and their willingness to not simply call each other poopyheads. I will also point out that DrRocket, who you seem to believe is your main detractor in this thread, has actually offered you constructive advice on how to structure your argument. </DIV></p><p>He is a detractor of EU theory as a whole actually. It's not necessarily related to me per se. His "constructive" advice comes at a high price IMO, and it's always slanted toward him expecting me to personally redo all the work done in EU theory. That's not very constructive IMO. I would not suggest that we judge any theory based on the merits of a single individuals presenation of this theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He didn't have to do that and is not required to participate in this thread. Yet, he has and he has offered you constructive feedback and so have others. </DIV></p><p>Yes, and I realize this fact. He's also been a royal pain when it comes to reading the materials I suggest and answering any real questions I pose to him. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>UFMbutler, dereckmcd, yevaud and many others have offered constructive advice on how to present your information and the necessary points they felt would need to be covered in order to move forward. But, you're the only one that can act on that feedback. </DIV></p><p>Be specific. What *exactly* would you all suggest I do now? My personal preference would be to start a new thread on the topic of coronal loops and start with Birkeland's emprical experiments and then look at Bruces work. I'm open to a new approach, but it requires them to read and respond to the materials I present and that never seems to actually occur. When I ask them about the *cause* of gamma rays in the solar atmosphere, or the *cause* of neutron capture signature from the solar atmosphere, or the "cause" of these millinon degree loops, I get nothing. When I ask for specfics, I get nothing. When I ask any pertinant questions, I get no reresponse. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you insist on using it to fuel the dying embers of past fires, you'll get nowhere and that's where this thread has been going since it was moved.Take the constructive advice of just about everyone who has posted since the move and maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to move past the presentation phase and into a real discussion. If you don't, pretty soon nobody will bother replying. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>That includes me by the way. I've got better things to do with my day than to bang my head on the same wall without any progress. I am willing to try a new approach here, but I refuse to let DrRocket begin with the premise that my personal presentation of EU theory or any scientific theory somewhow defines the validity of that theory. That is not a rational perspective in the first place, and these are things I have tried to openly address and again, there is no response from them on this point.</p><p>Conversations, particularly scientific conversations are supposed to have "give and take". The 'gave" me a link to a paper on the PPPL experiments. I "took" the time to read through that material and I cited the specific line of math that I objected to in their presenation, and I explained why I objected to that line of math and I was very specific in my criticism of that work. Likewise I 'took" a look at the paper by Priest that DrRocket "gave" me to look at. Again, I found the *specfic* line of math that I objected to, and I noted the *law of physics* (Guass's law of magnetism) that was being violated in that equation. These are *specific* objections. </p><p>When I "give" them something to read however, they don't read it. They don't respond to it. They don't cite a line number or page number or any specific sentence from Alfven that they object to. instead they simply ignore it and ask for more. How can we have a "give and take" conversation when they aren't doing the same things they expect of me? This has *never* been a "two way" conversation, where both sides give and take, and respond to the points of each sides papers and presentation. </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'>These are *specific* objections. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>This is true, but we "took" your objections and "gave" you the reasons why they were not relevant. This is exactly what you would do if we quoted specific lines in Birkeland's work that we disagreed with(assuming such a disagreement would exist). Quoting a line is not sufficient. This is why your style of responding to posts never leads the discussion anywhere. You dissect things line by line but never address the main points. When I try to get around that by making much shorter, to the point posts, you even go as far as cutting sentences in half and missing the point. Much like you continue to miss the point by thinking that we will disagree with Birkeland's book. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ALP,A question. Or three.Is there a record for the longest thread in SDC ?Is there a record for the longest single post in SDC?If so, are both records reflected here? <br /> </p><p>Posted by <em>DrRocket</em></DIV></p><p>Oh hell no. There were prior threads at Uplink that made this one look tame by comparison. Ask around about some of the various, infamous, "Cydonia / FOM" threads. For that matter me and a guy named "Dmjspace" went on like this for over a month on Cold Fusion, and in 30 days probably racked up at least as many posts. </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'>This is true, but we "took" your objections and "gave" you the reasons why they were not relevant. </DIV></p><p>My criticisms of those particular works are justified and they are still relevant to this conversation. I did not even stop at a couple of objections to individual presenations of that theory. I took a look at a third presentation of the same idea. In that specific work I found no mathematical or physicsl objections to the material in question. Even with two stikes against the idea, I took a look at yet a third presentation of the idea. You guys won't even respond to *one* presentation of a coronal loops by *one* individual (Birkeland).</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is exactly what you would do if we quoted specific lines in Birkeland's work that we disagreed with(assuming such a disagreement would exist). </DIV></p><p>I assure you that they do exist, but I do expect you to judge Birkeland's presentation on it's own merits, irrespective of my personal opinions on any given topic. In other words, my *percieved* (on your part) differences of opinion with Birkeland or Alfven is irrelevant to their presenation of material. Birkeland's presentation must be judged on it's own merits, not based on how well it agrees with my personal opinions on the topic. There are in fact areas of disagreement between my beliefs and Birkeland's beliefs based on new technologies and new understandings of atomic emission lines, etc. Likewise, there are areas of disagreement between my personal beliefs and the beliefs of Hannes Alfven as it relates to solar theory. Actually that's true of Birkeland too, but I would say I'm more of "Birkeland purist" for the most part. </p><p>It is however irrelevant how I present their material. It stand's or falls on it's own merits, even if I don't personally understand it at all! That's my point here. My personal beliefs and skills are irrelevant to the merits of these basic ideas.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Quoting a line is not sufficient. </DIV></p><p>It is a *necessary* step if we are to have a real "two way" conversation. I cited the specific line numbers and equations, and the specific "assumptioins" that I objected to in each of the papers you cited. </p><p>You are correct in one respect. Two failed attempts were not '"sufficient" to determine the validity of 'magnetic reconnection' theory, even by my standards. I took the time to read Birn's third presentation of the idea too. It "passed' the physics test wheras the previous attempts had failed to do that. It is however *necessary* for you to "specify' the specific objections you have to *Birkeland's* presentation of a "coronal loop". My personal beliefs are irrelevant. You may have specific objections to his presentation which I agree are valid criticisms, I know of several valid criticisms in fact. I can't have a detailed discussion on this topic until you "get specific" and we look at what you believe Birkeland did to create "loops" in the atmospheres of a sphere in a vacuum.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is why your style of responding to posts never leads the discussion anywhere. You dissect things line by line but never address the main points. When I try to get around that by making much shorter, to the point posts, you even go as far as cutting sentences in half and missing the point. Much like you continue to miss the point by thinking that we will disagree with Birkeland's book. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I respond to key "ideas' and specific points, so I pick apart the post in a way that makes sense. I don't typically stop on points we agree on, or things I agree with in a general sense, but sometimes a single sentence can contain three unique fallacies that all need to be addressed individually. I pick things apart based on the things I actually disagree with. I'm sorry if it offends you, but it's important IMO to address the key *ideas* that we disagree on.</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'>Oh hell no. There were prior threads at Uplink that made this one look tame by comparison. Ask around about some of the various, infamous, "Cydonia / FOM" threads. For that matter me and a guy named "Dmjspace" went on like this for over a month on Cold Fusion, and in 30 days probably racked up at least as many posts. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Whew. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is true, but we "took" your objections and "gave" you the reasons why they were not relevant. </DIV></p><p>I don't think this sort of "one directional" converstion is working. I'd rather that you begin by explaining to us *all*, not just me, how Birkeland was able to create high energy discharge "loops" in the atmosphere of a sphere. I'd rather that *I* stay out of it, and that you put it your own words. I'm not asking you to include any maths if you don't wish to copy and paste them, I'm just asking for a general overview of how he created those loops on his sphere.</p><p>I think if I stay out of the conversation and I let you explain to us how it worked, and let other's put their two cents in next, it would make this process go a lot quicker and it would cut a lot of unnecessary and irrelevant disagreement out of the process. I'm not trying to "trick" you or play games with you. I'm just asking you to explain the "loops" he generated in the plasma atmosphere of his terrala. </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>
Indeed. <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'>I don't think this sort of "one directional" converstion is working. I'd rather that you begin by explaining to us *all*, not just me, how Birkeland was able to create high energy discharge "loops" in the atmosphere of a sphere. I'd rather that *I* stay out of it, and that you put it your own words. I'm not asking you to include any maths if you don't wish to copy and paste them, I'm just asking for a general overview of how he created those loops on his sphere.I think if I stay out of the conversation and I let you explain to us how it worked, and let other's put their two cents in next, it would make this process go a lot quicker and it would cut a lot of unnecessary and irrelevant disagreement out of the process. I'm not trying to "trick" you or play games with you. I'm just asking you to explain the "loops" he generated in the plasma atmosphere of his terrala. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Why is it reasonable for you to demand this of us, but at the same time say it is absurd to expect you to do the same thing? I know what you want to hear. You want me to admit current flow is involved in some way in the process...again, this is not a point of contention. It is obvious current flow is taking place in ANY region with ionized material. We aren't even really talking about coronal loops in this thread. </p><p>Is it your intention to change gears and drop the idea of reconnection as it pertains to aurorae? If so, you kind of need to give us something to go on. You can't just say "Coronal loops...discuss". My work at Los Alamos dealt with energetic electrons we see in the Earth's magnetosphere, so, since this is my area of expertise, naturally that is what I'm going to talk about. I am not "ignoring" your questions about gamma rays/neutron capture signatures...I am simply not qualified to answer those questions as I have not read the literature on those issues. However, I can say with certainty that just because the mainstream may not have a working theory for something does not make every theory that claims to be able to explain the event correct. It was much the same way with Ptolemy/Copernicus and their ideas of epicycles. They worked quite well in reproducing what reality "looked like" but in the end they were extremely wrong. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...You say Alfven had access to the work on reconnection we have now...he retired in 1991, and his activity certainly was declining in the years prior to that. Can you really say with a straight face that no developments have been made in the past ~20 years in one of the most active fields of modern magnetospheric physics? <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>"Retired" ain't dead. (I'm retired). But Alflven did die in 1995, so he was not active beyond then (except perhaps in the minds of some people), and dead is dead.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh hell no. There were prior threads at Uplink that made this one look tame by comparison. Ask around about some of the various, infamous, "Cydonia / FOM" threads. For that matter me and a guy named "Dmjspace" went on like this for over a month on Cold Fusion, and in 30 days probably racked up at least as many posts. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>OH MY GOD.</p><p>But on a happier note, last night's House was pretty good. You've the avitar, so do you think you could bring House in on this ? Tell him to bring a scapel. Or maybe a MAGNETIC Resonance Imager. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't think this sort of "one directional" converstion is working. I'd rather that you begin by explaining to us *all*, not just me, how Birkeland was able to create high energy discharge "loops" in the atmosphere of a sphere. I'd rather that *I* stay out of it, and that you put it your own words. I'm not asking you to include any maths if you don't wish to copy and paste them, I'm just asking for a general overview of how he created those loops on his sphere.I think if I stay out of the conversation and I let you explain to us how it worked, and let other's put their two cents in next, it would make this process go a lot quicker and it would cut a lot of unnecessary and irrelevant disagreement out of the process. I'm not trying to "trick" you or play games with you. I'm just asking you to explain the "loops" he generated in the plasma atmosphere of his terrala. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>This is your typical strategy -- an attempt to duck the issues and shift the burden of proof.</p><p>The assertions made that EU theory is viable and supportable by real physics is yours. It is your burden to define what you mean by EU theory, and then provide the physics that supports it. It told you how you might go about doing this. No do it.</p><p>It is not up to anyone else to explain Birkeland. Or Alfven. Or anyone. It is up to you to explain Michael Mozina. Now get on with it. Or simply state that you cannot (not will not, but cannot).<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </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