Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's not logical to assume that the sun does have a compositin similar to it's closest neighbors..as it shares very few traits with them at all!</DIV></p><p>That depends entirely on whether one supports a hydrogen sun theory or a Birkeland's solar model.&nbsp; Based on satellite images, I observe that the sun has a "rigid crust".&nbsp; I observe that it experiences powerful atmospheric discharges like other planets.&nbsp; It has an atmosphere made of lighter elements that appaar to be sigificantly mass separated.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you ask me, the sun seems to share a lot in common with planets, including the fact is comosed of the basic building blocks of meteorites and asteroids and such.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So you're going to base it on mecury, venus and earth which share little in common with the sun?</DIV></p><p>As I see things they share a whole lot in common.&nbsp; What makes you presume that the sun's elements are not mass eeparated in significant any way and that it has no crust?&nbsp; Care to explain that LMSAL image for me then?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You're also excluding the two largest neighbors, Jupiter and Saturn, which are mostly gas as well (Saturn's average density is less than waters!) and account for over 90% of the systems mass if you exclude the sun.</DIV></p><p>I'm not excluding them, I'm just not presuming to "know" what elements these larger physical bodies are made of based on an "average" density anymore than I am presuming to do that with the sun. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And the composition you list is also erroneous.&nbsp; While iron is the most at ~30%, oxygen is next, then silicon.&nbsp; Nickle is only some 2% of the earth.&nbsp;Throw in the fact that the nearest neighbors are UNABLE to retain hydrogen, or helium due to their low mass and their ambient temperatuers...and you've just fallen prey to a strong selection bias.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Saiph</DIV></p><p>As it relates to Nickel, I'm not convinced we know exactly what the Earth's core is made of, but I'm willing to concede that even Manuel's method of determing abundance numbers may off a bit&nbsp; due to local conditions in the area during formation, and maybe we should assume an abundance percentage for the sun that is closer to it's 3 closest planets I'm willing to give a little on this point and not get s"stuck" in any sort of bias.&nbsp; Are you willing to give a little?&nbsp; How do you know that the sun's atmosphere doesn't include a lot of silicon plasma for instance?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[Saiph]

<p>Solid surface:&nbsp; Heliosiesmology models agree with a plasma/liquid solar model.&nbsp; They don't work with solids.</p><p>The only evidence you have presented of a "solid" surface is to show me a series of pictures of features that don't change over a short period of time.&nbsp; Which means nothing when you consider that the sun about a million miles across.</p><p>Spectragraphic evidence point towards gaseous states (thus the emission and absorption spectra) and pressures, doppler shifts, etc that don't match with solids. Heck, solids can't produce emission and absorption spectra like we see from the sun.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Sun vs planets;<br />Okay, so it has an turbulant atmosphere.&nbsp; Okay, I'll buy that...but the atmospheres aren't over 5,000 degrees.&nbsp; The sun is vastly more massive, has an insande energy output.&nbsp; It's mass and average density, btw, match up very, very well with the 75% hydrogen 25% helium figures.&nbsp; It doesn't match so well with it being iron.&nbsp; Throw in simple things like convection, which is easily demonstrated as possible/probable when you due the equations assuming hydrostatic equilibrium (a very well founded assumption btw), and it being liquid/plasma makes sense too.</p><p>It also doesn't behave like a solid, with the equatorial regions rotating faster than the poles, and with sunspots the size of earth comming and going with periods of days.&nbsp; The vast and changing magnetic fields also indicate a large amount of moving material.&nbsp; Throw in the fact that there is no way that iron and other metals remain solid at the energy densities present on the sun, especially below the surface, and the concept becomes absurd.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>So, do you really want me to go into details on how spectroscopy is done? Because the spectra does show the presence of iron, nickel, magnesium, calcium, silicon, etc in the photosphere....but the numbers are dwarfed by the amount of hydrogen and helium.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<strong>"It means that 95% of current theory is based on "questionable" metaphysical ideas, not emprical, lab tested physics."</strong><br /><br />I can't even begin to describe what a horrible equivocation this is.&nbsp; How does it logically follow that the percentage of something missing is equal to the percentage of whether it is true or false?<br /><br /><strong>"When an astronomer starts talking about "inflation this", "dark energy that", 'dark matter yada, yada, yada", my eyes start to roll."</strong><br /><br />An appeal to personal incredulity.&nbsp; This holds no weight in a debate.<br /><br /><strong>"Which human being ever did a controlled experiment that empircally demonstrated the effect of any of these things on any form of known matter or energy?&nbsp; The answer of course is "nobody"."</strong><br /><br />An appeal to ignorance.&nbsp; How can someone test something that is currently unknown?<br /><strong><br />"95% of current theory is metaphysical in nature, it cannot be falsifed and it therefore falls outside of the realm of real "physics" an into the realm of metaphysical dogma.&nbsp; "In the beginning there was inflation........""</strong><br /><br />I'll concede inflation may never be testable, but it is a logical progression (at least on paper) through which consequences can be developed and predicted.&nbsp; Using inflation in the context of the above quote is really a non-sequitor.&nbsp; Your 95% is based off of dark matter and dark energy.&nbsp; The falsifiability of both dark matter and dark energy are reliant on actually knowing what they consist of.&nbsp; You can't falsify words.&nbsp; Nobody denies they are gap filler and nobody claims to know they are.&nbsp; The ideas, however, are logical conclusions based on observational evidence.<br />&nbsp;<strong><br />"I remember Rumsfeld using that arguement too.&nbsp; I hear creationist envoke that statement all the time.&nbsp; So?"</strong><br /><br />And both used the phrase properly.&nbsp; To this day, we can not say with 100% certainty there are no WMDs in iraq.&nbsp; We can, however, keep lowering the probabilities and, as such, the probabilities are quite low.&nbsp; As for the creationists use... well, science makes no attempt to prove or disprove God.&nbsp; Creationists admit that God is not a physical entity in our realm (or however they choose to word it), therefore he is not within the realm of science.&nbsp; So, although they may use it properly, its irrelevant.<br /><br /><strong>"Emprical science is all about what we *can* demonstrate in a lab, not what we put faith in."</strong><br /><br />This statement is becoming quite repetitive.&nbsp; Your overuse of 'empirical' is a misleading attempt to what science is all about.&nbsp; Empirical data can be derived from either experimentation or observation.&nbsp; Observations outside the lab are quite sufficient to make logical leaps and develops consequences of those obersvation.&nbsp; It is observed that the expansion is accelerating... the logical conclusion is to state that something is causing the acceleration.&nbsp; Science is pursuing it.&nbsp; With our current technology, there are, quite simply, limits on what can be demonstrated in a lab.<br /><br /><strong>"Dark energy doesn't exist in nature."</strong><br /><br />Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence <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" /><br /><strong><br />"It doesn't do anything to any form of matter."</strong><br /><br />This may be true in the case of dark energy, however there is direct observational evidence that its existence (in whatever state it may be) has predictable consequences.<br /><br /><br />I'm just going to stop here.&nbsp; I debated just deleting the whole post, but chose to, at least, put what I have up.&nbsp; As I continued reading the rest of your post, It became mostly repetitive commentary&nbsp; that really didn't address the points I was attempting to make.&nbsp; The fault may be mine by not being clear enough in my intent.&nbsp; <br /><br />I was attempting to address the subject of the title of the thread and why you struggle to have decent debate about the topic.&nbsp; Your tactics of using logical fallacies, repetitive talking points, always using quotes "dark matter/energy", using terms like metaphysics,&nbsp; mythological dogma and faith-based science are the reason you get turned away.&nbsp; This is only my opinion, of course.&nbsp; I doubt I will continue to respond in this thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's not logical to assume that the sun does have a compositin similar to it's closest neighbors..as it shares very few traits with them at all! So you're going to base it on mecury, venus and earth which share little in common with the sun?&nbsp; You're also excluding the two largest neighbors, Jupiter and Saturn, which are mostly gas as well (Saturn's average density is less than waters!) and account for over 90% of the systems mass if you exclude the sun.And the composition you list is also erroneous.&nbsp; While iron is the most at ~30%, oxygen is next, then silicon.&nbsp; Nickle is only some 2% of the earth.&nbsp;Throw in the fact that the nearest neighbors are UNABLE to retain hydrogen, or helium due to their low mass and their ambient temperatuers...and you've just fallen prey to a strong selection bias.&nbsp; <br />Posted by Saiph</DIV><br /><br />I have not been able to get to a computer to get back to Michael on this question.&nbsp; Thank you for answering in a timely manner.&nbsp; You sumed up the postion much more succenctly than I could.&nbsp; I&nbsp;would not have&nbsp;thought to add that&nbsp; Jupiter and&nbsp;Saturn&nbsp;make up 90% of the&nbsp;mass of the solar system (excluding the sun of course).</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That depends entirely on whether one supports a hydrogen sun theory or a Birkeland's solar model.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />I asked once before how Birkeland's model can relate to the sun and you did not answer.&nbsp; Could you address that point.</p><p>Birkeland's model is a metal shell with a dynamo in it and charged particles&nbsp;are 'shot' at it.&nbsp; This replicates the earth pretty well but it is not like the sun which is the <strong><em>source</em></strong> of the charged&nbsp;particles, not the receiver.</p><p>Also you seem to be alluding that the rings of Saturn are due to electric forces as opposed to gravity.&nbsp; Is this accurate?&nbsp; I know that Birkeland believed this; just wondering what your take was.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Solid surface:&nbsp; Heliosiesmology models agree with a plasma/liquid solar model.&nbsp; They don't work with solids.</DIV></p><p>Really?&nbsp; Then perhaps you could explain to us what that "stratification subsurface" found at .995R is doing sitting smack dab in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone?&nbsp; When was that stratification layer"predicted" by standard theory?&nbsp; What forms the reflective cavity that makes heliosiesmology work in the first place?</p><p>http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only evidence you have presented of a "solid" surface is to show me a series of pictures of features that don't change over a short period of time.</DIV></p><p>Well, "rigidity" and "longevity" are important issues in these images.&nbsp; The "structures" of the photosphere change on roughly 8 minute intervals.&nbsp; RD images of the photosphere do not show this type of rigity.&nbsp; How come these structures we see in iron ion wavelengths last for hours, days, and weeks?&nbsp; Why do we see no evidence of differential rotation in these images as we find in helium filter RD images?&nbsp; What is that "structure" we see in Kosovichev's Doppler image?&nbsp; Why aren't the shapes of these rigid features affected by the CME event? &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Which means nothing when you consider that the sun about a million miles across.</DIV></p><p>Size is a relative factor.&nbsp; There is plenty of differential rotation seen in helium filter images from the same instruments on the same satellites, at the same resolution. Why do the iron ion lines images produce a set of rigid, long lasting structures whereas no other filter produces this same effect?&nbsp; Size is factor of course, but there is more to the story than simply size.&nbsp; If size were the only issue, the the helium ion images would show us similar results would it not? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Spectragraphic evidence point towards gaseous states (thus the emission and absorption spectra) and pressures,</DIV></p><p>Spectroscopic evidence is subject to interpretation.&nbsp; A lot of what we might hope to get from this information depends entirely on the model that is selected to begin with, and the 'assumptions" that we begin with.&nbsp; If we "assume" a mass separated model, we have to take into account the various layers of the atmosphere.&nbsp; If we begin with a non mass separated model we might interpret such spectroscopic data entirely differently.&nbsp; The spectroscopic data is open to significant interpretation as it relates to determing overall solar composition.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>doppler shifts,</DIV></p><p>Take a look at the tsunami tab of my website and you'll notice that the Nickel ion Doppler images show the same riid features, and they reveal the location of these rigid features in relationship to the surface of the photosphere.&nbsp; Specifically we can see rigid features exist under the surface of the photopshere, at a very shallow depth under the surface of the photosphere.&nbsp; No doubt these rigid features are located at the "stratification subsurface" seen in the heliosiesmology data.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>etc that don't match with solids.</DIV></p><p>What' is causing those sound speed changes in the stratfication subsurface?&nbsp; What forms the "resonance cavity" that allows us to probe the interior in the first place? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Heck, solids can't produce emission and absorption spectra like we see from the sun. </DIV></p><p>Solids alone could not explain the spectral data, but a solid crust with a plasma atmosphere could explain such lines just fine.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sun vs planets;Okay, so it has an turbulant atmosphere.&nbsp; Okay, I'll buy that...but the atmospheres aren't over 5,000 degrees.</DIV></p><p>The temperature of the atmosphere is going to be affected by the amount of current running through the atmosphere.&nbsp; When discharges occur in th Earth's atmosphere, we observe x-rays and gamma rays. We observe that larger physical bodies like Saturn experience far more powerful electrical discharges than the Earth.&nbsp; When we point Rhessi at the sun, we see gamma rays like we see from Earth's discharges in Rhessi instruments and we observe a constant stream of x-rays coming off the sun.&nbsp;&nbsp; Dr. Charles Bruce even documented the propogation speed correlations between discharge speeds in the Earth's atmosphere, and discharge speeds in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; The turbulance in the atmosphere is directly related to the amount of overall energy flowing through the system.&nbsp; The Earth experiences discharges that release x-rays and gamma rays.&nbsp; Saturn has more powerful atmospheric discharges. The sun is obviously the focal point of mass in the solar system and it experience the bulk of the current flow, and therfore experience the most electrical atmospheric activity.&nbsp; There is no other empircally verified way to explain these high energy events in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The sun is vastly more massive,</DIV></p><p>Because it is more massive, it carries a more massive load of the current flow the flows through our solar system.&nbsp; that is why we see the termperatures in the corona soar to millions of degrees.&nbsp; Electrical discharges are known to heat plasma to extreme termperatures and emit gamma radiation.&nbsp; That is what we observe in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>has an insande energy output. </DIV></p><p>How can you be certain that all the energy output is internally driven? The big plus for hydrogen sun theory is that it theorectially *could* power the sun internally, and still last for billions of years.&nbsp; An external energy source would also allow the sun to shine for billions of years.&nbsp; How do we know for sure if it's one or the other, or a combination of both internal and external energy sources that are responsible for the sun's total energy output?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's mass and average density, btw, match up very, very well with the 75% hydrogen 25% helium figures. </DIV></p><p>Well, that really just tells us an "average" density, which is actually closer to water than to hydrogen. We can't use that average density figure to claim it's made of water.&nbsp; It's average density only tell us it's average density, not it's composition.&nbsp; The internal arrangement of elements will ultimately determin it's average density.&nbsp; If we looked at the average denisity of that water shell with an air bubble inside from the Nasa images, we can see that the density of the outer shell is substantially more dense than the air inside the water shell, and more dense than the average density of the total system.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It doesn't match so well with it being iron. </DIV></p><p>It doesn't match well with a *solid* sphere made of iron. That isn't what I'm proposing however.&nbsp; Even by our calculations, the sun is not a solid iron sphere.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Throw in simple things like convection, which is easily demonstrated as possible/probable when you due the equations assuming hydrostatic equilibrium (a very well founded assumption btw), and it being liquid/plasma makes sense too.</DIV></p><p>Ya, but that stratiifcation subsurface sitting in the middle of your presumably open convection zone sort of blows that theory out of the water.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It also doesn't behave like a solid, with the equatorial regions rotating faster than the poles,</DIV></p><p>Show me some RD iron ion images that demonstrate that the poles rotate faster than the equator.&nbsp; I'm sure you can do that with plasma layers like the photopshere, but you can't do that with the stratifcation subsurface.&nbsp; It rotates uniformly from pole to equator. That's one of the big problems you'll run into trying to explain various RD images in different wavelengths.&nbsp; Photosphee activity shows clear signs of differential rotation, and plasma movement galore because the photons we observe are mostly coming from the photophere plasma and it's moving around.&nbsp;&nbsp; The iron ion wavelength's on the other hand are mostly coming from coronal loop activity, and they are being reflected off of that stratifications subsurface we observe&nbsp; in the Doppler images.&nbsp; Those stratification surface features are very different, with very different lifetimes and very different rotational behaviors. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and with sunspots the size of earth comming and going with periods of days. </DIV></p><p>These too are very easily linked to intense atmospheric discharges in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; If you overlay an 171A image on top of a sunspot image, you will always find a significant area of discharges occuring directly around the sunspot. The sunspot is nothing more than an atmospheric "hole" in a particular plasma layer, much like an eye of a tornado.&nbsp; It allows us to see deeper into the solar atmosphere, to another layer below the photosphere.&nbsp; The atmospheric events from the intense electrical discharges cause tornado like formations to occur in the solar atmosphere. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The vast and changing magnetic fields also indicate a large amount of moving material. </DIV></p><p>Those vast and changing magnetic fields aree directly related to the vast and changing current flows in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; As the electrical discharge pattern changes, so do the magnetic field lines.&nbsp; That is why they are so dynamic and change so quickly.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Throw in the fact that there is no way that iron and other metals remain solid at the energy densities present on the sun, especially below the surface, and the concept becomes absurd.</DIV></p><p>You missed an important issue here.&nbsp; The outer most layers of the sun's atmosphere are demonstratably hotter than the layers underneath. The corona temps reach millions of degrees, whereas the chromosphere ranges from around 6K where it meets up with the photosphere to about 20K at the border of the corona.&nbsp; Sunspot activity is typically asocated with *lower* termperatures than we see at the photophere because there are cooler layers under the photopshere.&nbsp; There is a silicon plasma layer under the photosphere that is much cooler than the surface of the photosphere.&nbsp; Likewise, as we decend into the solar atmosphere, the temperatures are cooler and the plasma is more dense.&nbsp; The temperatures at the stratification subsurface are closer to 1200K than 6000K.&nbsp; If there were no heat separation occuring in the solar atmosphere, your logic would be applicable and sound. As it is however, you've made assumptions about the heat distribuition that are easily show to be incorrect.&nbsp; If the heat source were purely internally driven your logic would be sound and reasonable, but then the atmospheric acttivity is not internally powered.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, do you really want me to go into details on how spectroscopy is done?</DIV></p><p>No, I want you to go into details on how you know that the sun is not mass separted to any great degree.&nbsp; I will grant you that *if* we *assumed* that it was not mass separted very much, then your method of calculating elementatal abundance numbers from spectroscopy would be accurate.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's your *assumption* that I believe is incorrect, not the spectroscopy data.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Because the spectra does show the presence of iron, nickel, magnesium, calcium, silicon, etc in the photosphere....but the numbers are dwarfed by the amount of hydrogen and helium.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Saiph</DIV></p><p>The "dwarf" part here is related to the total number of photons emitted and the total absorbtion spectrum.&nbsp; The reason that iron and nickel ions are less common is that they only occur during electical discharge events whereas the hydrogen corona, and helium chromosphere are the hotttest two layers and emit the most photons since they emit them from the entire layer of the sun.&nbsp; The fact they are located in the upper atmosphere measn that they absorb and block more photons that other sorts of elements.&nbsp; There is a logical reason why a Birkeland solar model would anticiipate a spectrum that was heavily skewed to hydrogen and helium since these elements emit and absorb the most photons. &nbsp; Counting photons can't tell the composition in a mass separated solar model.&nbsp;&nbsp; That method will only work *if the sun is not mass separated to any signficiant percentage".&nbsp;&nbsp; You'll need to explain to me how come iron and nickel would stay mixed with light elements like hydrogen and helium with that stratification subsurface sitting in the middle of your convection zone. You might also take a look a coronal rain to figure out how you intend to explain that phyenomenon in a non mass separated atmosphere because I'm going to ask you about it, particularly when we start analysing that LMSAL image. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can't even begin to describe what a horrible equivocation this is.&nbsp; How does it logically follow that the percentage of something missing is equal to the percentage of whether it is true or false?"</DIV></p><p>Let's assume for a moment that we live 100 year in the future and EU theory has replaced current theories of our universe.&nbsp; Phsicists of our imagined future would look at Lambda-CDM theory and note that only 5% of the forces described by that theory were "emprically physical" things, and that 95% of the forces stuffing into the math formulas were metaphysical ideas that were absolutely false.&nbsp; In that case, only 5% was "real physics" and 95% of Lambda-CMD theory was metaphysical mumbo jumbo that turned out to be false.&nbsp; The reality of the matter is that you can only emprically demonstrate 5% of what Lambda-CDM theory claims the unverse is made of. That is a fact.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>An appeal to personal incredulity.&nbsp; This holds no weight in a debate.</DIV></p><p>Yet I'm supposed to be moved by appeals to authority fallacies and appeal to popularity fallacies? I'm just telling you have I clearly see a difference between emprical science, and dogma.&nbsp; Dark energy is "dogma" because it has never been emprically demonstrated to exist in nature.&nbsp; Stuffing into a math formula makes as much sense as stuffing magic into a math formula.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>An appeal to ignorance.&nbsp; How can someone test something that is currently unknown?</DIV></p><p>No, it's an "appeal to emprical science".&nbsp; Creationists have a lot "faith" in their beliefs. What they never have is "emprical evidence" to support their belief system.&nbsp; Likewise, a lot of astronomers put faith in things like "infaltion", "dark energy" and "dark matter" and yet there is no emprical evidence ever presented to support these outrageous assertions.&nbsp; There is a common link here between your belief system about Lambda-CDM theory and any faith oriented belief system. &nbsp; You have exactly the same amount of emprical support for inflation or dark energy as a creationist has to support their particular beliefs. &nbsp; Specifically, aspects of your specific beliefs cannot be emprically demonstrated in a controlled scientific experiment. &nbsp;</p><p>Emprical science requires emprical evidence, not math formulas.&nbsp; You have math formulas, but no emprical science to support your faith based beliefs related to several components of Lambda theory. That puts Lambda theory squarely into the category of "dogma", not empirical physical science.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"I'll concede inflation may never be testable, </DIV></p><p>Then it is not a form of emprical, testable science, it's a form of psuedoscience.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but it is a logical progression (at least on paper) through which consequences can be developed and predicted. </DIV></p><p>"God did it with electricity" would have a logical progression odf consequences too.&nbsp; Now we're right back to dogma.&nbsp; At least I can emprically test the "electricity" part of "God did it with electricity".&nbsp;&nbsp; How do I emprically test anything related to "inflation did it"? &nbsp; What other vector or scalar field found in nature will go through serveral exponential increases in volume with little or no change in density?&nbsp; How far out on the supernatural limb do you expect me to go? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Using inflation in the context of the above quote is really a non-sequitor.</DIV></p><p>"Inflation did it" or "dark energy did it" is not substantially or emprically different from "magic did it". That is a empirical fact.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your 95% is based off of dark matter and dark energy.&nbsp; The falsifiability of both dark matter and dark energy are reliant on actually knowing what they consist of.</DIV></p><p>Normally, emprical science works the other way around.&nbsp; You notice a real thing has an effect on another real thing and you create experiments to dtermine the makeup and effects of one real thing on another.&nbsp; Only in astronomy do you get to hand wave in a new force of nature to explain a pure observation wihtout ever verifying any of the properties of the item being hand waved into the math formula.&nbsp; It's analagous to me noticing a pattern of acceleration between two objects and claiming elves did it, and here is the math to prove it.&nbsp; Math formulas are not a real substitute for emprical science.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can't falsify words.&nbsp; Nobody denies they are gap filler and nobody claims to know they are.</DIV></p><p>A "gap filler" is typically used to plug a small hole in an otherwise stable theory.&nbsp; When the gap filler has to cover 95% of the phonemon being studied, it's no longer "gap filler" at all, it's the primary part of the theory.&nbsp; The gap fillers are now far in excess of the solid emprical science found inside that theory.&nbsp; The theory is not solid or it would only be a few percentage "gap filler" and mostly solid emprical science.&nbsp; They've relegated emprical science to a minor role in Lambda-CDM theory!&nbsp; It's now 95% gap filler and 5% emprical science. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The ideas, however, are logical conclusions based on observational evidence.</DIV></p><p>Logical by who's standards?&nbsp; If I observe distant acceleration, how is it logical to hand wave in "dark energy" to explain that acceleration when dark energy has never been shown to even exist in nature, let alone have any effect on nature?&nbsp; It's like me claiming that may mathematical elf formula is a logical conclusion only because the math fits the observations.&nbsp; How can anyone possibly falisify a theory that is held together with elves and dark energy?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I asked once before how Birkeland's model can relate to the sun and you did not answer.&nbsp; Could you address that point.</DIV></p><p>Birkeland's model involved a powerful external energy source, a metallic surface and a magnetic core.&nbsp; The stratification subsurface acts as the outside sphere in his experiments, the current flow of the univierse acts as his cathode ray, and the rapidly core would create the internal magnetic field found in his experiments, and would allow that field tor rotate over time and would help explain the sun's 22 year magnetic field rotation cycle.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birkeland's model is a metal shell</DIV></p><p>The sun also have a metallic crust.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>with a dynamo </DIV></p><p>I would call it a magnetic field core.&nbsp; It's not really a dynamo per se, although Alfven saw the sun as a "unipolar inductor" in which case it's both.</p><p>http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Unipolar_inductor</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>in it and charged particles&nbsp;are 'shot' at it. </DIV></p><p>The universe shoots charged particles at heliosphere and the sun's plasmas interact with that current flow.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This replicates the earth pretty well but it is not like the sun which is the source of the charged&nbsp;particles, not the receiver.</DIV></p><p>In EU theory, the sun is not the full source of all the currents that flow through the sun, it only interacts with the current flow.&nbsp; It's relatively positively charged photosphere simply electrically interacts with the currents that flow into the heliosphere.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also you seem to be alluding that the rings of Saturn are due to electric forces as opposed to gravity.&nbsp; Is this accurate?&nbsp; I know that Birkeland believed this; just wondering what your take was. <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>I do in fact believe that EM fields help to move particles into ring formations, yes.&nbsp; There may be a gravitational effect as well, but believe that ring currents play a significant and important role in that process, as well as a rule in the formation of planets around a sun. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have not been able to get to a computer to get back to Michael on this question.&nbsp; Thank you for answering in a timely manner.&nbsp; You sumed up the postion much more succenctly than I could.&nbsp; I&nbsp;would not have&nbsp;thought to add that&nbsp; Jupiter and&nbsp;Saturn&nbsp;make up 90% of the&nbsp;mass of the solar system (excluding the sun of course).&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>We've never landed a probe on the surface of these objects however to see what's it's made of.&nbsp; It seems likely to me that larger physical bodies are made of exactly the same building blocks that are arranged in somehat different configurations.&nbsp; The size of the object seems to have a direct influence upon how much current it carries, the strength of it's magnetic field and the physical arrangement as well.&nbsp; IMO that water shell video tells us a lot about the influence of gravity and EM fields on the arrangements of elements of spheres in space.&nbsp; I would not be a bit surprised to find that Saturn and Jupiter are also mostly made of iron, and have a core that is composed of lighter elements.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The universe shoots charged particles at heliosphere and the sun's plasmas interact with that current flow.In EU theory, the sun is not the full source of all the currents that flow through the sun, it only interacts with the current flow.&nbsp;</DIV></p><p>Why according to the EU theory&nbsp;is this flux of charged particles not&nbsp;detectable.&nbsp; We certainly can detect the vast amount of charged particles coming from the sun, but we can detect only miniscule amount of cosmic radiation (from sources other than the sun).&nbsp; I would think that given the differnce in the relative fluxes that the energy radiated from the sun,&nbsp;must be produced by the sun, if not there would be a net loss of energy from the sun.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I do in fact believe that EM fields help to move particles into ring formations, yes.&nbsp; There may be a gravitational effect as well, but believe that ring currents play a significant and important role in that process, as well as a rule in the formation of planets around a sun. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>So you disagree with Birkelands belief that the rings around Saturn are plasma and instead think that they are&nbsp;particles (as you said) more accurately discribed as grains or dust.&nbsp; It is clear that the rings are not plasma nor atoms because they do not radiate light, they only reflect light.&nbsp; This has been shown by probes that have photographed the rings on the 'dark' side of Saturn.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why according to the EU theory&nbsp;is this flux of charged particles not&nbsp;detectable.</DIV></p><p>The flux is certainly "detectable". We can see the current flow in the coronal loops and measure the magnetic field strengths these currents create inside the loops.&nbsp; We can see the affects of this flux in the aurora and in CME events where the whole sun just "errupts" from all sides.&nbsp;&nbsp; If the flux change at the heliosphere is great enough, the sun compensates by spewing lots more protons and charged helium atoms into space.&nbsp;&nbsp; The heavier elements can start flying too during CME events, but gravity tends to make them return to the sun.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We certainly can detect the vast amount of charged particles coming from the sun, but we can detect only miniscule amount of cosmic radiation (from sources other than the sun). </DIV></p><p>The sun is the central conductor of current and current always follows the path of least resistance.&nbsp; It's a focal of point of mass, plasma and current flow.&nbsp;&nbsp; Jupiter also emits a net positive amount of energy as well by the way.&nbsp; I suppose size is the whole issue when we're talking about current flow through planets.&nbsp;&nbsp; We see what Alfvan called "magnetic ropes (current carrying Bennet pinches) in the atmosphere of Venus, and it has lightening storms in it's atmosphere as well.&nbsp;&nbsp; The magnetic field of a planet could itself be related to current flow patterns through the planet.&nbsp; There are any number of different ways we might "detect" this current flow in our solar system and in every solar system.&nbsp;</p><p>What "other sources" were you expecting to see cosmic radiation originating from other than the very greatest current carrying events, or events involving the largest gravity wells, or both?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would think that given the differnce in the relative fluxes that the energy radiated from the sun,&nbsp;must be produced by the sun,</DIV></p><p>If the sun did all the pushing internally then gravity would take over and solar wind particle would decelerate.&nbsp; They do not. The accelerate as the leave the surface of the photosophere and head out toward the heliosheath. How can that possibly be an "internally" driven acceleration process, particularly when we get out to 1AU?&nbsp; What's "pushing" and accelerating heliums atoms at 1AU? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>if not there would be a net loss of energy from the sun.</DIV></p><p>The sun is simply a conductor (an imperfect one) of electrical current.&nbsp; It may also generate it's own small amount of current as it spins inside a large EM field.&nbsp; Even if there is a net energy gain from induction from every sun, the sun is but one generator in galactic sized grid that may iself be externally powered as well.&nbsp;&nbsp; The net energy loss in such a senario would be "momentum", the very thing that seems to be missing in solar system formation theories.&nbsp; Coincidence?&nbsp;&nbsp; I kind of doubt it.&nbsp; In such a scenario, if the rotation of the crust is completely spent and it&nbsp; stops, the whole thing could become unstable and go supernova. &nbsp;</p><p>The notion of "net energy loss" is not really applicable to EU theory.&nbsp; The net energy is a total of all the electron and particle "reconnection" interactions that occur in plasma from the whole region around the sun.&nbsp;&nbsp; The sun simple radiates energy, not unlike the filament in light bulb.&nbsp; The only difference is that the bulb actually contributes to the current flow. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So you disagree with Birkelands belief that the rings around Saturn are plasma and instead think that they are&nbsp;particles (as you said) more accurately discribed as grains or dust. </DIV></p><p>The term "dusty plasma" is the most appropriate term I can think of.&nbsp; Plasma is often composed on only partially ionized particles with lots of non ionized material present.&nbsp; I would say that the EM fields act to herd all the matter to the equatorial plane.&nbsp; The contents of the rings will depend on the materials that are trapped by the process.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is clear that the rings are not plasma nor atoms because they do not radiate light, they only reflect light. </DIV></p><p>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070824130101.htm</p><p>What do you mean they don't radiate light?&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This has been shown by probes that have photographed the rings on the 'dark' side of Saturn.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>You seem to be assuming a lot about the sensitivity of our equipment.&nbsp; How do you know that the equipment is sensitive enough to conclude that "no" emissions are present?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p>

Oh no not, poor Dr. Manuel!&nbsp; This guy is an embarrassment, one of the problems with tenure.Dr. Manuel believes the most common element in the universe is iron.&nbsp; One of his arguments is that preponderance of iron meteorites.&nbsp; He has got a point, I have yet to see hydrogen or helium meteorite in the Smithsonian or anywhere else.&nbsp; Care to address that - I didn't think so!!&nbsp;&nbsp;It can ONLY mean the sun is an iron shell that surrounds a neutron core, that glows due to neon becoming excited by the lightning&nbsp;in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; Oh yeah, and there are volcanoes on the sun too!&nbsp;I think that sums up Michael's clearly thought out position,&nbsp;which of course&nbsp;is not supported by the mainstream Science community and their fancy-shmancy metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.&nbsp; <br />Posted by origin[/QUOTE</p><p>If you are a fan of his you're just gonna love this.</p><p>http://themissouriminer.com/content/view/14/49/</p><p>http://www.ky3.com/home/related/2921926.html</p><p>I infer from the available dates that the trial is set for the coming fall.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The flux is certainly "detectable". We can see the current flow in the coronal loops and measure the magnetic field strengths these currents create inside the loops.</DIV></p><p>Plasma flow in coronal loops has absolutely nothing to do with the question.&nbsp; I shall repeate it for you.&nbsp;&nbsp;Why accoriding the&nbsp;to the EU theory, can't we observe the&nbsp;flux of charged particles streaming from the universe to the sun?&nbsp; To remind you Birkeland's model had a great amount of charged particles flowing to the sphere, as opposed to the charged particles eminating from the&nbsp;sphere which is what we detect with the sun - empirically.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We can see the affects of this flux in the aurora and in CME events where the whole sun just "errupts" from all sides.</DIV></p><p>Once again this has nothing to do with the question.&nbsp; I know that there is a large amount of charged particles coming from the sun, that is easily detectable.&nbsp; Why can't we detect the current going towards the sun?&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The term "dusty plasma" is the most appropriate term I can think of.</DIV></p><p>All evidence indicates that the rings of&nbsp;Saturn are composed mostly&nbsp;of water ice and some dust.&nbsp; What evidence&nbsp;do you have&nbsp;besides your opinion that this is not so.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070824130101.htmWhat do you mean they don't radiate light?&nbsp;</DIV></p><p>This article is not about the rings of Saturn that we see, or that Birkeland was refering to.&nbsp; This is the refering to the 'rings' that develope from the planets magnetic field.&nbsp; Rings that the earth also has.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You seem to be assuming a lot about the sensitivity of our equipment.&nbsp; How do you know that the equipment is sensitive enough to conclude that "no" emissions are present?&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Nice straw man - of course there are some emissions - the rings and planet are not at absolute zero.&nbsp; I said the rings are not plasma because the light we see from them is reflected light not light eminating from them.</p><p><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/13/7e41600f-93df-4c1c-bdd2-d92dba461a62.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><p>Notice the shadow area is dark not what would be expected from plasma.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><strong>"What do you mean they don't radiate light?"&nbsp;</strong></p><p>The rings referred to in that article are 5 times the distance from the particulate ring that make up Saturn's 'icy' rings.&nbsp; They are two unrelated things as far as I can tell.&nbsp; I could be wrong, though.</p><p><strong>"You seem to be assuming a lot about the sensitivity of our equipment.&nbsp; How do you know that the equipment is sensitive enough to conclude that "no" emissions are present?"&nbsp;</strong> </p><p>That's funny.&nbsp; How convenient you can use that argument, but it is unsatisfactory when the same argument is made for dark matter.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[origin]

<p>[/QUOTEIf you are a fan of his you're just gonna love this.http://themissouriminer.com/content/view/14/49/http://www.ky3.com/home/related/2921926.htmlI infer from the available dates that the trial is set for the coming fall. <br />Posted by DrRocket[/QUOTE]</p><p>He raped his kids - yuck!&nbsp; If the allegations are true I hope they toast the jerk.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you are a fan of his you're just gonna love this.http://themissouriminer.com/content/view/14/49/http://www.ky3.com/home/related/2921926.htmlI infer from the available dates that the trial is set for the coming fall. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>While my opinions of the man, in light of this information, might mirror those of the rest of society, I'm not sure it's fair to judge the quality (or lack thereof) of the body of work based on his character (or lack thereof).</p><p>It's a rather subtle ad hominem.</p><p>With that said, what a punk!!! (if the allegations are true, of course).&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh no not, poor Dr. Manuel!&nbsp; This guy is an embarrassment, one of the problems with tenure.Dr. Manuel believes the most common element in the universe is iron.&nbsp; One of his arguments is that preponderance of iron meteorites.&nbsp; He has got a point, I have yet to see hydrogen or helium meteorite in the Smithsonian or anywhere else.&nbsp; Care to address that - I didn't think so!!&nbsp;&nbsp;It can ONLY mean the sun is an iron shell that surrounds a neutron core, that glows due to neon becoming excited by the lightning&nbsp;in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; Oh yeah, and there are volcanoes on the sun too!&nbsp;I think that sums up Michael's clearly thought out position,&nbsp;which of course&nbsp;is not supported by the mainstream Science community and their fancy-shmancy metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.&nbsp; Posted by origin[/QUOTEIf you are a fan of his you're just gonna love this.http://themissouriminer.com/content/view/14/49/http://www.ky3.com/home/related/2921926.htmlI infer from the available dates that the trial is set for the coming fall. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Let us remember that this conversation is about scientific ideas, not individuals.&nbsp; I cannot and will not defend another individual's personal choices in life, but I will be more than happy to defend the scientific methods and the scientific data&nbsp; and the scientific papers that I have been involved with and have published over the past several years. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While my opinions of the man, in light of this information, might mirror those of the rest of society, I'm not sure it's fair to judge the quality (or lack thereof) of the body of work based on his character (or lack thereof).It's a rather subtle ad hominem.With that said, what a punk!!! (if the allegations are true, of course).&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I couldn't agree more.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"What do you mean they don't radiate light?"&nbsp;The rings referred to in that article are 5 times the distance from the particulate ring that make up Saturn's 'icy' rings.&nbsp; They are two unrelated things as far as I can tell.&nbsp; I could be wrong, though.</DIV></p><p>How might we find out if they are related?&nbsp; I really am open to suggestions by the way.&nbsp; I would presume that the rings themselves are mostly dust particles, but their locations along such a thin zone around the equatorial plane probably does have something to with the EM fields.&nbsp; I can't believe that Birkeland's rings and rings around planets are pure coincidence.&nbsp; There are ring currents around the planet too.&nbsp; How can we tell if these things are related or unrelated to one another? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"You seem to be assuming a lot about the sensitivity of our equipment.&nbsp; How do you know that the equipment is sensitive enough to conclude that "no" emissions are present?"&nbsp; That's funny.&nbsp; How convenient you can use that argument, but it is unsatisfactory when the same argument is made for dark matter.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I can demonstrate that light exists in nature.&nbsp; I can't tell you if every piece of scientific equipment can see every wavelength in "perfect" resolution.&nbsp; His claim that *no* emmisions occur from these rings seems pretty suspect, unless of course we've looked at it in lots of various wavelengths and studied it up close and personal with in-situ measurements.&nbsp; I'm inclined to agree that the rings themselves do not emit "much" light, but I would not claim they have "no" light at all.&nbsp; It's more&nbsp; question about his absolute statements, not a question about whether or not light exists in nature. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Plasma flow in coronal loops has absolutely nothing to do with the question.</DIV></p><p>Sure it does.&nbsp; It's the most obvious example of these current flows inside our solar system. The discharges in the atmospheres of objects in space is a direct result of the current that flows through the solar system.&nbsp;&nbsp; These currents are relatively spread out and small at distance of the heliosphere, yet they become focused and form powerful discharge currents in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; It has everything to do with it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I shall repeate it for you.&nbsp;&nbsp;Why accoriding the&nbsp;to the EU theory, can't we observe the&nbsp;flux of charged particles streaming from the universe to the sun?&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>We do. Type in solar tadpole into Google. You'll find plenty of examples of inbound flow, not just outbound flow.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To remind you Birkeland's model had a great amount of charged particles flowing to the sphere,</DIV></p><p>In the form of electrons, yes, but not protons and helium ions.&nbsp; The flow inbound was completely negatively charged.</p><p>The solar wind is mostly composed out outbound flows of protons and helium ions, whereas the inbound flow is mostly in the form of electrons.&nbsp; The other obvious sign of a charge separation process between the photosphere and heliosphere is the fact that the solar wind is accerlating rather than decelerating.&nbsp; The affect of these current flows has a direct impact on solar wind and the movement patterns of the solar wind.&nbsp;&nbsp; You'll will note that Alfven used his theory about unipolar inductors to "predict" that we would discover faster wind speeds at the poles than near the equator. &nbsp; That wasn't confirmed by Ulysses until after his death.&nbsp; </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Notice the shadow area is dark not what would be expected from plasma. <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>I already agree with you that the icy material in the rings is more than "just" plasma.&nbsp;&nbsp; Most cosmic plasma is in fact referred to as "dusty plasma".&nbsp; Only in the sun's atmosphere would you expect to see "mostly plasma", but even the photosphere contains some non ionized material.</p><p>My only concern is whether or not the rings release *any* light on *any* wavelength.&nbsp; I would think that unlikely just due to it's interaction with solar wind particles and it's interactions with solar photons.&nbsp; They may not release much light in the visible spectrum, but I've never studied them well enough to claim they emit no light at all. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Once again this has nothing to do with the question.</DIV></p><p>I'd like to address this point separately.&nbsp; CME events are sometimes not always "unidirectional", in fact they often blow from both sides (many sides) of the sun at the same time.&nbsp; The driving force of that kind of explosive event a flux of electrons into the heliosphere.&nbsp; You can't simply ignore the important observational clues that show us the effects of electrical flow on the solar system and expect to get a complete and accurate answer.&nbsp; You're complaing that we don't see a flow of electrons, but we do see flows in both directions.&nbsp;</p><p>http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/121707electricsun.htm</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071001_comet_surprises.html&nbsp;</p><p>Check out this article origin...&nbsp;</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Solar wind particles outside the comet tail zipped through space at about 435 miles per second (700 kilometers per second), but slowed to 249 miles per second (400 kilometers per second) inside.</p><p><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial"> <p>The study, detailed in the Oct. 1 issue of <em> Astrophysical Journal</em>, also found the <u>comet</u> tail acted as a source of electrons for the solar wind.&nbsp;</p> <p>The solar wind consists of charged atoms that are missing most of their electrons, but Ulysses found that solar wind particles passing through the comet's atmosphere could regain some of those electrons. The particles exhibit a different charge when they do this, which SWICS can detect.</DIV></p><p>The solar wind slowed down in the tail because it picked up electrons in the tail of the comet.&nbsp; This demonstrates that the charge of the solar wind (+) is definitely related to the speed of the wind, and that the outer areas of the solar system (tail) are more negatively charged than the inner parts.&nbsp; There's your evidence of inbound electron flow.&nbsp;</p></font></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While my opinions of the man, in light of this information, might mirror those of the rest of society, I'm not sure it's fair to judge the quality (or lack thereof) of the body of work based on his character (or lack thereof).It's a rather subtle ad hominem.With that said, what a punk!!! (if the allegations are true, of course).&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Goes to the frame of mind and credibility of the witness, your Honor.</p><p>Not conclusive in and of itself.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><strong>"How might we find out if they are related?&nbsp; I really am open to suggestions by the way.&nbsp; I would presume that the rings themselves are mostly dust particles, but their locations along such a thin zone around the equatorial plane probably does have something to with the EM fields.&nbsp; I can't believe that Birkeland's rings and rings around planets are pure coincidence.&nbsp; There are ring currents around the planet too.&nbsp; How can we tell if these things are related or unrelated to one another?</strong><strong>."</strong>&nbsp; </p><p>While I don't really understand the process as well as I should to make an educated guess, I would suggest that Uranus' and Neptune's rings are along their repsective equatorial axis, however their magnetic fields are inclined 59 and 49 degrees to their spin axis, respectively.&nbsp; This leads me to believe that Saturn's rings are not due to Birkeland Currents, or, at least, the effect of the currents is not a major player.&nbsp; I, certainly, don't deny Birkeland Currents are associated with planetary ring current, but I question their association with dust/debris (whatever you prefer to refer to them as) rings around the gas giants. </p><p><strong>"I can demonstrate that light exists in nature.&nbsp; I can't tell you if every piece of scientific equipment can see every wavelength in "perfect" resolution.&nbsp; His claim that *no* emmisions occur from these rings seems pretty suspect, unless of course we've looked at it in lots of various wavelengths and studied it up close and personal with in-situ measurements.&nbsp; I'm inclined to agree that the rings themselves do not emit "much" light, but I would not claim they have "no" light at all.&nbsp; It's more&nbsp; question about his absolute statements, not a question about whether or not light exists in nature." </strong></p><p>I was just making the comparison between your absolute statement that dark matter does not exist.&nbsp; I can make the claim that it is nothing more than matter that can not be currently detected with the present equipment available.&nbsp; You seem to resent this logic until someone makes an absolute statement against your ideas.&nbsp; You then invoke the same logic on the sensitivity of equipment. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Goes to the frame of mind and credibility of the witness, your Honor.Not conclusive in and of itself.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>This is true in a court room when all you have are their 'words'.&nbsp; In Manuel's case, you can easily refute the data he presents without relying on the allegedly filthy nature of his character. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>