A simple test for the EU people.

[Michael]

Michael, do you want to go through your mistakes point by point? For example he pointed out this massive error of yours:

JREF Forum - View Single Post - [Merged] Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

I notice that many of your replies get over long and the point being debated can be lost while doing so. He corrected you thus:

Now units can be tricky in physics. You have to know what the units represent.

It's apt you begin here, and apt you point that out. Since your math hero began in the absence of plasma, he's pretty much limited himself to *solid state* physics. In the realm of solid state physics, the various processes he might describe in his vacuum chamber are "magnetic repulsion", "magnetic attraction", and/or magnetic flux. These are all things that are accurately described in Clinger's intro to EM field theory textbook, a textbook that was apparently devoid of the term "magnetic reconnection" for obvious reasons. Let's start with some terms that apply in solid state physics:

Permeability (electromagnetism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Permeability is the inductance per unit length.

In the realm of Clinger's quadrupole experiment, these are the *physical meanings* of the terms he's using in those math formulas. One gets the impression from reading Clinger's comments that he thinks if he switches from meters to feet, somehow the terms magically change their *physical* meaning. They don't.

So what happens when we allow for 'magnetic flux' in some region of spacetime, and we change some of the parameters of Clinger's experiment? Suppose we substitute his physically useless vacuum with a solid conductor (insulated from the electromagnets of course), say a solid metal?

Electromagnetic induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Electromagnetic induction is the production of a potential difference (voltage) across a conductor when it is exposed to a varying magnetic field.

Now any sort of magnetic flux Clinger might create in the metal, might indeed result in *induction* within the metal, specifically it will result in the movement of electrons.

Now suppose we *include* the concept of plasma physics, and we replace Clingers worthless vacuum with another conductor, this time some "plasma"? Again, just like in the solid state experiment, the variable magnetic fields moving through the plasma will result in *induction*. The primary difference is that in solids the protons are all fixed in a solid lattice structure, so they don't move much, except to perhaps vibrate. The large flow movements of protons are restricted in solids, whereas the protons are also free to move around in plasma. The movement of protons therefore can also represent a form of *induced* current, and must considered in terms of the electromagnetic effect as well as the movement of current.

Your math hero however hasn't even read a single textbook on plasma physics, and if he understood basic solid state EM field theory, he would have used the *proper* scientific terms to describe what's *actually* going on in his presentation of solid state physics principles, namely magnetic flux, magnetic attraction, and/or magnetic repulsion. He did not need any other term to describe his solid state experiment in fact.

When I got curious about plasma physics, the first plasma physics textbook that I read was Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma. The Nobel Prize winning author on plasma physics basically explains how plasma physics principles "should be" applied to events in space based on his decades of research with plasma, including plasma in the lab. His book is basically the sum total of all his important published papers, but he has the opportunity to present the material in a comprehensive and organized manner. Each time that Alfven describes the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy, he was *extremely careful* to use the proper scientific term *induction*. His paper on on double layers represents *his* explanation of the physical events taking place inside current sheets/double layers. According to Alfven his double layer paper makes MR theory obsolete and irrelevant in all current carrying environments. Basically Alfven switched pretty freely between the B (magnetic field) and E (circuit/particle) orientation of Maxwell's equations, but for the most part he oriented himself to circuit theory, and the "particle" approach to plasma physics in all current carrying environments.

Peratt's book was actually better in many ways, including more detailed mathematical presentations, and proper definitions of terms (like discharges) in plasma. Again, Peratt's quite concise about the way magnetic field energy is converted in particle kinetic energy, and he give many examples in his book. I'd say it was more detailed presentation of both the B and E orientations toward plasma physics.

Somov's textbook was more of a "mainstream" oriented presentation, focused mostly on the B orientation, although he does quite nicely bring the B and E orientations together in his presentation of 'reconnection' theory. It was very nicely done IMO. Somov's example of 'reconnection' was however 100% *inclusive* of charged particles and charged particle movements.

I am fairly sure that you misrepresented many of his claims and also were not honest about him not supplying links that support his claims.

Which *specific* published or peer reviewed citation are you claiming that Clinger presented that *actually* supported his claim about 'magnetic reconnection' in a vacuum, devoid of all charged particles and charged particle movement/acceleration?

When it comes to presenting published material to support your claims, you and Clinger are both whistling Dixie as it relates to plasma physics, particularly since neither one of you have ever read a textbook on the topic. Like I said, Clinger fancies himself as some sort of expert on any topic of personal choice, from MHD theory to GR theory, simply by virtue of his math skills. As he demonstrated with MHD theory and the "magnetic reconnection" debate however, he doesn't even personally understand the physical (moving charged particle) difference between magnetic flux through a pure vacuum, and magnetic flux through a conductive plasma that induces currents in the plasma! He may understand math, but he doesn't even *begin* to understand the physics behind the terms he's trying to use! MHD theory is *easy* to understand if you've had some circuit theory background, but GR theory is *subtle* in ways that even experts struggle with at times. If he can't get the most *basics* concepts of plasma physics right, why in the world should I trust him to understand the physical nuances of GR theory?

 

[Seipai]

Mike, I didn't ask for a truckload of strawmen.

I don't want to debate what you think Clinger said, I want to cover what he actually said.

 

[Michael]

Mike, I didn't ask for a truckload of strawmen.

I don't want to debate what you think Clinger said, I want to cover what he actually said.

I already quoted him where he *claimed* to get "magnetic reconnection" in the absence of plasma:

Magnetic Reconnection

Because I am not a physicist, and was trained in mathematics, it was easier for me to derive magnetic reconnection directly from Maxwell's equations than to understand published derivations that start with plasma. Because my derivation avoids the complications of plasma, and uses only freshman-level physics and vector calculus, it might help a wider audience to understand magnetic reconnection.

Emphasis mine. He's basically claiming to derive magnetic reconnection theory from solid state physics in a vacuum, and in the complete absence of plasma and plasma particle acceleration!

Face it, he's no *physicist* by any stretch of the imagination. In fact he knows *absolutely nothing* about the *plasma physics* process called "magnetic reconnection", in spite of his claims of "expertise", apparently because he absolutely refuses to read an actual textbook on the topic of plasma physics!

I don't want any strawmen out of you either. What I want from you is something *other than* a non published hater website reference, and a *peer reviewed* publication or textbook on MHD theory that claims that "magnetic reconnection" occurs *without* plasma, inside a *pure vacuum*! Got one? Yes or no? No stalling. No hemming and hawing. Yes or no?

 

[Seipai]

I already quoted him where he *claimed* to get "magnetic reconnection" in the absence of plasma:

Emphasis mine. He's basically claiming to derive magnetic reconnection theory from solid state physics in a vacuum, and in the complete absence of plasma and plasma particle acceleration!

Face it, he's no *physicist* by any stretch of the imagination. In fact he knows *absolutely nothing* about the *plasma physics* process called "magnetic reconnection", in spite of his claims of "expertise", apparently because he absolutely refuses to read an actual textbook on the topic of plasma physics!

I don't want any strawmen out of you either. What I want from you is something *other than* a non published hater website reference, and a *peer reviewed* publication or textbook on MHD theory that claims that "magnetic reconnection" occurs *without* plasma, inside a *pure vacuum*! Got one? Yes or no? No stalling. No hemming and hawing. Yes or no?

Oops, you lose.

No use of juvenile terms allowed.

Try again.

 

[Michael]

Oops, you lose.

No use of juvenile terms allowed.

Try again.

Pfft. You're as bad as Clinger himself. Clinger never presented a peer reviewed paper or textbook that agreed with him. Neither will you. You'll keep handwaving at some random 'mathematician' from some hater website and claiming his word is "gospel", even after it's been shown to be complete bunk as it relates to MHD theory. Your superhero hater has no special superpowers when in comes to physics. In fact he's never even read a plasma physics textbook in his whole life (I know because I asked him) which is why he can't and won't produce any published reference that actually agrees with his claims.

If you're going to debate "science" on a "science" forum, you're going to need some *peer reviewed* support for your claims, otherwise you're no better than a creationist handwaving a some random claim from some random guy on some random website in cyberspace!

Got a peer reviewed paper or textbook on MHD theory that claims plasma is optional in the plasma physics process called 'magnetic reconnection"? Yes or no?

 

[Seipai]

Pfft. You're as bad as Clinger himself. Clinger never presented a peer reviewed paper or textbook that agreed with him. Neither will you. You'll keep handwaving at some random 'mathematician' from some hater website and claiming his word is "gospel", even after it's been shown to be complete bunk as it relates to MHD theory. Your superhero hater has no special superpowers when in comes to physics. In fact he's never even read a plasma physics textbook in his whole life (I know because I asked him) which is why he can't and won't produce any published reference that actually agrees with his claims.

If you're going to debate "science" on a "science" forum, you're going to need some *peer reviewed* support for your claims, otherwise you're no better than a creationist handwaving a some random claim from some random guy on some random website in cyberspace!

Got a peer reviewed paper or textbook on MHD theory that claims plasma is optional in the plasma physics process called 'magnetic reconnection"? Yes or no?

Nope, I won't put up with juvenile terms.

Any post with the word "hater" in it will be ignored or laughed at. It is an admission of defeat on your part in my view. If you could beat his argument you would not need to name call.

 

[Michael]

Nope, I won't put up with juvenile terms.

Any post with the word "hater" in it will be ignored or laughed at. It is an admission of defeat on your part in my view. If you could beat his argument you would not need to name call.

Considering the tone of his personal website, you're certainly forgiving when it suits you, and intolerant of such behavior when it suits you too.

Ok, fine.

Yes or no do you have any peer reviewed and published works to support Clinger's utterly absurd claim that magnetic reconnection occurs in a complete vacuum, in the absolute absence of plasma and plasma particle acceleration/movement? Yes or no?

 

[Seipai]

Considering the tone of his personal website, you're certainly forgiving when it suits you, and intolerant of such behavior when it suits you too.

Ok, fine.

Yes or no do you have any peer reviewed and published works to support Clinger's utterly absurd claim that magnetic reconnection occurs in a complete vacuum, in the absolute absence of plasma and plasma particle acceleration/movement? Yes or no?

That is simply because there is bad blood between the two of you. Also he may be using the term differently, and possibly incorrectly, from the way that you are using the term. Frankly I see you making this personal first and then getting mad at people when they respond in kind.

That is why I will not tolerate words like "hater" in this discussion. Have I quoted any of the bad words that Clinger used for you?

 

[Michael]

That is simply because there is bad blood between the two of you.

It has nothing to do with 'bad blood'. It's about the *qualifications* of your so called 'expert'. It's nothing personal, but that particular person is *definitely not* an expert on physics, and I know this from "experience". If you are going to cite an "expert" on GR theory, I *demand* that you select a physicist or at least someone that doesn't have a personal track record of sticking their physics foot in their mouth in my presence.

Also he may be using the term differently, and possibly incorrectly,

Science is all about the *proper* scientific use of terms. The term 'magnetic reconnection' has a very specific *physical meaning* in the realm of plasma physics. It has no meaning in a "vacuum".

from the way that you are using the term.

I'm simply using the term term the way WIKI uses the term, and the way every book on plasma physics uses the term. If Clinger were using the term *properly*, he could cite a *peer reviewed* paper to support his erroneous claim. He never did, mainly because he never *could*! He made up the whole thing in his head by following his own math skills down the primrose path rather than picking up a textbook and gaining some actually *knowledge* about *physics*.

I therefore see absolutely, positively no reason on God's green Earth to believe he has any clue at all about the physical subtleties of GR theory. You need to cite a *real expert* on physics, not some *non physicist* with a proven track record of complete ignorance when it comes to the physics he's trying to describe.

Frankly I see you making this personal first and then getting mad at people when they respond in kind.

Nope. Most of my relationships around here and most boards are pretty non personal and pretty non hostile. I take Jesus seriously about forgiving others as I would be forgiven. God knows I have a lot be forgiven for. I even forgive Clinger, but I refuse to let you hold him up as some sort of 'expert' on physics, since he admits up front that he's not an expert on physics, and I can personally *vouch for the fact he no expert in physics*.

That is why I will not tolerate words like "hater" in this discussion. Have I quoted any of the bad words that Clinger used for you?

The thing is, certain "crusaders" on the internet take it upon themselves to attack EU/PC theory on the internet. As I've traveled the internet circuit, I've run into several of them, Clinger being one of them. They are typically quite ignorant of the topic by choice, much like Clinger. They huff and puff and toss out a little math and *pretend* to know what they're talking about. He doesn't. I know this for a fact.

All I'm pointing out to you is this: GR theory is *complicated* in terms of *theory*, even among 'experts' in the field. It has subtleties, and historical subtleties that almost *nobody on Earth* knows about unless they've taken the time and made the effort to *read the material* and tried to comprehend it at the level of both *physics* and *math*, not just one or the other. With the exception of heliosciesmology, MHD theory is a *walk in the park* compared to GR theory in terms of understanding the history and subtleties of the theory. Clinger *intentionally* misrepresented even *Alfven's* view of reconnection theory. If he will stoop that low, I have no faith whatsoever in his opinions about Schwarzchild and Hilbert, or about any branch of physics for that matter.

 

[Seipai]

It has nothing to do with 'bad blood'. It's about the *qualifications* of your so called 'expert'. It's nothing personal, but that particular person is *definitely not* an expert on physics, and I know this from "experience". If you are going to cite an "expert" on GR theory, I *demand* that you select a physicist or at least someone that doesn't have a personal track record of sticking their physics foot in their mouth in my presence.

You are in no position to make such a demand. We have not even established that he has done so.

Science is all about the *proper* scientific use of terms. The term 'magnetic reconnection' has a very specific *physical meaning* in the realm of plasma physics. It has no meaning in a "vacuum".

The first part of this statement is true. The second part is not. It was shown how it could have a meaning in a vacuum. You seemed to have ignored that.

I'm simply using the term term the way WIKI uses the term, and the way every book on plasma physics uses the term. If Clinger were using the term *properly*, he could cite a *peer reviewed* paper to support his erroneous claim. He never did, mainly because he never *could*! He made up the whole thing in his head by following his own math skills down the primrose path rather than picking up a textbook and gaining some actually *knowledge* about *physics*.

I will agree that you are using the term it is commonly used.The question is why didn't you show him how he used the term incorrectly?

I therefore see absolutely, positively no reason on God's green Earth to believe he has any clue at all about the physical subtleties of GR theory. You need to cite a *real expert* on physics, not some *non physicist* with a proven track record of complete ignorance when it comes to the physics he's trying to describe.

You and Justa have been citing nonexperts, why can't I? Crothers seems to be a hero of Justa's and he Crothers clearly flunked out of grad school.

Nope. Most of my relationships around here and most boards is pretty non personal and pretty non hostile. I take Jesus seriously about forgiving others as I would be forgiven. God knows I have a lot be forgiven for. I even forgive Clinger, but I refuse to let you hold him up as some sort of 'expert' on physics, since he admits up front that he's not an expert on physics, and I can personally *vouch for the fact he no expert in physics*.

You may say that but that is not the way it looks to me.

The thing is, certain "crusaders" on the internet take it upon themselves to attack EU/PC theory on the internet. As I've traveled the internet circuit, I've run into several of them, Clinger being one of them. They are typically quite ignorant of the topic by choice, much like Clinger. They huff and puff and toss out a little math and *pretend* to know what they're talking about. He doesn't. I know this for a fact.

That is because the supporters of EU do not seem to be supporting it based upon science but upon their dislike of certain concepts in physics. The idea has lost all traction with the physics community.

All I'm pointing out to you is this: GR theory is *complicated* in terms of *theory*, even among 'experts' in the field. It has subtleties, and historical subtleties that almost *nobody on Earth* knows about unless they've taken the time and made the effort to *read the material* and tried to comprehend it at the level of both *physics* and *math*, not just one or the other. With the exception of heliosciesmology, MHD theory is a *walk in the park* compared to GR theory in terms of understanding the history and subtleties of the theory. Clinger *intentionally* misrepresented even *Alfven's* view of reconnection theory. If he will stoop that low, I have no faith whatsoever in his opinions about Schwarzchild and Hilbert, or about any branch of physics for that matter.

If all that you have is an incorrect use of a fairly arcane term you don't have must to go on. If all he did was to use "magnetic reconnection" in an inappropriate way that has nothing to do with is ability to understand GR.

 

[Michael]

You are in no position to make such a demand.

Ya I am. *Every* scientific debate requires *published* support, otherwise you might as well just be a creationist handwaving away at some random unpublished, non peer reviewed website.

We have not even established that he has done so.

Sure I have as demonstrated by your inability to provide a *published* paper or textbook on MHD theory that supports his claim!

The first part of this statement is true. The second part is not.

Since the second part is *not* true, your 'expert' is no 'expert' in physics!

It was shown how it could have a meaning in a vacuum. You seemed to have ignored that.

The only "physical meaning" it 'could have' in a vacuum is 'magnetic flux'. Honestly, he hasn't a clue about even *basic* EM field theory. He didn't need anything but magnetic repulsion, attraction and flux to describe those events in a vacuum. Epic fail at the level of actual *physics* and proper use of scientific terms in physics.

I will agree that you are using the term it is commonly used.The question is why didn't you show him how he used the term incorrectly?

I did! I did in several different ways too, and he ignored all of it, including the fact he was *incapable* of physically defining the *rate* of reconnection in a vacuum. He's not interested in *learning* about MHD theory or he would have picked up a textbook on the topic and read it!

You and Justa have been citing nonexperts, why can't I? Crothers seems to be a hero of Justa's and he Crothers clearly flunked out of grad school.

You seem to keep ignoring the peer reviewed paper by Abrams as well as this paper by Antoci and Liebscher. That's three published opinions to *zip*!

You may say that but that is not the way it looks to me.

The bottom line is you're going to need an actual "peer" to "peer review" peer reviewed work. Clinger isn't a physicist. He was quite upfront about that point, yet you keep holding him up as an authority figure on topics related to physics. I happen to know for a fact that he is *not* an expert on physics and he has a known track record of *misrepresenting* both my statements and the statements of Alfven himself. Sorry, Clinger is nobody's peer on GR theory or MHD theory. He should stick to math, or at least pickup a *physics* books sometime.

That is because the supporters of EU do not seem to be supporting it based upon science but upon their dislike of certain concepts in physics. The idea has lost all traction with the physics community.

Sorry, but you missed the *entire point* of EU/PC theory. It's based on pure *empirical physics*, including things that show up in the lab. There is a common dislike within the PC/EU community for "supernatural" constructs, that's all. Don't blame me because your beliefs violate the Pauli exclusion principle.

If all that you have is an incorrect use of a fairly arcane term you don't have must to go on. If all he did was to use "magnetic reconnection" in an inappropriate way that has nothing to do with is ability to understand GR.

As I mentioned, I've studied both GR theory and MHD theory from actual textbooks. I find GR theory to be *much* more fraught with physical subtleties and historical subtleties than anything related to MHD theory with the possible exception of heliosiesmology in terms of the physical subtleties. In terms of historical subtleties however, it's not even close. If Clinger can't be trusted to *accurately* represent Alfven's views on reconnection theory, how can I possibly trust him as it relates to Schwarzchild or Hilbert or Einstein, or anyone else? You tell me.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is simply because there is bad blood between the two of you. Also he may be using the term differently, and possibly incorrectly, from the way that you are using the term. Frankly I see you making this personal first and then getting mad at people when they respond in kind.

That is why I will not tolerate words like "hater" in this discussion. Have I quoted any of the bad words that Clinger used for you?

So you are going to trust a person who by your own admission may be using a term incorrectly? The only difference in the way the terms are used is that Clinger has not ONE SINGLE published paper that supports his definition, while Michael has all of science backing his. You have already found out yourself that plasma is a requirement in magnetic reconnection. In fact, without it there is no theory at all, because it only occurs in plasma, i.e. the sun and earth's magnetosphere, etc.

Magnetosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A magnetosphere is the area of space near an astronomical object in which charged particles are controlled by that object's magnetic field...Near the surface of the object, the magnetic field lines resemble those of a magnetic dipole. Farther away from the surface, the field lines are significantly distorted by electric currents flowing in the plasma (e.g. in ionosphere or solar wind)."

So without those charged particles and electric currents that Clinger likes to ignore, all he is left with is Fairie Dust.

Come on Seipai, you are supporting a man who knows nothing of actual physics. It is right there in black and white, not just on WIKI, but in all of physics.

Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Coupling

"Spatial/temporal variations in high-latitude electromagnetic phenomena, such as dynamic aurorae, electric fields and currents, have proved to be extremely complex. Now the challenge is to comprehend the vast amount of complicated measurements made in this magnetosphere-ionosphere system of the Earth. This book addresses the electrical coupling between the hot, but dilute, magnetospheric plasma and the cold, but dense, plasma in the ionosphere."

Electrodynamic coupling of the magnetosphere and ionosphere - Springer

Magnetospheres - NASA Science

1990SSRv...52...33L Page 33

Quiet auroral arcs and electrodynamic coupling between the ionosphere and the magnetosphere, 1 - Sato - 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research - Wiley Online Library

http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/spacescience/wl/pub/Melanson07.pdf

It is all there in the literature, the same literature that Clinger and astronomers ignore, both of whom have never taken a course in plasma physics and understand less about it then even I do. Your experts do not even understand the basics of plasma physics.

They are ignoring those electric currents, because they do not want to hear about anything electrical, because they have their Fairie Dust theories and do not want to give them up or admit they are wrong. Their egos are controlling their scientific views, not the data.

 

[Seipai]

So you are going to trust a person who by your own admission may be using a term incorrectly? The only difference in the way the terms are used is that Clinger has not ONE SINGLE published paper that supports his definition, while Michael has all of science backing his. You have already found out yourself that plasma is a requirement in magnetic reconnection. In fact, without it there is no theory at all, because it only occurs in plasma, i.e. the sun and earth's magnetosphere, etc.

No, Michael has very very little science backing his views. We are talking about one minor term that may have been misused.

And please. Since you are constantly in the wrong when it comes to almost any article you also are in no position to be commenting at all.

Meanwhile you are following a "science" that has almost all of science has long since determined is a dead end.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, Michael has very very little science backing his views. We are talking about one minor term that may have been misused.

And please. Since you are constantly in the wrong when it comes to almost any article you also are in no position to be commenting at all.

Meanwhile you are following a "science" that has almost all of science has long since determined is a dead end.

None of you have shown with any science whatsoever that I have been wrong on anything. You just claim that, just like you claimed magnetic reconnection was possible without plasma, and could not produce one single peer reviewed article. While I on the other hand showed you several, and then you realized you were wrong. In case you haven't noticed, unlike all of you I ALWAYS include references, because science supports my claims. Unlike you, I don't use Fairie Dust that has no scientific basis.

You guys just make Fairie Dust claims of incorrectness, without showing anything wrong at all.

Just like astronomers claim magnetic field lines cross and connect. While scientifically we know magnetic field lines do not exist, nor can the fields cross.

Field line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field and a starting location within the field. Field lines are useful for visualizing vector fields, which are otherwise hard to depict. Note that, like longitude and latitude lines on a globe, or topographic lines on a topographic map, these lines are not physical lines that are actually present at certain locations; they are merely visualization tools."

Magnetic Field Characteristics

"They never cross one another."

https://www.boundless.com/physics/magnetism/magnetism-and-magnetic-fields/magnetic-field-lines/

"A magnetic field line can never cross another field line. The magnetic field is unique at every point in space."

Magnetic Fields and Magnetic Field Lines

"Magnetic field lines can never cross, meaning that the field is unique at any point in space."

But astronomers apparently do not understand the basics of science and not only have the lines being real entities, but crossing and merging as well. Pseudoscience. Completely against every known physics we know.

Here, learn something about magnetism.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/electricity-and-magnetism/v/magnetism-2

Sit and ponder the formulas for a bit.

 

[Seipai]

Please, bearing false witness is a sin.

And please don't say someone says something unless you can quote them claiming that.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Please, bearing false witness is a sin.

And please don't say someone says something unless you can quote them claiming that.

Then quit bearing false witness.

Quit claiming people are wrong when you have no facts to support your Fairie Dust. It is not my problem you believe in a cosmology that is full of Fairie Dust. That your cosmology has become your religion and you refuse to accept actual science preferring to live in a fantasy land of invisible and undetectable sky deities instead of seeing what is actually in the universe.

Its not my fault you are letting the egos of astronomers control your faith, because that is what modern cosmology is, religion, not science.

 

[Elendur]

Justa, this is the last reminder I'll post for you, respond to my posts:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7793.../#post64949832

http://www.christianforums.com/t7793.../#post64952637

(Or skip the first one, I'm not particularly harsh about that one)

If you won't answer, then I'll conclude that you're incapable of answering the critique I've levied against you.

 

[Michael]

No, Michael has very very little science backing his views. We are talking about one minor term that may have been misused.

What? Clinger does *not* even have a firm grasp of *basic* EM field theory, or he would have used *proper scientific terms* to describe magnetic repulsion, attraction and flux, since this is *all* he could possibly create in his *solid state* experiment! Holy cow.

Worse yet, your "expert" blatantly misrepresented Alfven's views on reconnection theory.

As it relates to the Crother's debate, there are two basic issues involved, *physics*, and a firm understanding of the *historical* views of various individuals. Clinger has demonstrated that he was correct that he is *not* a physicist, and he has a proven track record of *misrepresenting* the historical positions! You *really* expect me to take that "guy from the internet" seriously as it relates to *physics*, and history?

So far you've been shown two published papers from three different *published* authors, who all explained the *historical* implications and changes in concept between Schwarzchild and Hilbert.

So far all I've seen from you is a guy who's credibility in terms of physics *and* in terms of history is *more than a little less than credible*.

How about a *published* paper that actually supports your position, rather than an *unpublished* handwave from a guy that was right when he claimed he's no physicist. He's no historian either as his comments about Alfven demonstrate.

And please. Since you are constantly in the wrong when it comes to almost any article you also are in no position to be commenting at all.

Pfft. Even Wiki makes it quite clear that "magnetic reconnection" is a physical process that occurs *in plasma*, as the result of the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy. Your math guru botched the *physics*, even the most basic fundamental concepts of kinetic energy transfers to charged particles! Come on!

Meanwhile you are following a "science" that has almost all of science has long since determined is a dead end.

Boloney. Virtually all of modern civilization is built upon circuit theory, EM field theory and empirical physics in general. I am simply applying *known laws of empirical physics* to events in space, and coming up with *working* (in the lab) solutions to various stellar and astronomical observations.

Gamma rays and free positrons for instance are *routinely* created in the Earth's atmosphere by electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. It's therefore logical to assume that most higher energy radiation from space is probably related to such electrically oriented activity.

Mainstream astronomers however point at the very same high energy events in the sky and claim their "dark" sky deity did it, or some form of what Alfven called "pseudoscience" did it.

So far, you show all the signs of pure projection, and pure denial. We've presented you with *peer reviewed* positions both on topics related to 'magnetic reconnection', and topics related to Schwarzchild's position vs. Hilbert's *kludge* of that position. All I've seen from you thus far on either topic is an unpublished hater website from a guy who is both incompetent and untrustworthy on topics related to physics.

Are you going to provide us with any *peer reviewed* rebuttals to either of those two *peer reviewed* papers, or is Clinger all you've got?

 

[Seipai]

Then quit bearing false witness.

Quit claiming people are wrong when you have no facts to support your Fairie Dust. It is not my problem you believe in a cosmology that is full of Fairie Dust. That your cosmology has become your religion and you refuse to accept actual science preferring to live in a fantasy land of invisible and undetectable sky deities instead of seeing what is actually in the universe.

Its not my fault you are letting the egos of astronomers control your faith, because that is what modern cosmology is, religion, not science.

You just did it again. Of course there is evidence that supports the current model. Only a delusional person would truly believe otherwise. Now you may not think they have enough evidence. Or you may even disagree with some of the interpretations of the evidence. But to claim that there is none is a bald faced lie.

Now you know there are all sorts of problems with your beliefs. Yes, you can get some redshift with plasma. The problem is that you do not get the right kind. The sort of redshift from plasma experiments does not match that observed in nature. Neither of you two were ever able to answer Loudmouth's demands reasonably.

 

[Seipai]

And Michael I see you don't want to debate. You want to attack someone that made you look like a fool.

That's fine with me. When you get over your hurt feelings perhaps we can discuss matters.