Plasma Cosmology in 2019-2020

[Michael]

By 'mainstream' I assume you mean real scientists, with real qualificaions, in the relevant science?

If they're so qualified in the relevant science, where's their demonstration of concept and reproduction of a working corona in a lab experiment? Alfven certainly wasn't impressed with their MR models, and he had not only the qualifications in MHD theory, but also working models to support his circuit theories.

Who are they up against, here?

Birkeland and Alfven for starters, and they're already a century ahead of MR proponents in the lab.

A Velikovskian and a retired EE?

Even they're several years ahead of MR proponents in the lab when it comes to producing a working corona.

I know where my money is!

You mean like all that money that was squandered on dark matter over the past couple of decades? That wasn't exactly the best return on investment in science. But you go right ahead and pour your money down the drain if you like.

Why? Their experiment is nothing to do with the real Sun!

Except it does, and it produces a working corona, something that will never be accomplished with MR theory.

 

[Michael]

Nope, Birkeland did not model the Sun.

Except he did, and he wrote all about it in his book.

There is a hint in the name of the instrument!

The name of the instrument only relates to what he tested *first*. Once he produced a working planetary aurora in the lab (another thing you'll never see done with 'magnetic reconnection in your lifetime), he turned his attention to the sun and the cathode source that generated the planetary aurora. He writes about those experiments starting on about page 660 of his book.

And MR has been observed on the Sun.

Nope. Circuit theory has been observed on the sun, and circuit theory works in the lab, and produces auroras and coronas in a lab too.

No they have not, as they are not modelling anything that remotely resembles the Sun!

Except it does.

And the hot corona is not far off being solved.

Psst: It's been "solved" and replicated in the lab for more than a century. It's never going to be replicated in a lab based on magnetic reconnection theories.

It does not involve a metallic sphere and a squillion volts! Lol.

True. It involves about 600 million to a billion volts.

Nope, there is no PC electric sun model.

Actually there are at least three of them (and several subsets), and they work in the lab based on circuit theory.

It is purely a fantasy of EU.

No, it's a working "reality" of EU theory.

And the only thing the models have in common is their lack of valid science, evidence and the fact that they all fail trivially.

You're obviously projecting since EU models work in the lab, and easily produce and sustain auroras and coronas, whereas MR theory doesn't.

I know who came up with it. Juergens. And it was published in a joke Velikovskian rag. And Juergens was a Velikovskian......................person.

Even if Juergen's was a "Velikovskian" as you put it, it's ultimately irrelevant. Velikovski didn't develop the anode solar model, Juergens did. Besides, how many billions of dollars have astronomers squandered now on "dark" experiments and found nothing? Compared to Velkovki's ideas, the mainstream has wasted *way* more time and effort and money on useless concepts. Pots and kettles.

So, do not tell me that I am making things up when I obviously know more about it than you do. As usual.

Pfft. You obviously don't know the first thing about anything related to EU/PC theory. You misrepresent it every chance you get, including in this very thread.

 

[Michael]

That is not true, and you know it isn't.

It is true and I know it based on the *numerous* conversations I've had around the internet on this topic with quite a few astronomers. Most of they don't know the first thing about it. The ones that think they know something about are usually wrong too, just like you.

The models are trivially wrong.

Case in point. EU models work in the lab, whereas MR theory is trivially wrong and useless at generating coronas and auroras and anything useful related to solar physics or planetary physics in the lab.

So why would anybody bother with them?

Because circuit theory works in the lab to generate auroras and coronas and MR theory does not! Holy cow. MR proponents are already a full *century* behind the times in the lab *and counting*.

And you don't think EU is inspired by the.........person Velikovsky? Really? Lol.

I know for a fact that it was inspired by Birkeland, picked up again by Alfven and continues to be promoted by Lerner, and Peratt and many others. Velikovsky is irrelevant. He wasn't even an adult when Birkeland first generated auroras and coronas in the lab based on circuit theory. Your misinformation campaign is simply absurd, and only demonstrates you willful ignorance of the entire topic.

The ...........person, Wal Thornhill, from back in the day;

Electric Universe

Um, who cares? What major model in EU/PC theory did Wal develop? Hint: Zero.

Wal is simply a (good) person with his own opinions like everyone else. Who cares?

Snigger.

I guess since you can't replicate any of the successes of EU/PC theory in the lab, like auroras and coronas, and such, the best you can hope for is to trash everyone who disagrees with you and hope that nobody notices how pathetic of a debate tactic that is. I noticed.

Really? How many of them are astrophysicists? With a working knowledge of solar physics? Zero, would be my bet.

Everyone involved in SAFIRE has more working and useful knowledge about solar physics than all the promoters of MR theory combined. The SAFIRE model works in the lab too, and produces a corona, yet the MR folks are incapable of doing even the most basic successful experiments in solar physics. Wake me up when your MR proponents generate a working corona. Until then my money is on EU/PC.

 

[Smithi]

It is true and I know it based on the *numerous* conversations I've had around the internet on this topic with quite a few astronomers. Most of they don't know the first thing about it. The ones that think they know something about are usually wrong too, just like you.

No, you do not know it. Those astrophysicists have taken a good deal of time to look at the models, and show that they are trivially false.

Case in point. EU models work in the lab, whereas MR theory is trivially wrong and useless at generating coronas and auroras and anything useful related to solar physics or planetary physics in the lab.

No, they do not wotk in a lab. There is zero evidence for any EU model. Given that they are scientifically impossible, that is not surprising. Show me the lab demonstration of Earth orbiting Saturn. Show me the lab demonstration of comets being rocks blasted off of rocky planets recently. Show me the demonstration of an invisible incoming current getting past an outgoing solar wind and IMF to impossibly power the Sun. Et cetera.

Because circuit theory works in the lab to generate auroras and coronas and MR theory does not! Holy cow. MR proponents are already a full *century* behind the times in the lab *and counting*.

There has been no demonstration of coronas in a lab. And MR is observed. Deal with it. And it is not the only mechanism proposed for heating the corona.

I know for a fact that it was inspired by Birkeland, picked up again by Alfven and continues to be promoted by Lerner, and Peratt and many others. Velikovsky is irrelevant. He wasn't even an adult when Birkeland first generated auroras and coronas in the lab based on circuit theory. Your misinformation campaign is simply absurd, and only demonstrates you willful ignorance of the entire topic.

Wrong. EU has been around for about 30 years. It is nothing to do with science. It is a cult started by two Velikovskians. Thornhill and Talbott. Neither of whom are relevantly qualified. They hijacked Alfven and Birkeland's work to try to explain their incomprehensible, scientifically impossible non-science. It has convinces a few laymen with no understanding of the science. Alfven would run a million miles from EU stuff. As would any real scientist. Birkeland never modelled the corona. Fact. Peratt has criticised EU as you well know. He wants nothing to do with it.

Um, who cares? What major model in EU/PC theory did Wal develop? Hint: Zero.

There are no major models that make any scientific sense in EU or PC! So, I guess his 'fusion somewhere on or just below the surface of the photosphere' can be ruled out as nonsense? Good. I've been telling you that for a while.

Wal is simply a (good) person with his own opinions like everyone else. Who cares?

A good person who hasn't got a clue about the relevant science. And frequently is economical with the truth in order to convince his acolytes. Yep. That is the co-founder of EU!

I guess since you can't replicate any of the successes of EU/PC theory in the lab, like auroras and coronas, and such, the best you can hope for is to trash everyone who disagrees with you and hope that nobody notices how pathetic of a debate tactic that is. I noticed.

You have never demonstrated coronas in a lab. And there are no successes of scientifically impossible EU 'ideas'. And PC is long since dead.

Everyone involved in SAFIRE has more working and useful knowledge about solar physics than all the promoters of MR theory combined. The SAFIRE model works in the lab too, and produces a corona, yet the MR folks are incapable of doing even the most basic successful experiments in solar physics. Wake me up when your MR proponents generate a working corona. Until then my money is on EU/PC.

Nope. Names and links please. Show me their publications on solar physics, otherwise I will assume that you have made that up. And what the hell is 'MR theory'? You mean the fact of magnetic reconnection that is accepted by every plasma physicist alive? And none of them have generated a working corona. Link to the peer-reviweed paper, please. This is Nobel worthy stuff. I'm sure I'd have heard about it.

 

[Smithi]

False
Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle

Which is a scientifically nonsensical paper, that shows no such thing. As has been explained to you by real scientists.

[QUOTESome solar flares are more than hot enough and plenty dense enough to generate all kinds of fusion processes.[/QUOTE]

Nope. Links to real papers by real scientists please. Specifically showing p-p fusion.

You're assuming that all the fusion has to take place above the surface of the photosphere in any and all anode models. That's simply not so. Your criticism is ultimately irrelevant.

There are no 'anode models'! None that make any scientific sense, anyway.

 

[Michael]

No, you do not know it. Those astrophysicists have taken a good deal of time to look at the models, and show that they are trivially false.

Over the last 10 years, I've met a very large number of astronomers on various forums. Of those I've talked to, only a handful of them have ever read Alfven's book "Plasma Cosmology" which outlines the basic EU/PC cosmology model. Only a handful of them have read Birkeland's work for themselves and are familiar with it. I think I've only met one astronomer who's read Peratt's book "Physics of the Plasma Universe", which is certainly the most detailed and mathematically described book on this topic. Percentage wise, I know for sure that few if any astronomers understand this topic.

More disconcerting however is the fact that many of the so called "critics" of the EU/PC models have a very poor understanding of the topic, and most of their beliefs about it are typically wrong. Some of the criticisms I've heard are simply irrational in fact because they aren't even valid predictions of the model(s).

In my discussions on the internet, and in Google searches that I've made on this topic, I have seen a *very few* valid criticisms of the any part of EU/PC theory. One exception are some criticisms that I've seen of Juergen's anode solar model, on a website created by Tim Thompson who I believe does a very good job explaining why that one particular solar model is unlikely to be the 'correct' one. Kudos to Tim. Tom Bridgman has also written some valid criticisms of that one particular solar model. With those two exceptions, I've yet to see any valid criticisms of any part of EU/PC theory, yet I've seen many presumed criticisms that are simply wrong and misguided. Admittedly, EU/PC theory is not as well mathematically defined as LCDM, and that arguably might be considered to be a valid "weakness" of the model, but its much more mathematically defined than most astronomers seem to realize.

No, they do not wotk in a lab. There is zero evidence for any EU model.

This is a perfect example of a claim that is simply wrong and misguided.

Given that they are scientifically impossible, that is not surprising.

That one too.

Show me the lab demonstration of Earth orbiting Saturn.

Not all aspects of cosmology can be scaled down, but lots of aspects can be scaled, including many aspects of solar atmospheric physics.

Show me the lab demonstration of comets being rocks blasted off of rocky planets recently.

I've actually seen scaled simulations of impacts between objects done in labs.

Show me the demonstration of an invisible incoming current getting past an outgoing solar wind and IMF to impossibly power the Sun. Et cetera.

I have no reason to do so since I prefer Birkeland's cathode sun model and it doesn't predict any such thing. Cosmic rays are not "invisible", nor are 'strahl' electrons, both of which were successful predictions of Birkeland's model.

There has been no demonstration of coronas in a lab.

False. Birkeland's model generates both auroras and coronas in a lab without any problem at all. I think the experiment in that video probably cost less than a couple thousand dollars, so it's quite easy to show how EU/PC models generate auroras and coronas.

And MR is observed. Deal with it.

No, circuit theory in action is "observed". MR is concept that Alfven (the author of MHD theory) rejected till the day he died. It's never been successfully used to generate either aurora or a corona in a lab. That's a fact.

And it is not the only mechanism proposed for heating the corona.

No it's not, and the fact you believe that to be true of EU/PC theory only demonstrates a total ignorance of EU/PC theory in general.

Wrong. EU has been around for about 30 years.

This is another example of a pitiful misrepresentation of EU/PC theory. Birkeland's work is over a century old and he is considered to be the original "EU/PC" proponent of note. The idea of an electric universe, complete with laboratory experiments to support it is over a century old now.

It is nothing to do with science.

This is pure "misinformation", or "disinformation" that has nothing to do with "science".

It is a cult started by two Velikovskians.

Absolutely false. It's a concept first developed by Kristian Birkeland a century ago, and it was picked up again by Hannes Alfven and his students. Your constant stream of misinformation is just sad and absurd.

Thornhill and Talbott.

Neither of them developed any aspect of any part of any EU/PC *cosmology* models, nor any of the various solar models for that matter. They're just a couple of guys that happen to support EU/PC models and setup a website. You keep misrepresenting historical fact. This is the kind of disinformation and utter nonsense that I see all the time on the internet. You don't understand the first thing about EU/PC theory.

Neither of whom are relevantly qualified.

They don't have to be "qualified" to support any particular belief however so that's rather irrelevant. If they happen to support evolutionary theory, would you reject evolutionary theory too because they support it? Oy Vey.

They hijacked Alfven and Birkeland's work to try to explain their incomprehensible, scientifically impossible non-science.

Actually they both prefer *Juergen's* anode solar model, not Birkeland's cathode model, so they didn't hijack Birkeland's work. Since Alfven wrote the first EU/PC cosmology model, I must presume that they agree with his basic outline to describe cosmology, but that's fine by me even if I prefer Birkeland's solar model.

Even if some of their solar beliefs are incorrect, at least their preferred solar model actually works in the lab and it produces a working corona, unlike MR theory.

The fact you so completely misrepresent EU/PC theory, and cite those two specific individuals as your main "reason", only demonstrates conclusively that you don't understand anything at all about EU/PC theory. You're tilting at windmills of your own creation, not EU/PC theory. They didn't write any part of it, not even Velkovski's goofy stuff.

It has convinces a few laymen with no understanding of the science. Alfven would run a million miles from EU stuff.

Except he wrote the cosmology model that we all subscribe to, even if he would (and did) reject Juergen's anode solar model. So what?

As would any real scientist.

Any "real scientist" would take the time to fully understand exactly what they're railing against and would be careful and very specific in their criticism, unlike you who seem to be tilting at windmills of your own creation.

Birkeland never modelled the corona. Fact.

Patently and demonstrably false:

Peratt has criticised EU as you well know. He wants nothing to do with it.

Peratt (and I) want nothing to do with Juergen's anode solar model or Velkovski, but neither Thornhill or Talbot wrote anything related to a cosmology model or any solar model in the first place, so who cares?

There are no major models that make any scientific sense in EU or PC!

More pure misinformation.

So, I guess his 'fusion somewhere on or just below the surface of the photosphere' can be ruled out as nonsense? Good.

No, actually it can't be ruled out for that reason. That fact you even "think" so just demonstrates the irrational nature of your beliefs. I don't subscribe to that particular anode model, but that isn't the reason why. Almost all fusion in any model (including the mainstream model) would be likely to occur *under* the surface of the photosphere, or we'd observe the gamma rays from it. There is certainly nothing which precludes someone from proposing an anode solar model that has fusion happening *under* that surface. I still wouldn't agree with it, primarily for the reasons that Tim Thompson outlines on his website, not because of that particular issue.

I've been telling you that for a while.

You've been telling me a lot of false things for awhile now.

A good person who hasn't got a clue about the relevant science. And frequently is economical with the truth in order to convince his acolytes. Yep. That is the co-founder of EU!

The original "founder" of the electric universe concept is Kristian Birkeland, not either of the two individuals that you mentioned. You really have a skewed and inaccurate sense of what EU/PC theory is about. This is the kind of irrational nonsense that I have to deal with all the time.

You have never demonstrated coronas in a lab.

Me personally? Nah. But it has been done by both Birkeland and the SAFIRE team, whereas MR proponents have never been able to replicate a working corona in a lab experiment. Why not? It's been done for more than a century using circuit theory. It's being done on a daily basis at SAFIRE.

And there are no successes of scientifically impossible EU 'ideas'. And PC is long since dead.

Pure disinformation from a guy who doesn't even understand it to start with.

 

[Michael]

Which is a scientifically nonsensical paper, that shows no such thing. As has been explained to you by real scientists.

You have a *really* bad habit of basing your beliefs on something you evidently read on some random website in cyberspace rather than based on *published* papers. That's probably why you have such a misinformed concept of what EU/PC theory is about.

Nope. Links to real papers by real scientists please. Specifically showing p-p fusion.

I already showed you a paper by "real scientists" (Hilton Ratcliffe/Oliver Manuel), published in the Journal of Fusion energy, which describes fusion processes in the upper solar atmosphere and you've yet to provide a *published* rebuttal. I suspect that you'll send me more random links to random unpublished website messages boards rather than cite a formal rebuttal. Cue the ISF links.....

There are no 'anode models'! None that make any scientific sense, anyway.

Of course there are, including the one being tested by SAFIRE which has already produced a working corona, something *never* accomplished with MR theory.

 

[Smithi]

You have a *really* bad habit of basing your beliefs on something you evidently read on some random website in cyberspace rather than based on *published* papers. That's probably why you have such a misinformed concept of what EU/PC theory is about.

Nope. It is based on explanations of EU/PC that have been provided to those scientists by yourself. It is trivially wrong. Show me the published papers of EU. That is, electric stars, electric comets, Earth orbiting Saturn, electric cratering, etc.

I already showed you a paper by "real scientists" (Hilton Ratcliffe/Oliver Manuel), published in the Journal of Fusion energy, which describes fusion processes in the upper solar atmosphere and you've yet to provide a *published* rebuttal. I suspect that you'll send me more random links to random unpublished website messages boards rather than cite a formal rebuttal. Cue the ISF links.....

No, it is not a real paper by real scientists. Real scientists would not have made such a laughable mistake as to claim CNO fusion on the surface of the Sun! Lol. And all backed up by their combined inability to understand the data. As has been explained to you. And if you think any astrophysicist has even seen that paper (other than on the sites where you have spammed it), let alone is going to bother to reply to it, you are very much mistaken!

Of course there are, including the one being tested by SAFIRE which has already produced a working corona, something *never* accomplished with MR theory.

Nope. That would be headline grabbing, Nobel worthy stuff. I have never seen such a claim.

 

[Smithi]

Over the last 10 years, I've met a very large number of astronomers on various forums. Of those I've talked to, only a handful of them have ever read Alfven's book "Plasma Cosmology" which outlines the basic EU/PC cosmology model. Only a handful of them have read Birkeland's work for themselves and are familiar with it. I think I've only met one astronomer who's read Peratt's book "Physics of the Plasma Universe", which is certainly the most detailed and mathematically described book on this topic. Percentage wise, I know for sure that few if any astronomers understand this topic.

And all of those who have rerad Alfven's work understand it far better than you do. And they are telling you that you are wrong. And there are many more plasma physicists than Alfven. And the science of plasma physics did not come to an end when he died. Much of his stuff post-dating the 60s was largely ignored. And he has been shown to be wrong on MR, for instance, where no scientists appear to be backing his conclusions. Not even ex-colleagues, friends and co-authors.

More disconcerting however is the fact that many of the so called "critics" of the EU/PC models have a very poor understanding of the topic, and most of their beliefs about it are typically wrong. Some of the criticisms I've heard are simply irrational in fact because they aren't even valid predictions of the model(s).

Lol. What predictions of the models? That there is an incoming current to power the Sun? Failed. That comets are rocks blasted off of planets? Failed. That fusion occurs in the chromosphere? Failed. That giant megaparsec Birkeland currents exist? Failed. That said currents explain galaxy rotation curves? Failed. Any more?

 

[Smithi]

In my discussions on the internet, and in Google searches that I've made on this topic, I have seen a *very few* valid criticisms of the any part of EU/PC theory. One exception are some criticisms that I've seen of Juergen's anode solar model, on a website created by Tim Thompson who I believe does a very good job explaining why that one particular solar model is unlikely to be the 'correct' one. Kudos to Tim. Tom Bridgman has also written some valid criticisms of that one particular solar model. With those two exceptions, I've yet to see any valid criticisms of any part of EU/PC theory, yet I've seen many presumed criticisms that are simply wrong and misguided. Admittedly, EU/PC theory is not as well mathematically defined as LCDM, and that arguably might be considered to be a valid "weakness" of the model, but its much more mathematically defined than most astronomers seem to realize.

Nope. Many posters other than Tim have poo-pooed EU...........stuff. It is hardly going to make the scientific literature, due to being mostly not in the scientific literature, or in parts of it where it is not going to be seen.

This is a perfect example of a claim that is simply wrong and misguided.

Nope, that is the work of real scientists, and has nothing to do with the corona. As you have been told before. Stop misrepresenting the work of real scientists, and associating it with your invalid beliefs.

That one too.

Nope. All electric sun models are scientifically impossible. And trivially debunked.

 

[Smithi]

Not all aspects of cosmology can be scaled down, but lots of aspects can be scaled, including many aspects of solar atmospheric physics.

And what has that got to do with the ludicrous claim that Earth used to orbit Saturn? Lol.

I've actually seen scaled simulations of impacts between objects done in labs.

Really? Giant lightning bolts blasting rocks off of planets? To create comets that are not made of rock, do not have the density of rock, have much ice in and on them, and have isotopic ratios mostly unlike any planets? Like to see that experiment!

I have no reason to do so since I prefer Birkeland's cathode sun model and it doesn't predict any such thing. Cosmic rays are not "invisible", nor are 'strahl' electrons, both of which were successful predictions of Birkeland's model.

Birkeland didn't have a model. And who cares about your model? It is demonstrably wrong. We know how the Sun works, thank you.

 

[Smithi]

False. Birkeland's model generates both auroras and coronas in a lab without any problem at all. I think the experiment in that video probably cost less than a couple thousand dollars, so it's quite easy to show how EU/PC models generate auroras and coronas.

False. Birkeland never modelled the corona. And this was a hundred years ago, so who cares?

No, circuit theory in action is "observed". MR is concept that Alfven (the author of MHD theory) rejected till the day he died. It's never been successfully used to generate either aurora or a corona in a lab. That's a fact.

Circuit theory tells you the square root of zero about the plasma. And who cares what Alfven thought? He was wrong. As has been proven. Get over it. Hero worship and deification does not alter the fact of magnetic reconnection.

No it's not, and the fact you believe that to be true of EU/PC theory only demonstrates a total ignorance of EU/PC theory in general.

Huh? I was saying that MR is not the only mechanism proposed for heating the corona in mainstream (i.e. real) science. There are nano-flares and Alfven waves.

 

[Michael]

And what has that got to do with the ludicrous claim that Earth used to orbit Saturn? Lol.

Beats me. I have no idea why you keep associating Birkeland's work and Alfven's work with Velkovski either. They produced EU/PC solar and cosmology theories, not Velkovsky.

Really? Giant lightning bolts blasting rocks off of planets?

No, but I've personally used an arc welder and I can assure you that it moves material all over the place, and at high velocity. I've certainly seen discharges emit particles before, and seen sputtering experiments in the lab. Birkeland even wrote about such experiences that he had with his terella experiments. That's the reason that he predicted that *both* types of charged particles flow from the sun, not just electrons.

To create comets that are not made of rock, do not have the density of rock, have much ice in and on them, and have isotopic ratios mostly unlike any planets? Like to see that experiment!

Why? I don't even personally subscribe to such ideas in the first place so why on Earth would I look for such experiments?

Birkeland didn't have a model.

That's absolutely false. I can only presume you've never actually read his work for yourself, and you picked up that opinion from some random website in cyberspace?

And who cares about your model? It is demonstrably wrong. We know how the Sun works, thank you.

Pfft. It's demonstrably right and it produces working planetary auroras and working solar coronas. MR is virtually *useless* in the lab in terms of generating such simple processes that are observed in space. How do you explain the fact that MR theory can't and won't produce a working corona in any lab experiment to date, a full century after it was done with circuit theory?

 

[Smithi]

This is another example of a pitiful misrepresentation of EU/PC theory. Birkeland's work is over a century old and he is considered to be the original "EU/PC" proponent of note. The idea of an electric universe, complete with laboratory experiments to support it is over a century old now.

Wrong. PC was basically (in its original incarnation) from the erroneous musings of Alfven and a few others. It is dead. EU did not exist until invented by the comedy duo Thornhill and Talbott.

This is pure "misinformation", or "disinformation" that has nothing to do with "science".

There is no science in EU. And very few scientists.

Absolutely false. It's a concept first developed by Kristian Birkeland a century ago, and it was picked up again by Hannes Alfven and his students. Your constant stream of misinformation is just sad and absurd.

Wrong. Alfven would spin in his grave at being claimed to be the originator of EU!

Neither of them developed any aspect of any part of any EU/PC *cosmology* models, nor any of the various solar models for that matter. They're just a couple of guys that happen to support EU/PC models and setup a website. You keep misrepresenting historical fact. This is the kind of disinformation and utter nonsense that I see all the time on the internet. You don't understand the first thing about EU/PC theory.

Wrong. PC had been around for a while. EU was the creation of the aforementioned comedy duo. And you keep defending Thornhill's solar model. Which is laughably bad. So I guess you no longer support his surface/ just under the surface fusion idea?

They don't have to be "qualified" to support any particular belief however so that's rather irrelevant. If they happen to support evolutionary theory, would you reject evolutionary theory too because they support it? Oy Vey.

They promote beliefs that are trivially false. They pan real scientists, and make false claims about them and their observations. They are not even worthy of discussion.

Actually they both prefer *Juergen's* anode solar model, not Birkeland's cathode model, so they didn't hijack Birkeland's work. Since Alfven wrote the first EU/PC cosmology model, I must presume that they agree with his basic outline to describe cosmology, but that's fine by me even if I prefer Birkeland's solar model.

Who cares? All those 'models' are trivially wrong, and scientifically nonsensical.

 

[Michael]

False. Birkeland never modelled the corona.

Not only did he model it (with math no less), he recreated it in the lab:

Whom shall I believe, you or my own eyes, and the scientist in the video who clearly takes Birkeland's work seriously?

And this was a hundred years ago, so who cares?

You should care since MR theory is more than a century behind in the lab already and counting.

Circuit theory tells you the square root of zero about the plasma.

You're simply demonstrating your complete ignorance of EU/PC theory. Alfven used circuit theory to explain everything that MR proponents are trying to explain, and the key difference is that unlike MR theory, circuit theory produces auroras and coronas in real lab experiments.

And who cares what Alfven thought?

Ya, why would I believe the scientists that developed MHD theory and won the Nobel prize rather than some guy I met in cyberspace? Sheesh. What an ego you have.

He was wrong. As has been proven.

When and where was such a thing "proven"? You made that up. Let me guess. You have no published rebuttals to any of his over a 100 published papers, or his books, to support that absurd claim, just links to random websites, right?

Get over it. Hero worship and deification does not alter the fact of magnetic reconnection.

When you get MR to produce working corona and working aurora, I'll take take the idea seriously. Until then I'll put my money on circuit theory and Alfven's *working* models.

Huh? I was saying that MR is not the only mechanism proposed for heating the corona in mainstream (i.e. real) science. There are nano-flares and Alfven waves.

FYI, I clarified that comment later. There are also proposed mechanisms in EU/PC theory as well, but they actually work in the lab, not just on paper. MR is virtually useless in the lab when it comes to reproducing a corona or a planetary aurora, whereas it's been done for a couple thousand bucks based on circuit theory.

 

[Smithi]

Beats me. I have no idea why you keep associating Birkeland's work and Alfven's work with Velkovski either. They produced EU/PC solar and cosmology theories, not Velkovsky.

Is disingenuous at best. EU is nothing to do with Alfven or Birkeland. It was invented by two Velikovskians. It is you who tries to conflate the mythology based EU stuff with PC, merely because you use their forum to spam your ideas. EU is nothing to do with science.

No, but I've personally used an arc welder and I can assure you that it moves material all over the place, and at high velocity. I've certainly seen discharges emit particles before, and seen sputtering experiments in the lab. Birkeland even wrote about such experiences that he had with his terella experiments. That's the reason that he predicted that *both* types of charged particles flow from the sun, not just electrons.

So, comets were formed by an arc welder! Lol. You dissociate yourself from Velikovsky, and here you are trying to defend a bunch of nonsense, invented by two of his disciples, to make use of his claims of planets (specifically Venus) doing handbrake turns around the solar system in the recent past! That is where their impossible lightning bolts are coming from!

Why? I don't even personally subscribe to such ideas in the first place so why on Earth would I look for such experiments?

Did you, or did you not say that EU ideas work in the lab? So, let's see them, because they are core beliefs of EUists.

That's absolutely false. I can only presume you've never actually read his work for yourself, and you picked up that opinion from some random website in cyberspace?

Really. Show us his model, and tell us what relevance it has to what we now know, 100 years later.

Pfft. It's demonstrably right and it produces working planetary auroras and working solar coronas. MR is virtually *useless* in the lab in terms of generating such simple processes that are observed in space. How do you explain the fact that MR theory can't and won't produce a working corona in any lab experiment to date, a full century after it was done with circuit theory?

Nope, no solar coronas ever created in a lab. MR is seen in the lab, and seen in-situ in the magnetosphere, and seen in solar flares. And what the hell has circuit theory got to do with anything?

 

[Smithi]

Not only did he model it (with math no less), he recreated it in the lab:

That video (do you have to keep posting it?) is nothing to do with the corona. I have linked you to the description of it before. You are hijacking real science, and making false claims about it. Stop it.

Whom shall I believe, you or my own eyes, and the scientist in the video who clearly takes Birkeland's work seriously?

Birkeland's work on the aurora. Nothing whatever about the corona. As you have been told before.

You should care since MR theory is more than a century behind in the lab already and counting.

MR is demonstrated in the lab. Detected in-situ. Seen in solar flares. So stop making things up. MR is a fact. And you have no corona model.

You're simply demonstrating your complete ignorance of EU/PC theory. Alfven used circuit theory to explain everything that MR proponents are trying to explain, and the key difference is that unlike MR theory, circuit theory produces auroras and coronas in real lab experiments.

Lol. MR is a fact. Observed. How many times do you need to be told? Show me a real scientist who disagrees. You can't. And you cannot model MR with circuit theory. If that is what Alfven tried, then that is why he was proven wrong. I could.t care less about Alfven's mistakes.

Ya, why would I believe the scientists that developed MHD theory and won the Nobel prize rather than some guy I met in cyberspace? Sheesh. What an ego you have.

You think I'm the only one who has dumped Alfven's erroneous beliefs about MR? Go on, find me a real scientist who backs him. Not some retired EE.

When and where was such a thing "proven"? You made that up. Let me guess. You have no published rebuttals to any of his over a 100 published papers, or his books, to support that absurd claim, just links to random websites, right?

You cannot be serious? Michael, go read Falthammar. Birn. Priest. Somov. Type 'magnetic reconnection' into Google Scholar. MR is a fact. Ergo, Alfven was wrong.

When you get MR to produce working corona and working aurora, I'll take take the idea seriously. Until then I'll put my money on circuit theory and Alfven's *working* models.

I couldn't care less what ideas you take seriously. You are not a scientist, and do not understand the science. And Alfven's models do not work.

FYI, I clarified that comment later. There are also proposed mechanisms in EU/PC theory as well, but they actually work in the lab, not just on paper. MR is virtually useless in the lab when it comes to reproducing a corona or a planetary aurora, whereas it's been done for a couple thousand bucks based on circuit theory.

Nope, you have no mechanisms that work in a lab. And MR is observed. In the magnetosphere and in solar flares. Get over it.

 

[Michael]

Wrong. PC was basically (in its original incarnation) from the erroneous musings of Alfven and a few others.

Actually, the "electric universe" concept in general predates Alfven. Alfven simply expanded on Birkeland's original ideas and applied it to cosmology on larger scales, using circuit theory, just like Birkeland.

It is dead.

More disinformation. SAFIRE experiments are alive and well, and the EU community is growing every single year.

EU did not exist until invented by the comedy duo Thornhill and Talbott.

False. Birkeland first described the universe as being electrical in nature, *long* before either of them was even born. You're completely misrepresenting historical fact.

There is no science in EU.

False. SAFIRE is still up and running the last time I checked.

And very few scientists.

Science isn't a popularity contest.

Wrong. Alfven would spin in his grave at being claimed to be the originator of EU!

No, he might reject (and did reject) some ideas, like Jeurgen's solar model, and Velkovski's silliness, but he personally wrote the first book on PC theory.

Wrong. PC had been around for a while. EU was the creation of the aforementioned comedy duo.

False. You're just making this up as you go.

And you keep defending Thornhill's solar model.

I only defend it when people try to blatantly misrepresent it. I don't prefer it personally, but at least I do understand it, along with it's relative strengths and weaknesses. That's more than most folks seem to understand. I think only Tim Thompson and perhaps Tom Bridgman are the only two astronomers/scientists I've seem try to take legitimate pot shots at it. Everyone else seems like they just don't even begin to understand it. You certainly don't seem to understand it, or how to properly dismantle it. You might checkout Tim's comments sometime. He at least did it "professionally", with real published citations and everything, not with links to random websites.

Which is laughably bad.

It's still better than MR theory since MR theory can't produce a working corona, and SAFIRE has certainly shown that their model can do that much.

So I guess you no longer support his surface/ just under the surface fusion idea?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I never even hear of Juergen's solar model (or anyone's take on it) until after I'd read Birkeland's work and by then I was already sold on a cathode solar model. When I did run into the idea, I did my homework. I studied the ACE data and looked at a lot of the links that Tim talked about in his critique of the anode solar model. I also read Tim's comments. I have *never* preferred an anode solar model over Birkeland's cathode solar model. I have never "supported" any version of it. I've only ever tried to explain to you and other how it works who don't seem to understand it, and I've pointed out errors to people who keep misrepresenting it, so that when the make their own decisions, they are at least making *informed* and rational decisions, not simply repeating something that isn't true of the anode model.

The anode model probably made a "little" sense in the 1960-70's prior to what we've learned about solar wind, and prior to finding the "missing neutrinos" that were talked about in the 60's-70s, but I haven't personally ever supported an anode model and probably never will.

They promote beliefs that are trivially false.

So do you.

They pan real scientists,

So do you.

and make false claims about them and their observations.

I've lost count how many times I've heard you misrepresent EU/PC theory in this thread alone.

They are not even worthy of discussion.

So why do *you* keep dragging them into this discussion?

Who cares? All those 'models' are trivially wrong, and scientifically nonsensical.

Even if their preferred solar model is wrong, it's still capable of producing a working corona in a lab which is already *years* ahead of MR theory in the lab. I suspect that even Birkeland probably produced an aurora with an anode model a century ago, but he didn't write about it, so I cant be sure. Either way, even an anode model and circuit theory can do what MR theory cannot do, namely generate a full sphere corona. What the problem with MR theory? Talk about being trivially wrong!

 

[Smithi]

Actually, the "electric universe" concept in general predates Alfven. Alfven simply expanded on Birkeland's original ideas and applied it to cosmology on larger scales, using circuit theory, just like Birkeland.

Wrong. Alfven came up with PC/ PU. Nowhere did he say anything about electric universe. That is purely a bizarro take on PC invented by T & T.

More disinformation. SAFIRE experiments are alive and well, and the EU community is growing every single year.

Community? You mean those who can't understand real science, so are conned by the aforementioned T & T? And SAFIRE is nothing to do with science. Unless you find sticking a squillion volts through a metal ball interesting. I don't.

False. Birkeland first described the universe as being electrical in nature, *long* before either of them was even born. You're completely misrepresenting historical fact.

Nope, you are misrepresenting real scientists to claim that they are the basis and founders of the electric universe cult. They are not. Here is one of your co-founders;

Electric Universe

False. SAFIRE is still up and running the last time I checked.

Which has nothing to do with science, and has produced nothing.

Science isn't a popularity contest.

No, it is about valid scientific hypotheses, of which you have none.

 

[Michael]

Is disingenuous at best. EU is nothing to do with Alfven or Birkeland.

You don't get to personally define all the terms. Birkeland described the universe in terms of electricity and current and circuits and cathodes, discharges and cathode rays. That is "electric universe" theory. It's been around for more than a century. Alfven described a "plasma" cosmology universe that took EU ideas to the next (cosmological) level by applying all the things that we had learned over the next 70 years to Birkeland's basic ideas. That is "plasma cosmology" theory.

Velkovski and Thornhill and Talbott are simply individuals like you and like myself with little or nothing to do with EU/PC *models*.

It was invented by two Velikovskians. It is you who tries to conflate the mythology based EU stuff with PC, merely because you use their forum to spam your ideas. EU is nothing to do with science.

That is utter nonsense. It would be like me taking the term "evolutionary theory", finding some weird association with other virtually unrelated ideas like Velkovki, and than trying to claim that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with science and was invented by Velkovkians. What an utterly absurd way to debate this issue!

So, comets were formed by an arc welder! Lol.

No, don't start misrepresenting what I said. You asked me if I'd seen such things scaled down in the lab. I cited an example of how one might go about trying to support such an idea in a real lab experiment. I don't even hold such beliefs so stop associating them with me personally.

You dissociate yourself from Velikovsky, and here you are trying to defend a bunch of nonsense,

No I didn't. You took my words and my comments out of context and you're misrepresenting my intent entirely.

invented by two of his disciples, to make use of his claims of planets (specifically Venus) doing handbrake turns around the solar system in the recent past! That is where their impossible lightning bolts are coming from!

Ask me if I care?

Did you, or did you not say that EU ideas work in the lab? So, let's see them, because they are core beliefs of EUists.

In theory one might even be able to use discharges to emit particles with enough velocity to escape planetary bodies. Since I don't even support *that particular* concept, I have no reason to support such a claim in the lab.

Really. Show us his model, and tell us what relevance it has to what we now know, 100 years later.

It's still being discussed to this day by actual "scientists".

Nope, no solar coronas ever created in a lab.

Denials won't cut it. I can see for myself with my own eyes that it produces a hot, full sphere corona in a lab.

MR is seen in the lab,

Well, "induction" in plasma (and other conductors) is seen in a lab and Somov's example of MR in a vacuum is physically indistinguishable from magnetic flux, so essentially it's just flux inside of a conductor and ordinary induction that is seen in a lab.

and seen in-situ in the magnetosphere, and seen in solar flares. And what the hell has circuit theory got to do with anything?

Alfven used (and wrote about) circuit theory in every single one of those instances. The difference is that circuit theory produces working models in the lab, and MR theory is essentially exactly what Alfven said it was, redundant and irrelevant and easily replaced with his double layer paper.