Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

ETA: My characterisation "dishonest" is inappropriate; apologies.

There is abundant, objective, empirical evidence that is consistent with the hypothesis that MM understands neither the physics of, nor the mathematics that forms the foundation of, standard models of the Sun, helioseismology, Doppler imagery, etc, etc, etc (and no objective, empirical evidence to the contrary).

Therefore MM's comments on such topics cannot be called 'dishonest'.

A more appropriate characterisation would be "reflects gross ignorance", with a footnote to the effect that the gross ignorance seems to be wilful (MM seems to be well aware of his gross ignorance, is proud of it, and has no intention or desire to do anything about it).

Whatever "gross ignorance" I might be guilty of, it is due to the fact that not a single one of you actually addresses the physical evidence I have presented, Birkeland's work, Alfven's work, or Bruce's work. All you do is attack the individual. It seems to be your one and only rather pitiful self defense mechanism. Your core beliefs are based upon blind faith in metaphysical things you cannot ever hope to demonstrate here on Earth. You will forever hold on to your "religion" due to pure fear, fear of being "wrong".

If you have any real "science" to offer me DRD, do so. Just explain the rigid features of those two images. The RD and Doppler images both show the rigid features of that "stratification subsurface" which your theories never predicted. Not one standard solar theory ever mentioned a "stratification subsurface" prior to their paper.

 

[Michael Mozina]

NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (Bullet Cluster)

Before I rip this paper to shreds, which of you actually believes they found "direct proof" of "dark matter" (as opposed to say "indirect evidence of missing mass")?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Here's what I said earlier:

And the (astrophysical, cosmological) theories of Birkeland, Alfvén, Bruce, and Peratt (and others) have been subject to empirical tests (i.e. are they consistent with multiple, independently obtained *quantitative* observations?), ... and they have failed all such tests.

(I added bold MM, so that you won't miss it this time).

Whatever "gross ignorance" I might be guilty of, it is due to the fact that not a single one of you actually addresses the physical evidence I have presented, Birkeland's work, Alfven's work, or Bruce's work. All you do is attack the individual.

[...]

(bold added)

Now that is not gross ignorance, but blatant dishonesty.

Quite a lot of time and effort went into the dozens (hundreds?) of posts which demonstrated, by direct reference to Birkeland's own works (which you kindly provided, remember?), that his models failed, and failed badly, when subject to astronomical tests^. You even acknowledged this, remember?

I do not recall you presenting "Bruce's work", and a quick check failed to turn up anything. However, I could well be wrong ... if you'd be so kind as to give a link (or links) to the posts in this forum where you presented "Bruce's work", I'd be happy to check it out and, if appropriate, retract my comments in regard of this.

^to give just one example: no astronomical image that I know of shows Saturn's rings with a thick, bright bar orthogonal to the rings, a bar of length ~half a Saturn radius (this is what can be seen in the relevant photo in Birkeland's document).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Before I rip this paper to shreds, which of you actually believes they found "direct proof" of "dark matter" (as opposed to say "indirect evidence of missing mass")?

Please don't.

This thread is about "Electric universe theories".

If you have a reference to a paper, or papers, which explains the Bullet Cluster observations within the framework of any electric universe theory (or theories), please, by all means, post it here.

Of course, as I'm sure you'll be the first to agree, 'explains' means quantitatively explain, so please don't waste your and readers' time by posting things that do not provide a quantitative explanation (or explanations).

 

[GeeMack]

You're a scared little child because you won't even address the actual images and data that lead to that website. You can't and won't address the actual "science" related to that website, starting with that RD and Doppler image. You'll run because you are afraid and incapable of offering a "better" explanation. You don't have a Birkeland type set of "controlled" experiments showing the merit of any of your core beliefs. I do.

Your wacky solid surface of the Sun delusion is off topic. You should start another thread about it where you can have your ass handed to you on a plate like you have so many times in the past.

 

[GeeMack]

Of course, as I'm sure you'll be the first to agree, 'explains' means quantitatively explain, so please don't waste your and readers' time by posting things that do not provide a quantitative explanation (or explanations).

Oh, puh-leeze! Quantitatively? That's like speaking in a foreign language to Michael. He's said it himself too many times. He don't need no stinking quantitative. He's got pretty pictures and a $19.95 Wal-Mart plasma ball!

 

[Tubbythin]

Before I rip this paper to shreds, which of you actually believes they found "direct proof" of "dark matter" (as opposed to say "indirect evidence of missing mass")?

In the same way that you ripped the Guth Paper to shreds?... by trying to use the ideal gas equation to describe the Casimir effect. This could be fun.

 

[Tubbythin]

This is intellectually *DISHONEST* behavior from beginning to end. You can't actually produce a single gram of "dark matter", but it's my fault I don't believe in the stuff?

We can't produce a gram of anti-protons either. Do they exist?

You literally "make up" dark energy out of thin air, and I'm a "crank"?

Er no. That's a lie. You've been told this many times. The concept of dark energy comes from the empiriccal observation that expansion of the Universe is accelerating.

You guys dreamed up "inflation", a literally "supernatural" form of energy, and I'm a crackpot for preferring empirical physics over metaphysical myth making?

Please define supernatural. Then prove how inflation is supernatural.

"Empirical" things show up in *CONTROLLED* experiments.

How is an astronomical observation so much less controlled than say an observation at a particle collider? I'm assuming you're okay with particle physics though this is a pretty risky assumption for someone who is unhappy with negative pressures and energies.

Your mythos is not "science" it is "religion"

You clearly have no understanding of either of those words you put in speech marks then.

that requires leaps of faith in at least three different forms of magic.

No magic involved I'm afraid.

You require faith in magic inflation, faith in magic energy and faith in magic matter. Other than that, sure it is almost actually like "pure science".

Nope. We have very strong, quantitative evidence for all three.

How do you know there there are no electromagnetic influences related to the placement of the material in these rings again?

The motions of the rings are Keplerian. Some of the fine structure may involve EM.

That "crackpot" claim sounds just plain stupid and ironic coming from a guy who believes in three forms of metaphysical BS.

You see Michael, the problem is you wave these insults around and then time and time again demonstrate that you haven't even the faintest idea what you're insulting. The LCDM theory thread provided abundant evidence of this. You didn't even understand fairly basic concepts like pressure, energy or high school physics like Newtonian gravity. Why would anybody possibly take your comments seriously given these huge and completely evident flaws in your understanding of physics.

The part where gravity is *ATTRACTIVE* and not repulsive for one. How about demonstrating that repulsion trick you guys do with Lambda-Gumby theory in a lab in a controlled experiment? Oh ya, you can't. You made up that one.

Please demonstrate a neutron star in a lab controlled experiment. Oh ya, you can't. You made up that one.

How about just demonstrating gravity actually does repulsive tricks? You keep stuffing GR theory with repulsive magical entities. What's that about?

Nobody is mentioning magic except you. Please stop with the lies.

Obviously you don't comprehend what a *CONTROL MECHANISM* actually is. You can't "control" galaxies.

How well do you think you can controll what comes out of bashing a proton and an anti-proton together? You can't. You can control where the collisions take place and what energy they're at. The rest is about designing appropriate detectors and picking the interesting stuff out from the data using knowledge of physics. Its much the same with astronomy.

All you've demonstrated is that you can't explain rotation curves with GR and the matter you can identify. At worst case you found "missing mass", not some new exotic form of "dark matter". Sheesh, you guys are pitiful.

This is brilliant. We have't got "dark matter". We've got matter that's missing because we can't see it. Ie it doesn't radiate. Ie its matter that is dark. ie we don't have "dark matter" (that would be ridiculous) what we actually have is dark matter.

Your models are also "fatally flawed", which is why you are forced to stuff them with 96 percent metaphysics, and only 4% actual physics.

Erm. Except all we're really using is empirical observation plus the empirically tested theory of general relativity. Gonna debunk GR now?

*PLEASE* don't even thing about lecturing an EU proponent about "fatal flaws". Dark energy was was only the last made up thing you stuffed into your otherwise dead and falsified theory. You wouldn't know a fatal flaw if it hit you in the head.

So I suppose you'll be collecting that Nobel prize for your falsification of GR in the next few years then?

How about a test for you? How about you or anyone else on this forum actually show your "expertise" and *explain* the first LMSAL RD image and Kosovichev's Doppler (tsunami) image on my website? You won't do it. You'll run like hell from the real "science" because it scares the hell out of you and you can't explain those images with your useless theories.

Do you have a rigourous, quantitative explanation?

 

[Tubbythin]

What can we actually "test" about mainstream theory? Got a gram of dark matter? Got a example of a controlled experiment where "dark energy" or "inflation" actually had a tangible effect on something in a real experimental setting? There's nothing to "test" in mainstream theory. We could label "dark energy", "magic faerie" energy, slap on your same math formulas and viola, we have a "test" for magic faeries. Get real.

This is an excellent illustration, Michael, that you haven't even the slightest idea what science is. You could call dark energy "Qwertyuiop theory" if you wanted. It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to the theory. You see, science is all about quantitative measurement. And comparison of that quantitative measurement to a quantitative theory. We then use the level of agreement between quantitative measurement and quantitative theory to judge how well the theory matches the measurement. Now since making a new name for an old theory has absolutely no effect on the quantitative predictions made by the theory, the name is completely totally and utterly irrelevant.
Now, you've had a number of links given to quantitative aspects of such things as dark matter (or Qwertyuiop theory if you prefer). Perhaps you could try tackling them from a quantitative basis. Rather than just trying to change the names of the theory and pretending that somehow makes a difference.
Not that making up alternative names for things can't be useful in some fields of work. You could be the next JRR Tolkein for example. He was really good at making silly names up. Why don't you try that? You seem much more adept at creative writing than quantitative analysis.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here's what I said earlier:

(I added bold MM, so that you won't miss it this time).

(bold added)

Now that is not gross ignorance, but blatant dishonesty.

This coming for the person that has slit my throat twice online. You have some nerve. You're the single most "dishonest" individual I've met in cyberpsace dear. Most religious websites aren't as violent as you folks.

Quite a lot of time and effort went into the dozens (hundreds?) of posts which demonstrated, by direct reference to Birkeland's own works (which you kindly provided, remember?), that his models failed, and failed badly, when subject to astronomical tests^. You even acknowledged this, remember?

Which *tests* are you referring to, because I don't recall it actually "failing" anything. His proposal for rings was not completely accurate, but the placement of material in rings is associated with the same processes he simulated in the lab. Which things did it "fail" in your opinion?

I do not recall you presenting "Bruce's work", and a quick check failed to turn up anything.

This demonstrates conclusively that you have not read my website and you are ignorant of important work in this field.

However, I could well be wrong ...

You are....as usual.

if you'd be so kind as to give a link (or links) to the posts in this forum where you presented "Bruce's work", I'd be happy to check it out and, if appropriate, retract my comments in regard of this.

You'll find links to his work here:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

Here's a useful paper you've never even responded to:
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm

^to give just one example: no astronomical image that I know of shows Saturn's rings with a thick, bright bar orthogonal to the rings, a bar of length ~half a Saturn radius (this is what can be seen in the relevant photo in Birkeland's document).

I'm willing to concede that there are differences between his "rings" and the rings on Saturn. This however is not a "disproof" of his concepts or his work. The very placement of material is most likely related to the EM currents he was proposing. Again, this one issue does not in any way negate any of the rest of his work in any way. If that is best you've got when you dismiss his life's work, that is utterly pitiful.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your wacky solid surface of the Sun delusion is off topic. You should start another thread about it where you can have your ass handed to you on a plate like you have so many times in the past.

It is not off topic since Birkeland first proposed this solar model and doesn't work outside of an EU context.

When oh when did you folk intend to offer "better" scientific explanations for the RD and Doppler images? Did you intend to hide from these images forever?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Please don't.

Please stop avoiding my direct question. Do you believe they actually found "direct proof" of "dark matter" as opposed to say "indirect evidence of missing mass"? This issue leads to the credibility of your personal belief systems. There is no "direct proof" found in that paper, and it only suggests that you grossly underestimate the mass of a galaxy, it demonstrates *NOTHING* related to "dark matter", just "missing and unaccounted for mass".

This thread is about "Electric universe theories".

That RD and Doppler image are the basis of my "EU" oriented solar theories. Do you have a "better" scientific explanation for these two images, yes or no? Stop avoiding my questions.

 

[GeeMack]

It is not off topic since Birkeland first proposed this solar model and doesn't work outside of an EU context.

When oh when did you folk intend to offer "better" scientific explanations for the RD and Doppler images? Did you intend to hide from these images forever?

It's been done to death. But really, your solid surface of the Sun stupidity belongs in its own thread.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

Quite a lot of time and effort went into the dozens (hundreds?) of posts which demonstrated, by direct reference to Birkeland's own works (which you kindly provided, remember?), that his models failed, and failed badly, when subject to astronomical tests^. You even acknowledged this, remember?

Which *tests* are you referring to, because I don't recall it actually "failing" anything. His proposal for rings was not completely accurate, but the placement of material in rings is associated with the same processes he simulated in the lab. Which things did it "fail" in your opinion?

Way to go MM, way to go!

Later in the very same post you contradict yourself!

I'm willing to concede that there are differences between his "rings" and the rings on Saturn.

Or, in plain English (let alone the criteria used in astronomy), he failed (his model is inconsistent with astronomical observations).

We can go further.

In Birkeland's model, Saturn's rings are self-luminous in the visual waveband.

Yet they are not.

So, his model failed.

We discussed plenty of other failures in the thread you yourself started MM, and in which you had ample opportunity to provide detailed, quantitative explanations which showed the consistency between Birkeland's actually published work and subsequent astronomical observations. You failed to do so, and so, by your own standards, Birkeland's ideas did too.

An example.

In Birkeland's own writings, he proposes that the Sun emits relativistic electrons (using today's terms; the solar wind is composed of relativistic electrons). His published work includes pages and pages on the derivation of this idea (quantitatively, using equations etc), backed up by pages and pages of reports of his terrella experiments.

However, as has been known for many decades now, the solar wind does not consist of relativistic electrons.

Ergo, Birkeland's idea/model has failed, in the sense that it is inconsistent with objective, independently verified observations.

(there's more of course; interested readers are referred to the long thread in which this is discussed)

I do not recall you presenting "Bruce's work", and a quick check failed to turn up anything.

This demonstrates conclusively that you have not read my website and you are ignorant of important work in this field.

Thanks.

I must say that I did not expect you to be so blatant and forthright in admitting that you lied.

Here's what I wrote, in full:

I do not recall you presenting "Bruce's work", and a quick check failed to turn up anything. However, I could well be wrong ... if you'd be so kind as to give a link (or links) to the posts in this forum where you presented "Bruce's work", I'd be happy to check it out and, if appropriate, retract my comments in regard of this.

(bold added)

Perhaps you wrote in haste?

Perhaps you did actually present "Bruce's work" in this forum?

[...]

I'm willing to concede that there are differences between his "rings" and the rings on Saturn. This however is not a "disproof" of his concepts or his work. The very placement of material is most likely related to the EM currents he was proposing. Again, this one issue does not in any way negate any of the rest of his work in any way. If that is best you've got when you dismiss his life's work, that is utterly pitiful.

(bold added)

Ah ha, a keen student of Gish are we MM? Though still, perhaps, learning to gallop.

Again, what I wrote is (bold added so you won't miss it, again):

And the (astrophysical, cosmological) theories of Birkeland, Alfvén, Bruce, and Peratt (and others) have been subject to empirical tests (i.e. are they consistent with multiple, independently obtained *quantitative* observations?), ... and they have failed all such tests.

Now the only theories Birkeland proposed that could, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered cosmological were his ideas on the nature of galaxies ('spiral nebulae' is the term he used, IIRC).

We can go through those ideas (again) if you like, and you will be shown (again) that they are inconsistent with subsequent astronomical observations ...

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is an excellent illustration, Michael, that you haven't even the slightest idea what science is. You could call dark energy "Qwertyuiop theory" if you wanted. It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to the theory.

Then you have a big problem because you can't distinguish between "magic garbage" and "dark energy". Neither one of them shows up in an empirical test and you can slap the same exact math to either label.

You see, science is all about quantitative measurement.

Nope. It also has a "qualitative requirement" that you seem to completely ignore. Math related to invisible elves is irrelevant without some evidence that such things actually exist in nature, no matter how many times you point at the sky and claim: "Invisible elves did it, here's the math".

And comparison of that quantitative measurement to a quantitative theory.

You forgot to *QUALIFY* your theory first! You can't even directly "measure" anything by way, you *ASSUME* measurements from a host of *ASSUMPTIONS* that are themselves highly subjective.

We then use the level of agreement between quantitative measurement and quantitative theory to judge how well the theory matches the measurement.

This would be great if you did it the way Birkeland did it, and used real control mechanisms and real scientific experiments to test your ideas in a QUALIFICATION sort of way. Since you can't even tell me where "dark energy" comes from, how would you even create a "control mechanism" for it? You can't. You therefore can't distinguish between "magic energy" and "dark energy" because the math could be applied to *ANYTHING*, including magic elves.

Now since making a new name for an old theory has absolutely no effect on the quantitative predictions made by the theory, the name is completely totally and utterly irrelevant.

Then you don't mind if I call you theory "Magic Lambda-religion theory" do you? You can slap math to all the invisible forces you like, but you can't demonstrate any of them actually exist in nature. It's therefore pointless to point at the sky and just make stuff up.

Now, you've had a number of links given to quantitative aspects of such things as dark matter

All you can demonstrate with these references is that you grossly *and I mean grossly* underestimate the mass of a galaxy. You can't demonstrate any of this is related to any form of exotic "dark matter". All you can demonstrate is the failure of your own galaxy mass estimates this way, nothing more. The only way you could hope to demonstrate SUSY particles in a lab, but alas they don't show up in a lab, nor does "Dark energy" or "inflation faeries" or any of the stuff you guys put faith in.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

It is not off topic since Birkeland first proposed this solar model and doesn't work outside of an EU context.

When oh when did you folk intend to offer "better" scientific explanations for the RD and Doppler images? Did you intend to hide from these images forever?

That RD and Doppler image are the basis of my "EU" oriented solar theories. Do you have a "better" scientific explanation for these two images, yes or no? Stop avoiding my questions.

Gish would be proud MM, truly proud ...

I wasn't aware that you had any (scientific) theories, MM.

May I ask if any of your theories makes use of the term 'pressure'? or 'energy'? If so, how, in those theories, are these terms defined?

And may I ask why you characterise your so-called theories as 'Electric Universe'? Did you receive special permission from the EU cult leaders?

Oh, and do you account for the data presented in those images (they are, after all, data), quantitatively, by application of your theory? In a manner that anyone can independently and objectively verify?

You see, I checked the references you've cited, and can find no mention whatsoever of any quantitative analyses which show consistency with your so-called theory. For starters, I can find no way to even begin to model the Sun's surface (let alone subsurface), quantitatively, from anything you've written ...

 

[Michael Mozina]

Way to go MM, way to go!

Later in the very same post you contradict yourself!

Or, in plain English (let alone the criteria used in astronomy), he failed (his model is inconsistent with astronomical observations).

We can go further.

Your notion of a "failure" seems to ignore the possibility of a "partially correct" answer. Why? You can't write off his whole work over one missed "prediction".

In Birkeland's model, Saturn's rings are self-luminous in the visual waveband.

Define "self luminous". There was nothing "Self luminous" about his rings. The rings emitted visible light due to the electrical currents in them. Today we know they don't emit as much visible light as they emit other wavelengths. So what?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070824130101.htm

So, his model failed.

No. His *ring model* was "somewhat incorrect". You again fail to acknowledge that rings *DO EMIT LIGHT*, just not in the *VISIBLE* wavelengths per se.

We discussed plenty of other failures in the thread you yourself started MM, and in which you had ample opportunity to provide detailed, quantitative explanations which showed the consistency between Birkeland's actually published work and subsequent astronomical observations. You failed to do so, and so, by your own standards, Birkeland's ideas did too.

Bull.

In Birkeland's own writings, he proposes that the Sun emits relativistic electrons (using today's terms; the solar wind is composed of relativistic electrons). His published work includes pages and pages on the derivation of this idea (quantitatively, using equations etc), backed up by pages and pages of reports of his terrella experiments.

What he proposes is that the sun acts as a cathode compared to interstellar space.

However, as has been known for many decades now, the solar wind does not consist of relativistic electrons.

The solar wind most certainly does contain electrons DRD, and protons and other charged particles exactly AS HE *PREDICTED* 100 YEARS AGO. The notion of "relativistic electrons" is simply "spin" on your part. They were "real electrons" in his experiments.

Ergo, Birkeland's idea/model has failed, in the sense that it is inconsistent with objective, independently verified observations.

But it is not completely inconsistent with with verified observation. We note that rings emit light at other wavelengths, not necessarily at the visible spectrum, but the *cause* is exactly the same, it's simply a question of *WHICH WAVELENGTHS* we observe.

I must say that I did not expect you to be so blatant and forthright in admitting that you lied.

You are the single most unethical debater I have ever met.

Perhaps you did actually present "Bruce's work" in this forum?
(bold added)

I have presented his work on my website and have for 3 or 4 years now. Did you ever bother to read it in all that time?

Now the only theories Birkeland proposed that could, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered cosmological were his ideas on the nature of galaxies ('spiral nebulae' is the term he used, IIRC).

Nice how you attempt to exclude solar system functions from the rest of the cosmos. I hate to break it to you, but the same things that apply here in this solar system also apply elsewhere in the galaxy and have an effect on the rest of the galaxy and the rest of the universe. Since you folks can't even explain solar wind, you don't have a single clue about how "cosmology" works even at the local level, let alone at larger scales.

What I'd like to see you or anyone else here do is "explain" that RD and Doppler image using standard solar theory. Which standard solar theory predicted the existed of a rigid stratification subsurface? What are those rigid features in those images DRD? You can run from the real data or but you can't hide. Birkeland *PREDICTED* there to be a "surface" located at a shallow depth under the photosphere. Your model does not. Heliosiesmology demonstrates there is one and Birkeland was correct. You're ignoring his whole solar model. Why? Because he was right, and you can't explain those images, that's why.

I know Birkeland was right now because in 4 years, not one of you has been man or woman enough to stand up to the plate and explain these solar images in a "better" scientific way using a standard solar model. You can belittle Birkeland's work all you like, but he didn't have a "religion", he created a "working model", something you folks have *NEVER* done and never could hope to do. More importantly he "predicted" key observations that your model does not, including fast solar wind, high energy coronal loops, high speed plasma jets, and a host of other observations that we have seen in solar satellite images. His model was correct and correctly predicts key satellite based heliosiesmology data. Your model does not. Not one single standard solar model "predicts' those rigid features we see in the heliosiesmology images and data sets and none of you can explain these features using a standard solar model. You're dishonest in your approach too because you will *NOT* address the images, instead you attack the credibility of the messenger. That is a sure sign that your beliefs are not "scientific", they are based upon emotion, specifically fear.

 

[Ziggurat]

Define "self luminous". There was nothing "Self luminous" about his rings.

If you don't know what self-luminous means, then how can you conclude that his rings weren't? And they were self-luminous: the light was emitted by the rings, as opposed to reflected from some other source.

No. His *ring model* was "somewhat incorrect".

No, it was totally incorrect. There's a reason Saturn's rings follow Keplerian orbits.

What he proposes is that the sun acts as a cathode compared to interstellar space.

It doesn't.

The solar wind most certainly does contain electrons DRD, and protons and other charged particles exactly AS HE *PREDICTED* 100 YEARS AGO. The notion of "relativistic electrons" is simply "spin" on your part. They were "real electrons" in his experiments.

Do you know what "relativistic" even means in this context? No, you do not. The fact that those electrons are not relativistic demonstrates that the mechanism which expels them from the sun is not the same as what Birkeland proposed, since their relativistic speeds was a central prediction of his model. Furthermore, if the sun was acting as a cathode, then any proton flow should be in the opposite direction of the electron flow. But that's not what's happening.

But it is not completely inconsistent with with verified observation.

It is inconsistent. Your "completely" qualifier is irrelevant.

We note that rings emit light at other wavelengths, not necessarily at the visible spectrum, but the *cause* is exactly the same, it's simply a question of *WHICH WAVELENGTHS* we observe.

No, it is not. If it were the same mechanism, we would get visible light as well.

Nice how you attempt to exclude solar system functions from the rest of the cosmos. I hate to break it to you, but the same things that apply here in this solar system also apply elsewhere in the galaxy and have an effect on the rest of the galaxy and the rest of the universe. Since you folks can't even explain solar wind, you don't have a single clue about how "cosmology" works even at the local level, let alone at larger scales.

Yeah, um... no. The solar winds are a negligible mass fraction of the solar system. Gravity rather obviously dominates the motion of almost all the mass of the solar system. By your own standard, then, we should expect gravity to dominate the motion of the majority of mass in the rest of the universe, and hence cosmology.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Gish would be proud MM, truly proud ...

And who would be proud of you and the way you avoid direct evidence and satellite images, and heliosiesmology data, etc?

I wasn't aware that you had any (scientific) theories, MM.

I wasn't aware you were so petty of a person either, but I'm learning. These were never "my" ideas, they came directly from Birkeland and his work. I'm just the messenger, 100 years after the fact.

May I ask if any of your theories makes use of the term 'pressure'?

Sure you can ask, it' doesn't mean I'll answer. That is a red herring whereas the images you are avoiding and the heliosiesmology data you are avoiding are directly related to this theory.

And may I ask why you characterise your so-called theories as 'Electric Universe'? Did you receive special permission from the EU cult leaders?

Cults require "faith" in things that don't show up in a lab. I don't know of any EU cults because electricity isn't shy around a lab. Your beliefs on the other hand are very "cult like" indeed. They require "absolute faith" in things that can never be empirically demonstrated in controlled experiments. In fact it requires faith in a *DEAD* entity that based on the beloved dogma doesn't even exist anymore! You have faith in things that *DO NOT EVEN STILL EXIST IN NATURE*.

Care to address the images, yes or no? Man(woman) or mouse?

 

[Michael Mozina]

If you don't know what self-luminous means, then how can you conclude that his rings weren't? And they were self-luminous: the light was emitted by the rings, as opposed to reflected from some other source.

Indeed light is emitted from these rings, just not visible light. The emission however is related to "current flow", not the particles themselves. They are not "self luminous" anymore than a florescent bulb is "Self luminous" in the absence of electricity.

It's getting busy at work. I'll deal with the rest of your post as I get time. You will however note that nothing "self luminates" in Birkeland's work. It's all driven by electrical currents.