The problem, dear pln2bz, is in trying to parse all this in a 'somewhat semantical' way.
May I suggest, if you are really interested in understanding what's going on in the universe, that you sign up for some university courses, in plasma physics, space science, and/or astrophysics? If they are good, such courses will require you to have covered all the parts of EE that you need (so you will be able to relate 'current' to the relevant physics equations, for example), and you can get beyond trying to divine the workings of the universe from the semantical equivalent of chicken entrails or tea leaves.
Oh, and what is this 'EU Theory' (capital 't')? In which peer-reviewed science journals may one read its seminal papers?
FYI, they are certainly interesting questions, but I doubt that they are 'burning' to any serious space scientist, plasma physicist, or astrophysicist. Why? If you really want to know, sign up for a PhD in one of these fields...
The irony, which I'm sure you did not intend mgmirkin, is that in many universities the researchers who study space science and plasma physics are to be found in the Department of Electrical Engineering!
In other words, pace your post, the people who have PhDs in EE, plasma physics, and space science (astrophysics is somewhat different) seem to have none of the difficulty with language that you seem to be having.
Perhaps it's because, as part of their PhD degrees, they need to learn the underlying physics, with all the math, equations, and numbers that you seem to avoid? Or that they are far more familiar with the actual lab-based and space-based research results - in all their quantitative glory - than you are?
Maybe it's your own ignorance that is on show here?
Of course, I could be completely off-base; it could be that you've written a dozen papers and had them published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, or Advances in Space Research, or Annales Geophysicae, etc.
May one enquire about your (plasma) science credentials?
Given that the post which got you into so much trouble was, to all intents and purposes, the same (content-wise) as your first BAUT post, your decision - deliberate or not - to not bother to check on replies to it (the first post) before starting a new thread was foolish and clumsy, at best.
If that were all there was, then you did pay a heavy price for being gauche.
However, your first post contained many pointers to something deeper, something going on behind the scenes as it were.
And a few minutes with Google will lead a disinterested person to a number of very interesting posts by a 'mgmirkin', around the time you posted on BAUT; reading some of those might lead such an unbiased observer to replace gauche with cynical, disingenuous hypocrite... and that the BAUT mod's decision was entirely justified.
Next, an apology. I mistook a reference in your first BAUT post (to yourself as 'a mad scientist') to mean that you are a professional scientist. It seems I was wrong; certainly there are no citations in ADS (http://adswww.harvard.edu/) for author 'Gmirkin' (Astronomy, Physics, arXiv). But perhaps you got your PhD in a different field of science?
In any case, the second part of your comments, to which I'm replying, clearly indicate an unfamiliarity with contemporary physics, astronomy, space science, astrophysics, cosmology,...
Perhaps a good way to show this is to compare your link (Conventional vs Maverick Science) with your admiration of Birkeland: it seems you are a fan of both 'Maverick Science' and Birkeland's work, yet apparently unaware of how ironic or inconsistent this is! By your own, preferred, definitions, Birkeland's work was 'Conventional' in the extreme.
It gets better (or worse, depending on your viewpoint).
Birkeland, no doubt, would have been horrified at your characterisation of the state of space science (and plasma physics in general), a century later, as being (still) 'conceptual'; after all, almost all his work involved (quantitative, with numbers, math, and equations) testing the ideas you are excited about.
mgmirkin, the content of your BAUT posts - to the extent it is 'wrong' - is wrong because the detailed, quantitative results of a century (and more) of research - into plasma physics, into aurorae, the Earth's magnetosphere, the solar wind, etc, etc, etc - have long since shown those 'concepts' to be inconsistent with the data.
So, instead of ignorant bombast and vitriol, why not enrol in a university space science and/or plasma physics programme? Why not take the trouble to find out, first hand, for yourself, just how much further advanced we (collectively) are than mere 'concepts'?
mgmirkin, one of the first etiquette rules, for participation in internet discussion fora, is to make sure you are familiar with the rules of the particular forum you post to.
In BAUT's case, not only are these clearly stated, but in a reply to your very first post in BAUT, Moderator Nereid specifically asked you to read them, and, in particular, to pay attention to ATM (Against The Mainstream) requirements.
It would seem that you not only chose to (deliberately?) ignore the rules (and the advice), but also your own exhortations to adhere to etiquette.
Note that this is quite independent of the scientific merits - or otherwise - of any case you may (or may not) have wanted to make.
Turning to the science of the material that you posted, both here and in BAUT (and, it seems, in TB).
mgmirkin, your hero Birkeland seems to have done a good job of following the methods used, at that time, of the physical sciences. In particular, he seems to have been well aware of the quantitative nature of the (then) contemporary (physical) science, and the minimum standards for acceptance of research results.
A century later, the domain in which Birkeland worked has advanced enormously, and plasma physics (for example) has been developed in ways that would both astonish and delight him.
In particular, the centrality of math, equations, numbers - the quantitative aspects - has been reinforced.
Today, it is pretty much essential that any published research in the field of space science (a small part of which Birkeland worked in) be quantitative (in addition to being peer-reviewed)... pretty pictures are no longer enough (not that they ever were, even in Birkeland's day). Further, the 'pictures' from today's instruments and probes are not images, but pictorial presentations of quantitative data, sometimes as much as a GB of data... every pixel a calibrated, reduced, precise ensemble of data.
mgmirkin, if you wish to present an 'electric universe' case, backed by even a minimum of math, equations, and numbers, then there are many, many ways you could do so, from a preprint to arXiv, to a new thread in BAUT's ATM section. However, if all you have is a big chip on your shoulder, and some pretty pictures, pace your own assertions, you are not acting like a scientist.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem, dear pln2bz, is in trying to parse all this in a 'somewhat semantical' way.
...
May I suggest, if you are really interested in understanding what's going on in the universe, that you sign up for some university courses, in plasma physics, space science, and/or astrophysics? If they are good, such courses will require you to have covered all the parts of EE that you need (so you will be able to relate 'current' to the relevant physics equations, for example), and you can get beyond trying to divine the workings of the universe from the semantical equivalent of chicken entrails or tea leaves.
Oh, and what is this 'EU Theory' (capital 't')? In which peer-reviewed science journals may one read its seminal papers?
For answers to your questions, may I recommend Physics Forums' General Astronomy section (http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=71)?
FYI, they are certainly interesting questions, but I doubt that they are 'burning' to any serious space scientist, plasma physicist, or astrophysicist. Why? If you really want to know, sign up for a PhD in one of these fields
Sorry I didn't see this earlier ...
The irony, which I'm sure you did not intend mgmirkin, is that in many universities the researchers who study space science and plasma physics are to be found in the Department of Electrical Engineering!
In other words, pace your post, the people who have PhDs in EE, plasma physics, and space science (astrophysics is somewhat different) seem to have none of the difficulty with language that you seem to be having.
Perhaps it's because, as part of their PhD degrees, they need to learn the underlying physics, with all the math, equations, and numbers that you seem to avoid? Or that they are far more familiar with the actual lab-based and space-based research results - in all their quantitative glory - than you are?
Maybe it's your own ignorance that is on show here?
Of course, I could be completely off-base; it could be that you've written a dozen papers and had them published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, or Advances in Space Research, or Annales Geophysicae, etc.
May one enquire about your (plasma) science credentials?
Given that the post which got you into so much trouble was, to all intents and purposes, the same (content-wise) as your first BAUT post, your decision - deliberate or not - to not bother to check on replies to it (the first post) before starting a new thread was foolish and clumsy, at best.
... and that the BAUT mod's decision was entirely justified.
...
... be sure to check out the Publications link.
If that were all there was, then you did pay a heavy price for being gauche.
However, your first post contained many pointers to something deeper, something going on behind the scenes as it were.
And a few minutes with Google will lead a disinterested person to a number of very interesting posts by a 'mgmirkin', around the time you posted on BAUT; reading some of those might lead such an unbiased observer to replace gauche with cynical, disingenuous hypocrite
Next, an apology. I mistook a reference in your first BAUT post (to yourself as 'a mad scientist') to mean that you are a professional scientist. It seems I was wrong; certainly there are no citations in ADS (http://adswww.harvard.edu/) for author 'Gmirkin' (Astronomy, Physics, arXiv). But perhaps you got your PhD in a different field of science?
In any case, the second part of your comments, to which I'm replying, clearly indicate an unfamiliarity with contemporary physics, astronomy, space science, astrophysics, cosmology,
Perhaps a good way to show this is to compare your link (Conventional vs Maverick Science) with your admiration of Birkeland: it seems you are a fan of both 'Maverick Science' and Birkeland's work, yet apparently unaware of how ironic or inconsistent this is! By your own, preferred, definitions, Birkeland's work was 'Conventional' in the extreme.
It gets better (or worse, depending on your viewpoint).
Birkeland, no doubt, would have been horrified at your characterisation of the state of space science (and plasma physics in general), a century later, as being (still) 'conceptual'; after all, almost all his work involved (quantitative, with numbers, math, and equations) testing the ideas you are excited about.
mgmirkin, the content of your BAUT posts - to the extent it is 'wrong' - is wrong because the detailed, quantitative results of a century (and more) of research - into plasma physics, into aurorae, the Earth's magnetosphere, the solar wind, etc, etc, etc - have long since shown those 'concepts' to be inconsistent with the data.
Let me give you a very small example of just how far beyond the 'conceptual' stage research into aurorae, the Earth's magnetosphere, the solar wind, etc, has got, by referring you to a couple of MSc thesis projects at KTH's School of Electrical Engineering (Space and Plasma Physics section) - the academic institution which includes the Alfvén Laboratory (http://www.spp.ee.kth.se/): Multi-satellite measurements of solar wind plasma structures (http://www.spp.ee.kth.se/edu/exjobb/visaprojekt.html?id=47037), and Study of auroral potentials using multi-satellite data from ESA's Cluster mission (http://www.spp.ee.kth.se/edu/exjobb/visaprojekt.html?id=45773). And their syllabus for graduate studies: (http://www.spp.ee.kth.se/edu/graduate/Syllabus_2002.pdf, a link to a PDF). And the research area of Solar System Plasma Physics: (http://www.spp.ee.kth.se/res/ss/)
So, instead of ignorant bombast and vitriol, why not enrol in a university space science and/or plasma physics programme? Why not take the trouble to find out, first hand, for yourself, just how much further advanced we (collectively) are than mere 'concepts'?
And along the way
mgmirkin, one of the first etiquette rules, for participation in internet discussion fora, is to make sure you are familiar with the rules of the particular forum you post to. In BAUT's case, not only are these clearly stated, but in a reply to your very first post in BAUT, Moderator Nereid specifically asked you to read them, and, in particular, to pay attention to ATM (Against The Mainstream) requirements. It would seem that you not only chose to (deliberately?) ignore the rules (and the advice), but also your own exhortations to adhere to etiquette. Note that this is quite independent of the scientific merits - or otherwise - of any case you may (or may not) have wanted to make. Turning to the science of the material that you posted, both here and in BAUT (and, it seems, in TB). mgmirkin, your hero Birkeland seems to have done a good job of following the methods used, at that time, of the physical sciences. In particular, he seems to have been well aware of the quantitative nature of the (then) contemporary (physical) science, and the minimum standards for acceptance of research results. A century later, the domain in which Birkeland worked has advanced enormously, and plasma physics (for example) has been developed in ways that would both astonish and delight him. In particular, the centrality of math, equations, numbers - the quantitative aspects - has been reinforced. Today, it is pretty much essential that any published research in the field of space science (a small part of which Birkeland worked in) be quantitative (in addition to being peer-reviewed) ... pretty pictures are no longer enough (not that they ever were, even in Birkeland's day). Further, the 'pictures' from today's instruments and probes are not images, but pictorial presentations of quantitative data, sometimes as much as a GB of data ... every pixel a calibrated, reduced, precise ensemble of data.
mgmirkin, if you wish to present an 'electric universe' case, backed by even a minimum of math, equations, and numbers, then there are many, many ways you could do so, from a preprint to arXiv, to a new thread in BAUT's ATM section. However, if all you have is a big chip on your shoulder, and some pretty pictures, pace your own assertions, you are not acting like a scientist.