Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Reality Check]

The EM effect would likely be similar in his electric universe model. He basically talks about three ways for a particle to travel from the cathode, up and back, up and away, and into orbit around the charged body. That would certainly apply to a "group of cathodes" in some galactic configuration. One might even expect "dusty rings' around the outsides of the galaxies along unbelievably thin lines just as they form around individual cathodes.

I see that you are still ignorant of what Birkeland stated:

1. Birkeland did not have an "electric universe" model.
   He had a model for the Earth's aurora that worked (success).
   He used this model as an analogy for the Sun (failure - no electric discharges on the Sun).
   He used this model as an analogy for the formation of planets (failure - planets form from the collapsing of gas clouds).
   He used this model as an analogy for Saturn's rings (failure - the rings are icy particles).
   He used this model as an analogy for galaxies (failure - galaxies are not electrical discharges).
2. Birkeland calculated that electrons in his experiment apparatus can travel away, toward or around his cathode.

Michael Mozina's delusions about Birkeland's work has a list of the stuff you have asserted about Birkeland.

In practical terms, EU/PC theory is mostly a matter of "scaling" known forces of nature to an appropriate size, since nothing is "exotically dark" in an empirical theory.

In practical terms, EU/PC theory is mostly a matter of ignoring the scaling of known forces of nature to an appropriate size. See Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not and Electric universe theories here.

In an empirical theory anything can be dark or for that matter "exotic". All you have to to is measure or observe something that is dark or exotic.
Dark means is that we cannot detect any light from it.
Exotic means that it is described by non-standard theories.
But of course we already know that you are ignorant of the meaning of empirical so should not be surprised that you do not know the meaning of dark or exotic !.

 

[GeeMack]

Birkeland did not have an "electric universe" model.
He had a model for the Earth's aurora that worked (success).
He used this model as an analogy for the Sun (failure - no electric discharges on the Sun).
He used this model as an analogy for the formation of planets (failure - planets form from the collapsing of gas clouds).
He used this model as an analogy for Saturn's rings (failure - the rings are icy particles).
He used this model as an analogy for galaxies (failure - galaxies are not electrical discharges).surprised that you do not know the meaning of dark or exotic !.​

Wow. You mean when it comes to the actual hit/miss ratio, Kristian Birkeland had some pretty whacked out ideas, most of which were complete failures? I guess then we shouldn't expect any more out of any of his nutcase disciples.

 

[Reality Check]

Wow. You mean when it comes to the actual hit/miss ratio, Kristian Birkeland had some pretty whacked out ideas, most of which were complete failures? I guess then we shouldn't expect any more out of any of his nutcase disciples.

To be serious, Birkeland actually did very well according to the knowledge of the time. Also remember that these ideas were published in his book - not in any scientific papers (as far as I know). Birkeland had the freedom to speculate and even so was careful to use the term analogy a lot.

What the rather deluded people that cite him as support for their bizarre ideas forget is that science progresses. That means that most of his ideas have been shown to be wrong. It was excusable to think galaxies were wisps of cloud or electrical phenomena inside the Milky Way before the 1920's. The measurement of their actual distances and the determination that they have stars in them rules out Birkeland's idea.

 

[GeeMack]

To be serious, Birkeland actually did very well according to the knowledge of the time. Also remember that these ideas were published in his book - not in any scientific papers (as far as I know). Birkeland had the freedom to speculate and even so was careful to use the term analogy a lot.

Indeed. Too bad there are cranks who invoke Birkeland's name as if he were a minor god and falsely claim he made predictions about issues which he barely even considered. It's an interesting irony that in their effort to put the man on a pedestal, they're actually crapping on Birkeland's good name by lying about him.

 

[tusenfem]

And Birkeland said this where?

Don't ask Michael for specifics on Birkeland's model, the only answer you will get is "read his book and papers."
And then when you read (part of) to book and the papers and give detailed comments on it, Michael will say "thanks for doing that, let me get back to you on this topic" and nothing will be heard anymore about it.
Michael knows Birkeland's work as good as he knows my back garden.

Actually, I even started a thread discussing Birkeland's scientific publications, which MM has not even dared look at I think.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If they give out nobel prizes for doing absolutely nothing apart from research in science journals then I guess I'm in luck.

Nearly everything I've posted is courtesy of Alfven (already got his nobel prize) Peratt, Lerner, Van Allen, Gerrit Verschuur, Birkeland (nominated seven times for a nobel prize), Carlqvist, Irving Langmuir (already got his nobel prize) and many others. All of which pioneered plasma physics and the foundation upon which PC is based, and were awarded accordingly.

The fact that you think that the material is my own is very interesting, however.

It makes it easier for them when the dumb it down to the point of absurdity. I guess they find it easier to ignore the whole history behind PC/EU theory when it suits them. Denial is such a silly thing.

 

[Mister Earl]

Frankly, Michael, I've seen the others make very good counterpoints to your own, and you don't seem to be able to address them.

 

[D'rok]

It makes it easier for them when the dumb it down to the point of absurdity. I guess they find it easier to ignore the whole history behind PC/EU theory when it suits them. Denial is such a silly thing.

With respect to Birkeland, tusenfem has done anything but. You have studiously avoided engaging with him. Telling.

You have also failed to give a proper citation whenever you claim something based on Birkeland's work. Also telling.

Conclusion: you are lying about Birkeland's work and confabulating your own fantasies based on it.

 

[Tubbythin]

With respect to Birkeland, tusenfem has done anything but. You have studiously avoided engaging with him. Telling.

You have also failed to give a proper citation whenever you claim something based on Birkeland's work. Also telling.

Conclusion: you are lying about Birkeland's work and confabulating your own fantasies based on it.

Agreed. I'm still waiting for that reference.

 

[GeeMack]

With respect to Birkeland, tusenfem has done anything but. You have studiously avoided engaging with him. Telling.

You have also failed to give a proper citation whenever you claim something based on Birkeland's work. Also telling.

Conclusion: you are lying about Birkeland's work and confabulating your own fantasies based on it.

Agreed.

I also obviously agree, particularly that Michael is lying about Birkeland's work and crapping on Birkeland's name to support his own ludicrous fantasy. To build an argument by spitting on a dead guy, as Michael has done for the past six or seven years now, is so far removed from legitimate science that it only merits ridicule and derision.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I also obviously agree, particularly that Michael is lying about Birkeland's work

You personally have lied about his work since the day we met. You have *NEVER* admitted he even had a cathode solar model even though the NY Times published an article on it. You've got reality standing on it's head! Not a single one of you has even read his *WHOLE* work. At most you've read bits and pieces and you expect me to spoon feed you every single idea he put forth, like I'm your science mommy. Do some frigging reading on your own for a change!

and crapping on Birkeland's name to support his own ludicrous fantasy.

If it were my idea, I'd be happy to take credit for it. Since Birkeland *AND HIS TEAM* came up with a cathode solar model before I was born, it's a moot point.

To build an argument by spitting on a dead guy, as Michael has done for the past six or seven years now, is so far removed from legitimate science that it only merits ridicule and derision.

In those 7 years, what has your impotent sky entity done here on Earth GM? NOTHING! Your sky entities are empirically impotent. They only do stuff *out there* somewhere, like any other sky deity. You're just pissy because I pointed out that your sky entity is as impotent on Earth as any religious entity, in fact more so. Nobody on Earth claims to have a "relationship" with "dark energy".

 

[tensordyne]

I think you are wrong Michael Mozina (Illuminator), I have a very real and lasting personal relationship with Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Inflation. To me it is the same as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost

 

[Reality Check]

Please cite Birkeland's "cathode solar model"

You personally have lied about his work since the day we met. You have *NEVER* admitted he even had a cathode solar model even though the NY Times published an article on it.

It is totally dumb to cite what a reporter stated about a single speech by Birkeland. The article is attached.

Prof. Birkeland of Norway Holds That Suns and Stars Are Charged Negatively. BUT EMIT POSITIVE ATOMS. These, According to His Hypothesis Coalesce To Form Planets That Revolve About Suns

That is not a "cathode solar model". There is no mention of a cathode. Cathodes do not EMIT POSITIVE ATOMS.
The Sun is not a cathode. The solar wind is neutral overall.
Birkeland was wrong:

Planets are not formed from emissions from suns. They are formed from the leftovers of stellar formation.
​

If it were my idea, I'd be happy to take credit for it. Since Birkeland *AND HIS TEAM* came up with a cathode solar model before I was born, it's a moot point.

So to Michael Mozina's delusions about Birkeland's work we can add:
First asked 16 September 2010
Michael Mozina
Please cite in Birkeland's (*AND HIS TEAM*) published works where he describes a model of the sun that he calls the "cathode solar model".

P.S. Given your ignorance of scientific language (e.g. you have no idea what empirical means), a scientific model is a bit more than an analogy.

...usual ignorant sky entity rant sniiped...

Of course the real point that makes your interpretations about what Birkeland (*AND HIS TEAM*) stated moot is that his anaolgy was wrong. The Sun's activity (coronal loops, flares, etc) only look like the electrical discharges from brass spheres.


Astronomers have determined that

• The Sun is not a brass ball.
• The Sun is a ball of plasma and so there are no electrical discharges.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Not a single one of you has even read his *WHOLE* work. At most you've read bits and pieces and you expect me to spoon feed you every single idea he put forth, like I'm your science mommy. Do some frigging reading on your own for a change!

No, Michael, I do not expect you to spoon feed me anything in the way of reliable information about science. When I want to learn more about some scientific topic, I am not likely to rely upon someone who dismisses empirical evidence for well-established theories while demonstrating wholesale ignorance of freshman physics.

For you to assume we have not been reading on our own is foolish. Had we not made some effort to study the areas of mathematics and science that are relevant to this thread, we might be more susceptible to your "arguments".

...impotent sky entity...sky entities...empirically impotent...sky deity...pissy...sky entity...impotent...religious entity...

If you knew anything about mathematics or science, you wouldn't be reduced to that form of argument.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, Michael, I do not expect you to spoon feed me anything in the way of reliable information about science. When I want to learn more about some scientific topic, I am not likely to rely upon someone who dismisses empirical evidence for well-established theories while demonstrating wholesale ignorance of freshman physics.

Well, that clearly has nothing to do with me because your metaphysical trio is entirely empirically impotent. They cannot and do not effect anything empirically here on Earth (or anywhere else) and you have no evidence "dark energy did it" (or any of your other metaphysical invisible friends).

For you to assume we have not been reading on our own is foolish.

Um, no, it's called "direct experience". I've been yacking at this group for over 7 years and I guarantee you that not one of these critics has read Birkeland's work cover to cover. I can tell by the question you folks ask and the statements that you make that you haven't bothered. There 'might" be one or two of them that have read 'Cosmic Plasma" by Alfven, but I guarantee you that I've read more of his papers and books than any critic PC/EU theory in this thread. You folks *REFUSE* to read anything that doesn't jive with your preconceived ideas. I know this from experience.

Had we not made some effort to study the areas of mathematics and science that are relevant to this thread, we might be more susceptible to your "arguments".

What do you personally really know about Learner's basic mathematical presentations Mr. Spock? How much of Alfven's work have you actually read? Birkeland's work?

If you knew anything about mathematics or science, you wouldn't be reduced to that form of argument.

Actually that's not the case. It wouldn't matter how much mathematics I had under my belt. Your problem has nothing to do with "mathematics" anymore than the problem with numerology is found in mathematics. Your problem is that your mythical entities are not empirically real. They are a figment of your collective mathematical imagination. They are as impotent on Earth as any sky deity. That's the problem and it has nothing to do with the math.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think you are wrong Michael Mozina (Illuminator), I have a very real and lasting personal relationship with Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Inflation. To me it is the same as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost

 

[Michael Mozina]

Don't ask Michael for specifics on Birkeland's model, the only answer you will get is "read his book and papers."

Um, which "specifics" were you looking for again? Why *exactly* are you looking for them? Why must *I* personally provide them to you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

With respect to Birkeland, tusenfem has done anything but. You have studiously avoided engaging with him. Telling.

Actually D'rok, I haven't been intentionally ignoring anyone other than perhaps GM, but my time is limited. Sometimes I do in fact "pick and choose" which posts to respond to, and I don't get to everyone's post. That is only "telling' of the fact that I have a real life, a business to run, a daughter in college, another daughter starting high school, a wife, scientific hobbies, etc. IMO T is actually one of the "better" folks to talk with and he's provided me with some very interesting and useful reading materials.

 

[D'rok]

Actually D'rok, I haven't been intentionally ignoring anyone other than perhaps GM, but my time is limited. Sometimes I do in fact "pick and choose" which posts to respond to, and I don't get to everyone's post. That is only "telling' of the fact that I have a real life, a business to run, a daughter in college, another daughter starting high school, a wife, scientific hobbies, etc. IMO T is actually one of the "better" folks to talk with and he's provided me with some very interesting and useful reading materials.

Tusenfem has put serious effort into reading and interpreting Birkeland's works. He has tried over and over on more than one thread to get you to talk to him about it. He even created an entire thread devoted to Birkeland just to do so.

Where were you?

Oh, you were busy posting crap like this:

Um, no, it's called "direct experience". I've been yacking at this group for over 7 years and I guarantee you that not one of these critics has read Birkeland's work cover to cover. I can tell by the question you folks ask and the statements that you make that you haven't bothered... You folks *REFUSE* to read anything that doesn't jive with your preconceived ideas. I know this from experience.

This is a baldfaced, shameless lie.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It is totally dumb to cite what a reporter stated about a single speech by Birkeland. The article is attached.

It's totally dumb to ignore *his whole life's work* not to mention the NY Times article. That was but *ONE* of many speeches he gave and one of many of his writings on this topic. Nobody but you is trying to "dumb it down'.

That is not a "cathode solar model". There is no mention of a cathode. Cathodes do not EMIT POSITIVE ATOMS.

He answers all of your objections in that NY Times article RC! He even explained that the rotation *direction* of the planets was related to the fact that positively charged particles were emitted and he explained that he had *experimentally reproduced them too*. Did you even read that link? Everything is addressed. You simply ignored his statements entirely! The whole rotation direction is directly linked to the charge of the sun and the charge of the particle being emitted! Hoy!

The Sun is not a cathode.

Yes it is!

The solar wind is neutral overall.

No, it's not. It carries "current".

Birkeland was wrong:

OMG. He *PREDICTED* and even *SIMULATED* the positive ion emission process RC! He not only *expected* the sun to carry positively charged ions, he *KNEW* it from direct experimentation.

Planets are not formed from emissions from suns. They are formed from the leftovers of stellar formation.

Any way you look at it, planetary material comes from the stars.