His work is irrelevant to modern studies of the Sun.
You wouldn't know because you've never read it.
I've posted it to other forums. I haven't had any trouble defending it yet, including here.
Really? You mean the innumerate clowns at Blunderdolts?
More ad-homs. Don't you have any real arguments?
And you most certainly have trouble defending it. You cannot explain his substitution stuff up,
I already did in several posts. I explained by the math error made by Scott's detractors, and I explained the physics error they made too.
and you cannot explain how his lunacy would move stars at the same velocity as gas.
There's more mass *outside* of the stars. Move the plasma and the stars will move too. It's no mystery.
I don't associate Alfven with the clueless loon Velikovsky. However, you hang around with those people.
I hang out here and discuss various topics with atheists too, but that hardly makes me an atheist. I hang out with a lot of people.
Maybe you need to distance yourself, lest you get tarred with the same brush as the idiots Thornhill and Talbott. The same could be said for Scott.
Apparently it's beyond your capacity to make a single post that doesn't include a healthy does of ad-homs and personal insults. That only demonstrates that you don't have a real scientific argument.
You haven't got one, nor have you even got a valid scientific mechanism.
That's just pure denial. The mechanism used to heat the corona and aurora in that video is an electric field. The excited corona and aurora are clearly visible in the experiment. Denial and ad-homs are your only lines of defense. You've got no scientific argument.
Wrong. And you don't have the courage of your convictions to let Scott's woo be tested on another physics forum. By physicists. It is erroneous garbage.
What are you talking about? I've posted to Scott's model to many other forums. Usually they simply remove the post and refuse to even discuss it. That's not my fault.
Well he's wrong, isn't he? As shown by observation.
No, he's not wrong, and in his video Scott even cites at least one counter rotational galaxy that shows signs of Markund convection.
Wrong. And Birkeland didn't have a model. It is your invention, and it's wrong.
The fact that you absolutely refuse to read his work isn't evidence that he had no model. Your ignorance of his work is self imposed.
That's more than you will ever accomplish in the lab with MRx.
Any idiot can see that it isn't induction.
Back to the ad-homs. Yawn. Do you even know how to debate fairly?
What is the diffusion time in the solar plasma?
I'm not talking about solar observation, I'm talking about real physical lab tests that demonstrate conclusively that that there is some observed physical difference between ordinary induction in a conductor, and what you're describing as "magnetic reconnection". You keep trying to skip the lab part of the work and point at *unrelated* observations in the sky as evidence to support your model, *before* you do the lab work that even demonstrates that you have a real model.
What was painfully pointed out to me at JREF is that JREF supporters don't even understand the first thing about MRx theory, starting with the fact that defined as a process that occurs *in* plasma that involves the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle acceleration. Clinger prattled on for *months* about how he was going to demonstrate MRx *without* plasma and never came up with his missing math formula to describe a non-zero rate of MRx in his vacuum contraption. Not a single JREF member bothered to set Clinger straight, and not a single one of them helped Clinger come up with his missing formula.
I couldn't care less about Birkeland's work. It is irrelevant.
You can't even replicate the simplest aspects of coronal heating or sustained aurora in a lab, so it's not irrelevant to solar physics, it's just irrelevant to you personally.
That's just another example of you relying upon personal insults instead of valid scientific arguments. You're sounding more desperate by the post.
How are you getting a star in a lab?
I'm not asking you to build a whole star in a lab. I'm asking to see you created a sustained planetary aurora and a sustained full sphere hot corona based on "magnetic reconnection". I can and have easily demonstrated those things are related to electric fields in a real lab experiment. why can't you do that with MRx?
We have observation, and that trumps experiment every time.
False. A pure observation doesn't always allow us to determine cause. Your argument based strictly on observation is an affirming the consequent fallacy.
Did we go looking for neutrinos due to somebody finding them in an experiment on p-p fusion in a lab? No, they were theorised. Then we looked for them. Then we found them.
We found them in controlled experimentation, not by pointing at the sky and claiming "neutrons did it".
