We almost certainly live in a static universe.

[Michael]

Crap. All your "Polar Light Simulation" demonstrates is that a vacuum tube ought to work, and moving electrons get deflected by a magnetic field. We knew that already.

Need I point out to you that coronal heating has been one the biggest enigmas for mainstream solar physics, and it simply 'pops right out' of EU/PC theory and Birkeland's solar model? Likewise, the solar wind, polar jets, coronal loops, the Earth's aurora, *all* pop right out of Birkeland's solar model.

Therefore when you claim that my EU/PC beliefs have no direct effect on my life, I cringe. I can see for myself that EU/PC cosmology has *major* advantages to me right here on Earth.

Somewhere over on JREF/ISF, based on Birkland's solar model, and what I have leaned about coronal loop structures, I actually "publicly predicted" a series of major, high intensity solar flares within about 20 minutes of when they actually started. I've never seen anyone else on the planet actually do that in public. I *know* for a fact that this model works.

Biology and EU/PC theory are much alike. They're both *empirical* theories. There's nothing "exotic" about them in any respect compared to any other branch of empirical physics.

LCDM theory is more like going to a witch doctor. It has no tangible application to solar physics theories or aurora or anything of the sort. None of it actually works in the lab.

 

[lesliedellow]

LCDM theory..... has no tangible application to solar physics theories or aurora or anything of the sort. None of it actually works in the lab.

That is rather like complaining that gynaecology has no tangible application to brain surgery. After all, they are both medical science, aren't they?

NASA hasn't actually got a 865 million mile wide ball of hydrogen in their "lab". Perhaps they could borrow yours.

 

[Michael]

That is rather like complaining that gynaecology has no tangible application to brain surgery. After all, they are both medical science, aren't they?

NASA hasn't actually got a 865 million mile wide ball of hydrogen in their "lab". Perhaps they could borrow yours.

They can't get inflation, space expansion, dark energy, or dark matter to have any effect on a single hydrogen atom in a lab yet, so why would any of those things have any effect on solar physics?

FYI:

CME's, active regions and high energy flares - Page 5 - International Skeptics Forum

Michael Mozina 12:04 PM 16th October 2010
Ok, I'm going to go out on a limb and 'predict' an EM type of 'flare/cme" from the "hot spot" forming in the southern region. It hasn't "blown' yet, but if you look at the active region in the southern hemisphere, it's formed a roundish looking 'hot spot' that has grown in activity over the past 48 hours. I predict we'll see an EM flare from that region over the next 48 hours. If the size of the active region is useful in predicting the size of the mass ejection in the flare or CME, this EM eruption is likely to be "big".

I want to be clear that this is a prediction about a "different" kind of flare/CME than the "dark filament' variety we've been discussing. It's a more difficult thing to predict in terms of "timing" compared to dark filament flares, but the concept is essentially the same. We're looking for "change over time" and that hot spot has been steadily 'building', and it's located inside of a very active region.

I didn't find out about the flares for another 20 minutes, but I was actually within *6* minutes of the first big flare. There had not been a single C class or better flare for something like 12 days prior to that prediction, and within 6 minutes of that public prediction we saw a whole series of high energy flares from that specific active region.

LCMD as a cosmology model is *useless* at predicting anything related to solar physics, solar flares, solar anything, or aurora. It's a meaningless cosmology theory outside of cosmology.

EU/PC cosmology theory applies to *all* objects in space, including the sun, the Earth and events on Earth. There's a *tangible empirical* difference between those two cosmology theories with respect to their practical value on Earth.

And I didn't need a big crystal ball of hydrogen to make that successful prediction either.

 

[lesliedellow]

They can't get inflation, space expansion, dark energy, or dark matter to have any effect on a single hydrogen atom in a lab yet, so why would any of those things have any effect on solar physics?

Cosmology operates on a scale involving billions of light years and on masses upwards of 10^40 tonnes. Solar physics operates on the scale of a few million miles, and masses of 10^27 tonnes.

Quantum Mechanics is likewise not relevant to heavy engineering. General Relativity isn't overly relevant to a satellite's orbit of the Earth (GPS excepted). So what?

 

[SelfSim]

... Published? Really? That's news to me. When? Where? Which publication? Citation please. AFAIK, that particular version was simply a 'work in progress', a "prepublished" version of a developing paper which Scott was still working on. AFAIK Scott simply presented that prepublished version to the EU/PC community for some public scrutiny and some feedback while he was still working on improving the paper for later publication.

Then you don't know very much.

Scott produced two similar papers both of which failed to disclose that the bulk of both papers were Lundquist's solution and not Scott's work. Both papers are listed on Google Scholar here as: “Magnetic Structure of Force Free Currents” (electric cosmos.org) and “Magnetic fields of Birkeland Currents” (electric cosmos.org). Both are clearly in the public domain and can be (and have been) cited by other authors.

Wait a minute! Let me get this straight, just so that I'm sure that I correctly understand the full nature of your personal attack on Scott. You're accusing Scott of plagiary without so much as a single citation to a *specific paragraph* from Lundquist's work which you claim Scott somehow "stole" from Lundquist. You're furthermore accusing Scott of "plagiary" in a (I believe) *non published* preprint which was simply intended to solicit feedback from the EU/PC community? Really? What absolute *gall*! Man, that's just a purely unethical personal attack without a *shred* of credibility unless you can show me where Scott's 'preprint' was published. Citation?

See above.
You are wrong in your belief that these papers were draft pre-prints. They were clearly released and made readily available in the public domain.

Like it or not, the facts speak for themselves.
Scott plagiarised Lundquist's solution without disclosing the fact.

Considering the fact that the *published and peer reviewed version* included proper citations to Lundquist's work, I'd call the first unpublished version a "work in progress" that was wasn't fully documented at the time, and which was improved accordingly over time until it reached the point of publication. The *published* paper *did* include a proper reference.

It doesn't matter what you'd call it.

The fact is that he plagiarised Lundquist's solution without disclosing it, and then released the work into the public domain under his own name!

 

[SelfSim]

Before I ever get into your *other* misconceptions about Scott's paper, I want to hear you respond to this paragraph from my last post to you which you seem to simply have avoided like the plague:

Done!

You *continue* to publicly accuse Dr. Scott of plagiary under an anonymous handle, without even so much as the common decency of citing the *publication* which you're claiming that Scott published this supposedly plagiarized material. You haven't had the common decency to cite so much as a single paragraph which you believe that Scott plagiarized in an apparent *rough draft*. You don't even have the decency to accuse him of plagiary using your real name either, just some ridiculous handle you made up. As opposed to the rough draft which Scott distributed to the EU/PC community for feedback, the actual *published* version of Scott's paper clearly does contain the appropriate references to Lundquist's work, so when *exactly* and where *exactly* did Scott "plagiarize" anything?

If you continue with the claim that it was a "rough draft which Scott distributed to the EU/PC community for feedback" and that "the actual *published* version of Scott's paper clearly does contain the appropriate references to Lundquist's work" ... 'twill be a lie on your part. Both the papers I refer to in my previous post were released into the public domain and can the cited by other authors. Both of these papers are thus "actual *published* version(s) of Scott's paper(s)", like it or not.

You falsely accused Scott of plagiary in what appears to be nothing more than a "rough draft/work in progress" which was only intended to solicit feedback from within the EU/PC community, and you have the nerve to whine when EU/PC members call you names for such unethical behavior? Really? Where did you learn "ethics" from anyway? What would you have them do when you show such a huge lack of ethics while you *continue to this day* to make such false accusations about EU/PC members? You owe Dr. Scott a public apology, or you need to demonstrate that he actually *published* anything which plagiarized anything from anyone. You haven't even come *close* to doing that yet.

And now your dismay at finding out the truth about one of your 'EU theorists' is directed as an ad-hom attack against me and my ethical standards?

FYI, when I "lost my cool" recently at TB, and I went after a specific poster from ISF at TB, most of the members at TB responded by telling me to take it easy, forget the trash talking at ISF and move on with my life. They didn't encourage me to respond in kind to the trash talking at ISF, they generally *discouraged* me from responding to it in fact.

And yet you failed to listen to them because here you go again .. losing your cool at moi!
Someday you might .. just might .. actually look at the facts .. as opposed to your beliefs about the facts .. just maybe.

Compare and contrast that overall response at TB to the "hater mob" mentality, and personal attacks that go on continuously at ISF, which continued over the weekend and which continues today at ISF. What right do any of you EU/PC haters have to complain about the way you might be treated at TB while you engage in such unethical and irrational behaviors at ISF, and you personally falsely accuse Scott of something which he never did?

Oh but he did do it .. the facts are right there in the public domain.

I want to hear you respond to the specific paragraph I reposted for you on and hear you justify your irrational claims about plagiarism. That's a serious accusation directed at the *person*, and I've yet to hear you even come *close* to justifying it. If you can't justify your false claims about plagiary, while you continue to falsely accuse him, why should I even listen to or respond to anything else that you might have to say about Scott's paper? You owe us (actually Scott) a citation to a published paper, and a specific page number and paragraph, or you owe Dr. Scott a public apology, one or the other. Which is it?

Think again ... and if you continue to direct your ad-hom attack about my (lack of) 'ethical standards', you will provide me with evidence and I will report you to the moderators of this forum who, as you already know, are well-aware of your past libellous behaviors.

I strongly suggest we move on ...

 

[Michael]

Then you don't know very much.

Scott produced two similar papers both of which failed to disclose that the bulk of both papers were Lundquist's solution and not Scott's work. Both papers are listed on Google Scholar here as: “Magnetic Structure of Force Free Currents” (electric cosmos.org) and “Magnetic fields of Birkeland Currents” (electric cosmos.org). Both are clearly in the public domain and can be (and have been) cited by other authors.

Electric Cosmos.org? What the hell? That's Scott's own personal *website* for crying out loud. Where *else* would you expect him to post a rough draft of a paper to discuss at TB? Those are *not* "published" papers like I asked you for! Furthermore the one paper which is actually published *does* contain the appropriate reference to Lundquist. For crying out loud! I can't believe you're still badmouthing Scott (using an anonymous handle no less) over a missing citation in an *unpublished* document. That's simply absurd!

You can't even demonstrate that Scott had even knew that he was duplicating Lundquist's work or that he was using Lundquist's work to start with. In fact, this quote from Scott's website rough draft PDF would suggest exactly the opposite is true. Apparently Scott wasn't even aware of the fact that he was duplicating work that had already been done before by Bessel until someone pointed it out for him.

The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to Dr. Jeremy Dunning-Davies for recognizing that the differential equation derived in this study is a Bessel Equation, whose solutions are given by the Bessel functions, J0 and J1. He also gave the author encouragement and much needed advice. Dr. William A. Gardner did extensive work regarding the closed form solution of the Bessel equation and provided advice and much of the supportive mathematical rigor included here. He has extensive knowledge of the logic of mathematics and engineering. Dr. Timothy Eastman of NASA’s Goddard Space Center, Dr. Ron DeLyser, EE Department U. of Denver, and Dr. C.J. Ransom of Vemasat Labs gave freely and graciously of their time, advice, and assistance to help in this effort.

Scott didn't originally seem to even be aware of the fact that he was using and/or duplicating a Bessel function in his derivation until someone else pointed it out to him and gave him help! Scott obviously included that information as soon as he knew about it. Scott didn't try to take personal credit for *anything* as far as I can tell. It suggests to me that Scott simply started doing the work by himself and he had no idea that any of it had been done before. Holy cow!

You have *never* once cited a *specific* sentence or paragraph from Lundquist's work which you're claiming Scott "plagiarized" from Lundquist in the first place. How ridiculous. Stop dodging now. Which *exact* (paper, page & paragraph) of Lunquist's work are you claiming that Scott *stole* from Lundquist in a which *published* paper by Scott? Where *specifically* in Scott's *published* paper will I find that work from Lundquist which Scott supposedly stole? Stop hedging and be *extremely* specific if you're going to claim "plagiary" using an anonymous handle no less! So far all you've done is provide an unpublished PDF file from Scott's personal website which apparently isn't "perfectly" documented in terms of citations. So what? Scott certainly cited Bessel as soon as he found out and realized that part of his derivation had been done before. Scott certainly cited Lundquist before the final version was ever actually *published* too. That would suggest to me that someone had to point that out to Scott that Lundquist was an appropriate/necessary reference, just like someone had to point out that he was duplicating some of Bessel's work. AFAIK Scott was simply oblivious to the fact that he was duplicating work that had been done in the past when he originally did the work, and someone clued him in at a later date. So what? I certainly see nothing "intentional" in his citation oversight in a PDF from his own website no less. For crying out loud! What a boatload of personal attack without a *shred* of published support for any of it! That's simply disgusting. Get *specific* or retract your false claim.

The fact is that he plagiarised Lundquist's solution without disclosing it, and then released the work into the public domain under his own name!

Unless you can cite a *specific* page number and paragraph in Scott *published* work where the text or other work is virtually identical to Lundquist *specific page number and paragraph*, you'd literally have to be mind reader to know that he even knew in advance that Lundquist had anything to do with his own derivation.

You act as though it's impossible to simply mathematically derive work that's already been done before and not realize it. The acknowledgements included in the rough draft website PDF would suggest that's *exactly* what happened too.

I strongly suggest we move on ...

I'll be happy to do that as soon as you "move on" and stop falsely accusing Scott of plagiary and admit you don't "read minds" to know his *intent* as you're implying.

 

[Michael]

Cosmology operates on a scale involving billions of light years and on masses upwards of 10^40 tonnes. Solar physics operates on the scale of a few million miles, and masses of 10^27 tonnes.

And yet they're all interconnected by circuits large and small.

Quantum Mechanics is likewise not relevant to heavy engineering. General Relativity isn't overly relevant to a satellite's orbit of the Earth (GPS excepted). So what?

In other words, LCDM is mostly just a bunch of placeholder terms for human ignorance which have *zero* practical value to anything in our solar system, whereas EU/PC theory is pure empirical physics which has empirical applications here on Earth, in solar physics *and* everywhere else in the universe.

 

[lesliedellow]

And yet they're all interconnected by circuits large and small.

Only in your febrile imagination are there electric currents flowing through vast reaches of inter stellar space without any mechanism to create an electric field in the first place, and without any means of maintaing it in the second place.

I can't believe even Alfven would be that stupid, so maybe the EU/PC theorists are being that stupid on his behalf.

In other words, LCDM is mostly just a bunch of placeholder terms for human ignorance which have *zero* practical value to anything in our solar system whereas EU/PC theory is pure empirical physics which has empirical applications here on Earth, in solar physics *and* everywhere else in the universe.

So called EU/PC theory has no applications on Earth, or anywhere else. Electromagnetism, Thermo Dynamics and Plasma Physics can all get along perfectly well without their nonsense.

 

[Michael]

Only in your febrile imagination are there electric currents flowing through vast reaches of inter stellar space without any mechanism to create an electric field in the first place, and without any means of maintaing it in the second place.

Electric fields are created by every sun in the universe and they are fusion driven power sources. Alfven even described an induction process where rotational energy is converted into current. He described every sun as a "homopolar generator" in fact.

Magnetic Slinky in Space - Universe Today

Since mainstream doesn't have a clue what a "Birkeland current" looks like when they see one, that's a *field aligned current*, or a "Birkeland current" that is traversing *huge* interstellar distances. The corkscrew magnetic fields are *caused by* the current flowing through the "circuit", and the plasma pinch process that forms around the current.

I can't believe even Alfven would be that stupid, so maybe the EU/PC theorists are being that stupid on his behalf.

If you had actually read Alfven's work for yourself you'd already know that answer. Ignorance isn't bliss.

So called EU/PC theory has no applications on Earth, or anywhere else.

That's utterly preposterous. The whole reason that Birkeland even started his laboratory experiments, and risked his life to take all those in-situ measurements of the Earth's magnetic fields during solar storms, is because he wanted to understand the *cause* of the Earth's aurora. From it's very inception EU/PC theory had a useful application here on Earth. Alfven also used circuit theory to describe the Earth's magnetosphere, so your statement is patently false.

Electromagnetism, Thermo Dynamics and Plasma Physics can all get along perfectly well without their nonsense.

Yet, those fields of science that work in the lab here on Earth also have a useful application in space too because the universe is mostly made of plasma.

 

[lesliedellow]

Electric fields are created by every sun in the universe and they are fusion driven power sources. Alfven even described an induction process where rotational energy is converted into current. He described every sun as a "homopolar generator" in fact.

An electric field within a body will get a current flowing within that body - from high potential to low potential. Nowhere else, and certainly not between stars.

Yet, those fields of science that work in the lab here on Earth also have a useful application in space too because the universe is mostly made of plasma.

When and where they are useful, they get used.

And, by the way, "here on Earth" means no higher than a jet can fly, because that is the only place applied science can be useful.

 

[Michael]

An electric field within a body will get a current flowing within that body - from high potential to low potential. Nowhere else, and certainly not between stars.

Ya know.....

It would *really* simplify things between us if you were to actually sit down and read Alfven's work for yourself. Most of his papers are freely available around the internet. It's really not that difficult to follow Alfven's work, even without a strong background in math or circuit theory. With your skills you could simply breeze right through it. Peratt's work is better by the way in terms of the mathematical modeling and even easier to follow in terms of the concepts and the text, but it's a little less accessible and/or more expensive. After his last reprint however Peratt's book is probably about the same price as Aflven's book now and I'd go with Peratt if and when you're willing to go there.

If you even studied circuit theory as Alfven applies it to coronal loops and the Earth's magnetosphere, you'd have a better handle on how the universe is wired together. It's not nearly as simple as you seem to imagine, nor as cut and dry as you seem to imagine.

When and where they are useful, they get used.

True and Alfven and Peratt used them to describe all kinds of observations in space, including the Earth's aurora, solar flares, coronal loops, and Birkeland currents of every cosmological scale imaginable.

And, by the way, "here on Earth" means no higher than a jet can fly, because that is the only place applied science can be useful.

It's funny you have to keep constraining your requirements all the way to the ground.

It's possible and even probable that the Earth's weather patterns are dictated by events in space.

Lightning, Sprites, Elves, News - Crystalinks

 

[Michael]

Massive Magnetic Ropes Found to Connect Earth to the Sun
Scientists prove the existence of "magnetic ropes" that cause solar s
Magnetic Rope observed for the first time between Saturn and the Sun

Those "magnetic ropes" are also circuits of field aligned currents that "wire" various objects to the sun, as well as connect the sun to itself in the form of coronal loops. Birkeland field aligned currents can scale many orders of magnitude and *do* scale many orders of magnitude. They have a direct effect on the planets in our solar system, and everywhere else too.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

News: Transfer of atomic mass with a photon solves the momentum paradox of light



Edwin Hubble embraced two potential explanations for photon redshift in space. Energy loss of photon momentum to the plasma and gas mediums of spacetime are almost *certainly* taking place in a wide variety of forms.

There's absolutely, positively no need for metaphysical claims like 'space expansion', or "dark energy' to explain the ordinary loss of photon momentum to the gas and plasma mediums of spacetime.

It's really only a matter of time before empirical physics triumphs over metaphysical creationist nonsense. LCDM theory is a complete empirical disaster. A full ninety five percent of LCDM, including all it's placeholder terms for human ingorance, can be replaced with ordinary plasma and ordinary momentum loss to that plasma. The rest of the mainstream mathematical models of plasma behaviors are based upon pure "pseudoscience" according to Hannes Alfven, the Nobel prize winning author of MHD theory. Alfven's double layer paper made the other 5 percent of mainstream mathematics obsolete and irrelevant many decades ago.

So quantum physicists and special relativists are finally coming to realize topological field theory and nonlocality as an answer for all of their "wacky 'paradoxes'." Great information, but rather anticlimactic.

Perhaps this was revealed after enough research vindicated the hypotheses. Otherwise, I don't see why this connection is novel in this century. (Perhaps this is an admission of the superiority of QFT and QCD, and the understanding of the dynamics of mass fields - hence, the alleged search for its propogator at CERN.)

By "static," I assume you mean (homeo)static, as in subtle perturbations are resolved in a small enough time interval so that the overall energy and mass is conserved. Here, I mean in context that a subtle perturbation could be the explosion of a stellar system, and that "small interval" could be on the order of 10^5 years - ~1/100,000th of the lifetime of the universe. By comparison, the lifetime of the average cell is ~ 1/2 week - ~1/10,000 the lifetime of a human.

 

[Michael]

So quantum physicists and special relativists are finally coming to realize topological field theory and nonlocality as an answer for all of their "wacky 'paradoxes'." Great information, but rather anticlimactic.

Perhaps this was revealed after enough research vindicated the hypotheses. Otherwise, I don't see why this connection is novel in this century. (Perhaps this is an admission of the superiority of QFT and QCD, and the understanding of the dynamics of mass fields - hence, the alleged search for its propogator at CERN.)

By "static," I assume you mean (homeo)static, as in subtle perturbations are resolved in a small enough time interval so that the overall energy and mass is conserved. Here, I mean in context that a subtle perturbation could be the explosion of a stellar system, and that "small interval" could be on the order of 10^5 years - ~1/100,000th of the lifetime of the universe. By comparison, the lifetime of the average cell is ~ 1/2 week - ~1/10,000 the lifetime of a human.

The term "static" is unfortunate IMO, but that's the term that has been used historically. It's actually all in motion, it's just not expanding or contracting at the largest scales.

I really wish we'd curtail the dark matter snipe hunt for a decade or two and put a little of that wasted money into something constructive, like testing these types of concepts in the lab.

 

[Michael]

By the way, your requirement that the physical influence of EU/PC theory and Birkeland's solar model actually reaching the surface of the Earth, and having a tangible effect on humans on the surface of the Earth is actually pretty easy to demonstrate:

The Day the Sun Brought Darkness

 

[Ygrene Imref]

The term "static" is unfortunate IMO, but that's the term that has been used historically. It's actually all in motion, it's just not expanding or contracting at the largest scales.

I really wish we'd curtail the dark matter snipe hunt for a decade or two and put a little of that wasted money into something constructive, like testing these types of concepts in the lab.

Right. The universe is turbulent on large and small scales - that turbulence is just equilibriated.

So, the word is unfortunate, as it implies something other than the context to both academics and laypersons.

I am actually surprised dark matter has received such serious academic attention. I thought it would go the way of string theory into "fringe, but possible" theory.

It seems academia keep shooting themselves in the foot - demanding local interaction of [force] fields as opposed to considering nonlocality. Thus, the various expansion models of the universe must be posited in order to account for discrepancies in concepts and mathematical practice.

It isn't quite nonlocality, but electromagnetic influence at far distances (electromagnetic universe, for example) is the closest to the understanding we could get to without going full fairy dust - or invoking quantum topological field theory. It should be clear that EM influences will be carried far distances since the photon is a boson field propogator, and the electron/proton is the fermion propogator. They propogate their own fields as free particles; surely we must realize the googols of fermions and bosons in the universe - with their own field propogators - affect other fields around it. Those fields affect others, and so on (quasi-nonlocal.)

 

[SelfSim]

Electric Cosmos.org? What the hell? That's Scott's own personal *website* for crying out loud.

The "Magnetic Fields of Birkeland Currents" paper is also listed as also being published on 'bazaarmodel.net', 'psu.edu', 'rxiv.org' and 'semanticscholar.org'. The papers are widely discussed if you bother doing a google search and the material presented is widely regarded in those discussions, as originating from Scott. (Which of course, it isn't).

You can't even demonstrate that Scott had even knew that he was duplicating Lundquist's work or that he was using Lundquist's work to start with. In fact, this quote from Scott's website rough draft PDF would suggest exactly the opposite is true. Apparently Scott wasn't even aware of the fact that he was duplicating work that had already been done before by Bessel until someone pointed it out for him.

Scott didn't originally seem to even be aware of the fact that he was using and/or duplicating a Bessel function in his derivation until someone else pointed it out to him and gave him help! Scott obviously included that information as soon as he knew about it. Scott didn't try to take personal credit for *anything* as far as I can tell. It suggests to me that Scott simply started doing the work by himself and he had no idea that any of it had been done before. Holy cow!

Plagiarism doesn’t have to be a deliberate act, even the accidental omission of a reference, still constitutes plagiarism.

You have *never* once cited a *specific* sentence or paragraph from Lundquist's work which you're claiming Scott "plagiarized" from Lundquist in the first place. How ridiculous. Stop dodging now. Which *exact* (paper, page & paragraph) of Lunquist's work are you claiming that Scott *stole* from Lundquist in a which *published* paper by Scott? Where *specifically* in Scott's *published* paper will I find that work from Lundquist which Scott supposedly stole? Stop hedging and be *extremely* specific if you're going to claim "plagiary" using an anonymous handle no less! So far all you've done is provide an unpublished PDF file from Scott's personal website which apparently isn't "perfectly" documented in terms of citations. So what? Scott certainly cited Bessel as soon as he found out and realized that part of his derivation had been done before. Scott certainly cited Lundquist before the final version was ever actually *published* too. That would suggest to me that someone had to point that out to Scott that Lundquist was an appropriate/necessary reference, just like someone had to point out that he was duplicating some of Bessel's work. AFAIK Scott was simply oblivious to the fact that he was duplicating work that had been done in the past when he originally did the work, and someone clued him in at a later date. So what? I certainly see nothing "intentional" in his citation oversight in a PDF from his own website no less. For crying out loud! What a boatload of personal attack without a *shred* of published support for any of it! That's simply disgusting. Get *specific* or retract your false claim.

Unless you can cite a *specific* page number and paragraph in Scott *published* work where the text or other work is virtually identical to Lundquist *specific page number and paragraph*, you'd literally have to be mind reader to know that he even knew in advance that Lundquist had anything to do with his own derivation.

You act as though it's impossible to simply mathematically derive work that's already been done before and not realize it. The acknowledgements included in the rough draft website PDF would suggest that's *exactly* what happened too.

Given that Lundquist is referenced in Scott’s latest paper, indicates the plagiarism was recognized in the original paper, otherwise there would be no reason to change and reference Lundquist in the subsequent paper.

It doesn’t matter whether Scott copied Lundquist line for line, or he didn’t.
The absence of any reference to Lundquist, implies that the mathematics is an original work which it clearly isn’t. That’s where the plagiarism in this case occurs.

I'll be happy to do that as soon as you "move on" and stop falsely accusing Scott of plagiary and admit you don't "read minds" to know his *intent* as you're implying.

'Tis not a false claim .. the evidence is there ... and I have presented it.

 

[Michael]

The "Magnetic Fields of Birkeland Currents" paper is also listed as also being published on 'bazaarmodel.net', 'psu.edu', 'rxiv.org' and 'semanticscholar.org'. The papers are widely discussed if you bother doing a google search and the material presented is widely regarded in those discussions, as originating from Scott. (Which of course, it isn't).

You keep engaging yourself in pure character assassination. In fact it's our second conversation in a row where you've engaged in that cheesy behavior. I've *repeatedly* asked you to be *highly* specific and quote the *specific* paper, page number and paragraph from both authors to demonstrate your *obviously false* claim that any type of "plagiarism" actually took place. You have repeatedly ignored my simple and logical request, because no such copying and pasting took place, yet you continue to attack Scott on a personal level, while hiding behind an anonymous handle no less. You call that ethical behavior?

You did that personal attack nonsense to me in our last conversation too. You assigned me a math homework assignment with the express intent of taking the discussion *off the actual topic of conversation*, and to attack the individual. If you folks are *that* desperate, you have a serious problem of your own to deal with You continue to attack the credibility of the individuals without presenting a *shred* of evidence to support it. That's just irrational behavior.

I haven't even seen you quote Scott where he actually claimed to take *personal* credit for anything, even in the original "rough draft' that you seem to be so fixated on! Who even cares if other websites, picked up his PDF file? That paper was never *published* as I requested. Furthermore the actual *published* work includes *many* more references than the original paper that you cited. Scott went to all the trouble of actually adding more references and going through a real peer review process that is designed to pick up any simple oversights which can *easily* happen to anyone. The final published version is well documented. Lundquist is given his due. There was never any intent at dishonesty anywhere in the process.

Apparently you don't understand the concept of a *published* paper. FYI, the only *published* paper you've cited is *well documented*.

Plagiarism doesn’t have to be a deliberate act, even the accidental omission of a reference, still constitutes plagiarism.

In order to plagiarize someone's material, one would have to know that the work has been done before, and intentionally use that work and not give them credit. I see *zero* evidence that ever happened. It's clear and obvious from Scott's previous quotes in the 'rough draft' that he wasn't even aware that he was deriving and using Bessel functions until someone pointed it out to him and showed him how to move forward. He instantly gave Bessel credit as soon as he was aware of it. He didn't intentionally try to cut Bessel out of anything, or Lundquist. His *published papers* acknowledges *both* of them.

Given that Lundquist is referenced in Scott’s latest paper, indicates the plagiarism was recognized in the original paper, otherwise there would be no reason to change and reference Lundquist in the subsequent paper.

An omission that is due to ignorance of previous efforts isn't "plagiary". Plagiary involves *intentionally using someone's work without citing it*. If you don't even know that it exists, and you aren't copying anyone or trying to take personal credit for it, it's not "plagiary"! You're using incredibly *ugly*, inappropriate and highly offensive terms to imply *intent* where none even exists which is exactly why you refuse to quote anything specific from either paper. Scott didn't commit plagiary. He simply didn't know that Bessel and Lundquist had done similar work until others pointed that out for him. That's the *whole point* of going through a published, peer review process. If Scott tried to actually publish something without proper citations, your argument wouldn't be so ridiculous.

It doesn’t matter whether Scott copied Lundquist line for line, or he didn’t.

Yes it does. If he didn't even know about Lundquist's work, and he didn't "copy" any part of it *intentionally*, then he simply did the math himself (which is obvious) and never 'copied' anyone intentionally. That's just two individuals arriving at the same mathematical conclusion, that's not "plagiary".

The absence of any reference to Lundquist, implies that the mathematics is an original work which it clearly isn’t.

Prove your false claim with specific examples or retract it. Scott implied nothing of the sort, and he copied nothing from Lundquist's papers that I can see. It is original work because he did it himself and he didn't copy it from someone else. If you claim that he copied something from Lundquist, show us specifically what he 'stole' from Lundquist's paper, page number and paragraph or retract your libelous claims.

That’s where the plagiarism in this case occurs.

That's just pure nonsense. The only reason this oversight seems to have occurred in the *unpublished rough draft only* in the first place is because Scott did his own original work without foreknowledge of Lundquists efforts. He didn't copy anything *with intent* anywhere in this process. You're attacking Scott's character for what amounts to "blissful ignorance" at worst case, *until* he finally learned about Lundquists work, and then he *included* it in his *published* paper! No *intent* of 'plagiary" took place.

'Tis not a false claim .. the evidence is there ... and I have presented it.

It is a false claim which is why you have *repeatedly* run from my request to be *specific* and it's why you're going to run from that request again right now. I'm asking you *yet again* to show us *specifically* where Scott copied anything from any paper by Lundquist, including paper, page number and paragraph citations to each paper.

It's just outrageous that you folks hide behind anonymous handles, hurling unfounded personal attacks at everyone who promotes EU/PC theory. You do it to *everyone* in the EU/PC community. You've personally done it to me and to Scott. Why? You can't handle the truth! That's why.

By the way, when are you going to deal with and address my coin flip analogy in that LIGO thread? You literally harassed me into using your coin flip analogy to make my case, and then you ran from it. What's up with that?

 

[sjastro]

Ignore wrong thread.