<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"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 /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I didn't mean it as an affront to retired people, just that in general when someone retires they stop actively participating in their former career...hence the retirement from it. I'm sure he still kept up with what was going on in the field, but my point was, in terms of the publications and such we are talking about, he was long past his peak productivity. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>OH MY GOD.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><p>Posted by <em>DrRocket</em></DIV></p><p>MRI? Only if you have no penny-nails stuck into your brain! Edit: Crap, that's a spoiler, sorry. </p><p>FYI, I have screws/staples in my right knee, thus am forever precluded from an MRI. And I worked in the Biomedical field; I need no explanation of the probable results of such an experiment.</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'>Why is it reasonable for you to demand this of us,</DIV></p><p>I'm not "demading" anything from you. I'm *asking* you to "briefly" explain the general ideas. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but at the same time say it is absurd to expect you to do the same thing?</DIV></p><p>You have claimed that I have somehow misrepresented Birkeland's work. You have not specified *how* I did that. You have not cited an example of this. You have shown me no specific objection to my presenation of his work or Alfven's work. I have no way to know if you even understand how his experiments functioned, and no way to know what specfically you think I have misrepresented. I'm not a mind reader. I need something more to go on. All I'm asking you to do is explain *something* so I can respond in an intelligent manner. I can't do that if you don't get specific and you won't "explain" anything.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 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. </DIV></p><p>That's a given. Evidently you aren't accusing me of misrepesenting this part of his work. I need to understand what part of his work that you believe I have misrepresented. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> We aren't even really talking about coronal loops in this thread. Is it your intention to change gears and drop the idea of reconnection as it pertains to aurorae? </DIV></p><p>It is my intention to switch to Birkeland's basic work because it is more freely accessable to everyone, and to focus specifically on solar activity and how it relates to his experiments as Birkeland himself explained it. We can come back to the aurora later, but supposedly "magnetic reconnection' is involved in solar atmospheric events and Birkeland's work 'predicted" these events in an emprical way. There must be a "connection' here somewhere.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></p><p>But the one thing that has been emprically related to similar events is 'current flow', the one thing we all agree is involved in this process.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 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. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>That's exactly how I feel about "magnetic reconnection". It works (mathematically) on paper, but in the real world 'electricity" creates these events in plasma, not 'magnetic reconnection". </p><p>I'm willing to concede that Birn's presenation of MR easily corresponds to Alfven's "circuit" orientation by virtue of those "current flows" inside those "magnetic lines" that seem to be reconnecting. In that sense we *could be* arguing about semantics alone, but obviously you and all my detractors feel otherwise. I'll I'm trying to do is to discuss *one way* that Birkeland was able to achieve these same high energy events. We all agree current flow is involved. We also know that current flow in the form of electrical discharges in Earth's atmosphere generate gamma rays. We also know that z-pinch processes in plasma release free neutrons. These are all demonstrated emprical facts. </p><p>The obvious place to begin is noting that current flow in involved and Birkeland's work is describing current flows in plasma. If you feel his work is *not* related to "magnetic reconnection", perhaps you could explain why you feel that way.</p><p>Give me *something*, *anything* to work with here. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I didn't mean it as an affront to retired people, just that in general when someone retires they stop actively participating in their former career...hence the retirement from it. I'm sure he still kept up with what was going on in the field, but my point was, in terms of the publications and such we are talking about, he was long past his peak productivity. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I personally don't think you earned any points with that "peak productivity" comment. 
I guess it depends on how one measures "productivity". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
I guess it depends on how one measures "productivity". </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 your typical strategy -- an attempt to duck the issues and shift the burden of proof.</DIV></p><p>Huh? I have been "accused" of "misrepresenting" his work. There's been nothing "specific" given. I'm not "shifting" anything. I've cited a page number and asked him a single specific question that is not at all a loaded or difficult question. I need to know what he believes I have misressented. I can't work with "you don't know what he meant.".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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,</DIV></p><p>No, this is where you are dead wrong. I didn't invent it. I have already provided you with *a* definition of EU theory by Alfven to work with which you never read. I have now provided you with *another* definition of EU theory which is equally valid and far more financially and technologically accessable to everyone. I expect you to respond to *his* presentation of EU theory, not mine. I'm just a fly on the wall asking how he made loops in the atmosphere of the terella.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and then provide the physics that supports it.</DIV></p><p>Birkeland provided you with all the "physics" you need. Read it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It told you how you might go about doing this. No do it.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 /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I'm irrelevant to EU theory. It doesn't revolve around me. It was written before I was born.</p><p>I have already provided you with emprical tests, and mathematical support. I need not provide you with anything else to support the statement that EU theory is well supported in terms of math and physics and in-situ measurements. These were all scientific 'facts" that were established before my birth.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm irrelevant <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>We agree.</p><p>I like this technique of yours of responding to phrases.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>Guys (and Gals, if any in this thread), you're all still "dithering," a computing term meaning broadly, "unable to work on a single thing at one time." You are truly going to get nowhere, unless you follow my advice, pick one aspect of EU, and focus on that and debate the hell out of it.</p><p>Trust me, I have seen this exact thing many a time before. </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'>Guys (and Gals, if any in this thread), you're all still "dithering," a computing temr meaning broadly, "unable to work on a single thing at one time." You are truly going to get nowhere, unless you follow my advice, pick one aspect of EU, and focus on that and debate the hell out of it.Trust me, I have seen this exact thing many a time before. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Good advice. I think at least some of us have been attempting to do that for <strong>80 </strong>pages.</p><p>We are not dithering. Dithering generally reflects a system that is oscillating between 2 states. If you can figure out what the 2 states are I will concede to you that we are dithering. But so far I have not been able to clearly identify even one state.</p><p>For Michael:</p><p>You and you alone can rectify this situation. See steps 1 through 4. By simply executing step 1 (define the specific EU tenets that you wish to discuss and defend) you can focus this thread. By continuing to duck even the definition of what you mean by "EU theory" you create the observed random walk among states of this fuzzy system.</p><p>Are you simply afraid that if you define your terms you will be discredited ? <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I personally don't think you earned any points with that "peak productivity" comment. I guess it depends on how one measures "productivity". <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>That's why I included that "in terms of publications and such" qualifier before it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I guess it depends on how one measures "productivity". <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>That's why I included that "in terms of publications and such" qualifier before it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Dithering generally reflects a system that is oscillating between 2 states.</p><p><br /> Posted by <em>DrRocket</em></DIV></p><p>Actually, multiple states, number unsepcified. Nevertheless, this IS where this thread is.</p><p> </p><p>One person raises an objection about Coronal Loops; the next moment, the post is about current flows in plasma; the next, some comment about the Magnetosphere. This is all truly going nowhere due to lack of focus. </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'>Guys (and Gals, if any in this thread), you're all still "dithering," a computing term meaning broadly, "unable to work on a single thing at one time." You are truly going to get nowhere, unless you follow my advice, pick one aspect of EU, and focus on that and debate the hell out of it.Trust me, I have seen this exact thing many a time before. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Since this thread is, if not dithering, at least exhibiting chaotic dynamics, I may as well talk a bit off topic about dithering.</p><p>It's not always bad. In fact on the Titan IVB thrust actuation system we deliberately entered a commanded dither near ignition so as to keep the hydraulic valve open to relieve potential damaging back pressure from some gas dynamics concerns that utterly defied CFD analysis.</p><p>Dithering is also used in digital signal processing to introduce random noise that in turn masks objectionable quantization and samplng error that is correlated to the original signal. That is difficult to apply in the context of this thread as there appears to be little correlation with anything recognizable. <br />http://www.users.qwest.net/~volt42/cadenzarecording/DitherExplained.pdf<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dithering</p><p>Dithering is also useful in some systems in which energy must be dissipated. For instance in some roll control systems the gas valve is deliberately dithered between two positions, and the net torque is determined by the widths of the dithering step commands -- basically a form of pulse width modulation. A 50/50 pulse width split essentially ballances the forces and results in no applied corrective roll torque. In the case at hand we appear to have lost balance and the split is anything but 50/50.</p><p>Mr. Dithers in some of his reactions to Dagwood also perhaps provides a model for reactions to Michael. </p><p><br /><img style="width:191px;height:207px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/4/2/c475cfee-4104-40eb-82a4-63876f096c38.Medium.jpg" alt="" width="139" height="148" /></p><p><br /> Or maybe Dagwood provides a better model -- I feel a nap coming on.</p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/5/3/b529ba69-223c-4820-a36f-e7fbfaf48eba.Medium.gif" alt="" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I dunno if we have a term for "Dagwooding." All I can think of is gigantihumungeous sandwiches. <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>
[<br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/5/9/b556114b-795b-4ba8-b9df-5d7790e40288.Medium.gif" alt="" /><br />QUOTE]I dunno if we have a term for "Dagwooding." All I can think of is gigantihumungeous sandwiches. <br />Posted by yevaud[/QUOTE]<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I dunno if we have a term for "Dagwooding." All I can think of is gigantihumungeous sandwiches. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV><br /><br />(slowly walking down hall and pokes head in )</p><p>"yup Lunatics are running the asylum still...not much changed here"</p><p>(pokes head out and heads down to the kitchen for a gigantihumungeous sandwiches and a Corona......)</p><p><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/4/a69baf10-f60b-4fcd-a4ea-f0a32e53baff.Medium.gif" alt="" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>(slowly walking down hall and pokes head in )"yup Lunatics are running the asylum still...not much changed here"(pokes head out and heads down to the kitchen for a gigantihumungeous sandwiches and a Corona......) <br />Posted by lildreamer</DIV></p><p>I'll take the Corona. Several if this thread doesn't start to follow a wee bit of logic.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>"Dagwooding" is the greatest contribution of this thread. It is up there with "data dawg" and "data weasel' from the Hoagland wars.</p><p>"Commanded dither" is very good as well.</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Guys (and Gals, if any in this thread), you're all still "dithering," a computing term meaning broadly, "unable to work on a single thing at one time." You are truly going to get nowhere, unless you follow my advice, pick one aspect of EU, and focus on that and debate the hell out of it.Trust me, I have seen this exact thing many a time before. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I agree. I think the best *single* EU aspect I can focus on is the *cause* of a coronal loop. It's an electrically driven event and there is plenty of satellite evidence to support it. There are also at least three EU oriented presentons on the idea from Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven that I can think of off the top of my head, and at least one more paper by another author that is buried somewhere in this thread. That's the single topic I will focus on next.</p><p>At this point I would like to start a new thead, preferably on the SS&A forum since my intent is to *explain* a coronal loop in terms of emprical laboratory physics in the case of Birkeland, electrical enginerring principles in the case of Bruce, and MHD theory in the case of Alfven. It will include *lots* of references to math, *lots* of references to empirical physicsl experiments from Birkeland, and *lots* of MHD support. For the time being however, unless you give me the green light ahead of time, I will start the thread in *this* forum and you can decide to move it or leave it languishing here depending on how well *explained" you feel it is. The standard used however should be no greater than is applied to all the other threads that are on page on of that SS&A forum. I can empirically support all my "explanations" and that is certainly not true of all the discussion on the SS&A forum. This is hard science Yevaud, and tested emprical science, not some "mythical math model" devoid of emprical support like so many other theories that are discussed on the SS&A forum. </p><p>I'm more than happy to debate the coronal loop topic till it's done, even it takes *years* to complete. I can't imagine it taking that long, but the "resistance" to electrical activity in solar physics is extremely high, and I have no illusions that everyone is going to agree with my first post or agree with me in a few weeks. It will obviously be "controversial" topic, but it will also be on based on pure emprical *tested* physics. It will include Bruce's mathematical presentation of electrical discharge theory from the perspective of electrical engineering and it will include Alfven's mathematical explanation of this phenomenon from the perspective of MHD theory. It will be every bit as well *explained* as any theory from NASA, or any theory from Birn et all.</p><p>MHD theory allows us to look at any current carrying event in plasma in terms of the E field or the B field. These are equally valid ways of looking at current carrying plasma events. However, it is never true that magnetic lines "disconnect" or "reconnect". It is cetainly true that "circuits" form in plasma, and plasma threads can "reconnect" at the particle and circuit level. It is the total circuit energy that drives this parade, and the particle flow that drvies this parade. The magnetic field is just along for the ride and "pinching" the plasma into tornado like filaments that are filled with kinetic energy. These are not 'unexplained" events. Birkeland "explained" them 100 years ago and simulated them in his experiments. Bruce *explained* them again from the perspective of electrical discharge theory. Alfven *explained* them a third time in terms of MHD theory. There is nothing "unexplained" about a coronal loop. It's simply an electrically active current carrying thread in plasma. It's been 'explained" for over 100 years. </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'>At this point I would like to start a new thead, preferably on the SS&A forum</p><p>Posted by <em>michaelmozina</em></DIV></p><p>We will take that under advisement, but for the moment, I regret not. Creating it here is fine. Perhaps somewhere down the road we may reassess the decision, but it was not taken lightly and won't be rescinded lightly either.</p><p>Sorry, Man.</p><p>Pray continue with your discussion. </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'>I agree. I think the best *single* EU aspect I can focus on is the *cause* of a coronal loop. It's an electrically driven event and there is plenty of satellite evidence to support it. There are also at least three EU oriented presentons on the idea from Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven that I can think of off the top of my head, and at least one more paper by another author that is buried somewhere in this thread. That's the single topic I will focus on next.At this point I would like to start a new thead, preferably on the SS&A forum since my intent is to *explain* a coronal loop in terms of emprical laboratory physics in the case of Birkeland, electrical enginerring principles in the case of Bruce, and MHD theory in the case of Alfven. It will include *lots* of references to math, *lots* of references to empirical physicsl experiments from Birkeland, and *lots* of MHD support. For the time being however, unless you give me the green light ahead of time, I will start the thread in *this* forum and you can decide to move it or leave it languishing here depending on how well *explained" you feel it is. The standard used however should be no greater than is applied to all the other threads that are on page on of that SS&A forum. I can empirically support all my "explanations" and that is certainly not true of all the discussion on the SS&A forum. This is hard science Yevaud, and tested emprical science, not some "mythical math model" devoid of emprical support like so many other theories that are discussed on the SS&A forum. I'm more than happy to debate the coronal loop topic till it's done, even it takes *years* to complete. I can't imagine it taking that long, but the "resistance" to electrical activity in solar physics is extremely high, and I have no illusions that everyone is going to agree with my first post or agree with me in a few weeks. It will obviously be "controversial" topic, but it will also be on based on pure emprical *tested* physics. It will include Bruce's mathematical presentation of electrical discharge theory from the perspective of electrical engineering and it will include Alfven's mathematical explanation of this phenomenon from the perspective of MHD theory. It will be every bit as well *explained* as any theory from NASA, or any theory from Birn et all.MHD theory allows us to look at any current carrying event in plasma in terms of the E field or the B field. These are equally valid ways of looking at current carrying plasma events. However, it is never true that magnetic lines "disconnect" or "reconnect". It is cetainly true that "circuits" form in plasma, and plasma threads can "reconnect" at the particle and circuit level. It is the total circuit energy that drives this parade, and the particle flow that drvies this parade. The magnetic field is just along for the ride and "pinching" the plasma into tornado like filaments that are filled with kinetic energy. These are not 'unexplained" events. Birkeland "explained" them 100 years ago and simulated them in his experiments. Bruce *explained* them again from the perspective of electrical discharge theory. Alfven *explained* them a third time in terms of MHD theory. There is nothing "unexplained" about a coronal loop. It's simply an electrically active current carrying thread in plasma. It's been 'explained" for over 100 years. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Then follow steps 1 through 4. You can start with a clearly defined physical premise as to what you believe to be the cause of coronal loops. "Electrically driven" without further explanatin is not clear.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We will take that under advisement, but for the moment, I regret not. Creating it here is fine. Perhaps somewhere down the road we may reassess the decision, but it was not taken lightly and won't be rescinded lightly either.Sorry, Man.Pray continue with your discussion. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>As you wish my friend. The irony from my perspective is that this particular thread will forever end on a note that only serves to demonstrate the validity of the point I wsa trying to make in this particular thread better than I could have ever hoped to achieve through my own words alone. </p><p>I will start the new thread on coronal loops here then in the unexplained forum and I'll list the four primary papers and accessable books that I will continue to reference throughout the coronal loop discussion. My intent is to present the idea from the perspective of at least three or four authors so that nobody can suggest that there is no mathamical support of the idea. I will also begin the discussion by making sure that nobody can claim that there is no emprical physicsl support of the idea, and there will be no doubt that it can be *explained* via emprical physics. You must realize it's not going to get any easier to justify the idea that coronal loops are "unexplained'' from the perspective of physics and math? Birkeland empirically demonstrated and "explained" these discharge events in the atmosphere of spheres over 100 years ago. This decisions is just going to get more or more difficult to justify over time and you and I both know it, so don't blame me for making you uncomfortable for the next *several years* if necessary. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p><p>I will start the new thread on coronal loops here then in the unexplained forum and I'll list the four primary papers and accessable books that I will continue to reference throughout the coronal loop discussion. My intent is to present the idea from the perspective of at least three or four authors so that nobody can suggest that there is no mathamical support of the idea. I will also begin the discussion by making sure that nobody can claim that there is no emprical physicsl support of the idea, and there will be no doubt that it can be *explained* via emprical physics. You must realize it's not going to get any easier to justify the idea that coronal loops are "unexplained'' from the perspective of physics and math? Birkeland empirically demonstrated and "explained" these discharge events in the atmosphere of spheres over 100 years ago. This decisions is just going to get more or more difficult to justify over time and you and I both know it, so don't blame me for making you uncomfortable for the next *several years* if necessary. </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'>Then follow steps 1 through 4. You can start with a clearly defined physical premise as to what you believe to be the cause of coronal loops. "Electrically driven" without further explanatin is not clear. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I will methodically (by the book) follow the steps you outline. I will expect that any competing theory be put through exactly the same methodical expectations outlined in your steps *including* the emprical test of concept. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I will methodically (by the book) follow the steps you outline. I will expect that any competing theory be put through exactly the same methodical expectations outlined in your steps *including* the emprical test of concept. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>That is how scientific theories are presented and supported. It cuts both ways.</p><p>I think it fair to assume that, no matter what the specific phenomena being discussed might be, that the following theories are considered to have already met the required tests, within reasonable domains of validity (i.e. outside of black holes, at appropriate macroscopic scales, speeds, etc.)</p><p>1. Maxwell's equations and classical electrodynamics</p><p>2. The Navier-Stokes equations for fluid flow and justifiable approximations (i.e. Euler's equations for inviscid flow when one can neglect viscosity)</p><p>3. Newtonian mechanics (with velocitiies small with respect to that of light)</p><p>4. Special and General Relativity</p><p>5. Quantum mechanics through quantum electrodynamics</p><p>6. Conclusions derived from items 1 through 5 through use of valid mathematical reasoning. All the above theories have more than adequate, in fact extraordinarily extensive, proof in terms of experimental data.</p><p>Any plasma physics approximations require justification -- you can't invoke frozen magnetic field lines without rigorous justification for that approximation for instance. If you make the MHD assumption that you can neglect displacement current you must clearly state that such an assumption is being made and explain why (but it is a fairly common and justifiable assumption, and the basis for much of Alfven's work).</p><p>Application of laboratory results to specific phenomena requires quantitative explanation of the applicability of the experiment to the specific phenomena including scale effects and all relevant physical conditions and parameters. "Looks like" is not enough.</p><p>Please also note that to show that one explanation is not adequately supported it is not necessary to provide an alternate explanation. Some things are simply not understood. For instance, just because one does not believe the inflation theory does not obligate that individual to provide an alternate model. It would be enough to demonstrate a contradiction, a specific and rigorously proven contradiction, between inflation and established and valid physics.</p><p>The following ideas are considered as hypotheses only and not as established physics. Any use of these hypotheses to support additional ideas is conjectural and contingent on their eventual proof (don't hold your breath expecting that proof in any time relevant to this thread). In other words, if you desire hard conclusions and agreement avoid use of the following:</p><p>1. MOND</p><p>2. Dark energy and its equivalents</p><p>3. Dark matter</p><p>4. Inflation</p><p>5 String theory, brane theory, M-theory etc.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The following ideas are considered as hypotheses only and not as established physics. Any use of these hypotheses to support additional ideas is conjectural and contingent on their eventual proof (don't hold your breath expecting that proof in any time relevant to this thread). In other words, if you desire hard conclusions and agreement avoid use of the following:1. MOND2. Dark energy and its equivalents3. Dark matter4. Inflation5 String theory, brane theory, M-theory etc. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Yes, but all of them are allowed to be discussed on the SS&A forum today, yet the one *emprically* demonstrated theory of astronomy is now "off limits" on that forum. Oh the irony. Any "hypothesis" (devoid of emprical support) may be discussed, but theories with emprical support, including experimental simulations are "taboo". Electricity is the one forbidden topic of astronomy and this thread and what happend to it, and the consequences that resulted from it show just how irrational astronomy can be. Rhessi observes gamma ray emissions from electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere, but we can't even discuss the possiblity that the gamma rays and neutron capture signatures observed by Rhessi in the solar atmosphere are related to electrical discharges in it's atmosphere in the same forum with all the other supposedly "explained" hypotheses you list, all of which all lack any sort of lab tested, emprical support. Hoy. </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'>Yes, but all of them are allowed to be discussed on the SS&A forum today, yet the one *emprically* demonstrated theory of astronomy is now "off limits" on that forum. Oh the irony. Any "hypothesis" (devoid of emprical support) may be discussed, but theories with emprical support, including experimental simulations are "taboo". Electricity is the one forbidden topic of astronomy and this thread and what happend to it, and the consequences that resulted from it show just how irrational astronomy can be. Rhessi observes gamma ray emissions from electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere, but we can't even discuss the possiblity that the gamma rays and neutron capture signatures observed by Rhessi in the solar atmosphere are related to electrical discharges in it's atmosphere in the same forum with all the other supposedly "explained" hypotheses you list, all of which all lack any sort of lab tested, emprical support. Hoy. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>This kind of paragraph is exactly why this thread got moved. You care more about being a martyr for electricity than addressing the issues. Electricity is not forbidden. All mainstream scientists are very familiar with the E field and in fact address it quite often. That said, it is not the only force in the universe. In many cases, such as reconnection, current flow does occur...but looking at it only from that viewpoint is not very insightful and is certainly not the entire picture. </p><p>I would like to say I am looking forward to your coronal loop thread, but I really am not. BAsed on your previous post where you emphasized any detractors would need to give empirical evidence, you are not going to listen to anybody much like you haven't in this thread. In your opinion, the lab experiments modern physicists carry out are not valid as evidenced by your outright rejection of every single tokamak reactor experiment. As I've said before, the lack of a mainstream empirical demonstration does not mean the mainstream is wrong. There are many things we know to be true that were never demonstrated in a lab. So, in other words, you are just using this new thread as a platform for you to preach EU and repeat the same tired arguments when faced with people who disagree or have differing viewpoints. This is exactly why the thread will and should remain in the Unexplained. It has absolutely nothing to do with electricity.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This kind of paragraph is exactly why this thread got moved. </DIV></p><p>They didn't just move the one thread, they banned the *whole topic* entirely from the SS&A forum! </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You care more about being a martyr for electricity than addressing the issues.</DIV></p><p>I really don't have a martyr complex because I'm a terrible "victim". I have addressed the issues and I will continue to do so so. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Electricity is not forbidden. </DIV></p><p>Except we can't discuss it in relationship to solar physics on the SS&A forum you mean?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All mainstream scientists are very familiar with the E field and in fact address it quite often.</DIV></p><p>Yet we can't even talk about it in relationship to coronal loops on the same forum as all those other topics are discussed?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> That said, it is not the only force in the universe. </DIV></p><p>It's the only one that is known to release gamma rays in the Earth's atmosphere. Why wouldn't we consider it as the "cause" of gamma rays in the solar atmosphere too?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In many cases, such as reconnection, current flow does occur...</DIV></p><p>Show me one that didn't require "current flow".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but looking at it only from that viewpoint is not very insightful and is certainly not the entire picture. </DIV></p><p>I'm looking at the *whole* picture. You're the one that is fixated *only* upon the B "field" perspective. The particle/circuit perspective of MHD theory is equally valid and equally important. Magnetic lines do not disconnect and reconnect, but particles and circuits can acoomplish that feat in emprical tests.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would like to say I am looking forward to your coronal loop thread, but I really am not.</DIV></p><p>Oh well. I'm not much into MOND theory or inflation theory either but I don't recommend we banish whole theories to the "unexplained" forum. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>BAsed on your previous post where you emphasized any detractors would need to give empirical evidence, </DIV></p><p>I would expect they could provided solid emprical support and be able to create "loops" in a the atmosphere of spheres as Birkeland was able to do, sure. If Birkeland could do it with technologies from 100 years ago, why can't others do so wiith their new theories with our our modern technologies?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>you are not going to listen to anybody much like you haven't in this thread. </DIV></p><p>I've listened to everybody in this thread. Some things I have agreed with, somethings I do not agree with. That's life. We all have our own opinoins about how the universe works. I will listen to reason, and if you show me an emprical test where powefully energetic loops were created and sustained in the atmosphere of spheres I'll definitely be interested. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In your opinion, the lab experiments modern physicists carry out are not valid</DIV></p><p>All "experiments" are valid. Not all "interpretations" are necessarily valid. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>as evidenced by your outright rejection of every single tokamak reactor experiment.</DIV></p><p>I reject their *assumption* that the current density remained constant during the z-pinch process. I also noted that their z-pinch process requires current flow and creates filaments in the plasma just lika an ordinary plasma ball. They are electrically active filaments and the *circuit energy* would determine the "reconnection" rate at the point of "reconnection". I don't reject the experiments or the need to do experiments. I do reject their *assumption* that the current density remained constant, and therefore their *interpretation* that these events were caused by "magnetic reconnection" is flawed IMO. I also noted that none of these experiments even work unless you electrify the plasma to the point it forms filaments in the plasma. and showed you have Alfven referred to such structures as "circuits" in the plasma. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> As I've said before, the lack of a mainstream empirical demonstration does not mean the mainstream is wrong. </DIV></p><p>But EU theory lacks for no such emprical demonstration, so why should I believe that another force of nature is required when something as simple and common as electicity works just fine?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are many things we know to be true that were never demonstrated in a lab. So, in other words, you are just using this new thread as a platform for you to preach EU and repeat the same tired arguments when faced with people who disagree or have differing viewpoints. This is exactly why the thread will and should remain in the Unexplained. It has absolutely nothing to do with electricity. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I don't intend to repeat myself, but I will use authors that I respect, including Alfven, Birkeland and Bruce. I can also approach this same topic based on Bruce's writings as well.</p><p>If their beef was with me peresonally then the topic of EU theory should not be banned from the SS&A forum, just me. Evidently it's not me that is threatening to the mainstream dogma, it's the whole concept of an electric universe that is threatening and disruptive to their dogma. </p><p>Nothing about solar activity is "unexplained". Birkeland explained it 100 years ago. Bruce did it too about 50 years ago and so did Alfven. EU theory is the pariah according to the mainstream, not just lil ol me. I just so happen to support the concept. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
What time is the NASA Parker Solar Probe's closest sun flyby ever on Christmas Eve?- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram