1) Astronomers do know about electric fields in space. I have written much on this topic.
(Electric Universe: Whither the Electric Currents?
2) The standard of science is the numerical results of the mathematical models must match the observations. If you claim the 'Birkeland' model works better than the standard model, then you must meet that standard.
Where are the numerical results from the model you advocate? Can you tell me the proton and electron density and energy or magnetic field at Earth's orbit predicted by your model and show how it is calculated? Where is the solar spectrum computed from first principles by the model you advocate?
The lives of astronauts depend on you being able to demonstrate this!
If you can't meet that standard, then your model fails. Game over.
The ACTUAL track record of "Electric Sun" models making testable numerical predictions is dismal (Electric Cosmos: The Solar Resistor Model
, Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. III
3) I see a number of errors on your page. SDO first light images were not completely calibrated for intensity or scale information. Have you looked at more recent images on their site?
a) Doing science analysis on JPEG images or MPEG movies is just inviting embarrassment. You have to go back to the original data after the instrument has been calibrated.
b) Your sunspot data has obvious problems (Sunspot Number
). Did you just make it up? And why only data to 1980? Are you trying to hide something about the more recent data?
And that's just what I could determine scanning your page before I realized some text was being clipped in my reader due to your lousy page formatting. I suspect I have hit just the beginning of your errors.