The paper is a conceptual shift. It does not replace thermodynamics. How do you replace a result. You cannot replace the result of actions. What it does is highlight the actions.As for you providing the critique. Well it sure as hell reads like a third person response. Nonetheless you have not shown anything other than prove that Earths temperature can be calculated from the number of electrons in a mole of air. Exactly what I have been saying.You said: “That shift is conceptual, not algebraic.” Clearly, you didn’t read the second paragraph. Wake up and read before critiquing. Section 2.5 is a first principles derivation. Pure electrodynamics, not circular logic. There's not a single statistical assumption in it. It calculates Earth’s temperature from charge structure alone, not from kB, not from greenhouse models.
You worship the puppets in the box. But you don't see the PUPPET MASTER. The fields and electrons that create the observed thermodynamics. You're stuck inside a model. The paper is a conceptual shift, not a replacement. You don't replace thermodynamic results — you explain them. This framework reveals the underlying field actions that generate those results.
And as for your critique. It reeks of third-person.. You haven’t shown a single flaw in the logic. What you've really done is confirm my core claim: Earth's average temperature can be derived directly from electron count per mole. That’s the whole point.
