You got a full and honest reponse.
And here is another full and honest reponse
You never did answer question A)
A) You are lying - I know about plasma physics from my university education and what I have read since then.
You've never read a textbook on the topic of plasma physics, so your university education has nothing to do with it. When are you going to read a book on *this* topic RC?
You though have read some plasma physics textbooks
Yes, about a half dozen of them now if you include Langmuir's writings. You've read zero!
and remain ignorant of some basics, e.g. that the opacity of the photosphere
This is not a 'basic' of plasma physics. It's a *falsified* claim from a completely different (mainstream) solar theory. You can't understand "basic" issues related to plasma physics from *basic* claims about *other* solar models! I might as well be trying to teach my cat quantum mechanics.
means that no light is emitted from thousands of kilometers below it.
That now falsified claim has *nothing* do with a *Birkeland solar model*.
Of course the only bit of "plasma physics" (which is not plasma physics
)that we have really debated is:
It's directly related to your ignorance of basic plasma physics. If you knew the first thing about it, you'd have gotten off your bigoted and ignorant high horse two years ago. 7 different authors all demonstrate you don't know the first thing about plasma physics, not even *basic* concepts!
B): You are lying because GM states that he did contact NASA:
GM did *not* provide any names, and he stuffed his own false claims about the image in their mouth! What was the name of the individual GM spoke to, an what *exactly* was his quote? Lying about contacting NASA is pure nonsense. If you can't produce a name and an exact quote, you're both just making it up!
I know for a fact that NASA understands that the green color of the horizon is directly related to the color assignments of the iron ion wavelengths, and it has *nothing* to do with the a green gradient filter. NASA isn't that stupid.
C) I do not need to read a plasma physics textbook to see how badly you understand plasma physics.
Yes, you do. You so *badly* understand the ideas you *think* everyone else does. Whom shall I believe, a guy that works at Los Alamos and who writes books on plasma physics, or some retired IT guy that hasn't ever studied the subject of plasma physics and who *refuses* to do so even after *years* of claiming to know more about this subject.
Anyone who can Google can see that you are ignorant of plasma physics, e.g. opacity.
Anyone that can Google can see that specific solar model *assumptions* are not "plasma physics". They are solar theory issues related to a specific solar theory, one that was already falsified by SDO.
I will not waste my time unless we get to actually discuss plasma physics rather than the trivial topic of electrical discharges -
which by the way is not plasma physics !
Electrical discharges are the cause of high particle release in solar flares. If you can't handle *basic* concepts in a Birkeland solar model you have no business discussing it at all. Since you haven't read a book on plasma physics, and you refuse to do so, what's the point of discussing at topic you hate, and know nothing about?
.
!
