Electric Sun debate: Discussion

[mharratsc]

If I'm reading this right, Ms. Nereid is stating that her position is as a critic of the Electric Sun model, without being a proponent of the Thermonuclear Sun model. She wishes to discuss the merits and flaws of the Electric Sun model and feels no need to contrast it against any other model.

Not meaning to put words in your mouth, ma'am, but is that correct?

Likewise, Mr. Talbott is arguing that for anyone to understand the qualitative signifigance of the Electric Sun model, one must have a yardstick to measure it by- such as the Thermonuclear Sun model.

Ms. Nereid would rather keep the argument strictly quantitative (unless I am grossly mistaken, for which I apologize), while Mr. Talbott wishes to investigate firstly the qualitative arguments of the model, then back up said points with what quantitative data as is available.

Would this be a concise summary, or am I in error on any points?

[jacmac]

Nereid said:

what is this standard model? Specifically, where can those who want to prepare for, and follow, the debate read up on it

I believe one place to look at the "standard model" is here:
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay ... mology.pdf

This was at the top of the page after I Googled "standard model astronomy".

Ms. Nereid, do you wish to offer a different version of the "standard model" that we all might use as reference in this debate, or are you just interested in obfuscation?

Jack

[Tina]

I believe one place to look at the "standard model" is here:
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay ... mology.pdf
Jack

Jack, more specifically, I think we need standard Thermonuclear Sun Model.

[Solar]

I've asked this before, and I don't think there was any answer (apologies if there was and I missed it); what is this standard model? Specifically, where can those who want to prepare for, and follow, the debate read up on it?

Level 5: A Knowledgebase for Extragalactic Astronomy and Cosmology

[Lloyd]

* How about this as representative of the standard model?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core

[starbiter]

I wouldn't want to defend the standard model of the Sun. Thermonuclear or other. I don't blame Nereid. This would be an example of the kobayashi maru.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=e ... f1c13fec94

michael

[Nereid]

I believe one place to look at the "standard model" is here:
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay ... mology.pdf

Level 5: A Knowledgebase for Extragalactic Astronomy and Cosmology

As Tina said, I think David Talbott is referring to a standard model of the Sun, not cosmology.

Ms. Nereid, do you wish to offer a different version of the "standard model" that we all might use as reference in this debate, or are you just interested in obfuscation?

David Talbott has proposed that the debate concern a standard model; I don't know what he's referring to.

Jack, more specifically, I think we need standard Thermonuclear Sun Model.

What is this, Tina?

* How about this as representative of the standard model?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core

As <<moderator action - copyright infringing link removed>> this >8MB document strongly suggests, there's a great deal more to what the authors refer to as "the ‘thermonuclear’ model of the Sun" than merely the Sun being powered by fusion reactions in its core (I hasten to add that I do not know if this document is, in fact, by Talbott and Thornhill; nor do I know if it's still a draft; etc).

I'm curious to know how this solar physics paper should - or could - be viewed, in terms of the standard model vs the electric model: Energy source of the solar wind.

[Tina]

David Talbott has proposed that the debate concern a standard model; I don't know what he's referring to.

As <<moderator action - copyright infringing link removed>>this >8MB document strongly suggests, there's a great deal more to what the authors refer to as "the ‘thermonuclear’ model of the Sun" than merely the Sun being powered by fusion reactions in its core (I hasten to add that I do not know if this document is, in fact, by Talbott and Thornhill; nor do I know if it's still a draft; etc).

The above link is to publication The Electric Sun e-book by Talbott and Thornhill et al 2008.

Essentially we need a standard model which envisages the Sun as being powered by internal nuclear reactions as opposed to EU model powered by external galactic environment.

Michael Gmirkin has a neat description:

One such theory (that has solidified into rarely questioned "fact") is the thermonuclear model of the sun. In said model, a star is a ball of gas so massive that it crushes itself under its own weight and begins to undergo fusion reactions in its core.

[Goldminer]

David Talbott has proposed that the debate concern a standard model; I don't know what he's referring to.

As <<moderator action - copyright infringing link removed>>this >8MB document strongly suggests, there's a great deal more to what the authors refer to as "the ‘thermonuclear’ model of the Sun" than merely the Sun being powered by fusion reactions in its core (I hasten to add that I do not know if this document is, in fact, by Talbott and Thornhill; nor do I know if it's still a draft; etc).

The above link is to publication The Electric Sun e-book by Talbott and Thornhill et al 2008.

Essentially we need a standard model which envisages the Sun as being powered by internal nuclear reactions as opposed to EU model powered by external galactic environment.

Michael Gmirkin has a neat description:

One such theory (that has solidified into rarely questioned "fact") is the thermonuclear model of the sun. In said model, a star is a ball of gas so massive that it crushes itself under its own weight and begins to undergo fusion reactions in its core.

Ah, yes! All the while the star ball does the Mathematics in order to assuage those astronomers who cannot understand anything not presented in their "language!"

[David Talbott]

Okay, I see the issue of definition is raised here again. I just posted this answer on the "round sun" thread:

"And lastly, let's not complicate the definition of the 'standard model.' A star-sized sphere with a hypothesized nuclear furnace at its core is all we need to be concerned with. Since everything else about the standard model includes ever-changing guesses and unsolved mysteries, why complicate things. "

...Ah, I see that Tina's already hit the nail on the head, thank you.

[jacmac]

My Bad. Of course the standard model of the thermonuclear sun. Funny how everything is so compartmentalized that we, here in this solar system,are not part of "cosmology".

On to the other part of my above post. Is Ms. Nereid going to defend the Thermonuclear Sun or not.

If not, I am out of here.

Jack

[Nereid]

The above link is to publication The Electric Sun e-book by Talbott and Thornhill et al 2008.

Essentially we need a standard model which envisages the Sun as being powered by internal nuclear reactions as opposed to EU model powered by external galactic environment.
[...]

Michael Gmirkin has a neat description:

One such theory (that has solidified into rarely questioned "fact") is the thermonuclear model of the sun. In said model, a star is a ball of gas so massive that it crushes itself under its own weight and begins to undergo fusion reactions in its core.

Okay, I see the issue of definition is raised here again. I just posted this answer on the "round sun" thread:

"And lastly, let's not complicate the definition of the 'standard model.' A star-sized sphere with a hypothesized nuclear furnace at its core is all we need to be concerned with. Since everything else about the standard model includes ever-changing guesses and unsolved mysteries, why complicate things. "

...Ah, I see that Tina's already hit the nail on the head, thank you.

And thanks too David, for confirming the validity of the document in the link!

What are the primary sources for the 'standard model'? There are none listed in The Electric Sun (Talbott and Thornhill et al 2008).

[Tina]

The above link is to publication The Electric Sun e-book by Talbott and Thornhill et al 2008.

Urgent: Please note the citation above is incorrect (relied on memory...ooops )

Should be
Title: The Universe Electric - Sun
Author:Thornhill and Talbott 2008

[Tina]

"And lastly, let's not complicate the definition of the 'standard model.' A star-sized sphere with a hypothesized nuclear furnace at its core is all we need to be concerned with.

If we require something more substantial to define "standard model" what better frame of reference than the model NASA/SOHO upholds. It begins with:

Scientists KNOW that a natural nuclear reactor lies at the very core of the Sun....

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/ ... /PL_p4.mov

This short video outlines the main tenets of their thermonuclear model.

[Nereid]

Urgent: Please note the citation above is incorrect (relied on memory...ooops )

Should be
Title: The Universe Electric - Sun
Author:Thornhill and Talbott 2008

Thanks Tina.

If we require something more substantial to define "standard model" what better frame of reference than the model NASA/SOHO upholds. It begins with:

Scientists KNOW that a natural nuclear reactor lies at the very core of the Sun....

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/ ... /PL_p4.mov
This short video outlines the main tenets of their thermonuclear model.

Considering this (source):

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.

May I ask if you consider a NASA/SOHO PR video a valid primary source, to be used in a properly constructed scientific argument?