Quote:
Originally Posted by ATKINS
Where's the problem? This is precisely just one example of the infighting which is endemic to the peer-review process. It concerns minor adjustments to a failing theory. You are presumably aware that the very notion of "magnetic reconduction" is regarded by electrical engineers as an attempt made by non-specialists in electrical engineering to try to account for observations which their insufficient training in the field doesn't enable them to understand or accept. The case is put quite clearly here, in the Thunderbolts article "The Myth of Magnetic Reconnection".
To quote the opening sentences:
Donald Scott further develops these points here and here, as well as in his book " The Electric Sky".
[snip] |
As
tusenfem already said, Scott's material is bad physics, and relatively easy to show is bad physics too.
Under BAUT rules, why not start a new ATM thread on the topic, entitled "The Myth of Magnetic Reconnection", perhaps?
I recommend that you come armed with a good understanding of at least Maxwell's equations, because despite Scott's own (apparent) high opinion of his grasp of physics, you would have the unenviable task of having to answer direct, pertinent questions on the ATM idea (which, if presented as Scott did, will involve trying to explain the equivalent of why 2+2=6).
A bit strong? Perhaps, but as I said earlier, the time for EU proponents to actually make the ATM case supporters such as you are so vehement about has long passed ... and if you can't make such cases, then I am of the opinion that BAUT should be closed to you as a marketing channel.