The sun is being proven to be non-nuclear fusion

If you go to www.redicecreations.com

Look for the interview with David Talbott

Now you might have to join the Site to view the video

I have joined


But hopefully you won't have to.

Try not to miss this interview, it is terrific

Seriously , don't miss it

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Two points.
1. Wrong section. This is an alternative theory.
2. What's your point? A link is not an argument.

Do you agree with the proposal?
Why?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

David Talbot doesn't know science and has proved nothing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Absolutely *nothing* but junk "science"!! This should be moved to to pseudo section - or even better, the cesspool. Ugh!!

 

I see

So why then is Sun theory being dramatically rethought?

 

Someone having a different theory on something doesn't mean they are right. Or even close to wrong.

 

Everything is being rethought every day by everyone, often in dramatic terms. This is a presentation by a mythologist. To amount to a change in science, you would at least expect to see physicists explaining it.

 

Absolutely. And if there were ANY basis to this idea they would be. However, with nothing more than myths, mysticism and woo-woo nonsense, not a single physicist in the world would ever pause from REAL work to even comment on such crazy stuff.

There's still (and always will be) FAR to much genuine research to be done to waste a single moment studying garbage: and that applies to every single one of us, not just the professionals. Anyone with a real interest in science would have been better rewarded spending that time watching the Flintstones because that show doesn't pretend to be educational.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@ read-only,

self-explanatory. Had to comment on that.

However .. to OP ..

Fusion by its definition is a nuclear process. Don't buy whatever he is selling please.

 

It doesn't have to be sold

Look it cost 30euros to join this Site

And the reason is because so far I have not been able to bring up Wallace Thornhill

He is far, far more technical in the theory

I know because I have been listening to him

 

They paid you 30 euros to join?
That's almost worth it.

 

It was hugely worth it

For this theory alone

 

That's a horrible way to abuse the internet. For one, David Talbott is a frequent guest on that site, appearing at least as far back as 2009. Much better would be to link to the specific article/page. Like, perhaps, this: http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2012/12/RIR-121206.php

David Talbott is a self-promotional reputation-inflating artist and self-publisher but only a self-described comparative mythologist with little or no peer-reviewed research and has been hawking rewarmed Velikovsky ascientific lunacy since at least the early 1970's. In short, he has books to sell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Talbott

As with most novelists and pseudoscientists, this "work" consists of nothing more than making up new exciting stories without testing that they have a basis in reality. This radicalism is only evident in his willingness to ignore the parts of history and reality that don't fit with his story -- and may be viewed as a reactionary return to a prescientific past, unique only in the details that there are many more ways of being wrong rather than being right. As with his ideas of past decades, Talbott cannot be credited with a good grasp on the origin of myths because vertebrate life would find the events of his fictional history of the solar system impossible to live through let alone document in oral human histories.

Ahem:

http://www.velikovsky.info/The_Saturn_Myth ​

But if (on the same site) you try to investigate what is “the Saturn Model,” you learn everyone has a wildly different interpretation and none of them agree in details or with physics. There is no science here. In short, he has books to sell.

I think they mean promotional video. No such video appears on imdb.com, so I doubt it was ever a "feature documentary."
There appears to be evidence that a 1996 film was made.
http://dev.null.org/psychoceramics/archives/1996.05/msg00007.html
http://www.bizapedia.com/or/KRONIA-COMMUNICATIONS-INC.html
The "Producer" was run out of an apartment in suburban Oregon, the "distributor" was a home in rural Oregon. Both are inactive LLCs, but at the time, David Talbott was President of the entity which "produced" this "feature documentary" -- thus it is self-published. In short, he has books and films to sell.
Κρόνος is the Greek name identified with what the Romans called Saturn, so even the whole corporation is part of the marketing campaign.

This is largely duplicative of the claim he was the "primary catalyst behind the “Saturn Model.”"

Two heads are not better than one.

Blah, blah, blah. I don't have an intensifier in my vocabulary to explain how unscientific this is. Let's go with child-enslaving and cage-fighting bad and recognize that as understatement.

Except not in any way that scientists would recognize. At best he has for a handful of unfortunates brought the education process related to solar physics to a halt.

Except not in any way that scientists would recognize.

​

Your choice to associate with such a poorly filtered site will tend to impair your ability to distinguish fantasy from reality.

It is literally, fantastic, which I use in the pejorative sense of being made-up, fever-dream delusional crap.

This too is delusional crap. There are no scientific articles on the subject of the "Electric Sun" and thus no scientific discussion going on, let alone major paradigm shifts. The nuclear fusion processes at the heart of the sun have been directly imaged by directional neutrino detectors, and electromagnetism cannot explain this as neutrinos are neutral particles lighter than electrons.

 

I just make this statement as proof of the mainstream attitude

As far as neutrinos are concerned, I don't have the answer

Perhaps you should directly ask either of these men your question , just maybe....

 

0:00:00-0:01:39 -- Host reads promotional copy quoted above.
0:01:51-0:01:55 -- Oh no. Talbott's first words. This is a phone interview.
0:02:30-0:03:15 -- David answers that following Mars rover data is "a burden." Talks about "new" Curiosity concretions. Did he mean to say Opportunity's Sept 6, 2012 find at Kirkwood?
0:03:15-0:03:53 -- Unsupported claims that Kirkwood spheres could only be formed by electric discharge. Tries to prop up both "Electric Universe" and "Symbols of an Alien Sky".
0:03:53-0:04:14 -- In a display of ascientific double-think, host claims Mars is well-understood in terms of "Electric Universe" and at the same time a big mystery for mainstream science. This demonstrates that "Electric Universe" is not science and "knowing" in terms of "Electric University" epistemology has no connection with "knowing" in terms of science.
0:04:14-0:04:38 -- According to Talbott, all surface features on Mars are "anomalous" therefore physics must be ignored. (A self-serving view for someone who has no physics papers.)
0:04:38-0:05:16 -- Naked assertion that the northern hemisphere has been "excavated" to a depth of six miles by electric discharge and that planetary scientists are supporting this excavation as fact.
0:05:17-0:05:36 -- Talbott pooh-poohs without basis the idea that northern Mars is geologically distinct due to the "only" mainstream hypothesis of celestial impact. (Mars is covered in impact craters, so impactors are neither mysterious or unevidenced. A competing theory of internal origin is nowhere addressed.)
0:05:36-0:08:01 -- Phobos appears to be made of impact debris blasted into orbit by impact. Talbott claims this supports the "Electric Universe" idea without logical argument. Talbott talks about crater chains on Phobos. Talbott claims this supports the "Electric Universe" idea without logical argument. In both cases, Talbott commits the logical error of arguing from personal incredulity. The literature is not so empty-headed.

Blah, Blah, Blah.

0:44:05-0:44:41 Finally Talbot begins talking about the Sun. Ralph Juergens work is praised despite it violating continuity of charge and making no sense in other ways.



Don't see:
R.E. Juergens, "Plasma in Interplanetary Space: Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovskian Catastrophism", Penseé - Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered - II. 2, 6-12 (1972). (David Talbott was President of publishing organization, his brother was editor.)

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensée_(Immanuel_Velikovsky_Reconsidered)
D.U. Wise, M.P. Golombek, & G.E. McGill, "Tectonic Evolution of Mars", Journal of Geophysical Research. 84, 7934−7939 (1979).
D.E. Wilhelms & S.W. Squyres, "The martian hemispheric dichotomy may be due to a giant impact", Nature. 309, 138-140 (1984).
M.H. Acuña, J.E.P. Connerney, N.F. Ness, R.P. Lin, D. Mitchell, C.W. Carlson, J. McFadden, K.A. Anderson, H. Rème, C. Mazelle, D. Vignes, P. Wasilewski, & P. Cloutier, "Global Distribution of Crustal Magnetization Discovered by the Mars Global Surveyor MAG/ER Experiment", Science. 284, 790-793 (1999).
D.E. Smith, M.T. Zuber, S.C. Solomon, R.J. Phillips, J.W. Head, J.B. Garvin, W.B. Banerdt, D.O. Muhleman, G.H. Pettengill, G.A. Neumann, F.G. Lemoine, J.B. Abshire, O. Aharonson, C. D. Brown, S.A. Hauck, A.B. Ivanov, P.J. McGovern, H.J. Zwally, & T.C. Duxbury, "The Global Topography of Mars and Implications for Surface Evolution" Science. 284, 1495-1503 (1999).
M.T. Zuber, S.C. Solomon, R.J. Phillips, D.E. Smith, G.L. Tyler, O. Aharonson, G. Balmino, W.B. Banerdt, J.W. Head, C.L. Johnson, F.G. Lemoine, P.J. McGovern, G.A. Neumann, D.D. Rowlands, & S. Zhong, "Internal Structure and Early Thermal Evolution of Mars from Mars Global Surveyor Topography and Gravity", Science. 287, 1788-1793 (2000).
J.C. Andrews-Hanna, M.T. Zuber & W.B. Banerdt, "The Borealis basin and the origin of the martian crustal dichotomy", Nature. 453, 1212-1215 (2008).
M.M. Marinova, O. Aharonson, & E. Asphaug, "Mega-impact formation of the Mars hemispheric dichotomy", Nature. 453, 1216-1219 (2008).
F. Nimmo, S.D. Hart, D.G. Korycansky, & C.B. Agnor, "Implications of an impact origin for the martian hemispheric dichotomy", Nature. 453, 1220-1223 (2008).
T. Keller & P.J. Tackle, "Towards self-consistent modeling of the martian dichotomy: The influence of one-ridge convection on crustal thickness distribution", Icarus. 202, 429-443 (2009).
J.B. Murray & J.C. Iliffe, "Morphological and geographical evidence for the origin of Phobos' grooves from HRSC Mars Express images", Geological Society of London Special Publications. 356, 21-41 (2011).
T.P. Andert, P. Rosenblatt, M. Pätzold, B. Häusler, & G.L. Tyler "The internal structure of Phobos and hints to its origin derived from Mars Express Radio Science observations", EPSC-DPS Joint Meeting 2011. 6, 210-211 (2011).

 

So , though , have you listened to Wallace Thornhill?

 

It's not properly called a theory since it lacks any basis in science. If you mean you would pay €30 to be entertained by opinions about how science could have it all wrong, I assure you: for only €60 I would opine four times as much, and for €120 I will rant and rail until the cows come home.

 

And who judges this theory

What's the basis of mainstream science

A wonderwall

 

Other scientists (google "peer review")

The experimental method.

1) Create a reasonable hypothesis
2) Construct a repeatable experiment to test its validity
3) Perform the experiment and see whether it demonstrates that the hypothesis is valid

 

Which has all been done by the above theory