No, not really. Mr. Bridgman simply made that statement up. It’s commonly referred to as a strawman argument in formal debate. Tsk, tsk.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…
Apparently Mr. Bridgman is getting rather desperate since only he ever made such a claim in the first place.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 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."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.
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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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!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.
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?What next? Perhaps Mr. Mozina will try to claim that NAPE was not written by 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.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…