Apparently, I know more about it than you do. It was founded by Velikovskians.
Nothing you "know" about it is true because nothing you "know" is even remotely related to a real scientific resource. "Electric Universe" theory was "founded" by Birkeland and his team *decades* before Velkovki wrote anything at all, and decades before Thornhill or Talbott was born. Birkeland first proposed that we live inside of an electric universe, and first proposed that the the sun was electrically interacting with other objects in space. You know absolutely *nothing* about EU. You even misrepresented Birkeland's own statements about his own experiments and how he thought they applied to solar physics!
Not as ridiculous as you do. Fancy belonging to a cult that believes Earth used to orbit Saturn! That Venus came flying out of Jupiter! That giant lightning bolts from this recent planetary billiards blasted rocks off of planets to become comets! And caused cratering on the Moon, and carved out the Grand Canyon and Valles Marineris to boot!
It's a good thing that I don't, and it's highly unethical for you to try to personally associate me with such beliefs. I hold no such beliefs.
Just because I happen to post on the same website as you do doesn't mean that I automatically share your cosmology belief either! Wow, talk about underhanded debate tactics. That is low, not to mention purely irrational.
Am I the one claiming MR is induction (lol!)?
You're claiming it's unrelated to induction. Prove it.
That the surface of the Sun is solid?
The term that we *specifically and intentionally* used in our published papers is "rigid" not "solid". Stop misrepresenting my belief and my published statements. It's not ethical to do that.
Or that the Sun is a giant cathode? Amongst other.....................stuff.
It is a giant cathode with respect to space and cosmic rays from space which are *overwhelmingly* positively charged.
You think? Alfven died 25 years ago. He has not seen the data modern scientists have.
All they have are observations that he was already very well aware of and experiments that require electric circuits to make them work. He read *lots* of papers on MR theory and rejected them all, harshly in fact, and replace them entirely with his double layer paper.
He has not seen where MHD is applicable.
Its not applied anywhere in space now that it wasn't being applied during his lifetime, and he consistently used circuit theory and exploding double layers to explain all those same high energy events including solar flares, and magnetosphere activity.
Where is isn't very useful is in the lab where it has failed miserably to simulate a corona or an aurora as was done with circuit theory over a century ago.
He never saw MR demonstrated and observed.
I hasn't been demonstrated or observed. Particle movement has been demonstrated and particle acceleration has been observed. There's nothing particularly new going on today that wasn't going on during his lifetime in terms of the MR models. There *still* aren't any decent 3D models of MR. It's still being modeled in 2D for the most part. Not exactly impressive IMO, and I'm sure he wouldn't be impressed either.
He never saw any results from Cluster, THEMIS or MMS.
It's too bad too because I'm sure he would have written papers explaining those observations based on circuit theory and double layers.
I would say Martin knows far more than Alfven could ever imagine.
I would say you're wrong. Martin has no Nobel in MHD theory even if he outlived Alfven.
And that goes for any modern plasma astrophysicist. Alfven is ancient news.
And yet not a single one of them has managed to simulate something as simple as a corona or an aurora in a lab based on MR theory. MR theory is a century behind "ancient" applications of circuit theory in the lab.
What? Have you lost the plot, Michael? Why on Earth would anybody debunk your strange beliefs in the scientific literature? Real scientists have told you that you don't know what you are talking about. That should suffice, given that they understand the relevant science, and you don't.
Those same scientists can't seem to do with MR what has been easily done with circuit theory for more than a century, and they've spent tens of billions of dollars on their dark matter ideas and failed miserably.
Me? No. Are you? You can't even do as much in the lab as Birkeland managed to do a century ago. I'd be worried if I were you.
It is a valid scientific argument when the person telling you that you haven't got a clue, is a scientist who does.
Um, no, not unless they *publish* a real paper with their real name attached to it, and show me *exactly* where my error might be. Otherwise it's just another meaningless opinion and those are a dime a dozen.
And do not pretend that you have never been told that by real scientists.
Why would I deny that???? If I was worried about their opinions, I probably wouldn't lack belief in their ideas in the first place. What on Earth makes you think that's a valid scientific argument? Appeals to authority are not a valid scientific argument, particularly when none of their beliefs actually show up or work as well in the lab.
Hahahahahaha! No, Michael, they are not DLs! Please show me the scientist who is claiming that they are.
You mean besides Alfven and Peratt?
False.
Double Layers in Astrophysics
Which part of this do you not understand, Michael? 'It cannot be induction. Induction DOES NOT change the magnetic field topology.'
A changing magnetic field topology is called "magnetic flux". A charged particle accelerated in a conductor as a result of magnetic flux is called "induction". MR is simply a redundant renaming of the combination of magnetic flux and induction as best as I can tell. In fact, Somov's description of "magnetic reconnection in a vacuum" is physically indistinguishable from magnetic flux in a vacuum, and if you introduce magnetic flux into a conductor, you get induction.
How many times do people need to tell you that before you understand it?
I could care less what they say, I want to see a real experiment that physically demonstrates that there is an actual physical difference between MR and flux/induction. Alfven did say the whole term was redundant, and it looks to me like it's redundant as well. I see no need for that term at all in fact to explain what happens when you introduce a changing magnetic field in *any* conductor, including plasma.
Give up, Michael. You do not understand plasma physics.
Well, I understand it better than you because I've actually read a few textbooks on the topic. I doubt you have actually.
It is rather pathetic to watch.
I think is rather pathetic watching you try to defend a feeble concept that is already more than century behind circuit theory in the lab, and several orders of magnitude short of a valid mathematical model to explain a solar flare. That's downright embarrassing IMO.
You have no excuse. You have been making the same laughable claim for years, despite being told that you are wrong;
And yet here we are, years later, and I've still never seen your misinformation HQ produce their missing math formula to describe a non-zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" in a vacuum without a single charged particle their names, and they *still* can't produce a simple corona in a vacuum based on MR theory. Man, that's just sad, sad, sad.
8 years on and Michael still doesn't get it! That is enough time to have got a BSc & PhD in plasma physics!
It's also plenty long enough to come up with their missing math formula and come up with a simulation of a corona based on MR theory too, but alas nothing has changed. All those PHd's and they can't produce one simple requested math formula they promised, or one simple experiment to demonstrate their model has any useful value in the lab. It's just sad to watch frankly.
