1. Saying Goodbye to a Great Staffer: Edial
    Please help me wish Edial a wonderful blessed journey as he steps down from CF staff.
    His footprint on our ministry will always remain but his presence will be greatly missed. I'm sure he will come around as a member to all his favorite forums but for now please join me at his profile page to wish him many thanks for the years of service he has brought to us all.
    All of us on CF staff will miss him dearly!!
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice

Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
  • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
  • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
  • Access to private conversations with other members.

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A simple test for the EU people. (2)

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Subduction Zone, Feb 14, 2014.

  1. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    18,860
    Likes Received:
    181
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Christian
    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?

    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.

    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.

    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". :(
     
  2. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    18,860
    Likes Received:
    181
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Christian
    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.
     
  3. Seipai

    Seipai Regular Member

    Messages:
    955
    Likes Received:
    9
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Lutheran
    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.
     
  4. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    18,860
    Likes Received:
    181
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Christian
    Once again you demonstrate that you're quite detached from reality. :)

    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.

    Nope. You're just fantasizing again Walter. ;)

    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
     
  5. PsychoSarah

    PsychoSarah Chaotic Neutral

    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    138
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Two intelligent people degrading into insulting each other.
     
  6. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    18,860
    Likes Received:
    181
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Christian
    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.
     
  7. PsychoSarah

    PsychoSarah Chaotic Neutral

    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    138
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Atheist
    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*
     
  8. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    18,860
    Likes Received:
    181
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Christian
    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.
     
  9. Seipai

    Seipai Regular Member

    Messages:
    955
    Likes Received:
    9
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Lutheran

    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".
     
  10. PsychoSarah

    PsychoSarah Chaotic Neutral

    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    138
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Just because your insults are more intelligent than pointing and saying "you dumb" doesn't make them not insults. You even added a nice raspberry face, you know, this :p
     
  11. Seipai

    Seipai Regular Member

    Messages:
    955
    Likes Received:
    9
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Lutheran

    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.
     
  12. PsychoSarah

    PsychoSarah Chaotic Neutral

    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    138
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Atheist
    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.
     
  13. Seipai

    Seipai Regular Member

    Messages:
    955
    Likes Received:
    9
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Lutheran
    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.
     
  14. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    18,860
    Likes Received:
    181
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Christian
    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*.

    You really have no business throwing such stones all things considered.

    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.

    Which "scientists"? If their reasons are based on pure ignorance, just like your opinions, that really wouldn't be very impressive.

    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.

    Creationists quote from non published creationist websites too. So what? Ignorant people quoting ignorant blogs is hardly much of an argument.

    I know what a real *peer reviewed* rebuttal looks like, but apparently you do not.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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?
     
  15. PsychoSarah

    PsychoSarah Chaotic Neutral

    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    138
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Atheist
    No way I am going to debate in a topic that I have such limited knowledge it, that would be moronic and pointless.
     
  16. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    18,860
    Likes Received:
    181
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Christian
    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?
     
  17. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    18,860
    Likes Received:
    181
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Christian
    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. :)
     
  18. PsychoSarah

    PsychoSarah Chaotic Neutral

    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    138
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Again, nothing about that suggests that you have to insult him as the solution.
     
  19. PsychoSarah

    PsychoSarah Chaotic Neutral

    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    138
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Knowing is half the battle.
     
  20. Michael

    Michael Contributor

    Messages:
    18,860
    Likes Received:
    181
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Christian
    That's exactly why Seipai cannot win. In order to win a battle against a concept, you have to at least *understand the concept*. :)
     
Loading...