Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC haters.

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC haters.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:10 pm

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/

I think it’s time to demonstrate the dishonest and unethical behaviors of the mainstream, and their attempt at engaging themselves in a public disinformation campaign with respect to EU/PC theory, in this case by Tom Bridgman. The amount of time that haters spend in public intentionally *misrepresenting* the work of various EU/PC authors is simply staggering, appalling and highly unethical.

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 think it would be more appropriate for me to respond to his most recent nonsense on this forum in the unlikely event that he would like to actually to come apologize to this community for his unethical public behaviors.


Sunday, August 30, 2015
Electric Universe: The Three Suns of Kristian Birkeland. I.


At no time did Kristian Birkeland ever promote or support three different suns or different “solar models” as Bridgman erroneously and falsely continues to claim. Bridgman made up that ridiculous and false claim in his own head. He then tries to justify that erroneous claim based on the contents of a *single* paragraph from an absolutely *huge* volume of work, but even worse for Bridgman, the paragraph he personally selected from BIrkeland's work actually refutes his own false assertion as I will demonstrate below.

The only solar “model” that Birkeland publicly promoted and spoke about in public over a period of many years was his one and only one ‘cathode sun’ model, where the surface of the sun is more negatively charged than the surrounding “space”. Period. Any claim to the contrary by Bridgman is simply false, and intentionally misleading.

In the early 1900s, electromagnetism had reached the level of a well-understood phenomenon, particularly after it was placed on a firm mathematical foundation by the work of Maxwell. Many researchers were continuing to explore the nuances and predictions of these equations, applying them to different Earth-based as well as cosmic problems to see if they yielded any insights at the level that Newton's gravitation did for celestial mechanics.

Some of the more interesting experiments exploring cosmic electromagnetism were done by Kristian Birkeland in the early 1900s. Birkeland documented these experiments and his other ideas in his tome The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition (which I will reference as NAPE) which was published in two sections. Section 1 was published in 1908 and deals largely with the aurora expeditions and observations as well as Birkeland's initial terella experiments. In Section 2, published in 1913, Birkeland attempts to expand the scope of the interpretation of his experiments.

As a consequence of Birkeland's work with the aurora and the laboratory terella (which I will explore in a future post), Birkeland explored a number of ideas about the nature of the Sun.


So far, so good.

Birkeland speculated that sun was powered by the decay of radium (NAPE, pg 314, 670). It was not a new idea and it did not originate with him, as the question of the energy source of the Sun had been a long-standing problem. With the discovery of radioactivity, the question of the heat source within the Earth was thought to be solved (1907JRASC...1..145R). The term 'transmutation' was apparently first used (with some trepidation) in 1901 by Rutherford and Soddy in describing nuclear decay of thorium to radium (Wikipedia). Beyond nuclear decay, other nuclear reactions such as fission or fusion were not yet known. The first artificially-induced nuclear reaction would not be discovered until 1919, by Rutherford, and after the death of Birkeland.

Birkeland mentions Rutherford's ideas that in the solar interior, that ordinary matter may become radioactive (NAPE, pg 315). However, in reading NAPE cover-to-cover, I found no use of the term 'transmutation' at all, much less in context of nuclear reactions.


This is a perfect example of the disingenuous nature of EU/PC haters and the facts that they choose to selectively ignore and/or misrepresent. 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.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.h ... 946296D6CF

It most certainly *does* use the term ‘transmutation of elements’ to describe the power source of Birkeland's cathode sun model. Mr. Bridgman simply ignored that point entirely. Why? Birkeland’s writings are not limited to the single NAPE volume which Bridgman refers to, and I personally went out of my way to send Mr. Bridgman an article that does mention and discuss a “transmutation of elements” as the solar power source of Birkeland's cathode sun model.

It is true that Birkeland died before the concept of fusion was understood to be a potential power source of the sun, and it’s true that Birkeland proposed an internally powered solar model. It’s also true that the only nuclear reaction that was known at the time which might explain his proposed internal power source was something closer to fission rather than fusion. Birkeland was certainly convinced that the sun was internally powered, and he did in fact propose radiometric decay as a potential power source of the sun. I’m equally sure that if fusion were known to him at the time, or anytime within his lifetime, that he would have listed it as a potential source as well. The key points here are that Birkeland *assumed* A) the sun was internally powered, and B) it was powered by a nuclear type of power source. Based on the neutrino counts, he was essentially correct on both of those points.

These speculations on the solar energy source may have been the motivation of spectroscopic searches for radium in the Sun common around this time. However, a number of other elements such as iron, titanium, and lanthanum had spectral lines very close to those of radium so the status remained unclear for some time (1912AN....192..265M, 1912Obs....35..360E, 1913PA.....21..321M). Eventually the spectral measurements become sufficiently accurate to conclude there was no significant amount of radium in the Sun (1929ApJ....70..160S).


So in all likelihood Birkeland would simply have switched to a fusion power source had he known that it existed as an option, and had he been aware of later observations to support the idea.

Here’s where Bridgman engages himself in blatantly dishonest behavior with respect to Birkeland’s beliefs and writings, because while three different electrical configurations were discussed, Birkeland selected only one of them as his preferred “solar model”.

At the bottom of page 665 in NAPE, Birkeland proposed THREE possible solar electrical configurations:

1) Photosphere is cathode & anode located below.
"In the first place, it might be imagined that the interior of the sun formed the positive pole for enormous electric currents, while perhaps the faculae, in particular, round the spots, formed the negative poles."
2) Photosphere is cathode & anode located above in corona
"Or it might be imagined that the positive poles for the discharges were to be found outside the photosphere, for instance in the sun's corona, the primary cause of the discharge being the driving away of negative ions from the outermost layers of the sun's atmosphere in some way or other for instance, as ARRHENIUS has assumed, by light-pressure after condensation of matter round them."
Note that Birkeland introduces this model with 'or' to label it as an alternative to model 1.
3) Photosphere is cathode & anode located above in interplanetary space
"Finally, it might be assumed and this, according to the experimental analogies, seems the most probable assumption that the sun, in relation to space, has an enormous negative electric tension of about 600 million volts."


This false assertion about Birkeland having three different “solar models” is simply unethical. What Bridgman is attempting to do is to ignore his use of the term 'imagine", and *utterly ignore* the value and usefulness of *empirical testing* in the lab with respect to what Birkeland just stated. He’s also misrepresenting what Birkeland stated. He stated that there are different possible electrical arrangements, but he also made it very clear which one of those three arrangement that he *preferred* over the other options based on his *empirical testing*! Worse yet, I also sent Bridgman that New York Times article from a decade later when Birkeland makes it very clear which solar “model” that Birkeland preferred, and discussed, namely the very same one that he talked about, and claimed to prefer in the single paragraph that Bridgman mentioned! It’s entirely unethical for Bridgman to claim that Birkeland promoted three different “suns” or three different “models” when Birkeland made it very clear which one of those options that he preferred!

Models 1 & 2 are clearly different, placing the anode on opposite sides of the photosphere. It might be tempting to consider 2 & 3 as the same model, with the anode just further away in model 3, but model 3 places Earth IN the space of the anode, which has stronger implications for measurements near Earth not possible in model 2.


Well, Bridgman is correct that option #1 is the certainly the odd man out in terms of the direction of current flow, whereas options #2&3 are “similar” in terms of the placement of the anode being *outside* of the photosphere. In fact the sun actually generates surface to surface discharges too, but that occurs in virtually all electric sun models in the lab, including anode surface models.

So Birkeland describes three different cathode-anode configurations for an electromagnetic solar model. All the models keep the cathode at or on the solar photosphere, perhaps at sunspots. The anode is proposed at three possible locations: inside the sun, just above the photosphere in the corona, and further out in interplanetary space. The final configuration is apparently favored by Birkeland, probably for its similarity to his terella configuration.


Emphasis mine. Then those are not actually different “suns” or different solar ‘models” Mr. Bridgman, they are potential current flow variations on the same cathode theme, and two of those variations he rejected in favor of the one *model* which most matched solar observations and lab experimentation.

Birkeland did in fact mention several variations on the same cathode theme, but Birkeland also made it very clear which specific variation of those options was most compatible with his lab tests! Bridgman simply ignored the key fact that he even said which one those options was most congruent with the lab work with respect to how many sun theories he supported. He then tried to build a federal case about Birkeland having multiple different suns, or “solar models” over his use of the term “or” in a single paragraph. Birkeland was simply noting potential wiring variations did exist, but he specifically selected a *preferred one of them* based upon it’s compatibility with his experimental processes. Bridgman simply ignored that experimental verification aspect entirely simply so that he could misrepresent what Birkeland actually said! How unethical can you be Mr. Bridgman? He clearly stated with *one* of those options was his preferred *single* model in the very paragraph that you selected!

You have gone way out of your way to misrepresent the *one* solar model he preferred and turn it into a three ring circus. That is unethical behavior and unprofessional behavior.

Of course, since these configurations all have a common cathode, it might also be possible to consider combinations of the anode positions: 1+2, 2+3, 1+3, 1+2+3, analogous to the multi-grid electron tubes (Wikipedia) used in the first half of the 20th century, providing up to seven possible configurations. Each one of these configurations would require a different analysis as the each has different implications for where and how we can make measurements.


Yes, indeed they do have different *physical* implications, so Birkeland did the laboratory "science thing" that the mainstream hates and fears, and he tried them out in his lab. After doing so, he picked the *one* arrangement that most matched the solar observations based on the results of those laboratory experiments, a fact that Bridgman simply *ignored* and/or didn’t bother to listen to or consider.

It's difficult to find more specific information on these models with only very limited information in NAPE (pg 665, 716). Apparently there are more details in the French publication:
K. Birkeland. Sur la source de 1’eleclricite des etoiles. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Seances de l’Academie des Sciences, T. 155:1467–1470, December 1912.
but the description in Science Abstracts seems to be mostly based on some of Birkeland's experimental configurations.


I have no idea why Mr. Bridgman found it “difficult” since I personally sent him a later New York Times article that made it very clear which of the three potential wiring options that Birkeland preferred and sold to the public, and the paragraph from NAPE that Bridgman cited also makes that point entirely clear to anyone who cared to actually listen.

This is typical EU/PC hater nonsense. Instead of taking Birkeland at his word in that single NAPE paragraph, that only one of the listed wiring options was most consistent with his experiments and solar observations, Bridgman intentionally and blatantly ignored that point and acted like he never said it!

However, even in NAPE, it appears that Birkeland recognized the model had serious problems that would require more than Maxwell's equations to resolve (NAPE pg 720):


So now Mr. Bridgman is simply ignoring the original issue that I complained about to him personally, and he’s making up more stuff for me to complain about.

"According to our manner of looking at the matter, every star in the universe would be the seat and field of activity of electric forces of a strength that no one could imagine.
We have no certain opinion as to how the assumed enormous electric currents with enormous tension are produced, but it is certainly not in accordance with the principles we employ in technics on the earth at the present time. One may well believe, however, that a knowledge in the future of electrotechnics of the heavens would be of great practical value to our electrical engineers." [italics mine]
Each one of these models above have the same problem: How is the electric potential maintained? In model 2, Birkeland suggests Arrehenus' idea of electrons driven out by radiation pressure might help maintain such a voltage. However, other researchers, such as Milne, Rosseland, Panneokeok and others explored the voltages possible driven by particle speeds, but the predicted voltages turned out to be FAR lower than Birkeland needed. Rosseland also explored mechanisms for generating currents in sun for solar magnetic field (1925CMWCI.302....1R).

In part II of this post, I will go over some of the other problems associated with Birkeland's solar models, some of which were apparently recognized by Birkeland.

A Note for those Wishing to Comment on this Topic (under this or other posts):

No comments supporting the Birkeland solar model will be posted to these comment streams unless the commenter can provide correct numerical answers to……


……my personal pet math homework assignments that I think I can require other people to do while I simply ignore all the falsified predictions of the mainstream model with respect to solar convection speeds for over three years and counting.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/w ... projected/

Remember that question and conversation Tom? Wow.

I turns out that Bridgman is also a complete hypocrite. He desperately wants to write off an entire EU/PC solar model based on some “single mathematical flaw’ that he thinks he might find in some math formula while blatantly ignoring the massive internal problems with his own mathematical model!

He not only misrepresented Birkeland’s statements about "three suns" after effectively ruling two of them out, he’s also a first class hypocrite with respect to his falsified solar convection speed problems. If one mathematical difference between observation and “mathematical prediction’ is all it takes to falsify an entire solar model, then the mainstream solar model is utterly and totally falsified Mr. Bridgman.

Based on the “math flaw” concept, your own mainstream solar model is obviously toasted by that revelation that convection is only 1 percent of the mainstream model.

I have a suggestion for you Mr. Bridgman. Since by your logic, your own solar model is falsified and dead, how about trying out Birkeland’s cathode model on your own? Why not do your own busy math work for yourself, and come up with some realistic numbers that work to your liking? What have you got to lose in light of the untimely death of your own solar model in 2012? Birkeland gave you some nice round numbers to work with, and we have much better measured number to work with now that Birkeland never had access to. Why should other individuals have to do your math homework assignments for you, when/if you’re supposed to be the so called ‘professional”?

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. Nobody is going to believe you when you attempt to ignore your own math flaws with respect to convection, and try to falsify a whole EU/PC solar model based on one perceived mathematical difference anyway.

I look forward to your next installment of BS on Birkeland’s solar model. You’ve consistently misrepresented his statements so far, so round 2 should be pretty much the same nonsense.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread postby BecomingTesla » Tue Sep 01, 2015 6:44 am

Good morning Michael. You've had a very frustrating evening lol.

Essentially, this goes back to the point that I mentioned in our previous discussions: the need to consolidate the research of everyone important in the community into a single framework, that can be accessed by anyone. I think that who ever is in charge of allocating resources within the community needs to dedicate manpower and time to this - it's destructive to our public image/perception and our ability to promote/defend ourselves that we do not have this.

The beginner's guide and essential guide to the EU are great, but they are not a "foundation" to work off of, or quite honestly, to promote. There is almost 100+ years of plasma research and astrophysical data taken by satellites/telescopes that needs to be tied together and presented before I think people will give us a fair listen.

Feels good to vent though doesn't it? I can definitely understand that. Just this morning I had pretty solid realization: someone on PO, who I have repeated conversations with, is absolutely *insistent* that I do not need to read Alfven's work/criticisms of mainstream astrophysics on my own; that astrophysics and reconnection theory have marched right along without any resistance "as correct theory", and that if I *do* study Alfven's critique on magnetic reconnection, for example, "I WILL" realize that the AP community is correct.

Here's the thing though: a poor student of history will make a poor student in any field. Just because the AP community has developed their own theories on reconnection - despite Alfven's issues with it, which they have ignored *according to him* - does *not* mean that those theories are correct. He suggested that they are a well developed "pseudoscience," and it's a criticism that I take very seriously for one reason - the development and success of pseudoscientific astrophysical theories *has happened before*. Even though Birkeland's ideas on the aurora were correct, the fact that they were rejected did not mean that auroral science just stood still, and nothing happened. Chapman developed his own mathematical theory, peddled it for decades while defaming Birkeland's theories and memory (since the man was too dead to defend himself), and it was for a long time - until the late 60's - considered just as "correct" as reconnection theory is today. The mainstream community is so ignorant of its own history, that the idea of them collectively believing in a pseudoscience derived from theory rather than empirical science is "absolutely impossible"...despite the fact that it has already happened, and in fact, involves the exact same people: Birkeland, Aflven, and Chapman.

You constantly hear "scientists follow the FACTS, they work on evidence alone and if that evidence tells them something they don't want to hear, they have to change their own beliefs," and yet when you point out the well-known history of AP where this explicitly *did not happen* you're called a conspiracy theorist.

I've been encouraged:
(1) Not to do independent research on Alfven's criticisms of the astrophysical community, or to even read his overall body of work. Same with Birkeland.
(2) Not to analyze this research in the content of decades of primary astrophysical literature, or plasma physics literature, to see *if* Alfven's criticisms are even valid - I don't even assert that they are. I assert that it is of critical importance for an independent party to determine whether it is or not.
(3) Not to take all of the new observational evidence from even the last year, and compare it to Alfven's ideas on galaxy formation or solar system activity.

And yet, these people call themselves scientists. It's really, really intellectually dishonest. There should be no issue, whatsoever, with me doing this research and I should be *encouraged* to do it, so that I can learn on my own. So much for free thinking...
BecomingTesla
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread postby jacmac » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:04 am

I am surprised to see that Tom Bridgman has taken the time to research Birkeland to the extent he has. Last time I read him, a few years ago, he was so dismissive of EU/PC theory that one would not expect him to continue. He must be feeling the pressure that the truth brings. And I expect much of that pressure comes from you Mr. Mozina.
Keep it up, and thank you for all the extensive and informative posts you provide here on this forum.

Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread postby beekeeper » Tue Sep 01, 2015 6:09 pm

:mrgreen: Greetings just looking for one small bite of info here in the EU/PC what is PC? Thanks regards Beekeeper
If nothing can travel faster than light, how can darkness escape it
beekeeper
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:53 pm

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread postby nick c » Tue Sep 01, 2015 6:14 pm

what is PC?
Plasma Cosmology
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Sep 01, 2015 6:31 pm

jacmac wrote:I am surprised to see that Tom Bridgman has taken the time to research Birkeland to the extent he has. Last time I read him, a few years ago, he was so dismissive of EU/PC theory that one would not expect him to continue. He must be feeling the pressure that the truth brings. And I expect much of that pressure comes from you Mr. Mozina.
Keep it up, and thank you for all the extensive and informative posts you provide here on this forum.

Jack


I think in retrospect, and after rereading my response, I may have come off a little harsh. I am however tired of Tom hanging on to my responses for weeks, after not correcting his first mistakes. He then makes a host of more false statements about Birkeland's model, while accusing me of ridiculously erroneous stuff, until he finally figures out a way to respond to my next post, only to compound the problem with a bunch of more false statements and depictions. He still hasn't fixed his first particle flow problem with his cathode sun diagram!

I'd be more impressed with Tom Bridgman if he wasn't continually comparing EU/PC theory with his problems with 'creationism' in astronomy. Static universe EU/PC based theories wouldn't even impose or require a "creation date" in the first place, so the the comparison is simply scientifically offensive and irrelevant.

Based on his various napkin calculation handwaves at both Juergen's model and Birkeland's model, he seems to spend only enough time trying to understand the material long enough for him to figure out a way to "handwave" a complaint about it with a napkin calculation. He then acts as though that single napkin calculation does away with an entire EU/PC solar model, as well as *all* potential variations on the whole solar concept. It's simply an offensive comparison to begin with, compounded with hypocrisy since he has publicly refused to deal with his *massive* convection speed problem in his own solar model for three years and counting. It's just annoying and hypocritical public behavior IMO.

I pointed out to Bridgman in a previous post that he erroneously described the particle flows from Birkeland's cathode solar model as necessarily going in opposite directions in all areas in and around the surface of the sun, up through the whole solar system as a single oversimplified concept. I pointed out to Mr. Bridgman that Birkeland actually predicted (based on lab experiments I must add), that both types of charged particles would come at the Earth from the sun, not simply electrons as his oversimplified diagram depicted.

Instead of fixing his original mistake in the plasma flow diagram of Birkeland's cathode sun model, he erroneously claimed it was physically impossible for both types of particles to flow from an electric sun and he made that same false assertion with respect to Juergen's model too by the way. That's simply not true.

In terms of the actual range of particle flow possibilities of Birkeland's cathode sun theory, it's *highly* possible that all three of those various 'wiring possibilities' that Birkeland "imagined", and which Bridgman mentioned, actually do in fact occur, and all play some role in the particle flow movements in Birkeland's *one* cathode solar model. It may indeed be that some negatively charged points on the cathode surface are ultimately wired to an anode back on another part of the surface and ultimately in the core. It may be that the particle flow inside of that particular 'magnetic rope'' is driven by that particular electrical circuit. It may be that some negatively charged particles are attracted to more positively charged areas of the chromophere and corona too, and that particular 'discharge' occurs in that direction. Some of the electrons might be more attracted to points far out into space as Birkeland's cathode sun is expected to do in Birkeland's model too. All three wiring "options' probably do play at least some role in the particle flow movement with respect to Birkeland's single cathode sun model. It is however just one cathode sun model, and three potential circuit variations occurring in the very *same* cathode sun model. Certainly with respect to interplanetary space and cosmology theory in general, it's simply *one* cathode sun model. Anytime he applied the idea to 'space' in terms of cosmology theory, it's simply a cathode surface.

Bridgman has never taken any real time to understand any of the implications of any of the EU/PC solar models that he has publicly bashed upon. Instead he sticks his own foot in his mouth and erroneously calls three simple circuit variation occurring in one solar model, three different "suns". Oy Vey! How clueless can he be?

Bridgman doesn't even care how badly he misrepresents Birkeland's work, but such professional sloppiness does bother me immensely when he kludges it up that badly based on his own ignorance of the topic. He should at least have a full conceptual understanding on the solar theory that Birkeland presented before trying to publicly bash the idea on his blog.

It's the constant oversimplifications and misrepresentations that bother me, along with the unethical habit Bridgman has of holding on to my responses for weeks on end, and trying to personally assign me math homework assignments. OMG what an ego!
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread postby querious » Tue Sep 01, 2015 6:56 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:Here’s where Bridgman engages himself in blatantly dishonest behavior with respect to Birkeland’s beliefs and writings, because while three different electrical configurations were discussed, Birkeland selected only one of them as his preferred “solar model”.

At the bottom of page 665 in NAPE, Birkeland proposed THREE possible solar electrical configurations:

1) Photosphere is cathode & anode located below.
"In the first place, it might be imagined that the interior of the sun formed the positive pole for enormous electric currents, while perhaps the faculae, in particular, round the spots, formed the negative poles."
2) Photosphere is cathode & anode located above in corona
"Or it might be imagined that the positive poles for the discharges were to be found outside the photosphere, for instance in the sun's corona, the primary cause of the discharge being the driving away of negative ions from the outermost layers of the sun's atmosphere in some way or other for instance, as ARRHENIUS has assumed, by light-pressure after condensation of matter round them."
Note that Birkeland introduces this model with 'or' to label it as an alternative to model 1.
3) Photosphere is cathode & anode located above in interplanetary space
"Finally, it might be assumed and this, according to the experimental analogies, seems the most probable assumption that the sun, in relation to space, has an enormous negative electric tension of about 600 million volts."


This false assertion about Birkeland having three different “solar models” is simply unethical.


After reading Tom's post, and the later pages of discussion of the 3 configurations in NAPE, I really don't know how you can be so vehement about Bridgman being dishonest. Birkeland really only discounted option 2 in NAPE.

I think Bridgman was trying to point out that no matter which configuration you choose, and what is the actual source of energy, there still remains the elephant in the room... "Each one of these models above have the same problem: How is the electric potential maintained?"

I just don't see the "blatant dishonesty" that you do, even taking into account the newspaper article.

Looked like a fair summary to me.

BTW, the "test" questions are really easy. Are you too proud/insulted to answer them, or you just don't know how? If the later I can help.

(ALL the above was posted just before I saw your latest post. Maybe I'll change mine after reading yours)
querious
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Sep 01, 2015 7:22 pm

querious wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:Here’s where Bridgman engages himself in blatantly dishonest behavior with respect to Birkeland’s beliefs and writings, because while three different electrical configurations were discussed, Birkeland selected only one of them as his preferred “solar model”.

At the bottom of page 665 in NAPE, Birkeland proposed THREE possible solar electrical configurations:

1) Photosphere is cathode & anode located below.
"In the first place, it might be imagined that the interior of the sun formed the positive pole for enormous electric currents, while perhaps the faculae, in particular, round the spots, formed the negative poles."
2) Photosphere is cathode & anode located above in corona
"Or it might be imagined that the positive poles for the discharges were to be found outside the photosphere, for instance in the sun's corona, the primary cause of the discharge being the driving away of negative ions from the outermost layers of the sun's atmosphere in some way or other for instance, as ARRHENIUS has assumed, by light-pressure after condensation of matter round them."
Note that Birkeland introduces this model with 'or' to label it as an alternative to model 1.
3) Photosphere is cathode & anode located above in interplanetary space
"Finally, it might be assumed and this, according to the experimental analogies, seems the most probable assumption that the sun, in relation to space, has an enormous negative electric tension of about 600 million volts."


This false assertion about Birkeland having three different “solar models” is simply unethical.


After reading Tom's post, and the later pages of discussion of the 3 configurations in NAPE, I really don't know how you can be so vehement about Bridgman being dishonest. Birkeland really only discounted option 2 in NAPE.


But that's just it. Birkeland didn't actually discount any of the potential particle movement/current flow options that Bridgman mentions. They could all in fact occur in the very same model, and most likely do all occur in the very same model.

With respect to interplanetary 'space" however, or what we might call the heliosphere today, it's just a cathode surface. There are definitely going to be positively charged areas in the corona too where discharges also occur. Birkeland even writes about surface to surface discharges that formed on the outside of his sphere, just like coronal loops. Birkeland was never describing three different "suns". The was describing three circuit options/particle flow options, all within the vary *same* 'sun" model!

I think Bridgman was trying to point out that no matter which configuration you choose, and what is the actual source of energy, there still remains the elephant in the room... "Each one of these models above have the same problem: How is the electric potential maintained?"


Probably based on something akin to the hall effect where both types of charged particles all have kinetic energy away from the original emission source. The sun creates an almost unlimited number of plasma pinch filaments in it's atmosphere and it simply hurls various particles away from it's surface at all times.

I just don't see the "blatant dishonesty" that you do, even taking into account the newspaper article.


Well, even you assume Bridgman didn't understand that all three wiring options can and would probably occur in the one solar model, Birkeland is clear which wiring option best fits with all the evidence, namely that it's a cathode surface with respect to the heliosphere, and interplanetary space.

Keep in mind however that even in a number 3 scenario, there can and would be build up of more positively charged areas of plasma in a multimillion degree corona. The second option occurs to for sure, but there's also an anode further out in "space" too in Birkeland's model. Even surface to surface point discharges are possible with Birkeland's model. In fact he reproduced them in his lab too.

Looked like a fair summary to me.


That's the problem IMO. I'm sure it did if you don't really understand the full implications of Birkeland's work and you haven't studied it yourself. Maybe you might think that three circuit options constitute three different solar models, but I sure don't. If there was any doubt in his mind about them being different 'suns', or solar models, Birkeland makes it very clear in the same paragraph which on best fits his experiments.

BTW, the "test" questions are really easy. Are you too proud/insulted to answer them, or you just don't know how? If the later I can help.


You're welcome to do their mathematical busy work if you like, but I've been there and done that, only to have them handwave away my efforts, and ignore the point anyway. My personal math skills are irrelevant in terms of Birkeland's model or his work, so the whole premise is absurd.

(ALL the above was posted before I just saw your latest post. Maybe I'll change mine after reading yours)


Keep in mind that ultimately what Birkeland was referring to in the paragraphs that Bridgman focused on amount to 'wiring options' that can all technically occur within the very same 'sun', or the same 'solar model'. Even in his "option 3' experiments, Birkeland noticed and wrote about surface to surface discharges, and recreated them in his lab, typically by introducing a strong magnetic field in the core of the terella. All three 'circuit options' could all be occurring in the same "sun". Birkeland was however convinced from experimentation in the lab that with respect to 'space' (beyond just the sun's corona), the solar surface acts as a cathode. It's also a cathode with respect to the corona too by the way, not just the heliosphere.

The particle flow movements in Birkeland's model are not 'simple'. There are several different discharge possibilities to consider, including surface to surface discharges, discharges from the surface to the corona, discharges in the corona to other parts of the corona, and surface to heliosphere discharges. There isn't a single "napkin calculation" which would necessarily apply to any and all charged particles. The conditions of the whole circuit in which the particle is part of must actually be considered in terms of the movement of that particular particle. Its simply not a "one napkin calculation size fit's all" scenario, so why humor him at all?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread postby querious » Tue Sep 01, 2015 7:49 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
querious wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:Here’s where Bridgman engages himself in blatantly dishonest behavior with respect to Birkeland’s beliefs and writings, because while three different electrical configurations were discussed, Birkeland selected only one of them as his preferred “solar model”.

At the bottom of page 665 in NAPE, Birkeland proposed THREE possible solar electrical configurations:

1) Photosphere is cathode & anode located below.
"In the first place, it might be imagined that the interior of the sun formed the positive pole for enormous electric currents, while perhaps the faculae, in particular, round the spots, formed the negative poles."
2) Photosphere is cathode & anode located above in corona
"Or it might be imagined that the positive poles for the discharges were to be found outside the photosphere, for instance in the sun's corona, the primary cause of the discharge being the driving away of negative ions from the outermost layers of the sun's atmosphere in some way or other for instance, as ARRHENIUS has assumed, by light-pressure after condensation of matter round them."
Note that Birkeland introduces this model with 'or' to label it as an alternative to model 1.
3) Photosphere is cathode & anode located above in interplanetary space
"Finally, it might be assumed and this, according to the experimental analogies, seems the most probable assumption that the sun, in relation to space, has an enormous negative electric tension of about 600 million volts."


This false assertion about Birkeland having three different “solar models” is simply unethical.


After reading Tom's post, and the later pages of discussion of the 3 configurations in NAPE, I really don't know how you can be so vehement about Bridgman being dishonest. Birkeland really only discounted option 2 in NAPE.



I think Bridgman was trying to point out that no matter which configuration you choose, and what is the actual source of energy, there still remains the elephant in the room... "Each one of these models above have the same problem: How is the electric potential maintained?"


Probably based on something akin to the hall effect where both types of charged particles all have kinetic energy away from the original emission source. The sun creates an almost unlimited number of plasma pinch filaments in it's atmosphere and it simply hurls various particles away from it's surface at all times.


Now, to me, that is not an answer at all. Please elaborate. We're talking about THE KEY IDEA in your whole electric sun model, for christ's sake!
querious
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Sep 01, 2015 8:52 pm

querious wrote:Now, to me, that is not an answer at all. Please elaborate. We're talking about THE KEY IDEA in your whole electric sun model, for christ's sake!


First of all, it's not *my* whole electric sun model, it's Birkeland's cathode solar model.

His 'solution' involved what we would typically today refer to as "sputtering", although there is an EM component to the 'collision' process in plasma that has to be considered, not just particle to particle collisions. Not only can and do the high velocity electrons hit particles in the solar atmosphere, they create an EM field around themselves that act to 'attract" positively charged particles to flow along in the wake of the electron beams. There could even be something akin to the Hall effect at work too for all I know.

These are processes that are probably best understood by *experimentation*, not blind mathematical speculation by the way.

http://www.dnva.no/binfil/download.php?tid=44870

Search for the term "sputtering".

Electrostatic force caused sputtering which allowed intense cathode rays to escape into space. Some of these beams would intercept the Earth and cause visible light. 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.


Birkeland's model predicts the emission of *both* types of charged particles flowing from the sun, to the Earth and past the Earth too. Bridgman's diagram of current flow patterns has nothing to do with Birkeland's cathode solar theory. Any flow of excess ions toward the sun would be found at the heliosphere, not inside the solar wind processes.

In Birkeland's model the 'targets" of the electrons (sputtering) are the chromosphere and the corona.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:18 pm

One more point that I should mention is that coronal loops are simply current carrying, Bennett pinch magnetic ropes that carry current from one point on the surface to another. Inside these threads and loops we do observe plasma moving in both directions, sometime both directions over the course of time in the very same video. The current flowing through the thread at that particular moment determines the direction of the more visible ions in the plasma thread, as well as the direction of the flow of electrons through the magnetic rope. It's a messy, messy, really chaotic place in the corona and chromosphere and lots of weird things occur as the a result in local and long distance variations in the electric field, and the resulting changes in the plasma particle movement.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:17 am

My recent conversation with Tom Bridgman began when I made the following comment to Mr. Bridgman several weeks ago with respect to his erroneous particle flow diagram which he has posted on his blog in relationship to Birkeland's cathode solar model:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 460&bpli=1

It's rather difficult to take you seriously as a so called "skeptic" of EU/PC theory while you either willfully or ignorantly misrepresent various EU/PC concepts. For instance, you claimed this on a previous post:

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... ot-so.html

Image
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vICwYkSEzug/U ... athode.png
"Mozina's "Birkeland" model: As I read more of Birkeland's work, it's becoming clear this model is more Mozina than Birkeland."


Your particle movement diagram of Birkeland's cathode sun model however is absolutely *incorrect*, as well as your (false) assertion that his cathode solar model is mine, or has anything to do with me personally. The cathode solar model belongs to Birkeland, and I have never tried to take credit for it, although unlike you, I have tried to understand his theory properly. You apparently never did that because Birkeland predicted that *both* types of charged particles flow from the sun, to the heliosphere, whereas you have positive ions flowing into the sun, and only negatively charged particle flowing from the sun. I simply can't take you seriously when you blatantly misrepresent the scientific theory presented by Birkeland. Either your ego is still in the way, or you simply willfully misrepresent the facts. Which is it?

Either fix your serious error, or stop pretending to be a legitimate "skeptic" of concepts that you don't even begin to understand or appreciate.

August 6, 2015 at 2:45 PM


That particle flow image on his blog is absolutely *not* Birkeland's solar model as erroneously stated by Bridgman. Mr. Bridgman has the red arrow related to protons and ions flow pointed in the wrong direction. In Birkeland's cathode surface model both types of charged particles flow from the cathode surface, to the heliosphere. The inbound positively charged particles would be located outside of the heliosphere in Birkeland's one and only cathode "sun".

http://www.dnva.no/binfil/download.php?tid=44870

Electrostatic force caused sputtering which allowed intense cathode rays to escape into space. Some of these beams would intercept the Earth and cause visible light. 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.


Instead of fixing his original wiring diagram error as requested and as warranted by scientific and historical accuracy, Bridgman continues to misrepresent Birkeland's works and statements. He's now compounding his original problem by not fixing the original error in the diagram, and instead making additional false assertions with respect to different current flow options which he erroneously calls different 'suns'. Oy Vey.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread postby beekeeper » Wed Sep 02, 2015 4:26 pm

Ohhh I should have known, it just wouldn't click thanks Nick
If nothing can travel faster than light, how can darkness escape it
beekeeper
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:53 pm

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:40 am

FYI, I did post a link to this specific thread on Tom Bridgman's website early this week in response to his erroneous and outrageous "Electric Universe: The Three Suns of Kristian Birkeland." blog entry.

I'm curious how many weeks it will take to get a response from Bridgman this time. It took him three weeks the last time, and he didn't even fix his original error with Birkeland's particle flow diagram! Instead he simply compounded the original problem by *not* fixing his error in Birkeland's particle flow diagram, and by making even more false statements and assertions about Birkeland's model by misrepresenting various circuit/particle flow options in his *one* cathode model as "three suns". Oy Vey!

I predict that Mr Bridgman will simply ignore the link to this thread entirely, he will ignore his original error with respect to the particle flow error that he made in his diagram of Birkeland's model, and he will continue to erroneously claim that it's physically impossible to get both particles flowing in the same direction. i predict that Bridgman simply won't acknowledge any of the numerous errors and misrepresentations that he has made with respect to Birkeland's cathode sun model. Bridgman is more interested in engaging himself in dishonest, unethical, and unprofessional "hater" behavior than he is interested in being historically or scientifically accurate. :(
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread postby querious » Fri Sep 04, 2015 3:21 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
querious wrote:Now, to me, that is not an answer at all. Please elaborate. We're talking about THE KEY IDEA in your whole electric sun model, for christ's sake!


First of all, it's not *my* whole electric sun model, it's Birkeland's cathode solar model.

His 'solution' involved what we would typically today refer to as "sputtering", although there is an EM component to the 'collision' process in plasma that has to be considered, not just particle to particle collisions. Not only can and do the high velocity electrons hit particles in the solar atmosphere, they create an EM field around themselves that act to 'attract" positively charged particles to flow along in the wake of the electron beams. There could even be something akin to the Hall effect at work too for all I know.


Hi Michael,
I think it's kinda hypocritical of you to accuse Bridgman of ignoring your submitted comments on his blog when you keep ignoring the most basic question about *any* electric sun model: How is the potential maintained? -Which was the entire point of his blog post.

Wouldn't you agree?
querious
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Next

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest