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

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Nov 30, 2015 2:08 pm

Embarrassed by the facts, 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…

REALLY??!!


No, not really. Mr. Bridgman simply made that statement up. It’s commonly referred to as a strawman argument in formal debate. Tsk, tsk.

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.


Apparently Mr. Bridgman is getting rather desperate since only he ever made such a claim in the first place. :)

"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." NAPE, Preface page iv (October 1908).

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.


Apparently Mr. Bridgman is embarrassed by the facts, specifically the fact that the NYT writer says *absolutely nothing* about three unique solar models proposed by Birkeland, and Mr. Bridgman failed to address or explain this issue as I requested of him. Typical.

Mr. Bridgman is also intent on ignoring the key *prediction* of Birkeland’s *single* cathode solar model, specifically that the sun was *internally powered* and it emits both types of charged particles via a transmutation of elements. This prediction is important even within the EU community because it is in stark contrast to say Juergen’s solar model which also has an *external* power source. This plays into the concept of everything from neutrino counts to power sources, and different predictions that are made by various solar models.

This is the reason I have to question Mr. Bridgman’s professionalism, and his intent. An important prediction of Birkeland’s solar model is that it is internally powered, and it therefore contrasts with some other proposed EU/PC solar models particularly and most notably with respect to neutrino emissions.

Nobody but Bridgman ever claimed that a newspaper article was a more complete presentation of Birkeland’s ideas. That’s a complete strawman argument that reeks of desperation, just like the fact Bridgman doesn’t explain why the NYT writer never mentioned more than a single cathode solar model ever championed by Birkeland, and the fact that Bridgman never bothered to address his later paper on solar wind content that I suggested and which I cited by page and paragraph.

Since Schuster responded to Birkeland’s model in 1911 (1911RSPSA..85...44S), we know the cathode model was at least in circulation to the general community by then.

Yes, but pity for Bridgman there’s only *one* cathode solar model being debated. :) Why didn't Schuster mention multiple Birkeland solar models Mr. Bridgman? Care to show us a citation to *anyone* prior to yourself who ever claimed Birkeland had three unique solar models Mr. Bridgman?

A preface (Wikipedia) can be written at the start of a work, or after the book is complete to properly thank other contributors, etc.
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.

Yet the parts that Bridgman originally quoted to make his erroneous claim about three solar models was written long before 1913, and there’s only one cathode solar model proposed by Birkeland that is being debated anywhere prior to Mr. Bridgman’s blatantly erroneous claim in 2015.

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.

Had Mr. Bridgman actually bothered to read the later solar wind content paper that I cited, (and actually other parts of NAPE) he’d have noticed that Birkeland observed different regions around the sun having different particle acceleration properties, something Bridgman simply ignores.

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.


That is absolutely false. His single cathode wiring option which he used in his lab produced particle acceleration of both types of charged particles, which in fact showed up as soot on the glass walls of the various experiments. At no time did Birkeland create or discuss any “other” solar models, just one cathode model with both types of particles flowing from the sun, particularly near the equator. Bridgman is continuously *misrepresenting* Birkeland’s work in a highly unprofessional and highly unethical manner. Shame on Bridgman. I demand that Mr. Bridgman to cite any previous scientist ever referring to *multiple* Birkeland solar models, or just admit that he personally made that up that spurious claim in his own head.

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.

This is another statement of pure desperation on the part of Bridgman. Birkeland absolutely, positively *did* get his model to work, in fact all his “predictions” were based upon a single *working lab model*! Holy cow! There only ever was *one* cathode solar model which produce *both* kind of particle flow. Bridgman is erroneously turning particle flow movement into a different model whereas Birkeland never did any such thing, nor the NYT writer mention squat about 3 solar models. Bridgman is burying himself at this point.

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.

Huh? I cited a later *published paper* that was written by Birkeland himself which rebuts Stormer’s claim about only positive ions coming from sun, and Brigman's claim that only electrons come from the sun, whereas Birkeland himself predicted *both* types of charged particle flow coming from the sun, particularly around the equatorial regions of the sun. Bridgman simply ignored that entire paper!

What next? Perhaps Mr. Mozina will try to claim that NAPE was not written by Birkeland?

The “what next” part is Mr. Bridgman claiming that Birkeland ever championed or discussed three different solar models. In fact, nobody in history ever made that erroneous claim until Mr. Bridgman made that unsupported claim *this year*. Why is that Mr. Bridgman? Why didn’t the NYT article, or any scientist in 100 years ever mention three different Birkeland solar models?

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…

The really sad part is that I provided Mr. Bridgman with a published paper, the paragraph and the sentence where Birkeland predicts *both* types of particles flowing off the sun, and striking the Earth with his *single* solar model. Birkeland only ever discussed a single cathode solar model, which based upon his *lab tests* he predicted would emit *both* types of charged particles, which then formed circuits that flowed into the Earth's aurora.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
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 » Mon Nov 30, 2015 3:14 pm

I guess I'll try to catch up and respond to some other points I missed while I was off the boards for awhile:

W.T."Tom" Bridgman said...
…..
In ChristianForums, Mr. Mozina links to an article by William J. Burke, Kristian Birkeland's Message from the Sun: Its Meaning Then and Now. 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 Additional References.

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:

Burke: “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.” (pg 12)

But Mr. Mozina did not bother to include beyond what he found convenient for his quote-mining, particularly where Burke notes:


Mr. Bridgman is conveniently sidestepping Birkeland’s actual statement in that quote, specifically that *both* types of particles would be present in roughly equal amounts! Why are you ignoring Birkeland’s own statements with respect to particle flow movement Mr. Bridgman? Why are you also ignoring the solar wind paper I cited in my previous post?

Whereas I have provided published references to support my statements about Birkeland's particle flow claims, when have you provided a reference where Birkeland ever publicly claimed that only electrons would come from the sun Mr. Bridgman? Did you simply make that up on your own perhaps, because you've certainly never quoted Birkeland.

Burke: “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.” (pg 20)


Whatever the “culprits” might have been, either in his lab, or in real life, the fact of the matter is that he *did correctly* predict the actual content and direction flow of *both* types of charged particles coming from the sun. You “might” argue that “magnetic reconnection” is somehow the “culprit” even though Birkeland didn’t understand it, but then you’re stuck explaining why the E field does all the actual work in Birkeland’s lab model, not “magnetic reconnection”. We can turn off the electrical power and verify that fact, and he too simulated positive ion flow away from his terrella.

For those who are electromagnetically-challenged, this means that there is NO 600 million volt potential responsible for the electron acceleration.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

For anyone who watches this video, it’s lab verifiable that a voltage potential is responsible for the particle acceleration process observed in aurora, and that power the aurora around the Earth’s poles.

This is the fact which breaks the ‘cathode sun’ model and part of the analogy with Birkeland’s terella.


The video I just cited demonstrates that Mr. Bridgman has no idea what he’s talking about. The idea actually works *in the lab*, not just on paper.
This goes back to the point I made above:
1) you can have the 600 million volt potential between the photosphere and heliopause,
or
2) protons moving away from the Sun with the electrons.

BOTH cannot be true.

This statement is simply not true, and it’s entirely absurd. If Bridgman had actually read any of Birkeland’s work he’d have noticed that Birkeland expected particles to follow magnetic field lines around the sun, and various particles, particularly coronal loop particles, flowed in all kinds of directions in the solar atmosphere. Bridgman is trying to hide behind an oversimplification fallacy and simply ignored the images, experiments and various observations that Birkeland made in his lab.

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.


Funny then that they actually do work and did work in his own lab. In fact his predictions of particle flow direction are a direct result of what he *learned* during experimentation!
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.

The only one who's distorting facts and who’s following an agenda is Bridgman. Birkeland turned on powerful magnetic fields inside his cathode sun and watched and recorded their effect on particle flow direction. At no time did Birkeland ever limit particle flow around the sun to one or two directions. It’s *much* more complicated, and particle flow direction depends on many local factors, not just a *single* factor as Bridgman erroneously alleges.

Again, who is engaged in the misconduct?


That would definitely be Mr. Bridgman, the first human being on Earth to ascribe Birkeland with three unique solar models.
September 27, 2015 at 6:54 PM

W.T."Tom" Bridgman said...
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.

Burke: “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.” (pg 20).

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.
NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries About Northern Lights
Magnetic "Ropes" Connect the Northern Lights to the Solar Wind


Not coincidently, that’s exactly why Birkeland experimented with strong EM fields inside of his cathode sun. That observation is actually another ‘successful prediction” of Birkeland’s *single* cathode solar model.
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 (On Magnetic Reconnection and "Discharges").


Here's how Alfven described a magnetic rope by the way:

"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."


It's an *electrically* driven process. :)

http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/A% ... sphere.pdf
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Do ... hysics.pdf

Actually, Alfven’s paper on circuit theory applied to aurora, along with his double layer paper which makes “magnetic reconnection” theory obsolete in all current carrying environments demonstrates that statement is simply false. Alfven referred to magnetic reconnection theory as pure pseudoscience and replaced the concept with his double layer paper Mr. Bridgman. Why did you fail to mention that fact? More professional misconduct.
Burke: "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." (pg 22)

and

Burke: "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." (pg 22).


Or as Alfven suggested, one can simply apply ordinary circuit theory to the process and explain it that way.

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.


False again. There is no condition in which the Earth and sun are not in direct particle flow connection. There’s a constant stream of particles flowing from the sun toward the heliosphere, and even the heliosphere is *part of a circuit* that directs particle flow. The Earth is *constantly* bombarded by various plasma particles streaming from the sun, just as Birkeland "predicted".

Burke: "Fukushima (1969) realized that with only ground-based measurements it is impossible to decide whether Birkeland’s field-aligned currents were present or absent." (pg 23).

Even Birkeland understood the existence of these currents were just an hypothesis. As Birkeland notes:

"These current-arrows, however, are only a geometrical representation of the perturbing forces, and indicate nothing whatever as to the existence of such currents." (pg 439, NAPE)

His hypothesis/theory/lab observation was verified by later satellites in space, yet another *successful prediction* of his single cathode solar model.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby comingfrom » Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:15 pm

Thank you, Michael.
I like reading your explanations.

`Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:52 pm

comingfrom wrote:Thank you, Michael.
I like reading your explanations.

`Paul


Thanks. I think I'll try holding Bridgman's feet to the fire over producing a published reference that ever talked about three Birkeland solar models, or Birkeland ever claiming that just electrons come from the sun, prior to Bridgman himself. I've provided him with two external (to me) published references where Birkeland talks about both types of particles coming from the sun, and yet Bridgman has utterly and totally ignored both references. Instead he has the arrows of Birkeland's particle flow model pointed in the wrong direction with respect to protons and neutral particle flow from the sun.

Bridgman himself produced a reference related to Birkeland's *single* cathode solar model, and I've yet to see him produce a single other individual from the halls of science that ever claimed that Birkeland promoted three unique solar models, or Birkeland only predicted that electrons came from the sun, and only protons came from "space".

Bridgman's understanding of Birkelands *one* solar model is so FUBAR, he's completely dumbed it down to a level of simplicity that even Birkeland would have winced at. Birkeland was even able to produce point to point (surface to surface) discharges in his lab simply by introducing a powerful electromagnet in the core. Even Birkeland and his contemporaries understood that the sun had a large magnetic field around it, and inside of it. Birkeland even documented how that magnetic field directed various particle streams throughout the atmosphere around his terella, sometimes producing point to point discharges. He noted how he could concentrate the surface to surface discharges in two bands that are nearer the equator simply by increasing the electromagnetic field inside the core.

Bridgman has the whole particle flow thing oversimplified to the point of utter absurdity, while simply ignoring the statements and printed, published papers by Birkeland himself where he specifically predicts that *both* types of charged particles stream away from the sun toward the Earth, particularly around the equator of the sun. These are things he actually *observed* in the lab if you read his original "reasons" for believing as he did.

For Bridgman to simply *kludge* up history in this way is simply inexcusable IMO. He's smearing the name of very good scientists, and intentionally distorting the truth. That's completely unprofessional behavior. How would Bridgman feel if future so called "scientists" went out of their way to publicly *misrepresent* his own work?

How low can Bridgman go anyway? Birkeland went on public record in the paper I cited and predicted that *both* types of high speed particles were present in solar wind and came from the sun towards the Earth. At no time did Birkeland predict particle flow was *simplistic*, certainly not the *oversimplification fallacy* sort of oversimplification that Bridgman is trying to sell on his blog.

Shame on Bridgman for misrepresenting the work of an important physicist. History won't be kind to Bridgman I'm afraid.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Thu Dec 03, 2015 9:12 pm

History won't be kind to Bridgman I'm afraid.


At lest he is good fodder for a catalyst, to create a fabulous job of science writing and teaching on your part!
thanks!
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Dec 04, 2015 10:38 am

fosborn_ wrote:
History won't be kind to Bridgman I'm afraid.


At lest he is good fodder for a catalyst, to create a fabulous job of science writing and teaching on your part!
thanks!


I'm just shocked that a so called "professional" would go out of their way to *blatantly misrepresent* the work of Kristian Birkeland, and ignore Birkeland's own statements with regard to his predictions about the makeup, content and flow direction of the solar wind. It's irrational to simply *ignore* the authors own published statements, but that is exactly what Bridgman is doing and has continued to do.

I also find it rather ironic that Bridgman's blog is devoted to "Dealing with creationism in astronomy". He's basically peddling a supernatural creation (of all matter) event based upon four unique supernatural constructs, and claiming that it's a form of "science". Meanwhile he's dissing a cosmology theory that doesn't even predict a "creation" event in the first place, and EU/PC theory is based upon *pure forms of empirical physics* where every single cause/effect claim can be replicated in the lab. Talk about irony.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby +EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know » Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:55 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:
History won't be kind to Bridgman I'm afraid.


At lest he is good fodder for a catalyst, to create a fabulous job of science writing and teaching on your part!
thanks!


I'm just shocked that a so called "professional" would go out of their way to *blatantly misrepresent* the work of Kristian Birkeland, and ignore Birkeland's own statements with regard to his predictions about the makeup, content and flow direction of the solar wind. It's irrational to simply *ignore* the authors own published statements, but that is exactly what Bridgman is doing and has continued to do.

I also find it rather ironic that Bridgman's blog is devoted to "Dealing with creationism in astronomy". He's basically peddling a supernatural creation (of all matter) event based upon four unique supernatural constructs, and claiming that it's a form of "science". Meanwhile he's dissing a cosmology theory that doesn't even predict a "creation" event in the first place, and EU/PC theory is based upon *pure forms of empirical physics* where every single cause/effect claim can be replicated in the lab. Talk about irony.


It's not much different from the "NO! I will NOT look through your telescope! I have no need to!" response that was said to Hannes by one of his critics.

As to the creationism charge - various "proof of Creation" claims are already directly applied to all the factors of the BB model, so that point is ridiculously moot.
LOL! From personal experience, I've had certain fundamentalists look at me as though I'm the embodiment of pure evil when point out that EU doesn't really support the single event scenario and instead local creations in a celestial recycling system that is of unknown & indeterminate overall duration (potentially infinite). ;)

While I personally find EU to have the greatest potential to relate a connection of design & Designer, it is very possible to discuss the various science points WITHOUT ever referencing such concepts; you can talk about the how-things-get-done without every mentioning any kind of grander "WHY".
+EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:41 pm

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Dec 22, 2015 1:29 am

Bumped for Bridgman, lest he pretend I didn't respond to his previous blog posts.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 748&bpli=1

I'm curious to find out if Bridgman will produce any scientific published papers from history that ever talked about Birkeland promoting three unique solar models, or whether Bridgman will admit that he simply made up that claim in his own head. Inquiring minds want to know if Bridgman will debate these points based on the content of published scientific papers like those I have presented to him for review, or just stuff that Bridgman pulled out of his personal, unpublished back pocket?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
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 » Mon Jan 11, 2016 3:12 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:Bumped for Bridgman, lest he pretend I didn't respond to his previous blog posts.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 748&bpli=1

I'm curious to find out if Bridgman will produce any scientific published papers from history that ever talked about Birkeland promoting three unique solar models, or whether Bridgman will admit that he simply made up that claim in his own head. Inquiring minds want to know if Bridgman will debate these points based on the content of published scientific papers like those I have presented to him for review, or just stuff that Bridgman pulled out of his personal, unpublished back pocket?


For the record, I think we've now been waiting for about six weeks for Bridgman to produce any published scientific paper from the past 100 years that ever claimed that Kristian Birkeland discussed or supported three different solar model, or for Bridgman to admit that he simply pulled that false claim out of his posterior.

I've also handed him a published scientific paper by Birkeland himself and quoted Birkeland's prediction that he expected to see positively charged particles flowing from the sun as well as electrons, and I've yet to see Bridgman fix his erroneous particle flow diagram.

It's one thing for an amateur to make bush league mistakes about Birkeland's work, but it's quite another for a so called "professional" to willfully misrepresent history. :(
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
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 Jan 20, 2016 9:17 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:Bumped for Bridgman, lest he pretend I didn't respond to his previous blog posts.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 748&bpli=1

I'm curious to find out if Bridgman will produce any scientific published papers from history that ever talked about Birkeland promoting three unique solar models, or whether Bridgman will admit that he simply made up that claim in his own head. Inquiring minds want to know if Bridgman will debate these points based on the content of published scientific papers like those I have presented to him for review, or just stuff that Bridgman pulled out of his personal, unpublished back pocket?


For the record, I think we've now been waiting for about six weeks for Bridgman to produce any published scientific paper from the past 100 years that ever claimed that Kristian Birkeland discussed or supported three different solar model, or for Bridgman to admit that he simply pulled that false claim out of his posterior.

I've also handed him a published scientific paper by Birkeland himself and quoted Birkeland's prediction that he expected to see positively charged particles flowing from the sun as well as electrons, and I've yet to see Bridgman fix his erroneous particle flow diagram.

It's one thing for an amateur to make bush league mistakes about Birkeland's work, but it's quite another for a so called "professional" to willfully misrepresent history. :(


Bump. Seven weeks and counting, and not a single published reference from Bridgman about Birkeland promoting three unique solar models, or claiming that only electrons came from the sun. It's pretty bad when the so called "professional" is simply making things up in his head.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby BeAChooser » Wed Jan 20, 2016 12:21 pm

It's pretty bad when the so called "professional" is simply making things up in his head.


Yes, it is, but isn't that, at the core, what mainstream astrophysicists have been doing vis a vis big bang, dark matter, black holes, dark energy, inflation, and the rest of the magical gnome menagerie they've invented?
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:15 pm

BeAChooser wrote:
It's pretty bad when the so called "professional" is simply making things up in his head.


Yes, it is, but isn't that, at the core, what mainstream astrophysicists have been doing vis a vis big bang, dark matter, black holes, dark energy, inflation, and the rest of the magical gnome menagerie they've invented?


Ya, that is what they're doing alright, but Bridgman took it to a new low by misrepresenting Birkeland's published works. That's crossing the line between their collective "overactive imagination" with respect to their own theories and ideas, and outright professional misconduct by misrepresenting scientific history.

Birkeland only ever supported *one* and only one cathode sun model and he predicted that *both* electrons *and* protons came from the sun and struck the Earth. At no time did he claim that only electrons came from the sun as Bridgman shows is his FUBAR diagram of Birkeland's model.

Bridgman is willfully and intentionally misrepresenting historical fact as it relates to Birkeland's work, not just engaging himself in "creative imagination" with respect to his own menagerie of invisible friends in the sky.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
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 » Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:23 pm

Well, it's now been more than two full months since I handed Bridgman Birkeland's paper on solar wind content, and yet Bridgman has still failed to fix his FUBAR diagram that falsely misrepresents the particle flow predictions of Birkeland's model according to the statements of Birkeland himself. Birkeland predicted that both types of charged particle flowed from the sun and into the Earth.

Bridgman has utterly and completely failed to produce any published external reference (to Bridgman) that ever claimed that Birkeland supported or wrote about three different solar models. Bridgman made up that false claim in his head, and he is therefore completely incapable of citing any published author to support his erroneous comments about Birkeland's work.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
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 » Mon Feb 08, 2016 2:33 pm

Yet another week has gone by, and Bridgman has failed to correct his error, or produce a single *external* (to himself) reference that Birkeland either supported three different solar models, or that he predicted only electrons would come from the sun and strike the Earth. I've handed Bridgman published papers by Birkeland himself to refute the erroneous solar wind diagram by Bridgman, but alas Bridgman is simply unethical and incapable of admitting to being wrong. Instead he continues to misrepresent historical fact, and he has the audacity to call himself a "professional". :roll:
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Phorce » Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:05 am

The more you bite the hook and fall into these kind of over heated debates the more EU will garner very little respect.
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !
User avatar
Phorce
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests