Electric Sun debate: Discussion

[Nereid]

Here are the posts in the Electric Sun: A Quantitative Calculation thread, on the topic of a debate.

I've taken the trouble to create this thread to allow better focus.

The topic of a debate was raised by David Talbott, on Wed Feb 09, 2011 9:29 am:

[...] let's organize a debate on the topic of the electric Sun, starting with the list of the key questions to be answered. We'll then publish the debate on the Thunderbolts website. All that will be required is that neither side in the debate be permitted to ignore evidence that is presented.

Does that make sense?

Yes, it does.

And I applaud you for suggesting it.

I would be interested to know what you consider the rules of such a debate should be; for example, who gets to decide what an (observational) fact is?

Some background to this: based on many years' of posting in internet fora, I have come to conclude that meaningful dialogue is not possible, in astrophysics (especially that concerning things beyond our solar system), without pretty firm, mutual, agreement on the framework.

When I started posting here in this forum in earnest, I put a lot of time and effort into making my own views of what that framework should be clear. Subsequently, my conviction on the importance of establishing an agreed framework has been re-inforced, many, many times, in the exchanges of posts I've had with various Thunderbolts forum members (a recent example).

let's organize a debate on the topic of the electric Sun

Richard Dawkins had some insightful comments to make when he was similarly challenged by a creationist:

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/119- ... eationists

". . . science keeps its playing field level by the rather admirable system of anonymous peer-review. If you have evidence that evolution is false, you are entirely at liberty to submit a paper to the Editor of Nature, or Science, or the Journal of Theoretical Biology, or the American Naturalist, or Biological Reviews, or the Quarterly Review of Biology, or any of hundreds of other reputable journals in which ordinary working scientists publish their research. Do not fear that Editors will reject it simply because it opposes evolution. On the contrary, the journal that published a paper which really did discover a fallacy in evolution, or convincing evidence against it, would have the scoop of the century, in scientific terms. Editors would kill to get their hands on it."

This challenge by me has ? of course ? gone unanswered. On my side the correspondence is terminated, although Priest/Mastropaolo went on bombarding me weekly with increasingly raucous accusations of cowardice. He reminds me of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who continued, as a stump-waving, blood-spouting torso, to shout "Running away, eh? . . . Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off" at the indifferent back of the opponent who had successively deprived him of all four limbs.

I hope that my recollection of Stephen Gould's wise words will encourage others to refuse all debating invitations from pseudoscientists avid for publicity. Quite a good plan, which I follow myself from time to time, is to recommend that the case for evolution could easily be entrusted to a local undergraduate majoring in biology. Alternatively, I plead a prior engagement: an important forthcoming debate against the Flat Earth Societ.y

Okay Nereid, we'll do this. Though I'm traveling today, let's see if we can quickly clarify the purpose, format, and ground rules of a debate.

I've got a pretty good sense of what I'd like to see. Later today, I'll look over your own comments on the subject, but for starters here are a few of my own preferences:

We'll need to keep this to a one-on-one exchange, with both parties being free to pass the torch to a replacement. I'm saying this primarily for my own benefit. My time will be limited, and it's my plan to hand the torch to someone else rather early in the exchange, while reserving the right to carry it longer than I presently anticipate. I think it will be fine to run the exchange for five or six weeks. I'd like to end it officially six weeks after it begins, but will accept any preference on your part for ending it earlier. Of course, we should allow also for the debate to continue by mutual agreement.

Allowing time for personal research and consultation will also be important. Four to seven days between exchanges seems like a reasonable limit, given the more lasting and fundamental nature of the debate. Both of us should be free to take up to seven days in formulating a response. But there will be no limit on the speed of the exchange insofar as "faster" works for both parties. We'll also want to set limits on word count in order to maintain a reasonable balance.

We'll develop a list of questions we're called upon to answer, keeping the list as clearly focused as we can on clarifying the implications of two competing vantage points. I'd say that the questions should be framed in the most elementary terms, leaving no doubt as to the contrast between the standard perspective and the EU perspective of the Sun. Standard theory does not see any external electrical influence on the Sun. The EU does. Since this contrast is the most fundamental of all, is that a reasonable frame of reference for a debate?

The priority must be on establishing the factual underpinnings of the two views, while allowing for both specialized and interdisciplinary lines of reasoning. (Yes, I'm speaking a little loosely here, trusting we should be able to agree that experimental work and raw data returned by scientific instruments and space probes provide a good sense of the factual material to be considered.)

We'll take pains to keep the debate friendly and on course. We might even consider bringing in an agreed-upon arbitrator from outside the Thunderbolts circle, one who could at least make suggestions on applications of the ground rules.

The debate will be it's own thread, but a separate thread will be started in advance of the debate, to take comments and observations by others that might affect our vision for the debate. This thread will continue through the debate, and only the two debaters will be precluded from participation in the thread.

Both parties to the debate will be free to use the material, or references to it, in subsequent publication.

Personally, I'm making this commitment for three reasons. 1) I believe it will help our readers to understand the nature of the plasma universe and its particular applications in the Electric Universe hypothesis; 2) a debate will give us something more permanent and more helpful than a free-for-all (more content than most folks can follow, all virtually disappearing almost as fast as it is posted); and 3) having finished my work on the second DVD in the Alien Sky series, I could use a break.
________________________________

Incidentally, I see that Lloyd has suggested I might have some training in engineering. No. My interest in these things started with a study of cross-cultural evidence for extraordinary cosmic events in ancient times. Since the reconstructed events were entirely off the map of science, the study made crystal clear to me that an interdisciplinary approach, bringing together wide-ranging fields of investigation, is essential to an appreciation of planetary history.

Perhaps tomorrow morning I can speak with Dave Smith about moving ahead as briskly as time will allow.

We might even consider bringing in an agreed-upon arbitrator from outside the Thunderbolts circle, one who could at least make suggestions on applications of the ground rules.

I think this would be crucial; can you say more about who such an arbitrator might be, or how we'd go about finding (and agreeing) on one?

One of the reasons why I've suggested a debate is that it could clarify the solid ground of the electric Sun hypothesis, while making more clear the issues calling for priority attention. Presently, I simply do not ask any of the Thunderbolts Project principals (apart from the moderators) to become active in the Forum. But I will be selectively drawing on their time if the debate can be agreed upon. That could bring a lot more understanding to the subject.

Primary currents (galactic) and secondary currents (heliospheric) have to be resolved in terms of the "bleeding" from the one to the other, a perfectly reasonable challenge. The challenge requires: 1) accurate raw data bearing directly on the figures to be used, and 2) a model reliably interpreting the data. This is, in fact, the necessary way forward. It's also (to repeat myself) a primary reason I'm eager to proceed with the proposed debate and to see just how far we might take these things, within a framework that will justify the invested time. This debate could be the best vehicle for developing essential communication across a huge chasm. If we do it right, everyone on all sides will agree it's been useful.

From this post of yours, I think a key precondition is to get all relevant materials - on the Electric Sun hypothesis (etc) - published in a form that all can freely access.

But sincerely, Nereid, I'd really like to proceed with formulating a debate for everyone's benefit. If it would help, I'll send you the whole ebook on the electric sun, which outlines numerous reasons for considering the Sun to be part of galactic and heliospheric circuit. It's not a technical work, just a simple exposition with diagrams. It does not purport to offer a complete diagram of circuitry, just a good start. Wal himself was very much involved in the diagramming. And of course it was Wal who originally inspired Don Scott, a professor of electrical engineering, to begin investigating the electric hypothesis.

Is there by chance a technical paper on the Electric Sun hypothesis and where would I find it?

But sincerely, Nereid, I'd really like to proceed with formulating a debate for everyone's benefit. If it would help, I'll send you the whole ebook on the electric sun, which outlines numerous reasons for considering the Sun to be part of galactic and heliospheric circuit.

Thanks for the kind offer.

One, very important, thing I think we must try to ensure, in any debate of this kind, is that the audience (or at least Thunderbolts forum members) have full access to any and all material anyone involved in the debate uses. Do you agree?
[...]

Is there by chance a technical paper on the Electric Sun hypothesis and where would I find it?

I have found no such technical paper; nick c's list contains none either (at least, not Scott's Electric Sun hypothesis).

However, Thornhill's 2007 paper in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science ("The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars") comes close (unfortunately it's behind a paywall).

Additional peer reviewed papers are coming and are only months away, but the specialists themselves have to be confident that the data in hand really do allow for a reliable circuit diagram with associated numbers.

If these are directly relevant to the Electric Sun hypothesis, wouldn't it be premature to have a debate about that hypothesis now?

Unequivocally no on this one, Nereid. The best time for a debate is now, unless we are dead wrong in arguing that the Sun meets the elementary observational tests of a glow discharge. It's only rational for the observational tests to precede the more finite and specialized tests.
[...]
If we can mutually commit to the debate and work out the ground rules, I'll help get things started by answering your additional questions no later than tomorrow. If, out of respect for your schedule, we agree to begin the debate in early April, no one will complain. Then we can take whatever time is necessary to set up an even playing field. And we'll do all we can to orient folks to an exchange that will benefit everyone, including solar physicists who are really beginning to wonder about these things.

If we can mutually commit to the debate and work out the ground rules

The topic of the debate is "the Electric Sun hypothesis (or model), as presented by Scott and Thornhill".

Two key items I've raised so far are who an arbitrator might be, and how we'd go about finding (and agreeing) on one, and ensuring that all in the audience (or at least Thunderbolts forum members) have free access to all key material used in such a debate. A good place to start for the latter might be finding a way for Thornhill's 2007 paper to be made freely available.

The Electric Sun hypothesis (or model) - as proposed by Scott and Thornhill - involves considerably more than just the assumption that the Sun is strongly influenced by external electric fields; and little of the material either has presented (in the two sources I have cited) is observational evidence as I know it (not to mention that I have no idea what an 'elementary observational test of a glow discharge' would, or could, be).

Yes, of course the electric sun hypothesis involves more than external electric fields (heliospheric and galactic). But since the contrast with standard theory on this issue is so clear, it is a logical focal point for a debate and the most significant issue, bearing directly on the general validity of the larger EU hypothesis.

I don't know where you get the idea there is sparse observational evidence for the Sun as a glow discharge. But let's make settling this issue a primary focus of the exchange.

Also, let's make sure that readers come away with a good sense of what is known, what is not known, and what can be intelligently surmised about the Sun's electrical circuitry. I can probably bring arbitrary figures much more meaningful than those you've given, but short of groundbreaking revelations from NASA concerning the geometries of electric fields and current flow in the Sun's domain, they will be arbitrary.

Of course electrons arrive and leave the Sun continuously. We're talking about circuitry. In terms of observational evidence, we can frame the debate this way: Is it reasonable for us to claim that the primary attributes of the Sun are unsolved mysteries for the standard model but are predictable if the Sun is a glow discharge powered by external electric currents?

In terms of observational evidence, we can frame the debate this way: Is it reasonable for us to claim that the primary attributes of the Sun are unsolved mysteries for the standard model but are predictable if the Sun is a glow discharge powered by external electric currents?

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.

As I said in an earlier post, the topic of the debate is "the Electric Sun hypothesis (or model), as presented by Scott and Thornhill".

I agree that a good place to start would be how, in detail, these four primary attributes of the Sun are accounted for (or explained, or ...) in the Electric Sun hypothesis (or model), as presented by Scott and Thornhill.

May I ask how you read either document as presenting observational evidence, that appears to be definitive, for the Sun as a glow discharge?

Not so fast. That's the issue we're gong to debate. 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.) Additionally, I'll happily acknowledge the circuitry issues not fully resolved. 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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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)!

That's the last 'debate' post prior to my absence in March.

[Nereid]

Continuing, with my responses (all of which are new).

I wish to suggest two debates at the same time.
The topics would be the same as in : Is model A correct ? Is model B correct.
This could work because the debate(s) are to be in writing, with new posts under clear separate headings.
This way each side would be required to do both offensive and defensive work.
Both models should be under the same scrutiny.

I think this is a good idea.

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

What criteria would you suggest be used for judging, determining, or assessing "correct"?

Until I hear otherwise, I’m going to assume that a reasonable start date for the debate will be April 15. It’s a bit arbitrary on my part, and we can certainly be flexible, but that should give us time to nail down remaining details as to ground rules.

The debate will focus on the electric sun hypothesis and its claimed advantages over the standard model of the Sun. The primary references will be The Electric Universe (Thornhill and Talbott) chapter on the electric sun and The Electric Sky (Scott), though numerous other citations should be expected.

There are quite a few different The Electric Universe (Thornhill and Talbott), at least according to Google. Do you mean this book, or this video, or ...? Similarly for The Electric Sky (Scott).

What would you consider the status of the Electric Sun hypothesis, <<moderator action - copyright infringing link removed>>The Electric Universe Sun, and The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars (Thornhill 2007) to be?

If we really need a moderator, that will be okay with me, so long as a fair and open-minded individual is available. Most folks advising us do not believe that moderation is necessary, and I tend to agree, so long as the rules are clear. Certainly BAUT’s Tusenfem would not be an appropriate “moderator,” since that would require me to debate two people.

Can you suggest a moderator? I certainly consider an agreed moderator essential.

Nereid's suggestion to defend the Sun's "circuitry" or method of operation from the EU perspective is useful, but I know that it is not advanced enough to be taken up seriously in a refereed journal in the sort of debate Nereid has in mind. IMHO it is too early for anyone to be trying to dismiss the EU set of conceptual ideas from a scientific perspective because they have not been prepared for that yet.

My dislike of having a debate with Nereid on her terms is less about "who wins" than about "who's wasting their time?"

I'm unsure of what you mean Jim, would you mind elaborating?

Specifically, with respect to the debate which David Talbott has proposed, what do you think the topic, scope, and ground rules should be?

Or are you saying that you think any such debate would be a not-so-good idea (for whatever reasons)?

It seems to me that EU Theory is on a much firmer basis than conventional theory, so, if any other theory is a contender, EU Theory should be even more so. I don't see any sense in acting as if EU Theory is second-rate. I think it's better to be bold and confident, not submissive to establishment "authority". They're the ones with No Clothes, not us. I don't buy at all that EU Theory isn't yet ready to go head-to-head with anyone.

With respect to the debate which David Talbott has proposed, what do you think the topic, scope, and ground rules should be?

One thing this thread has emphasized is the value we can gain from proceeding with the proposed debate.

Nereid: neither Don Scott nor Wal Thornhill has suggested that a mere drift of electrons toward the Sun completes the picture. Both understand perfectly well that circuitry is needed to maintain the self-evident equilibrium. I trust you've not forgotten that Don is a retired professor of electrical engineering!

To get to first base, the electric circuit is the essential principle. Whatever the circuitry may look like, it will not involve the "billiard ball" role of charged particles you suggest, Nereid. Holding onto that fallacy will only prevent you from seeing the breadth and strength of the qualitative argument for the electric sun.

All of this can be valuable subject matter for the debate. So now is indeed a good time to advance the discussion of ground rules.

As I've also stated more than once, no circuit diagram integrating implied heliospheric currents with implied galactic currents has yet been produced.

Do either of the primary references you mentioned earlier (in whatever form) contain a quantitative description of the circuitry (the electric circuit)? If so, where?

Is such a quantitative description to be found in any of the other citations you had in mind? If so, which ones?

From your post of Sat Apr 16, it would seem that no such description exists; can you confirm that please?

Discussion of solar oscillations should be relevant to the debate.

Do either of the primary references David Talbott mentioned (in any form) contain quantitative analyses of these oscillations, or the observations from which they have been derived?

[davesmith_au]

Gee, if we debate having a debate long and hard enough, we never need to have the debate.

[Nitai]

Gee, if we debate having a debate long and hard enough, we never need to have the debate.

Meh, that's debateable.

[Tina]

What surprises me is that if Nereid considers Electric Universe Theory to be pseudoscience why is she even bothering with any discussion/debate?

Anyway, I have found inspiration for a debate proposition based on one of Nereid's own comments in Physics Forums:http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread ... 440&page=4

It gets worse [or better, depending upon your point of view): first, the Sun, like the Earth, is surrounded by a magnetosphere, which extends way beyond the orbit of Pluto (one of the Voyagers, I forget which, is only now getting close to the boundary). And has been known for many decades now, very little of the ISM (inter-stellar medium) plasma can cross the heliosheath. So, if anything, the Sun giveth, but doth not take.

"The Sun giveth, but doth not take" Nereid - perfect proposition to debate IMO.

Nereid to argue in the affirmative and she has the burden of proof of course.
EU, in the negative role, can then proceed to demolish any or all of Nereid's arguments. All we need to do is establish that shadow of doubt to undermine the affirmative case.

[psychegram]

What surprises me is that if Nereid considers Electric Universe Theory to be pseudoscience why is she even bothering with any discussion/debate?

Anyway, I have found inspiration for a debate proposition based on one of Nereid's own comments in Physics Forums:http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread ... 440&page=4

It gets worse [or better, depending upon your point of view): first, the Sun, like the Earth, is surrounded by a magnetosphere, which extends way beyond the orbit of Pluto (one of the Voyagers, I forget which, is only now getting close to the boundary). And has been known for many decades now, very little of the ISM (inter-stellar medium) plasma can cross the heliosheath. So, if anything, the Sun giveth, but doth not take.

"The Sun giveth, but doth not take" Nereid - perfect proposition to debate IMO.

Nereid to argue in the affirmative and she has the burden of proof of course.
EU, in the negative role, can then proceed to demolish any or all of Nereid's arguments. All we need to do is establish that shadow of doubt to undermine the affirmative case.

Given that until relatively recently, it was thought that the Earth's magnetosphere also provided a perfect shield ... and the discovery of 'magnetic portals' which put the kibosh to that ... I would be rather surprised to find that the heliosheath is completely impermeable. Nothing in the universe is isolated from everything else. Such separation is an approximation of old paradigm, reductionist science, which proceeds by putting its objects in closed boxes which it opens ONLY when forced to, and then only grudgingly. Thus we get theories of climate change which seek to explain ice age cycles and weather phenomena without reference to the Earth's own environment, to say nothing of explanations of human cultural cycles that take no notice of periodic celestial cataclysms (and when astronomers DO try and point out the importance of such phenomena - see Victor Clube or Michael Baillie, for instance - they are pilloried or ignored by their colleagues).

The truth is, there are no closed boxes, no isolated systems. But to fully integrate that into one's worldview is to inhabit a completely different world

As to why Nereid deigns to wrestle with the pigs ... two possibilities come to mind. One is that she expects to prove the theory wrong once and for all, so that we'll all shut up about it and stop undermining the authority of the gravitational universe every chance we get. Another is that she secretly kind of hopes there is something to it, but is determined that it must pass some stringent epistemic tests first (a view I fully support.)

Of course, assuming the first motivation is the one, as an astronomer she should be only too aware of the Curtis-Shapley debate. And reaching still further back, the early Copernicans, who were utterly outmaneuvered from a theoretical standpoint as their heliocentric model was both inferior to the epicyclic geocentric model at predicting the precise motions of planets, and unsupportable from the point of view of Aristotelian physics. The scholastic Church philosophers were on very sound territory in their rejection of heliocentrism as an upstart pseudoscience; meanwhile, those who supported the new paradigm were, in essence, making a gigantic leap of faith ... one that took centuries to gather to itself the theoretical support it needed.

Point being, while this debate may be of use in the development of the model, it is of no bearing whatsoever on its overall validity.

[David Talbott]

Though I get a little dizzy reading through the compendium above, it is based on things people have said, including me.

Some interesting things have happened in Nereid's absence that could bear on the debate, the calendar, and the moderator issue.

I'll be particularly busy for the next 11 days, leading up to a 2-hour NPA video conference presentation on May 7: http://www.worldnpa.org/main/

But if we can find a practical framework, one that both parties can accept, the portion of my May 7 presentation on the electric sun hypothesis could be a decent starting point for establishing a position I'd be comfortable defending.

The sun segment will then become the centerpiece of a paper I have to complete shortly thereafter for the upcoming NPA conference, July 6-9 at the University of Maryland. Though originally I'd imagined the debate facilitating the paper, the delays mean that the paper might, in fact, facilitate the debate.

Nereid, I'll communicate with you privately over the next week or so, to discuss our respective schedules.

I have an arbitrator/moderator in mind, one who's conducted many interviews with solar physicists and could bring along a private team of well-accredited consultants to help pose questions. Before I mention his name I'll only need to get his approval, something I'm already expecting.

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.

From what I've seen so far the first requirement will be a tutorial on the meaning of a drift current, a circuit, and the relationship of both to a power supply.

Things may not race ahead here, but at least we should be able to progress toward decisions on a moderator and on the most essential principle--an even playing field. That means neither the standard model nor the electric model gets a pass on the respective qualitative arguments. I mention this specifically because I've never seen a qualitative argument for the standard model, based on things now known and measured. At this point I don't believe there ever will be one worth shouting about, simply because the most prominent failures of the standard model are the elementary predictions of the electric model. Until that point is driven home, discussion of the missing "quantification" has no relevance to the realities of solar theory today.

[David Talbott]

Well now, 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. But since the standard model is supported by neither qualitative nor quantitative reasoning, I can see why a defender of the standard model would want to put an unrealistic burden on the proponent of the electric model and no burden at all on the proponent of the standard model.

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. Given the present knowledge of the Sun's behavior, 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. (It does not work the way Nereid has assumed.) That's a reasonable starting point in a discourse on the electric sun, but there is simply no way for the point to register in the absence of the counterpoint—the fact that the predicted behavior is the very behavior that has left solar physicists scratching their heads after attempting for 50 years to resolve the "anomalies."

Of course if Nereid's original objection to the electric model, based on a false description of the required electron flow, were valid, then that would be the ideal falsification of the electric hypothesis. 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, a point I intend to elaborate in considerable detail.

[mathew]

Dave Said-

Given the present knowledge of the Sun's behavior, 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.

Looks pretty simple to me!

[Nereid]

"The Sun giveth, but doth not take" Nereid - perfect proposition to debate IMO.

From my point of view that's a non-starter Tina (sorry). Why? Well, if nothing else it omits the caveats that are in the short paragraph you quoted.

Nereid to argue in the affirmative and she has the burden of proof of course.
EU, in the negative role, can then proceed to demolish any or all of Nereid's arguments.

I don't think this was what David Talbott had in mind when he proposed the debate (see the posts by him, in this thread).

In any case, isn't this what the voluminous technical (peer-reviewed) literature is all about anyway? Surely a debate like this would be an exceedingly pale shadow of what you find in the pages almost any contemporary journal (relevant to solar physics, say), wouldn't it?

All we need to do is establish that shadow of doubt to undermine the affirmative case.

As has been pointed out - several times if I'm not mistaken - this has nothing to do with EU theory, the Electric Sun hypothesis (or model), ...

But perhaps I'm missing something? Could you elaborate please?

[Tina]

"The Sun giveth, but doth not take" Nereid - perfect proposition to debate IMO.

I don't think this was what David Talbott had in mind when he proposed the debate....

I agree

In any case, isn't this what the voluminous technical (peer-reviewed) literature is all about anyway?

But EU Theorists don't have voluminous (peer-reviewed) literature

As has been pointed out....this has nothing to do with EU theory, the Electric Sun hypothesis (or model), ...

Well call me a reductionist! But the proposition actually does have relevance to the understanding Electric Sun hypothesis.

But perhaps I'm missing something? Could you elaborate please?

Yes you are missing something - my sardonic humor!Perhaps I was out of order in approaching the discussion with such levity - especially when you and David are working so hard to accomplish something of potentially great significance. For this I am grateful.

[PersianPaladin]

Nereid......what are your thoughts on the following?

http://hozturner.blogspot.com/2011/03/c ... tream.html

I want you to pay particular attention to this recent picture from ESA:-
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Herschel/SEMK0H7S9MG_0.html

Then read the plasma cosmology description of star formation in a z-pinch.

[botoxic]

Tina wrote:
What surprises me is that if Nereid considers Electric Universe Theory to be pseudoscience why is she even bothering with any discussion/debate?

Science has no universally agreed definition of "pseudoscience". So ironically, to call something "pseudoscience" is in itself pseudoscience. The person using the term pretends it is scientific, when it isn't, ie. pseudoscience, and a good example of pseudoskepticism.

It is important to discuss these things to understand each other's position, and why one person considers something to be pseudoscience, or significant.

[Tina]

It is important to discuss these things to understand each other's position, and why one person considers something to be pseudoscience, or significant.

Hello botoxic,
Welcome to Thunderbolts!

Yes discussion is vital but the term "pseudoscience" is used in a derogatory sense and makes discussion quite difficult. For example, in the past, PhysicsForums would not permit any discussion on EU Theory because it was classified as pseudoscience. The word also used by Moderator was that EU Theory was NONSENSE!Fortunately they are more tolerant thesedays.

Anyway I'll sign off now because these comments are off topic.

[Nereid]

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.

This is, IMHO, a very good idea!

What do you suggest is the fundamental evidence? Or are you, perhaps, suggesting that the first part of any debate is to reach agreement on what such fundamental evidence actually is?

No quantitative "standard" model explains the Sun as we now know it.

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)?

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 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?

[...] That means neither the standard model nor the electric model gets a pass on the respective qualitative arguments. [...]

(bold added; there are several references to the standard model in your next post too)

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?

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?

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.

As has been pointed out....this has nothing to do with EU theory, the Electric Sun hypothesis (or model), ...

Well call me a reductionist! But the proposition actually does have relevance to the understanding Electric Sun hypothesis.

What is that relevance, as you see it?

More importantly, what role do you see the proposition playing in the proposed debate?

Nereid......what are your thoughts on the following?

I'm trying to stay focussed here PP, so I hope you won't mind if I ask you: is Hossein Turner an EU theorist?

In any case, what do the two links you posted have to do with the debate on the electric Sun model that David Talbott proposed?