Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Michael Mozina]

Where did you get this idea of a current that flows across the universe?

How about the same place you get the notion of "dark energy" flowing across the universe?

There is no source for the currents.

PURE BS! Every sun we know of spews charged particles out at over a million miles an hour. Moving charged particles are also known as "current flow"! There are literally hundreds of billions of sources for current flow in every single one of those hundreds of billions of galaxies we see.

They should be easy to detect.

They are. They manifest as lightning here on Earth, and they heat plasma to a million degrees in the solar atmosphere. Those JETS you keep talking about around black holes are also "current flows". You're just blind.

They are unstable.

Hence CME's.

 

[Reality Check]

How about the same place you get the notion of "dark energy" flowing across the universe?

We get the idea of dark energy existing everywhere in the universe (not flowing) from the evidence for dark energy. Since you are ignorant of what dark energy is:

In physical cosmology, astronomy and celestial mechanics, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most popular way to explain recent observations and experiments that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 74% of the total mass-energy of the universe.[2]

(emphasis added)

PURE BS! Every sun we know of spews charged particles out at over a million miles an hour. Moving charged particles are also known as "current flow"! There are literally hundreds of billions of sources for current flow in every single one of those hundreds of billions of galaxies we see.

PURE BS!
The subject is the galactic sized Birkeland currents in the plasma cosmology non-science.
Learn to understand what you read Michael Mozina.

Moving charged particles of a single type (e.g. ions) are known in science as an electric current.
Moving equal amounts of negative and positive charge (as in the solar wind) is not a "current flow" or electric current (there is no net change in electrical charge).

They are. They manifest as lightning here on Earth, and they heat plasma to a million degrees in the solar atmosphere. Those JETS you keep talking about around black holes are also "current flows". You're just blind.

Pure ignorance again.
The subject is the galactic sized Birkeland currents in the plasma cosmology non-science.
Learn to understand what you read Michael Mozina.

Lightning here on Earth is a "current flow". It is even what scientists call an electric current - a net flow of charges.
The galactic JETS emitted from supermassive black holes are "current flows".
For that matter by your definition the movement of the Earth in its orbit is a "current flow". Look at all of the electrons flowing! Look at all of the protons flowing!

Only an idiot would think that there is lightning in the solar atmosphere that is heating plasma to a million degrees

Hence CME's.

Pure ignorance again.
The subject is the galactic sized Birkeland currents in the plasma cosmology non-science.
Learn to understand what you read Michael Mozina.

 

[Reality Check]

Exactly. 0+0 = 0. In your case you're trying to add zero and zero and get a new energy source that heats plasma to millions of degrees! Get a grip.

Can you read?
What I said exactly was: 0 + E = E where E is the energy in the coronal loop.


Here it is again. As ben_m has already told you:

• The energy density in a magnetic field is rho = 1/(2 mu0) B^2.
  At the crossover point there is zero magnetic field so B = 0. Plug that into the equation to get zero energy density and so zero energy.
  This is zero at the crossover point.
• At distances infinitesimally away from the crossover point there is non zero magnetic field so B > 0. Plug that into the equation to get energy density > 0 and so energy > 0.
  This is greater than zero at any distance from the crossover point. Let us call it E.

You may not know this but the plasma in a coronal loop occupies a finite volume. It is not at the single point that is the crossover point.

The plasma which is getting heated up is not all crammed into a thimble right at the reconnection point. It's spread out in space; an infinitesimal amount of it is at the reconnection point, and approximately all of it is away from that point, in regions of nonzero field.

Seriously, MM, take another look at my quadrupole capacitor analogy.

Define "circuit energy", please.

This is basic electromagnetism. Any first year physics student should have learned that magnetic fields contain energy. They may even know that a magnetic field that is zero at a point still contains energy because it is non-zero at other points. Any first year physics student should have learned that the energy contained in the entire magnetic field is available for work.

For example the following paper needs the volume of the coronal loop in order to model the energy release from the energy density.
Self-organized Critical Model of Energy Release in an Idealized Coronal Loop

We present and discuss a new avalanche model for solar flares, based on an idealized representation of a coronal loop as a bundle of magnetic flux strands wrapping around one another. The model is based on a two-dimensional cellular automaton with anisotropic connectivity, where linear ensembles of interconnected nodes define the individual strands collectively making up the coronal loop. The system is driven by random deformation of the strands, and a form of reconnection is assumed to take place when the angle subtended by two strands crossing at the same lattice site exceed some preset threshold. Driven in this manner, the cellular automaton produces avalanches of reconnection events characterized by scale-free size distributions that compare favorably with the corresponding size distribution of solar flares, as inferred observationally. Although lattice-based and highly idealized, the model satisfies the constraints Δ B = 0 by design and is defined in such a way as to be readily mapped back onto coronal loops with set physical dimensions. Carrying this exercise for a generic coronal loop of length 10^10 cm and diameter 10^8 cm yields flare energies ranging from 10^23 to 10^29 erg, for an instability threshold angle of 11° between contiguous magnetic flux strands. These figures square well with both observational determinations and theoretical estimates.

 

[Reality Check]

MM - Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind

First asked 28 December 2009
Michael Mozina,
Can you give a citation for Birkeland's prediction for the high speedof the solar wind?
We know that he predicted the solar wind that we observe (ions and electrons).
All you need to do is cite where he calculated the speed of the solar wind. Then we can compare it to the actual measured speed of the solar wind.

Asked in reponse to:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
You know RC, when you say ignorant stuff like this, it's really hard to take you seriously. He most certainly produced it and therefore "predicted" it. Nobody at the time was claiming solar wind traveled at more than a few kilometers/second at the time. Birkeland was the first one to predict that the particle flow was "high speed" and during solar storms could approach even light speed. He didn't 'make it up in his head' like you folks, he build "real physical empirical experiments" and his "predictions" were a direct result of the standard empirical method. When you simply go into pure denial like this it becomes very clear you didn't ever read his material. I have quoted him for Geemack in one of these threads somewhere. The fact you can't even be bothered to keep up with these conversations speaks volumes IMO.

Obvioulsly you never read my quote from Birkelands book:
Birkeland states on page 662

If the pressure of the gas is very small during these discharges, there issues (fig. 249, globe not magnetised) from each of the patches narrow pencil of cathode-rays so intense that the gas is illuminated all along the pencil up to the wall of the tube. This splendid phenomenon recalls our hypothesis according to which sun-spots sometimes send out into space long pencils of cathode-rays.

Or even your own quote from the book (page 663) with your highlighting

I do not think, however, that Schuster's objections have any serious bearing on my theory, if we consiider the properties which the new sunbeams must be assumed to possess.
I have shown that cathode-rays from the sun, which are to strike down towards the earth in the Aurora polaris zones, must have a transversal mass about m = 1.83 X 10^3 X m . In other words, the longitudinal mass of our particles is 6 milliard times greater than the mass of the particles upon which Schuster calculates in his energy-comments. Thus these cathode-rays will pass the earth, not with a velocity of 9 kilometres, but with a velocity very little short of that of light.

He is talking about his hypothesis that "sun-spots sometimes send out into space long pencils of cathode-rays". These cathode-rays pencils are not the solar wind.

 

[Reality Check]

MM - Just what are Birkeland's cathode-ray pencils in modern terms

First asked 28 December 2009
Michael Mozina,
Just what are Birkeland's cathode-ray pencils in modern terms?
They are not the solar wind which is both protons and electrons.
They are not flares which are both protons and electrons.
They are not CME which are both protons and electrons.

Also the maximum speed measured in these phenomena was half the speed of light in one CME event. But Birkeland predicts that his cathode-ray pencils will "a velocity very little short of that of light".
MM - you may have ignored Birkeland's math but he does actually calculate this speed:
Page 596

We thus find that the velocity of the corpuscular rays should be mu = beta.c = c - c/x , i. e. only 45 metres less than the velocity of light.

You previously gave a link to the singlar CME event.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
As for your link - the speed of particles in solar storms is typically much less than the speed of light.
Solar flare: "Most proton storms take two or more hours from the time of visual detection to reach Earth's orbit. A solar flare on January 20, 2005 released the highest concentration of protons ever directly measured,[3] taking only 15 minutes after observation to reach Earth, indicating a velocity of approximately one-half light speed.".

This was a A New Kind of Solar Storm and not typical of solar storms. It was the only storm of this type to be confirmed in 2005 (a proton storm in February 1956 is suspected to be similar).

 

[Tim Thompson]

Magnetic Reconnection Redux V

Reference the book Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications by Eric Priest & Terry Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Magnetic reconnection is not induction. Here is the induction equation in a plasma as given in Priest & Forbes, page 5:

[size=+1](1)[/size] [latex] $ \partial \boldsymbol B / \partial t = \nabla \times (\boldsymbol v \times \boldsymbol B) - \nabla \times (\eta \nabla \times \boldsymbol B) $ [/latex]

Here [latex]\eta[/latex] is the magnetic diffusivity. If [latex]\eta[/latex] is uniform then the induction equation reduces to ...

[size=+1](2)[/size] [latex] $ \partial \boldsymbol B / \partial t = \nabla \times (\boldsymbol v \times \boldsymbol B) + \eta \nabla^2 \boldsymbol B $ [/latex]

Now, remember what I said before, and how Mozina replied ...

Besides, induction is strictly limited by the diffusion timescale of the plasma, whereas reconnection is impulsive. The two processes are distinctly different both in theory and in practice. Impulsive energy release, such as a solar flare, is quite impossible for any induction process.

I take it you've never played with a coil in car before?

Evidently, Mozina has never realized that a magnetized plasma and a coil of wire are not the same thing. So I will respond to Mozina's incredible ignorance of physics by quoting once again from Priest & Forbes, only this time with real physics, rather than the strange imitation of physics being promoted elsewhere. Given the equation I have labeled (2) above, we find ...

"This is the basic equation of magnetic behavior in MHD, and it determines B once v is known. In the electromagnetic theory of fixed conductors, the electric field and electric current are primary variables with the current driven by electric fields. in such a fixed system the magnetic field is a secondary variable derived from the currents. However, in MHD the basic physics is quite different, since the plasma velocity (v) and magnetic field (B) are the primary variables, determined by the induction equation and the equation of motion, while the resulting current density (j) and electric field (E) are secondary and may be deduced from equations (1.8) and (1.10a) if required (Parker, 1996)."
Priest & Forbes, page 14.
​

The conversion of magnetic energy into a current always operates on a time-scale characteristic of the system, and that time scale is controlled by the ability of the magnetic field to move through the conductor, in order to create a dB/dt term from which the current is generated. That time-scale in a plasma is rather different than it is for a fixed conductor. Here we find the real deal once again in Priest & Forbes:

"In space physics the distinction between ideal and non-ideal processes is important because simple estimates imply that magnetic dissipation acts on a time-scale which is many orders of magnitude slower than the observed time-scale of dynamic phenomena. For example, solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona within a period of 100 s. By comparison, the time-scale for magnetic dissipation based on a global scale length of 10⁵ km is of the order of 10⁶ yrs."
Priest & Forbes, page 6
​

All of this occurs in the first few pages of the book, but evidently Mozina has not even bothered to look at it. Why bother to suggest books & papers when the evidence suggests that Mozina will never consult them anyway? Now, we did have this exchange ...

Had you bothered to read any of the source material you have been directed to (for instance the book Magnetic Reconnection by Priest & Forbes) you would already know this, since it is spelled out in detail (I would be more specific but I am 1000 miles from home and the book at the moment). That's why I say I don't believe you when you say you are really interested in learning. Anyone truly interested in learning would naturally consult the books & papers they are referred to.

I've done that many, many, many, many, many times now. I've lost count of how many "magnetic reconnection" papers I've been through now, and how many "textbook" descriptions I've read now. Have any of you actually read Cosmic Plasma by Alfven yet? Why wouldn't you naturally consult the guy the wrote MHD theory to see how it is "properly" applied to objects in space?

As a matter of fact, I have 2 editions of that book in my library and I do in fact consult "the guy who wrote MHD theory". However, I am not so foolish as to think that all physics came to a screeching halt with Alfven. There is no example in all the annals of the history of science of anyone, no matter how famous or how brilliant, who got everything right all of the time. Einstein was no fool, but still failed to see the value of quantum mechanics, even though he was one of its principle founding fathers. Alfven is no exception. Mozina has it all wrong, demanding the eternal infallibility of Alfven, and refusing to admit that anyone could ever have a better idea for all time. The fact remains that Alfven's objections to magnetic reconnection were wrong. There is a huge body of literature on this topic which Mozina claims to have actually consulted and read. If he did, then his ignorance of physics is simply too profound to allow him to understand what he read. Or, blinded by pure prejudice, as certainly appears to be the case, he is simply unwilling too believe anything anybody other than Alfven has to say.

This entire thread is just one constant repetition of the same tired old arguments: real physics vs. the pure prejudice of Mozina. It will never change because Mozina will never learn. So get used to zillions of pages to come with no change & no progress & no real physics ever from Mozina. That you can count on.

 

[ben m]

There is a huge body of literature on this topic which Mozina claims to have actually consulted and read. If he did, then his ignorance of physics is simply too profound to allow him to understand what he read. Or, blinded by pure prejudice, as certainly appears to be the case, he is simply unwilling too believe anything anybody other than Alfven has to say.

About that "huge body of literature": I think this post is relevant. Mozina has not consulted very much mainstream literature, and when he consults it at all, it is only to discard anything that disagrees with his expectations.

 

[brantc]

Where did you get this idea of a current that flows across the universe?

The non-science that is plasma cosmology has galaxy sized Birkeland currents. You can read all about why these are improbable (and that is being charitable) here: Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation.
Basically:

• There is no source for the currents.
• They should be easy to detect.
• They are unstable.

The current flow across the universe should say "potential of a few hundred volts across the universe.." (Assuming a spherical cow, .....)

You wont get any argument from me there about Birkeland currents. Maybe not exactly Birkeland currents but is there a way to balance potentials?
We see flux tubes, rotating elephant trunks, magnetic slinkies, DNA nebula, CME's, etc. If there is the multitude of Birkeland currents powering everything, where are they? I dont know. I use a slightly different model as far as that goes.

By the same token the EU models doesnt think the the event called collisions in the regular model, are. I agree. I think it is growth, not endless collisions so you dont have the problems of intertwining filaments.
If all the stars in a galaxy are powered by the "object" in the center of the galaxy as well use the hydrogen that flows out from the center in their process then the problem is solved.. I dont know exactly where the EMF comes from but electric fields sure solve alot of problems of particle acceleration with the sun.

 

[brantc]

Here we find the real deal once again in Priest & Forbes:

"In space physics the distinction between ideal and non-ideal processes is important because simple estimates imply that magnetic dissipation acts on a time-scale which is many orders of magnitude slower than the observed time-scale of dynamic phenomena. For example, solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona within a period of 100 s. By comparison, the time-scale for magnetic dissipation based on a global scale length of 10⁵ km is of the order of 10⁶ yrs."
Priest & Forbes, page 6
​

Is that saying that a filament 1 million miles long and 1 million miles in diameter will take 10,000,000 years to dissipate??

 

[ben m]

By the same token the EU models doesnt think the the event called collisions in the regular model, are. I agree. I think it is growth, not endless collisions so you dont have the problems of intertwining filaments.

Are you talking about the filaments in large-scale structure? The regular model doesn't have a problem with them colliding or intertwining (and why would it be a problem if they did?) Remember, the Universe is expanding; the filaments that form in large-scale structure are all moving apart from one another in this expansion, not zipping around in random directions. At late times, the motion of galaxies is seen to be "along" the filaments, towards intersections. (Just to reiterate: this is not due to any special property of the filaments; the "filaments" are just how mass falls together under its own 1/r^2 gravity; ditto the extra mass at "filament crossings" and ditto the subsequent infall of mass towards these crossings.)

If all the stars in a galaxy are powered by the "object" in the center of the galaxy as well use the hydrogen that flows out from the center in their process then the problem is solved.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

I dont know exactly where the EMF comes from but electric fields sure solve alot of problems of particle acceleration with the sun.

EU/PC enthusiasts never seem interested in "where the EMF comes from".

"solves problems". Here's how that works:
a) EU/PC proponent can look up any random New Scientist article, mid-80s journal article, or NASA press release, which mentions a factor-of-two disagreement between some calculation of some detail of solar plasma physics and data. Never mind all of the other aspects of the model that are really very good; this detail is a "problem".
b) Said EU/PC proponent then casually tosses out the idea "there are electric fields", without being able to specify where the fields are, their sources, their effects, or any other details not even within a few orders of magnitude. This is then called a "solution" to the stated "problem".

 

[brantc]

EU/PC enthusiasts never seem interested in "where the EMF comes from".

"solves problems". Here's how that works:
a) EU/PC proponent can look up any random New Scientist article, mid-80s journal article, or NASA press release, which mentions a factor-of-two disagreement between some calculation of some detail of solar plasma physics and data. Never mind all of the other aspects of the model that are really very good; this detail is a "problem".
b) Said EU/PC proponent then casually tosses out the idea "there are electric fields", without being able to specify where the fields are, their sources, their effects, or any other details not even within a few orders of magnitude. This is then called a "solution" to the stated "problem".

That really is the same as asking where did the big bang come from.

Its turtles all the way down. It just depends on which model you think fits better.
There are plasma and filaments, and processes that require electric fields as well as magnetic fields.

So I think there is a process that provides EMF(separated charges) just like whatever it is that provides the power for the big bang in your model.

You dont have an answer to that question so we are on equal footing.

 

[Dancing David]

That really is the same as asking where did the big bang come from.

Fallacy of construction and philosophical posture, appeal to emotion and creation of a false metaphorical parity.

The theory of the big bang explains observed data. It is an attempt to explain the Hubble constant and other features of the observed universe.

Nobody gives a rat's ass where the darn thing came from.(As a threory of an expanding universe that explains the Hubble constant.) There are current theories that try to explain it but they are not part of the theory of the BBE in and of itself. The origin of the cosmological expansion is not the same as the theory of the cosmological expansion.

You can study electric repulsion and attraction without having to explain exactly why it happens. And in fact it was studied as such and Maxwell's equation derived in that state.

So the point comes down to this.

You have a theory that there are these large scale magnetic and electrical structures that are part of the structure of the universe.

So instead of this bizarre and strange false parity and philosophy, give us the theory, give us the data.

Where are the data that support the structures?

I can show you how the Hubble constant was derived and refined.

Now you do the same.

Its turtles all the way down. It just depends on which model you think fits better.
There are plasma and filaments, and processes that require electric fields as well as magnetic fields.

And your data are?

So I think there is a process that provides EMF(separated charges) just like whatever it is that provides the power for the big bang in your model.

Nope, this where you are starting to pretend, the theories of magnetic separation and charge separation are well studied and in fact we have some posters here who work in the field. they have described at length how these processes usually work.

You need to get back to something real and stop this posturing. You are a better poster than this.

You dont have an answer to that question so we are on equal footing.

Not really, at all.

You are just making a really bad semantic argument of false parity.

I will ask you the same question that I have asked everyone who says that the EU theory works with an explanatory power belong that of the current model, which does include plasma and electrical fields.

1. What magnetic field are you talking about? What strength, dimension and structure?
2. What electrical force are you talking about? What strength, dimension and structure?
3. What physical properties can you attribute in the structure of galaxies, clusters, super clusters and the universe to these measured fields and charges? What models can you point to? How does your theory work?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

That really is the same as asking where did the big bang come from.

Its turtles all the way down. It just depends on which model you think fits better.
There are plasma and filaments, and processes that require electric fields as well as magnetic fields.

So I think there is a process that provides EMF(separated charges) just like whatever it is that provides the power for the big bang in your model.

You dont have an answer to that question so we are on equal footing.

This is a nice illustration - in a short post - of the core shortcomings in the approach to astronomy and cosmology by many of the PC/EU advocates.

For several centuries now - since the time of Newton, perhaps Galileo - physics has been quantitative, and its application (astrophysics, geophysics, etc) built on consistency ... internally, and with all relevant observational and experimental results.

A corollary: an alternative which purports to be physics-based but lacks a quantitative basis and/or consistency is pseudo-science at best.

The PC/EU ideas of MM, brantc, Thornhill, Scott, BeAChooser, Robinson, and no doubt many more are clearly pseudo-science, by these criteria.

One passing strange thing: all these advocates are, apparently, totally blind to these failings.

What of Lerner, Arp, Peratt, Alfvén, etc?

Arp, of course, is not a fan of PC/EU (he has his own, quite different, alternatives).

The lack of recent publications by Lerner and Peratt, on the topic of astrophysics and cosmology, suggests that they 'get' it ... by the criterion of quantitative consistency with all relevant observational and experimental results, their PC/EU ideas fail (even if those ideas are quantitative, and, possibly, internally consistent).

And Alfvén? See the posts above (by ben_m, and TT) ...

So, brantc, when PC/EU ideas are developed to the point where they are quantitative, internally consistent, and consistent with all relevant experiments and observations, then it may be interesting to start a discussion on the possible equivalence with the concordance (cosmological) model (including where the EMF comes from) ...

 

[brantc]

The PC/EU ideas of MM, brantc, Thornhill, Scott, BeAChooser, Robinson, and no doubt many more are clearly pseudo-science, by these criteria.

There is no such thing as "pseudo-science".

It is either science or its not.

Are you saying we do not apply the scientific method?
Because I believe we do, we just interpret the data differently.

 

[Reality Check]

There is no such thing as "pseudo-science".

It is either science or its not.

Are you saying we do not apply the scientific method?
Because I believe we do, we just interpret the data differently.

Adding your name in the list may be a mistake by DeiRenDopa.
My impression is that you are not naive enough to have been fooled by the non-science (or pseudo-science or woo or whatever) of plasma cosmology.

The scientific method has been applied to plasma "plasma cosmology" and it has failed.

Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered since the middle of 2008:
The "plasma cosmology" as defined by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely a nonscientific, crackpot theory (not woo).

Zeuzzz gave one definition which resulted in "a collection of scientific theories with a common thread" definition. This common thread seems to be that the theory emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe and/or is a steady state cosmological theory. This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection.

He then seemed to retract that definition (despite having contributed several theories to the collection) in favor of another (Lerner's?) definition which is hidden somewhere in the thread. I think that it is this post from 3rd July 2008. It is similar to the first definition, i.e. defines itself as non-science. Science fits theories to the data. Science does not assume that a theory is correct and go looking for data to confirm this (ignoring data that does not match or theories that better match the data).


Contrast this to the definition of the Big Bang theory:

• General Relativity (Hubble's Law, etc. which lead to an hot dense state of the universe)
• Dark matter (motion of galaxies in galactic clusters, mass distribution from gravitational lensing, etc.).
• Dark energy (measured accelerating expansion of the universe)
• Inflation (large-scale structure of the universe).

This is a consistent set of theories that best match the data.

So I assume that you believe that plasma cosmology is not science. Otherwise it is pseudoscience.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The PC/EU ideas of MM, brantc, Thornhill, Scott, BeAChooser, Robinson, and no doubt many more are clearly pseudo-science, by these criteria.

There is no such thing as "pseudo-science".

It is either science or its not.

Pseudo-science looks like science, but it is not science.

Are you saying we do not apply the scientific method?
Because I believe we do, we just interpret the data differently.

(bold added)

As far as I can tell:

* Robinson does not apply any scientific method, period

* BeAChooser applies some aspects, occasionally, and inconsistently

* MM has his own - highly idiosyncratic, logically inconsistent - methodology ... which he applies inconsistently

* Thornhill is an academic fraud; aside from this, his methodology is opaque, and in particular much of it is not independently verifiable

* Scott's methodology includes the acceptance of gross inconsistencies - logical, mathematical, etc

* Zeuzzz (who I inadvertently omitted)? He too seems to have his own, idiosyncratic, methodology, which he applies inconsistently.

But none of this is directly relevant to what I actually wrote ... you see, the criteria I explicitly stated concern physics and its applications (astrophysics, space physics, cosmology), and are about being quantitative (data and analyses) and consistent.

Of the above, only Scott has any significant record re being quantitative, and all fail - badly - wrt consistency (internal, and re all relevant observational/experimental results).

Care to say a few words about brantc?

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is a nice illustration - in a short post - of the core shortcomings in the approach to astronomy and cosmology by many of the PC/EU advocates.

For several centuries now - since the time of Newton, perhaps Galileo - physics has been quantitative, and its application (astrophysics, geophysics, etc) built on consistency ... internally, and with all relevant observational and experimental results.

Quantitatively speaking, what is wrong with any of the following papers?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0384
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606657

No dodging, no BS, no playing games anymore. What's wrong with these papers DRD, or are you just in pure denial?

 

[Michael Mozina]

* MM has his own - highly idiosyncratic, logically inconsistent - methodology ... which he applies inconsistently

Pure denial. I apply the empirical method very consistently. It is you that consistently puts their "faith' in metaphysical BS. "Dark energy" is a figment of your collective imagination. It does not empirically exist or have any effect on an empirical experiment. "Electromagnetic energy" however does exist in nature in massive quantities.

I'm absolutely fascinated to see what you will now do with those four papers. Will you continue to claim that Birkeland's and Alfven's EU solar theories are not well quantified and not already confirmed by observation? Denial is an ugly thing DRD. It's not becoming on you.

 

[ben m]

There are plasma and filaments

Yes, just like you expect in the mainstream model.

and processes that require electric fields as well as magnetic fields.

No there aren't. There is zero evidence for processes requiring electric fields (other than the transient fields you get in a magnetized plasmas). The only evidence is "if we want Birkeland's terrella to be the correct model for everything that vaguely looks like it, we need electrostatic currents", which is to say no evidence at all.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Duplicate