Nope, says someone who can understand enough of the science to see that Scott is a clown, and is trivially wrong.
By your personal attack logic, when Einstein doubted the validity of QM, it made him a "clown" and trivially wrong about everything he ever wrote about. Your logic is based upon a fallacy. It's also nothing but an ad hom.
Remember - he isn't remotely qualified in this area. You will find that non-anonymous astrophysicists have said the same thing. Including Tim Thompson, numerous times, and ditto Tom Bridgman.
But again, I've seen Bridgman make *significant* mistakes associated with Birkeland's model, so I don't find his arguments to be particularly compelling. I actually agree with Tim with respect to Juergen's anode solar model, but that has nothing to do with Scott's Birkeland current paper.
He screwed up the maths, has no mechanism for moving stars around, and has no evidence for the existence of these impossible currents. I'd say that is a slam-dunk, yes?
No. Like I said I've already pointed out math and physics errors made by Scott's detractors. I haven't seen a reasonable rebuttal to those posts.
Nothing I have said has been wrong. And I didn't write-off Alfven, I merely pointed out that he was wrong about magnetic reconnection, as everybody now agrees,
A lot of EU/PC proponents reject it today, and until I see you reproduce a working corona, I'll withhold any confidence in the claim. I've never even seen a good paper about laboratory experiments that methodically differentiated between "magnetic reconnection" in a plasma and ordinary induction processes.
and that he knew that the Sun was nuclear powered.
So did Birkeland and so did Juergens. Juegens thought that the sun might be at least *partially* powered by external currents because his model was written during the "missing neutrino" days of solar physics theory. Even still Juergen's model emitted neutrinos due to fusion in and around the sun, about a 1/3rd of the observed total because the other 2/3rds were thought to be missing at the time he wrote his model. I think Alfven and Peratt might not have been particularly happy having their names associated with his external power model.
Anybody who is claiming that it isn't (such as Scott) is surely the one writing- off Alfven, n'est-ce pas?
Not his entire cosmology model, just the solar model Alfven preferred.
I'd say it is far better than yours or Scott's or Thornhill's. Mind you, that isn't saying much!
The fact that your argument requires an endless stream of personal insults leads me to believe that your argument is extremely weak. Thornhill seems like he's always been more of an "ideas" person, and I haven't always agreed with his ideas. Scott's belief about solar physics is irrelevant to me personally, just as Einstein's beliefs about QM are irrelevant to me, but Scott's Birkeland current paper looks quite good, and quite congruent with counter rotation patterns observed in galaxies, while also eliminating any need for "dark matter" to explain galaxy or cluster rotation patterns.
Either way, you are talking about a failed 'model'
Nope. Birkeland's model works in the lab. Even an anode solar model works in the lab for that matter. The only model I can be sure is a failed model is the standard model because it's presumed power source of "magnetic reconnection" is convection, and that was shown to be off by two whole orders of magnitude.
Birkeland is an irrelevance.
Only to the arrogant, just like Aristarchus of Samos was an an irrelevance to the true believers in Ptolemy.
And Bridgman is far better qualified and knowledgeable in this area that any of the clowns associated with EU.
That's certainly not true. Most EU/PC proponents I talk with know that Birkeland only supported one cathode solar model, not three.
