Oy Vey. Alfven wrote about plasma filaments large and small his entire professional career. I'm sure he would have *easily* recognized a Birkeland current in plasma on *any* scale.
Upvote
0
Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (3)
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
- Status
Oy Vey. Alfven wrote about plasma filaments large and small his entire professional career. I'm sure he would have *easily* recognized a Birkeland current in plasma on *any* scale.
Yes, and I gave it to you three years ago and again today. Denial is your primary self defense mechanism apparently. You also ran from my request, whereas I will fulfill your request *again* right now:
1958IAUS....6..135D Page 135
Where is *your* reference RC?
Upvote
0
Yes another unsupported assertion, Michael!
Please cite the paper(s) where Alfven replaced magnetic reconnection theory in all "current carrying environments" with another theory.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Double Layers In Astrophysics.pdf
Still waiting for *your* reference that uses the term "impossible" in reference to electrical discharges in plasma. Do you have one, yes or no?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Actually the "ambient medium" as you're calling it is a *million degree plasma*
!That is the temperature if the intra-cluster medium that we see shock waves in.
When will you understand that I do not think that there is any error in his paper, Michael?
It is a nice little paper. Very outdated since the evidence for magnetic reconnection causing solar flares has become very strong in the last 46 years.
So answer:
What does the opinion of a dead man stated in a speech decades have to do with the fact that he was basically wrong?
Surely you lie about understanding the logical fallacy of argument from authority, Michael
, (or at least make a very bad mistake)!Way to shot yourself in the foot, Michael - you are also not an astronomer. You are the one use terms like clueless, dead sky deity, yada, yada, yada on astronomy topics when you're not even an astronomer in the first place!
I have the advantage over you of knowing my limits about the topics I write about. I can start with a good grounding in physics to graduate level. I then double check (usually
) my memory with the scientific literature. I make mistakes and am prepared to acknowledge them if evidence is produced that I did.Then there is you, Michael.
In this thread, you asserted that Guth predicted that the universe is homogeneous on large scales. I pointed out that homogeneity has been an assumption in cosmology well before Guth.
Do you acknowledge that you got it wrong? Not so far (but I live in hope!).
In this thread, you are asserting that cosmological redshift is caused inelastic scattering processes. But
- That this seems your own opinion (no citations to literature supporting you) raises doublts.
- Inelastic scattering causes both redshift and blue shift.
- Tired light theories in general are invalid. e.g. Errors in Tired Light Cosmology
- There is a reason why astronomers dismiss inelastic scattering out of hand - they know what scattering is !
Scattering causes a proportion of incident particle to be scattered. But cosmological redshift is the observation that every detected photon that we see is redshifted. We never see the original spectrum of a redshifted galaxy no matter how close it is to us.
ETA: Michael: Tired light theories predict no detectable redshift through scattering
First pointed out20th November 2012
ETA: Michael, can you provide evidence peer-reviewed scientific literature that the following can cause cosmological redshift?
First asked 14th November 2012
In another thread you asserted that the transition region is 4000 km (or about) below the surface of the Sun.
But
- Astronomers put it between the chromosphere and corona (it is the transition zone between the relative cool chromosphere and the much hotter corona).
This is easy to see - block out light from the body of the Sun here on Earth and the gap between the chromosphere and the corona is the transition zone. - Less than 1 photon a year would escape from a depth of ~4000 km .
So according to you, the images taken of the transition zone are impossible.
In the same thread you assert that images of solar flares that are happening above the photosphere are actually images of "mountain ranges" (as in your web site) forming the surface of the Sun when the original images of solar flares are mathematically processed into running difference images. Mathematics does not transform thin plasma into solid iron!
Do you acknowledge that you got it wrong? Not so far.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Emphasis mine.
Please cite the paper(s) where Alfven replaced magnetic reconnection theory in all "current carrying environments" with another theory.
And my emphasis again.
I do know the difference between a speech and a paper, Michael - do you
?
Upvote
0
And you cite Dungey and his high current density in MR yet again
.Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.
Upvote
0
He would have looked at the images and known that Birkeland currents were not involved because he knew that Birkeland currents happen in very specific situations, e.g. around the Earth.
Another ETA just for fun:
Why don't we think what Alfven would say about an image of the Earth and it's magnetosphere which is known to contain Birkeland currents. Absolutely no signs of a Birkeland current in plasma on *this* scale, Michael!
We had to send probes into space to make measurements and then analyse the results in 1966.
He would have read Jason Fiege and Ralph Pudritz's paper and agreed that the magnetic field is a result of the existing shape of the cloud (judging by the news article though the paper would be interesting).
ETA: I was wrong (see Michael, this is how to acknowledge that you make an error
)Helical fields and filamentary molecular clouds - I
They assume the existence of helical magnetic fields and show that shape is significantly affected by the toroidal fields.
Not that the question has anything to do with Birkeland currents or peoples ability to make up fantasies about astronomical images.
Evidence that Hannes Alfvén described 'threads' as current flows and circuits?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Actually the "ambient medium" as you're calling it is a *million degree plasma*
Er, no. You said *magnetosphere*. I'm sure there are shock waves in *all* types of plasma at *all* temperatures that are possible in plasma.
Then you have no business claiming Alfven was wrong. You haven't even *read* a single textbook on plasma physics, whereas Alfven literally wrote the book on MHD theory. I trust Alfven. I don't trust you at all.
The actual cause (electricity) of solar flares hasn't changed one iota in the whole of human history, and it has nothing to do with the pseudoscience called "magnetic reconnection".
You haven't demonstrated he was "basically wrong" for starters, and his "explanation" doesn't requires us to ignore basic EM field theory which insists that magnetic fields have no beginning, no end, no ability to disconnect from, nor reconnect to any other magnetic line. There are no "monopoles" found in nature. The only way for energy to move from one flux rope to another is by charged particle movement through a *double layer*!
The difference between us is that *besides* reading the mainstream dogma, I've also read *several* textbooks on the topic of MHD theory, I've read Cosmic Plasma for myself, and I've published papers on astronomy topics.
arXiv.org Search
Which of your papers on astronomy topics might I find on Arxiv?
I've since toned it down a bit and I've been sticking to the term "supernatural" as of late. Care to reciprocate?
Pfft. Your comments about electrical discharges being impossible in plasma, combined with the fact you've been playing the role of EU/PC "skeptic" without ever reading Cosmic Plasma demonstrates you don't know your limits at all. You've never read a book on MDH theory. You've never read Perratt's book either. You've never once provided a published reference to back up any of your erroneous statements even though I've asked you for them for *years*.
Great. When can I expect your to read a textbook on MHD theory then?
Alfven called some of that literature "pseudoscience".I then double check (usually
The fact you've never recanted your claim about electrical discharges being impossible in plasma and you've never produced a reference that used the term "impossible" demonstrates that your statement is false.
So what? He formally *predicted* it with his theory, and like every other prediction he made, it was *falsified*!
I never denied that Guth *postdicted a fit* in the first place, in fact I've been complaining about it for *years*! I've complained because like every other "bait and switch" technique being used, he *postdicted* a fit, and astronomers kept claiming it was a *prediction* of his theory! It was pure false advertizing to call it a *prediction* to start with.
Absolutely and positively false. Even Hubble himself wrote about *two* possible explanations for redshift, not one. I've also provided all sorts of published literature from Chen and many others that demonstrates for a fact that inelastic scattering happens in plasma.
Then please show me where in Chen's lab experiments with scattering where he observed blueshift as well as redshift.
I've ripped on Ned Wright's *unpublished* nonsense for years now. There's no point in doing it again.
When can I expect you to read Cosmic Plasma oh great EU/PC skeptic?
When can I expect you to provide a *published reference* that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma., and actually uses the term "impossible"? Never! Run away from these two questions all you like, but as long as you keep engaging me in debate I will keep asking you those same two questions.
I've provided you with your requested references, but you have *never* produced a published reference to back up your claim about electrical discharges being "impossible" in plasma. Never.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Emphasis mine.
Please cite the paper(s) where Alfven replaced magnetic reconnection theory in all "current carrying environments" with another theory.
And my emphasis again.
I do know the difference between a speech and a paper, Michael - do you
http://www.christianforums.com/t7754178-19/#post64241430
I added a link to the published paper for you.
Still waiting for your reference on electrical discharges being "impossible" (using that term) in plasma. And waiting, and waiting and waiting...
Upvote
0
I said that you got the term "bow shocks" wrong: "Actually you only get bow shocks between a magnetosphere and an ambient medium".
I am talking about shock waves, e.g. between colliding galaxy clusters.
That paper is not wrong.
Alfven's opinion in his speech was wrong because plasma physics has advanced since then even while essentially ignoring his speech.
The actual cause of solar flares has changed through human history as people came up with different theories. The observations show that MR is the cause of solar flares
The modern scientific literature demonstrates that Alfven was basically wrong.
You were an author on those quite crank papers whose contribution looks like the idea that images of solar flares are actually images of iron mountain ranges.
You will not - I was a solid state physicist.
Sure - you show me a theory that is worth of calling supernatural and I will call it supernatural.
But show me a theory based on "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic and "I will deny basic physics" bias and I will call the theory a crank theory and the author a crank.
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc. (November 2012)
When we get around to discussing MHD theory.
The answer to this Have you heard of the logical fallacy of argument from authority, Michael? remains no !
So what? You remain wrong and now you have an actual lie
Inflationary theory makes several predictions. None of then have been falsified so far.
Citation for the Plank results showing that "universe isn't homogeneous on the largest scales", Michael.
- solves the horizon problem (half of which is homogeneity)
- solves the flatness problem.
- solves the magnetic monopole problem.
- spectral index between 0.92 and 0.98.
Absolutely and positively unable to understand what you read, Michael.
Maybe it is getting late in your day wherever you are
You have never produced any scientific literature about your idea
Michael, can you provide evidence peer-reviewed scientific literature that the following can cause cosmological redshift?
First asked 14th November 2012
And of course inelastic scattering happens in plasma!
First please show me where in Chen's lab experiments where they state that the cause of the redshift was inelastic scattering.
You have been in denial of the basic physics described in Ned Wrights *unpublished* science for years now. You seem determined to keep this up.
Tired light theories in general are invalid.
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology gives a good explanation using clear language.
I may have to ask you if you know what scattering is (i.e. that 100% of particles are never scattered but you can get very close to it!), Michael!
There is a reason why astronomers dismiss inelastic scattering out of hand - they know what scattering isAnd maybe even a couple of more questions are needed since you ignored this:
Scattering causes a proportion of incident particle to be scattered. But cosmological redshift is the observation that every detected photon that we see is redshifted. We never see the original spectrum of a redshifted galaxy no matter how close it is to us.
ETA: Michael: Tired light theories predict no detectable redshift through scattering
First pointed out 20th November 2012
You put the transition zone at a depth of ~4000 km.
Astronomers put the transition zone between the chromosphere and corona (it is the transition zone between the relative cool chromosphere and the much hotter corona). This is easy to see - block out light from the body of the Sun here on Earth and the gap between the chromosphere and the corona is the transition zone.
Less than 1 photon a year would escape from a depth of ~4000 km .
So according to you, the images taken of the transition zone are impossible.
Do you acknowledge that you got it wrong? Not so far.
You assert that images of solar flares that are happening above the photosphere are actually images of "mountain ranges" (as in your web site) forming the surface of the Sun when the original images of solar flares are mathematically processed into running difference images. Mathematics does not transform thin plasma into solid iron!
Do you acknowledge that you got it wrong? Not so far.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I already have a copy of the Double Layers in Astrophysics conference proceedings. Alfven gave the keynote speech and concluding remarks. No sign of a paper from him in the contents. Plenty of references to his papers.
This paper he presented, Michael: What is its title? Where does it appear in the table of contents? What peer-reviewed journal did subsequently publish the paper in?
ETA:
What does your display of hero worship of Alven got to do with plasma physics, Michael
?A point about the scientific process: Conference papers are not considered as credible as peer-reviewed paper published in journals. Conferences are basically used to
- mark your territory, i.e. reduce duplicate effort
- test out work in progress
- find out what other people are doing
- and of course party!
So the question remains
Please cite the paper(s) where Alfven replaced magnetic reconnection theory in all "current carrying environments" with another theory.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You're definitely the laziest and/or the most incompetent "skeptic" I've ever met on any subject in cyberspace. Follow the links to the refereed copy of the paper, and you'll find all your answers. Do you even know how to use the ADS search features?
Double layers and circuits in astrophysics
What does your display of hero worship of Alven got to do with plasma physics, Michael
There's nothing 'hero worship' about it. Electricity works. Furthermore, I certainly *do* trust the guy that wrote the book and received the Nobel Prize for plasma physics *more than* I trust some guy on the internet that has *never even read a book on MHD theory*! That's not hero worship, that's common sense. For crying out loud, you apparently can't even use the ADS search features!
If you follow that refereed link to his double layer paper, guess where it takes you?
Honestly RC, I've seen lazy skeptics, but you're unbelievable.
Upvote
0
You haven't demonstrated his opinion was wrong, and you can't. Even the so called 'experiments' on "reconnection" begin and end with moving charged particles (aka current), typically using an electric field, and sometimes a laser to move the charged particles. All the transfer of energy takes place between charged particles inside of a *double layer*. There is no need for reconnection theory, and it defies the EM field behaviors as we understand them. Magnetic lines are a *human device*. They are not real. Magnetic fields form as a complete and full continuum, not lines. Even when they talk about "lines' as a device in basic EM theory they are said to be without beginning, without ending, without the ability to disconnect from, nor reconnect to any other magnetic lines. There's no such thing as monopole in nature, so all the energy transfer between two flux ropes *necessarily* relates to charged particle movement through a double layer as Alfven *clearly* explained in his double layer paper.
Yes, but only Birkeland built himself a working scale model in the lab and used it to *predict* solar flare, solar jets, and both types of high speed charged particles in solar wind.
False. They clearly show that electrical discharges are the cause of solar flares. Bruce wrote all about it in the 1950's.
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
Nope. It shows that he was right, including every *actual lab experiment* where a double layer forms between two current carrying filaments in plasma. All the energy comes from the circuit and/or from kinetic energy of the charged particle movement. None of that energy comes from magnetic lines 'disconnecting' or 'reconnecting' to other magnetic lines.
Yawn. Right back to the ad hom nonsense. You're not only a lazy critic, you're a verbally abusive lazy critic that refuses to educate themselves by bothering to read the book on the topic in question. How many years now have you played the role of pseudo-skeptic without reading Cosmic Plasma RC?
Then you have absolutely nothing to offer me as it relates to astronomy.
A) Expansion of space (never happens in the lab) - Supernatural
B) Inflation causes space to expand (never happens in the lab) - Supernatural
C) Dark energy causes space to accelerate (never happens in the lab) - Supernatural
D) Long lived exotic matter (not even a hint of such a thing at LHC). - Supernatural
That's four supernatural claims already and Guth's prediction about 'homogeneity' went up in flames in the Planck data, so I'm sure they'll be a fifth supernatural construct any old day now. They just can agree yet on *which* supernatural claim they like the best yet.
You'll continue to personally harass me in cyberspace till death do us part apparently. You'll call me names. You'll avoid my tough questions, and you'll continue to make claims you cannot and will not support with anything published. I on the other hand bothered to get my work published. You've never even read a relevant textbook on this topic, so I could care less what you personally think about it.
I even beat spaceweather.com on predicting a glancing blow form that last dark filament eruption, and I accurately described the timeframe in terms of the arrival of the CME at Earth. I've also used my techniques at JREF to "predict' a X-class flares within a 20 minute window from the start of a multiple flare event. My theories work. You have no idea what you're talking about.
You have *never* provided any published work to support your false assertion and you never will. Run RC, RUN! When will provide us with any author that uses the term "impossible" with respect to electrical discharges is plasma? You never will. It's *impossible* for you do to that because no author ever made such a claim in the whole of human history until you said it.
You've never discussed MHD theory because you can't. You've never read a textbook on the topic, so you're utterly and completely ignorant on the topic - *by choice*.
When can I expect you to provide me with a paper and quote that uses the term 'impossible' with respect to electrical discharges in plasma?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jun 4, 2013
- 10,132
- 996
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
The lab where it is always sunny: Researchers recreate precursor to solar flares | Mail Online
Sorry, even laboratory evidence shows solar flares are caused by electric currents, not magnetic reconnection, whatever that is supposed to be. Your own MR theories violate everything known about magnetic fields.
Gauss' Law for Magnetic Fields
"[SIZE=-1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]Magnetic field-lines form closed loops which never begin or end."
Let alone the fact that there no longer exists the convection your theory required to form the magnetic fields your theory needed in the first place to explain the electric current.
Anomalously weak solar convection
Someday maybe you might come to realize it is the electric currents that causes the magnetic field, and has nothing to do with any convection from deep within the sun.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0611/0611441.pdf
Still wanting to apply [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]magneto-hydrodynamic's to plasma though, so it will be awhile before you finally catch on. I give your scientists 4 years before they run out of Fairie Dust.
Upvote
0
- Jun 4, 2013
- 10,132
- 996
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
No more than the papers written by E decades ago that are basically wrong.
You rely on a theory that describes only solids, liquids and gasses, and with this theory try to describe the other 99% of the universe, Plasma.
Lo and behold, the math fails utterly. Theories topple one by one, yet in your religious fervor you ignore the facts and instead turn to Fairie Dust.
Galactic rotation curves don't match theory? Why add Fairie Dust and see, all is fine in Big Bang religion.
Incorrect beliefs about redshift make it appear galaxies are receeding at close to fractions of c? A result even mainstream can't stomach, why just add more Fairie Dust in an expanding spacetime composed of absolutely nothing and once again all is fine in Big Bang religion land.
Nevermind the fact that your religious astronomical leaders wouldn't understand plasma science even if they actually read it. You have simply put faith in a religion of Fairie Dust, while continuing to ignore what 99% of the universe really is.
Constantly treating it just like those solids, liquids and gasses it behaves quite unlike. This is why you need all the Fairie Dust, because you refuse to treat Plasma as an electrical active medium, and instead treat it as an electrical neutral medium. As a solid, liquid or a gas, 1% of the universe.
It is your basic premise behind all your theories that is wrong. It is NOT an electrical neutral universe. Theories devised about space before a single probe had been launched.
Electrical "Plasma Arms" of the Coma Galaxy Cluster | Space News - YouTube
The Mystery of Aligned Nebulae | Space News - YouTube
Stop perpetuating the religious myths of yesteryear.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Who is E, what papers did E publish and what are is the scientific literature showing that E's papers are wrong, Justatruthseeker?No more than the papers written by E decades ago that are basically wrong.
...snipped wall of what looks like ignorance or denial of cosmology...
The "fairy dust", "religion" and other terms make it look like you are ignorant of or in denial of cosmology, Justatruthseeker. If you want to actually discuss cosmology then you need to write coherently and with supported assertion about cosmology. If you have valid points to raise then I would be happy to discuss them.
You may want to read what actual cosmology is about, e.g. Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology.
Upvote
0
You're definitely the laziest and/or the most incompetent "skeptic" I've ever met on any subject in cyberspace. You cannot even understand what you wrote
:(my emphasis added)
Michael:
Where is Alfven's paper in the 1986 conference proceedings?
Follow the link to the conference proceedings and you will find no presentation of this paper or any other paper by Alfven (as far as I can see) at the conference.
Follow the Double layers and circuits in astrophysics link and you will see that the Double Layers in Astrophysics Workshop is part of the publication information. But see above - no presentation at the conference.
That Double layers and circuits in astrophysics paper was certainly published in the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Sciences 9 months after the conference.
What we can conclude from this is that Alfven did not present any papers at the conference. The published paper looks like a more formal version of his keynote speech.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I see that Michael is continuing with his denial of scientific definitions eek and science so there is little point in debating him.
The questions remain though:
Please cite the paper(s) where Alfven replaced magnetic reconnection theory in all "current carrying environments" with another theory.
3rd October 2013
Citation for the Plank results showing that "universe isn't homogeneous on the largest scales", Michael.
2nd October 2013
Have you heard of the logical fallacy of argument from authority, Michael? (Michael's obsession with Alfven as the authority on plasma)
The answer remains no!
2nd October 2013
For everyone else's information:
Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!
2nd December 2012
That post does not mention his denial of a definition. Astronomers observed that there is a gap between the chromosphere and the corona and called it the transition zone. Michael denies that this gap exists!
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.
12 November 2012
Michael has still not acknowledged that he knows the difference between solids (a comet nucleus) and plasma and thus one paper he cited is irrelevant.
What Michael is denying in this thread is basic scattering:
Michael: Tired light theories predict no detectable redshift through scattering
20th November 2012
Scattering does not scatter 100% of light and so cannot blue or red shift 100% of light. Cosmological redshift is the observation that 100% of the light we detect from galaxies is redshifted. We never see the original spectral lines of the galaxies.
eek and science so there is little point in debating him.The questions remain though:
Please cite the paper(s) where Alfven replaced magnetic reconnection theory in all "current carrying environments" with another theory.
3rd October 2013
Citation for the Plank results showing that "universe isn't homogeneous on the largest scales", Michael.
2nd October 2013
Have you heard of the logical fallacy of argument from authority, Michael? (Michael's obsession with Alfven as the authority on plasma)
The answer remains no!
2nd October 2013
For everyone else's information:
Michael's iron surface idea completely debunked!
2nd December 2012
That post does not mention his denial of a definition. Astronomers observed that there is a gap between the chromosphere and the corona and called it the transition zone. Michael denies that this gap exists!
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.
12 November 2012
Michael has still not acknowledged that he knows the difference between solids (a comet nucleus) and plasma and thus one paper he cited is irrelevant.
What Michael is denying in this thread is basic scattering:
Michael: Tired light theories predict no detectable redshift through scattering
20th November 2012
Scattering does not scatter 100% of light and so cannot blue or red shift 100% of light. Cosmological redshift is the observation that 100% of the light we detect from galaxies is redshifted. We never see the original spectral lines of the galaxies.
Upvote
0
Sorry, that is not what your link says, Justatruthseeker.
[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]Do not always trust Wikipedia! That should read:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"Magnetic field-lines form closed loops which never begin or end for bar magnets"[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Gauss' Law for Magnetic Fields means that every magnetic field line entering a region has to have a corresponding magnetic field line leaving that region. It does not say that they have to be the same line.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]It is a common misconception that magnetic field lines cannot break. Knowing two simple facts, Justatruthseeker, clears this misconception:
- Where there is no magnetic field there are no magnetic field lines.
- It is possible to have a magnetic field configuration where magnetic field lines cross a point where there is no magnetic field (a null point).
That is magnetic field line reconnection and shortened to magnetic reconnection.
Someday read the science and see that it is the electric currents that causes solar magnetic fields, Justatruthseeker
.Magnetic fields do have something to do with convection - they effect the viscosity and density of plasmas. This is a thing called plasma physics.
Add an internal heat source and you have convection.
What Anomalously weak solar convection shows is that the theory about solar convection or the computer simulations of solar convection (or both!) are wrong. Astronomers will come up with a better theory or simulations which is how science progresses. There is also a slight possibility that this result is wrong.
What Anomalously weak solar convection also shows is that alternative theories are even worse because they do not even predict any numbers for convection, especially the fantasies at the thunderbolts web site.[/SIZE][/SIZE]
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
No. What you *should* have concluded is that Alfven knew a whole lot more about plasma physics than you do, and his paper *was* published. Have you even read a book yet on MHD theory RC?
This was the question you asked me.
I answered it for you too:
Double layers and circuits in astrophysics
Whereas Alfven published *more than a hundred* papers related to plasma physics and astronomy, you've published a total of zero!
Get a life already and go finds someone else to stalk on the internet RC.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
