Strange

Typically, only materials that are insulators (or small amounts of conductive material that are insulated/isolated) are affected by static charges. Conductive materials will diffuse the charge so it has no effect. You need to go back a few centuries and look at things like van der Graaf generators, Leyden jars, etc. The speculations forum is not for just making up any old nonsense

I bet a lot went, “Boring!” because it gives no hints of new physics

So why doesn’t this happen in your model?

I’m glad you saved me the trouble of saying that (although, I might have gone with “incoherent nonsense).

Some matter. It can also repel (see the article you linked to). But why isn’t gravity enough to explain the atmosphere? That always attracts. And it attracts all matter.

Of course there is. That is, very crudely, correct. Nothing to do with the Earth’s magnetic field.

What is "it"? The atmosphere? Why wouldn't gravity hold it there? But static electricity may also play a role. But note that (as described in the articles you linked) the static charge is very variable, both daily and on longer (18 year) cycles. Magnetism would not have any significant effect on the atmosphere. (And has nothing to do with static electricity.) Are you talking about magnetism or static electricity? (They are different things, you know.) Magnetism is not responsible for lightning. Have you considered the fact that we get lightning from storm clouds. If it was the magnetic field then they could occur anywhere and anytime.

Why do you think this is relevant to the moon's atmosphere? This is quite interesting (and surprisingly relevant) because it says: "There's growing evidence that fine particles of moondust might actually float, ejected from the lunar surface by electrostatic repulsion. This could create a temporary nighttime "atmosphere" of dust. The moondust atmosphere might also gather itself into a sort of diaphanous wind. Drawn by differences in global charge accumulation, floating dust would naturally fly from the strongly negative nightside to the weakly negative dayside." No. I don't think the Earth's magnetic field is strong enough to have much effect on lightning.

When did static electricity come into this? I missed that... Static electricity and magnetism are different things. Not all matter is "susceptible" to static electricity. Not all matter has magnetic properties. Yes. Roughly 1/6th of what I weigh here. https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1018 https://www.space.com/27029-moon-gravity-falling-astronauts.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation_of_the_Moon The gravity of the moon will be the same at the poles and at the equator. The polar and equatorial radius are almost the same and it rotates very slowly.

You seem to think angular momentum is proportional to the number of electrons. Obviously not true. Wha!? How does an atom excited by a photon gain extra electrons? Where do they come from?

That is not how the second is defined or measured. Far too variable.

You could turn it into a vacuum cleaner.

Correct

And so ... ? (Are you wondering why it doesn’t suck us away from the Earth?)

Correct. (Assuming the vacuum is contained within a sealed container.) If you are thinking of (with some sort of magic) creating a vacuum with nothing around it, then the surrounding pressure would force the air and other material towards it. This is a push cause by external pressure, not attraction.

So you imagine that matter would orbit a void (empty space)? A void has less mass and so would not attract things (not by magnetism, not by gravity, not by magic). Sorry.

You seem very confused about electric charge and magnetism, which are different (although related) things. The mere presence of protons and electrons does not create magnetism. You can move things easily: pick them up and carry them for example. (In case it's not clear: I have absolutely no idea what you mean. It is trivially easy to move things.) The reason we can pick things up and move them, is because we are also made up of protons and electrons, and our electrons interact with the electrons of the thing we are picking up. Empty space does not attract. Positive charges are attracted by negative charges, and vice versa. Empty space has no charge and does not attract protons or neutrons. Normal matter is electrically neutral and is not attracted by positive or negative charges. The movement of the planet is pretty much irrelevant

You can have "no magnetism" in the presence of matter. And "no magnetism" doesn't attract matter.

I only contradict things that are factually incorrect. The rules of the Speculations forum require speculations to science based: ie. you should have a model and use evidence to support your idea. Just making up stuff that is contradicted by observation (like a vacuum attracting matter) is not going to work.

I gave you links to a couple of articles by scientists about how an infinite universe is possible. Call me crazy, but I would rather trust experts in the field over some random guy on the Internet. Just to be clear; if the universe is infinite in extent then it has always been infinite in extent. (And if it is finite, then it has always been finite.) What do you think the "essential thing" about the Big Bang model is? I'll show you mine first: the essential feature is that the universe is expanding and cooling from an earlier hot dense state. Your turn ... [OK, your later post seems to explain your misunderstandings] Except it can't go back to a primordial singularity. We have no physical theories that work easier than about 10-43 seconds. The conditions were too extreme and we probably need a theory of quantum gravity to explain what happens under those conditions. It seems equally implausible for something of finite or infinite size to appear from nothing. And that is not part of the Big Bang model.

Or: "I won't listen to any explanations about why I am wrong, so I will assume I am right"

I'm not even sure where to start with this. You have packed an enormous number of misconceptions into a few sentences... A magnet requires more than just the presence of protons and electrons. After all, not all materials are magnetic. You need either an electrical current (as in an electromagnet) or moving charges (as in a permanent magnet, where the magnetic moments of all the atoms are aligned). And, of course, not all materials are attracted by a magnet. Mainly some types of metal. A vacuum does not attract things (by magnetism or anything else). Why not? The absence of matter would mean the absence of magnetism not the "opposite charge of magnetism" (whatever that means). So it would not attract matter. It would not "push out all the matter" and certainly would not make an area without electrons and protons. After all, the air would rapidly flow back in to replace any that is pushed away by your fan. But I am glad you have now realised that all you have done is design a fan to move air around (and hence make other things move). No. It is complete nonsense. There is a saying about "a little learning is a dangerous thing". You have learnt a tiny amount and then huge leaps and filled the gaps with stuff you have made up. You appear to have failed in that goal.

That was kinda the point I was making.

Typified by the "it does interact with light but magically it does it in such a way that it is undetectable so it looks like it doesn't"

You are absolutely right: it uses the Doppler effect to measure the speed of particles that light is reflected from. (You can think of this in tiers of photons, or just light as a wave, the result is the same.) I know people like videos to explain things so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1nbaE0tpJs*) Actually, although light (and photons) have no mass, it does have momentum and so it can impart a pressure on things. But it will be insignificant compared to the pressure of the wind. This is more likely. And then measure the difference in frequency of the received light compared to the laser.