|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 03/27/2007 : 19:15:14 [Permalink]
|
Hey Michael. There's lots to say, but not much time. But I wanted to address this: quote:
Ok. Let's try this analogy. Suppose you offered me *a* translation of a Sumerian passage. Now suppose your translation of that passage wasn't necessarily in agreement with any other Sumerian expert's interpretation of that passage. Let's further suppose that nobody else, and none of the so called "experts" really had an interpretation of that passage to offer me, they just claimed it couldn't be interpreted by their method of interpretation. Suppose now that I told you that I reject your interpretation without even studying your interpretation, or the Sumerian language, only because the so called "experts" assured me that the passage could not be interpreted? Would you accept that from me?
First, your use of quotes around the word 'experts' and the use of "so called" are both rather perjorative and it sheds light on much of your thinking. But in general, in my field, if the vast majority of experts-- people who have devoted their adult lives to mastering myriad complexities of the discipline, and whose study this for a living-- don't agree with my controversial interpretation of some Sumerian passage, we can be assured that they do it not on a whim or out of spite, but because there are legitimate concerns about my interpretation. And indeed, it is better to say "I don't know" than "so-and-so's idea is flawed, but it's something."
I won't pretend to know about the issues in this discussion. Indeed, I'm not even sure what it is we're debating anymore. But you seem to think that you must be right since no one can offer anything better. And while I seriously doubt that this is the case, I have no doubts that whatever it is you're positing has real problems. Else-- seriously-- it would be on its way to being accepted. If you've put forward a compelling case for multiple experts, someone would have said "great-- let's co-author an article in Science" or some such, and that would be that.
I've known many scholars in my field, in the humanities in general, and in the sciences. There are lots of odd people, and even some big egos. But in general, the people who devote their lives to this just want good ideas to be put out there so knowledge moves on.
If your ideas are as obvious and compelling as you say here, why have none of the experts you've talked to bought it? Are they all that obtuse? Is it a conspiracy? Or is it possible that the rogue astronomer might not be right? |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 20:05:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
If your ideas are as obvious and compelling as you say here, why have none of the experts you've talked to bought it? Are they all that obtuse? Is it a conspiracy? Or is it possible that the rogue astronomer might not be right?
I think we're having a communication problem. I was certainly not the first person to make this electrical connection. Dr. Charles Bruce did that back in the 40's and 50's. The idea is not even mine, and it has already been proposed by an "expert" in the field many years ago. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 20:23:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I think we're having a communication problem. I was certainly not the first person to make this electrical connection. Dr. Charles Bruce did that back in the 40's and 50's. The idea is not even mine, and it has already been proposed by an "expert" in the field many years ago.
Then considering the idea has been around for so long, why does it enjoy so little support? There must be some reasons why.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 21:10:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Then considering the idea has been around for so long, why does it enjoy so little support? There must be some reasons why.
Chapman's theories were preferred over Birkeland's ideas until the early 70's. Why? I have no idea why. The math was easier to comprehend? I don't really know why. All I know is that if the coronal loops emit high energy photons like electrical discharges, and travel at electrical discharge speed, and make and break connections like electrical discharges, then I have some logical reasons to believe it just *might* be related to electrical discharges don't you think? 
The problem here is that there are only two dirty words in astronomy, God and electricity, and there is a greater systemic bias against acknowledging the role of electricity in cosmology.
Why did they give a Nobel prize to Alfv'en and then promptly ignore the later half of his life's work? I don't really know why people make the choices they make. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 03/27/2007 21:11:10 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 23:10:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Then considering the idea has been around for so long, why does it enjoy so little support? There must be some reasons why.
I don't really know why.
Well, then that clearly seems where you should be focusing your efforts.
quote:
The problem here is that there are only two dirty words in astronomy, God and electricity, and there is a greater systemic bias against acknowledging the role of electricity in cosmology.
Sarcasm often doesn't across on the internet very well, Michael. Some people might think you were being serious with this comment.
quote:
Why did they give a Nobel prize to Alfv'en and then promptly ignore the later half of his life's work?
Yes, exacty, why? A very good question, Michael. I look forward to hearing what your research uncovers as possible answers to that question.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 07:04:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Chapman's theories were preferred over Birkeland's ideas until the early 70's. Why? I have no idea why. The math was easier to comprehend? I don't really know why. All I know is that if the coronal loops emit high energy photons like electrical discharges, and travel at electrical discharge speed, and make and break connections like electrical discharges, then I have some logical reasons to believe it just *might* be related to electrical discharges don't you think?
Do you know which journals or better which articles these discussions appear? I have access to a good university library and I'd love to track down the arguments. Perhaps we can get to the bottom of some of this. And if you don't know, perhaps your physics professor friend in Missouri knows? |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 07:21:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why did they give a Nobel prize to Alfv'en and then promptly ignore the later half of his life's work? I don't really know why people make the choices they make.
They also did that to Ted Kazinski, those bastards. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 09:43:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Do you know which journals or better which articles these discussions appear?
I'm not sure off the top of my head if Alfven and Chapman ever sat down to discuss it publicly, but this page might at least provide you with a a little insight into the dispute:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 09:46:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
quote:
Why did they give a Nobel prize to Alfv'en and then promptly ignore the later half of his life's work? I don't really know why people make the choices they make.
They also did that to Ted Kazinski, those bastards.
Huh?
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 10:09:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Do you know which journals or better which articles these discussions appear?
I'm not sure off the top of my head if Alfven and Chapman ever sat down to discuss it publicly, but this page might at least provide you with a a little insight into the dispute:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html
Ha! I read that this morning, found with about 15 seconds of Googling. No, Michael, that's not what I'm looking for. I don't know exactly how it works in physics (though in my research into the Big Bang discussion this summer, I have some inkling), but in gneral, when a scholar (or group of scholars) has some big ideas for how things work-- be it the development of writing, or the make-up of the sun, or electric loops (?) or whatever-- they test to some degree their ideas and then write them up in a journal. Other scholars read up on it, and then test it themselves. This creates a sort of dialogue carried out in print that any other scholar can join in on.
So did a Birkeland champion or Alfven or anyone publish something saying, in effect, "here's how the sun works" and then did other articles come out saying "no it doesn't" and the like? I mean, if Chapman never "publically" discussed his ideas, then how do we know about them? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 10:12:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Well, then that clearly seems where you should be focusing your efforts.
I might understand your position if LMSAL and NASA had theories that worked the way they expected them to work when put to the test. However, when the mainstream folks come out and claim that observations from Hinode images show activity that is "impossible" to explain according to their theory, I fail to see why I should be concerned about their reasons for ignoring Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven. I know for a fact that the mainstream theories don't work, so why should I worry about them? Whatever their reasoning might have been, it was evidently flawed reasoning, and the choices they made didn't work out.
quote:
Yes, exacty, why? A very good question, Michael. I look forward to hearing what your research uncovers as possible answers to that question.
It's not for me to worry about why the mainstream community did not listen to Alfv'en's warnings at his acceptance speech for his Nobel Prize. It's not my fault they did not embrace his *full* set of teachings related to MHD theory in both *light* as well as dense plasmas. Alfv'en clearly explained to the mainstream that light plasmas behave very differently than dense plasmas. He explained that electrical currents and kinetic energy play a major role light plasmas, and even suggested these forces had an influence on solar activity. The fact that the mainstream community only picked out a few things to listen to is not my fault, or his fault, it is the fault of mainstream thinkers!
It seems to me that in light of their "impossible" observations, it might be time for the mainstream community to revisit Alven's work again. This time around they really should pay attention to the role that electricity and kinetic energy play in light plasma structures according to MHD theory. One would think that if they gave the man a Nobel prize for inventing MHD theory, they would listen to him when he explained how MHD theory applied to light plasma. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 16:37:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
It's not for me to worry about why the mainstream community did not listen to Alfv'en's warnings at his acceptance speech for his Nobel Prize. It's not my fault they did not embrace his *full* set of teachings related to MHD theory in both *light* as well as dense plasmas.
...
The fact that the mainstream community only picked out a few things to listen to is not my fault, or his fault, it is the fault of mainstream thinkers!
Actually, it ivery much is for you to worry about. Unless of course what you're doing is entirely a hobby, for your own amusement. If you do posit that you're actually doing some science, then dealing with opposition, in a scientific manner, goes with the turf.
Science may have got it wrong. If so, someone has to provide the evidence as to why this is so and persist until scientists get it. Scientists are human too, and will resist change to some degree, sure, but if you've got evidence, and a little tenacity, you will convince people.
Many scientists would scramble to be at the cutting edge of something as revolutionary as you're proposing. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 16:46:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
I know for a fact that the mainstream theories don't work, so why should I worry about them?
You're getting confused again, Michael. No one asked you to "worry" about mainstream theories.
quote:
It seems to me that in light of their "impossible" observations, it might be time for the mainstream community to revisit Alven's work again.
How could you know, since you are admittedly ignorant about why they weren't lauded the first time around? Or do you honestly expect reasonable people to accept that comologists simply have it out for electricity for reasons you cannot begin to fathom?
And how do you plan to overcome the same criticisms Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven faced when you don't even know what those criticisms are? Or are you honestly suggesting that such previous problems don't matter to your theory? If so, then you should really stop claiming to be continuing Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven's work.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/28/2007 17:44:11 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 17:25:26 [Permalink]
|
Michael you are correct in saying that the current theories of the sun do not answer all of the obeservations. However that does not mean any half baked hypothesis is as good. I'm sorry but you do need math to support your hypothesis, hand waving is not enough. Stating that lightning is millions of degrees therefore lightning or sparks or arcs must be responsible for the temperature of the corona ain't going to make it.
If you stand back and look at your model it looks like this:
The sun is a big steel alloy shell with a neutron star in the center and it has big sparks shooting off the surface.
Why is your hypothesis not taken seriously - how can you even ask the question??
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 20:28:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS...
Science may have got it wrong. If so, someone has to provide the evidence as to why this is so and persist until scientists get it. Scientists are human too, and will resist change to some degree, sure, but if you've got evidence, and a little tenacity, you will convince people.
Aye, there's the rub. Michael has tenacity indeed, more than a little, but no evidence.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
New "Impossible" findings on the Sun
Topic Locked
