"Peer review
Ever hear of it? "
Yes
"It's when, rather than merely claiming that your model is "supported by mathematics....[and] can be subjected to formal logical analysis", you actually subject it to the analysis of established experts in the field."
Yes
"SDAI, at least, has put his theory* before the curious public, at some length, on his own website. If it's been analyzed by anyone other than the sorely-missed Crank.com, I have no knowledge... nevertheless, it's out there for perusal.
Where's yours? ".

I'm still working on it. I could point you to a web site that I put up about ten years ago but that site has not been updated since its creation, therefore, its value is limited.

"As much as I admire the raw talent of most of the minds inhabiting the Zone, if this is what you consider "peer review", you're sorely mistaken."

Don't be naive, if these people were my "peers" I would not be any better than the monkeys in the forest of Borneo.
I'm simply trying to learn how to communicate with the lowest common denominator of the so called "humans".

This is the FLAME board, right?

But, if I recall correctly, you're the guy who thinks the atmosphere is heated by radioactivity... so "sorely mistaken" may well be a way of life. "

OK, so I should have called that proposition a "model" rather than a theorem or theory.
That MODEL did and does PREDICT that there will be more frequent and devastating storms and more frequent volcanic and earthquake activity.
Accurate mathematical formulation can not be done on the MODEL since accurate archived measurements do not exist for the thermosphere area.
The premise for the model is, the "chain reaction" effect, caused by the radioactive elements that are floating in the atmosphere.
The assumption: Fission products that are "expelled" by the radioactive elements that are floating in the atmosphere can increase the kinetic energy of the air molecules.

Johannes