Well, since Tom Bridgman has taken it upon himself to publicly misrepresent EU/PC theory, and he’s up to his usual tricks of holding on to my responses for however long he feels like it, I thought that I’d respond to Mr. Bridgman’s most recent blog problems here too:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2361412992308994774&postID=1471814005652764460&bpli=1
Actually, Birkeland had THREE different solar models (The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition (1902-1903), pg 665).
It is absolutely astounding to me how Mr. Bridgman can write complete and utter nonsense about Birkeland’s work, while blatantly and willfully misrepresenting that work, and EU/PC theory in general. I can’t help but wonder if Mr. Bridgman ever actually read Birkeland’s work at all. Birkeland did not promote nor even discuss three different solar models, just one cathode solar model. Let’s see Mr. Bridgman demonstrate where *exactly* on page 665 (or anywhere else in that volume) that Birkeland discusses or promotes three different solar models? I’ve asked Mr. Bridgman to be specific and quote Birkeland specifically promoting three solar models. It looks to me like Tom is simply making that up! Tom should either quote Birkeland specifically or retract his patently false claim.
For anyone that is interested in getting a brief overview of Birkeland’s actual cathode solar model (singular), he gave a public lecture on his ideas in 1913 (a decade later) which was reported on by the New York Times. Anyone can read that article online for themselves.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A00E0DA133BE633A25750C2A9649C946296D6CF
Does anyone see anything at all about three different solar models in that lecture from a decade later in 1913? Bridgman needs to quote Birkeland specifically from the pages that he cited (or any other page) to support his false assertion about Birkeland ever promoting three different solar models or Bridgman should just retract his false claim. The fact that Birekalnd experimented with various charges on the sphere, various magnetic field strengths inside the sphere, and different textures on the surface of the sphere during his experimentation process does not mean or demonstrate that he actually promoted multiple solar models. Bridgman simply made that up. Birkeland only ever promoted a cathode solar model.
As I noted in the comments to Electric Universe Interview @ Exposing Pseudo-Astronomy, Part 2,
Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition (1902-1903), pg 720:
"According to our manner of looking at the matter, every star in the universe would be the seat and field of activity of electric forces of a strength that no one could imagine.
We have no certain opinion as to how the assumed enormous electric currents with enormous tension are produced, but it is certainly not in accordance with the principles we employ in technics on the earth at the present time. One may well believe, however, that a knowledge in the future of electrotechnics of the heavens would be of great practical value to our electrical engineers." [italics mine]
Birkeland admits he doesn't know how any of his stellar models would work with the understanding of electromagnetism of his day.
Bridgman is confusing two different ideas now. In that particular paragraph Birkeland is talking about the “power supply” of the sun, and he isn’t quite certain what it might be. Immediately prior to that particular paragraph however he specifically mentioned and suggested radioactivity as one potential solution, something which Bridgman simply failed to mention or acknowledge. Did Bridgman miss that suggestion somehow or did he just leave it out intentionally? In that in that New York Times article from 1913, Birkeland did in fact correctly predict that the sun was internally powered by a “transmutation of elements”. He correctly predicted an energy release from a transmutation of elements even before fission and fusion were fully understood. Bridgman’s statement is not only false, it’s blatantly false as the NYT article will clearly demonstrate for him and all the world to see. It’s hard to imagine at that Mr. Bridgman actually even read Birkeland’s work if he missed such an obvious mistake.
The revision to Maxwell's equations for which he hoped did not happen.
Such revisions were never necessary however, a fact that Bridgman failed to mention. Changes to Maxwell’s equations were never absolutely necessary as he implies. Changes to Maxwell’s equations were only one potential solution/suggestion that might help to explain the ongoing solar discharge process. Birkeland did however propose another possible solution that was in fact later verified by satellites in space, which Bridgman quoted from his work, but which he failed to acknowledge or recognize as I will demonstrate shortly.
Even Alven's MHD defines only a SUBSET of the solutions to Maxwell's equations (the subset that is consistent with fluid mechanics) so the solution is not there.
It should be noted that Alfven basically wrote the book on EU/PC theory, and he actually offered a number of alternative current flow configurations that Birkeland didn’t mention, but it turns out that Alfven’s suggestions weren’t actually necessary since one of Birkeland’s own solutions was in fact later verified by solar wind measurements of continuous positive ion flow from the sun.
Birkeland's promotion of his terella experiments, where the ions and electrons DO travel in opposite directions,…..
Nope, not unless by “opposite directions’ Bridgman actually meant to say that different charged particles had either a left hand or a right hand spin as the particles come off the sphere. Bridgman’s erroneous diagram of Birkeland’s model however is utterly wrong because it shows positive ions flowing into the sun, whereas in his experiments and in his lecture, as well as in one of his suggestions he offered, both types of ions flowed from the sun to the heliosphere/chamber walls. Strike three. Bridgman is outa there!
.. sent the message to the scientific community that that is want he meant. When you want to place 600 million volts across an ionized gas in his solar model, the notion that electrons and ions can still travel in the same direction is fiction.
FYI, it is physically impossible for that process to be “fiction” as Tom claimed because Birkeland demonstrated it empirically in his lab in the form of ‘soot” which began to accumulate on the sides of the vacuum chamber glass walls. While investigating that “soot” phenomenon Birkeland realized that positively charged particles were being ripped from the surface of the sphere and deposited onto the sides of the chamber walls, hence the soot buildup on the glass. Bridgman’s claim is fiction and it was physically falsified in 1903 in Birkeland’s very own experiments. Today we better understand that process. It’s called “sputtering”, but it was all new to Birkeland at the time, and apparently it’s still new to Mr. Bridgman. By the way, here’s a Wiki link for sputtering. I suggest that Bridgman brings himself up to speed since it’s not only “possible’, it is ‘observed both in the lab and in space:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputtering
No amount of Birkland's statements that both types of charged particles flow away from the Sun can change that
That is also false. At least one of Birkeland’s suggestions, as well as the discovery of sputtering does change that as I will now demonstrate from the very quote that Bridgman personally selected from Birkeland’s work, yet failed to understand or acknowledge:
Even Birkeland recognized these problems (NAPE, pg 668):
"It is at present not easy to see how a negative tension should be continually created by the sun in relation to space.
It is of course possible to imagine that a surplus of positive ions is always being carried away from the sun or that negative ions are always being carried towards the sun, and that the negative tension is produced in this manner; and that the balance is maintained to some extent by distinct disruptive discharges, as we have presupposed."
Emphasis mine. It has since been confirmed by satellites that indeed there are a surplus of positive ions coming from the sun as well as just electrons, just as Birkeland “predicted’ in his writings from 1903. Bridgman is striking out all over the place.
But imagining something is so does not make it so,
On the other hand, the fact that we’ve actually measured that proposed surplus of positively charged ions in solar wind measurements as Birkeland successfully predicted in 1903 does make it so.
a lesson that many pseudo-scientists fail to learn.
How ironic that Mr. Bridgman failed to note the fact that solar wind measurements actually verified the existence of those positively charged ions that Birkeland predicted would be there, while he and the mainstream continue to this day to promote a concept that Alfven insisted was “pseudoscience” till the day that he died.
The name calling aspect just adds to the overwhelming irony considering the fact that solar wind satellites have since confirmed his probable solution and Bridgman even selected the quote himself, yet failed to acknowledge.
While it is okay to hypothesize when knowledge is sparse, at some point the science will become sufficient to confirm the hypothesis, or rule it out.
Except in Birkland’s case, the observations of continuous positive ion flow in solar wind didn’t rule out his ideas at all. In fact those observations of positive ion flow in solar wind later confirmed one of his potential solutions. That verified potential solution that he offered also makes any changes to Maxwell’s equations completely unnecessary and irrelevant, not that Mr. Bridgman cared or noticed or mention that fact.
Satellites in space confirmed his theory that positive ions are always being carried away from the sun, just as he ‘predicted”. Today we know that process as ‘sputtering”, although sputtering wasn’t well understood in 1903. Then again, Bridgman evidently *still* doesn’t understand that process in 2015!
By the 1920s-1930s, the science became sufficient to rule out the solar models advocated by Birkeland, but Birkeland did not live to see this.
That statement is pure unadulterated nonsense. It wasn’t until the 1970’s that satellites in space started to confirm Birkeland’s theories, starting with the observation of “Birkeland currents’ in aurora as he predicted. Chapman was shown to be wrong and Birkeland was shown to be correct and satellites demonstrated that fact after his death. It wasn’t until we could verify the presence of positive ions flowing from the sun that his solution to his continuous particle flow ‘problem’ was eventually verified as well. Mr. Bridgman is simply misrepresenting the historical facts.
Considering that Birkeland honestly admitted that he could not get these ideas to work, why is Mr. Mozina resurrecting them?
That is absolutely false. Birkeland did not claim that he could not get his ideas to work. Bridgman made that up too. That’s a complete strawman. Birkelands ideas actually functioned in the lab! What he *actually* said was that it was hard for him to be certain how the process would actually work in space. However he did offer several possible solutions in 1903, one of which has since been confirmed by satellites in space, hence the ‘resurrection’ of his cathode sun theory.
The only legitimate reason might be if Mr. Mozina had actually solved those problems,
I never personally needed to solve any problems in his model because Birkeland solved his own problems and he offered several potential solutions to those problems. He wrote about those potential and he was correct too. Confirmation of continuous positive ion flow from the sun (sputtering), and confirmation of a “transmutation of elements’ (fusion) ultimately solved both of Birkeland’s key problems. I didn’t need to lift a finger. He did all the work himself. It just took technological progress to be able to verify his ideas in space.
…but we have seen no actual scientifically rigorous evidence for this.
False again. Has Mr. Bridgman never looked at solar wind data? Perhaps Bridgman never noticed that flow of positive ions coming from the sun as Birkeland postulated/predicted in 1903? Did Bridgman simply miss that option as a potential solution to Birkeland’s problem, or did Mr. Bridgman willfully ignore it?
While the mathematics Birkeland presents in NAPE (such as sections 132-136, pp 678-709) might have been fairly leading-edge for the early 1900s, it is at the level of many homework problems on charged particle motion for space physics graduate students today.
http://dealingwithcreationisminastr...10/the-sad-state-of-electric-suns-not-so.html
Well then, apparently Mr. Bridgman failed an easy homework assignment because he has the positive ions all moving in the wrong direction in his bogus diagram of Birkeland’s model! Epic fail. All Birkelands particles were outbound to the heliosphere, whereas Mr. Bridgman has them flowing in both directions.
Or maybe Mr. Mozina never actually read Birkeland's work, or if he did read it, didn't really comprehend it.
It’s quite obvious now from all the blatant errors that Mr. Bridgman made in his last response that he either didn’t actually bother to read Birkeland’s work, or he didn’t understand it at all. Since Mr. Bridgman apparently missed the positive ion flow solution that Birkeland offered in the very quote that Bridgman selected from Birkeland’s work, apparently it’s a comprehension problem rather than pure laziness on Tom’s part. Then again until I see some reference to a mythical second and third solar model that Mr. Bridgman claimed that Birkeland promoted, I’m not sure that Bridgman actually even read Birkeland’s work, let alone read it thoroughly enough to understand it.
So WHO is actually misrepresenting Birkeland's work?
That would definitely be Mr. Bridgman, as the NYT article and the very quote that he personally selected demonstrate rather clearly. Birkeland most certainly correctly predicted that the transmutation of elements., now known as fusion, was the power source of the sun. He also correctly predicted a constant positive ion flow from the sun which allowed for/facilitated the discharge process to continue over extended periods of time. Mr. Bridgman simply stuck his own foot in his mouth.
