Which aspects of EU resonate most with you?

[seasmith]

Well Sarah Scoles, i've read your finished piece on Motherboard and must say,
your writings sound more than a bit like from a touchy-feely sociology major who is just totally flumoxed by the
threat of physics and science.
cheers

[Michael Mozina]

Well Sarah Scoles, i've read your finished piece on Motherboard and must say,
your writings sound more than a bit like from a touchy-feely sociology major who is just totally flumoxed by the
threat of physics and science.
cheers

I second that opinion. That's one of the worst historical accounts of the history of EU/PC theory that I could possibly think of. The "no math" erroneous claims in the article apparently relate to Sarah's personal laziness, and her gullibility when it comes to "checking claims". She's certainly not much of a real science reporter, nothing even on the scale of the NYTimes writer from 1913:

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

That's an example of real "science writer" Sarah. It requires taking the time to actually "study" the idea and present it properly. Wal and David are fine human beings, but contrary to your beliefs, EU/PC theory predates all of us alive today and it has a long and impressive track record of mathematically and physically "predicting" things that have actually been confirmed by satellites in space.

[querious]

Wal and David are fine human beings, but contrary to your beliefs, EU/PC theory predates all of us alive today and it has a long and impressive track record of mathematically and physically "predicting" things that have actually been confirmed by satellites in space.

Michael,
Maybe there could be even more predictions if you and Thornhill worked together to come to an agreement about something as basic as whether the sun is an anode or cathode?

Querious

[Michael Mozina]

Wal and David are fine human beings, but contrary to your beliefs, EU/PC theory predates all of us alive today and it has a long and impressive track record of mathematically and physically "predicting" things that have actually been confirmed by satellites in space.

Michael,
Maybe there could be even more predictions if you and Thornhill worked together to come to an agreement about something as basic as whether the sun is an anode or cathode?

Querious

Why do you expect me to agree with Wal Thornhill about various solar model specifics if I can't even come to agreement with Tom Bridgman, a supposed "professional" about the direction of particle flow from Birkeland's (one) solar model? Even the New York Times reporter got that part right! He only described *one* solar model and he noted specifically that it emitted *both* types of particles! Have Tom Bridgman read the fifth paragraph of that NYTimes article and let's see Tom agree with it, and then you can whine at me about what kind of agreement I need to make with Wal.

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



Even the New York Time author knew (and reported) that Bridgman's particle flow diagram was FUBAR. Why can't the "professionals" even get the basic stuff right?

[querious]

Wal and David are fine human beings, but contrary to your beliefs, EU/PC theory predates all of us alive today and it has a long and impressive track record of mathematically and physically "predicting" things that have actually been confirmed by satellites in space.

Michael,
Maybe there could be even more predictions if you and Thornhill worked together to come to an agreement about something as basic as whether the sun is an anode or cathode?

Querious

Why do you expect me to agree with Wal Thornhill about various solar model specifics if I can't even come to agreement with Tom Bridgman

Because you both at least think it's electrically powered, and Bridgman thinks it's fusion.

Is the evidence really so lacking that you and Thornhill can't even agree on something as basic as the circuit diagram for the power source of the sun?

To be fair though, years ago when I asked Thornhill about your electrically eroding mountains on the sun, he said they were "frozen-in magnetic fields", so I can see there's a long way to go.

[comingfrom]

With all the research funds going into looking for gravity waves and dark matter, and none going into discovering the complex circuitry in space, what did you expect?

[tholden]

5. Why do you prefer EU to traditional modern physics?

The EU can explain the ancient attenuation of gravity and standard theories cannot. A large dinosaur would be crushed by his own weight in our present gravity.

The EU can explain the rough 26-degree axis tilts of Neptune, Saturn, Mars, and Earth, and standard theories cannot. If our system had formed from swirling masses of dust under the influence of gravity as we were taught in our school science classes, all axis tilts would be near zero.

Troy McLachlin's explanation for that (Cosmos in Collision) is as clean and simple as anybody could want:

1. Our solar system began as a single Herbig/Haro string, that is, as a Birkeland current with one main-sequence star, two dwarf stars, and a few other gas-giant planets or wannabe dwarf stars at its z-pinch points. Rocky bodies like Mars and Earth were more likely fissioned off from the dwarf stars afterwards.

2. The Southern part of this thing broke off at something like a 26-degree angle from the Northern part and drifted off a ways into space.

3. The Northern part (sun, Mercury, Jupiter) devolved into an orbiting system.

4. The Southern system, still in the form of a Herbig/Haro string, began walking in towards the Northern part and there were several points of close intersection on this spiral at which Cro Magnon man and other creatures were able to transfer to the Southern system, after which the Southern system would spiral back into deeper space. The time spans between those near approaches at which transfers could take place were likely measured in thousands of years. In other words, the southern system approached the sun's system on a spiral path and not a straight line, at least at first.

5. And this is the kicker, the Southern system ultimately flew into the plane of the sun's system from the South at something like a 26-degree angle and, as the individual bodies of the Southern system peeled off and began to orbit as they do now, simple gyroscopic force caused them to retain the 26-degree angle of approach in the form of axis tilts. This is the thing which EU explains and which standard science has no explanation for.

Links to Amazon purchase pages for Cosmos in Collision at www.cosmosincollision.com

On FaceBook:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/514483018695199/

This is the real version of human and solar system origins.

[querious]

With all the research funds going into looking for gravity waves and dark matter, and none going into discovering the complex circuitry in space, what did you expect?

I'd expect that if the sun is externally powered by a circuit, it would be very obvious by now. Or, there'd be at least enough evidence for it that Mozina and Thornhill would be able to agree on something as basic as which way the current is going.

[Michael Mozina]

Wal and David are fine human beings, but contrary to your beliefs, EU/PC theory predates all of us alive today and it has a long and impressive track record of mathematically and physically "predicting" things that have actually been confirmed by satellites in space.

Michael,
Maybe there could be even more predictions if you and Thornhill worked together to come to an agreement about something as basic as whether the sun is an anode or cathode?

Querious

Why do you expect me to agree with Wal Thornhill about various solar model specifics if I can't even come to agreement with Tom Bridgman

Because you both at least think it's electrically powered, and Bridgman thinks it's fusion.

The sad part is that you actually believe that statement is true, but your misconception is mostly due to all the misinformation that you've been reading on the internet. Both Alfven and Birkeland predicted that the sun was at least mostly internally powered via a "transmutation of elements", or fusion in the case of Alfven. They both understood there was a whole circuit process involved however, so both Birkeland and Alfven's models allowed for at least some external circuit energy influences.

Juergens took it to a whole new level by presuming that the vast majority of the power came from the outside, but it too allowed for fusion processes in and around the sun to account for around a third of the energy output of the sun. He suggested this idea during a window of time where there was a "missing neutrino" problem with solar physics. There is now some evidence however that there really are no missing neutrinos, and Jeurgen's model simply allows the power distribution to be varied more than the other two, but it can also be modified based on a better understanding of physics.

No electric solar model presumes that none of the power comes from fusion, and Birkeland (and I) actually assumed that most if not all of the power was internally generated.

Unpublished Brigman rants are not your best source of information. I suggest you read Birkeland's work for yourself since it is freely available on the internet.

In terms of solar physics, and high energy plasma events inside our solar system, his work is still as relevant today as it was over 100 years ago. Birkeland understood more about solar system atmospheric physics in the early 1900's than solar physicists today. That is a fact. Alfven and Peratt are your best references in relationship to circuit oriented concepts applied to the plasma of spacetime. Peratt's work is more complete frankly, but it's hard/expensive to get hold of.

Is the evidence really so lacking that you and Thornhill can't even agree on something as basic as the circuit diagram for the power source of the sun?

It is more of a recognition within the EU/PC community that if we also add Tesla's ideas related to the wireless transfer of energy, which he personal demonstrated to work in the lab, we realize we must be cautious, and rely upon real laboratory tests, and try a lot of various combinations and variations, then we'd be in a better position to judge various models.

I do know that Birkeland ran more personal tests of various wiring configurations than any man in human history, so I'd have to go with his beliefs as it relates to solar physics, and he assumed that our sun was it's own power source.

I'd still like to tinker with the wireless transfer of energy ideas, and see where it leads us.

In this particular case, I'd personally also look at the neutrino outputs of the sun, and that issue alone supports Birkeland's assumption about an internal power source.

All EU.PC solar models do however allow for some energy exchange through the whole circuit systems of the universe, both large and small.

To be fair though, years ago when I asked Thornhill about your electrically eroding mountains on the sun, he said they were "frozen-in magnetic fields", so I can see there's a long way to go.

I'd actually agree with that assessment, and all our published work simply assumes the existence of a more "rigid" (not necessarily solid) layer that sits under the surface of the photosphere.

I do personally happen to believe it's got a thin solid crust, not unlike the volcanic crusts we find on Earth, but with greater Nickel and Iron content.

I am however not emotionally attached to any specific wiring configuration or solid/rigid configuration. I'm simply interested in going where the lab evidence leads us.

What I want is for us to spend more public funds on processes and ideas that actually work in the lab rather than tossing billions of dollars in holes in ground, coming up with nothing, and then pouring more money into holes in the ground.

It's time to pull our heads out of the ground, and start looking to space and real empirical physics for real answers to the enigmas of spacetime.

[Michael Mozina]

With all the research funds going into looking for gravity waves and dark matter, and none going into discovering the complex circuitry in space, what did you expect?

I'd expect that if the sun is externally powered by a circuit, it would be very obvious by now.

If Tesla had handed you a glowing florescent light bulb in his day, would the external circuit be obvious to you while standing there holding the bulb?

Or, there'd be at least enough evidence for it that Mozina and Thornhill would be able to agree on something as basic as which way the current is going.

Birkeland wasn't really sure what happened to various wiring configurations until he tried them all out himself in the lab. Neither of us has actually tried them all in a lab to make a really (lab) informed decision. Until that happens, I'm sticking with a model that I can see works for myself in ordinary lab experiments. By the way, as this experiment demonstrates, it's possible to have a cathode sun model that is actually powered by 'external' circuit energy, at least to some degree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfV ... e=youtu.be

[Brigit Bara]

querious says,

Is the evidence really so lacking that you and Thornhill can't even agree on something as basic as the circuit diagram for the power source of the sun?

To be fair though, years ago when I asked Thornhill about your electrically eroding mountains on the sun, he said they were "frozen-in magnetic fields", so I can see there's a long way to go.

There may be disagreements between the scientists in the Electric Universe, but I can tell you that MHD is not one of them. Since I don't know who either of you are, there may be contexts for your conversation that I am missing. Please forgive me for any implied meanings I missed in the above statement.

Here are some statements on MHD in the Electric Universe and The Electric Sky.

Alfven began his career as an electrical engineer and developed theoretical models for understanding plasma as a magnetic fluid. In 1970 he received the Nobel Prize for his fundamental discoveries in magnetohydrodyanmics, and he is acknowledged to be the founder of the study. Ironically, Alfven's early concept of magnetic fields 'frozen in' to superconducting plasma underpins the mainstream interpretation of magnetism in space. And it is this very concept that has enabled astrophysicists to ignore the electric currents necessary to generate and maintain cosmic magnetic fields.

The critical turn in this story, the part never told within the astro-physics community, is that Alfven came to realize he had been mistaken. In his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize, he pleaded with scientists to ignore his earlier work. Magnetic fields, he said, are only one component of plasma science. The electric currents that generate magnetic fields must not be overlooked, and attempts to model space plasma in the absence of electric currents and circuits will set astronomy and astrophysics on a course toward crisis.

Thornhill, Wallace. The Electric Universe. 2002, 2007 pg 10

[Brigit Bara]

Don Scott:

"For years astrophysicists have assumed that plasmas are perfect conductors and any magnetic fields would have to be 'frozen' inside them. Any movement of the plasma would bring the magnetic field along with it. In fact it was Hannes Alfven who first proposed the idea. One of Maxwell's equasions requires that, in any region of ideal ('perfect') conductivity, magnetic fields cannot vary in any way--thus they will appear 'frozen in place.' Alfven reasoned that if plasma is an ideal conductor, then magnetic fields inside them are frozen--end of story."

He goes on to explain that although plasmas are excellent conductors, they are not perfect conductors. "Weak electric fields can and do exist inside them. Therefore, according to the same equation of Maxwell's, magnetic fields are not frozen inside them. In his 1970 acceptance speech of his Nobel Prize in Physics, Alfven pointed out that this idea of 'frozen-in' magnetic fields, which he had earlier endorsed, was false. In reality, moving magnetic fields within a plasma create electric currents. This fact is one of the basic concepts embodied in the Electric Sky."

Once again, bear with me if I did not understand the nature of the exchange querious had with Wal Thornhill, because there could have been a he-said-she-said I missed. But there are some statements made regarding MHD.

I will include one more from a video.

[Brigit Bara]

I am sorry, I can't find the video.

Someone else may know. It is a statement to the effect that fields cannot be frozen in to plasmas because a perfect conductor could not be losing energy, and magnetic fields in space emit radio waves.

[Michael Mozina]

In terms of the solar images, all the iron ion wavelengths show emission patterns from coronal loops, large and small, some near the surface, and some reaching far out in space. The magnetic ropes are not "frozen" at all however, they are moving rivers of current like you'll find inside of any ordinary plasma ball from the store.

[BeAChooser]

Well Sarah Scoles, i've read your finished piece on Motherboard and must say,
your writings sound more than a bit like from a touchy-feely sociology major who is just totally flumoxed by the
threat of physics and science.
cheers

Hey, we all knew it was going to be a hit piece, didn't we? After all, Sarah was taught to be a mainstream astrophysicist. And once someone is indoctrinated, it's almost impossible to make them open minded.