A simple test for the EU people. (2)

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
That is because it has nothing to do with the standard model.

It's an integral part of the standard solar model. You handwaved at one hater website related to a specific solar theory and blew off a whole *cosmology* theory just a while ago. Now when we see that your solar model is toast, what makes your theories immune from falsification?

That is more of an actual MHD discussion and MHD has been and is used regularly for the surface of the Sun.
MHD theory, and circuit theory are *integral* parts of EU/PC theory, both in terms of solar physics and in terms of other events in spacetime.

Michael likes to pretend that real physicists don't use MHD theory when they use it quite regularly.
Mostly they seem to "misuse" it to describe what Alfven himself called "pseudoscience". Their models never work right either, and they are 100 percent *dependent* upon *fast* convection, so they basically all went up in smoke in 2012.

The problem is that they don't use it for his unobserved galactic claims.
They *should* be using it to describe the movements of a *mostly plasma* galaxy. The fact they don't use the language of plasma physics to describe the movements of a mostly plasma galaxy just shows you how *pathetic* of a "theory" it really is. What they *forgot* to add in terms of actual empirical physics, they are now trying to make up for with *supernatural* constructs like "dark matter". :(
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
The reason is that MHD works for dense plasma like the surface of the Sun.It is not useful for low density plasma.Alfven pointed this out to the mainstream astrophysics community but they ignored him.

Actually the area around the photosphere isn't all that thick which is one of the reasons that Alfven rejected their claims about "frozen in" magnetic lines in such wispy thin conditions. He preferred to describe flare events in terms of circuit theory rather than MHD theory because it's a relatively "thin" solar plasma atmosphere, and the fact it's a "current carrying" environment.
 
Upvote 0

Seipai

Regular Member
Jan 20, 2014
954
11
✟1,266.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
And Michael once again admits he is wrong.

He can't deal with sites that show he is wrong, so even though there is no "hate" he calls them hater sites.

He makes my case against himself.

Like I said, anytime you want to honestly discuss some of these points I am more than willing to do so. No use of terms like "hater" allowed.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
And Michael once again admits he is wrong.

Once again you demonstrate that you're quite detached from reality. :)

He can't deal with sites that show he is wrong, so even though there is no "hate" he calls them hater sites.
You're still in denial I see. I actually personally posted several responses to every one of the sites that you listed and pointed out their flaws at that time, not that any of them cared, and not that you cared.

He makes my case against himself.
Nope. You're just fantasizing again Walter. ;)

Like I said, anytime you want to honestly discuss some of these points I am more than willing to do so. No use of terms like "hater" allowed.
Anytime you'd like to provide a *peer reviewed* rebuttal to any of Alfven's peer reviewed work, *then* you can claim to have an *honest* scientific discussion on the topic of EU/PC theory, and not one moment sooner. :p
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Two intelligent people degrading into insulting each other.

The problem is that he's a bit like debating Gottservant on the topic of evolutionary theory. Nothing he's handwaved at in terms of unpublished websites even *deals with* any of Alfven's published materials. There is no correlation between those sites he keeps handwaving at and *any* of Alfven's work actually. He's basically trying to smear EU/PC theory based on some unrelated material, not unlike Gottservant handwaving at evolutionary theory with unrelated philosophical concepts that have nothing to do with the actual theory.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
The problem is that he's a bit like debating Gottservant on the topic of evolutionary theory. Nothing he's handwaved at in terms of unpublished websites even *deals with* any of Alfven's published materials. There is no correlation between those sites he keeps handwaving at and *any* of Alfven's work actually. He's basically trying to smear EU/PC theory based on some unrelated material, not unlike Gottservant handwaving at evolutionary theory with unrelated philosophical concepts that have nothing to do with electric universe theory.

So basically, your excuse for throwing insults is that you think that Seipai is being stupid and illogical? Way to take the high ground *sarcasm*
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
So basically, your excuse for throwing insults is that you think that Seipai is being stupid and illogical? Way to take the high ground *sarcasm*

No, I'm simply pointing out the fact that he's not making a rational argument against EU/PC theory because he literally doesn't know the first thing about it, as evidenced by the fact that none of his websites even *deal with* Alfven's published works.

It's illogical for him to be "dissing" on a theory he doesn't even understand based on citations to websites that for the most part aren't even related to the materials I have presented to him. It doesn't even make sense.
 
Upvote 0

Seipai

Regular Member
Jan 20, 2014
954
11
✟1,266.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
The problem is that he's a bit like debating Gottservant on the topic of evolutionary theory. Nothing he's handwaved at in terms of unpublished websites even *deals with* any of Alfven's published materials. There is no correlation between those sites he keeps handwaving at and *any* of Alfven's work actually. He's basically trying to smear EU/PC theory based on some unrelated material, not unlike Gottservant handwaving at evolutionary theory with unrelated philosophical concepts that have nothing to do with the actual theory.


I have returned handwave for handwave. Michael will not argue his beliefs dispassionately. He has been kicked off of more than one website for his behavior.

He won't even discuss the websites that debunk his beliefs.


And lastly he is not afraid to spread falsehoods.

His beliefs have never caught on and he does not want to discuss why they have been rejected by scientists. The sites of those very scientists he claims are not "published", but since I or anyone else can quote from them shows that not to be the case. He does not understand what the word "published" means. He wants something that does not exist. He wants a peer reviewed article that debunks an idea that never caught on. Scientists have better things to do and such an article will not be found. The fact is that some of those scientists are willing to discuss why his ideas have not caught on. He calls those "hater sites".
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Seipai

Regular Member
Jan 20, 2014
954
11
✟1,266.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
No, I'm simply pointing out the fact that he's not making a rational argument against EU/PC theory because he literally doesn't know the first thing about it, as evidenced by the fact that none of his websites even *deal with* Alfven's published works.

It's illogical for him to be "dissing" on a theory he doesn't even understand based on citations to websites that for the most part aren't even related to the materials I have presented to him. It doesn't even make sense.


And yet Michael will not come out and openly say what he believes and why. He is employing a "cloud defense". If he never says what he believes others cannot debunk it.

All I ask for is an open and honest discussion and I cannot get that from him.
 
Upvote 0

Seipai

Regular Member
Jan 20, 2014
954
11
✟1,266.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
You know that you guys are basically calling each other the same thing? It's like watch two kids where ones says "well, you're stupid!" and then the other goes "no, you're stupid!" over and over.

I have always been willing to discuss this calmly with Michael, but that is rather difficult when any site that is brought up that opposes his beliefs is called a "hater" site. No "hate" is ever shown in these sites. Impatience and disgust with certain people yes, but definitely no "hate".

I tell you what. You take a shot. I am done with him.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I have returned handwave for handwave. Michael will not argue his beliefs dispassionately. He has been kicked off of more than one website for his behavior.

He won't even discuss the websites that debunk his beliefs.

That's absolutely not true. I discussed those websites *on* those websites in fact. :) I pointed out to you (and them) that none of it even *relates to* Alfven's peer reviewed work. You remain in staunch denial on this point too.

It's quite easy to demonstrate as well as evidenced by the fact that you cannot cite a *specific* criticism in Alfven's work *to this very day*.

And lastly he is not afraid to spread falsehoods.
You really have no business throwing such stones all things considered.

His beliefs have never caught on
That's not even true. EU/PC theory has in fact "caught on" within the EU/PC community. The fact it's still a minority viewpoint is irrelevant in terms of the actual physics.

and he does not want to discuss why they have been rejected by scientists.
Which "scientists"? If their reasons are based on pure ignorance, just like your opinions, that really wouldn't be very impressive.

The sites of those very scientists he claims are not "published",
Which "scientists"? Clinger is math jock, nothing more. Nobody else even used their real names on most of those hater blogs. I think you cited exactly *one* actual "scientist", and he never touched Alfven's papers.

but since I or anyone else can quote from them shows that not to be the case.
Creationists quote from non published creationist websites too. So what? Ignorant people quoting ignorant blogs is hardly much of an argument.

He does not understand what the word "published" means.
I know what a real *peer reviewed* rebuttal looks like, but apparently you do not.

He wants something that does not exist.
Actually, I just want you to see that you don't know the first thing about EU/PC theory, as evidenced by your behaviors in this thread.

He wants a peer reviewed article that debunks an idea that never caught on.
Lots of published papers get peer reviewed rebuttals. You can't mean to tell me you've never seen a peer reviewed paper get a peer reviewed rebuttal before?

Scientists have better things to do and such an article will not be found.
You're right about one thing. Real scientists do have better things to do than to write article that *contradict* empirical physics, and they don't tend to write such papers.

The fact is that some of those scientists are willing to discuss why his ideas have not caught on. He calls those "hater sites".
You've cited a total of exactly *one* identifiable "scientist", but he never once mentioned *any* of Alfven's work! What exactly can I say about his deafening silence toward Alfven's work?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
You know that you guys are basically calling each other the same thing? It's like watch two kids where ones says "well, you're stupid!" and then the other goes "no, you're stupid!" over and over.

Regardless of whether I'm debating GR theory, QM, evolutionary theory, or whatever the topic might be, I start by citing *peer reviewed science*. It's not my fault that some people are unwilling to reciprocate and respond *not with peer reviewed science*, but with ridiculous claims from ridiculous websites. What exactly would you like me to do about *his* problem?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
No way I am going to debate in a topic that I have such limited knowledge it, that would be moronic and pointless.

Yes, and that is exactly how I feel about Seipai's participation in these threads. He hasn't offered me even a *shred* of peer reviewed science to work with, and he seems to know less that you do about this topic.

At least you have the wisdom to know how and where to pick your battles. :)
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Regardless of whether I'm debating GR theory, QM, evolutionary theory, or whatever the topic might be, I start by citing *peer reviewed science*. It's not my fault that some people are unwilling to reciprocate and respond *not with peer reviewed science*, but with ridiculous claims from ridiculous websites. What exactly would you like me to do about *his* problem?

Again, nothing about that suggests that you have to insult him as the solution.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Yes, and that exactly how I feel about Seipai's participation in these threads. He hasn't offered me even a *shred* of peer reviewed science to work with, and he seems to know less that you do about this topic.

At least you have the wisdom to know how and where to pick your battles. :)

Knowing is half the battle.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums