Talking Points on the Electric Sun

[David Talbott]

It seems clear that, in connection with a proposed debate on the electric Sun, we need a document for focusing the issues logically, with ground rules that moderators will enforce (if necessary, under advice from independent arbitrators or facilitators). Because of time constraints that will continue into July, I’ve been looking for ways to kill three or four birds with one stone. (Ignore the politically incorrect analogy.) This is what I’ve come up with. While working on three papers I have to complete this month, I’ll integrate the three talks into a sequence that could constitute three sections of a single document on the electric Sun:

First, an introduction to the electrical hypothesis, summarizing the vantage point I’m prepared to defend in a debate. Then, an analysis of the dominant attributes of the Sun in terms of the predictive abilities of two competing models, one “standard,” the other electrical. Then, a summary of the vast fields of factual evidence within the heliosphere that solar physicists appear to have ignored entirely, largely due to the momentum of confining beliefs in the sciences.

What I would appreciate from folks is any links or references from prior materials posted on the Forum (or anywhere else, for that matter) relating to any juncture in the narrative. The work on this document will have to proceed very quickly, and it’s not going to be short. I’d really like to see a collaborative contribution here, despite the fact that efficient collaboration is often very difficult. All who contribute meaningfully will be acknowledged in the credits.

Two of the papers will be published by the NPA. But l also plan to translate all of the work into a series of Thunderblogs, so the best images, along with credits, will be useful as well. (Of course the published papers will be in black and white, reducing the effectiveness of images, and due to space requirements, I'll be keeping the images in the three papers/presentations to a minimum.)

The section below is perhaps a third of the first “paper," with footnotes yet to placed in the document. There will be lots of room for people to help out here.

Everyone please keep in mind that this document is a draft that will evolve over the coming days. Please do not cite the document outside the TB Forum.

And lastly, it will be helpful if we keep the contributions here to the more fundamental aspects of the presentation. I invite all who spot a grammatical slip, awkward sentence, misspelling, or similar glitch to simply email me personally: dtalbott@teleport.com



Considering the Electric Sun Hypothesis


ABSTRACT

In the twentieth century, the pioneers of plasma cosmology began to identify a crucial role of electric currents in the evolution of stellar and galactic structure.

The “electric universe” hypothesis extends the underlying principle of plasma cosmology into domains that were, at best, only partially touched by plasma cosmology pioneers. The subjects include: electromagnetic underpinnings of gravity; profound electrical influences on the Sun, acting from beyond the sphere of the Sun itself; electric discharge of comets as they move through the electric field of the Sun; surprising levels of electrical activity on planets and moons today as they move through subtle heliospheric currents; and evidence for vastly more dramatic electrical events in an earlier phase of solar system history

This paper will present a brief summary of the “electric Sun” hypothesis, with pointers to the interdisciplinary contributions of others toward a radically new perspective.


Gravity Dethroned?

For well over a century the commonly accepted view amongst astronomers and cosmologists was unequivocal: gravity is king. Gravity rules the heavens. It is the ultimate driver behind the evolution of galaxies and stars. Though this core dogma grew more complicated with the advent of relativity theory, then more complicated still by a continuous stream of space age surprises, gravity remained supreme. It is the weakest of the fundamental forces known to science, but the prior “consensus” continued to treat gravity as the only fundamental force capable of acting across cosmological distances.

The hypothesis reviewed here, however, suggests that the electric force has a far more significant role in the cosmos than was ever recognized under the standard theories of 20th century astronomy. We now know that space is not empty, but filled with charged particles, a sea of conductive plasma. It is now evident that electric currents flow across intergalactic, interstellar, and interplanetary space, contributing significantly—often decisively—to the evolution of cosmic structure. As science comes to acknowledge this role, the orthodox picture of space will be forever changed.

The emerging electrical perspective suggests an integral con-nection of stars and galaxies to their external environments. As observation began to reveal unexpectedly high and strongly fo-cused energies in space, prior theory required that the motor come from inside the observed structures, initiated either directly or indirectly by gravity. That requirement, in turn, could only dissuade cosmologists from asking the most fundamental ques-tion: is it possible that external electric currents, together with their associated magnetic fields, drive much of the observed structural evolution?

The Plasma Universe

Many details of the plasma universe have been available to astronomers and cosmologists for at least several decades. As new telescopes and probes extended the frontiers of human knowledge, the picture of space came alive with the full signature of electromagnetism. Technicians and engineers of the space age delivered to the theoretical sciences all the evidence needed to confirm electrical activity across the farthest reaches of space. The new picture has removed the foundational assumptions of orthodox cosmology at the dawn of the space age. At the same time it has drawn attention to earlier visionaries from Kristian Birkeland and Nikola Tesla to the acknowledged dean of 20th century plasma science, Hannes Alfvén, all of whom anticipated this very direction of discovery.

Most theoreticians, working with assumptions formulated long prior to the space age, had learned to ignore electricity. They did this first by dismissing the possibility of electric currents across the “vacuum” space. Then, when it was discovered that all of space is a sea of conductive plasma, the theorists reversed their position, asserting that any charge separation would be immediately neutralized. One false assumption gave way to another.

Alfvén and his colleagues recognized that intricate cosmic structure and high-energy events, now observed across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, are the witnesses to electric currents threading a sea of interstellar and intergalactic plasma. Among the many observational tests, we detect the “hum” of these cosmic power lines by their radio signals.

When currents flow in space plasma, the induced magnetic fields will tend to confine the flow to narrow, twisting filaments. That’s what we now observe filling the “vacuum” of space, as Alfvén himself had long predicted. More intense focusing of this current flow (the plasma z-pinch) will often generate explosive electric discharge, and the consequent electromagnetic radiation will include—at the highest energies—“synchrotron” radiation, now abundantly observed in space. Electrical activity remains the only plausible explanation. But when Alfvén predicted galactic synchrotron radiation, astronomers did not respond. Electric currents in space had not yet entered their lexicon.

“Magnetic Universe”

Until quite recently most astronomers barely gave electric currents in space a sideways glance. They continued to believe that gravity alone organizes the cosmos. And yet, through the back door, we do see a growing interest in the role of magnetism in space. Magnetic fields are the proof of active electric currents, even if the proof is ignored. But with surprising rapidity, the “magnetic universe” is now emerging as a permissible expression within the scientific mainstream. This radical turn may prove to be the most promising bridge to an intellectual revolution, eventually making it impossible to ignore the electric currents without which the “magnetic universe” would disappear.

Alfvén’s lifelong experimental work laid the foundations for a new approach to galaxy formation. It is now known that even in the rarified plasma of intergalactic space, events reveal the telltale electromagnetic signatures of current flow and electric discharge. Galaxies are often dwarfed by the full spectrum of electromagnetic radiation in their surrounding environments. In the plasma universe, electric currents across cosmological distances will intersect at critical points to drive an electric vortex, giving birth to spiral galaxies. This is not just a mathematical speculation. It’s the way charge behaves in plasma. The point was well illustrated by a leading plasma scientist Anthony Peratt in 1986, a distinguished expert on high-energy plasma instabilities and author of The Plasma Universe.1 Peratt used a super computer to simulate the behavior of a cloud of charge (a particle-in-cell simulation) to illustrate the manner in which electric currents in plasma will generate the familiar shape of spiral galaxies and of other galactic structures.2

Based on diligent laboratory work spanning decades, Peratt’s mentor Alfvén suggested that electric currents flow inward along the arms of galaxies, generating an encircling magnetic field. On reaching the galactic center, the electric charge that drives these currents is stored in a compact electromagnetic plasmoid—a rotating torus or donut-shaped structure episodically releasing its stored energy as jets along the galaxy’s spin axis. Alfvén concluded that this is how an “active galactic nucleus” (AGN) is born. From this vantage point, the electrical behavior of the galactic plasmoid, though often hidden by dust, is the confirmation of immense electric potential. Moreover, in this radical break from earlier theory the newborn galaxies could in fact be lit by electric lights—the stars strung along galactic filaments as witnesses to interstellar power lines or current streams.

[more to follow later today.]

[David Talbott]

Everyone please keep in mind my purpose here. It is to establish a position that can serve as the centerpiece of the debate. The draft material I'm placing here is just that. It's just a starting point that can evolve with help from others. Nereid has indicated that communications have been difficult, and that is one reason for working to get the position statement clear and understood by all.

David Talbott
______________________________________


Why Does the Sun Shine?

Electric fields in space lead to a possibility categorically excluded from the “settled science” of the 20th century. Could the Sun’s light and its entire range of electromagnetic activity be either partly or entirely due to the flow of electric currents into and through the heliosphere. In the plasma universe, such currents will originate in the stored charge and related movements of charged particles along the arms of the Milky Way.

The present paper will summarize the electric sun hypothesis, with an emphasis on its contrast to the present fusion model of the Sun. Both perspectives have a long history, but by mid-20th century, astronomers had fully settled on one idea: a nuclear furnace at the Sun’s core.

Prior to the emergence of the fusion model, a “consensus” theory had survived for a hundred years. The earlier view held that the heat and light of the Sun were due to gravitational collapse of a primordial nebular cloud. Textbooks described the theory as fact—a familiar habit that can only emphasize the danger of codifying theory in the sciences. The model lost its credibility as astronomers realized it could not account for the emerging billion-year scenarios of Earth evolution.

It was the mathematician Arthur Eddington who, in 1920, announced the foundation of a new standard model based on a hypothesized release of nuclear energy in the Sun’s core. Later, in 1938, the astrophysicist Hans Bethe offered a rigorous mathematical formulation of the envisioned “fusion” process, for which he won the Nobel Prize 29 years later. A new consensus arose, a conviction that only a fusion reactor at the Sun’s core could explain the sun’s powerful emissions of heat and light.

Today’s electric sun hypothesis challenges the theoretical assumptions behind the fusion model.

At one level, the electric sun is a logical extension of the “plasma universe” as formulated by Alfvén and his students and colleagues such as Anthony Peratt. But certain tenets of the electric model rest on the work of others. The first argument for a sun actually powered by electricity rather than nuclear fusion was offered by engineer Ralph Juergens in the late 60s and early 70s.3 Today the hypothesis is best known through the labors of Wal Thornhill on behalf of “the electric universe”4 and the work of Thornhill’s colleague, retired professor of electrical engineering, Don Scott, author of The Electric Sky.5 Others have played roles in the evolution of the concept as well.6

Since the hypothesis suggests electric currents flowing into the heliosphere, the investigation must consider all evidence bearing on this possibility, from the behavior of the Sun’s visible surface and corona to Earth’s auroras; from the worlds of Jupiter and Saturn out to the boundary of the heliosphere, the presumed limit of the Sun’s influence. It must extend to the galactic neighborhood, where subtle but vast currents flow along galactic arms. And it must even reach beyond the Milky Way to the unfathomable power now evident in intergalactic space.

Virtually all of the data we shall confront here came after the fusion model of the Sun had emerged as “settled science.” Astronomers considered the most basic issue—the source of the Sun’s heat and light—to be fully resolved as we launched satellites and probes into space. Certainly, no one believed that a retroactive, qualitative assessment of the fusion model was necessary. And no one seemed to blink when the one and only quantitative argument for the Sun’s nuclear core failed, as the neutrino count came in at a third to a half of the theoretically required figure (the “neutrino problem” that we shall take up in due course).

The Role of Qualitative Evidence

When theorists propose a fundamentally new scientific perspective they are asking that it be considered as a useful starting point.  A useful model will spell out proposed relationships between causes and effects. It will typically involve a broad interdisciplinary range of evidence. Causes are hypothesized and the claimed effects are named. A new model can then be generalized to see how well its underlying assumptions correlate with more detailed observations and a broader range of measurements bearing on the question.

With increasing specialization in the sciences, the most costly mistakes will typically involve a failure to generalize a qualitative argument, to weigh its predictive power within a sufficiently broad field of view. Carried out properly, this essential phase will throw a spotlight on weaknesses or outright failures of a theory, if they exist. This is where we look for contradictions, things that don’t fit the underlying assumptions. “Provably wrong if incorrect” is the ideal when stating a theory. In fact, the most useful qualitative arguments will be readily falsifiable, and the question of correlation between theory and observation can be explicitly tested against the full range of critical data.

There can be no rational justification for short-circuiting the qualitative phase. In the case at hand, where a theory affects how we see our celestial environment as a whole, the generalization of a qualitative argument is indispensable, requiring that the field of view be every bit as broad as the theory’s logical implications. A more narrow field of view will virtually guarantee that at least some falsifying observations, if they exist, will be ignored.

In 1950, the Sun’s hypothesized “nuclear furnace” rested entirely on mathematical foundations. Virtually no qualitative tests of the conjectured nuclear furnace were yet in hand.  And the scientific mainstream was unaware of the plasma universe and the profound role of electric currents in space.

Today, after decades of solar exploration, the qualitative accord that theorists had hoped for is glaringly absent. To see that this is so, it's only necessary to review the stream of surprises arising from exploration of the Sun—a collective exclamation point to the gap between theory and observation. Nothing fit the original expectations. The original model did not anticipate, and was never able to explain, the spectacular acceleration of charged particles away from Sun. No one envisioned the “impossible” increase in temperature with distance upward from the solar surface, culminating in 2 million Kelvin at the solar corona. At the dawn of the space age, the complex electromagnetic activity of the Sun’s photosphere was unknown. An electrified plasma torus around the Sun would have seemed quite ridiculous. Polar jets had never entered the imagination of solar theorists. Sunspot penumbra were supposed to be convection currents, not electric current ropes guided by magnetic fields. And established dogma, exemplified in the work of mathematician Sydney Chapman, had categorically excluded the possibility that Earth’s auroras could be caused by electric currents from the Sun penetrating Earth’s upper atmosphere.

The story yet to be announced is that more than 50 years of space age investigation produced only anti-correlations to the supposedly settled science of the Sun.

[more to follow]

[David Talbott]

The section below completes PART ONE, the introduction (draft) I've envisioned for a talking points document leading up to the envisioned debate. When it's finished, the document should represent the position I'm prepared to defend on the grounds of factual integrity with no pretense of something more than that. In the interim, clearing up confusion, correcting statements of fact, and challenges to the reasoning offered could be very helpful. I hope that Nereid will participate, and maybe we'll have less to debate when it's complete. The primary purpose is to nail down a position, so that the debate itself will not drift about with folks wondering what the position is.

I'd like to take a few days to explore the issues appropriate for the debate. These can be covered in the two sections following PART ONE. PART TWO can cover "The Observed Attributes of the Sun," while PART THREE can lay the groundwork for discussing heliospheric currents; this would include the electrical effects exhibited by planets, moons, and comets today (such as revealed in the Earth-Sun circuitry), but also including evidence of a far more active electrical environment in the past.

And finally folks, I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to lay out Part One before discussion begins. But now I hope y'all will feel free to offer comments on PART ONE, while also assisting in the chronicling of solar attributes for PART TWO, since many of you have previously commented on or posed questions about the solar features on which a debate must pivot. Simple observations as to where you would like to see the priorities go will be enough to get us started.
__________________________________

A Quantified Argument?

A broad qualitative agreement between theory and observation will provide the foundation for quantification. Specialized inquiry can then test the rigor and precision of the qualitative argument with equations and numbers. In a successful test, the quantitative results will correlate well with predictions arising from the underlying theoretical assumptions; they will add logical strength and precision to the prior qualitative argument.

In the case of the Sun, however, neither a qualitative nor a quantitative argument exists, since the dominant attributes of the Sun, as now recognized, lie beyond the predictive ability of the theoretical assumptions. This sweeping failure of predictive ability can only throw into doubt the more specialized assumptions, equations, and simulations offered in the name of solar physics today. Unless the qualitative foundation can be secured through a straightforward correlation of fact and theory, all that is being quantified is an attractive conjecture disconnected from observed conditions.

“Meeting our Global Energy Needs”

In the absence of reasonable tests of a hypothesis it is a grave mistake to pretend that issues are settled. Nevertheless, with the support of popular media, a guess about the “nuclear core” of the Sun led to a leap of faith. Limitless energy should be available to humanity by controlling a fusion process—”just like the controlled fusion in the center of the sun.”

The cost of this exuberance may never be accurately calculated. Globally, governments poured billions upon billions of dollars into research, seeking to replicate the imagined events hidden inside the Sun. From the 1950s onward it was an easy sell. But the only fusion the experiments provoked lasted a second or so— typically much less than a second—and never produced as much energy as was pumped into the experiments. In physics, that’s the definition of an unworkable idea—and it’s very likely the most expensive failure of theory the world has ever witnessed.

The Electric Sun: Photospheric Lightning

In 1941 Dr. Charles E. R. Bruce, of the Electrical Research Association in England, began developing a new perspective on the Sun. Inspired by the unique behavior of solar flares, he found that the appearance of these flares, their temperature, and their spectrum, provided a perfect match with lightning. The visible surface or photosphere of the Sun appears to be driven by electricity.

In the 1960s, Bruce’s work inspired a U.S. engineer, Ralph Juergens, to undertake an independent investigation of the Sun. Over the following decade, he published a series of articles contending that the thermonuclear model “is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the Sun.” His answer to these contradictions was to suggest that the Sun is the focus of a galaxy-powered “glow discharge.”

Juergens’ work had a profound effect on those who considered it most closely. One was the late Earl Milton, professor of physics at Lethbridge University in Canada, who devoted several years to exploring an electric model of the Sun. Around the same time, Australian physicist Wallace Thornhill also found inspiration in Juergen’s hypothesis. Thornhill has since devoted much of his life to researching the “Electric Universe” and the core tenet of an electric sun. The work of Thornhill and his colleagues has led to a broad interdisciplinary synthesis now attracting researchers from around the world. One such researcher was retired professor of electrical engineering, Donald Scott, author of the recently published book, The Electric Sky. A centerpiece of the book is the electric sun hypothesis.

Glow Discharge (Geissler Tube)

Is it possible that the unsolved mysteries of star formation could find a unified explanation close to home, in the hypothesis of an electric sun? The concept would extend the plasma universe to the observed features of stars. From this perspective, electric currents flowing along galactic arms are pinched into focal points of star formation (the z-pinch effect). Stars are then seen in an electrical connection to the stored energies of the plasma oceans through which galaxies and galactic clusters move.

The electrical hypothesis envisions the Sun immersed in a medium of extremely low-density plasma. Its glow discharge is similar to that of a Geissler tube. Only very close to the Sun will the concentration of atoms be sufficient to excite them to emit visible light in an electric discharge. We see that light as the photosphere and the corona, but the “atmosphere” of the Sun extends outward as the plasma ocean through which the planets move, all swimming in heliospheric currents, all affected by the movement of invisible charge. In this way, all of the electrical activity within the heliosphere and beyond provides a laboratory in space for evaluating the electric Sun hypothesis.

Contrasting Theory and Observation

A dispassionate, qualitative test of two models is now essential. Is the Sun an isolated ball of gas in space, slowly consuming itself through nuclear reactions at its core? Or is its energetic output largely—perhaps entirely—the consequence of external electric fields and the heliospheric movement of charged particles?

My purpose in this paper will be to show that, in contrasting the two models, one overriding consideration emerges: the failures of the standard model are the predictions of the electric model. To see that this is so, and to appreciate what this means, one must trace the connection between theoretical assumption and prediction. The accent should be on inescapable implications of the underlying assumptions, eliminating ambiguity. Wherever the implications are logical requirements of the model, the absence of the predicted findings will amount to falsification of the model as stated.

Though the electrical hypothesis remains in its infancy, and the qualitative phase of the investigation is far from complete, the predictive success of its underlying claims can be readily contrasted to the predictive failure of the fusion model. Hence, an issue-by-issue comparison of the two models cannot be avoided. [This is the subject of the remaining sections, PART TWO and PART THREE]

[Lloyd]

Dave, you said: What I would appreciate from folks is any links or references from prior materials posted on the Forum (or anywhere else, for that matter) relating to any juncture in the narrative.

* How about adding notes within your presentation here, giving us clues when and what you want or need references etc on? Maybe you could highlight such notes somehow, with red font color or something.

[David Talbott]

Thanks to Tayga for three helpful suggestions and corrections on the text drafts above. Everyone please note that, unlike the usual posting on our Forum, these documents will undergo editing directly in order to limit distractions from the intended flow of this thread.

Personally, Lloyd, I'm not fond of cluttering text with colors, though on the more substantive edits it may be useful and appropriate to place them in red, at least temporarily, with a note of appreciation for the contribution.

Lots happening right now to slow us down a bit. Wal and I will be on Coast to Coast radio this coming Wednesday evening (May 18, very late!). On the other hand, I'm about ready to decline an invitation from a History Channel producer, to fly me to LA for an interview this coming week.

I do intend to make headway tomorrow (Sunday), however, and any prompts as to the most significant factual themes (dozens to choose from) could be helpful. In particular I'm thinking of "enigmatic" events implying unanticipated forces, some acting in lightning-like fashion from above the surface, to drive the radial component of subsurface, surface, and coronal activity. Through the back door, solar physicists are clearly coming to the conclusion that all of the surface activity is electrical, though the ideology requires that electricity itself be effectively ignored in favor of free floating magnetism. That way they can hold on to the magnetohydrodynamic equations. (Of course, the work is "quantified" . ) More than anything else it appears that the radial component is producing the greatest contradictions of theory, exactly as we would expect. There's incredibly powerful material to work with here, but getting to the original data (free from ideologically skewed interpretations) is one helluva challenge--which is why I'm inviting other eyes to be involved as well. I think its all going to lead to a Great Debate, one deserving of that name and a lot of attention from solar physicists.

While we're working on PART TWO and PART THREE, please don't hesitate to post comments directly to this thread. We'll wait until the official debate to clean up a final position paper that can serve as the focal point, with appropriate citations. That can then be posted separately as a stand-alone document. I've already heard privately from Nereid with some criticisms. Things could get quite interesting.

[Nereid]

While we're working on PART TWO and PART THREE, please don't hesitate to post comments directly to this thread.

Looks like I'll be first to do so then.

I've already heard privately from Nereid with some criticisms.

I'll take this an OK to go ahead and post those criticisms. If I'm off-base, I trust a mod will take appropriate action.

All quotes are from what David Talbott has posted/written, unless otherwise noted.
- - + - - + - - - + - - + - - + - - + - - + - - + - - + - - + - - + - - + - - + - - + - - -

For well over a century the commonly accepted view amongst astronomers and cosmologists was unequivocal: gravity is king. Gravity rules the heavens. It is the ultimate driver behind the evolution of galaxies and stars.

Um, to be as polite as I can, poppycock and balderdash.

You may, if you try extremely hard, make a case that "the commonly accepted view amongst astronomers and cosmologists was unequivocal: gravity is king" for some narrow slice in time over the last ~150 years; and you can certainly say that, at cosmological scales, 'General Relativity Rules, OK?' (at least for some large fraction of the estimated history of the observable universe) has been a near-consensus view for approx nine decades.

However, to say that gravity "is the ultimate driver behind the evolution of galaxies and stars" is to display (I do hope you'll excuse me, but I can't be any more polite than this) gross ignorance of the parts of astrophysics which are concerned with stellar evolution and the formation and evolution of galaxies.

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).

In contrast, the hypothesis reviewed here suggests that another force—electricity—is far more active in the cosmos than was ever recognized under the standard theories of 20th astronomy.

Again, my initial reaction was "where have you been, for the last several decades?!?"

Some nuts and bolts though:
* we need to be sure we are on the same page with terms like "hypothesis", "force", "electricity", and "standard theories"
* electricity, for example, is not a force (in my vocabulary) - can you explain why, or how, it is, in yours?
* in a narrow sense, astronomy is concerned with observations, "here's an image of NGC xyz", "derived rotation period and axis/pole direction of asteroid ABC", "time series photometry and spectroscopy of microlensing candidate A8c33bOmx.56", that sort of thing; I think you intend to mean astrophysics.

We now know that space is not empty, but filled with charged particles, a sea of conductive plasma.

We also now know that it's even more filled with photons; in most regions of space, these photons are dominated by ones that have a SED (spectral energy density, or distribution) that is extraordinarily close to that of a 2.73 K blackbody.

By number, it may well be that neutrinos - of various kinds - vastly outnumber even the photons.

And among the charged particles are a minority with outrageously large speeds; we call them cosmic rays.

Completing this second paragraph:

It is now evident that electric currents flow across intergalactic, interstellar, and interplanetary space, contributing significantly—often decisively—to the evolution of cosmic structure.

True enough ... though there are some thoroughly dasterdly devils lurking in the details. Or, perhaps, I feel another bout of 'nuts and bolts' coming on.
- - + - - + - - - + - - + - - + - - + - - + - - + - - + - - + - - + - - + - - + - - + - - -
Perhaps, keeping things qualitative, we can agree that astronomy is the science of studying light from the sky?

If so, then in terms of forces, what follows - logically - is that electromagnetism is king; light is, after all, just electromagnetic radiation.

In terms of making sure we start from a mutually agreed foundation, I'd like to know a bit more about this (bold, and italics, in the original; source):

What TB ignores is that I do start by stating 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."

To be clear, Scott is talking about neutrinos.

However, to me, the analogy to photons is both legitimate and compelling.

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

[David Talbott]

Personally, I like the sentence about Gravity being king for so many years. Challenged now by theoretical contradictions such as "gravity that repels" (dark energy), but still theoretically treated as king. A few clarifications will help, but I'll happily defend the overarching statement when it comes to imagined islands in space, galactic structure and star formation, the larger context for discussing the electric alternative—a galactic power source for the Sun.

And did I just see you accept this sentence I wrote: "It is now evident that electric currents flow across intergalactic, interstellar, and interplanetary space, contributing significantly—often decisively—to the evolution of cosmic structure." Would you concede that you've experienced an awakening of late? Hmmmm... I'm reminded of the old adage about institutionalized dogmatism responding to new ideas: first ignore, then mock, then co-opt. ("We've always known that!")

It seems you wandered into obscurantism just when the light went on. But right now I have to prepare for a three hour radio interview and will probably be away for 24 hours or so.

[davesmith_au]

[quote="Nereid""]

For well over a century the commonly accepted view amongst astronomers and cosmologists was unequivocal: gravity is king. Gravity rules the heavens. It is the ultimate driver behind the evolution of galaxies and stars.

Um, to be as polite as I can, poppycock and balderdash.

You may, if you try extremely hard, make a case that "the commonly accepted view amongst astronomers and cosmologists was unequivocal: gravity is king" for some narrow slice in time over the last ~150 years; and you can certainly say that, at cosmological scales, 'General Relativity Rules, OK?' (at least for some large fraction of the estimated history of the observable universe) has been a near-consensus view for approx nine decades.

However, to say that gravity "is the ultimate driver behind the evolution of galaxies and stars" is to display (I do hope you'll excuse me, but I can't be any more polite than this) gross ignorance of the parts of astrophysics which are concerned with stellar evolution and the formation and evolution of galaxies.[/quote]

Now please do correct me if I'm wrong Nereid. Is "General Relativity" a force? My understanding is that Relativity (both General and Special) is a way, even the generally accepted way, of explaining how fundamental forces are organized, but in a fundamental sense, is not a force per se.

In the sense that David Talbott is saying that gravity is the "ultimate driver" I think it would be fair to draw an analogy (which may or may not be applicable).

A train can be used to transport goods/passengers from one place to another. A diesel engine is one type of engine which can be used to pull the carriages, the combination of which (carriages and engine) constitutes our train. At the fundamental level, it is not the driver or the engine which motivates the train, but rather the thermal energy we can retrieve from the fuel which is supplied to the engine. It is this "thermal energy" which is ultimately the driver of the train. The diesel engine is the "General Relativity" in this particular analogy (if it's your train, Nereid), and the "thermal energy" is the "gravity".

If you can concede that this is, in this case (leaving aside the even more fundamental questions of where the energy came from within the fuel, etc), a fair analogy then could you concede that gravity, in this sense, is the "ultimate driver" of the universe?

Disclaimer: This is my analogy, not David Talbott's and I reserve the right to being the one who buggered it up, if in fact it's not a good analogy.

Cheers, Dave.

[PersianPaladin]

[quote="Nereid""]

For well over a century the commonly accepted view amongst astronomers and cosmologists was unequivocal: gravity is king. Gravity rules the heavens. It is the ultimate driver behind the evolution of galaxies and stars.

Um, to be as polite as I can, poppycock and balderdash.

You may, if you try extremely hard, make a case that "the commonly accepted view amongst astronomers and cosmologists was unequivocal: gravity is king" for some narrow slice in time over the last ~150 years; and you can certainly say that, at cosmological scales, 'General Relativity Rules, OK?' (at least for some large fraction of the estimated history of the observable universe) has been a near-consensus view for approx nine decades.

However, to say that gravity "is the ultimate driver behind the evolution of galaxies and stars" is to display (I do hope you'll excuse me, but I can't be any more polite than this) gross ignorance of the parts of astrophysics which are concerned with stellar evolution and the formation and evolution of galaxies.

Now please do correct me if I'm wrong Nereid. Is "General Relativity" a force? My understanding is that Relativity (both General and Special) is a way, even the generally accepted way, of explaining how fundamental forces are organized, but in a fundamental sense, is not a force per se.

In the sense that David Talbott is saying that gravity is the "ultimate driver" I think it would be fair to draw an analogy (which may or may not be applicable).

A train can be used to transport goods/passengers from one place to another. A diesel engine is one type of engine which can be used to pull the carriages, the combination of which (carriages and engine) constitutes our train. At the fundamental level, it is not the driver or the engine which motivates the train, but rather the thermal energy we can retrieve from the fuel which is supplied to the engine. It is this "thermal energy" which is ultimately the driver of the train. The diesel engine is the "General Relativity" in this particular analogy (if it's your train, Nereid), and the "thermal energy" is the "gravity".

If you can concede that this is, in this case (leaving aside the even more fundamental questions of where the energy came from within the fuel, etc), a fair analogy then could you concede that gravity, in this sense, is the "ultimate driver" of the universe?

Disclaimer: This is my analogy, not David Talbott's and I reserve the right to being the one who buggered it up, if in fact it's not a good analogy.

Cheers, Dave.[/quote]

I just think mainstream astrophysicists make things up as they go along.

[Lloyd]

Dave S quoted Nereid as saying: However, to say that gravity "is the ultimate driver behind the evolution of galaxies and stars" is to display (I do hope you'll excuse me, but I can't be any more polite than this) gross ignorance of the parts of astrophysics which are concerned with stellar evolution and the formation and evolution of galaxies.

* Dave S's defense with the train analogy looks sensible to me.
* So this is another example of Nereid's irrelevant nit-picking and trivial argumentativeness. I don't think it bodes well at all for a useful debate. And to call Dave T grossly ignorant of the physics of stellar and galactic evolution here seems entirely disrespectful. I expect she would claim that she hasn't called Dave T ignorant, but would say to reread what she actually said. But that is what she "said". To accuse someone of displaying ignorance is to accuse them of ignorance. Yes?

[Nereid]

Personally, I like the sentence about Gravity being king for so many years. [...] I'll happily defend the overarching statement when it comes to imagined islands in space, galactic structure and star formation, the larger context for discussing the electric alternative—a galactic power source for the Sun.

Then we may never actually get to discuss, let alone debate, the electric Sun model.

And did I just see you accept this sentence I wrote:

Yes, you did.

Did you see what followed? "though there are some thoroughly dasterdly devils lurking in the details".

I suspect that, when we actually get to discuss the details, our agreement may turn out to be just like the equatorial plasma torus around the Sun, in the stills from the 3D reconstructions that you (may, or may not have) found on this webpage - an illusion.

Would you concede that you've experienced an awakening of late?

No.

What you see is the result of some of the immense effort I've put in to trying learn to speak EU.

Is "General Relativity" a force?

No, it is not.

My understanding is that Relativity (both General and Special) is a way, even the generally accepted way, of explaining how fundamental forces are organized, but in a fundamental sense, is not a force per se.

Sorta. 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.

If you can concede that this is, in this case [...] a fair analogy then could you concede that gravity, in this sense, is the "ultimate driver" of the universe?

No.

It's not a fair analogy, but even if it were, it would be a mis-characterisation of GR.

A better analogy might be, to use David Talbott's own words, a description of a pattern or event; in this case the 'pattern or event' is the entirety of the relevant (quantitative) cosmological observations.

So this is another example of Nereid's irrelevant nit-picking and trivial argumentativeness.

I cannot gainsay your personal opinions, Lloyd, just as you cannot mine.

However, per what I just wrote, you'll see that I think Dave S got it wrong.

And to call Dave T grossly ignorant of the physics of stellar and galactic evolution here seems entirely disrespectful.

More (irrelevant) nit-picking and (trivial legitimate) argumentativeness: my actual words were "However, to say that gravity "is the ultimate driver behind the evolution of galaxies and stars" is to display (I do hope you'll excuse me, but I can't be any more polite than this) gross ignorance of the parts of astrophysics which are concerned with stellar evolution and the formation and evolution of galaxies."

I fully agree that it seems a fine line between saying someone is ignorant (of something), and that something they said displays ignorance (of something) - gross/grossly or not.

However, it is - if you read carefully - quite a different thing; one is an attack upon the person (an ad hominen), the other a (forceful) comment on what a person said.

To accuse someone of displaying ignorance is to accuse them of ignorance. Yes?

No.

Here's something to consider: a person can make a statement that displays ignorance, knowing full well that the statement is false/exaggerated/provocative/etc. There are many legitimate reasons why someone might want to do something like this.

[Nereid]

I missed writing something very important.

In terms of making sure we start from a mutually agreed foundation, I'd like to know a bit more about this (bold, and italics, in the original; source):

What TB ignores is that I do start by stating 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."

To be clear, Scott is talking about neutrinos.

However, to me, the analogy to photons is both legitimate and compelling.

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

Can we agree that, pace Don Scott, there are many ways that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel?

If not, then how does one go about understanding the patterns of light from the sky (patterns in both direction and time - this latter being more commonly called 'events')?

[tayga]

I missed writing something very important.

In terms of making sure we start from a mutually agreed foundation, I'd like to know a bit more about this (bold, and italics, in the original; source):

What TB ignores is that I do start by stating 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."

To be clear, Scott is talking about neutrinos.

However, to me, the analogy to photons is both legitimate and compelling.

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

Can we agree that, pace Don Scott, there are many ways that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel?

If not, then how does one go about understanding the patterns of light from the sky (patterns in both direction and time - this latter being more commonly called 'events')?

I think it is important to fully contextualize Don Scott's comment. He asked:

How can the SNO team claim the ability to determine whether something happens to neutrinos enroute from the Sun to Earth without making measurements at the Sun (at the start of the journey) or somewhere along the route? Or by making assumptions about how they started out?

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm

In fact they do the last of these. And since the assumption they make is the very one that the neutrino observations were designed to test it is hardly sound to include it as a given in claiming 'proof' that neutrinos change flavour en route to Earth. It's called circular reasoning.

[Siggy_G]

Is "General Relativity" a force?

No, it is not.

It's definitelly Einstein's attempt of getting rid of gravity as a force – replacing it with a deformed space grid that all objects somehow are dollied to, instead of calling it a force field. Why aren't magnetic fields explained in the same manner? Why is it on the contrary accepted that charged particles can be affected by a distant force? It seems contradictive, when looking at this isolated.

Perhaps, keeping things qualitative, we can agree that astronomy is the science of studying light from the sky?

If so, then in terms of forces, what follows - logically - is that electromagnetism is king; light is, after all, just electromagnetic radiation.

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

"However, to say that gravity "is the ultimate driver behind the evolution of galaxies and stars" is to display (...) gross ignorance of the parts of astrophysics which are concerned with stellar evolution and the formation and evolution of galaxies."

Why? 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?

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. Gravity is not ignored, but it comes further down the line in regards to formation processes for both large scale structures, galaxies and stars. It's almost like explaining the initial processes behind cloud formation, before one looks at when the dropplets condense and where it rains.

Also, if it can be made plausible that the internal conditions of stars 1) aren't powered by nuclear processes within the core and 2) aren't of increasing internal pressure, but more or less iso-dense, then the current explanations of stellar evolution, supernovas and red giants need a little re-interpretation.

[David Talbott]

Personally, I like the sentence about Gravity being king for so many years. [...] I'll happily defend the overarching statement when it comes to imagined islands in space, galactic structure and star formation, the larger context for discussing the electric alternative—a galactic power source for the Sun.

Then we may never actually get to discuss, let alone debate, the electric Sun model.

And did I just see you accept this sentence I wrote:

Yes, you did.

Did you see what followed? "though there are some thoroughly dasterdly devils lurking in the details".
....

Would you concede that you've experienced an awakening of late?

No.

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. There's nothing in the mystical dimensions of Big Bang cosmology and relativity that I'm not generally aware of. If you'll read the other draft material already posted, you'll see that I've let the beginning of the space age be the fulcrum for an analysis of what has happened since mid century. The models in place—including the gravity dominated universe and the fusion model of the Sun—did not anticipate any of the great surprises of the space age. But the underlying assumptions persisted under nothing more than the momentum of human belief.

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!

Cosmologists certainly never abandoned the central dogma of star formation—the gravitational collapse of nebular clouds to light a nuclear furnace. The only problem has been that every major discovery progressively removed the predictive ability of the dogma itself, until nothing was left but to argue about investigations an inch wide and a mile deep (as in the attempts to rescue the "convection cell" interpretation of sunspot penumbra, despite all the reasons to reject the idea once and for all).

For the debate:
Are the sunspot penumbra convection cells, or electric current-vortices contained by magnetic fields?

The situation is that a rush of surprises has produced a carnival of competing speculations. Only the quantified OBSERVATIONS are extending our knowledge of the Sun. The theoretical starting point explains nothing, and has not advanced an iota. Meanwhile billions of dollars are being wasted as theorists desperately seek to quantify a fiction.

For the debate:
My position will be that the fiction can't be quantified through the scientific method. Nothing connects the core idea to observed fact.

Reflecting for a moment, given the scale of unresolved dilemmas, are you ever troubled by the fact that, over the past half-century, no mainstream astronomer or solar physicist, writing in peer reviewed journals, has ever raised a doubt about the nuclear fusion model of the Sun?

But Nereid, if you're going to drop out, I'd like to know now, since I'm reorganizing a crowded schedule to accommodate the debate shortly after the upcoming NPA conference. The one thing I wouldn't accept is that you keep dumping a huge volume of confusing material onto the Forum, then depart before we begin an official and permanent statement of positions on the electric Sun hypothesis. 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. This phase can be a gift to both of us, an opportunity to make corrections of earlier statements as needed, before the debate begins. An example: 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.

This phase should help both of us to enter the debate with positions that are uncluttered by misperception or miscommunication. I say this without granting certain claims on your part of a "failure to communicate" where, in fact (as in the Hotel California analogy, or in the impacting relativistic electron analogies), your communication was perfect clear.

As a final aside, what is your word for the change of mind about electric currents across cosmic distances? Surely neither you nor any of those who've tasked you with debunking the EU ever made such a statement even five years ago. (I know. I've been watching you and the gang from a distance )