The amusing part of all that whole personal attack nonsense is that I never claimed to be an Einstein, or an Alfven, or a Birkeland, but I do happen to agree with Einstein about GR in general (I'm not a fan of what he called "blunder" theory however) and I share his views about black holes. I agree with Alfven about circuit theory as it's applied to space, and about the topic of magnetic reconnection too, although I'm not as adamant as he was. I share Birkeland's beliefs as well, but I've never tried to take credit for them as RC tries to insist. You're the one that fancies yourself to be smarter than all of them, not me.
They aren't generated without currents *and* without changing electric fields however, particularly in plasma. You might get a magnetic field from a solid but even that is related to the synchronized movement of electrons in the lattice of the solid.
Astronomers however try to discuss magnetic field including either the current *or* the changing electric field as though they were "magic" magnetic fields.
That's only true if there's either real current or displacement current (changing electric fields), but I agree with Scott's assessment that we can ignore the possibility of changing electric fields in his example. Again however, you're the odd man out.
After that whole conversation I had with RC and the hater posse at JREF, I've come to realize that you folks do *not* understand even the most basic aspects of plasma physics, starting with the fact that it requires *plasma* in RC's case. I'm certainly not impressed with "your industry" as it relates to EM field theory or MHD theory.
No, you just stuck your own feet in your own mouth because I find no fault with his choice to ignore the J=0 scenario as it relates to Birkeland *currents*, or his *conscious decisions* (not an unconscious error) to assume that the electric fields aren't changing over time. You're the one *assuming* things that aren't relevant to his paper. It's illogical to worry about a J=0 scenario when discussing *currents*, specifically Birkeland currents. There's also nothing wrong with "assuming' that the E field isn't changing for the purposes of his presentation.
You are apparently just making this up as you again go just like your 'no neutrino" nonsense. There are no actually errors in his work because his paper is related to Birkeland currents, and he's simply assuming a constant E field.
It's evidently a nightmare for you then but it's not a problem for me. I don't think you actually listen to my responses. You certainly don't seem to understand my position at all.
I also think it's ironic as hell that you're stuck between a rock and hard place over that "no neutrino" fiasco, and your Obler's paradox fiasco. You guys can't admit your wrong, even when it's damn obvious your wrong:
The fact you guys can't even admit that Scott's model does *not* predict "no neutrinos" is just hilarious. It totally and completely undermines your credibility, not to mention that whole Obler's (non) paradox nonsense.
No, they would have recognized the value of simplifying the formulas in the *specific scenario* they were being used in, and moved on. Only Bozo the clown would worry about J=0 when discussing Birkeland *currents*.
You mean like you, Selfsim and RC and your "no neutrino" nonsense, and the fact that none of you you can explain why we see less than 10,000 stars out of the 200+ *billion* star in our galaxy? I think you should look at yourselves in the mirror. You've all got bright red noses on your painted white faces.
Last edited:
Upvote
0