tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.comments2023-11-19T19:19:12.773-05:00Dealing with Creationism in AstronomyW.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comBlogger1007125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-52793153768659830452015-11-22T21:01:51.022-05:002015-11-22T21:01:51.022-05:00To Pastor Singleton, part 2:
The big problem for ...To Pastor Singleton, part 2:<br /><br />The big problem for those thinking they can ‘rewrite’ the science they don’t like is the fact that a lot of that science, even the astronomy and cosmology, guided research that was later confirmed in the laboratory. Do you know how much atomic physics, that was later important for designing the microelectronics in the computer you’re using to read this, actually started out solving problems in astronomy? <br /><br /><a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2010/04/real-science-vs-cosmological-and.html" rel="nofollow">"Real" Science vs. "Cosmological" and "Origins" Science</a><br /><a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2010/05/testing-science-at-leading-edge.html" rel="nofollow">Testing Science at the Leading Edge...</a><br /><a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2010/08/out-tere-astrophysics-impacts.html" rel="nofollow">'Out There' Astrophysics Impacts Technology (again)</a><br /><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0671" rel="nofollow">The Cosmos in Your Pocket: How Cosmological Science Became Earth Technology. I</a><br /><br />Science supports REALITY, and that supports building new technologies that actually work, which generates better paying jobs. Science supporting a ‘political agenda’ can’t do that, usually generating scam technologies, medicines, etc. The choice is whether the ‘political agenda’ is consistent with reality.<br /><br />What could your ‘hypothesis’ add that isn’t covered by the dozens of other variants of Creationism and EU, only some of which I’ve documented above? <br /><br />What would be the point of your “new years’s cosmology hypothesis”, beyond trying to squeeze god to fit into your preconceived notions? <br /><br />Jesus made it very clear that his true followers were determined by how they treated others, not adherence to rituals:<br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Sabbath" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia: Lord of the Sabbath</a><br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woes_of_the_Pharisees" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia: Woes of the Pharisees</a><br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia: Parable of the Good Samaritan</a><br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia: The Golden Rule</a>W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-21604407533861717782015-11-22T20:59:56.939-05:002015-11-22T20:59:56.939-05:00To Pastor Singleton,
And yet a large fraction of ...To Pastor Singleton,<br /><br />And yet a large fraction of the Electric Universe (EU) supporters I interact with also invoke a number of creationist claims. Barry Setterfield is the creationist that got me first exploring Electric Universe claims and connections to creationism. <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2008/10/barry-setterfield-joins-electric-cosmos.html" rel="nofollow">Barry Setterfield joins the Electric Cosmos?</a><br /><br />Velikovsky’s made heavy reliance on the Bible and his work is also the basis of many Electric Universe claims:<br /><a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-real-electric-universe-inspired-by.html" rel="nofollow">The Real Electric Universe: Inspired by Velikovsky?</a><br /><br />It goes back many years, mixed with Christianity: <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2014/08/reading-invisible-light-or-electrical.html" rel="nofollow">Reading: "Invisible Light Or the Electrical Theory of Creation"</a><br /><br />Enough of an issue that Creationist Danny Faulker felt the need to respond to creationist defections to EU: <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2014/03/quiet-here-but-recent-electric-universe.html" rel="nofollow">Quiet here, but Recent Electric Universe and Creationism activity…</a><br /><br /><a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2013/01/is-big-bang-cosmology-creationist-model.html" rel="nofollow">Is Big Bang Cosmology a 'Creationist' Model?</a><br /><br />Modern science has demonstrated that, if there is a God, they are far too big to fit in one book. Many Christians find that perfectly fine, even inspiring. <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-perceptions-project.html" rel="nofollow">The Perceptions Project</a>. <br /><br />Why a supreme Diety might have made the Universe in exactly the way science has found: <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2012/10/g4g-religion-science-and-kobayashi-maru.html" rel="nofollow">G4G: Religion, Science, and the Kobayashi Maru Scenario</a>. <br /><br />Telling the real Christians from the posers: <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2008/10/creationist-junk-debunked.html" rel="nofollow">Creationist Junk Debunked</a><br /><br />to be continued…W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-23154429058581268142015-11-22T20:55:50.000-05:002015-11-22T20:55:50.000-05:00To BigHipp:
I’ve explored any of comet claims you...To BigHipp:<br /><br />I’ve explored any of comet claims you mention over a number of posts<br /><a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2013/11/electric-comets-failures-of-electric.html" rel="nofollow">Electric Comets: Failures of the Electric Comet Model</a><br />and some more recent specific claims<br /><a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2014/11/electric-comets-ii-of-water-ice.html" rel="nofollow">Electric Comets II. Of Water & Ice</a><br /><a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2014/12/electric-comets-iii-mass-vs-charge.html" rel="nofollow">Electric Comets III: Mass vs. Charge</a><br /><a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2015/05/electric-comets-more-failures-of.html" rel="nofollow">Electric Comets: More Failures of the Electric Comet Model</a><br /><br />Problems with claims of cratering by electric means is discussed here: <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2012/06/electric-universe-peer-review-exercise.html" rel="nofollow">Electric Universe: Peer Review Exercise 4</a> (Laboratory Modeling of Meteorite Impact Craters by Z-pinch Plasma by C. J. Ransom)<br />Has an Electric Universe (EU) theorist published the current-voltage requirements for producing a large crater on the Moon or Mars? I have yet to find one. Where is the cosmos have we detected an electric arc of sufficient power to excavate a single crater, much less a planet-full of craters?<br /><br />Mainstream science does know about electric fields in space<br /><a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2012/02/365-days-of-astronomy-electric-universe.html" rel="nofollow">365 Days of Astronomy: The Electric Universe</a><br /><a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/08/real-electric-universe.html" rel="nofollow">The REAL Electric Universe</a><br />Many of these have been successfully modeled by mainstream scientists, but they are nowhere near the physical scale, or intensity, to act as a driver for any EU claims. Consider <a href="http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/2015/11/05/nasa-mission-reveals-speed-of-solar-wind-stripping-martian-atmosphere" rel="nofollow">NASA Mission Reveals Speed of Solar Wind Stripping Martian Atmosphere</a><br />Yet Electric Universe supporters often use reports about these electric fields as evidence of their more bizarre claims.<br /><br />It’s always ‘someone else’ that has to do the modeling needed for testing EU. Except when someone does do some modeling (like myself) and find that it generates results inconsistent (and I mean GROSSLY inconsistent) with other observations and measurements, EU supporters cry ‘foul!’ and claim that the person doing the modeling has made some ambiguous, unspecifiable error. EU supporters want the credit without actually doing any work.<br /><br />Big summaries of Electric Universe failures<br /><a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2008/12/electric-cosmos-predictions.html" rel="nofollow">Electric Cosmos: Predictions</a><br /><a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html" rel="nofollow">Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'...</a><br /><br />Another popular EU excuse is they could do the work if they had NASA’s budget. The problem is the great majority of NASA’s budget goes to building hardware and operations. Modeling the space environment for determining how the hardware needs to be built is actually one of the least expensive components. Myself, and others at NASA often use computational tools that are freely available and run on commodity computers available inexpensively. <br /><br />The REAL effort is the expertise, which is what EU ‘theorists’ seem to actually lack. This means that all their claims of ‘successful’ predictions are actually at the level of a tabloid psychic.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-79054466028937153622015-11-22T20:51:30.797-05:002015-11-22T20:51:30.797-05:00Responding to Anonymous:
Embarrassed by the facts...Responding to Anonymous:<br /><br />Embarrassed by the facts, <b>Mr. Mozina continues to document his ignorance of basic electromagnetism and now tries to claim that a POPULAR PRESS ARTICLE is a more complete representation of Birkeland’s science than Birkeland’s own writing…</b><br /><br />REALLY??!!<br /><br />Anyone with any experience with the press knows that what gets written in the final article is almost always a subset of all that was said, due to everything from page limits by the paper editors to preferences of the author. To claim a NEWSPAPER article is a more complete representation of a scientific result over and above the original paper is an act that can only be described as desperate.<br /><br /><i>"The disintegration theory, which has proved of the greatest value in the explanation of the radio-active phenomena, may possibly also afford sufficient explanation as to the origin of the sun's heat."</i> NAPE, Preface page iv (October 1908).<br /><br />The idea that nuclear energies were the source of the Sun’s energy was certainly not original to Birkeland. While ‘transmutation’ was a term coming into use, at the time of Birkeland’s work, only radioactive disintegration was known. I’ve found no indication that Birkeland suspected any of the other nuclear processes, such as fission or fusion, which would be discovered years after his death. <br /><br />Since Schuster responded to Birkeland’s model in 1911 (<a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1911RSPSA..85...44S" rel="nofollow">1911RSPSA..85...44S</a>), we know the cathode model was at least in circulation to the general community by then.<br /><br />A preface (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preface" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a>) can be written at the start of a work, or after the book is complete to properly thank other contributors, etc. <br />Almost certainly, parts of NAPE were written over the five years between Book 1 & Book 2. It benefits the author to accurately date things, considering if Birkeland wanted to maintain credit for his ideas against similar models by others, he would want the date to be as early as possible accurate and backed by other documentation. This is particularly important when one might be presenting new ideas such as responding to concerns about the particle flow. Since NAPE Book 2 was published in 1913, it is most likely that the preface, dated September 1913, was written just before publication. The last few chapters of Book 2, where Birkeland examines some of these ideas, were probably written in the months leading up to September 1913, and reflect his latest thinking on these ideas.<br /><br />Mr. Mozina does not address the claim of protons and electrons traveling in same direction in 600 million volt potential, a key point and problem of Birkeland’s preferred model. A cathode is negatively charged repels electrons while attracting positive ions. It is clear that Birkeland understood that his preferred model could not have electrons and ions traveling in the same direction and was trying to address it with the other two models.<br /><br />Birkeland’s ideas clearly evolved over time, in part because he could not get any of his three ‘electric sun’ ideas to work. That is a fact clearly documented in NAPE.<br /><br />As noted in earlier comments above, Mr. Mozina invokes the Burke reference to support what Birkeland got right while ignoring Burke’s points about what Birkeland got wrong.<br /><br />What next? Perhaps Mr. Mozina will try to claim that NAPE was not written by Birkeland?<br /><br />Since Mr. Mozina has not provided any arguments of substance that I might need to address, I can now complete Part II of The Three Suns of Kristian Birkeland…W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-67035902146532297812015-11-19T17:09:12.319-05:002015-11-19T17:09:12.319-05:00EU is not creationism. It is pagan/new age science...EU is not creationism. It is pagan/new age science. The reason the definitions have to be blurred is that humanist religion has to keep it's bigoted iron grip over academics or the whole system and the naturalist community will be humiliated and lose all social standing.<br />I have come to agree with many EU principles, and incorporated it in my new year's cosmology hypothesis. I did have to make several changes because the ideology is specifically non-Christian.<br />But I am able to interact with other ideas. Because I don't have a political agenda to preserve my finances.Pastor Matt Singletonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10479117288984518376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-76017852290147656212015-11-19T15:04:16.837-05:002015-11-19T15:04:16.837-05:00Tom,
I have become interested in the EU theories,...Tom, <br />I have become interested in the EU theories, and also curious as to why they are not more widely adopted as some of the tenets of the theory seem very plausible to me, which brings me here. <br /><br />What are the gigantic electric arcs and currents that claimed to exist by Electric universe supporters that must be taken into account when planning the level of protection needed for un-crewed and crewed space missions? From my understandings so far the only arcing takes place when two bodies of significantly different charge come into close enough proximity that a discharge occurs between them. The spacecraft we have designed approach the bodies they are sent to observe at velocities low enough for their charge to slowly come into equilibrium to the environment, hence no arcing. There is an instance where the deep impact mission impacted comet temple one and a bright flash occurred, followed by a lesser flash. This was unpredicted by the mission scientists, but was predicted by Wal Thornhill as being an electric discharge (arc) occurring between temple 1 and the impactor as it approached the comet two quickly for charge equalization to take place. Wal did not run a simulation or model to make this prediction though, which I think you are arguing is necessary to establish a theory as being worth consideration.<br /><br />Also, are you aware of any mathematical models that can model the effect of an arc discharge on a surface similar what is seen in this video? https://www.youtube.com/user/ThunderboltsProject/videos . We know that the electrical arcing is creating the formations seen in this video, and therefore this phenomena is real. If it is possible to mathematically model real things, has this been modeled before? According to the electric universe theorists, the phenomena associated with electrical effects can be scaled many orders of magnitude in size. So if we had a model/simulation that showed what was occurring in this video, than supposedly it could be scaled up to planetary levels to demonstrate those same phenomena at a planetary/solar system level.BigHipphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13646847340621335315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-18360777716165932392015-11-17T15:22:40.136-05:002015-11-17T15:22:40.136-05:00http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.ph...http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15939&p=109348#p109348Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-9866638851299950562015-11-14T13:52:38.899-05:002015-11-14T13:52:38.899-05:00Clearly Anonymous does not understand the mathemat...Clearly Anonymous does not understand the mathematics of electromagnetism and resorts to playing word games trying to change the definitions of the scientific terms.<br /><br />The ‘div’ in div(B) = 0 is a differential operator (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia: Divergence</a>) so saying 'div is infinity' is a statement which makes no mathematical sense. Div(B)=0 means that all 'flows' going into a volume, go out of the volume, there are no field line ‘sources’ within the volume. This is contrary to electric fields and classical gravitational fields, where the 'flow lines' of the vectors connect on charges and masses respectively, so div(E) and div(g) can be non-zero.<br /><br />Changing the definition of a ‘closed’ field line does not make it valid. A field line being ‘closed’ does not mean connecting to a body. As noted above, a field line does not ‘connect’ to a body as a magnetic field line has no source (divergence-less). A closed field line means it connects to itself, like a circle or loop. Magnetic fields lines do not even need to ’connect’ to the current sources. The magnetic lines of force around a straight wire form loops around the wire. The do not need to even connect to it.<br /><br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_line" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia: Field Line</a><br /><a href="http://web.mit.edu/6.013_book/www/chapter2/2.7.html" rel="nofollow">MIT: Visualization of Fields and the Divergence and Curl<br /></a><br /><br />Space is electrically neutral in general. Electric fields can form in areas with strong gradients in plasma density, temperature, or gravitational influence, which are commonly boundaries between different regions (solar wind and magnetosphere, stellar ‘surfaces’, etc.) (see <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2012/02/365-days-of-astronomy-electric-universe.html" rel="nofollow">Real Electric Universe</a>). These fields are hypothesized to be the sources of the ‘seed currents’ that start a magnetic field by mechanisms such as the Biermann battery (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biermann_battery" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a>).<br /><br />Magnetic fields can exist in regions with no net current. A photon, consisting of oscillating electric and magnetic fields, can continue to propagate until it is absorbed, scattered, etc. LONG after the current that created it has stopped. That’s how an antenna works. This is because Maxwell’s equations have an extra term, sometimes called the ‘displacement current’ created by a changing electric field. This ‘displacement current’ can exist in regions where a REAL current is not flowing (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia: Maxwell’s Equations</a>). Once a magnetic field gets started, it can persist for a very long time under the right conditions, even when J=0. <br /><br />The commenter, like so many Electric Universe supporters, has a very incomplete understanding of electromagnetism. And also like so many cranks, instead of learning the facts, they just make stuff up thinking that their ‘notions’ must be correct.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-57640933766664058802015-11-14T13:47:57.094-05:002015-11-14T13:47:57.094-05:00To Solon:
Just a theory? Gravitation is a theory...To Solon:<br /><br />Just a theory? Gravitation is a theory. So is the kinetic theory of gases, quantum theory, nuclear theory. It means it makes loads of predictions, some which we currently have the technology to test, and some we don’t but hope to have one day. Many of them are already the basis of working technologies, including some in the computer you’re using to read this.<br /> <br />Those who want to claim such ideas as black holes must be wrong because they contradict their notions of logic:<br /><br />- Make loads of math errors and basic physics errors. (see <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/06/some-preliminary-comments-on-crothers.html" rel="nofollow">Some Preliminary Comments on Crothers' Relativity Claims</a>, <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/12/paper-illustrating-more-of-crothers.html" rel="nofollow">A Paper Illustrating More of Crothers' Relativity Errors</a>)<br /><br />- Ignore the fact that other theories in active use have similar singularities (see <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2014/07/those-crazy-scientific-theories.html" rel="nofollow">Those Crazy Scientific Theories</a>), yet GR deniers are strangely silent about them. <br /><br />This is usually because such deniers have an incomplete, or outright erroneous notion of how the science and mathematics actually works.<br /><br />Yet the same theory that predicts the existence of black holes has made loads of other successful predictions:<br /><br />- <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/search/label/Global%20Positioning%20System" rel="nofollow">Global Positioning System</a><br /><br />- deflection of light and other electromagnetic signals (see <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2013/08/relativity-denial-1919-solar-eclipse.html" rel="nofollow">Relativity Denial: The 1919 Solar Eclipse)</a><br /><br />- <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia: Tests of General Relativity</a><br /><br />- If you have access to atomic clocks of sufficient accuracy, even kids have tested the time difference on mountain hikes.<br />(<a href="http://leapsecond.com/great2005/" rel="nofollow">Project GREAT: General Relativity Einstein/Essen Anniversary Test</a>)<br /><br />- Stars orbit an unseen massive object at galactic center (<a href="http://www.galacticcenter.astro.ucla.edu/animations.html" rel="nofollow">UCLA Galactic Center Group</a>). There are plans to detect gravitational deflection of light from these stars when the black hole passes closer along line of sight (ArXiv:<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2103" rel="nofollow">Observing gravitational lensing effects by Sgr A* with GRAVITY</a>).<br /><br />- General Relativity has been tested repeatedly and found to do better than any of its competitors. Black holes are at the extreme limits of the our ability to test. <br /><br />There is little doubt that it is possible to accumulate enough mass at a location that atomic and nuclear structure cannot stop it from collapsing under gravity. The real question that is still rather unclear is just what happens at the event horizon. I’ve been dubious for a number of years of the ability of an infalling observer to cross the event horizon. I'm not the only one (see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_%28physics%29" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia: Firewall (physics)</a>). If that turns out to be the case, It does not significantly alter a single prediction of General Relativity outside of event horizon and the concept of a 'black hole' is still largely valid.<br /><br />If relativity is incomplete, and it most certainly is, the real disparities will be discovered by those who actually understand the theory and can devise experiments to test it, not by whiners complaining that the theory violates their poor comprehension of the physics and mathematics behind it.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-34355259387842006342015-11-14T13:40:10.170-05:002015-11-14T13:40:10.170-05:00To Nakayama:
Special relativity has passed numero...To Nakayama:<br /><br />Special relativity has passed numerous repeated tests (ArXiV: <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.1952" rel="nofollow">Optical-Cavity Limits on Higher-Order Lorentz Violation</a>).<br /><br />Even the famous Fizeau 'aether drag' experiment can be tested in undergraduate physics laboratories to sufficient precision to show the differences between the relativistic prediction from the non-relativistic prediction (<a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AmJPh..80..497L" rel="nofollow">Fizeau's 'aether-drag' experiment in the undergraduate laboratory</a>).<br /><br />Numerous technologies prove you wrong. See also<br /><a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2011/06/geocentrism-ubiquitous-aberrations.html" rel="nofollow">Geocentrism: Ubiquitous Aberrations</a><br /><br />A large number of the ‘evidences’ on your page have, for decades, been the basis of many of the analyses that students must examine in classes on relativity. Those students at least complete the computation, whereas you do not. I probably have a number of them worked out in my homework assignments from relativity classes. A number of them seem so familiar they might even be part of the student problem sets in Taylor & Wheeler’s <a href="http://www.eftaylor.com/special.html" rel="nofollow">Spacetime Physics</a>.<br /><br />So your claims fall far short of the scientific standard of evidence.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-11860999026631906272015-11-03T10:54:51.772-05:002015-11-03T10:54:51.772-05:00"div(B)=0 by itself says the lines can never ..."div(B)=0 by itself says the lines can never have an endpoint. This means either closed or infinite."<br /><br />since div(B)=0 is false when div is infinity I would think that means magnetic field lines are closed, at least technically.<br /><br /> <br />"The 'open' field lines of the Sun may connect to other 'open' field lines of the general galactic magnetic field, or even other stars, but they don't connect back to the Sun."<br /><br />That would make them closed. Closed is closed. A north connects to a south and vise-versa. No matter if it is another star, planet etc... <br /><br />Physicists are funny, You don't have an issue with magnetic fields that extend to infinity when it suits; but you hold fast to the conviction that space is electrically neutral? It's all gravity baby! all that magnetic field flying around space but no current is moving? lol... really.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-74286946179970556402015-10-21T14:21:22.670-04:002015-10-21T14:21:22.670-04:00"When ionized plasma accretes on a black hole..."When ionized plasma accretes on a black hole"<br /><br />If you believe in black holes that is. Still just a theory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-45033362286847876422015-10-01T23:22:45.714-04:002015-10-01T23:22:45.714-04:00The value of all sorts of aberration depends only ...The value of all sorts of aberration depends only on (corresponds only to) the motion (direction and speed) of the earth. The existence of ether is evident. http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/eng.htmlnakayamahttp://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/eng.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-47896016285620232392015-09-27T18:57:12.665-04:002015-09-27T18:57:12.665-04:00In the same paper which Mr. Mozina references abov...In the same paper which Mr. Mozina references above, Dr. Burke makes additional points about what Birkeland got wrong about the aurora, which Mr. Mozina also conveniently ignores.<br /><br />Burke: <i>“His laboratory experiments suggested that energetic electrons from the Sun are the immediate causes of auroral emissions. The trajectories of incoming cathode rays indeed seemed to follow closely those mathematically predicted by Størmer. However, it turned out that solar wind electrons have much lower energies than those used in the Størmer-Birkeland calculations. The low-energy electrons can only reach the auroral ionosphere directly from the solar wind along magnetic field lines connected to the day-side cusps.”</i> (pg 20).<br /><br />This transient process was detected by THEMIS and requires part of a solar magnetic field line, which guides the particles from the Sun to the Earth, to ‘reconnect’ to a terrestrial magnetic field line. <br /><a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html" rel="nofollow">NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries About Northern Lights </a><br /><a href="http://www.universetoday.com/12267/magnetic-ropes-connect-the-northern-lights-to-the-solar-wind/" rel="nofollow">Magnetic "Ropes" Connect the Northern Lights to the Solar Wind</a><br /><br />While Electric Universe supporters often like to quote this THEMIS result as some evidence of their claims, it requires the process of ‘magnetic reconnection’. Magnetic reconnection is also a process that Mr. Mozina and well as other Electric Universe supporters are on record as denying exists (<a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2013/07/on-magnetic-reconnection-and-discharges.html" rel="nofollow">On Magnetic Reconnection and "Discharges"</a>). <br /><br />Burke: <i>"Most electrons responsible for auroral emissions reach the ionosphere after having first been stored and accelerated in a part of the Earth’s magnetosphere called the plasma sheet."</i> (pg 22)<br /><br />and <br /><br />Burke: <i>"Birkeland’s basic intuition was essentially correct. Solar electrons reaching the upper atmosphere create aurorae. However, neither he nor anyone else of his generation or the next understood that auroral electrons first must be trapped and accelerated in the Earth’s magnetosphere. Trajectories calculated by Størmer and simulated in terrellas most aptly simulate those of high-energy cosmic rays of solar or galactic origin penetrating the Earth’s magnetic field (Figure 14) not auroral particles."</i> (pg 22).<br /><br />This again makes the point that under most conditions, there is no direct connection between auroral electrons and the Sun, again breaking the analogy with Birkeland’s terella.<br /><br />Burke: <i>"Fukushima (1969) realized that with only ground-based measurements it is impossible to decide whether Birkeland’s field-aligned currents were present or absent."</i> (pg 23).<br /><br />Even Birkeland understood the existence of these currents were just an hypothesis. As Birkeland notes:<br /><br /><i>"These current-arrows, however, are only a geometrical representation of the perturbing forces, and indicate nothing whatever as to the existence of such currents."</i> (pg 439, NAPE)<br /><br />Regardless of the disagreements between Birkeland and Chapman (and Chapman actually references some of Birkeland’s work), Fukushima demonstrated that Birkeland and Chapman models made the same predictions for ground-based measurements, which is not too surprising since this was the only data they had. The two models could only be distinguished by space-based measurements.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-59309479461020473352015-09-27T18:54:32.611-04:002015-09-27T18:54:32.611-04:00At this writing, it’s been almost four weeks since...At this writing, it’s been almost four weeks since Mr. Mozina posted his accusations on Thunderbolts, <a href="http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15939&p=107691#p107691" rel="nofollow">Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC haters</a>, and "Christian" forums, <a href="http://www.christianforums.com/threads/dealing-with-creationism-in-astronomy.7815110/page-6#post-68546841" rel="nofollow">Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy!</a>, claiming that I have misrepresented and/or distorted the work of Kristian Birkeland and other Electric Universe (EU) claims. These threads have been very quiet for three weeks since I posted my follow-up above to Mr. Mozina’s accusations where I document the blatant falsehoods of his statements and/or sloppiness of his scholarship.<br /><br />Here I will point out yet another case of Mr. Mozina ‘cherry-picking’ his evidence, ignoring evidence IN HIS SOURCE, for his errors.<br /><br />In ChristianForums, Mr. Mozina links to an article by William J. Burke, <a href="http://www.dnva.no/binfil/download.php?tid=44870" rel="nofollow">Kristian Birkeland's Message from the Sun: Its Meaning Then and Now</a>. Burke was one of the co-authors of the Birkeland biography that I read as part of my research on Birkeland, as noted above under <b>Additional References</b>. <br /><br />But again I wonder if Mr. Mozina even bothers to read his claimed references. Mr. Mozina wants to advocate for Birkeland’s ‘cathode sun’ model AND claim that electrons and positive ions would travel outward from the Sun. To this end, he uses this quote from Burke:<br /><br />Burke: <i>“To the objection that the cathode rays would be torn apart by Coulomb repulsion long before they reached Earth (e.g. Schuster, 1911), Birkeland responded that cathode rays escaping the Sun drag positive ions along with them. Thus, material found between the Sun and the Earth should be an electrically neutral ionized gas, with roughly the same number of positive as negative charged particles.”</i> (pg 12)<br /><br />But Mr. Mozina did not bother to include beyond what he found convenient for his quote-mining, particularly where Burke notes:<br /><br />Burke: <i>“Birkeland’s notion of electrostatic acceleration as the way nature accelerates particles away from the Sun was erroneous. Violent electromagnetic processes beyond his ken were the real culprits.”</i> (pg 20)<br /><br /><b>For those who are electromagnetically-challenged, this means that there is NO 600 million volt potential responsible for the electron acceleration.</b> This is the fact which breaks the ‘cathode sun’ model and part of the analogy with Birkeland’s terella. <br /><br />This goes back to the point I made above: <br />1) you can have the 600 million volt potential between the photosphere and heliopause, <br />or <br />2) protons moving away from the Sun with the electrons. <br /><br />BOTH cannot be true. <br /><br />Birkeland was just as capable as others to do this calculation and see this problem, and between 1911 and 1913, he hypothesized two other solar models in an attempt to solve it. But even Birkeland recognized that those alternatives didn’t work.<br /><br />But apparently Mr. Mozina’s understanding of electromagnetism is insufficient to see that, or he is deliberately distorting the facts which are inconvenient to his agenda. <br /><br /><b>Again, who is engaged in the misconduct?</b>W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-3670431042175222882015-09-07T18:50:46.283-04:002015-09-07T18:50:46.283-04:00Mozina response part 4
Even more bizarre is while...Mozina response part 4<br /><br />Even more bizarre is while Mr. Mozina is dismissing the simple computation from above that has had a century of testing and utilization by engineers, he wants to continue invoking the 'walking-speed solar convection' claim which is based on a very complex helioseismology analysis that has (as of this writing) less than five years of testing. He doesn't trust the simple computation, but blindly accepts early interpretations of the complex calculation? This seems very inconsistent on his part, but that is not too surprising.<br /><br />But if Mr. Mozina insists on laboratory verification before doing any calculation, then:<br /><br />- What laboratory experiment verified the orbital velocity for Earth before the first rocket was ever launched into orbit? What about escape velocity for going to the Moon and other planets? Or do Electric Universe advocates regard space flight as a hoax?<br /><br />- What laboratory experiment would Mr. Mozina suggest for determining the amount of radiation shielding needed by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Probe_Plus" rel="nofollow">Solar Probe Plus</a>, which will travel to within about 10 solar radii from the Sun. What experiment will be used to determine the radiation flux (light and particles) at that distance from the Sun where no spacecraft has yet actually travelled? <b>Does Mr. Mozina and other Electric Sun supporters think the builders of Solar Probe Plus are just going to slap some lead plates on it and hope for the best?</b>.<br /><br />- What laboratory testing has been done on the helioseismic analysis which he claims is evidence of 'his' model? <br /><br />Or does Mr. Mozina only believe the math when convenient for whatever agenda he's trying to promote?<br /><br />But the most pathetic item of all is Mr. Mozina's whining about how I won't 'debate' him or how I took three weeks to respond to him:<br /><br />Mozina: <i>"I had to wait three weeks for Mr. Bridgman to even post my previous response on his website, and we all know that he’s hiding behind his own website because he cannot handle an open and fair debate on this topic in a live forum."</i><br /><br />I've already specified why I don't do these types of 'show' debates (<a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2014/06/pseudoscience-debates-unintended.html" rel="nofollow">Pseudoscience, 'Debates' & Unintended Consequences</a>). Mr. Mozina wants to use this ploy to raise HIS status in the hierarchy of Electric Universe crankery, and I will not assist him. <br /><br />Mr. Mozina evades the fact that we actually ARE doing a debate, but more in the style consistent with science, where facts are used and false statements can be challenged, with no constraint on time. As demonstrated above, Mr. Mozina is willing to use false claims at the drop of a hat. Such tactics convey some advantages in 'show' or debates with time limits like Mr. Mozina wants, but such deceptions are not the way to find what actually works in science. <br /><br />If Mr. Mozina wants to whine because I took three weeks to respond, then he needs to get a life. HE does not control my schedule, nor is he my primary audience. My responses often go through one or two drafts as I check my facts. Maybe he should use the extra time to check his so-called 'facts'.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-62109623708317662022015-09-07T18:49:29.707-04:002015-09-07T18:49:29.707-04:00Mozina response part 3
Mozina: "Let me clue ...Mozina response part 3<br /><br />Mozina: <i>"Let me clue you in Mr. Bridgman. No solar theory, no cosmology theory, and in fact no theory in physics rises or falls on the math skills of yours truly. Nobody owes you any guestimated numbers that are best discovered in the lab to begin with. "</i><br /><br />I have little doubt about Mr. Mozina's lack of mathematical comprehension, but he never seems to let his ignorance of a topic interfere with him making declarations about it.<br /><br />Fortunately there are people who are good enough to do it. THEY are the ones who actually get figure out how the science really works to guide the engineering and build working technologies.<br /><br />So Mr. Mozina has to wait for lab experiments to determine the speed of electrons and protons in an electric potential difference? <br /><br /><b>Just how many lab experiments does Mr. Mozina need before he can do a simple calculation that has been done by REAL plasma physicists, astronomers, and electrical engineers and many others for nearly 100 years!?</b> <br /><br />Birkeland himself published electron speed estimates in NAPE for his voltages (if Mr. Mozina had actually read NAPE, you'd think he'd know this), though Birkeland did use the Abraham energy-speed relationship which yielded a speed a bit off. This is understandable since the correct Lorentz relationship was still uncertain at that time (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass" rel="nofollow">Electromagnetic Mass</a>). But that uncertainty would be resolved shortly thereafter. Irving Langmuir used the low-voltage & velocity relationship in work he published that laid the foundations for the scientific analysis of discharges and plasmas. <br /><br />This voltage-velocity relationship has been tested quite heavily in everything from the development and operation of electron tubes used in radios and televisions, the cathode-ray tubes for the original television displays, and particle accelerators. The speed of the electrons was a vital piece of knowledge since that determines the switching speed of these devices. Relativity effects even became important in large screen CRTs. The highest energy explored for electrons I've found is 50GeV - almost 100x more energy than Birkeland's model, and for protons it has been tested at even higher energy.<br /><br /><b>Is Mr. Mozina claiming all the mathematical analysis, by Langmuir, Alfven, and other plasma physicists, including Birkeland is bogus?</b> Consider particularly the particle trajectories Birkeland computes in NAPE, pp 678-684 or 698-706. The terms in the equations like dx/dt, dy/dt, and dz/dt are velocities in these equations which are included implicitly in the calculation. But I suspect that fact is far beyond Mr. Mozina's comprehension. <br /><br />This claim from Mr. Mozina really demonstrates the uselessness of Electric Universe 'theory' compared to real science. Electric Universe 'theorists' claim to explain everything, but can compute nothing of measurable quantities.<br /><br />Computing this particle speed through a low-density (significantly less than air) plasma is one of the SIMPLEST tests possible. And the results of that computation demonstrates just how miserably Electric Sun models fail, as myself (and others) have demonstrated on this blog and elsewhere. Electric Sun advocates need every excuse they can dream up to avoid and evade doing this rather basic high-school physics computation, because the moment they do this, it is GAME OVER for Electric Sun models.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-71439931735785409782015-09-07T18:48:21.124-04:002015-09-07T18:48:21.124-04:00Mozina response part 2
Birkeland clearly describe...Mozina response part 2<br /><br />Birkeland clearly describes three different cathode-anode configurations and goes into various aspects of their implications (which will appear in Part II of 'The Three Suns of Kristian Birkeland'), based on the understanding of the day. That Birkeland might have had a personal preference for one is beside the point - he was enough of a professional researcher to examine more than just his 'pet theory'. This is particularly important considering that Birkeland recognized that his 'pet theory' had significant problems. <br /><br /><b>And Mr. Mozina continues his twisting of his claims, from initially <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2015/08/pseudoscience-ego-centric-universe.html?showComment=1439249540772#c5240641750657300495" rel="nofollow">claiming that Birkeland only had one solar model</a> to now claiming it's Birkeland's 'favorite' model that actually counts.</b><br /><br />Nonsense.<br /><br />Mr. Mozina is still making the claim that electrons and protons are emitted by the Sun and will travel in the same direction in a 600 million volt electric potential. That is still flunking BASIC electromagnetism. Re-iterating from my response in <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2015/08/pseudoscience-ego-centric-universe.html?showComment=1440976643325#c4351369671930895528" rel="nofollow">comments of the previous post</a>:<br /><br />Two options for solar wind according to Mozina's interpretation of Birkeland:<br />- electrons and ions move outward from the Sun<br />- an electric potential of 600 million volts exists between the solar photosphere and interplanetary space.<br />BOTH cannot be true - it is a physical impossibility. <br /><br />Opposite charges accelerate in opposite directions in an electric potential. Electrons are repelled from the negative electrode (cathode) towards the positive electrode (anode) and positive ions will accelerate from the anode towards the cathode, the opposite direction. That is Electromagnetism 101. If you want to drag the ions along, you can't have an anode sitting out in space, as it will repel them.<br /><br />Birkeland would certainly have known this, so I suspect Birkeland either planned to explore these contradictory conditions as <b>separate</b> models, but did not live long enough to publish clarifications, or it is one of the reasons he reports that he can't get them to work. <br /><br />Before we knew just what they were, they were called cathode rays because they came from the cathode and were distinctly different from the anode rays. It was later that we learned that these cathode rays were negative-charged particles, now called electrons. Anode rays (positive particles) come from the anode. Birkeland's 'cathode sun' model can only emit electrons, by definition. The diagram of Mozina's "Birkeland" model at <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-sad-state-of-electric-suns-not-so.html" rel="nofollow">The Sad State of the Electric Sun(s) - Not So Bright</a> is correct, Mr. Mozina is wrong.<br /><br />If Mr. Mozina wants to claim otherwise, he better show REAL evidence beyond his physically impossible re-interpretations of Birkeland's speculations that he did not resolve. He treats Birkeland's statements as if Birkeland is some infallible 'Electric Pope' when Birkeland was human like any scientist, and he made mistakes.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-12159285629300452762015-09-07T18:47:04.745-04:002015-09-07T18:47:04.745-04:00Much of the post above addressed, claims made by M...Much of the post above addressed, <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2015/08/pseudoscience-ego-centric-universe.html?showComment=1438886738080#c6305349916878482217" rel="nofollow">claims made by Mr. Mozina in an earlier comment thread</a> and <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2015/08/pseudoscience-ego-centric-universe.html?showComment=1439146468723#c5857751710720697939" rel="nofollow">my first response</a>.<br /><br />Followup Mozina's claims: <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2015/08/pseudoscience-ego-centric-universe.html?showComment=1439249540772#c5240641750657300495" rel="nofollow">part 1</a>, <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2015/08/pseudoscience-ego-centric-universe.html?showComment=1439249736830#c2019631395829285682" rel="nofollow">part 2</a>, <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2015/08/pseudoscience-ego-centric-universe.html?showComment=1439249806036#c4479981166269506322" rel="nofollow">part 3</a>, <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2015/08/pseudoscience-ego-centric-universe.html?showComment=1439249849865#c5938698780505038616" rel="nofollow">part 4</a>, <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2015/08/pseudoscience-ego-centric-universe.html?showComment=1439315428324#c424156711638683163" rel="nofollow">part 5</a>, <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2015/08/pseudoscience-ego-centric-universe.html?showComment=1439403773990#c7296818318355702489" rel="nofollow">part 6</a>, and <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2015/08/pseudoscience-ego-centric-universe.html?showComment=1440976643325#c4351369671930895528" rel="nofollow">my response</a>.<br /><br />Here I'll follow-up on Mr. Mozina's claims on the Thunderbolts Forums: <a href="http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15939&p=107691#p107691" rel="nofollow">Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC haters.</a> related to the post above.<br /><br />It is becoming clear that Mr. Mozina has either not read Birkeland's major work, or didn't comprehend it if he did, as I have documented each of these statements and Mr. Mozina continues his denials and distortions.<br /><br />Mozina:<i>" I specifically sent Mr. Bridgman a link to a New York Times article that covers a lecture that was given by Birkeland about a decade after he published the volume that Bridgman is using as a reference."</i><br /><br /><b>This statement, made several times in his reply, illustrates the sorry state of Mr. Mozina's scholarship as he did not even check the publication dates for NAPE (The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition).</b> The expeditions occurred in 1902-1903. As I pointed out above, Section 1 of NAPE was published in 1908 and Section 2 in 1913 (and the preface is dated September 1913). It was NOT published a decade before the February 1913 NYT article as Mr. Mozina claims. These dates are very clearly stated in the online copy of the full text book I linked above under Additional References. <br /><br />Mr. Mozina even QUOTES my statements about the NAPE publication date in the Thunderbolts thread, then denies those facts. Incredible stupidity or incredible arrogance?<br /><br />One would certainly expect Birkeland's own writing on the topic would be more complete about his intent than a popular press article that might include only a fraction of the interview content as well as paraphrasing by the reporter. To REPEATEDLY treat the NYT article as a primary source when a better source, written by the original author, is freely available and dated later than the NYT source might only be justifiable to reconstruct historical development, NOT to define a scientific model.<br /><br />Mr. Mozina promotes a falsehood that could be checked by anyone, yet as of this writing, not even his fans on the Thunderbolts thread questioned this.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-1120133684006995522015-08-31T19:15:53.510-04:002015-08-31T19:15:53.510-04:00http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.ph...http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15939&p=107691#p107691Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09601755799720445275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-43513696719308955282015-08-30T19:17:23.325-04:002015-08-30T19:17:23.325-04:00To Mr. Mozina,
As you can see documented in Elect...To Mr. Mozina,<br /><br />As you can see documented in <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2015/08/electric-universe-three-suns-of.html" rel="nofollow">Electric Universe: The Three Suns of Kristian Birkeland</a>, Birkeland defines a minimum of three different solar electric configurations (or up to seven if you include combinations). <br /><br />Two options for solar wind according to Mozina's interpretation of Birkeland:<br />- electrons and ions move outward from the Sun<br />- an electric potential of 600 million volts exists between the solar photosphere and interplanetary space.<br />BOTH cannot be true - it is a physical impossibility. <br /><br />Opposite charges accelerate in opposite directions in an electric potential. Electrons are repelled from the negative electrode (cathode) towards the positive electrode (anode) and positive ions will accelerate in the opposite direction. That is Electromagnetism 101. Birkeland would certainly have known this, so I suspect Birkeland either planned to explore these contradictory conditions as <b>separate</b> models, but did not live long enough to publish clarifications, or it is one of the reasons he reports that he can't get them to work. It has little to nothing to do with particle spin. If you want to claim otherwise, you better show REAL evidence beyond YOUR interpretations of Birkeland's speculations. <br /><br />Claiming the electric potential difference is powered by radioactive decay is a useless statement without describing the details of how the conversion of the energies of the decay products can be efficiently converted into the electric potential. How would an RTG (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a>) form under the conditions in a solar plasma? When nuclear decay happens in nature, the charge separation due to emission of, say a beta particle (electron) get quickly neutralized by capture or extraction of charges in nearby matter. <br /><br />I've solved equations like those in NAPE, and written computer codes that solve these equations for even more complex systems - electromagnetic and gravitational. If you want to complain about my math, you better have more than your excuses. Perhaps YOU should present the computation of how large of an electric potential difference can be generated by the beta decay process! <br /><br />In Birkeland's terella, the sphere representing the Earth was positively charged so it would attract the electrons. Therefore positive ions in the gas, or metals sputtered off the sphere, will be repelled away from the sphere and can deposit anywhere they can pick up an available electron, such as the outer containing walls or structure of the terella (which was probably grounded making this process easier). Hence the 'soot' built up on the container, not the sphere.<br /><br />That Birkeland had SOME ideas about the aurora (specifically that it was a discharge-like process of electrons, guided along the geomagnetic field lines, striking atmospheric atoms and exciting atomic energy states) that turned out to be correct does not automatically make his ideas about the Sun correct. And there are a number of errors he made about the aurora.<br /><br />Section 2 of The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition, which seems to have the most details of Birkeland's solar models, was completed in September of 1913 (NAPE, preface of 2nd section), some months after the February 1913 NYT article you cite. I would expect the book would have the latest in Birkeland's thinking on the topic and would have fewer distortions than a popular press article.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-4276892921224378342015-08-23T18:43:56.274-04:002015-08-23T18:43:56.274-04:00To sjastro,
The Anonymous response is disturbing ...To sjastro,<br /><br />The Anonymous response is disturbing on a number of levels.<br /><br />If Anonymous actually has an engineering background and formerly worked with microprocessor design, is their education so incomplete that they don't understand the history of their own field?<br /><br />I know there have been some engineering schools pushing to drop the physics requirements because so many engineers just apply the same rote equations over and over to building bridges or designing amplifiers. Perhaps Anonymous graduated from that school of thought?<br /><br />Yet, engineers working in space flight must understand the underlying physics so they can realize where some of their rote equations may no longer apply and they can figure out how the system will behave in a radically different environment. Many of the engineers I know are also physicists because they are designing instruments that have never been built before, operating in environments where some of the understanding may be very different and the rote equations may no longer apply. An engineer from the 'rote equations' school would have a difficult time being professionally successful in that environment.<br /><br />But then Anonymous also described themselves as a *former* engineer. Retired? Or otherwise dismissed? <br /><br />Some engineers leave the field because after getting the degree, they find they cannot perform in a corporate or laboratory environment. Their background may be too limited to actually solve the problems they must address professionally. Many go into these fields like medical doctors, thinking it is an easy way to earn lots of money.<br /><br />However, we also hear this 'former' term bandied about by a number of engineers promoting various crank science, creationism, etc. A few of the engineers I've known, electrical and otherwise, were dismissed from their positions when their more woo-woo ideas began to interfere with them doing their jobs, the joke being they had 'sniffed too much soldering flux'. <br /><br />Many of the latter construct elaborate narratives of how they are 'geniuses' rejected by mainstream.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-36710788600961764782015-08-19T21:29:33.743-04:002015-08-19T21:29:33.743-04:00Anonymous's behaviour is a typical reaction of...Anonymous's behaviour is a typical reaction of someone who holds a deep seated resentment against anyone who has a level of comprehension that exceeds his/her own.<br /><br />The standard line of mainstream science being a religion or belief system is specifically aimed at demeaning the abilities of those make a career out of science and/or display understanding that is beyond Anonymous.<br /><br />Anonymous should explain how Quantum Electrodynamics has played no role in microprocessor design. Of course the reality is Anonymous doesn't know what Quantum Electrodynamics is, in which case his comments on the subject are pure ignorance.sjastronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-86233002340615500382015-08-16T19:56:42.381-04:002015-08-16T19:56:42.381-04:00Response to Anonymous, part 2
The commenter conve...Response to Anonymous, part 2<br /><br />The commenter conveniently ignores the crises in physics around the year 1900, when science was dealing with problems which were even more catastrophic in their implications. The problems then were not just visible in the distant cosmos, but in laboratories as well..<br />- ultraviolet catastrophe (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe" rel="nofollow">wikipedia</a>) - according to Maxwell's equations, just lighting a match would generate a fatal amount of gamma radiation.<br />- collapse of the Rutherford atomic model (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_model" rel="nofollow">wikipedia</a>) in microseconds according to Maxwell's equations<br />- why did newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism obey different transformations between coordinate systems (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance" rel="nofollow">Galilean</a> vs. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_covariance" rel="nofollow">Lorentz invariance</a>)?<br />- for 19 years, the known components of atoms made up only HALF the measured mass of most atoms. It turned out to be a particle a little more difficult for the technology to detect, which we called the neutron (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron#Discovery" rel="nofollow">wikipedia</a>).<br /><br />If anything, this was REAL existential crisis for physics, yet physics survived, developing relativity, and quantum mechanics, which made modern solid-state electronics possible. <br /><br />Is the education requirements of electrical engineers so poor that they ignore these important aspects of the history of their own field?<br /><br />Notice that the commenter is criticizing mainstream science, but presents no alternative, most likely because they know that if they did, I would insist that they back up their claims with TESTABLE PREDICTIONS, for example, like many of the issues I present in <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html" rel="nofollow">Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'...</a>. <br /><br />And if they can't present testable predictions, then it is they who are promoting a faith-based pseudo-science.<br /><br />As for the claims that *I* am the ego-centric one, I've already responded to such comments in <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2015/08/pseudoscience-ego-centric-universe.html" rel="nofollow">Pseudoscience and the Ego-Centric Universe</a>.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-33693000444369414052015-08-16T19:50:12.457-04:002015-08-16T19:50:12.457-04:00To Anonymous, part 1
The commenter claims to have...To Anonymous, part 1<br /><br />The commenter claims to have been an electrical engineer. Of course, that does not necessarily give them expertise in other fields.<br /><br />Commenter: "I used to be a microprocessor designer for IBM's supercomputer group. And, mind you, that science has nothing to do with the theoretical drivel you are pushing. So, I think we can refrain from trying to impress me with your deceits. "<br /><br />Really? I'm 'pushing' the same quantum mechanics that made microelectronics and many solid-state technologies possible (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Quantum_electronics" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia Category: Quantum Electronics</a>). It's the same quantum mechanics that allows us to predict the structure of atoms, molecules and their spectra which are used to identify properties every where from Earth to the distant cosmos. It's the same quantum mechanics that tells us the infrared absorption levels of CO2, and that some of those levels work very efficiently for laser action (a fact noted by <a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964PhRv..136.1187P" rel="nofollow">those who confirmed laser action in CO2</a>).<br /><br />In that case, I suppose the commenter should know research in microprocessors isn't done by 'wishing it so' for new designs or even incremental improvements. There are some well-defined mathematics that is used to guide new CPU product development so time and money isn't wasted on dead ends. <br /><br />The commenter complains about modern science being in a state of crisis, but ignores the fact that science is ALWAYS about solving leading-edge problems that have not been solved, and hence is almost ALWAYS in a state of crisis. The scientists studying electromagnetism a hundred years ago mapped the results so well, it is now part of engineering practice, even though there are still a few mysteries at the limits (see <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2014/07/those-crazy-scientific-theories.html" rel="nofollow">Those Crazy Scientific Theories, or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love Infinities…</a>) <br /><br />Perhaps the commenter is complaining about Dark Matter and/or Dark Energy for this claimed 'crisis' in science? Science has a LONG history of identifying properties indirectly in laboratories, or even distant space, and then determining enough of the properties by those means to identify the cause by more direct means. Sometimes takes a long time between recognition of the initial anomaly, and its resolution, some of which I have documented in <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/09/theory-vs-experiment-ii.html" rel="nofollow">Theory Vs. Experiment. II</a><br /><br />To be continued...W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.com