Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy - Magnetic Reconnection
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael" data-source="post: 64373166" data-attributes="member: 627"><p>I hear you. Unlike an externally powered solar models, the internally powered models don't pop "nice clean and simple" numbers out of them in terms of current densities between various stars. </p><p></p><p>Overall I say that EU/PC theory is really rather mathematically *inelegant* which is why the mainstream resisted Birkeland's theories and preferred Chapman's theories for many decades. Only in the 70's did they finally *grudgingly* embrace Birkeland's maths related to aurora. EU/PC theory is just not as clean and simple as other cosmology theories in terms of the mathematical models. That tends to be turn off for math jocks. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, thanks anyway for another very enjoyable conversation. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> I appreciate you allowing me to explain some of the important differences between the various solar models in EU/PC theory. </p><p></p><p>Thanks for the time <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="Michael, post: 64373166, member: 627"] I hear you. Unlike an externally powered solar models, the internally powered models don't pop "nice clean and simple" numbers out of them in terms of current densities between various stars. Overall I say that EU/PC theory is really rather mathematically *inelegant* which is why the mainstream resisted Birkeland's theories and preferred Chapman's theories for many decades. Only in the 70's did they finally *grudgingly* embrace Birkeland's maths related to aurora. EU/PC theory is just not as clean and simple as other cosmology theories in terms of the mathematical models. That tends to be turn off for math jocks. :) Well, thanks anyway for another very enjoyable conversation. :) I appreciate you allowing me to explain some of the important differences between the various solar models in EU/PC theory. Thanks for the time :)[/quote] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy - Magnetic Reconnection
Top
Bottom