Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then the definition is word salad too or, at best, the basis of an elaborate science fiction story.I don't doubt the existence of cosmological redshift, I just assume it's related to tired light/inelastic scattering because there are numerous types of scattering that are *known and demonstrated* to have a tangible effect on photon momentum in the lab, and there are *hypothetical* ones being introduced on a regular basis, including the one which I cited in the OP of this very thread!
[QUOTE="Michael]Once again you are ignoring the definition of the term "Electric Universe" theory!sjastro said:Once again you are employing word salad by suggesting EM fields playing a role in shaping a cosmological model.
EU 'theorists', like Donald Scott, don't even understand what a Birkeland current is in the first place, (as was effectively demonstrated in his paper on Birkeland current fields), so why not ignore the whole concept?Michael said:It's totally ludicrous to ignore the massive Birkeland currents that wire the universe together too, but you do it anyway.
Am I one of those individuals because I see my name turning up at TBolts all the time, (courtesy of you)?!Michael said:The only individuals that I have ever gone out of my way to "personally attack" as you put it are two (potentially three) specific individuals who have a *proven track record* of making *willfully* false claims about EU/PC theory and or me personally.
Done!Michael said:Then apparently he is able to take up his concerns here if he feels compelled to do so.
Birkeland predicted the existence of that plasma, including the direction it's travel, and the existence of the high speed strahl. What do you say about that?
It's plasma traveling through space, with a high speed "strahl" which carries the overall current.
You will if you get struck by lightning!
I'm not opposed to non-zero EM fields being added to a GR formula because EM fields can be shown to have a direct physical effect on plasma
Then the definition is word salad too or, at best, the basis of an elaborate science fiction story.
EU 'theorists', like Donald Scott, don't even understand what a Birkeland current is in the first place, (as was effectively demonstrated in his paper on Birkeland current fields), so why not ignore the whole concept?
Am I one of those individuals because I see my name turning up at TBolts all the time, (courtesy of you)?!
Done!
I say plasmas have been known about since 1879, when they were discovered by one .
Plasma is just another name for an ionised gas,
and there is no current until the solar wind hits the Earth's magnetic field.
The net transfer of charge (which is the electric current) is caused by the presence of an electric field strong enough to temporariy strip electrons from the nucleus of atoms.
Now all you have got to do is explain how those electro magnetic fields, or more accurately, electric fields, are generated and maintained.
The magnetic component only arises once an electric field has got the current flowing. Not that such minor details have ever been known to bother EUers.
Ya, using (drum roll please) electric fields and electrical current to create plasma.Suddenly you get into space however and you *assume* it works differently in space than here on Earth.
That's just an opinion you hold which happens to be *false* in Birkeland's model, and in space as demonstrated by the existence of Strahl electrons traveling at much higher speeds than solar wind.I don't really have a serious problem with the mainstream explanations as to how they are created in the sun. I'd say it all starts and ends with fusion.Strahl electrons are only part of in the high speed component of the solar wind.
You have that backwards. The EU community is well aware of the fact the mainstream leaves out the electric fields and currents in space when they describe Birkeland currents as "magnetic slinkys" and "Steve", and they describe million degree plasma as "hot gas".
You have a really bad habit of walking into the middle of a conversation, without bothering to read it, and then making a bunch of assertions about my position that are simply not true. You also have a bad habit of attacking *people* rather than sticking to the topic. The only "deception" going on here is your assertion that I suggested that *only* motion was involved in keeping the universe "static", or that *no* external influences would be required. In fact I even pointed out that Birkeland's cathode sun theory probably would produce charge repulsion between stars.
FYI, what I was pointing out to Leslie is that it wouldn't take a *huge* amount of external force to keep objects in motion, or to produce a static universe because superclusters are also in motion in EU/PC theory. Period.
Yawn. More personal attacks. Do you even know what a legitimate scientific conversation looks like without all the personal insults? Static universe theory predates me, and it will be around long after I'm dead too.
Horsepucky. Even the mainstream *assumes* that galaxies are moving around inside of a supercluster arrangement of galaxies which orbit around a common center of mass for the supercluster. They may not treat *superclusters* as moving objects, but they certainly treat galaxies as moving objects.
NOVA Online | Runaway Universe | Galaxies, Clusters, and Superclusters
Whatever the "net effect" of that Doppler shift might be at cosmological scales, it's *tiny* compared to the net effect of the 'space expansion" claims about redshift.
It's blindingly obvious that *every* galaxy is in orbit around some center of mass somewhere. The Doppler shift associated with that movement simply isn't worried about at cosmological scales because it's insignificant compared to the tired light/space expansion/cosmological redshift factor.
I don't think you even understand *mainstream* theory properly! Oy Vey. To save us both some time, I'm just going to skip the redundant and irrelevant nonsense.
So which is it? Do galaxies orbit a center of mass and have a Doppler shift component or not?!? You can't even make up your mind, and you're certainly contradicting yourself.
There you go again, blatantly cheating in debate by playing the liar, liar, pants on fire game. Sheesh. The only straight out lie is your claim that galaxies are not in motion. Even the fact that we believe that our galaxy will eventually merge with Andromeda is evidence that galaxies move, and they have a Doppler shift component in their redshift/blueshift.
About (and not necessarily) the only things in LCDM that don't have an intrinsic Doppler shift/physical movement component associated with them are distant *superclusters*. Those tend to be treated as "GR islands" unto themselves, and any redshift associated with them is attributed to "space expansion" rather than movement of objects, but only because the cosmological redshift component is much more significant than any movements associated with such distant galaxies.
Either you don't understand mainstream theory properly, or you didn't explain it properly.
No. Let me remind you that the electrical component is *intrinsic* to EU/PC theory, and your whining is a result of you stepping into the middle of an ongoing conversation I've had with Leslie over the *amount* of the electrical component, not *if* it's applicable in EU/PC theory! Sheesh.
It might, particularly if a "theory of everything" can be shown to exist which ties gravity back to EM fields. It might still have an effect, albeit a *tiny* effect compared to gravity. For the sake of my conversation with Leslie however I *assumed* that only gravity and momentum were involved, and that *no* EM influences were necessary to explain events in planetary orbits, or even galaxy orbits inside their superclusters.
Funny how I used that to my advantage in my conversation with Leslie too.
What!?!?! Holy Cow. You really do cheat at debate every single time. You can't stick to the topic and you're always attacking my character. Knock it off.
You created your own strawman and then you called me a "liar" with it. That's just pitiful.
You apparently just are not paying attention to the prior conversations I've been having with Leslie. Unlike you, Leslie seems to be fine with galaxy movement and momentum holding superclusters together and the only debate we're really having is about supercluster movements. That's the only thing in debate between Leslie and myself, even if you personally have some problem with galaxy movements and momentum. I'm going to assume that even you actually accept that galaxies rotate around a center of mass that is associated with the supercluster, and you just oversimplified the explanation somewhere along the way.
More loaded language aimed at the individual. How sad for you.
No, that's just a false statement about my beliefs, and you apparently should keep your day job because you stink at mind reading. The only place where processes in a lab trump *supernatural claims* as to *cause*, is when one cause/effect process in the lab can be demonstrated in the lab, whereas the supernatural claim is a dud in the lab.
I don't doubt the existence of cosmological redshift, I just assume it's related to tired light/inelastic scattering because there are numerous types of scattering that are *known and demonstrated* to have a tangible effect on photon momentum in the lab, and there are *hypothetical* ones being introduced on a regular basis, including the one which I cited in the OP of this very thread!
In an ideal scenario, they both have equal value in terms of "science", but the working solar model also allowed Birkeland to make a *host of different* predictions which a simple measurement might not. For instance, with his "working lab model", in addition to his predictions about planetary aurora, Birkeland correctly predicted a *hot corona*, electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, polar jets, cathode rays/electron beams coming from the sun, both types of charged particles coming from the sun in high speed solar wind, etc. A simple in situ measurement of the Earth's aurora wouldn't necessarily allow for someone to make all those other successful predictions about solar physics. From the standpoint of making *predictions*, the working model is *way better* than a simple in situ measurement.
Electrons streaming away from the surface are what heat up the overall corona. Individuals coronal loops might be described as "Birkeland currents/magnetic ropes", and the current inside those loops heats them up to *millions* of degrees.
The only thing that is "sheer stupidity" is your assertion that there is no evidence of field aligned currents in the solar atmosphere. Every single coronal loop contains *massive* amounts of current which heat up the loops to *millions* of degrees! How can you miss all that "evidence" that's staring you in face in every SDO high energy image of the sun?
FYI, Birkeland *predicted* and even *simulated* the existence of coronal loops in the solar atmosphere as a result of his experiments.
Once again you are ignoring the definition of the term "Electric Universe" theory!
The Debye length argument is one of those BS EU/PC hater claims. What's the Debye length of a cathode ray from Birkeland's cathode sun experiment going to be when you scale it up to solar system proportions? That is simply the lamest argument in the solar system.
Is that a mainstream *estimated* number or something which they actually measured in space somewhere? Let me guess.......
It's totally ludicrous to ignore the massive Birkeland currents that wire the universe together too, but you do it anyway. Even the mainstream acknowledges (based on observation) that the universe is "threaded" and has massive "dark matter' threads where galaxies and superclusters seem to be concentrated. Those are simply Birkeland currents, and the currents running through them should not be ignored as the mainstream does.
You're the one being "dishonest" in this thread by continuing to attack the *messenger* rather than the message itself. That's the "dishonest" behavior in this thread. Look yourself in the mirror if you wish to get rid of "dishonesty" in this conversation.
Right or wrong, all EU/PC ideas work in the lab, and I believe in them, even if their wrong. Being proven to be wrong doesn't even make me "dishonest", it would just make me wrong.
Stop interjecting personal attacks into a discussion about *science*. It's unethical behavior on your part.
The only individuals that I have ever gone out of my way to "personally attack" as you put it are two (potentially three) specific individuals who have a *proven track record* of making *willfully* false claims about EU/PC theory and or me personally. I've simply pointed out their direct lies too. Whatever goes on at Thunderbolts in terms of personal attacks *pales* in comparison to the BS that comes out of EU/PC hater's mouths at ISF on a daily basis.
If you'd like me to come back to ISF and tell him the same thing to his face, just petition for my reinstatement and I'll be happy to point out his false statement on ISF too.
Then apparently he is able to take up his concerns here if he feels compelled to do so.
Which blog entry might that be? How did I "edit it"? I cut up everyone's posts into manageable units, typically based on a specific idea or paragraph content just to respond on a point by point basis. I'm not trying to be unethical in that case, I'm just trying to respond thoroughly to each argument that is being made.
Without any specific example to work with, I have no way to know that in your case. You'll have to be more specific about what you think I "edited" and how that was "unethical' in some way.
What does that conversation have to do with 'Christianity'?
I have a *much* better idea. I have more than enough courage to come back over to the lion's den at ISF where all the trash talking about EU/PC theory is taking place on a daily basis, and I will be very happy to repeat whatever I may have said at Thunderbots right to his face if you get me reinstated. Then we can take the gloves off for real and deal with the problem right where it starts.You can all engage in your personal attack nonsense too because the forum is skewed in your favor.
Whatever I may have stated about anyone at Thunderbolts has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of "Christianity". I have also made personal agreements with the moderators at this forum which I must abide by, and which I have agreed to abide by, so I seriously doubt that this specific forum would be the proper forum for that particular conversation.
Go petition to get me reinstated at ISF and I promise to repeat anything that I may have said at Thunderbolts right to the individual's face and we can air all the dirty laundry in the offending forum.
I'd be willing to petition for the reinstatement of that same individual at Thunderbolts too, but I have no control over the choices of the moderators at Thunderbolts, and he will probably have to behave much better at Thunderbolts. You'd have a home field advantage at ISF.
The Debye length for the intergalactic medium is around 10^5 metres, not much beyond this value the electromagnetic force drops to zero.
Is that a mainstream *estimated* number or something which they actually measured in space somewhere? Let me guess.......
Point No(1)
It’s a sad state of affairs Michael you have to drag a third party into the discussion.
I came into this thread in post no. 32.
All you *might* need is a *tiny* bit of additional 'repulsion' to make sure that the whole thing stays in organized motion.
You'd really only need some amount of energy to keep the motions going over time, otherwise friction might play a role. The amount of 'friction' going on in our own solar system however is *minuscule* compared the the kinetic energy of the objects in motion. All we need is some current and some influence from magnetic and electric fields, and the arrangement of a *moving* but stable galaxy or universe is something which can be sustained indefinitely.
Show me in any of your discussions with Leslie prior to post #32 that EM was used as an explanation for the prevention of gravitational collapse.
You changed the goalposts as a response to my post #32.
I rest my case.
End of argument
Point No(2)
I see you are up to your old tricks again of taking me out of context by suggesting I think galaxies in clusters do not undergo rotation.
I thought I made it clear to you in my very first post in this thread, galaxies in clusters do not follow the non chaotic, near concentric planetary orbits in our solar system that you seem to think.
That is not the same as suggesting galaxies do not undergo rotation, they could be in open parabolic or hyperbolic orbits.
Likewise I made it clear that galaxies on a cosmological scale do not undergo rotation.
In this case the cosmological scale is for distances greater than 100 Mpc where the Universe becomes homogenous and isotropic which incidentally is a very strong case against a Static universe.
If you thank that all galaxies must orbit around a common centre then show me the peer reviewed discovery paper of a galaxy at a distance greater than 100 Mpc that does so.
I rest my case.
Similarly for Birkeland currents, since you are so absolutely certain of their existence in the interplanetary medium and heat up the Sun’s corona show me the peer reviewed discovery paper.
I rest my case.
End of argument.
Point No.(3)
On the subject of personal attacks, your dishonesty and general confusion is based on the contents of your posts.
You may have noticed I gave specific examples for each case, if I didn’t it would constitute a personal attack.
The problem I have on occasions is whether you are lying or just hopelessly confused, the truth is probably somewhere in between.
One only needs to look at your shining examples on that other forum of what does constitute a real personal attack.
As far as your Bonobo ape chest thumping defiance of wanting petitions for reinstatement at ISF you are not fooling anyone.
If you posted the same gutter level personal attacks here you would have another issue with the moderators as you had involving that certain astrophysicist.
While you made "personal arrangements" (= a suspension?) with the moderators with regards to that astrophysicist, it certainly doesn’t stop you trying to destroy his professional reputation on that other site.
As far your hatchet job on my post here is the link.
https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/testing-electric-universe/#comments
Posted by sjastro 17th June 2016 (second post on this date)
To conclude here is a piece of irony.
Here it is.
Debye length - The Plasma Universe theory (Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)
Embarrassing isn’t Michael, it comes from your own fringe science which agrees with the mainstream value.
As far your word salad comment about the wanting to know what the Debye length of a cathode ray is, try asking the Plasma cosmologists, I’m sure they will be performing the same face palms as I did.
In the "lab" electric fields can be produced artificially. Now all you have got to do is how they arise in space.
Electric fields in the Sun are of no relevance to currents which are supposed to flow outside of the Sun.
Hot air. I ask again, how are the electric fields in interstellar space supposed to be created and maintained?
I'm convinced you don't have a clue as to what 'Circuit Theory' is.The term certainly means many things to many different individuals, but the variety in definitions within the EU/PC community tends to merge at the level of cosmology theory. They all stem from Alfven's basic cosmology models, and his application of circuit theory to events in spacetime.
What a load of gobbledegook. Scott outright plagiarised Lundquist's solution for a static force-free magnetic field considered in cylindrical co-ordinates without even mentioning Lundquist. Scott's 'model' is physically flawed because he misinterpreted the Lundquist model he plagiarised. Scott is clueless about the fundamental Physics behind Birkeland currents. End of Story.Michael said:From a conceptual standpoint, I believe that Dr. Scott would have been better served by naming his model the "Scott current" model of current carrying filaments in plasma rather than trying to give credit where he felt it was due in terms of Kristian Birkeland. Then again, Scott's model of current threads is a purely empirical model of current flows and it can be tested in the lab and should be tested in the lab, as is the case with *all* EU/PC beliefs.
Are you kidding? I don't have to .. as you, yourself, just admitted to conducting 'personal attacks' at cult headquarters (TBolts):Michael said:Not to my knowledge. Can you cite a post from Thunderbolts (or anywhere else) which you believe was a "personal attack" in any way?
.. aka .. you know exactly what 'sjastro' (and I) are talking about ... and you just admitted to doing exactly what we are talking about!Michael said:The only individuals that I have ever gone out of my way to "personally attack" as you put it are two (potentially three) specific individuals who have a *proven track record* of making *willfully* false claims about EU/PC theory and or me personally.
What another crock!:Michael said:We may disagree on concepts, but I don't really have a problem with you personally, or your debate style for the most part. In fact I've enjoyed most of our conversations even if I didn't agree with you, which I assume is right around 100 percent of the time.
I am yet to see anyone 'enjoy' what they erroneously peceive as 'arrogance on a stick' and 'personal attack tirade(s)'!Michael Mozina from TBolts said:The whole thing is pure arrogance on a stick, and woe to anyone who dares to point out the *numerous* flaws in their methodology. They use any excuse to launch themselves into a personal attack tirade rather than to deal with the criticisms. Selfsim's entire approach in terms of debating this topic at CF was to attack the individual, and the amusing part is that it completely blew up in his face.
Your entire commentary in the LIGO thread, immediately following my clearly (and admitted) typographical error, was a personal attack on me, the author, for a typographical error! If you'd bothered to step beyond the cheap-shot of highlighting a typographical error, you may have been able to see that the coin tossing analogy, was a genuine (and accurate) attempt at trying to get you to see that you were/still continue to be in error over your interpretation of the LIGO sigma figure. Your subsequent attack was your attempted smoke-screen to avoid confronting the argument/issue made obvious by said analogy.Michael said:I'll be happy to discuss any post on any forum which you believe was a personal attack leveled at you or your handle ...
I didn't "drag" Leslie into anything, we've been discussing this topic for awhile now and you butted in half way through it apparently.
You not only came late into our discussion in *this* thread, you apparently missed the whole first part of our conversation on this topic of a static universe, motion of superclusters, and a non-zero constant which first began in this thread:
The great void in the heart of the 'dark energy' hypothesis.
You'll notice in post nine of that thread that I stated the following:
From post 11 of that same thread:
I wasn't claiming in either thread that no amount of EM influence would be required, I simply suggested that it didn't have to be a particularly large influence compared to gravity and momentum of superclusters.
I just did. Our conversation on this topic didn't even begin in this thread. You walked into the middle of an ongoing conversation between us that actually began *long before this thread*. You made a lot of unfounded assertions about my beliefs too in this thread and then you blamed me for changing my position which I never did.
No goal posts were ever changed as you can see from my citations to the first part of my conversation with Leslie on this topic. I rest my case. You just "butted in" and made a bunch of assumptions about my beliefs and built your own strawman to burn.
Actually by the time I got to the end of the post I *assumed* that you just botched the explanation about galaxy movements something terrible and I assumed that you actually realized that galaxies rotate around the center of mass of something.
I never claimed that they were in concentric planetary orbits. You made that up. You're burning your own strawmen again I see. How can you even question *my* integrity and then turn right around and stuff words in my mouth which I never uttered? Really?
So what? Everything is moving in space, including superclusters, and that was my whole point. I didn't say anything about clusters or superclusters being in my concentric planetary orbits. I just said that the were in *motion* and therefore Doppler shift is applicable.
Ya, I saw you added cosmological scales in there but they too *do* undergo rotation just like our local cluster undergoes rotation, but the figure is *minuscule* compared to the cosmological figure. You're wrong to claim that they don't undergo rotation however, no matter what the distance.
No it's not a "very strong case against static universe". You made that up too.
If I thought that, or claimed that, I might bother to try looking for a paper for you, but alas you seem to be making stuff up as you go about my beliefs which simply are not true in the first place. I simply said that all superclusters are also in motion. Period.
You're batting 0. Every time you've rested your case you've been wrong.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Currents In The Solar Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf
Magnetic Rope observed for the first time between Saturn and the Sun
You're still batting 0. End of argument.
You have no right to question my honesty. It's not even a valid way to debate *any* topic in fact. It's all you an apparently do however, because you seem to it rather often.
Since you were wrong on every point, you're also wrong about the fact that it *was* a personal attack, and you continue that nonsense too.
The later option is within your right to question. The first claim is not unless you're professing to be a mind reader, in which case you're a sucky mind reader.
Like I already admitted, there are a couple of individuals that I have a "beef" with, specifically because they willfully misrepresented my statements and/or EU theory even when shown that they were wrong.
You're not fooling anyone either. You can't handle me at ISF. The first thing I'd do is ask for Clinger's missing *rate* of reconnection formula. His supposedly "freshman" homework assignment is six years overdue now.
Which is exactly why I didn't. I leveled my criticisms at the individual in question on the specific forum, in front of the specific scientific community which he most frequently publicly attacks and intentionally misrepresents. If he was willfully misrepresenting Christianity and the CF forum, I'd consider responding to his posts here instead of there.
The destruction of his reputation is the direct result of the fact that he continues to willfully and blatantly *misrepresent* EU/PC solar theory to this day. I have nothing to do with him destroying his own reputation by giving false information. I'm just pointing out his blatantly false statements at Thunderbolts in case anyone is interested in the actual neutrino predictions of EU/PC solar theory.
What "hatchet" job? All I see is you attacking my character in that thread too while ironically trying to justify that "no neutrino" nonsense which appears on that blog entry! Wow! Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Why wouldn't it be the same?
I'm sure they wouldn't try to use your bogus argument against Birkeland's solar model, or Birkeland currents in space in the first place.
If you think that all galaxies must orbit around a common centre then show me the peer reviewed discovery paper of a galaxy at a distance greater than 100 Mpc that does so.
If I thought that, or claimed that, I might bother to try looking for a paper for you, but alas you seem to be making stuff up as you go about my beliefs which simply are not true in the first place. I simply said that all superclusters are also in motion. Period.
Similarly for Birkeland currents, since you are so absolutely certain of their existence in the interplanetary medium and heat up the Sun’s corona show me the peer reviewed discovery paper.
I rest my case.
End of argument.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Currents In The Solar Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf
Magnetic Rope observed for the first time between Saturn and the Sun
I'm convinced you don't have a clue as to what 'Circuit Theory' is.
Scott's 'model' is physically flawed because he misinterpreted the Lundquist model he plagiarised.
Scott is clueless about the fundamental Physics behind Birkeland currents. End of Story.
Are you kidding? I don't have to .. as you, yourself, just admitted to conducting 'personal attacks' at cult headquarters (TBolts):.. aka .. you know exactly what 'sjastro' (and I) are talking about ... and you just admitted to doing exactly what we are talking about!
What another crock!:
I am yet to see anyone 'enjoy' what they erroneously peceive as 'arrogance on a stick' and 'personal attack tirade(s)'!
I'll just ignore the lie that anything 'blew up' in my face (for the time being). Needless to say that is your perception (alone) .. it is not by any means agreed by anyone beyond your own deluded perceptions (and personal opinion)!
Your entire commentary in the LIGO thread, immediately following my clearly (and admitted) typographical error, was a personal attack on me,
the author, for a typographical error!
If you'd bothered to step beyond the cheap-shot of highlighting a typographical error,
you may have been able to see that the coin tossing analogy, was a genuine (and accurate) attempt at trying to get you to see that you were/still continue to be in error over your interpretation of the LIGO sigma figure. Your subsequent attack was your attempted smoke-screen to avoid confronting the argument/issue made obvious by said analogy.
You come across as being sooo inauthentic and insincere....
as you go forward continuing to effectively claim 'victory' (ie: 'blew up in his face') and by continuing to chant, (at TBolts), that all you want is for 'mainstreamers' to stick to the argument, that its become completely nauseous! Yes I find it quite nauseous engaging with you, (and hence my typical weeks-long absences following our various past conversations, which I'm quite happy to continue, also).
The above example also demonstrates you have no desire to confront the mainstream argument, even when its put right in front of your (self-induced, self smoke-screened) nose!
You are becoming more and more irrational by the post.
The two items which make or break you which makes everything else in your long winded and spiteful response irrelevant was my request for the discovery papers that galaxies beyond 100 Mpc rotate around a center of mass and Birkeland currents.
In your previous response this is what you stated.
“It's blindingly obvious that *every* galaxy is in orbit around some center of mass somewhere.”
You can’t take a trick, you either suffer from memory loss, are plain stupid, or have well and truly been caught out lying again.
The memory loss must explain why you “forgot” to include “electrostatic repulsion” in the first 32 posts.
What an absolute joke.
So you have bombed on the first request.
What about the second request.
Is this some sort of a joke?
The first link is a theoretical treatise not a discovery paper.
What is data, the equipment used, the authors, the journal the discovery was published in etc, like the GW discovery paper.
The second link doesn’t even relate to Birkeland currents but your favourite subject of magnetic reconnection.
This discussion is over.
You are clearly a troll as many Science forums have recognized over the years by expelling you.
R
From a scientific perspective, our conversation never started. It was always a personal attack campaign with you because you have nothing of scientific substance to say about the *topic* of this thread. Who do you think you're fooling? Run and hide all you wish, but your behaviors speak for themselves and I see right through your nonsense.
And yet physicists were responsible for the development of the theoretical framework which they then passed onto engineers as 'Circuit Theory'.Michael said:We're even then because I'm absolutely convinced that your entire industry has no idea how to apply circuit theory to astrophysics.
Scott authored and published(?) the paper: Magnetic Fields of Birkeland Currents, (referred by you, and reviewed by me in the CFs thread linked to in my last post), in July 2013. There was no mention of Lundquist's work in that paper. Nonetheless, Lundquist's work constituted about 80% of Scott's so-called 'paper.'Michael said:.. What makes you think that Scott even read, let alone "plagiarized" anyone? Evidence please?
He then formally acknowledged Lundquist's references in the 'Acknowledgements' section at the end:Scott said:Consistent with this, the major goals of this paper are:
1. To present a simple, but complete derivation of Lundquist’s equations that describe the magnetic field structure of a field-aligned current.
Note Lundquist produced this work some 63 years before Scott decided to plagiarise it and make it his 'own'. The impression created by Scott in the first paper, by a lie of omission, was that he was he was the author of the theoretical model for BCs ... when clearly, by his own later admission, he was not!Scott said:
- Lundquist S. Magneto-hydrostatic fields. Arch. Fys., 1950, v. 2, 361.
- Lundquist S. On the stability of magneto-hydrostatic fields. Phys. Rev., 1951, v. 83 (2), 307–311. Available online: http://link.aps.org/doi /10.1103/PhysRev.83.307.
And yet physicists were responsible for the development of the theoretical framework which they then passed onto engineers as 'Circuit Theory'.
It doesn't really matter what you've convinced yourself about any of this. I'm speaking facts above and not personal opinions, but you don't seem to recognize the difference.
Scott authored and published(?) the paper: Magnetic Fields of Birkeland Currents, (referred by you, and reviewed by me in the CFs thread linked to in my last post), in July 2013. There was no mention of Lundquist's work in that paper.
Nonetheless, Lundquist's work constituted about 80% of Scott's so-called 'paper.'
Then, 2 years later, in Progress in Physics, Vol 11 2015, Scott again published his so-called 'work' entitled: "Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model", whereupon he clearly decided to come clean and acknowledge Lundquist's work:He then formally acknowledged Lundquist's references in the 'Acknowledgements' section at the end:
Note Lundquist produced this work some 63 years before Scott decided to plagiarise it and make it his 'own'. The impression created by Scott in the first paper, by a lie of omission, was that he was he was the author of the theoretical model for BCs ... when clearly, by his own later admission, he was not!
We call this being 'a crook' in my neighbourhood ...
I don't have time to comment on the rest of your tripe .. I may (or may not) bother later ...
I wasn't complaining about empirical physicists in general, I was specifically complaining about *astrophysicists*. I was complaining about their utter lack of an understanding as to how to begin to apply circuit theory to events in spac
Of course they don't. I may have covered it as a 15 year old schoolboy, but these astrophysicists, with PhD after their names? Well, I mean, there's not a chance they know anything about what makes an electric current flow.
They have a better idea than you, and that's for sure.
Their so called "better" idea was referred to by Alfven as "pseudoscience" seven times in his keynote speech at the conference where he first presented his double layer paper which made all that pseudoscience irrelevant and obsolete.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?