Some folks above said the comments were missing.

Aside from the weaving and dodging, and aside from the specific content, I get the impression that, in NM’s view, astronomy is not a science and cannot be one … ever (exception: once probes visit something that was once solely the domain of astronomy, such as the Moon, remote observation can be supplemented by in situ research).

Would you care to say a few words, NM, on what you regard the criteria for assessing whether some piece of astronomical research is scientific or not are?

Back to plasmas, gas, fluid dynamics, etc.

The Sun is a big ball of plasma; to what extent, Nathan, is any study of the Sun unscientific if it does not explicitly and directly incorporate plasma fluid dynamics?

Specifically, are all the papers on the Sun and neutrino physics unscientific for not having explicitly incorporated PFD?

Nope. Just incredibly persistent. My requests for literature and other evidence to further my own understanding of a subject have a tendency to rub certain people the wrong way.