Electric Sun: A Quantitative Calculation

[Nereid]

Nope, the force of gravity diminishes at 1/r2. Are you not aware that gravity follows an inverse square law? Shirley, is that a faux pas in your Temple?

Rather than take this thread off at yet another tangent, please continue this topic here.

No, that would be true only if one assumed no circuitry whatsoever. A Geissler tube is not a Hotel California collecting electrons.

Indeed.

However, in such tubes the anode and cathode are connected by wires (through a battery, or similar); in the Electric Sun hypothesis (or model), the whole of the (photosphere of the) Sun is an anode!

And, as I wrote earlier, it is hard to see how such a model could be made to be consistent with Alfvén's solar circuit model (and the material you sent me, by PM (thank you), very clearly fails in this regard).

Not so fast. That's the issue we're gong to debate.

The topic for the debates is the Electric Sun hypothesis (or model), as presented in ...

I'll make sure you have the Electric Universe chapter on the Sun and relevant material from Don Scott's book well in advance. (It appears you've read neither.)

Again, as I have written (more than once it seems), the material used should be freely available to all readers (or at least Thunderbolts forum members). I myself would like to see these made available well before the start.

Additionally, I'll happily acknowledge the circuitry issues not fully resolved.

As far as I can tell, so far, it doesn't need to be fully resolved. All that's needed (so far, at least) is a demonstration that 'the Sun as anode' is consistent with Alfvén's solar circuit model (or something similar, showing that electrons can leave the Sun). Perhaps a place to start might be showing how electrons, as a current, can cross a region with a ~10 billion volt potential (in all directions), the 'wrong way'.

And I'll bring some suggestions to the debate as to what a full circuit diagram might look like, despite the present lack of data from space.

Good.

I don't understand why you'd leave out a couple dozen primary mysteries of the Sun acknowledged by solar physicists!

Because these are, as I said, what the primary attributes of the Sun are (IMHO of course).

The first two are observational facts known for thousands of years (albeit in somewhat different form); the second two for several centuries (ditto).

If the Electric Sun hypothesis (or model) cannot account for all these primary attributes - quantitatively - it doesn't really matter what qualititative correspondence there is, does it?

Oh, and as far as I can see (so far), the Electric Sun hypothesis (or model) does not address any of the 'couple dozen primary mysteries of the Sun acknowledged by solar physicists', does it? Quantitatively, I mean.

[David Talbott]

If the Electric Sun hypothesis (or model) cannot account for all these primary attributes - quantitatively - it doesn't really matter what qualititative correspondence there is, does it?

It doesn't really matter? All we are saying is that innumerable quantified facts are a part of a reasonable argument for the electric Sun. When the facts involve quantified dimensions that are beyond the reach of a "standard" model, the model doesn't work. When the facts are within the reach of an alternative model its time for scientists and mathematicians to take note, even if they have to be shaken out of the stupor into which too much of solar science has fallen.

There is no quantified standard model of the Sun that works, period. If there was, the behavior of the Sun wouldn't be dominated by the unsolved mysteries of the Sun, and you wouldn't be citing four of the most trivial qualities of the Sun in your list of things to debate.

Okay, sorry if this sounds a little aggressive, but I can't understand why we should have to argue about a situation that is impossible to deny. Solar physicists by the hundreds acknowledge the problems that have persisted for decades. Electrical theorists ask for consideration of what has previously been excluded—the possibility that the Sun is the center of an electric field. Electric fields accelerate charged particles; magnetic fields don't. Hence, magnetism alone, the last resort of those clinging to electric neutrality across interplanetary space, does not work.

Why should a reasonable approach to the Sun not start with a simple acknowledgement of the obvious?

And finally, I must add that you'll get nowhere in a discussion of the electric Sun by ignoring what is going on inside the Geissler tube. Charge is relative. The Sun can be an anode in relationship to a heliospheric electric field, while exhibiting extensive charge differential across its surface. And that's what we observe. Moreover, you have to forget any model that involves uniform charged particle drift in all directions. That's the farthest thing from the behavior of electrified plasma. Just consider the flow of charged particles in the Earth-Sun connection, giving rise to the auroras, for example.

[Nereid]

All we are saying is that innumerable quantified facts are a part of a reasonable argument for the electric Sun.

We may be getting close to something important here Dave.

At the risk of incurring Dave Smith's "obfuscatory pedantry!" ire, let's examine this a bit more closely.

First, what is "the electric Sun"? In the sense of this forum's guideline ("All posts to the scientific parts of the forum should be confined to properly constructed scientific arguments either supporting or challenging published Electric Universe theory").

If it's part of published Electric Universe theory, then it will be the Electric Sun hypothesis (or model), as presented by Scott and/or Thornhill, won't it? And if so, then there should be some straight-forward responses to the calculations in my opening post of this thread, shouldn't there?

After all, it doesn't matter how many quantified facts there are, that form a reasonable argument for this hypothesis (or model), it takes but a single one to falsify it, doesn't it? A solitary 'contrary fact'.

When the facts involve quantified dimensions that are beyond the reach of a "standard" model, the model doesn't work.

Whatever merits such a line of argument may have, they are not part of this debate, are they?

I mean, the topic of the debate is the Electric Sun hypothesis (or model), as presented by Scott and/or Thornhill; it is most definitely not '1001 ways I think standard solar models fail'.

When the facts are within the reach of an alternative model its time for scientists and mathematicians to take note,

Well, there's a guy who goes by the handle tusenfem - he's a moderator on BAUT now, and active in several other fora - who has what, a hundred published papers to his name, and a PhD in space physics. He has read, and commented on, hundreds of posts, across dozens of threads, in which the Electric Sun hypothesis (or model) (and the Electric Comet one, and ...) has been presented (and defended), so here's a counter fact, right? tusenfem has most certainly taken note! But he is on record as being singularly unimpressed (I think one of his responses - to Thunderbolts member Haig? - was copied right here in this board).

There is no quantified standard model of the Sun that works, period. If there was, the behavior of the Sun wouldn't be dominated by the unsolved mysteries of the Sun, and you wouldn't be citing four of the most trivial qualities of the Sun in your list of things to debate.

As I just posted, in another thread, I think you are conflating several different things - mysteries, counter-facts, and internal inconsistencies.

The observed power output of the Sun, in the form of electromagnetic radiation; the spherical shape of the Sun; the approximate blackbody shape of the Sun's SED; and the Sun's average density are not, by any stretch of the imagination, trivial!

However, if these are indeed trivial, then it should straight-forward to account for all four in the Electric Sun hypothesis, shouldn't it?

Why should a reasonable approach to the Sun not start with a simple acknowledgement of the obvious?

No reason at all why not.

However, if no model based on that approach can account for even the four primary attributes of the Sun (i.e. objective, independently verifiable, quantitative observations), why not abandon it (or at least radically modified/tweak it)?

And finally, I must add that you'll get nowhere in a discussion of the electric Sun by ignoring what is going on inside the Geissler tube. Charge is relative. The Sun can be an anode in relationship to a heliospheric electric field, while exhibiting extensive charge differential across its surface. And that's what we observe. Moreover, you have to forget any model that involves uniform charged particle drift in all directions. That's the farthest thing from the behavior of electrified plasma. Just consider the flow of charged particles in the Earth-Sun connection, giving rise to the auroras, for example.

I do not understand this, much less see how it is relevant to what I posted earlier in this thread; can you elaborate please?

[Goldminer]

After all, it doesn't matter how many quantified facts there are, that form a reasonable argument for this hypothesis (or model), it takes but a single one to falsify it, doesn't it? A solitary 'contrary fact'.

Sorta like the way COBE: A Radiological Analysis falsifies the CMB, Eh, Nereid?

.

[David Talbott]

My thoughts in anticipation of the debate, and in response to Nereid's latest.

1) Let me assure everyone that I certainly do intend to respond to both the calculations with which Nereid introduced this thread and the assumptions she brought to them. From what I've already said, readers can probably anticipate the direction of my response.

2) We should both honor the principle of falsifiability. A good model will not contradict itself, and it will not contradict confirmed fact.

3) it certainly would not be appropriate to make this just a debate about the electric sun model, ignoring a standard model that doesn't work. Given the challenge to standard theory, our respective aims should be to clarify the comparative advantages and disadvantages of two competing views of the Sun. My burden will be to show that what the standard model has failed to explain--after decades of investigation and at a cost of billions of dollars--are predictable attributes of an electric sun. Also, given the interpretation of the Sun as a glow discharge along galactic current filaments, there is good reason to draw upon more general evidence relating to star formation and high energy stellar events.

4) Wal Thornhill's and Don Scott's treatment of the Sun can be the primary references, with the understanding that they do not suggest exactly the same thing on certain details. Also, somewhere along the way, misjudgments or miscalculations are a certainty. It's never been otherwise in the sciences, particularly in the early stages of model formulation. For example, as I said earlier, the nature of the heliospheric circuitry, for good reason, is not sufficiently detailed. This is why, for me, the debate is really about the overriding issue at stake: the contribution of a heliospheric electric field to solar behavior. Since the contrast with the standard model on this issue is so clear, it would not make sense to obscure the heart of the issue in the way we frame the debate.

5) Nereid, I have no desire to exclude from the debate the four attributes of the Sun you'e listed and which I called "trivial" (for the simple reason that "explaining" them will not give a reason to believe either model). Were you thinking that this is where the electric explanation would likely stumble?

6) I've been thinking about the mediator question, and this is probably a good time to take suggestions. Also, Nereid has requested free access to the basic material on the electric sun, at least for forum members. That's probably a good idea, and I'll see what I can work out.

[Nereid]

1) Let me assure everyone that I certainly do intend to respond to both the calculations with which Nereid introduced this thread and the assumptions she brought to them. From what I've already said, readers can probably anticipate the direction of my response.

That's great to hear Dave!

All you other readers, please jump in, now, with your responses, questions, challenges, etc.

2) We should both honor the principle of falsifiability. A good model will not contradict itself, and it will not contradict confirmed fact.

Even better!!

I'd like to spend some time on making sure we're on the same page with what this means, and how to address mis-aligned perceptions (of which there are certain to be some), but not in this post.

4) Wal Thornhill's and Don Scott's treatment of the Sun can be the primary references, with the understanding that they do not suggest exactly the same thing on certain details. Also, somewhere along the way, misjudgments or miscalculations are a certainty. It's never been otherwise in the sciences, particularly in the early stages of model formulation. For example, as I said earlier, the nature of the heliospheric circuitry, for good reason, is not sufficiently detailed.

That's also most welcome.

A corollary is that it will be important to identify limits, in terms of calculations, judgments, and the scope of various models (and their versions).

the debate is really about the overriding issue at stake: the contribution of a heliospheric electric field to solar behavior

And the ultimate arbiter will be, of course, objective, independently verifiable observations of solar behaviour.

Given this, perhaps a good place to start might be as accurate a description of this heliospheric electric field as possible?

(Yes, I skipped 3) ... see below)

5) Nereid, I have no desire to exclude from the debate the four attributes of the Sun you'e listed and which I called "trivial" (for the simple reason that "explaining" them will not give a reason to believe either model). Were you thinking that this is where the electric explanation would likely stumble?

I honestly don't know.

When questions concerning these four - usually one at a time - were put to those promoting (or defending) the Electric Sun hypothesis (ESh; whether identified as such or not), on other fora, I'd say no ESh promoter/defender has provided a good explanation. Certainly none - that I can recall reading - has shown how the ESh can account for Sun's observed energy output (in the form of electromagnetic radiation), of a constant 3.85 x 10^26 J/sec.

6) I've been thinking about the mediator question, and this is probably a good time to take suggestions. Also, Nereid has requested free access to the basic material on the electric sun, at least for forum members. That's probably a good idea, and I'll see what I can work out.

What say ye, silent (forum member) readers? Got any good ideas re a mediator?

3) it certainly would not be appropriate to make this just a debate about the electric sun model, ignoring a standard model that doesn't work.

That may not be a good idea, for reasons that should become apparent in the rest of this post (and, most likely, subsequent ones).

Given the challenge to standard theory, our respective aims should be to clarify the comparative advantages and disadvantages of two competing views of the Sun.

As any theory (model, hypothesis, etc) - within the domain of human endeavour we're working; crudely, astrophysics - should stand on its own two feet, quite independently of how well (or otherwise) any other theory does, mixing things up like this would be an extremely bad idea (IMHO).

Have two separate debates, by all means, but this sort of side-by-side suggestion makes it all too easy for the logical fallacy of false dichotomy to befuddle our minds.

(This fallacy may be summarised, with contrast turned waaaay up, as:

"The Big Bang theory is wrong because {insert reasons/observations/logic/etc here}; THEREFORE my theory {insert as much, or little, detail as you wish here} MUST be right!"

Leaving aside the fact that 'my theory' may be nothing more than random strings of letters, the fallacy includes the assumption that one, and only one, alternative must be correct. Logically, there are four possibilities, assuming binary - CORRECT/NOT CORRECT - values: A correct, B correct, both A and B correct, neither A nor B correct).

There are also several practical matters. For example, any reasonable challenge to standard theory would require citing primary sources in which that theory is presented.

My burden will be to show that what the standard model has failed to explain--after decades of investigation and at a cost of billions of dollars--are predictable attributes of an electric sun.

Isn't this somewhat different from 2) - "falsifiability"?

Also, given the interpretation of the Sun as a glow discharge along galactic current filaments, there is good reason to draw upon more general evidence relating to star formation and high energy stellar events.

As important, if not key, parts of the ESh, I agree.

[Orthogonal]

4) Wal Thornhill's and Don Scott's treatment of the Sun can be the primary references, with the understanding that they do not suggest exactly the same thing on certain details. Also, somewhere along the way, misjudgments or miscalculations are a certainty. It's never been otherwise in the sciences, particularly in the early stages of model formulation. For example, as I said earlier, the nature of the heliospheric circuitry, for good reason, is not sufficiently detailed.

That's also most welcome.

A corollary is that it will be important to identify limits, in terms of calculations, judgments, and the scope of various models (and their versions).

Just wanted to add my 2 cents. Typically, the two debating parties would agree to strict definitions and terms before the debate begins. Rigorous and clear definitions will avoid a lot of ambiguity and miscommunication in the formal arguments. The definition of terms and all rules would be posted at the beginning of the debate for all observers to see.

6) I've been thinking about the mediator question, and this is probably a good time to take suggestions. Also, Nereid has requested free access to the basic material on the electric sun, at least for forum members. That's probably a good idea, and I'll see what I can work out.

What say ye, silent (forum member) readers? Got any good ideas re a mediator?

This may be a difficult task to accomplish, however, it may be possible to proceed without a mediator. I think you were planning on using this forum for the debate, but you could try to use a third party site like http://www.debate.org or other sites you can google. There are numerous examples to look at, but using this, or implementing a similar format on this forum, could allow you to proceed within a predefined and mutually agreed upon structure for arguments.

3) it certainly would not be appropriate to make this just a debate about the electric sun model, ignoring a standard model that doesn't work.

That may not be a good idea, for reasons that should become apparent in the rest of this post (and, most likely, subsequent ones).

Given the challenge to standard theory, our respective aims should be to clarify the comparative advantages and disadvantages of two competing views of the Sun.

As any theory (model, hypothesis, etc) - within the domain of human endeavour we're working; crudely, astrophysics - should stand on its own two feet, quite independently of how well (or otherwise) any other theory does, mixing things up like this would be an extremely bad idea (IMHO).

Have two separate debates, by all means, but this sort of side-by-side suggestion makes it all too easy for the logical fallacy of false dichotomy to befuddle our minds.

I agree with Nereid. In a debate, it should be structured around a single topic. There would be one statement or proposition under debate. i.e. "The Sun is powered electrically". One party would be "Pro" or "Affirmative" and the other party "Con" or "Negative". The parties then take turn with argument/rebuttal under whatever rules you define. Each individual argument should cite sources for data and observations wherever possible. The Standard Model theory of solar physics (or any other theory) should never be invoked directly in any argument For or Against the main Proposition. The model should stand on data and direct observation alone. If warranted, the conclusion of the debate could easily segue into a second debate around the Standard Model.

[David Talbott]

Given the challenge to standard theory, our respective aims should be to clarify the comparative advantages and disadvantages of two competing views of the Sun.

As any theory (model, hypothesis, etc) - within the domain of human endeavour we're working; crudely, astrophysics - should stand on its own two feet, quite independently of how well (or otherwise) any other theory does, mixing things up like this would be an extremely bad idea (IMHO).

I think we can all agree in advance that disproving theory A does not prove theory B, except to the extent stated by Sherlock Holmes: if every possibility other than theory B is logically disproved, what is left standing (B) must be true.

The electric sun hypothesis can only be true if the standard model is false, and for that reason alone I'd prefer not to separate the two questions. Additionally, I can't think of any way to more efficiently clarify certain issues than to systematically compare predictive ability, an approach that is used all the time when assessing competing ideas. Of course this does not remove the absolute requirement that we state the independent rationale for the electric sun as clearly as possible.

My burden will be to show that what the standard model has failed to explain--after decades of investigation and at a cost of billions of dollars--are predictable attributes of an electric sun.

Isn't this somewhat different from 2) - "falsifiability"?

It happens that my own life's work has involved decades of reflecting on the relationship between "falsifiability" and "predictive power." Logically, these are two faces of the same principle. Every falsifiable idea involves inescapable and testable predictions.

A model is most eminently testable when its predictions are beyond dispute and when it is only necessary to look, or ask the right question, to get the answer. Many aspects of the Electric Universe hypothesis meet this requirement, though it's primarily through the interdisciplinary investigation that this point becomes emphatic.

When large scale paradigms are at stake, examining predictive power (falsifiability) will often produce much more reliable results than purely theoretical "explanations" (things that could be true but could just as well be an arbitrary retrofitting to untestable assumptions). That's a point I intend to elaborate separately in advance of the debate, so we won't have to devote time to this issue in the debate itself.

Incidentally, I see that Orthogonal has sided with Nereid on the issue of limiting the debate to a stand-alone proposition concerning the electric Sun. I appreciate the honest opinion, though I disagree with it for several reasons, and I'd like to hear what others have to say. In my own experience, nothing acts more powerfully to prevent thoughtful investigation of the electric sun than the supposition that "ten thousand scientists can't be wrong." To me the failure of the standard model is a major reason to consider the electric model, and comparing the predictive ability of two models, one dynamic issue at a time, makes all the difference in the world. It's important to know that electric fields accelerate charged particles, but it's also important to know if anything imagined by proponents of standard theory can accelerate charged particles up to the observed velocities of the solar wind. Many issues of this sort do seem to require a systematic comparison of predictive power.

On the matter of a moderator or arbitrator, I wonder if any folks here know the movers behind Ted.com. whose theme is "ideas worth spreading." It would be a long shot to look in that direction, but this group was on my short list when I first suggested we consider a moderator.

Though Orthogonal could be correct that we can get by without a mediator, it would probably help to have a truly independent voice involved. Just to hear Orthogonal's independent opinion was a good example.

[Orthogonal]

I appreciate the honest opinion, though I disagree with it for several reasons, and I'd like to hear what others have to say. In my own experience, nothing acts more powerfully to prevent thoughtful investigation of the electric sun than the supposition that "ten thousand scientists can't be wrong." To me the failure of the standard model is a major reason to consider the electric model, and comparing the predictive ability of two models, one dynamic issue at a time, makes all the difference in the world. It's important to know that electric fields accelerate charged particles, but it's also important to know if anything imagined by proponents of standard theory can accelerate charged particles up to the observed velocities of the solar wind. Many issues of this sort do seem to require a systematic comparison of predictive power.

It seems that you are proposing, not a debate exactly, but a collaborative (competitive?) detailed and thorough juxtaposition of the two model's. Both parties would present their case and directly compare them on specific aspects of solar phenomena. This is where a mediator or some independent and objective observer would become important with a purpose of resolving contentions one party has over the details of the opposition claims.

[David Talbott]

Oh... Thanks for the prompt Orthogonal.

I've just realized that, in my eagerness to compare the predictive abilities of two models, I failed to affirm the original proposed topic for the debate—the proposition that the Sun is a glow discharge, powered by galactic currents. I've not changed my mind on this at all. It's just that, in setting up the ground rules, I don't think we'd want to exclude discussion of a model almost universally taken for granted. Were we not free to enumerate the anomalies left hanging within the supposed "settled science," we'd lose the primary reason for the debate.

[archmage]

Note: I'm NOT on any one side:

If the debate is to be that broad, then I'd hope it to include some discussion or summary refutation against relativity, which of course is the basis of the modern standard model.

I read through some of the "Blackhole" thread, AKA Crothers vs Sharples/Physicist, and with my elementary knowledge of differential geometry and relativity (it has been 5+ years, I'm rusty, and I'm not a physicist), I must admit that while I empathize with some of Crothers' points, Sharples' delineation of the matter is easier to follow. I'm clearly not qualified to make an assessment, however - that'd require a far subtler understanding, whereas I am just barely apt to perform procedural calculations (and then only after some quick referencing of related materials).

As I understand it, a refutation of relativity may have to be external, as it seems somewhat airtight within its own applicability. I'd like to see this forum's viewpoint - a collection of contrary evidence (gravity propagation, experimental conflicts not attributed to lack of error correction, etc).

If the debate is to be centered around just a single topic, then hell: I'd still love it if someone could point me in the right direction. It's certainly difficult to compile detailed information on EU-theory. I think this theory would be helped significantly if most of the information included in the available books were freely printed online.

I do think that perhaps the role of EM should be further investigated...

Thanks for doing this, both Nereid and D. Talbott.

[mharratsc]

Whereas it would be relatively easy to find a mediator for a strictly logical debate of a single topic, a comparative analysis between competing models is going to be much more difficult, I think.

For the latter, we would need to find someone familiar with plasma dynamics (or able to easily comprehend referenced material) and also a familiarity with GR and able to understand the dynamics of standard model gravity/mass calculations. I would suggest that they should be competent mathematically without being predominantly mathematicians.

Otherwise, we'd probably need a mediator team to keep track of things... :\

In my opinion, we're probably looking at asking for the assistance of another physical discipline that understands the underlying dynamics of both models. Chemistry? Geology, perhaps?

[Nereid]

I have a request: can a mod please split out all the posts in this thread - into a separate, new thread - that are on the topic of, broadly, a debate on the Electric Sun hypothesis (leaving only posts directly relevant to the quantitative calculation in the opening post)?

I think we can all agree in advance that disproving theory A does not prove theory B, except to the extent stated by Sherlock Holmes: if every possibility other than theory B is logically disproved, what is left standing (B) must be true.

I know there's a smilie there, but I want to be very clear about this ... in science (or at least physics), it is literally impossible to even enumerate every other possibility, much less rule them out as being quantitatively inconsistent with all relevant, objective, independently verifiable observations (and 'logical proof' is not part of science at all, is it?)

The electric sun hypothesis can only be true if the standard model is false

This is certainly implicit in many of the materials published on the topic of the Electric Sun hypothesis (or model), and may also be stated explicitly too.

However, is it true?

For it to be true, at the very least there would need to be a clear, definitive (etc) statement of "the standard model"; is there such a thing? To be sure, there are certainly 'standard solar models' (or similar); however, they do not - as far as I know - address many of the things in the Electric Sun hypothesis (e.g. the nature of the heliosheath/heliopause/termination shock, and Birkeland currents in the interstellar medium).

More fundamentally, physics is not concerned with truth - in the sense of 'be true' and 'is false' - is it? Aren't the two fundamental (sets of) questions to be answered something like:
-> to what extent are all relevant, objective, independently verifiable observations quantitatively (in)consistent with the model/theory/hypothesis under consideration?
-> to what extent is the model/theory/hypothesis under consideration free from intolerable internal inconsistencies?

In short, what are the criteria by which we are seeking to judge the Electric Sun hypothesis?

I can't think of any way to more efficiently clarify certain issues than to systematically compare predictive ability

Perhaps, then, we should spend some time on what the purpose of the debate is?

Is it, as you seem to imply, an exercise primarily aimed at clarifying issues?

Or is it about comparing predictive abilities (whatever they are)?

Or is it about quantitative consistency with all relevant, objective, independently verifiable observations (i.e. explanatory power)?

Or is it about internal consistency?

Of course this does not remove the absolute requirement that we state the independent rationale for the electric sun as clearly as possible.

Myself, this is where I think we should start.

It happens that my own life's work has involved decades of reflecting on the relationship between "falsifiability" and "predictive power." Logically, these are two faces of the same principle. Every falsifiable idea involves inescapable and testable predictions.

I think time spent making sure we are all on the same page with these concepts would be time very well spend indeed.

For example, what is the relationship between 'testable predictions' and 'quantitative consistency with all relevant, objective, independently verifiable observations'?

A model is most eminently testable when its predictions are beyond dispute and when it is only necessary to look, or ask the right question, to get the answer.

To what extent is this (fully) equivalent to 'A model is most eminently testable when all observables can be derived from it - objectively and independently verifiably - AND when all such observables have been - objectively and independently verifiably - shown to be quantitatively consistent with all relevant observations'?

Many aspects of the Electric Universe hypothesis meet this requirement, though it's primarily through the interdisciplinary investigation that this point becomes emphatic.

If so, then my re-phrasing of the first sentence in that para must be wrong; as far as I can tell, almost none of the aspects of the published Electric Sun hypothesis (or model) meet them.

When large scale paradigms are at stake, examining predictive power (falsifiability) will often produce much more reliable results than purely theoretical "explanations" (things that could be true but could just as well be an arbitrary retrofitting to untestable assumptions). That's a point I intend to elaborate separately in advance of the debate, so we won't have to devote time to this issue in the debate itself.

In order to discuss this, I think it's important that we first clarify the equivalence - or otherwise! - of our two statements.

In my own experience, nothing acts more powerfully to prevent thoughtful investigation of the electric sun than the supposition that "ten thousand scientists can't be wrong." To me the failure of the standard model is a major reason to consider the electric model, and comparing the predictive ability of two models, one dynamic issue at a time, makes all the difference in the world.

It's certainly true that there seems to be a very big difference of opinion on this matter.

It seems that you are proposing, not a debate exactly, but a collaborative (competitive?) detailed and thorough juxtaposition of the two model's. Both parties would present their case and directly compare them on specific aspects of solar phenomena. This is where a mediator or some independent and objective observer would become important with a purpose of resolving contentions one party has over the details of the opposition claims.

This makes it even more important that the objective (purpose) of the debate be clear, that the criteria for making assessments (of almost any kind) be elaborated and agreed, etc. A moderator's job is to impartially adjudicate; they can only do so within the framework of clearly stated guidelines.

Take falsifiability.

Per some earlier comments/posts in this thread, a single 'contrary fact' would be sufficient to end the debate! Such a 'contrary fact', however, needs to be established within the agreed framework; what is a 'fact'? how does one establish that it is 'contrary'? For example, if, in the Electric Sun hypothesis, the Sun below the photosphere has a significantly lower temperature (than the photosphere), and if a core assumption of the Electric Sun hypothesis is 'all of classical physics', then can an application of thermodynamics lead to a 'contrary fact'? Or would that be an 'internal inconsistency'?

I've just realized that, in my eagerness to compare the predictive abilities of two models, I failed to affirm the original proposed topic for the debate—the proposition that the Sun is a glow discharge, powered by galactic currents.

What, then, is the standard model?

Were we not free to enumerate the anomalies left hanging within the supposed "settled science," we'd lose the primary reason for the debate.

This raises a very important distinction I think we need to spend some time on; namely, the difference between an 'anomaly' (or 'mystery') and a 'contrary fact'.

For example, it might be claimed that the observed temperature of the corona is an anomaly within the standard solar model, and it might be claimed that it is a contrary fact; are the two the same? Myself I don't think so. Why? Because within the standard solar model (whatever it is) there may be many possible explanations for the observed temperature distribution of the corona, all of them quantitatively consistent with all relevant observations; the mystery may be nothing more than an inability - at this time - to distinguish between these many different mechanisms and process to decide which (or which combination of) best fits. In that sense, there is no contrary fact.

On the other hand, it could well be that the calculations in the opening post of this thread, together, constitute a contrary fact with respect to the Electric Sun hypothesis, not just an anomaly or mystery.

If the debate is to be that broad, then I'd hope it to include some discussion or summary refutation against relativity, which of course is the basis of the modern standard model.

As I understand it, electrical theorists have no issue with any aspect of classical physics, and certainly none with Maxwell's equations (as you no doubt know, there is a very tight relationship between Maxwell's equations and special relativity).

Nor, as I understand it, do they have any issue with the application of quantum mechanics and special relativity that produces atomic theory and (key parts of) nuclear physics (e.g. fusion reactions).

Extending the debate to such matters as the validity of classical physics (etc) would, IMHO, take us far too far from what most of us are actually interested in here.

I read through some of the "Blackhole" thread, AKA Crothers vs Sharples/Physicist, and with my elementary knowledge of differential geometry and relativity (it has been 5+ years, I'm rusty, and I'm not a physicist), [...]

It would seem that, by 'relativity', you mean the general theory of relativity (GR), not special relativity; is that so?

If so, then I'm lost; can you clarify please? As far as I know, GR is pretty much irrelevant so far as standard solar models are concerned (it's certainly irrelevant to the Electric Sun hypothesis!).

For the latter, we would need to find someone familiar with plasma dynamics (or able to easily comprehend referenced material) and also a familiarity with GR and able to understand the dynamics of standard model gravity/mass calculations. I would suggest that they should be competent mathematically without being predominantly mathematicians.

As with my question to archmage, why do you think GR is relevant?

In any case, perhaps the BAUT moderator tusenfem would make an ideal moderator? He certainly has deep familiarity with plasma dynamics, a good grasp of the standard solar model (whatever it is), is adequately competent mathematically (but is not a mathematician)!

[mharratsc]

@ Ms. Nereid-

I thought we'd just ask Solrey to do it... o.O

[solrey]

I thought we'd just ask Solrey to do it... o.O

Oh sure, just pile more onto my plate there Mike.

If you were serious I would have to disqualify myself for a number of reasons anyway, but you just gave me an idea...

cheers