Talking Points on the Electric Sun

[Corpuscles]

Nereid

Although inconsequential, I happened to agree with your contention that Dave T ought propose the framework of "the debate", he asked you, to agree to participate in.

Dave T has delivered Part A:

I think it is now your turn!

Rather than ... "Sitting in a glass house throwing (rather fragile miniscule) stones"...at selected EU weak points (glass windows) and seemingly failing to comment on or see the solid EU qualitative structure.!


PLEASE detail your position (if there is such?), offer a conclusive, alternative, solid, cohesive, qualitative and quantitative description of whatever it is ? YOU (he/she) believe to be valid? No longer to cower in the false (mishmash) safety of your one meme:

.....Appeal to established 'authority '(without thought or challenge) and THEN to demand information from EU community, that as yet, has not had the necessary devoted resources, to conclusively establish such.

I look forward to your quantitative analysis of the GR & SR "space/time fabric". Measurements! please! not artifical hypothetical mathematical "constants", but you can start there if you wish.

Especially interested in how quote

Special Relativity (SR) falls out of Maxwell's equations, the quantitative summary of classical electromagnetism (but it transcends any particular force, as you point out). General Relativity (GR) is, as its name suggests, a generalisation of SR[/quote

".... err ...do you mean the original quartinons or the dumbed down Heaviside vector version? Your clarification please.

Then how your discourse of both esteemed gentleman, (along with Ampre and Faraday ....to name just an important few ) managed such within the paradigm of an absolute certainty about the necessary existance of the aether!?

Even more ....looking forward to your quantitative verification of the Sun's thermonecular fusion furnace reactor!
(As unfortunately I have been unable to buy one from my local GE distributor )

Nerieid said:

Myself, I'm not at all interested - here, now - in the grand scheme of things; rather, I thought you were proposed a debate on the electric Sun model (and, or versus, the 'thermonuclear' model).

True enough (my addition )... though there are some thoroughly dasterdly devils lurking in the details. Or, perhaps, I feel another bout of 'nuts and bolts' coming on.

Ok. Let's hear about these imaginary "devils" that plague you.

P.S. There‘s no sense in being precise when you don‘t even know what you‘re talking about.? - John von Neumann

[Nereid]

I think it is important to fully contextualize Don Scott's comment. [...]

Tayga, is it both a compelling and legitimate analogy to say that it's a simple obvious fact, "there is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel", with reference to photons? If not, why not?

The point discussed was which forces (or processes) are most influential on cosmic structures and stellar formation. Even though the signals received and measured all are electromagnetic, that alone is not an logical argument for electromagnetism being king in terms of influence out there.

That may (or may not) be so.

However, to even begin to think about influence out there, we need to have at least some degree of confidence that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel. Per Scott - and Talbott (I'm using his qualitative, by-analogy, logic) - we cannot.

One need to look at the plausability of what influence plasma the most, from sparse to dense.

At some later point, we may.

However, first we need to agree that, pace Scott (and Talbott) a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel. Then we might move on to examining why studying photons that reach us here on Earth (or somewhat above it) can lead us to any conclusions whatsoever concerning the existence of plasma "out there" (and, if we get that far - which seems unlikely, to me, today - which of those conclusions are legitimate in the absence of any quantitative analysis).

Isn't the consensus about galaxy formation merely based on gravitational accretion and angular momentum – and consensus about stellar evolution based on gravitational accretion, followed by a tug of war between nuclear furnace radiation versus gravitational collapse?

No.

The plausability of Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe lies in the elaboration on how the initial conditions for large scales structures are formed as a result of electric currents within plasmas, as well as accretion due to Marklund convection – an electromagnetic process and not a gravitational one.

Sorry, Siggy_G, that train did not leave the station.

I don't know where the problem is, Nereid. I stand by the statement about gravity as king, and you've not offered a fact to the contrary.

I did, but perhaps you didn't understand it.

Go out on a clear, cloudless and Moonless night (may not work in some locations, like a city centre), look up at the sky.

What to you see?

Lots of stars.

Do you see those stars because "gravity is king"?

There's nothing in the mystical dimensions of Big Bang cosmology and relativity that I'm not generally aware of.
[...]
Cosmologists did not dethrone gravity with their introduction of relativity, they just gave it new clothes. They didn't stop applying gravitational equations to the formation of galaxies. If they had, why would they summon dark matter? The king required a magical wand, but he was still king!

You know David, Lloyd (mistakenly) accused me of being disrespectful of you, with my "display ignorance" comment.

Yet here, again in cold hard black and white characters, you display what comes across to me as either astonishing ignorance, or something worse.

Do you actually know what the history of (cold, non-bayonic) dark matter is, in cosmology and extra-galactic astronomy?!? This comment of yours strongly suggests you do not.

For the debate:
[...]
Whoever is going to represent the opposition to the electric model in a debate, I want the person to be responsible for the accuracy or inaccuracy of things that are being stated now.

Sorry Dave, we ain't going nowhere until we first set up clear, agreed starting points. Or at least I ain't.

(But I'm glad to read that you accept responsibility for what seems to be grossly ignorant statements of fundamental concern to the debate).

Let's try starting with my compelling and legitimate analogy, based on Scott's statement.

This phase should help both of us to enter the debate with positions that are uncluttered by misperception or miscommunication.

That was my hope too; there'd've been absolutely no point in me devoting countless hours to researching published electric Sun (and EU in general) material if I thought otherwise.

As a final aside, what is your word for the change of mind about electric currents across cosmic distances?

Same as it was yesterday, Dave; what you see is the result of some of the immense effort I've put in to trying learn to speak EU.

Although inconsequential, I happened to agree with your contention that Dave T ought propose the framework of "the debate", he asked you, to agree to participate in.

Dave T has delivered Part A:

I think it is now your turn!

You have read my posts, in this thread, haven't you Corpuscles?

My attempt to apply the exact same terms as David Talbott, as well as the style of logic, to the fundamentals, as published by leading electric theorist Don Scott?

PLEASE detail your position (if there is such?), offer a conclusive, alternative, solid, cohesive, qualitative and quantitative description of whatever it is ? YOU (he/she) believe to be valid? No longer to cower in the false (mishmash) safety of your one meme:

Had I been asked that six months' ago, I might have gone for it.

Sadly, my evident failure to communicate, to avoid being mis-understood, to not have what I write mis-characterised has made me aware of the near-futility of doing that. That, and the fact that a conclusive, solid, cohesive, qualitative and quantitative description of whatever it is I think is most comprehensively consistent with the totality of the relevant observations and experimental results is contained in dozens of books that you can read for yourself. Thanu Padmanabhan's "An Invitation to Astrophysics", to give just one example.

For the rest? Well, I'll leave that up to Dave to decide (he's the one doing the inviting, after all).

[Corpuscles]

Although inconsequential, I happened to agree with your contention that Dave T ought propose the framework of "the debate", he asked you, to agree to participate in.

Dave T has delivered Part A:

I think it is now your turn!

You have read my posts, in this thread, haven't you Corpuscles?).

Yes.

My attempt to apply the exact same terms as David Talbott, as well as the style of logic, to the fundamentals, as published by leading electric theorist Don Scott?

PLEASE detail your position (if there is such?), offer a conclusive, alternative, solid, cohesive, qualitative and quantitative description of whatever it is ? YOU (he/she) believe to be valid? No longer to cower in the false (mishmash) safety of your one meme:

Had I been asked that six months' ago, I might have gone for it.Sadly, my evident failure to communicate, to avoid being mis-understood, to not have what I write mis-characterised has made me aware of the near-futility of doing that. That, and the fact that a conclusive, solid, cohesive, qualitative and quantitative description of whatever it is I think is most comprehensively consistent with the totality of the relevant observations and experimental results is contained in dozens of books that you can read for yourself. Thanu Padmanabhan's "An Invitation to Astrophysics", to give just one example.

For the rest? Well, I'll leave that up to Dave to decide (he's the one doing the inviting, after all).

Thank you for your polite reply. You have put me to shame in that "dimension"
(I had considered PM Dave Smith to delete my post)

Nevertheless, I encourage you not to be so paranoid about thoughts of mis-communication or mis-interpretation of your posts. I for one (and feel certain! I am not alone) are/am? very interested in what you have to say.

Why 6 months ago and not now? (or no longer?) Gee you have been "cut a lot of slack" (shown extreme tolerance) here at TB forum.

Have you ever seen the British comedy series "Little Britain"?

You have a heck of lot to say when it suits you! Often your responses remind me of the woman who simply reports "the computer says NO!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly3Ew3wQ4PA&NR=1

I will try to be silent "in the mug gallery" from now on... in hope !

[Nereid]

I missed this in my earlier post:

for reasons you would not likely be aware of, I'm quite confident in the toroidal character of the interface of the corona and current sheet. But I can guarantee that before the debate begins I will triple-check the evidential argument and will be the first to correct the error if correction is needed.

To be crystal clear: what you have is (qualitative) interpretations, analogies, etc; what you do not have is new - as yet unpublished - material, right?

If it's the latter, please, publish it beforehand.

[David Talbott]

Nereid,
Having noted the torus or disk that forms so readily around the axis of an electric discharge in plasma, and having said a bit about its evolution in high energy experiments, i'll probably say a bit more. There is, in fact. a good deal of published material on electric vortices and toruses. In electrical terms the two are inseparably connected. That's the fact I'll probably want to discuss in advance of the debate--that and the fact that you're still misusing the words "qualitative" and "analogy."

Every time you suggest that "qualitative" means something like "deficient" you are already heading in the wrong direction. A qualitative argument can be deficient or it can be decisive. When a qualitative argument draws upon a complex of facts that flatly contradict a model, the model is falsified. It's that simple, and who would dispute this? Why, then, do you continually use this ruse? I'm asking this in part because I know that the tactic is grating on readers who understand perfectly well when a model is falsified. They also understand what it means when known facts add up to a benefit of the doubt for an alternative model.

[Siggy_G]

Isn't the consensus about galaxy formation merely based on gravitational accretion and angular momentum – and consensus about stellar evolution based on gravitational accretion, followed by a tug of war between nuclear furnace radiation versus gravitational collapse?

No.

I've double checked this, and brief as my statement was, it's pretty much in accordance with the consensus notion of galaxy formation and stellar evolution. Gravity is the key word, and regarded "king" as to what shapes, ignites, collapses and dictates most forms of matter in astrophysical scenarios.

The plausability of Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe lies in the elaboration on how the initial conditions for large scales structures are formed as a result of electric currents within plasmas, as well as accretion due to Marklund convection – an electromagnetic process and not a gravitational one.

Sorry, Siggy_G, that train did not leave the station.

I was refering to trains that left the station decades ago – it's just that very few caught them. In other words, Alfven papers on electricity and plasma in space, Göran Marklund's paper on the electromagnetic convection of heavier elements, as well as papers by Anthony Peratt that describes and summarizes formentioned scenarios. Wallace Thornhill has also summarized some of this in some of his articles. (I can provide links if you like)

However, first we need to agree that, pace Scott (and Talbott) a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel. Then we might move on to examining why studying photons that reach us here on Earth (or somewhat above it) can lead us to any conclusions whatsoever concerning the existence of plasma "out there"

The collection of photons from a given source should supply a lot of data on that source, but it may be a distorted image / set of data (such as by red shift or refraction). What has caused these distortions is a matter of models. Is redshift only a Doppler effect caused by gravity? Are x-rays a signature of black hole accelerations or electric discharges? What is most hypothetical and what is most in accordance with experiments? Can we really tell the exact distance and amount of mass for galaxies and stars? There are numerous such questions, and perhaps one should allow atleast two cosmological models to interpret astrophysical data and observations...

I should also mention that for the collective image of a galaxy, filament or a star – we can still try to elaborate on what influence them based on comparative analysis on processes on the Sun, plasma physics and some extrapolation. I think this work is somewhat independant on "changes [of photons] that has occured farther up the channel" for a specific observation.

[tayga]

Tayga, is it both a compelling and legitimate analogy to say that it's a simple obvious fact, "there is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel", with reference to photons? If not, why not?

Yes, I'd say it is.

If, as Scott states, this is a simple and obvious fact, what can be learned by studying light from the sky?

That's a very good question although I'm sure you already know that beyond the observations of astronomers, most of astrophysics, EU or otherwise, is assumption and speculation, the key assumption is that the laws of physics are universal.

[David Talbott]

Just a note to say that I've added a bit to the opening paragraphs with a reference to relativity and the complicating surprises of the space age, in line with our opening chapter of The Electric Universe. Of course I've kept the original statement about gravity as king, since the statement is undeniably accurate—unless someone added a fifth fundamental force while I wasn't looking!
http://49-17.bluehost.com/forum/phpBB3/ ... 103#p51667

But in terms of strange I don't know if I've ever seen anything more incomprehensible from Nereid than this:

I don't know where the problem is, Nereid. I stand by the statement about gravity as king, and you've not offered a fact to the contrary.

I did, but perhaps you didn't understand it.

Go out on a clear, cloudless and Moonless night (may not work in some locations, like a city centre), look up at the sky.

What to you see?

Lots of stars.

Do you see those stars because "gravity is king"?

There's nothing in the mystical dimensions of Big Bang cosmology and relativity that I'm not generally aware of.
[...]
Cosmologists did not dethrone gravity with their introduction of relativity, they just gave it new clothes. They didn't stop applying gravitational equations to the formation of galaxies. If they had, why would they summon dark matter? The king required a magical wand, but he was still king!

You know David, Lloyd (mistakenly) accused me of being disrespectful of you, with my "display ignorance" comment.

Yet here, again in cold hard black and white characters, you display what comes across to me as either astonishing ignorance, or something worse.

Do you actually know what the history of (cold, non-bayonic) dark matter is, in cosmology and extra-galactic astronomy?!? This comment of yours strongly suggests you do not.

For the debate:
[...]
Whoever is going to represent the opposition to the electric model in a debate, I want the person to be responsible for the accuracy or inaccuracy of things that are being stated now.

Sorry Dave, we ain't going nowhere until we first set up clear, agreed starting points. Or at least I ain't.

(But I'm glad to read that you accept responsibility for what seems to be grossly ignorant statements of fundamental concern to the debate).

These weird statements suggest, 1) that Nereid's anonymous support team has deserted her, and/or 2) that Nereid does not intend to go ahead with the debate. If I'm missing something that is worth spending time on, someone please enlighten me. Stars shining in the sky refute something I said about the core dogma ("Gravity is king")?

And "(cold, non-baryonic) dark matter" is a departure from the gravity-dominated universe? Were gravity not still honored as king, there would be no reason to conjure any form of dark matter. And where did I offer "grossly ignorant statements of fundamental concern to the debate"?

Seems as if things have gotten stranger by the day.

[StevenJay]

For what it's worth, I've had an intuitive feeling that the aptly named Nereid (and crew) have been systematically leading portions of this forum around by the nose from the get-go, for whatever purpose (distraction? Upheaval?).

When the idea of a formal debate was suggested, I thought: not likely to ever happen - too structured for the argumentative style she's displayed so far. But then, my take on the matter could be totally skewed.

I guess we'll see, eh?

[The Great Dog]

Unfortunately StevenJay, I had the same feeling. I try hard to dissuade myself from outright cynicism, but that attitude is constantly reinforced. The words "disengenuos" and "mainstream shill" come to mind in this circumstance.

TGD

[PersianPaladin]

Perhaps we should invite Tom Bridgman over here instead?

[David Talbott]

StevenJay, The Great Dog, and PP, we've all had the sense of Nereid & Company's purpose, and we've shared that sense with each other privately as the game was being played out. But I do maintain that a straightforward debate, properly facilitated, would likely be the fastest way to provide solar physicists (and others locked into a failed paradigm) with the badly needed shock to the system. Working scientists will be amongst our best friends in due course, but not the self-apointed gatekeepers and Inquisitors. For the shock to be effective, all that has to occur is that working scientists see, at the most fundamental level, how the mysterious, unexplained, "impossible" and "contradictory" behavior of the Sun becomes entirely reasonable if an external electric field, maintained by heliospheric currents, is acting on the Sun. It's at this most elementary level that the light will go on first, and from that point onward everything will progressively make more sense.

This is why I will always urge people to train themselves first at the level of the unified ground floor, where most of the evidence is neither appreciated nor even seen until one is willing to ask the most fundamental question: what would the picture look like if we allowed for the electrical alternative?

The moment you bump into someone who begins demanding that specialized, peer reviewed, math-heavy answers lead the way, you know that the person is not interested at all in finding the underlying truth--which is why the same behavior endlessly repeats itself in such encounters. Meanwhile the knowledge levels of those who do want to know continue to go up. And if you think about it, it does seem pretty clear that panic has begun to set in amongst Nereid's gatekeeping friends.

[Corpuscles]

Dave Talbott said, in reply to me, in another thread:

How significant is it that not a single peer reviewed article in decades has questioned the nuclear fusion model? The truth is that if solar physicists had any sense of the evidence lying outside their field of view, they would desert that model in droves. That's the reason why I'm eager to invite solar physicists to observe a reasonable and orderly debate, on an even playing field.

Weren't we all ...equally as eager?

Sadly, Nereid , even if coerced into participation, would not be an ideal candidate, (despite an obvious amount of knowledge or resources) I urge Dave T to consider seriously whether he is wasting his valuable time and effort. But I applaud (standing!) his honourable committment.

As I think PP alludes to, at least Bridgeman was prepared to state his case and flesh out his argument.

Nereid, often merely condesends with a selective 'I know better' type of statement, links a paper (often clearly not thoroughly read or understood), or answers with an obtuse question - then does not elaborate on his/ her own answer, then squirms out of reply when clearly on the back foot , and claims "communication" problems.

What sort of frustrating "debate" would that be!?

[Siggy_G]

We should have in mind that Nereid is away for a while (according to the "Taking a break? Let us know" thread) and will not be in position to answer.

With all due respect to Nereid, and while I think some of the feedback given is valueable, I think the overall flow of discussion always become messy and diverted. There could be several reasons for this (i.e. from both sides of the table), but it often springs out due to the kind of questions asked or new sub-topics brought up. I remember seeing a tip to roleplaying masters (directors) that if the pace of the game is too slow; cut to action, if too fast; ask questions. So, as an analogy, images of people running in circles springs to mind...

I would agree that Tom Bridgeman could be a good candidate for the debate. He's obviously biased against EU, but perhaps it doesn't matter, if it is a mere case of discussing observation, interpretation and plausability. Most of the discussions with him is at least mostly to the point and he has a doctorate within physics and astronomy (and works with programming and visualization related to solar physics, I think). Also, could there be solar physcisists independant of "for/against EU" that could be interested in this kind of debate?

[StevenJay]

In and of themselves, genuine challenges to a position can be of value, in that they will either strengthen or weaken it. But something I've noticed over the years whenever a "mainstreamer" challenges EU theory is that the EU proponents are almost always up to speed on mainstream cosmology, with anywhere from a layman's to a doctorate's understanding. Yet the challengers and debunkers invariably show up unarmed, so to speak, posessing almost no knowledge or understanding of the basic principles of EU theory or plasma physics.

As Corpuscles already asked:

What sort of frustrating "debate" would that be!?