Quote:
|
Venom? I called a bunch of crackpots, "crackpots", what's venomous about that? I see no reason to suffer fools gracefully, and I don't (even on those rare occasions where I am one myself). I also see no reason to assume that the words "open minded" and "gullible" should be considered synonymous. It is of no consequence that someone holds a different opinion than mine, and I am a champion of original thinking. But opinion is not the issue here.
|
I'm glad you consider yourself a champion of original thinking rarely being a fool, but sometimes it is exactly proposing something "foolish" that leads to new insights.
That still doesn't mean that you need to use those words in this forum, as I said you showed where the holes are and if you're right the model is based on a belief. If you want to say those things in the strongest words possible, be my guest, but you should just provide a link and keep the accusations towards Thornhill and others (for even considering an Electric model) out of this forum and voice them on your website. And what is considered well known and fundamental today, can change into something not so fundamental tomorrow, if (and only if) enough evidence becomes available.
Electricity in space does exist, so the premise for the model is not too farfetched. And most people are not familiar with plasma, while it is the dominant state of matter. So I see this model as a way to learn things about plasma that I wouldn't otherwise have known, and the the pros and cons of this model shows me where there is truly something worth to learn (for instance about the solar wind, heliosphere and magnetospheres). And that's all, there are worse things in the world than turning the ideas that stars are powered from within inside out and proposing those ideas. The people proposing it should provide evidence, otherwise it doesn't hold. Simple as that.
Cheers.