Electric Sun debate: Discussion

[davesmith_au]

Nereid. Laypeople can have a scientific discussion too. It's not just the domain of the PhD holder and those who bow down to them. Please stop referring to the rules of our forum as though someone died and made you boss around here. They didn't. Our forum welcomes those from any walks of life. Definitions and interpretations of rules are very different here to those you have on the BAUT forum. Anyone can have a scientific discussion. If people have attained their understanding of science from NASA/SOHO whether PR or otherwise, then they are likely to refer to those places for some of their information. If you are saying these sites are straight out wrong, then please, write up some papers about their mistakes and have them published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal, as that seems to be your standard. Whilst you're doing that, the rest of us can get on with some discussion here at the layperson's level.

Cheers, Dave.

[Tina]

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

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

The Standard Model of the Sun (for dummies) as depicted in the video is the one that mainstream cosmologists, astronomers, and astrophysicists accept. What are their valid primary sources for accepting thermonuclear model? Eddington, Chandrasekhar, and Bethe I suppose. Any subsequent primary sources supporting this model are only attempts to "save the phenomena" as far as I can tell.

We need to accept this Standard Model of the Sun to proceed with this debate. The video highlights all the attributes that Electric Sun Model refutes and helioseismology is a necessary component of debate.

[Sparky]

Tina, "-The Standard Model of the Sun (for dummies) -"

lol, that is funny....

[Nereid]

There's been a great deal of discussion about the debate proposed by David Talbott, which is a good thing.

I found it useful to collect together, in one post, all the open items which are important to me (I know David is working on several of these); here they are, in no particular order:

Who decides what an (observational) fact is? [context: The priority must be on establishing the factual underpinnings of the two views]
What is the fundamental evidence? The first part of any debate must reach agreement on what such fundamental evidence actually is? [context: This requires that we start with fundamental evidence, without which there is no reason to believe anything about the Sun.]

What are the criteria by which we are seeking to judge the Electric Sun hypothesis?

Status of the 2008 Thornhill and Talbott ebook, Thornhill's 2007 IEEE paper, and Scott's Electric Sun hypothesis webpage (in terms of presenting the electric Sun model, and/or being a definitive exposition of it)?
The audience (or at least Thunderbolts forum members) have full access to any and all material anyone involved in the debate uses.

To be clear: are you saying this is something to be debated? Or a basic premise that all participants in the debate must 'sign up to' (before they can participate)? [context: No quantitative "standard" model explains the Sun as we now know it.]

The bedrock of solar physics should be physics itself. [context: If quantitative models are ever to find a secure footing, sound qualitative arguments should in fact be guiding the advance of solar physics.]

How should - or could - this solar physics paper be viewed, in terms of the standard model vs the electric model: Energy source of the solar wind?

The moderator.

To conclude, two extracts:

the predictive power of the electric model can be stated with pristine simplicity, requiring virtually no mathematics, just an elementary knowledge as to how electricity works
[...]
But her objection simply illustrates the extent to which mathematics divorced from knowledge of the way nature works, can only create a disaster zone in the theoretical sciences. Indeed, this is exactly what we observe in the domain of theoretical solar physics today, [...]

Are you saying that Maxwell's equations do not describe - comprehensively - how electricity works?

Or that Maxwell's equations cannot be incorporated in any electric model of the Sun?

Or that those who write theoretical solar physics papers today do not use Maxwell's equations?

I see I forgot to address the issue as to whether a discussion of the electric model can be separated from a discussion of the standard model. Of course, it can't.
[...]
All that would be accomplished by the separation of the two issues is a loss of the punchline: the failures of the standard model are the predictions of the electric model.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, how do you propose the debate should be conducted - topic, scope, ground rules, etc - to make this proposal a reality?

Tina, Dave, Sparky: I'll respond in a later post (thanks for your comments).

[Nereid]

Anyone can have a scientific discussion.

Yes, that's certainly true. However, David Talbott has proposed a debate, but has - as yet - said little about how that debate should be conducted, in terms of the science ground rules.

If people have attained their understanding of science from NASA/SOHO whether PR or otherwise, then they are likely to refer to those places for some of their information.

Indeed. However, my concern - in responding to Tina's suggestion - is over what constitutes (or should constitute) primary sources.

What are their valid primary sources for accepting thermonuclear model? Eddington, Chandrasekhar, and Bethe I suppose. Any subsequent primary sources supporting this model are only attempts to "save the phenomena" as far as I can tell.

How would you characterise the Energy source of the solar wind (link in my last post) within this simple - if stark - dichotomy? Is it, for example, an attempt to "save the phenomena"?

We need to accept this Standard Model of the Sun to proceed with this debate. The video highlights all the attributes that Electric Sun Model refutes and helioseismology is a necessary component of debate.

That 2008 Thornhill and Talbott document (e-book) you (correctly) identified earlier has the following, on p101:

The observed phenomena of the Sun contradict the 'thermonuclear fusion' model. Scientists struggle to find explanations. These explanations often involve inventing theoretical new science - science that has yet to be tested or replicated in a laboratory.

The list on p100 is, presumably, the observed phenomena of the Sun which "contradict the 'thermonuclear fusion' model"; here's the list:

solar spectrum
neutrino deficiency
neutrino variability
solar atmosphere
neutrinos and solar wind
heavy elements
differential rotation by latitude
differential rotation by depth
equatorial plasma torus
sunspots
sunspot migration
sunspot penumbra
sunspot cycle
magnetic field strength
even magnetic field
helioseismology
solar density
changing size

Now YMMV, but the short video you provided a link to covers only one or two of these 18 items (helioseismology, differential rotation by latitude), doesn't it?

May I ask, how did you conclude that the video highlights 'changing size', say, or 'equatorial plasma torus'?

[Sparky]

nereid,"-has - as yet - said little about how that debate should be conducted, in terms of the science ground rules."

the MMA was much more interesting to watch when it first began and had few "rules". Now there are no low blows allowed, no kicking to the head when the opponent is down, and no hitting to the back of the head.

I propose that as few rules as possible be imposed. If it's a debate, DEBATE! Don't make it into church social conversation with a lot of be nice rules! ..

[Corpuscles]

Gee WHIZ!

Would it not be absolutely sensational and valuable if a highly respected orthodox mainstream scientificly educated mind would be prepared to debate (Here on Thunderbolts forum) the issue of the basic level, obvious anomolies in the "accepted" (MS) 'Thermoneuclear model of th SUN versus ES.

The rules of course have to be defined so that one proponent has some chance of feeling gratified that they have a chance of a WIN?

Nereid (I gather or glean... Ms, PHD... both issues inconsequential and somewhat irrelevant) is not really a candidate. The reason being she /or he is challenged enough to devote considerable time and effort grapling with the foundation shattering implications of serious reading and contemplation of EU.

Please all members be VERY respectful of someone so brave and entering such a frontier .


Nereid,

Your threads (no doubt very welcome ) postulates ....ARE vague nit picking issues.... ( i will make effort to address and attempt to dismiss each, later in those threads)

If you can forgive me, instead of re reading your posts to come up with a defensive "Affidavidt or Declaration' statement please consider the responses deeply. They may come from internet forum no bodies , many of them are more profound than you seem to realise?

EU is NOT YET COMPLETE, it doesn't answer every thing... it just destroys in rudimentary levels ...the mainstream orthodox view. ....WITH THEIR OWN limited "FACTS"!

Can you help Sir Issac Newton as to why "gravity" must act instantly.... or better tell us what causes it?

by definition .... forget the imaginary particle zoo.... just the theoretical proton, neutron and electron how can the universe NOT BE ...ELECTRIC

Yes, Thornhill Scott and others (even Birkland and Alf'ven) for brevity , clarity, and to fascilitate dilolouge with a brainwashed orthodoxy ....has to talk "electricity" for simplicity in terms of ions and electrons flow, but that is NOT end story of electricity. YOU with uttmost respect, have clearly no idea!
eg Why AC with non flowing "electrons" creates EMF!?


Good luck in your search , hang in there, it is going to be one exhilerating ride

[Tina]

The list on p100 is, presumably, the observed phenomena of the Sun which "contradict the 'thermonuclear fusion' model"; here's the list:

solar spectrum
neutrino deficiency
neutrino variability
solar atmosphere
neutrinos and solar wind
heavy elements
differential rotation by latitude
differential rotation by depth
equatorial plasma torus
sunspots
sunspot migration
sunspot penumbra
sunspot cycle
magnetic field strength
even magnetic field
helioseismology
solar density
changing size

OK here's a diagram of Standard Model of Sun with labels depicting all relevant features.
http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educ ... -SH-PO.pdf

Gosh woman! We just need an agreed upon thermonuclear fusion model on which to build the debate.

[Nereid]

I propose that as few rules as possible be imposed. If it's a debate, DEBATE! Don't make it into church social conversation with a lot of be nice rules! ..

Sorry Sparky, I have no interest in any such so-called debate, and neither does David Talbott (as far as I can tell from what he's written).

EU is NOT YET COMPLETE, it doesn't answer every thing... it just destroys in rudimentary levels ...the mainstream orthodox view. ....WITH THEIR OWN limited "FACTS"!

David Talbott has said as much, though not in those same words. Several times in fact.

Indeed, he has gone further, and proposed that the first part of the debate must be about establishing the very "FACTS" of the matter (well, I'm pretty sure that's what he's proposed, but I'm waiting for his clarification).

by definition .... forget the imaginary particle zoo.... just the theoretical proton, neutron and electron how can the universe NOT BE ...ELECTRIC

I don't know, Corpuscles. However, I don't think it's relevant.

You see, David Talbott has proposed a debate on the electric Sun model (not the philosophical/physical/whatever basis of EU theory).

OK here's a diagram of Standard Model of Sun with labels depicting all relevant features.

Um, no, I think that falls well short of what's necessary.

Gosh woman! We just need an agreed upon thermonuclear fusion model on which to build the debate.

Thanks for your efforts to try to define such a thing.

Given the way David Talbott has framed the debate - so far - don't you think it rather important to have a source (or sources) which identify how the prominent attributes of the Sun are explained by this standard thermonuclear fusion model?

And shouldn't such a source (or sources) cover at least all such prominent attributes as are already described in primary electric Sun model sources, such as that which you yourself identified?

[Corpuscles]

Nereid

Thanks for your reponse to part of my (now seemingly unworthy )post. It seems "I jumped the starters gun"
I have not visited TB forum for some months, but I have now found time to read through your threads (and the detailed replies to you!!)

(reply to "Tina")

Thanks for your efforts to try to define such a thing.

Given the way David Talbott has framed the debate - so far - don't you think it rather important to have a source (or sources) which identify how the prominent attributes of the Sun are explained by this standard thermonuclear fusion model?

And shouldn't such a source (or sources) cover at least all such prominent attributes as are already described in primary electric Sun model sources, such as that which you yourself identified?

It seems to me you are an articulate ,well read and trained , energetic/prolific scientific forum contributor, capable of arguement and some mathematics. However, it seems you are not prepared to openly state your purpose, position or overall view but seem to want to come to TB forum to "highbrow, chest beat" in a somewhat condesending manner?

Do you read EU /ES published material with a view to attempt to understand the theory or merely to scour it in hope of finding some area to criticise a point , in isolation, rather than first you gaining understanding of the aggregate concept? Perhaps in some vain hope that your ego might get a boost? or that helps you feel safer/more secure with your vague understanding of things "electrical" and "the Sun"?

I was far too eager it seems to extend courtesy, in delight of proposal of such a debate . I now find you seem not to actually carefully read or acknowledge posters responses (in other threads) which dismiss/significantly challenge your arguements. It seems you don't have the courtesy or humility to respond with a simple... e.g. " OK, I now understand either; my error! or I acknowledge and understand your post and link, but disagree because...

Tina (I think) was merely attempting to resolve your repeated dodging of the concept of an existent "Standard Model" or a Standard thermonuclear fusion model of the Sun" and provide a checklist you could either accept or disagree with.

Why don't you propose what you see as the FACTS? The only such you have proposed are:

Nereid said: (1st post herein thread)

"From my point of view, the primary attributes of the Sun are as follows, in approximate order of importance:

-> energy output, in the form of electromagnetic radiation, that is constant (to within <1%, over time periods ranging from seconds to centuries), and is 3.85 x 10^26 J/sec.

-> spherical in shape (to within ~1 part in 100,000), at the photosphere.

-> SED (spectral energy density, or distribution) approximately a blackbody, of temperature ~5,770 K.

-> average density of 1.4 kg per cubic metre."

Really? is that it?
(LOL! I cannot resist laughing at the last point) You have been shown the error of that statement many times in your threads

Please make your position and purpose clear before any such debate

I.e. You did not respond to or clarify Mike H - mharratsc ( post in this thread)

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.

-Mike H

Scientific "Facts", are the exclusive domain of the "safety in numbers peer review club". Nereid and Dave Talbot are not likely to ever to arrive at a complete list of such "facts" about the Sun... therefore , (if both parties still wish to persue such a debate?) I suggest , limit the starting ('facts") to the bare basic consensus, but of couse in the course of any "debate" both parties will naturally draw on MANY other things they consider to be "facts" .

It is said "There are none so blind as those that cannot see". But, of course there IS!! They are those "who WILL NOT see"!

[Nereid]

It seems to me you are an articulate ,well read and trained , energetic/prolific scientific forum contributor, capable of arguement and some mathematics.

Thanks.

However, it seems you are not prepared to openly state your purpose, position or overall view but seem to want to come to TB forum to "highbrow, chest beat" in a somewhat condesending manner?

Perhaps, then, you may not have read this, this, this, this, this, or this?

Do you read EU /ES published material with a view to attempt to understand the theory or merely to scour it in hope of finding some area to criticise a point , in isolation, rather than first you gaining understanding of the aggregate concept? Perhaps in some vain hope that your ego might get a boost? or that helps you feel safer/more secure with your vague understanding of things "electrical" and "the Sun"?

Perhaps this might help you get answers to your question.

I now find you seem not to actually carefully read or acknowledge posters responses (in other threads) which dismiss/significantly challenge your arguements. It seems you don't have the courtesy or humility to respond with a simple... e.g. " OK, I now understand either; my error! or I acknowledge and understand your post and link, but disagree because...

Perhaps you did not read widely enough; I suggest you read the TB forum threads to which I have provided links, earlier in this post.

Why don't you propose what you see as the FACTS? The only such you have proposed are: [...]

Click on some of the links above; I think you'll find quite a few facts (or FACTS). Also, try this.

Please make your position and purpose clear before any such debate

Corpuscles, this is the Thunderbolts forum, and electric theorist (and site admin/moderator) David Talbott kindly issued an invitation to a debate.

Don't you think it would be, um, rather rude of me - in these circumstances - to try to force my own position etc?

Now, if there were an internet forum - Rays of Sunshine, it might perhaps be called - devoted to what Tina, David, and others here call 'the thermonuclear model', and if I were a 'thermonuclear theorist' (and admin/moderator to boot), perhaps I might wish to issue an invitation to David Talbott (or you, or Tina) to a debate. In such a case, I would, of course, most certainly (and as clearly as I could) make my position and purpose clear before any such debate.

Scientific "Facts", are the exclusive domain of the "safety in numbers peer review club".

David Talbott would seem to disagree with you, based on his posts in this thread.

[Tina]

Given the way David Talbott has framed the debate - so far - don't you think it rather important to have a source (or sources) which identify how the prominent attributes of the Sun are explained by this standard thermonuclear fusion model?

And shouldn't such a source (or sources) cover at least all such prominent attributes as are already described in primary electric Sun model sources....

Agreed - perhaps you could assist by providing the sources for standard thermonuclear model. Or do you see the onus is on David Talbott regarding this matter?

[Corpuscles]

Nereid,

As part of my catch up reading I have seen most of the threads you linked.Thanks, I enjoyed the barrage of threads in the first link (I saw them many months ago) but was not inclined or interested in addressing them by a post

If I was rude I apologise.

The last link , it seems you feel that data (or reconstruction) is invalid? and not fact? You then incorrectly suggest that posting pictures breaches copyright

[Corpuscles, this is the Thunderbolts forum, and electric theorist (and site admin/moderator) David Talbott kindly issued an invitation to a debate.

Don't you think it would be, um, rather rude of me - in these circumstances - to try to force my own position etc?

Now, if there were an internet forum - Rays of Sunshine, it might perhaps be called - devoted to what Tina, David, and others here call 'the thermonuclear model', and if I were a 'thermonuclear theorist' (and admin/moderator to boot), perhaps I might wish to issue an invitation to David Talbott (or you, or Tina) to a debate. In such a case, I would, of course, most certainly (and as clearly as I could) make my position and purpose clear before any such debate.

Most of the Solar scientific research conducted, is underpined on an a mainstream acceptance of a 'thermonuclear model' of the Sun.

Therefore any debate of a new or alternative theory (EU/ES) will inherently need to refer in part to the currently accepted theory.

I was not suggesting that you ought "force your own position" e.g.

PLEASE ANSWER

In a self rating of 1 to 10. (10 being total agreement , 1 being near total disagreement)

1.Where do you stand in terms of acceptance or agreement with the thermonuclear model of the Sun? ( Please do not fein ignorance of what that is, or digress into rant about what that is precisely.

2. Where do you stand in in terms of acceptance or agreement with EU/ES theory?

This is a very different forum than most. Did you not see or note the moderators plea to treat all guests with different views with courtesy?

If you did not or do not wish to debate, then it is as easy as simply declining the offer.

I agree with you, that Dave Talbott (if he is still even vaguely interested) ought nominate the topic and then invite you. However your obsfucation and ducking and weaving on rules and 'debating having the debate', is sadly denying yourself and others a tremendous opportunity to learn and grow.

I think most TB member posters would welcome thoughtful constructive criticism , especially someone as apparently 'eminent' as you seem to be respected here.

Meanwhile in your prolific manner, you bombard TB with nitpicking threads about isolated issues concerning EU/ES theory. Yes some of them worthwhile (to elicit thoughtful response) ... but Dave (I think) wants to HELP YOU clarify your understanding.

[jacmac]

In answer to Ms. Nereid's question of:

What do you suggest "model A" is, jacmac? And "model B"?

I would suggest each person doing the actual debating(not the debating about the debate)
present the "model" that they wish to defend as the opening statement in the debate.

I am looking forward to a lively discussion of what is real and what is not.
Jack

[mharratsc]

Jacmac said:

I would suggest each person doing the actual debating(not the debating about the debate)
present the "model" that they wish to defend as the opening statement in the debate.

The problem here is this: EU proponents wish to have a venue to display the logic inherent in the Electric Sun/Universe model and philosophy. Ms. Nereid by contrast wishes to demonstrate the quantitative weaknesses of the Electric Sun/Universe model.

In truth- I'd almost wager that she is near her wit's end regarding the subject. I envision that she would like very much to either prove or disprove it and then move on to other things, as her verbiage seems to indicate waning levels of patience waiting for the qualitative data she desires. She has shown absolutely no inclination to discuss the philosophy of the EU model (or any mainstream model, for that matter).

This, I think, demonstrates the fundamental issue here- the proponents of the EU model/hypothesis/what-you-will are very philosophical in their thinking and work to firmly cement the logical model with information from the scientific community as it is discovered (as it has appeared to me); 'Mainstream' cosmology by contrast feels that their qualitative argument and philosophy has been firmly established for 50+ years or more- it is ironclad, incontrivertible, and (as Mr. Hawking so eloquently pronounced is now a dead subject deserving abandonment), and so for decades now seems only concerned with quantitative analyses of various observations... again, so it appears to me.

Because of this very dichotomy, I fear that this debate will never get underway because the goals of each group seem mutually exclusive. I do not think that Ms. Nereid will volunteer to defend the Nuclear Sun model, and so we will be left with attempting to justify the qualitative argument of the Electric Sun model with what quantitative data that we can, until such time as we run out of it... at which time I'm sure we'll hear our opponent say "Aha! I knew it!" and we can then head over to BAUT and read her summary of how she single-handedly disproved once and for all the Electric Sun model to all the orthodox cosmologists over there.

Forgive me if I've become jaded from the treatments of the EU model at the hands of you and your acquaintances so far, Ms. Nereid- I simply don't see you giving up your assault no matter what we bring to the table. I don't think you can.