Electric star model now explains every problem facing solar space physics

An interesting hypothesis... way above my level of physics in any case.

Id just like to voice my support for the OP. Even if his theories turn out to be incorrect, how does it matter? Any theory worth a damn (nuclear sun) will hold its own against scrutiny and rival theories.

Good man Zeuzz, good man. Question on.

reply to post by buddhasystem


So sorry to have offended your scientific sensibilities with a philosophic musing on something that I freley admit I'm far from expert on, but have a mind to learn more. However, it is always sad to see an unimaginative critic who does all they can to shred other's opinions and ideas yet put forward nothing constructive of their own.

i'll freely admit that the electric-everything theory does have a few problems, the most important and basically irreconcilible is the energy source's location... even though it might still yield useful results, of course.


that said, conventional cosmology is indeed facing many problems and a few of these can be attributed to dogmatic rejection of considering electric influcences.

we all have heard of the so called 'solar wind' ie. mostly protons and a few alpha particles, which oddly enough is, by definition, an ionic current. to maintain a current along any resitance, you need voltage, if you put objects (planets and stuff) in between they'll be charged - and so on you can guess the rest.

this is especially apparent in comets, which for some odd reason tend to flare 'uncontrollably', or, to put it correctly, unpredictedly, at rather large distances from the sun, displaying vast halos, while close-up examination via probe indicated an extremely dry and darkened environment, ie. the exact opposite of what the snowball model predicted.


PS: everytime someone is talking about magnetic fields without talking about associated currents, i advise extreme caution.

Originally posted by citizen smith
So sorry to have offended your scientific sensibilities with a philosophic musing on something that I freley admit I'm far from expert on, but have a mind to learn more. However, it is always sad to see an unimaginative critic who does all they can to shred other's opinions and ideas yet put forward nothing constructive of their own.

You know, Mr.Smith, I'm not opposed at all to a poetic view of the Universe. If you, or somebody else, will say that "galaxies sing in harmony" or that "cosmic currents unite us all", that is fine by me. I like that. We are, however, dealing with a physics problem here and not as much philosophical views or poetic sensitivities. After all, physics ultimately is an applied science. It is used to produce rockets, condoms and Blu-Ray disks. And as such I want a degree of verifiable quantitative power in anything that's labeled a theory. You may find general relativity controversial, fine, but it does explain minute details of the orbit of Mercury. On the other hand, all this talk about EU is just that, a talk. So while I'm with you while describing the Universe as a complex network of currents, fields, feelings and emotions, we better delineate where poetry stops and science starts. I'm not bashing poets

Originally posted by Long Lance
we all have heard of the so called 'solar wind' ie. mostly protons and a few alpha particles, which oddly enough is, by definition, an ionic current. to maintain a current along any resitance, you need voltage, if you put objects (planets and stuff) in between they'll be charged - and so on you can guess the rest.

You may have heard that solar wind contains electrons as well, which make it effectively neutral. There is no net current as far as we know. So the rest of your argument is moot imho.

Originally posted by citizen smith
I've always believed in the concept of 'as above, so below' in terms of holistic views of science.

By this I mean that what we observe at the atomic scale with particle interactions and how they are bound together, such as how an electron is bound to its shell orbit around the nucleus and the flow of charge between the two that constitute an atom of an element [....]

Scale that up again and you have the earth with our single orbiting moon, bound in place by interactive charge-flows that keep it rotating in its orbit, just like an atom of Hydrogen and it's single electron orbiting the nucleus, which scaled up gives us the solar system with the sun as nucleus of the structure and its multiple charge-bound planetary orbits.

Now magnify that to a galactic-macro scale and you have our sun and other stars bound into an orbit around a similarly galaxy-scaled nucleus with the same kind of interactive charge-flow dynamic (much as you describe in your OP) as the atomic structure and you have an answer to how the system of the electric-stars may work.

A very insightful post, if you came up with that concept yourself, well done. I would Ignore buddhas responce, although his points are scientifically valid, he seems intent on picking out the very slight mistakes in your terminology without actually paying attention to what you are saying.

Just replace when you use 'flow of charge' with 'electrostatic attraction', and you're pretty close to the mark.

This issue of similarities between atomic structures and the motion of bodies in space has been observed by plenty of scientists. And this model seems to fit nearly perfectly with the electric sun model, ie, a large positive centre, with comparatively negative charges orbiting around it.

Fragmentation of Cosmic Objects - Astrophysics v. 46, Issue 1

A series of phenomenological similarities between activity phenomena in the microscopic world and in the world of galaxies is examined. [....] A physical connection between activity phenomena and cosmic expansion is sought.

And this brilliant paper by O. Manuel, Michael Mozina, and Hilton Ratcliffe recently published in the journal of fusion energy has further found strong resemblances between the atomic model and the sun.

www.omatumr.com...

On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and
the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars

These processes would explain the analogous behavior noted between atomic nuclei and cosmic objects [15] and parallel the similarity Bohr [30] noted between atomic and planetary structures. However, another force comes into play on the cosmological mass scale that is unimportant on the mass scale of ordinary nuclear matter shown in Fig 3 – gravity.

This cycle involves neither the production of matter in an initial “Big Bang” nor the disappearance of matter into black holes. The similarity Bohr noted between atomic and planetary structures extends to a similarity between nuclear and stellar structures.

The nuclear cycle that powers the cosmos may not require the production of matter in an initial “Big Bang” or the disappearance of matter into black holes. The similarity Bohr noted in 1913 [30] between atomic and planetary structures extends to the similarity Harutyunian recently found [15] between nuclear and stellar structures.

CONCLUSION
Neutron-rich stellar objects produced by gravitational collapse exhibit many of the features that are observed in ordinary nuclei

I find this analogy very interesting, as it could essentially explain a connection between the subatomic level of reality to the largest level of reality. That is what is wrong with modern science, there is no connection to forces at big scales (the force attributed to gravity) and the forces at tiny scales, the main reason why there has never been a successful 'theory of everything'. But this concept of geometrical similarities between the two scales seems to be a direct link connecting all scales, which could have big implications for finding out the connection between the two.

The main reason I like this comparison is that it perfectly mirrors the ES model of a positive charge at the centre with orbiting objects circling it. So understanding the ES model fully could potentially reveal much more than just the working of the solar systems, it could even increase our understanding of atoms and the microscopic world.


[edit on 31-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]

I've always been intrigued be these here EU and Electric Sun theories. It really puts a different spin on everything we've been taught about what the Universe and the Sun is made of.

Point is, we'll never know what it's all made of. Never. It's infinitely beyond us little humans to understand what in the hell is going on out there. So I keep an openmind about it. I'm no scientist or ivy leagye school teacher, but this theory ZeuZZ has been nice enough to present here makes sense to me and I will continue to listen.

Buddha,

Originally posted by buddhasystem
But I do, mon ami. I've done more physics experiments in my life that you ever dreamt of. I taught physics lab at an Ivy League school in addition to that. So take heed and listen, because any other mode of behavior would be silly at this juncture.

Clearly you have very deep knowledge and understanding of Physics. I don't think anyone will debate that, but does your belief in one system of Science or Physics completely prevent you from keeping an open mind about other feasible theories?

I mean what's so wrong with EU theory or Electric Sun theory that you must speak cynically and condescendingly to those who believe this to viable? As a teacher shouldn't you come across as such here? Because you're not.

It's not like anyone here is saying the moon is made out of cheese.

Do you speak down to your Ivy League students like this when they present you with alternate ideas?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
The "electric star" model does not contain any math to speak of. As such, it's free of internal contraints test or any other real test, because such, you see, always happen in quantitative realm, that is in real science.

Until you can calculate neutrino yields within the "electric star" model, you have no moral right to claim that it is somehow superior to the "standard model". Same applies to most of your bullet points.

BS,

"Real science," astrophysics division, currently preaches such Harry Potterish nonsense as "dark matter," "dark energy" and "quintessence," which are supposed to make up the vast majority of the universe, even though these "real scientists" have not the slightest idea of what these forces are, have never observed them, and thus have no way of confirming them.

Dark this-and-that, Dark Vader, is a big joke, IMHO. So your disdain of the EM/plasma universe theory seems, at least to this layman-observer, somewhat defensive and misplaced, to put it mildly..

Check out his thin (or brutally edited) article from the BBC. Ostensibly it concerns the Plank satellite, an ESA venture to map the universe's cosmic microwave background radiation, or CMB. However, what makes the piece so interesting is the straightforward, easy-for the-layman's view of the present state of "real science's" knowledge of the universe. It's quite revealing.

To wit:

The universe is essentially flat.

--ok...

After having expanded enormously in the early stages after the Big Bang (known as Inflation), it slowed, but its expansion is again accelerating.

...um, ok....

Only 4% of the matter in the universe is visible. 73% is composed of "Dark Energy" and 23% is "Dark Matter." Their existence is surmised from "indirect detection."

No one knows the true nature of either "dark energy" or "dark matter," though one group hews to Einstein's cosmological constant as the explanation for "dark energy"--"a constant energy density which fills space homogeneously."

--Well, here I must speak up. I'm sorry, I may not be an astrophysicist, but I can certainly tell you that anyone who believes that anything in the universe--including the very 96% these very astrophysicists can't locate or identify--is supposedly made up of energy that is constant and homogeneous, should get out of the lab and look at the world around them. Looks to this uninformed observer like a desperate attempt to transmute Einstein's easy-out cosmological constant from convenient place-filler into over-arching explanation for all that the "real scientists" themselves admit they are completely clueless to identify or describe.

The second proposition is that "'dark energy' is a dynamic field, called 'quintessence,' whose energy density varies in time and space."

--At first glance a bit more logical, but again totally opaque. What does that gibberish mean?

This seems to me a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
But you see, it is the "electric" conconction that does NOT have any mathematical validation (see my example with solar neutrinos). Considering real models of whatever sophistication, on the same basis as a mere claim of "electrical sun", doesn't make a lot of sense to begin with. Once the "electric" model is built and calculations done, then we can talk, but before that, putting in a thread titled "Electric star model now explains every problem facing solar space physics" is really, really grotesque.

Did you even read my post?

I have listed all of the problems that are facing solar physics, as outlined by one of the worlds leading solar physicists, and I have shown how each of these problems with current models has a potential solution by assuming that the sun has a net charge. Its quite simple. If the sun is not at a net charge, these phenomenon are completely unexplained. If the sun does have a net charge, all these phenomenon can be easily explained. So what do you think would be the logical thing to conclude from this?

What i feel is lacking from any of your points Buddha is you offering any explanations to the problems I outlined. So let me ask you a few questions;

1) Why is the corona millions of degrees hotter than the surface of the sun?

2) Why do particles accelerate as they leave the photosphere?

3) How do magnetic field lines 'reconnect' or get tied into 'knots'?

4) Why is the corona there, and why does it possess a filamentary structure?

5) How can the The solar magnetic field be created without the electric currents required to create it?

6) Since all the planets are now known to have over 650,000 Amps flowing into their poles to create the aurora's, why can this analogy not be applied to the sun?

S'cuse me if this idea is a little off-topic, but if the electric-universe theory with its current paths could be proven and quantified, could that make interstellar travel probable by harnessing that energy as a source of propulsion and travelling along them??

PS: Buddha, thanks for that reply

[edit on 31-1-2008 by citizen smith]

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
I mean what's so wrong with EU theory or Electric Sun theory that you must speak cynically and condescendingly to those who believe this to viable?

I feel that I failed to express what is wrong, in my view, so let me try again ever so briefly:

I do not think there is anything cynical in asking for some accountability in long-reaching claims. If somebody says that there is a "solar neutrino problem" (which I think is currently explained within the stanrd model anyway), such statement comes from looking at results of a calculation done with a mathematical model in "standard model" of the Sun. Calculation is the key word here.

If XYZ says that his theory explains the deficit of solar neutrinos, while not being able to back it up with anything than hand waving, this is what I think is cynical. Same applies to most other parts of the claims in OP.

I strongly oppose decadent credulence which bypasses scientific method in favor of instant gratification derived from science pr0n.

Originally posted by gottago
"Real science," astrophysics division, currently preaches such Harry Potterish nonsense as "dark matter," "dark energy" and "quintessence," which are supposed to make up the vast majority of the universe, even though these "real scientists" have not the slightest idea of what these forces are, have never observed them, and thus have no way of confirming them.

Well guess what, such was the situation with neutrinos when they were first theorized about. Physics is for open minded people, you see, and not for those who substitue difficult concepts and difficult math with shamanism based on 3-rd grade material. Having discrete energy levels in a system would probably seem "Harry Potterish" to you a few decades ago. Or, you cannot really "see" gluons inside a nucleon, so you'll probably write it off as gibberish. And so on with every other item you can't compehend.

Dark this-and-that, Dark Vader, is a big joke, IMHO.

Sure, physics is a big joke for people not equipped to comprehend it.

--Well, here I must speak up. I'm sorry, I may not be an astrophysicist, but I can certainly tell you that anyone who believes that anything in the universe--including the very 96% these very astrophysicists can't locate or identify--is supposedly made up of energy that is constant and homogeneous, should get out of the lab and look at the world around them.

By your logic, anyone who would write down equations describing neutrino interactions, nucelar fusion etc should get out of the lab and be happy with barbaric simple-mindedness that you seem to espouse.

I feel that I should outline the main ideas behind the very basis of the theoretical model, and how you should distinguish between two competing theories and which one holds the most truth.

Firstly I should point out that without omnipotence, we will always fall short of absolute truth. There is no way around this. That said, every bit of evidence is open to interpretation. However, at some point, if none of the evidence to support a position can be verified, or it turns out to be based on unverifiable claims, or is in contradiction to well-designed tests, then that evidence must be weighed against the entirety of the claim.

Because our human nature makes it difficult to admit when problems exist in our theories, we can appeal to a set of criteria from which all theories can be judged. These criteria do not care about anyone’s political agenda, scientific beliefs, nor are they affected by tricks of logic.

These criteria exist in response to real-world epistemic conditions. That is, these criteria are not designed to be able to tell which theory is “true” and which is “false,” but which theory is better designed to answer the question at hand.

Parsimony (also called Ockham’s Razor) states that of two competing theories with equal explanatory power, the simplest theory is more theoretically appealing than the more complicated one. Strictly defined, parsimony demands us not to “multiply entities beyond necessity.”.

The ES model passes this test far better than the standard model. You can explain the main concepts involved for the ES model to someone in a matter of minutes, whereas the standard model takes a less coherent approach and makes use of many more separate entities to explain the same thing (the solar dynamo, MHD, nuclear fusion, coronal seismology, etc, etc, etc)

Simply put, the theory that explains the most phenomena and disregards the least evidence is the more powerful theory. Put another way, if theory A must disregard some evidence, and theory B does not, theory B is a better theory. I have outlined eight areas where the ES model can explain phenomenon that the standard model can not. So far I have not heard any counter points that the ES model can not explain. If you have any, please list them so we can compare the theories. If not, ask yourself why this is.


The events espoused by a theory should be repeatable or at least observable in analogous circumstances. Theories that hinge on results that are unrepeatable are suspect as unlikely. This applies to such untested things as ‘magnetic reconnection’, ‘the solar dynamo’ and other ambiguous ideas.

As a further explication of the above criteria, we should recognize that theories that fly in the face of long-standing, fundamental principles (otherwise known as “laws of physics and thermodynamics”), are highly questionable, and require very strong evidence to even consider as plausible, much less as likely explanations. Luckily, the ES model is not only highly consistent with these fundamental principles, but is based entirely on them. The field of electricity and magnetism is very well established, and the ES model adheres perfectly to them. So far from all my posting on various fora no-one has come up with a laws of physics that this theory violates, in fact, that seems to be its strength, it seems highly internally self consistent. On the other hand the standard model seems content with bending various laws of magnetism, creating entirely new metaphysical entities and creating entirely new properties of materials.

So given this, it should be clear that unless more evidence is put forward to refute the ES model, as it currently stands, the ES model is the more powerful and effective theory of the two as it is able to explain many aspects still unexplained by the standard model.

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Parsimony (also called Ockham’s Razor) states that of two competing theories with equal explanatory power, the simplest theory is more theoretically appealing than the more complicated one. Strictly defined, parsimony demands us not to “multiply entities beyond necessity.”.

And you failed to demontrate such neccessity, since you don't provide neutrino rates and other quantitative parameters that are the only measure how good a theory is.

It is quite remarkable how much TEXT you published in this post of yours, which has to do more with psychology and less with phenomena at hand.

In the end, it does not matter if the theory you are proposing is less complex if it's wrong. There are so many holes in the EU that are obvious even from a quick read, and so little quantitative component (actually none).

Is the charge of the Sun increasing or decreasing with time? What is the source of electrons that you claim are falling towards the Sun? How come the shape of Earth's magnetosphere does not conform with this stipulation?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Parsimony (also called Ockham’s Razor) states that of two competing theories with equal explanatory power, the simplest theory is more theoretically appealing than the more complicated one. Strictly defined, parsimony demands us not to “multiply entities beyond necessity.”.

And you failed to demontrate such neccessity, since you don't provide neutrino rates and other quantitative parameters that are the only measure how good a theory is.

I'll do exactly what the standard model does and just say that the ES model should be producing the exact amount of neutrino's that we observe. I dont see not having precise numbers on the neutrino yields a big flaw, agreed it is one of the points still be answered fully by this model, but it is a small point when you consider the whole picture.

And magnetic confinement techniques have been observed to produce plenty of neutrino's, infact many more mudane types of reaction also produce neutrino's, they are not exclusive to nulcear fusion;
Neutrinos as a diagnostic of high energy astrophysical processes - Physics Letters B Volume 621, Issues 1-2

A leading candidate for the extragalactic source of high energy cosmic rays is the Fermi engine mechanism, in which protons confined by magnetic fields are accelerated to very high energy through repeated scattering by plasma shock fronts. In the process of acceleration, collisions of trapped protons with the ambient plasma produce pions which decay to electromagnetic energy and neutrinos. For optically thin sources, a strong connection between the emerging cosmic rays and secondary neutrinos can be established.

Is the charge of the Sun increasing or decreasing with time?

The charge stays roughly constant. For about the FIFTH TIME.

What is the source of electrons that you claim are falling towards the Sun?

The surrounding stars. Where else?

How come the shape of Earth's magnetosphere does not conform with this stipulation?

What stipulation?


[edit on 31-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Physics is for open minded people, you see, and not for those who substitue difficult concepts and difficult math with shamanism based on 3-rd grade material.

So, what are "dark energy" and "dark matter," then, if not the substitution of 3rd-grade level astrophysical incantations for the 96% of the universe these very scientists are simply unable to explain?

--Well, here I must speak up. I'm sorry, I may not be an astrophysicist, but I can certainly tell you that anyone who believes that anything in the universe--including the very 96% these very astrophysicists can't locate or identify--is supposedly made up of energy that is constant and homogeneous, should get out of the lab and look at the world around them.

By your logic, anyone who would write down equations describing neutrino interactions, nucelar fusion etc should get out of the lab and be happy with barbaric simple-mindedness that you seem to espouse.

What does this have to do with dark matter and dark energy? What are those terms standing in for, if not hiding a profound ignorance astrophysicists do not want to admit? I do not criticize them for the ignorance, but for the attempt to con everyone else into believing they know something they themselves admit they don't.

And what about the neat trick of just calling the cosmological constant a "dark" force?

Hmm, good banter on both sides as I see it.

As far as the arguing goes, I think while these theories may be "far reaching," theorizing is a lost art nowadays where everything in our world can be quantified or solved with a formula. What I'm trying to say is: I believe that the next big wall we hit technologically and scientifically will deal with our inability to get passed the possibility that many of our thoughts on physics and mechanics don't work in different scenarios or grander scales. Just because it works on earth doesn't mean it applies everywhere. Gravity is just a theory as it is, its not proven. Just armchair science on my part though, no degree in the sciences here.

But isn't the best way to find out to employ experimental applications? You don't know until you put it together yourself. Seems to me it wasn't so long ago that the possibility of reaching light speeds became slightly more plausible.

I am inclined to remind that what is evidence or a problem in one paradigm is sometimes not necessary to consider in another. Mainstream adherents and those that are unable to see from a paradigmatic standpoint often expect a new model to explain or resolve paradoxes which the status quo model is unable to. However what fails to be understood is that the basic framework which a new model is built upon can sometimes resolve those paradoxes at a much earlier stage, making the question that brought about the previous paradox inapplicable. Paradoxes only exist within human understanding of the universe; sometimes when a person holds two or more contradicting ideas to be true, they are closer to resolving the reality behind the situation.

A list of issues that one paradigmatic model can not resolve, will be viewed differently from an alternate paradigm. Some of the questions may become non-questions, inapplicable. Why search for something that is not there when it was only thought to be there due to inadequate or incorrect thinking within the other paradigm?

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
I have listed all of the problems that are facing solar physics, as outlined by one of the worlds leading solar physicists, and I have shown how each of these problems with current models has a potential solution by assuming that the sun has a net charge. Its quite simple.

You see, in the absense of a comprehensive model based on this proposition, you miss out on potential (and very real, in my view) problems that arise within it.

You don't comment on the absense of observed "electron wind" blowing towards the Sun, as follows from your theory. You don't address the issue of how the Sun keeps its charge imbalance. You cant' demonstrate that enough energy is generated by fusion in outer layers, even though it's plain obvious that due to very low density of plasma in these regions it's just impossible. You can't explain why we don't observe "jets" emerging from the polat regions.

What i feel is lacking from any of your points Buddha is you offering any explanations to the problems I outlined. So let me ask you a few questions;

1) Why is the corona millions of degrees hotter than the surface of the sun?

2) Why do particles accelerate as they leave the photosphere?

These two are related and no, I don't have an answer for this -- which in no way indicates that your "theory" is acceptable.

3) How do magnetic field lines 'reconnect' or get tied into 'knots'?

In my view, very complex configs of magnetic fields are possible when you have moving plasma.

4) Why is the corona there, and why does it possess a filamentary structure?

There corona is there because it's effectively an extension of solar atmosphere. Filaments result from magnetic field.

5) How can the The solar magnetic field be created without the electric currents required to create it?

We don't know distribution of currents withing the Sun.

6) Since all the planets are now known to have over 650,000 Amps flowing into their poles to create the aurora's, why can this analogy not be applied to the sun?

Because in your Sun analogy you create a spherical capacitor around the Sun, under high voltage, which is a completely different scenario.



[edit on 31-1-2008 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It is quite remarkable how much TEXT you published in this post of yours, which has to do more with psychology and less with phenomena at hand.

In the end, it does not matter if the theory you are proposing is less complex if it's wrong. There are so many holes in the EU that are obvious even from a quick read, and so little quantitative component (actually none).

Excuse my attitude in this post, I have dealt with your type for so many years that sometimes I can't hold in my disdain any longer. I think ZueZZ is doing a good job holding his tongue. First of all, if all you ever give it is a quick read from your status-quo-adherent world-view, do you honestly expect it to be complete on the first look? You have to understand the history behind the ideas, both competing paradigms. You have to understand the real process of scientific advancement throughout the centuries, not come into it with the closed mind, elite, all-knowing, all-is-well attitude that you clearly exhibit. There is a double-standard in cosmology where the status quo can have an incomplete theory, yet any alternate that comes along has to be complete BEFORE it gets any attention from the mainstream institutions. Alfven himself said that you can prove the status quo is wrong before having to provide a complete replacement. It is part of scientific progress.

Now, on to quantitative predictions and theory with plasma cosmology (of which the electric sun and electric universe ideas are truly a sub-set.) As I flip through my cherished hardcover copy of 'Cosmic Plasma', a book written by Nobel Prize winner and Pioneer in Plasma Cosmology, Hannes Alfven, I notice how he has a great mix of quantitative and qualitative explanation. Both of which are necessary within any paradigm shifting scientific endeavor. I can't imagine how someone is going to learn a new way of thinking without being faced with at least some 'TEXT', as you put it. Lets take a closer look at Alfven's book, since it really is deeply important to PC. In fact starting in chapter one, I only have to go 3 pages in to get to the first diagram. The first full equation is on page 6 (Maxwell's First written in differential form) which is incorporated into an overview about the dualism in plasma physics between the particle and field descriptions. Lets see here, ah yes page 11, the beginning of the meat. First section is again about the dualism in particle versus field description, Maxwell's First is shown. Page 12, oh look at that 3 more equations describing the forces on a particle within an electric field. At the top of Page 13 we have the definition of electric conductivity parallel to a magnetic field. Diagram on page 14, equation for energy of a particle in an electric field on 15, so on and so forth. All mixed in with words.

My point is that there is plenty of quantitative study concerning plasma cosmology, electricity and magnetism as applied to astrophysics. Pick up Alfven's book and see for yourself. You are at Ivy League from what people are saying, surely they have a library that can do inter-library loans? My lowly technical university got me anything I wanted from inter-library loans. While you are at the library check out some of the special issues on plasma cosmology that the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science journal put out, they are fabulous and have plenty of quantitative ideas for one to ponder. Just because ZeuZZ doesn't feel like getting into a deeply quantitative fist fight, doesn't mean it is not possible to apply mathematical ideas along with qualitative philosophical backing. The real physicists are also philosophers and historians by the way. Your thinking that a theory is only as good as it's quantitative predictions makes me wonder if you are one of those mathematicians that thinks they are a physicist? We have enough of those already.