I suspect, like many brilliant scientists he is not good at coming down to other peoples' levels to explain in thier terms. Many things seem to obvious to him and he thinks it's obvious to the reader. It depends much on who is reading.

I have two comments on what is often questioned.

Virial:
potencial energy is derived from a potencial difference. The base line potencial is arbitary not absolute.

Someone posted that it did seem to make sense to apply virial because if we consider zero kelvin there is no KE but still PE, hence a contradiction. It seems to me that if the PE of this state is taken as the arbitary base energy then the apparent contradiction disappears.

Flux vs energy:
Since the basic schema presented is basically a one dimensional model the distiction between flux and energy has no meaning. If we chose to look at the three dimensional spherical model and integrate flux over both polar coordinates we can equate the result with energy.

(This may be obvious to M. but if that is the case it is probalby an error not to choose language and terms more precisely in such a paper.)

I have gone around the bush numerous times with Jan Pompe, and he never really understands. Nick Stokes and Pat Cassen have also looked at my argument, and both seem to be fine with it.

wrt “not caring about what Miskolczi thinks”: No doubt, that explains why I have sent Miskolczi a letter with my questions. He responded with an indication he would get back to me in August.

“You have a common goal after all as far as I can see; to figure out what Miskolczi had in mind and if he was correct.”

On this issue I’ve not changed my views since I wrote this in March Neal has given me no reason to. Ferenc pointed it out as a reasonable explanation as to what he had in mind. I’m satisfied that I do have an idea of what that is. I don’t believe that Neal is the slightest bit interested in what he had in mind.

http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=161&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=20#p2939

“Not really: I’ve already satisfied myself that you haven’t been able to follow the argument.”

Perhaps it’s the sheer novelty of your procedure that I can’t get my head around. I’ve never seen anyone add a constant of integration to the function before doing the integration before.

Maybe simply wait for him to respond -or even pressure him to respond… Because your discussion isn’t productive at all currently.

Not really: I’ve already satisfied myself that you haven’t been able to follow the argument. I see that hasn’t changed, and I don’t find it amusing to try to re-educate you.

“The real issue is the equations; upon which pliny and I are in complete agreement.”

I agree the equations are the real issue and I’m sure you gain great comfort that Nick is in agreement with you Nicks a good mathematician but the equations don’t describe the system in question very well. In fact I would say when you changed

2 + = 0

to

2 – = -4*pi*R^3P(R)

or was it

2 + = -4*pi*R^3P(R)

you started heading into the long tall grass.

That’s not the only problem of course do you want a list?