I stumbled into the EU/PC community about 12 years ago, having simply been blissfully ignorant of the whole idea prior to about 2005. I think it took me close to 2-3 years to even begin to have much of a handle on the whole cosmology framework, it's various solar models, and even *a few* of it's many different areas of investigation. It cost me hundreds of dollars to purchase and read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma, Somov's book on MHD theory, and Peratt's Physics of the Plasma Universe. I also had to slog through Birkeland's free volume PDF too. That sucker is a *hugely* long textbook/encyclopedia volume, but it's actually a fascinating story that gave me wonderful insights into Birkeland's thought processes, his empirical scientific methods, and his team's herculean efforts and sacrifices. It's a great read, but quite time consuming as well.JonesDave116
As for the EU loons; it is easy to see where their nonsense comes from - yet more scientifically impossible woo, based on the nutter Velikosky's unscientific ramblings, and/or a desire to hero worship long dead scientists, whose ideas have long since been shown to be wrong. They have never proposed anything that wouldn't take a competent physics undergrad a few minutes to disprove.
Only after a couple of years of intense study did I feel like I even began to understand anything at all about the behaviors of plasma, and plasma physics as a science in it's own right. Only after years of effort did I feel competent at all in terms of the physics of plasma, and I started with a decent understanding of EM field theory and several years of calculus under my belt. It was certainly an uphill climb in terms of effort spent, the reading time, and the rereading of pages again and again before I started to understand them. I don't think I've ever spent as much time trying to understand a cosmology theory before, but every part of it fascinated me. I focused most of my time on the cosmology theories by Alfven and Peratt, and the different solar physics theories, particularly Birkeland's stream of successful predictions and high energy solar atmospheric physics. I have read Scott's book and Thornill/Talbot's book, but to this day, I've still not gotten around to even reading Velikosky or *many* other authors who've ever postulated ideas related to electrodynamic theory in space.
One thing that I learned about EU/PC cosmology theory immediately is that the mainstream simply never did their homework on this topic. I kept hearing them erroneously claiming ignorant things, like there "was no math to support EU/PC theory". Obviously they had never read any of Alfven's hundred plus published papers, any of Peratt's published papers, or either of their two books. Peratt's book in particular is *loaded* with math. They hadn't read even Birkeland's work because if had they done so, they'd know damn well that EU/PC theory has included *tons* of math for more than a century. Their problem is that they clearly haven't read it, nor do they understand it. They hadn't read Lerner's work either. For more than a decade now, I've heard the mainstream misrepresent EU/PC theory over and over and over again, like ignorantly and erroneously claiming that EU/PC solar models predict "no neutrinos", and Birkeland supporting three solar models, or Birkeland predicting that only electrons came from the sun. They are *all* so ignorant of the topic that they never even "self correct" themselves either because you never see a mainstream astronomer point out those types of bonehead errors to their own clueless colleagues. Astronomers are like the keystone cops of empirical physics.
The amount of false information and misinformation about EU/PC theory by the mainstream far and away exceeds anything compared to their actual 'correct understanding' of the EU/PC cosmology model. They're just ignorant as all hell and arrogant as all hell to boot.
Their arrogance/ignorance double-combo problem shows up in numerous ways, most typically their desperate need to take the conversation *off the EU/PC topic* and fixate on the individual. Since they don't have a clue about the source material itself, and haven't a clue how to undermine the actual physics or mathematical models used in the EU/PC model, the only thing they can do it attempt to undermine the credibility of the *messenger*. You see that arrogant behavior in every one of their hater posts, with terms like "loons", "cranks", "crackpots", "liars", "deluded", etc, all intended to attack the *person* rather than the physics. That's also why we see that new thread here recently on the topic of 'Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?' nonsense too. They have an emotional and psychological "need" to believe themselves to be personally superior to the entire EU/PC community in some way, and therefore those are the topics they'd like to discuss, not the actually published work of Alfven, or Peratt, or Birkeland or Lerner or any of the primary authors that began and wrote about EU/PC *cosmology* theory. They'll *occasionally* pick on a fringe author of course, or fixate on some *minor unrelated* sub-hypothesis associated with EU/PC theory, but *almost never* will you see them focus on a problem in Alfven's published papers or his book on this cosmology theory. It virtually never happens because they are *immediately* out of their depth.
I can easily demonstrate this point right now too. I challenge JonesDave116, Bob_Ham and Higgsy to pick out a *few mathematical or physical flaws* in any of Alfven's *many* published papers, or preferably his book Cosmic Plasma, since that particular book is essentially the defining original book of EU/PC cosmology theory. I'll take any criticisms from Peratt's book as well.
Or, you could explain your basic problem with Birkeland's solar model, you know, his *working* model?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4
None of them will rise to the challenge of course. In fact for 11+ years since I first read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma, I have consistently asked the the "skeptics" to point out such a flaw and I have *never* heard one that even came *close* to holding up to scrutiny. In fact most of the time they simply *ran like hell* like frightened little children from such a *simple* request. This is due to their extreme ignorance of this entire topic. They really don't know squat about it.
Surely JoneDave116 must see himself as at least to the level of a competent undergrad, and my simple request according to him should only take a few minutes of his time so I'm not asking him for the moon. Since Higgsy and Bob_Ham see themselves as our superiors by virtue of their magnificent "physics" degrees, this should be a piece of cake for them too.
Please, but all means, "educate us".
But rather that try to make you see (i.e, beat my head against a *Higgsypause*, so to speak), let me ask the physicist in you about another observation/conundrum, and see what you have to say. 
