<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>EU theory is the pariah according to the mainstream<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>This is the point I've been trying to get at. Electricity is not equivalent to EU. The mainstream can explain electricity and electricity related events just fine. We know how the E field contributes to reconnection. The discussion of EU-related topics has been banned from the "real" forum because you have proven from post to post(on more forums than just this one) that you are unwilling to engage in a real scientific discussion. A discussion usually involves a back-and-forth debate where both parties have an open mind. If you were to show us rigorously that what you are saying is true(whatever you want to tell yourself, you have not shown any excerpt or provided any reference to material that shows the process we call reconnection can be described solely from a particle viewpoint), then I would certainly agree with you. What you are doing is more like preaching. That is why I agree wholeheartedly that it belongs here. Discussions of coronal loops, flares, CMEs, etc should certainly be allowed in the other forum, but not like this. This kind of thread just serves to confuse people. If you only posted when you had something new and relevant to add, this thread would be countless pages shorter and more readable, but since you keep rehashing the same sentences we have these little digressions constantly, and, well, that is why we are in the forum most people stay far away from. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is the point I've been trying to get at. ..., but since you keep rehashing the same sentences we have these little digressions constantly, and, well, that is why we are in the forum most people stay far away from. <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Good luck with whatever is forthcoming in the way of a rational discussion on some tenet of EU theory (apparently to be determined by it sounds like perhaps a discussion on coronal loops). But thus far all that has appeared is a discussion of the potential for a discussion and Michael's whining about EU not being taken seriously.</p><p>In any case I am going hunting again followed immediately by a trip to help a friend who has drawn a tag for a very special limited entry hunt for REALLY impressive deer. The last time that I took off for a short period the thread had moved, but with no notice and difficulty finding it. If there develops a new thread, perhaps in a new place, please leave a trail of crumbs that I might follow.</p><p>Except for possible brief interludes I will be gone for a couple of weeks or so. I need the time to recover from that LSU/Florida game anyway.</p><p>If I am needed, I will be in the woods under a tree -- and armed. So I had better not participate directly until after I unload. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Except for possible brief interludes I will be gone for a couple of weeks or so. I need the time to recover from that LSU/Florida game anyway.<br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Understandable. Although I'm not sure if a couple weeks is sufficient to recover from such utter domination. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is the point I've been trying to get at. Electricity is not equivalent to EU. The mainstream can explain electricity and electricity related events just fine.</DIV></p><p>Oh? They can't seem to quite explain the key observations of solar atmospheric activity and we already know that the larger bodies in our solar system all have electrically active atmospheres just as Birkeland's model predicted. I never here them mention the notion of charge separation between the photosphere and heliosphere. I never hear them explain a constant acceleration of solar wind particles. I never hear them explain those neutron capture signatures and gamma rays from the base of loops. I never hear them explain it in terms of charge attraction, or discharge related phenomenon. It's the one forbidden concept and the fact I can't even talk about it here, the most liberal board out there, simply demonstrates the bias. It's palpable, unrelated to a single individual, and is intimately related to solar atmospheric physics as demonstrated by Birkeland himself. Birkeland *explained* aurora. He *explained* high energy discharges in the solar atmosphere. He "explained" it all based on charge separation between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere. At no time was Birkeland ever "perplexed" by these events. He used a known force of nature and demonstrated the connection *emprically*. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> We know how the E field contributes to reconnection. </DIV></p><p>We also all *should* know that it's the E field that is reconnecting, not the B field because B fields can't "disconnect" or "reconnnect", whereas circuits certainly can and do "reconnect" all the time, every single day.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>[he discussion of EU-related topics has been banned from the "real" forum because you have proven from post to post(on more forums</DIV></p><p>Why is it that you guys get to talka about forums that litrally conduct "witch hunts" that are intent to "burn the heritics' at the stake, and stifle free speech? My discussions elsewhere have nothing whatsoever to do with my activities and conversations here on this forum and I have participated on this forum for 2 1/2 years now, and I've posted more meterial on this topic here than anywhere else. Stop trying to interject unrelated issues into this conversation.</p><p>FYI, whether *I personally* can "properly" to your personal satisfaction (or anyone else's personal satisfaction) physically and mathematically is not evidence that the whole topic should be 'banned" from discussion in astronomy. Holy cow, it's not personal to begin with!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>than just this one) that you are unwilling to engage in a real scientific discussion.</DIV></p><p>Ya, like this hasn't been a "real" discussion? Excuse me, but I'm the one thst found *specfic* criticisms, *specific* equations, and *specific* assumptions which I "discussed". You and DrRocket and other proponents of "magnetic reconenction" have never picked any equation from any paper or book I've given you, never been specific about what causes gamma bursts and neutron capture events in the solar atomosphere and have never addressed the key points of this dicsussion.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> A discussion usually involves a back-and-forth debate where both parties have an open mind. </DIV></p><p>And I kept an open mind. I began this disussion believing that 'magnetic reconnection' was absolutely bogus, and likely had no "real" (physically real) physics or math to support it. That belief was reinforced in fact after going through the paper by PPPL, and was *certainly* reinforced after reading Priests presentation of the idea at his invokation of monopoles which defy Gauss' law of magnetism.</p><p>I did not however "close my mind" to the entire concept, even with two strikes against it. I went ahead and read the paper by Birn. I showed you where Birn *explains* in clear english that each "line" is actually carrying electrical current. I showed you where Alfven, the author of MHD theory, referrred to such currents as "circuits" in plasma. I connected all the dots for you in the words of Alfven and Birn. I personally took the time to email Birn to get his opinion on the topic. I kept an open mind throughout ths process, and I accpeted the "B" (field) orientation of MHD theory. It is you that personally refuse to acknowledge that the "E" (particle/circuit) orientation of MHD theory is equally valid, and equally applicable to this same "reconnection" event. It's you that have never budged an inch, and never given a *specific* criticism to any of the work I presented to you.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you were to show us rigorously that what you are saying is true</DIV></p><p>Birleland "rigorously" showed that coronal loops are electrical discharge events. He did this emprically. I'll bet you haven't even read the solar chapted I cited that started on 661 yet. You have never commented on his work other than to say "It's good", but you refuse to acknowledge that he created high energy "discharge loops" in the atmosphere of spheres based on a charge separation between the surface of the sphere and the surrounding "box"</p><p>About all I can say here is that I presented you with MORE THAN enough material to support my case, and you have never shown me why any new forms of "reconnection" are requred, wheren "circuit reconnection" has already been "lab tested" and shown to produce the same key observations in question. Occum's razor says we don't need any new forms of "reconnection" to expain loops, auroras, jets, and "helix shapes" in plasma. It's already all been done, and nothing exotic is required.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>(whatever you want to tell yourself, you have not shown any excerpt or provided any reference to material that shows the process we call reconnection can be described solely from a particle viewpoint), </DIV></p><p>Evidently you either did not read or comprehend the materials by Birkelands, Bruce or Alfven that I have cited in this thread. Each of them "explained" these events in terms of "discharges" in plasma. Alfven's material in particular showed this from a "particle" viewpoint in unmistakeable terms. You evidently expect me to hold your hand or something through each item. I guess I'll have to do that in the coronal loop thread so you actually read the matieral and respond to the material that aach of them presented.</p><p>IMO that last statement of yours is pure denial. I've shown you an emprical demonstration of concept which you sort of handwaved at and never got specific about.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>then I would certainly agree with you.</DIV></p><p>It's not 'me" you should be agreeing with, but Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven. They all described solar atmopsheric events in terms of "discharges" in the atmosphere. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> What you are doing is more like preaching.</DIV></p><p>I'm simply an "advocate" of EU theory, just like I am an advocate of QM and GR theory (as Eintein taught it), and MHD theory and lot's of other theories. There are "advocates" of MOND theory or "advocates" of "dark energy" theory, or advocates of inflation too. I happen to disagee with those particular ideas, but I don't want them "banned" from discussion! I'm also an "advocate" of many other theories including QM and GR theories but no one ever forbids me from talking about anything other than EU theory. Considering the fact it's all been emprically demonstrated in a lab, just like every other theory I respect, it's not very logical from my perspective that one topic is persecuted by this industry, while every other topic is allowed, even it's is "unpopular". It's bizzare, but easily demonstrateable, including the fact they "banned" me from even discussing it in the astronomy forum. How can empirical physics be banned from discussion? Beats me, but I've seen the pattern repreated a number of times. I've never been "banned" from discussing any other theory under the sun, popular or unpopular by mainstream standards. Only one theory seems to strike fear into the mainstream. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is why I agree wholeheartedly that it belongs here.</DIV></p><p>Coronal loops have already been "explained' in terms of physics and math. It belongs in an "explained" forum related to emprical physics. Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven all "explained" it in papers and books I have posted to this thead many many times now.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Discussions of coronal loops, flares, CMEs, etc should certainly be allowed in the other forum, but not like this. </DIV></p><p>So we should talk about those neutron capture signatures they produce but never can we entertain or discuss the possibility that they are caused by discharges in the solar atmosphere, the one force of nature that is know to create such phenomenon. Holy cow. What kind of real discussion is that? That's no longer an "open" and "free" and "open minded" conversation in search of truth. It's a cult like activity that forbids the discussion of the single most likely "cause" of such activity. </p><p>I can imagine a conversation over there where they discuss arora, and no one is allowed to ever point out the fact that Birkeland's aurora theories requried a charge separation between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere, and sustained postiivel and negative "currrents".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This kind of thread just serves to confuse people. </DIV></p><p>It should serve to educate them about the dangers of advocating EU theory. It's the one forbidden topic of astronomy. All other discussions are allowed, from MOND theories which are typically not very "popular", but are not forbidden, to inflation theories that never actually "predicted' the correct outcome, including those new "dark flows" they just discovered. Any other topic of astronomy is "ok", but EU theory is not only an 'unpopular' theory, it's a a "banned" theory, dispitte the fact it's the one theory that actually can be reproduced in a real lab, in real experiments.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you only posted when you had something new and relevant to add, this thread would be countless pages shorter and more readable, but since you keep rehashing the same sentences we have these little digressions constantly, and, well, that is why we are in the forum most people stay far away from. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>This thread is countless pages bacause DrRocket has never read the material I've suggested. None of you have responded to the key points and questions I asked, like the cause of neutron capture signatures in the solar atmosphere. None of you have picked out *specific* objections to Birkeland's work or Alfven's work or Bruce's work and they wrote the books on EU theory. It's going in circles because you won't respond to the key points Alfven made, or the experiments Birkeland produced, or the equations that Bruce provided. All of them "explained" these events as "discharges" in plasma. Birkeland even recreated them in emprical experiments. He actually "predicted" them because at that time we could not actually see these "loops" using the technology of the time. He did however photograph them in the atmosphere of his sphere. </p><p>"Prediction" is what separate "good" theories from bad ones. Birkeland "predicted" the existence of coronal loops in the solar atmosphere. He "predicted" jets and helix shaped structures too. He predicted acceleration of solar wind. He "predicted" all the things you now attributed to "magnetic reconnection", but he "produced" them all with "electricity, the one forbidden topic of astronomy.</p><p>I'm done with this conversation now. This thread has demonstrated my point now better than I had ever hoped it could be demonstrated. Electricity is the forbidden topic of astronomy, and the events of the last few weeks demonstrate that conclusively. Like I said to Yevaud, this is the most "free" board I have ever posted to, but even here those freedoms of speech are curtailed and limited. If that can happen here, after all this time, it shows just how big of a problem this has really become. The one one thing we can't discuss in astronomy is the one thing that has been empirically shown to "'predict" (from empirical experimentation) all the high energy solar events we observe in nature. 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>Per the OP's request, since he's done with it, time to close this thread Then his self immolation will be complete.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, I for one have already published a paper related to fusion processes in the solar atmosphere, so that doesn't really apply well to me. I do however believe that there is an obvious amount of current running through the plssma of the upper solar atmosphere, ...........in mainstream publications, and there is a biased toward a "magnetic" solution rather than a solution based on an "electrical' solution. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>HI MM</p><p>just a quick question you stated way back on page 1...you already published a paper related to fusion processes in the solar atmosphere- is it possible you can provide a link to your paper - and which site did the peer review...???<br />Or is this paper published on your website only with no review at all?</p><p>i'm sure this was all brought up through pages 1- 86 but heck if I can find it....so many dissertations my eyeballs are going to fall out of their sockets....</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm done with this conversation now. This thread has demonstrated my point now better than I had ever hoped it could be demonstrated. Electricity is the forbidden topic of astronomy, and the events of the last few weeks demonstrate that conclusively. Like I said to Yevaud, this is the most "free" board I have ever posted to, but even here those freedoms of speech are curtailed and limited. If that can happen here, after all this time, it shows just how big of a problem this has really become. The one one thing we can't discuss in astronomy is the one thing that has been empirically shown to "'predict" (from empirical experimentation) all the high energy solar events we observe in nature. Hoy!</DIV></p><p>I agree with Wayne that this thread should be closed. All it is doing is giving michael a place to whine and hope we forget his promise to start a "real" coronal loop thread. I had a closing argument written up, but I've already made my case. Your last post completely ignored it(which is mind-boggling since you quoted almost the entire thing in your last post), but it's there for everyone else to see. </p><p>Stop trying to be a martyr and start trying to be scientist. "Put up" the coronal loop thread or "shut up". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Per the OP's request, since he's done with it, time to close this thread Then his self immolation will be complete. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I agree it time to close the thread, but only because it's run it's course and serves no particular purpose at this time.</p><p>As I said earlier, I'll start a new thread on coronal loops when things have cooled off a bit, and I will post it here on this forum when I'm ready. I just see no point in bickering on this topic any further. I rest my case.</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>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.I'm done with this conversation now. This thread has demonstrated my point now better than I had ever hoped it could be demonstrated. Electricity is the forbidden topic of astronomy, and the events of the last few weeks demonstrate that conclusively. Like I said to Yevaud, this is the most "free" board I have ever posted to, but even here those freedoms of speech are curtailed and limited. If that can happen here, after all this time, it shows just how big of a problem this has really become. The one one thing we can't discuss in astronomy is the one thing that has been empirically shown to "'predict" (from empirical experimentation) all the high energy solar events we observe in nature. Hoy! <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Just to documant the statement.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I agree it time to close the thread, but only because it's run it's course and serves no particular purpose at this time.As I said earlier, I'll start a new thread on coronal loops when things have cooled off a bit, and I will post it here on this forum when I'm ready. I just see no point in bickering on this topic any further. I rest my case. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />LOL, I said that 40 pages ago...</p><p> </p><p>It would be nice of you to respond to lildreamer's request though. I can't find my link to your paper right now.</p><p>I'd also like to see a response as the the peer review process at the "journal" as their site provided no information about that at all.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>LOL, I said that 40 pages ago... It would be nice of you to respond to lildreamer's request though. I can't find my link to your paper right now.I'd also like to see a response as the the peer review process at the "journal" as their site provided no information about that at all. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>More like about 4 pages ago. Since then everyone has given me feedback on what I should do next and I have listened to and agreed with most of that feedback. This thread was intended to demonstrate that there is a bias towards EU theory. It's served it's intended purpose from my perspective and the thread has run it's course now.</p><p>I will be happy to "explain" coronal loops from the perspective of EU theory, but that is technically a different converstation anyway. It's time to start a new thread, even from my point of view. </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'>HI MMjust a quick question you stated way back on page 1...you already published a paper related to fusion processes in the solar atmosphere- is it possible you can provide a link to your paper - and which site did the peer review...???Or is this paper published on your website only with no review at all?i'm sure this was all brought up through pages 1- 86 but heck if I can find it....so many dissertations my eyeballs are going to fall out of their sockets.... <br /> Posted by lildreamer</DIV></p><p>http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1</p><p>The CNO fusion paper was published in the Journal of Fusion Energy. </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>
It's silly to make them close the thread. I think I'll just show some self control and stop posting to it. There's no lgocal reason to even make the moderators even get involved. <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>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1The CNO fusion paper was published in the Journal of Fusion Energy. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />thanks... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>More like about 4 pages ago. Since then everyone has given me feedback on what I should do next and I have listened to and agreed with most of that feedback. This thread was intended to demonstrate that there is a bias towards EU theory. It's served it's intended purpose from my perspective and the thread has run it's course now.I will be happy to "explain" coronal loops from the perspective of EU theory, but that is technically a different converstation anyway. It's time to start a new thread, even from my point of view. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />No, <strong>I</strong> said the thread was pointless about 40 pages ago. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's silly to make them close the thread. I think I'll just show some self control and stop posting to it. There's no lgocal reason to even make the moderators even get involved. Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I would agree with that. Threads die all by themselves when people stop posting in them.</p><p>BTW, any of your published papers containing information about the specifics you're discussing would almost certainly be considered as helpful to illustrate your points. Typically, they would contain data and arguments that could be understood by those knowledgeable about the topics included in the discussion. It would be logical to ref some of those in your upcoming post if they are pertinent. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would agree with that. Threads die all by themselves when people stop posting in them.BTW, any of your published papers containing information about the specifics you're discussing would almost certainly be considered as helpful to illustrate your points. Typically, they would contain data and arguments that could be understood by those knowledgeable about the topics included in the discussion. It would be logical to ref some of those in your upcoming post if they are pertinent. <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV><br /><br />Have you read the paper? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's silly to make them close the thread. I think I'll just show some self control and stop posting to it. There's no lgocal reason to even make the moderators even get involved. <br /> </p><p>Posted by <em>michaelmozina</em></DIV></p><p><font color="#ff0000">/Mod Hat On</font> </p><p>No one "makes" us close a thread, unless there's egrigious TOS violations. That has not happened here. </p><p>However... </p><p>I would appreciate it if you'd stop throwing around those veiled references that we are following some sort of agenda in moving this thread ("You've proven my point by..." ). In the actual academic world, you would have had a few brief sessions of Peer review in which to convince other scientifically trained people of how accurate your premise is, and they can be <em>savage</em>. Here, we allowed you six months and over 1400 posts to achieve nothing but bickering. </p><p>Enough.</p><p><font color="#ff0000">/Mod Hat Off</font> </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'>Have you read the paper? <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />I'm currently going through each one myself -going through each referenced material outlined in the papers. <strong> </strong></p><p><strong>michaelmozina </strong></p><p>The paper's really do propose some off on the edge stuff but not to off the edge that they can't be examined and debated. I would love to see a thread created for each paper and discuss the merits and demerits of each one...</p><p>I really think, if your up-to-it MM, that this would really help us out in better understanding EUH - Electric Universe Hypothesis - I personally wouldn't call it a theorem or theory but Hypothesis is probably better suited for what is being presented in the papers...just some constructive criticism <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm currently going through each one myself -going through each referenced material outlined in the papers. michaelmozina The paper's really do propose some off on the edge stuff but not to off the edge that they can't be examined and debated. I would love to see a thread created for each paper and discuss the merits and demerits of each one...I really think, if your up-to-it MM, that this would really help us out in better understanding EUH - Electric Universe Hypothesis - I personally wouldn't call it a theorem or theory but Hypothesis is probably better suited for what is being presented in the papers...just some constructive criticism <br />Posted by lildreamer</DIV></p><p>Yes, you could start by <strong>defining</strong> the Electrical Universe hypothesis. It is clearly more than just the Alflven's <em>Cosmic Plasma</em> as shown by the papers of yours to which you have provided links.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Have you read the paper? Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Point noted. 
</p><p>I must have missed that comment earlier.. sorry 'bout that.</p><p>However, I have read one paper he ref'd recently and, in the spirit in which your question was probably asked in response to my request for clarifying information, I will again state "Point noted." </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
</p><p>I must have missed that comment earlier.. sorry 'bout that.</p><p>However, I have read one paper he ref'd recently and, in the spirit in which your question was probably asked in response to my request for clarifying information, I will again state "Point noted." </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </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