Hmm, would that apply to neutrino oscillations and dark matter as well?
Ok Kashi, you made it very clear to me that you have very strong feelings towards the electric model (whacky, nonsensical, pseudoscientific nonsense). I don't mind discussing a model that is eventually proven wrong, but I think there is no need to shout (the rules should also apply to moderators, no?). If, like Tim states, the model is wrong, based on the fact that the Sun is not electrically powered, so be it. I don't mind admitting I presumed wrong, but as you might have guessed I'm not totally convinced yet (being stubborn helps me with that). The data that are used to explain the Universe around us need interpretations, and that's where culture, human nature and assumptions come in. exAstro you are right that these discussions should be done in peer-reviewed journals, although publishing your data, interpretations and models is not a simple task. Even the peer-review system is not infallible (cold-fusion) and besides I'm not looking forward to see theories vindicated years after the people proposing them have died. So, basically I'm impatient and use this forum as a "shortcut" to find things out.
Tim, I know you have been debating the electric model with Thornhill for some time and I agree that if the Sun is powered electrically we need to see the electrons. Not being able to find them, doesn't mean they are not there, as you say it seems unlikely, but hey, we've heard stranger things being claimed.
ExAstro, what is this Arnold's Law you mentioned, I hope this is not one of those discussions.
Suppose, against all odds that we do find the electrons flowing towards the Sun, can I start a new thread vindicating the Electric model?
Cheers.