Electric Sun debate: Discussion

[Nereid]

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?

Some time ago, in laying out the framework for the debate, David Talbott wrote this (Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:18 pm, I think):

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.

That was followed by quite a few, similar, statements.

The answer to your question is, I submit, obvious: yes, the onus is on David Talbott regarding this matter.

PLEASE ANSWER

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

I'm not sure if you're suggesting this as a device to be used in any debate, or if you'd like answers from me now.

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?

Can you see that these questions are both 'loaded' (to use your own word) and irrelevant?

If you've read this thread, you'll see that the topic of the logical fallacy of false dichotomy has already been covered.

If you're read my posts in the Future of Science section, you'll be able to answer them yourself (HINT: internal consistency, consistency with established theories where domains of applicability overlap, consistency with all relevant observational and experimental results).

Meanwhile in your prolific manner, you bombard TB with nitpicking threads about isolated issues concerning EU/ES theory

Nitpicking - along with obfuscating, pedantic, (and legalistic?) - have been used several times to describe what I write.

So often that I should develop a canned response, don't you think?

How about this: what do you think science is, if not systematic pedantry (nitpicking, etc)?

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 have said - more than once I think - that I have no wish to defend any "model". However, David Talbott - who is doing the inviting - has said that the debate needs to be about the 'thermonuclear' model, as well as the electric Sun model.

The standard solar models (there are actually rather a lot of them) have been presented, debated, defended, etc in far, far, far more detail (and far, far, far more vigorously, etc) than any debate in this forum could ever hope to do. Just read the relevant technical literature (or attend a relevant international scientific conference).

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) [...]

[...]

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.

Here's an earlier exchange, in this very thread, that might well highlight your (general) point Mike:

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, [...]

Now I'm quite confused.

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?

Please clarify.

Given the present state of our knowledge, neither side should be permitted to sidestep the qualitative arguments as if they are trivial. They are not trivial by any means. And no illusions of quantification should be honored when they invert cause and effect, or float above a void left by the absence of evidence. If quantitative models are ever to find a secure footing, sound qualitative arguments should in fact be guiding the advance of solar physics.

I'm particularly puzzled by the last sentence; surely the bedrock of solar physics should be physics itself, shouldn't it?

If - perhaps a big if - the bedrock/philosophical foundation of the EU model (or EU theory in general) is electricity, what possible justification can there be for not starting with Maxwell's equations (or QED, or plasma physics)?

[David Talbott]

As it happens, we have plenty of electrical engineers in our circle, Nereid, and I don't think any of them would want to start a discussion of the Electric Sun with Maxwell's equations. The interdisciplinary evidence is far simpler than that and can be understood by virtually everyone. Surely the history of science makes clear that qualitative evidence must lead the way in any intellectual revolution. The fact that there is no qualitative argument for the standard model is not a small matter.

I think what I'll do is begin posting the talking points I'd be prepared to defend, the gist of which will be, 1) the standard model has already failed; and, 2) solar physicists can no longer ignore the effect of the Sun's heliospheric and galactic electrical environment on all of its visible behavior.

[Sparky]

hmmmm, since my suggestion of a bare knuckle, no holds barred debate was rejected, i suggest that you take, one at a time, from the list of anomalies. Each posting three times, then move on. Alternate initial posts. The first post determined by arm wrestling...

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

[Corpuscles]

PLEASE ANSWER

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

I'm not sure if you're suggesting this as a device to be used in any debate, or if you'd like answers from me now.

ROFLMAO!

I was asking you (with a please) to answer now. I was personally curious.

It would be expected that you might give hints of such in any such 'debate' but given the example above you are such a artful dodger the only impression one is likely to gain is you agree with nothing, as your sole purpose here is to be, exclusively a critic:

"what do you think science is, if not systematic pedantry (nitpicking, etc)?"

1.Where do you stand in terms of acceptance or agreement with the thermonuclear model of the Sun? ( Please do not feign 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?

Can you see that these questions are both 'loaded' (to use your own word) and irrelevant?

If you've read this thread, you'll see that the topic of the logical fallacy of false dichotomy has already been covered.

If you're read my posts in the Future of Science section, you'll be able to answer them yourself (HINT: internal consistency, consistency with established theories where domains of applicability overlap, consistency with all relevant observational and experimental results).

Yes, I note that you have staunchly resisted what you think is a "false dichotomy " arguing that there are many different forms of a "Thermonuclear Sun model" that you do not wish to defend any ,in any way, and somehow you seem to think that such theories (which us 'simpletons' refer to as the Standard Model) aren't established with considerable consensus.

I am not sure why you contribute to TB forum if you cannot indicate any degree of personal acceptance or attribute any value to EU/ES theory?

Perhaps I should have included:

3. "Where do you stand in in terms of acceptance or agreement with... another, vague, yet to be determined theory as qualitively and quantitatively accepted by Nereid" option?

Or perhaps

4. Where do you stand in in terms of acceptance or agreement with the theory that the Sun is completely powered
by a large quantity of highbrow , non intuitive , mathematicians vigorously converting the substance of the universe, and the efforts of real thinkers, into powerful radiative algorithims and calculations developed ....on 'the back of a 'plasma envelope' with an 'electric pencil'?

Nitpicking - along with obfuscating, pedantic, (and legalistic?) - have been used several times to describe what I write.

So often that I should develop a canned response, don't you think?

How about this: what do you think science is, if not systematic pedantry (nitpicking, etc)?

A critic, if that is all they do, has never advanced science.
Mathematician's have however inadvertently obscured and stiffled science


Anyway, that is enough from me. Good luck Nereid!, if you ever find the courage to debate Dave Talbott? I see he will start suggestions tommorrow.
I won't cook the popcorn yet, in anticipation of a squirming disagreeance with anything he innocently proposes!

[tayga]

what do you think science is, if not systematic pedantry (nitpicking, etc)?

Nereid, have you ever actually done any science?

That's like saying that writing is the same as editing. Someone, somewhere, who is not terrified of being proved wrong, has apply their imagination to try to dream up an explanation for what they observe and posit an idea.

Only then can the testing begin.

[Nereid]

I was asking you (with a please) to answer now. I was personally curious.

I already did

Yes, I note that you have staunchly resisted what you think is a "false dichotomy " arguing that there are many different forms of a "Thermonuclear Sun model" that you do not wish to defend any ,in any way,

[nitpick]
I think my comments were restricted to doing any such thing in any debate of the kind proposed by DT.
[/nitpick]

I am not sure why you contribute to TB forum if you cannot indicate any degree of personal acceptance or attribute any value to EU/ES theory?

Did you not read my posts in the Future of Science section?

What does personal acceptance of an idea have to do with science?

what do you think science is, if not systematic pedantry (nitpicking, etc)?

Nereid, have you ever actually done any science?

I think you know - quite well - what the answer to this is, don't you?

That's like saying that writing is the same as editing. Someone, somewhere, who is not terrified of being proved wrong, has apply their imagination to try to dream up an explanation for what they observe and posit an idea.

Only then can the testing begin.

Fair enough, if that's what you understood by that one-liner, then it's a failure.

How about this: 'left-hand, right-hand, who cares!' (in reference to the left-hand rule ... or is it the right-hand rule?)

A longer version might add 'that's the sort of nonsense that led mathematician's to inadvertently obscure and stiffle science'.

As it happens, we have plenty of electrical engineers in our circle, Nereid, and I don't think any of them would want to start a discussion of the Electric Sun with Maxwell's equations.

Yeah, starting with that would be a real pain, wouldn't it?

Of course I meant - but did not say - that Maxwell's equations (and derivations from them) should be the bedrock, the ultimate arbiter, etc. How and when they are introduced and used would depend on context.

The interdisciplinary evidence is far simpler than that and can be understood by virtually everyone.

So you've said, several times if I'm not mistaken.

The point I was - and still am - making is that if the bedrock/philosophical foundation of the EU model (or EU theory in general) is electricity (Mike's point), then any and all such evidence must, sooner or later, pass the acid test of consistency with Maxwell's equations, right?

Surely the history of science makes clear that qualitative evidence must lead the way in any intellectual revolution.

My reading of the history of science - at least astronomy and physics, since around the time of Copernicus and Galileo - is almost exactly the opposite.

I think what I'll do is begin posting the talking points I'd be prepared to defend, the gist of which will be, 1) the standard model has already failed; and, 2) solar physicists can no longer ignore the effect of the Sun's heliospheric and galactic electrical environment on all of its visible behavior.

I look forward to that with considerable interest.

[neilwilkes]

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.

Mike, I was starting to come to the same conclusions as yourself, for slightly different reasons but with a dollop of the same reasoning you use above.
The debate ain't gonna happen - there will be a crying off, I feel.
For me the killer phrase used by Nereid was this one:

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.]

where I have a problem here is the definition of a "Qualitative Argument" - are we talking the logical definition or the mathematical one, as they seem to point to different criteria to me.

Definitions of "Qualitative" from Websters Dictionary:
(Logic) The tracing of things to their source, and the resolving of knowledge into its original principles. [1913 Webster]
(Math.) The resolving of problems by reducing the conditions that are in them to equations. [1913 Webster]

If the logical definition is applied then ES is clearly a better argument than Thermonuclear Cores, which keep "surprising" physicists the world over (see the recent GRB in the Crab Nebula Supernova remnant announcement http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/ma ... Flare.html for a recent example
of something causing utter amazement when the Nuclear processes are supposed to be so well "understood" - despite the fictional object of an impossible object ("Neutron" Stars are a physical impossibility) spinning at velocities that would be unimaginably fast (30 times a second spin rate my eye) and definitely too rapid to maintain any sort of cohesive structure even if such an object could exist in the first place.
Yet the second definition of "Qualitative arguments" would allow this as the mathematics says it can be so - albeit with definite sleight of hand and incorrect starting assumptions.

Yet the first definition - the logical one - seems to support ES, despite the lack of math so far, which is mainly (as David keeps trying to point out) because the measurements simply have not been taken yet.
How is it in any way reasonable to demand concise math from ES when the math from the TNS is so often wrong, and the standard models continue to not predict what is repeatedly observed?
As Einstein pointed out in a moment of clarity once "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics".

Qualitative arguments using the logic definition also preclude special relativity - relativity itself is counter to logic.
Yet the math is there, and fulfilling the second definition.
We seem to have reached an impasse.

[Tina]

Surely the history of science makes clear that qualitative evidence must lead the way in any intellectual revolution.

Nereid responds:

My reading of the history of science - at least astronomy and physics, since around the time of Copernicus and Galileo - is almost exactly the opposite.

The thing about the course of Copernican Revolution was that the 'quantitative' demands of the Ptolemaic System/Aristotelian physics/cosmology hindered the progress of the revolution (from Copernicus-Brahe-Kepler-Galileo) until Newton came along and broke the stronghold of Aristotelian cosmology with new calculus + Law of Gravity.

Surely it was the qualitative evidence provided by Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Galileo regarding actual observed planetary motions that fueled the revolution - not the math.

[Nereid]

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.]

where I have a problem here is the definition of a "Qualitative Argument" - are we talking the logical definition or the mathematical one, as they seem to point to different criteria to me.

For the record, here's the actual exchange (what you quoted was a perhaps overly-brief summary):

The first objective of the exchange, I think, should be to establish a reasonable sense of what is known and what is not known about the Sun, so that two contrasting views of the Sun can be compared on an even playing field. This requires that we start with fundamental evidence, without which there is no reason to believe anything about the Sun. No quantitative "standard" model explains the Sun as we now know it. No quantified electric model exist.s That's the reality. Given the present state of our knowledge, neither side should be permitted to sidestep the qualitative arguments as if they are trivial. They are not trivial by any means. And no illusions of quantification should be honored when they invert cause and effect, or float above a void left by the absence of evidence. If quantitative models are ever to find a secure footing, sound qualitative arguments should in fact be guiding the advance of solar physics.

(source)

I do not understand this very well.

For example, what sorts of qualitative arguments do you have in mind? And why do you consider them all to be not trivial?

I'm particularly puzzled by the last sentence; surely the bedrock of solar physics should be physics itself, shouldn't it?

(source)

In any case, I wouldn't worry too much; David Talbott will define what qualitative argument means, if only by what he actually presents (i.e. an operational definition).

Note, too, that David suggests that the first objective "should be to establish a reasonable sense of what is known and what is not known about the Sun".

The thing about the course of Copernican Revolution was that the 'quantitative' demands of the Ptolemaic System/Aristotelian physics/cosmology hindered the progress of the revolution (from Copernicus-Brahe-Kepler-Galileo) until Newton came along and broke the stronghold of Aristotelian cosmology with new calculus + Law of Gravity.

Surely it was the qualitative evidence provided by Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Galileo regarding actual observed planetary motions that fueled the revolution - not the math.

We must have read very different history of science textbooks, Tina!

Anyway, while this is a fascinating subject - there's even an internet discussion forum devoted to HPS (maybe more than one)! - it is not germane to the debate, as proposed by David so far.

[David Talbott]

Nereid, perhaps you've already noticed, but I've started a thread, "Talking Points on the Electric Sun." It will include observations on the essential relationship between qualitative and quantitative reasoning. That portion of the paper draft should be forthcoming in the next couple of days. We can expand or rewrite it if the point is not clear.

My hope is that the document will help us to identify things that may not be clear, such as proper use of evidence from the electrical perspective. What I will argue for continually is that massive fields of evidence are being ignored today—a veritable encyclopedia of raw data from space, all challenging common theoretical assumptions about the Sun—in particular its supposed nuclear furnace and its supposed isolation from external electrical influences.