Strange

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field#Physical_origin

The magnetic field does not contain electrons. It is probably generated by electrons.

But it is giving the wrong results. It is as simple as that. Shouldn't you have abandoned it as soon as you discovered that? I must have missed the math where you did that.

Which doesn't happen.

Except that water molecules don't look like that. How do you account for van der Waals forces if there are no electrons?

No. It is heat conduction. Mainly (there will also be a small amount of thermal [infra-red] radiation). But that has nothing to do with rubbing. I didn't say that. But the air has nothing to do with electromagnetism.

Really? Then why would you say: No. Of course EMR doesn't "rub the surface".

Sigh. There you go again, throwing random words and concepts together as if you understood what any of them meant. Yes, there is more water vapour. That is what "humidity" means. I have no idea whether humidity increases or decreases the viscosity of air. But that has nothing to do with discharging static electricity. I have no idea whether humidity increases or decreases the density of air. But that has nothing to do with discharging static electricity. I don't know if there is any connection between humidity, viscosity and density. At the moment I don't craee because ... It that has nothing to do with discharging static electricity. I don't know what "increased interior atomic reactions" is supposed to mean. Friction is what occurs between two surfaces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction It has nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation.

I'm sure more than one person has done a quick mental or back-of-the-envelope calculation and then realised there is nothing to consider. (The result being approximately zero.)

<sigh> 1. There is no principle that "nothing is ever lost". (Take my socks for example. Well, someone seems to.) 2. It has nothing to do with density. 3. Humidity increases the conductivity of air. This allows the electric charge to dissipate. Electric charge is one of those things that "is never lost" (more accurately, it is conserved). So, when you became positively or negatively charged, something else (the carpet?) became negatively or positively charged. In other words, some electrons were moved from you to the carpet (or vice versa). 4. We are talking about CHARGE not energy. It has nothing to do with friction. Friction is one way of warming things. So is a hot water bottle, but it would be a mistake to think of photons carrying little hot water bottles around. Photons have energy. This energy is absorbed and becomes increased kinetic energy of the atoms. Kinetic energy of atoms is what we call "temperature". Temperature is a property of matter. Light is not matter. Therefore it is not hot or cold.

Interpretations of quantum theory are just attempts to explain what the underlying theory "means" (if it means anything). As such, there is no experiment that can distinguish one interpretation from another. Rather, the interpretations will differ in what they about why an experiment gives that result.

That is a complete non-sequitur. What you have said is equivalent to: "My hair is brown, sometimes I get a static shock. Therefore static electricity is caused by the colour brown." Yes, your body emits EMR. But that has nothing to do with static electricity. The static is caused by friction (between your shoes and the carpet, I assume) and is discharged when you touch something. If the air is humid enough, then the static will be discharged before you have a chance to shock yourself. When the air is very dry (Japanese winters) then you can get quite a painful shock after just walking across the room. In fact, the presence of ultraviolet light will cause the static to discharge as well (I'm not sure what the mechanism is for that). Heat is caused by the energy of the light being converted to kinetic energy of the atoms. But the point is that EMR is not itself hot or cold. But it is able to heat something.

There is no connection between something being heated and electrical charge. Clearly you have misunderstood something, somewhere. Electromagnetic radiation is not "maintained" in the atmosphere; it just passes through it. Unless it is absorbed, in which case it is no longer electromagnetic radiation. That is like saying, "I know horses don't have wheels but cars run on diesel". There is no connection between electromagnetic radiation (from the Sun) and lightning. The lightning creates a plasma and creates light. It is called static (I have no idea why). It has nothing to do with static electricity. Does it? Where did you get that idea from? Except they don't. If they did, then light would be diverted by an electric field. (It isn't.) They can't not have charge and then suddenly gain charge. Charge is a conserved property. EMR is not cold or hot. It has energy which can be absorbed by a material. That material will then get warmer.

Why? You have a model that says electrons, protons and neutrons do not exist. And yet they do. Therefore your model is wrong. Your model alos produces the wrong geometry for water molecules. I don't see why it is strange to point that out. Can you explain what you mean?

Yes, the atmosphere is heated because it absorbs some radiation from the Sun. It does not cause the atmosphere to become statically charged. (Where did you get that idea from?)

Still not clear what you mean by "collect currents". We are talking about electromagnetic radiation, so I don't know what currents you are referring to.

Where are you quoting that from? It is over-simplified.

It is not clear what you mean. Yes, light passes through the atmosphere. But the atmosphere is not need for the transmission of light so it isn't a "conduit".

No it doesn't.

Yes, hydrogen and oxygen are transparent to visible light. (Liquid oxygen is actually blue.) They can be seen in other frequencies using appropriate instruments.

These things are barely compatible with an inability to do basic mathematics. There is no such ability. It is self-delusion of the highest order to think there is. No one can tell you whether it is "physically based" because you do not have a mathematical model, therefore it is not science. "Logically correct" is a term favoured by people with their own peat theories; as far as I can tell all it means is ("I thought of it and it makes sense to me". That is very sad. I think it is even sadder that you have wasted your time since then making up fairy stories rather than making up for your earlier missed opportunities. There are many excellent on-line courses available where you could learn the basics of mathematics and physics that you need. This would enable you to test your idea yourself. And find it doesn't work ... but it would also allow you to explore the fantastically interesting and exciting world of real science.

Yes, but that is not what the term "remote sensing" normally means. However, if you want to say that we see things that are remote, then that is OK.

I don't think Newton's first law is relevant here as we are talking about rotation rather then motion in a straight line. Speed of rotation can be changed without applying a force. You might have seen ice skaters change the speed of their spin by extending their arms or tucking them in. This is due to conservation of angular momentum.

The solar system was formed from a cloud of gas and dust that collapsed under its own gravity. As this cloud was not stationary, it ended up rotating as it collapsed. The rotation was transferred to the Sun and planets as they formed (because of conservation of angular momentum).

Remote sensing normally refers to the use of instruments to observe things at a distance. (E.g. surveying from an aeroplane.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_sensing Although that might be done using light or radar, It is not (as far as I know) generally applied to just looking at something.