Attiyah's Sun theory is the most revolutionary theory of astronomy.

Attiyah's Sun theory has many hypotheses:

1- The bulk of the diffuse daytime light is generated in the ionosphere by the same mechanisms that generate the polar auroras.

2- The solar X-rays and ultraviolet light are the primary origin for the energy needed to drive the global, continuous occurrence of the daytime auroral activities.

3- The global daytime auroras are capable of forming the so-called auroral corona which is the primary source of the daytime beam radiation.

4- The Sun always forms a far glowing background for the daytime auroral corona.

5- The formation of the auroral corona and concentration of its light, are both intimately related to the magnetic zenith effect.

6- The earthward spread of the light from the magnetic zenith is intimately governed by the phenomenon of aspect sensitivity.
N.B.
I consider that the auroral radiant point is different from the auroral corona. Accordingly, the auroral radiant point is a matter of perspective i.e., an illusive convergence similar to the rail-road track effect, whereas the auroral corona is a real convergence of light caused by the magnetic zenith effect. However, the radiant point and auroral corona are generally concomitant and optically coincident.

Makes sense to me.

What in the world...

I have no idea why anyone would come up with anything like that.

Me neither. Especially since it is so verifiably wrong.

Probably why it makes sense to me.

Can you prove or verify that the mechanisms that produce the auroras in the polar auroral oval aren't found throughout the daytime ionosphere?
Please try.

There is no need for any one to try to prove anything except you. It's your hypothesis and therefore the burden of proof is yours and yours alone. Can you provide some real evidence rather than wild speculation?

Please try.

so visible light photos taken of the sun in space are lies and all the people who travel into space are encased in total darkness?

Are you serious?

Okay, a simple one then. The effective brightness of the sun is recordably and predictively the same on every body in the solar system regardless of the strength of their magnetic field.

Oh wait, here's another. Rather than be a harsh shadow line demarcated by the sun on any planet, including ours, your theory would means such light would follow the magnetic field where it's strongest and visibly light the poles constantly. Yeah that doesn't happen either.

Oh, and "aspect sensitivity"? I'm assuming you mean the optical effect of false perspective. This is something inately human (or more specifically particlular to binoculary vision forced into a monocular perspective but I can't speak for every other binocular visioned species on the planet) and not analogous to physical phenomenon.

Really, it is Attiyah's duty, it is Attiyah's homework, to prove his hypotheses, but why did not you ask this befere refusing them?

Have you ever seen the view of the Sun in the photos taken by Apollo astronauts while they were on the Moon or in lunar orbits?
Please try here
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...howtopic=120392

Err...possibly because you didn't offer any evidence, and that your hypothesis is not what the known available evidence demonstrates? Just a gusss on my part.

Why does Attiyah speak in the third person and in a massive font?

You can't be annoyed - you're making these claims, you must back them up if you're to be taken seriously. Toys, pram, etc.

Sheesh.

No it isn't otherwise daylight would fluctuate with solar activity. And if it was caused by the same mechanisms, then what are polar aurorae, as they are obviously a completely different thing to daylight?

What you have there is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.



Aurorae are caused by protons and electrons, not x-rays or UV.



What the hell is "daytime beam radiation"? And are you seriously claiming that ALL daytime light is caused by aurorae? Look at this image:



You can clearly see the aurora and the daylight as 2 separate entities. I mean, this makes no sense. How can we see the aurora as a ring around the pole that has no relation to the suns direct light, and yet have exactly half the earth bathed in direct light that is from "the same mechanisms"???? I'm staggered about how clueless this idea is.



Again, meaningless.



And what is the "magnetic zenith effect"??? Nothing based in reality, I'm presuming.



Again, this is nonsense. You're making up scientific sounding phrases with no meaning at all.



Hang on, so the auroral corona is caused by light???? And our daylight is caused by x-rays? I'm lost for words. And that rarely happens.

Amazing, ain't it?

Dear posters,
try this link:
http://www.panoramas.dk/moon/mission-apollo.html

and then click Apollo 14 in order to see the Moon sunrise.
Please compare the Moon sunrise to any photo of space sunrise from space shuttles

That's not a sunrise, that's just the sun visible over the top of the Lunar Module, caused by the position of the photographer. I suspect the extreme brightness has cause a halo effect around the sun itself, though not being a pro photographer that's just a guess. What am I supposed to be seeing?

Edit for typos

You are supposed to be seeing the differences between the view of the Sun at Moon and its view at Earth or from the terrestrial space.

No, we are supposed to be seeing what is actually there, not what you want/believe to be there.


What exposure time was used in the Apollo 14 picture? What was the aperture setting? How over exposed would that make the sun look in this Apollo picture? What exposures times and aperture settings are typically used in earth orbital pictures of sunrise from the Earth orbit? What difference would that make in photographs? What should the sun look like in this picture if the conventional view of Sun is correct? Given the exposure and f-stop settings used in the Apollo picture how exactly does it differ from what you expect. How does this picture support any of your wild suppositions? What evidence other than one, well understood (by photographers) picture can you provide to support you hypothesis?

Can you answer all of these question (even a few would be a step in the right direction) or are you just going to keep saying "look at the photo"?

Unless you can provide some actual evidence I see no reason to take your hypothesis seriously.

I look forward (without any sense of optimism) to you providing some evidence for you hypothesis but I suspect I will have a very long wait ahead of me.

As you can see the Sun's visiblity is caused by zenith magnetization through polarity disposition. This is why crumpets burn slower than white bread in a toaster. Please visit my site and buy my book www.freepages.com/zenithtoasterhypothesis-spacefairy86~home.org

The Ionosphere-Magnetosphere System Enables the Sun to Acquire a Searchlight.



A New Revolutionary Theory


At all the planets and even their satellites, the ionosphere-magnetosphere systems enable the Sun to have a searchlight (crowning rays with a radiant point).

*******
Abstract


According to the consideration that the Sun is a ball-shaped glowing nuclear furnace, its light must leave it randomly i.e., in continuously changing chaotic directions. In other terms, the solar beams or rays will never be seen incident in the same direction for any sensible interval of time whatever short. Therefore, the Sun at Earth and all other planets acquires its "searchlight" (crowning rays with a radiant point) via light-producing and light-converging processes that occur in the ionosphere-magnetosphere systems as the result of solar wind-magnetosphere coupling and the strong effect of the solar X-rays and UV light on the ionization of their ionospheres.



Introduction



Due to the nature of the Sun and its huge size, it is absolutely impossible to receive its light on the Earth so that its beams make a normal incidence having an annual, regular periodic journey across the equator, or even such that its rays can make a semi diurnal regular declination.
Accordingly, there must be a direction-regulating machine (or even a direction-unifying machine) stationed in the way between the Sun and Earth. Because the Sun light still reaches the Moon randomly, therefore, with respect to the Earth, the direction-regulating machine is stationed in the geospace. Certainly, it is the magnetosphere-ionosphere system that deals with the solar light and energy of the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field so that they help the Sun appear sending its beams in a unified direction. In other words, the magnetosphere-ionosphere system helps the Sun have a "mask" of searchlight away from its face i.e., with respect to the Earth, this system transforms the random or chaotic spread of the solar light into a "searchlight form".
However, it is right that the annual periodic journey of the normality of the solar beams across the equator is associated with the 23.5 degrees tilt of the rotation axis of the Earth, but the real cause of this journey is the regular annual swing of the magnetosphere across the equator which is an effect of the 23.5 degrees tilt itself (There is a lot of evidence that Van Allen belts show this swing obviously).
As long as the solar beams at any specific daytime moment are almost the same for all the observers on different latitudes and different longitudes, though they are simultaneously seen having so different declinations, we can then conclude that the spread of this beam radiation is governed by the aspect sensitivity.
So far, we can conclude that the direction-regulating machine must have the ability to produce the light such that it forms a searchlight (crowning rays with a radiant point) whose spread earthward is governed by the aspect sensitivity. Really, the auroral light fulfils these two conditions. Accordingly, the mechanisms that produces the polar auroras are global and there must be a daytime auroral corona always at the sub-solar point i.e., such that this daytime auroral corona lies at the line of sight to the Sun.



Evidence


The Sun at the Moon does not rise with a searchlight masking its face i.e., the sunrise at the Moon does not show the "starburst" appearance. In other words, in general, the sunrise at the Moon does not seem having crowning rays with a radiant point.
https://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/...ges/lunar12.jpg

During the lunar day, however, due to the presence of the lunar localized "mini-magnetospheres" an almost faint searchlight could be formed in the face of the Sun as it ascends in the lunar sky.

Enlarge this photo:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9304.jpg

I see that the local miniature magnetospheres of the Moon can produce light in a way somewhat like that produces the polar auroras. As well, via certain mechanisms, these lunar miniature magnetospheres are capable of "focusing" the electromagnetic waves giving them a searchlight appearance that shows crowning rays with a radiant point. This relatively faint searchlight is formed at the sub-solar point.
I see that the lunar miniature magnetospheres (multi-layered) have their own very weak field-aligned currents. As well, there must be a coupling between any lunar miniature magnetosphere and the solar wind. The solar X-rays and UV light hitting the Moon surface and the neutral gas traces of its extremely tenuous atmosphere, are capable of producing an amount of ions or plasma inside the miniature magnetospheres. In this case, each one of these lunar miniature magnetospheres transiently becomes somewhat like the terrestrial ionosphere-magnetosphere system capable of generating and concentrating light in the form of a searchlight (crowning rays with a radiant point i.e., a starburst appearance).

Here's the pic:





Why not?

Doe the truth frighten you that much?

It IS a lens flare... deal with it.


Cz

[quote name='Czero 101' date='Mar 13 2008, 05:48 AM' post='2193969']
Here's the pic:





Why not?

Doe the truth frighten you that much?

It IS a lens flare... deal with it.


Cz

Well, taken for granted that it is a "lens flare", no one then can deny that as the Sun ascends in the lunar sky it appears having crowning rays with a radiant point i.e., as the photos disclose, it becomes involving acquired crowning rays with a radiant point, or showing an acquired "starburst appearance". Thus two questions ensue:
1- Why does not the sunrise at the Moon show crowning rays with a radiant point?
2- How does the Sun acquire a "starburst appearance" as it ascends in the lunar sky?
However, the answers to these two questions necessitate that the lunar, localized "miniature magnetospheres" can generate light and concentrate it at the sub-solar point. Whatever the explanation, the final conclusion remains supporting my theory.
However, the photo you brought here shows only a trace of crowning rays or extremely faint "starburst appearance". Why does not the Sun at the Moon appear as it appears from space shuttles? Why does not the sunrise at the Moon seem as the sunrise from the space shuttles?

Seems to know the words , but lacks the comprehension and understanding of our planetary environment.

Fascinating!

Translated into non-Attiya-speak:

"It doesn't matter why it really happens or what the actual cause is, my double-talk loaded, yet scientifically and intellectually empty theory is right"



Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight....

You need serious professional help.


Cz

Why does not the Sun at the Moon appear as it appears from space shuttles? Why does not the sunrise at the Moon seem as the sunrise from the space shuttles?

Do you see that the solar rays leave the Sun in one direction?
How do you justify that the Sun as a nuclear furnace must give its light beams in continuously changing chaotic directions while we receive them in one direction?

I 'am not playing any more. Have your fun. Time to retire for the day!

I'm not trying to disrespect you or anything , but I have no idea what your point is ( I'm not trying to be funny here I honestly don't know what your talking about)

Your "theory" is nothing but a bunch of "sciency" sounding words strewn together into some sort of jibberish that apparently only you can understand.

ITS A LENS FLARE.

Deal with it... move on with your life. I know I'm moving on with mine.


Cz

In order to take your comments seriouly you must answer my questions.
The type of your comments is exhausted.

In the final conclusion it does not make any difference even if it is a lens flare.

In this case also we can conclude that the "lens flare" itself enabled that photo to disclose that there is a searchlight at the sub-solar point in the lunar sky.

I am going to merge this thread with the "Attiyah's Sun theory - the most revolutionary of astronomy" thread as having two threads based around attiyah zahdeh's inability to understand the concept of lens flare seems a bit excessive.

Attiyah, I asked you a whole series of questions about the Apollo 14 photograph, which ended with this:

Your reaction was to start a whole new thread which, once again, basically boils down to "look at the photo" and once again offers no real evidence of anything.

I guess I got my answer.

My conclusion... you are not to be taken seriously.

How many duracell batteries this searchlight need

Dan Dare

Only one exhausted Dane Dare battery!
You must know that the scientific discussion does not know jokes.
This forum wants us to try to explain mysteries. If you have any conclusive evidence against my theories you can post here.

This ISN'T a scientific discussion. It is one person presenting his weird ideas and then failing totally to provide any evidence to back them up. That is as far away from real science as it is possible to be. To call your arguments scientific is a joke Attiyah.

I call my theories not only scientific, but I call them the most scientific theories of astronomy.
Have you ever read about Birkeland Terrella?
Have you ever read about the so-called Active Experiments?
Do you know that there are 130 similarties between the light of the auroral activities and the solar light?
What you want to do is only to reject.

I see no difference. If I was to take a photo of the sun using a similar camera system I'd get the same sort of thing (in fact, I have had the same sort of thing happen (with a diferent camera..)when I've positioned myself badly for a shot and got the sun in the view...). In waht way do you expect hte sun to look different when seen for the earth or from space? I don't recall any of the Shuttle, ISS or Apollo crews remarking on it.

Collect images for the Sun from space shuttles and compare them with those brought by Apollos.

Attiyah, when you come here you must be willing to learn and to accept your mistakes and errors. You are being strongly persistant, and that is not a good thing. Dear sir, I have to say your theory desmostrates no reasonable evidence or means of fact whatsoever. I don't understand why you fail to accept that after a clear debunk by the U.M. members, this is being persistant.

And right now I have to ask myself, why is this thread still on the first page?

Where is the clear debunk you claim?
Can you prove that there are no global daytime auroras? Try.
If the realistic observations of the Apollos are not capable of showing you that the Sun at the Moon rises with no crowning rays and radiant point, then what will be the type of facts that seem to you as a reasonable evidence?
Can you interpret why the Sun at the Moon has no searchlight as it has at Earth?

Dear sir, I will not waste my very limited time to answer such obvious questions, and I think this thread deserves no more attention from any other member. So I still ask myself why this thread is in the front page. Yes, there is a clear debunk, and you have three,no, two and a half pages of it. Please accept it and learn, remember we come here to learn apart from other things.

I'm sorry but I also have to say you theory is mild speculation with no scientific backup whatsoever, I say again, there is a clear debunk. Don't be upset with me attiyah, that would disturb me. I'm just informing you how things are. But now I would like you to search for the scientific reason of those questions you posed, use the internet, and encyclopedia, or any other means of information, and of course logic, you will see the answer to those question are obvious and don't support your theory in any way. I hope you understand.

Cheers.

Attiya, the glowing lights you are seeing are not caused by some sort of planet-wide Aurora. They are caused by photon emmissions as solar radiation briefly excites electrons into a higher orbit (and subsequent collapse to a lower one) within your TINFOIL BALACLAVA.

Meow Purr.

Do you now? No one else does. This is because a scientific theory is a hypothesis which is accepted as being the best fit for the observations and is demonstrated by evidence to support it. Your hypothesis is accepted by no one except you, and the best you can do to support it is say "look at the pretty pictures". This is getting boring now, all you are doing is demonstrating an ignorance of how science works.



Which will prove waht exactly. This is no kind of scientific argument... it is self delusion which no one else is gullible enough to buy into.


Try reading virtually every other post on this thread. You have simply failed to answer any questions raised or any point demonstrating how and why you are wrong. You can not provide real evidence to support your hypothesis nor can you answer the questions raised. By any measure of a real scientific debate your hypothesis has failed and id debunked. The fact that you fail to recognise this is, once again, self delusion.


I will repeat this once again as you do not seem to grasp this very VERY basic point of scientific principle. We don't need to try. We don't need to prove you wrong. YOU have to try. YOU have to provide evidence. IT IS YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF. Once again you demonstrate a complete ignorance of how science works.


What it DOES demonstrate is that your ignorance of photography is as complete as your ignorance of science. Those rays are photographic artefacts, nothing more, nothing less. Can you prove otherwise (remember as your hypothesis depends on this you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that these are not camera artefacts.)

There are all the previous questions I asked which you have not even tried to answer (your unwillingness or inability to answer legitimate questions does not make you look good) When you have answered those there are plenty more I could ask, for example did any of the Apollo astronauts comment on this weird effect you believe to be true, after all they were there and they took the photographs? Do pictures taken by unmanned lunar probes show the same effect? Why is the light level as measured on other worlds totally consistent with that expected by the conventional model. Why is dawn and dusk on earth (and therefore the terminator region) totally consistent with the conventional model. Is the measurements all seem to support the conventional model how can your model better explain these measurements.


Yes... it hasn't it is a lens artefact.

Now people are beginning to get annoyed with you. I really suggest two courses of action...

1. Try entering into a proper scientific debate. Answer the questions (if you answer "I don't know that is fair enough")
2. Consider giving up on this thread. Let it die a natural death before it is shut for you.

What I seriously suggest you don't do is repeat your "look at the photo's" argument. It is not scientific. It is not the job of anyone else to gather your evidence... it is down to you. Above all it is becoming boring and a little childish. If you do not start to debate this properly then I see no alternative but to close this thread.. I would ather not do that but I see no alternative if you are not prepared to debate properly.

Empirical Evidence


Birkeland's Terrella Experiments

In their efforts to explain the auroral phenomenon, some geophysicists in the last decade of the 19th century introduced a hypothesis that auroras are a result of the collision of solar charged particles with the Earth's magnetic field. In order to verify this hypothesis empirically, Birekland designed an experiment wherein he used a special, magnetized little ball and bombarded it with directed streams of electrons.
(Stormer, C., The Polar Aurora, Oxford, 1955, pp. 206-213).

Well, "terrella" is the Latin for little Earth. Factually, Birkeland's Terrella produced two rings of light one around each pole. Since then the scientists developed more sophisticated models than the first Birkeland's terrella.
(Malmform's experiments, Villard's experiments, Bruche's experiments, Alfv'en's experiments, Podgorny's experiments, Danielson-Lindberg's experiments, etc.).

On operating Birkeland's terrella itself and the afterwards developed models, not only two rings of light, one around each pole, appeared, but also a dome of light connecting them appeared almost in all cases. (Podgorny, I.M. et al., Space Research, COSPAR Series, vol. XVI, 1976, p. 651).

Until now, scientists still exert hard efforts to get highly sophisticated models of Birkeland's terrella.


Comments On the Results Of Birkeland's Terrella Experiments

I consider that the results of all the simulation experiments of Birkeland's terrella or its developed models can give an empirical, decisive evidence fully capable of verifying Attiyah's Sun Theory. Thus, such experiments alone are sufficient to prove not only the plausibility of the above-mentioned postulates, but even that they are right.

1- No doubt, the two light rings which usually appear around the two poles of Birkeland's terrella or its developed models are the simulation analogue of the so-called auroral ovals. In other terms, the auroral ovals are the natural analogue of the two light rings which usually appear around the two poles in such experiments.
2- No doubt, not only the two light rings which usually appear around the two poles in Birkeland's terrella experiments are a result of the interaction between the bombarded charged particles and the magnetic field, but the light of the dome itself is also a result of this interaction. In other words, the mechanism that produces the light of the two rings is necessarily and inevitably the same mechanism that produces the light of the dome.
3- Since the auroral ovals are the natural analogue of the two light rings in Birkeland's terrella experiments, then it is acceptable to ask: what is the natural analogue of the light dome of these experiments?
Only the dome of the daylight can represent this analogue or at least can involve it.
4- In some of Birkeland's terrella experiments a seemingly focused light appeared above the light dome without being merged in it. However, it could be said that the focused light looked like a corona.
(Stormer, C., The Polar Aurora, Oxford,1955, p. 213).
5- In the simulation experiments, in both the rings and dome, the upper limits of the light appear field-aligned. In nature, also the upper limits of the dome of the daylight appear field-aligned. As well as, all the auroras show the field-alignment property.
(Chang & Huang – as editors – Proceedings of the Plasma Space Science Symposium, 1965, p.136 & p. 154).
(Podgorny, I.M., as a participant, Venus, 1983, p. 994).

Accordingly, there must be a natural analogue of this seemingly focused light.

So far, do you agree that Birkeland's terrella experiments are fully capable of supporting attiyah's postulates? If your answer is negative, then how do you justify that Birkeland's terrella experiments are not acceptable to verify Attiyah's postulates empirically meanwhile they are acceptable to verify the hypothesis that the auroras are a result of the precipitation of the charged particles upon the ionosphere?

NO!



You are still having problems with the concept of burden of proof aren't you? It is not up to us to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove yourself right. What you have present IS NOT empirical evidence of your hypothesis (it seems that we have to add "empirical evidence" to the ever growing list of concepts you do not grasp), it is the results of experimentation on to which you have added your interpretation. Yet again you have provided no supporting evidence that your interpretation of these results is correct.

Having said that here goes:
Birkland's experiment showed that the electrons followed the magnetic field lines, hence this "dome" which you speak of is raised away from the surface of the Earth. The glow he saw was the result of interactions between the electrons and the residual air in his vacuum chamber. In the case of the Earth the magnetic field lines are raised above the Earth's atmosphere except at the poles. On near the poles can particle interact with the upper atmosphere and so, only near the poles do we see aurora. If our theory was correct then the trapped particles would have the same effect on the night side of the planet as on the day side. There would be no night at all. This is clearly not the case.

Now what I have provided is the accepted explanation. It is up to you to show that your hypothesis is a better fit than the conventional wisdom. You have provided no evidence yet that this is the case. You have provided no evidence that the "dome" you describe is analogous to day light on Earth.

Yet again you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the phenomenon being described. Have you actually ever seen photographs of Birkland's experiments? If the answer is yes then I find it interesting that you have not chosen to provide a link to them. If the answer is no then I find it interesting that you have concluded so much without seeing what the results actually look like. The fact is the photographs of his results do not support your hypothesis at all. They do not show anything analogous to the day/night appearance of the Earth. There are just such pictures here: plasmascience.net. These photographs ARE empirical evidence. Can you provide any that support your interpretation, because these just support the conventional theories on aurora?

For those that are interested there is more on Birkland at the following links (not one of which provides any evidence that supports Attiyah's hypothesis):
"The Exploration of the Earth's, Magnetosphere":
3H. History: Birkeland models the aurora in his laboratory
3c. The Terrella

Museum of the History of Science, Oxford: The Birkland terrella

Wikipedia: Terrella, Kristian Birkeland

Ok, Attiya... answer me this, if you can:

If, according to your "theory" the daytime light we see on the surface of the Earth is cause by some sort of phenomena akin to the Aurora Borealis, why is it that when you look at the sunlit side of the Earth from space, you cannot see the auroral phenomena, as in this picture:



?

Why aren't we seeing something that looks kind of like these pictures of actual aurora as seen from the Space Shuttle:





?


Your "theory" can't explain that, can it? You can't explain that, can you? Face it... your theory is utter hogwash... its just a bunch of seemingly related scientific sounding terms you've thrown together into something that makes sense only to you and no one else. You can't even explain your own theory, let alone the phenomena it supposedly predicts, without making yourself look like an idiot.

You have NO credibility, NO evidence and every time you try to explain yourself, you just end up digging the hole you're in a little deeper and making yourself look like an even bigger fool.

Do yourself a favor and go read some actual books, or go to an actual school and maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something.

Until then, for you to attempt to perpetuate this ludicrous, unprovable, unscientific, and largely unintelligible "theory" is just mindless trolling and I agree with Waspie that this thread - and any others you happen to start up regarding this topic - should be locked or deleted.


Cz

Czero 101, Actually my point is that thread should be locked unless Attiyah starts debating properly. Since then he has made a (very poor) attempt to do so. Remember that this is not a scientific site like BAUT and does not have the same strict rules that apply on such sites. However Attiyah is claiming that his theory is scientific and so I think there is justification on calling for him to discuss this thread in a scientific way.

I would also point out that what this site does have is strict rules on personal attacks. Czero 101, whilst I agree with your points on Attiyah's theory I would ask that you tread carefully, you walking a tightrope with your post and it comes perilously close to a personal attack (calling him a troll is unnecessary, I do not believe that he is deliberately trying to disrupt the forum, he just fails to understand what is expect of a scientific argument). I understand the frustration people are feeling and it is for this reason that I am trying to get Attiyah to debate this properly. He has at least moved on from the "look at the picture" argument he was present ad nauseum.

Attiyah, if you debate this subject the thread will remain open. If not it will be closed. You need to understand that you are not presenting a sensible and scientific argument. Cutting and pasting out of context material does not constitute a scientific argument. You have been present with a host of legitimate questions, please try to answer some of them (there are sites that would have suspended you by now for your failure to do so. This is not one of them. It is, however, a discussion forum, which means if you are going to present your hypothesis here you should at least be prepared to discuss them). If you are not willing or not able to answer the questions posed then there is only one possible conclusion... your hypothesis is unsupportable and therefore debunked. It is up to you to show this conclusion is wrong.

In my moderator role I am trying to be fair to both sides here, despite the fact that I am also expressing my opinions on this matter.

Waspie... message received and understood.

Apologies for the troll comment, Attiya.

That said, I still stand behind everything else in my post.


Cz

Like I said before - if daylight is actually the aurora, then what is the aurora?

This is insane.