A simple test for the EU people.

[Michael]

And Michael I see you don't want to debate. You want to attack someone that made you look like a fool.

What? He only made *himself* look like a fool. He literally cannot tell the difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum, and charge particle acceleration in a conductor as a result of that flux. He *still* hasn't figured out his problem even *years* later no less.

That's fine with me. When you get over your hurt feelings perhaps we can discuss matters.

You're running from the debate because you have no published or peer reviewed papers to support your claims about Abrams and other published authors. Likewise you won't find any plasma physicists publishing papers and books about reconnection without charged particle movement/acceleration. Get a grip. So far all you've provided are *long list* of purely *unpublished* hater material. The last one comes from some guy that can't even *accurately* represent *Alfven's* position on "reconnection" theory, yet you expect us to believe he's some kind of expert on physics and Schwarzchild just because he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

Get real. You can't handle the peer reviewed science aspects, therefore I seen nothing but hater website references. Got a *published* rebuttal to either the GR debate or the MHD debate? Inquiring minds want to know?

 

[Seipai]

No, I am not running away from the debate because of published materials. I am sure I could find materials to support my claims. I am leaving the debate for now because you make it too personal. I see you doing that with Clinger, and I see you doing that here.

It seems that the EU is your religious belief and you will not let any evidence shake it.

And the debate is not about MHD, that is accepted, It is about the EU. You can't say that MHD is EU, you haven't given any evidence for that. Proving MHD in no way proves the EU. MHD fits nicely into the EU, but it also fits nicely into the standard model.

 

[Michael]

No, I am not running away from the debate because of published materials. I am sure I could find materials to support my claims.

I'm equally sure you cannot.

I am leaving the debate for now because you make it too personal. I see you doing that with Clinger, and I see you doing that here.

It has nothing to with Clinger as a person. All I asked you for were *peer reviewed/published* references. It's not my fault, or his fault that you picked him personally as some sort of an expert in physics, and the history of physics. He made no such claim to start with, nor were his comments ever published anywhere!

It seems that the EU is your religious belief and you will not let any evidence shake it.

What evidence? So far you've provided no *published* rebuttals in the first place, and your "expert" never claimed to even *be* an expert in physics.

And the debate is not about MHD, that is accepted, It is about the EU. You can't say that MHD is EU, you haven't given any evidence for that.

Alfven literally wrote the book on MHD theory, and literally wrote the most popular book in the EU/PC community, namely Cosmic Plasma. It's not my fault that neither of you have read it or understand it. Your ignorance is not *my* fault.

Proving MHD in no way proves the EU. MHD fits nicely into the EU, but it also fits nicely into the standard model.

The difference is that Birkeland's cathode solar model actually work(ed/s) in the lab with respect to high energy atmospheric processes and the release of kinetic energy from the sun, whereas the standard MHD model (devoid of circuit theory) cannot even adequately explain even an ordinary IRIS satelite image at this point according to the last email meeting information I got from LMSAL.

As I explained earlier in this thread, EU/PC theory is based on the belief the combination of gravity theory, MHD theory, QM theory, and circuit theory can explain events in space better than anything involving "supernatural" constructs.

 

[Seipai]

And you show yourself to be wrong since there are no "supernatural" constructs in the current model.

Michael, your emotional investment in the argument makes you lose the debate. You say foolish things and then get mad at your opponent when he points them out to you.

And remember, you are the one who has to defend your crackpot ideas, it is not the other way around at this point in time.

 

[Michael]

And you show yourself to be wrong since there are no "supernatural" constructs in the current model.

That's absolutely false. The following "supernatural" claims for the most part cannot ever be demonstrated, or it has never have been demonstrated in controlled experimentation, and therefore remains an "act of faith" on the part of the believer:

Space expansion is the cause of photon redshift
Inflation *causes* space expansion
Dark energy causes space expansion to accelerate
Exotic forms of matter exist in space that have never shown up in a lab on Earth

Mainstream astronomy theory has at least *four* supernatural constructs, all of which fail to show up in experiments on Earth.

Michael, your emotional investment in the argument makes you lose the debate. You say foolish things and then get mad at your opponent when he points them out to you.

You're projecting again. Apparently you're just mad for me pointing out to you that your space expansion claims are 'supernatural' claims that all defy empirical experimental support.

And remember, you are the one who has to defend your crackpot ideas, it is not the other way around at this point in time.

Your *emotional* need to interject pointless ad homs like "crackpot" into the discussion is just ridiculous. I have no problem defending my ideas in a lab. Birkleland demonstrated more than 100 years ago that electromagnetism helps to explain all sorts of solar system activities, and it works in the lab.

You're the one that is actually peddling "crackpot" claims that defy any sort of experimental laboratory support. The only *one* of your four supernatural claims that *could* be tested in a real experiment, failed three straight different tests, with three different kinds of equipment. The whole concept of exotic forms of matter have been reduced to a pure "exotic matter of the gaps" claim and nobody has a clue what *form* it now might take, just like any other argument of the gaps claim.

I'll stick with empirical physics thanks. It brought me this computer I'm using, my cell phone, my car, the energy I use, and pretty much all the conveniences in life that I enjoy. You're welcome to put your faith in "supernatural" claims if you like, but I personally have no need for them.

 

[Seipai]

Aah, I see your problem. You do not know the meaning of "supernatural":

su·per·nat·u·ral [soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2.
of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3.
of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4.
of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

None of those apply to Dark Matter, Dark Energy, or even expansion. They may not be understood right now, but that does not mean they are not understandable.

Perhaps you would like to try again.

 

[Michael]

Aah, I see your problem. You do not know the meaning of "supernatural":

su·per·nat·u·ral [soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

None of those apply to Dark Matter, Dark Energy, or even expansion. They may not be understood right now, but that does not mean they are not understandable.

Perhaps you would like to try again.

Perhaps you would like to get off the denial-go-round instead? Doppler shift is a *naturally* occurring phenomenon that has an effect on photon redshift, but it's related to *moving objects*, not 'expanding space'. Likewise inelastic scattering is *natural*, and like Doppler shift, it too shows up in labs on Earth and has a tangible effect on photon redshift in controlled experimentation.

Your (bogus) claims about "space expansion" are not "natural" to any experiment on Earth. No such process occurs on Earth, or has any physical effect on a photon in a *natural* experiment on this planet, or anywhere humans have ever been.

Likewise there is no known natural *cause* of a *supernatural* process called 'space expansion'. No 'naturally occurring' (on Earth) vector or scalar field known to man causes 'space to expand' in experiments on Earth. Guth invented (in his overactive imagination) another 'supernatural' construct that supposedly *causes* space to do supernatural expansion tricks and do stuff to photons.

When the mainstream looked at the supernova data set, and it falsified their supernatural claims about space expansion and inflation as the 'cause' of photon redshift, they simply *made up* a new "supernatural' construct that fails to show up in experiments on Earth called 'dark energy' to fix their otherwise falsified interpretation of photon redshift. The last and *only* 'supernatural' construct that could be tested on Earth in real experiments, turned up zippitty-do-da in three straight important experiments, based on three different types of technologies! Three strikes isn't enough?

Holy Cow! The whole Lambda-CMD supernatural monstrosity is more *supernatural* than most concepts of God, and more *impotent on Earth* than most concepts of God! At least God has a tangible effect on humans on Earth according to the testimony of many humans throughout human history. Dark deities have been a complete dud in the lab where they could be tested, and three supernatural constructs must forever remain "acts of faith" in three supernatural constructs! Penrose has more empirical evidence of "soul" than currently exists to support *any* of Lambda-CDM's four supernatural constructs!

 

[Seipai]

There are two things wrong with inelastic scattering. The first is that inelastic scattering does not present the correctspectrum of light. Second inelastic scattering scatters light. It is different from light moving through a medium. And as far as relying on the Doppler effect in a Newtonian universe is that distant galaxies would have to be moving away from us at near light velocities and you have no explanation for that.

You may not like it but expansion is the lesser of various "evils". Unknown is not unknowable. There have been many parts of physics that were unknown when they were first theorized. You are making the mistake of thinking that we have discovered all of physics and any new physics is "supernatural". Your beliefs have been debunked. You may not like it but that is why Alfven's EU work is ignored. He was wrong.

 

[Michael]

There are two things wrong with inelastic scattering. The first is that inelastic scattering does not present the correctspectrum of light.

Roughly a third of those x-ray data set points from the x-ray paper LM provided in the other thread didn't present the correct redshift amount either. You're ultimately going to *need* inelastic scattering in dust and plasma to explain that part of the data set.

Second inelastic scattering scatters light. It is different from light moving through a medium.

It depends on the *exact* conditions, and light has even been "stopped" (slowed to a crawl) and 'restarted' in the lab as well.

Harvard Gazette: Researchers now able to stop, restart light

And as far as relying on the Doppler effect in a Newtonian universe is that distant galaxies would have to be moving away from us at near light velocities and you have no explanation for that.

You have them moving away at *superluminal velocities for crying out loud*. You're talking about *relative* velocities of *distant galaxies*

You may not like it but expansion is the lesser of various "evils". Unknown is not unknowable.

That depends on how you define 'evil'. The fact you find empirical physics to be messy and complicated and requiring more than just *gravity* to explain doesn't mean that empirical physics is 'evil'.

You're however *making up* various supernatural constructs and assigning them various ad hoc properties for the *sole function* of saving one otherwise falsified superluminal, supernatural creation mythos from instant destruction. Your ad hoc constructs serve no other *rational* purpose. I have no need for such nonsense to explain some photon redshift in plasma.

There have been many parts of physics that were unknown when they were first theorized. You are making the mistake of thinking that we have discovered all of physics and any new physics is "supernatural".

You haven't even *properly tested* various inelastic scattering options, and various moving object options to know of a fact that you *need* a bunch of ad hoc supernatural constructs in the first place! We didn't *know* that we were surrounded by multimillion degree plasmas with more mass than the rest of the stars in our galaxy until just a couple of years ago.

The problem with your ad hoc constructs however is that they *defy* empirical support *for all time* in the lab, with the sole possible exception of 'exotic matter', but it's already experience three straight strikes in the lab in the past couple of years.

Your beliefs have been debunked. You may not like it but that is why Alfven's EU work is ignored. He was wrong.

The term 'debunk' is absurd. You can't 'debunk' empirical physics anymore than you can 'debunk' evolutionary theory by handwaving at a few haters from some unpublished website. Your invisible sky deities have however been *debunked* (at least one of them), three straight times in the lab in just the last two years. Your whole belief system is bunk, and it's already been 'debunked' several times. It's become a bunk of the gaps argument now just to avoid being 'debunked' again in the lab.

 

[Seipai]

Try again, "stopping" light and scattering of light are two very different processes. What you just did was an example of grasping for straws. An indicator that you are desperate.

You can debunk claims. The claims of EU people have been debunked. If you are not aware of that you are even deeper in denial than I thought.

Science is not supposed to be a religion and you are treating it that way. All of the flaws you claim others have are the ones that you have. Your action is called projection in psychology. You can see your flaws but you pretend others have them to make yourself feel better.

And I doubt if you could find any "strikes" against dark matter. Yes, there are experiments where dark matter was not found, but that is not a strike in the scientific community.

 

[Michael]

Try again, "stopping" light and scattering of light are two very different processes. What you just did was an example of grasping for straws. An indicator that you are desperate.

You're projecting again apparently. You missed the point. Light *can be* affected by dust and plasma both in terms of it's propagation speed through a medium, and in terms of redshift. There's no *physical need* for your exotic friends to explain signal broadening and photon redshift in plasmas!

You can debunk claims.

Not with random hater websites you can't. So far that's all you've handwaved at me.

The claims of EU people have been debunked. If you are not aware of that you are even deeper in denial than I thought.

You're as bad as any creationist claiming to have "debunked" evolutionary theory based on a few unpublished creationist websites! You haven't provided a *single* published paper that *debunks* anything related to EU/PC theory.

Science is not supposed to be a religion and you are treating it that way.

Not me. I accept that my faith in Christ is my personal act of faith. That's all the faith I need. The rest I can explain via empirical physics, including the concepts of God (as the physical universe) and soul (Penrose).

All of the flaws you claim others have are the ones that you have.

Nope. Inelastic scattering has a *real* effect on *real* photons in *real* experiments on Earth. Ditto for Doppler shift. Your 'flaws' are nothing like any trivial issues I may have.

Your action is called projection in psychology. You can see your flaws but you pretend others have them to make yourself feel better.

You got the term right, but you picked the wrong guy. My beliefs *work* in the lab. Yours do not. There is an *empirical* difference between them which no amount of denial will fix.

And I doubt if you could find any "strikes" against dark matter. Yes, there are experiments where dark matter was not found, but that is not a strike in the scientific community.

In *most* scientific communities it would be. In astronomy however, it never is because they can always turn it right back into a dark thingy of the gaps claim again at will!

BBC News - Popular physics theory running out of hiding places
LUX dark-matter search comes up empty - physicsworld.com
http://www.planettechnews.com/science/-perfect-electron-roundness-bruises-supersymmetry

Those poor frustrated Lambda-CDM faithful. They're emotionally and intellectually traumatized now. They've endured three straight blowout failures in three straight important experiments. Either they have to embrace reality as it actually exists, and let go of their supernatural creation mythos, or they'll just have get used to frustration and disappointment for the rest of their natural lives.

 

[Seipai]

Michael since there are no "hater" websites you just admitted that your claims have been debunked.

Thank you.

 

[Seipai]

You're projecting again apparently. You missed the point. Light *can be* affected by dust and plasma both in terms of it's propagation speed through a medium, and in terms of redshift. There's no *physical need* for your exotic friends to explain signal broadening and photon redshift in plasmas!

Still grasping at straws and now mimicking, how sad.

Not with random hater websites you can't. So far that's all you've handwaved at me.

Nope, as I already pointed out there are no "hater" websites". And for the pathetic arguments you have given so far a handwave is all that it takes to get rid of them. You have not made your case in anyway at all.

You're as bad as any creationist claiming to have "debunked" evolutionary theory based on a few unpublished creationist websites! You haven't provided a *single* published paper that *debunks* anything related to EU/PC theory.

No, creationists are trying to fight actual peer reviewed science. You are trying to abscond with peer reviewed science and say that it is part of your view. Again, since you never made your point there is no need for me to debunk your nonsense.

Not me. I accept that my faith in Christ is my personal act of faith. That's all the faith I need. The rest I can explain via empirical physics, including the concepts of God (as the physical universe) and soul (Penrose).

Nope, you are worshiping the EU as bad as any creationist worships the literal word of the Bible. Redshift is still your downfall.

Nope. Inelastic scattering has a *real* effect on *real* photons in *real* experiments on Earth. Ditto for Doppler shift. Your 'flaws' are nothing like any trivial issues I may have.

Yes and they don't match the observed phenomena of the universe. Your theory has failed.

You got the term right, but you picked the wrong guy. My beliefs *work* in the lab. Yours do not. There is an *empirical* difference between them which no amount of denial will fix.

They work in the lab but they do not match observations. They fail.

In *most* scientific communities it would be. In astronomy however, it never is because they can always turn it right back into a dark thingy of the gaps claim again at will!

No, wrong. Simply wrong. If they did not find Tiktaalik that would not have been a "strike against evolution". Not finding something is simply not finding something. Look how long it took to detect neutrinos.

Those poor frustrated Lambda-CDM faithful. They're emotionally and intellectually traumatized now. They've endured three straight blowout failures in three straight important experiments. Either they have to embrace reality as it actually exists, and let go of their supernatural creation mythos, or they'll just have get used to frustration and disappointment for the rest of their natural lives.

Why on Earth would you make a claim like that? Those are minor setbacks at the most.

Once again, redshift says that you are wrong. You have no explanation for the rotation rates of galaxies. You have no explanation for the observed gravitational anomalies left over when two galaxies collide. I am sure there are others.

And Michael, if you want to be taken seriously why don't you study the math and start writing peer reviewed papers? No one on your side seems to be willing to take this subject on. All I hear are conspiracy stories about physics journals. If your idea is correct you should be able to defend it against experts, not against lay people.

 

[Michael]

Still grasping at straws and now mimicking, how sad.

You still haven't produced a *published* rebuttal to *anything* related to EU/PC theory. How sad (and predictable).

Nope, as I already pointed out there are no "hater" websites".

Sure there are, particularly JREF as it relates to EU/PC theory. It's full of haters like Clinger that hate a concept they don't understand, in this case plasma physics. In fact none of the haters at JREF bothered to correct Clinger's nonsense about reconnection in a vacuum over a period of *months*, not just hours, days or weeks. Like Clinger, most of them have never even read a textbook on the topic of plasma physics, let alone cited any error in Alfven's work.

And for the pathetic arguments you have given so far a handwave is all that it takes to get rid of them. You have not made your case in anyway at all.

So you're like the proverbial creationist handwaving away published material about EV theory based on some unpublished creationist website he read somewhere in cyberspace.

No, creationists are trying to fight actual peer reviewed science.

Bingo! So are you. Alfven's work has been peer reviewed. So has some of Peratt's work, some of Dr. Scott's work, etc.

You are trying to abscond with peer reviewed science and say that it is part of your view.

I'm simply pointing out that you have yet to provide a *peer reviewed rebuttal* to anything I've provided you on EU/PC theory in this thread, not once.

Again, since you never made your point there is no need for me to debunk your nonsense.

In other words, you're running from the debate like anyone who lacks a peer reviewed rebuttal. How predictable.

Nope, you are worshiping the EU as bad as any creationist worships the literal word of the Bible. Redshift is still your downfall.

An appreciation for empirical physics and circuit theory that gives rise to things like my computer and my car, and my cell phone is *not* a form of 'worship'. It's simply a respect for empirical physics based on the all the benefits if provides me with in my daily life.

You're the one basing their beliefs not upon *empirical physics in the lab*, but upon a *leap of faith* in the "unseen" (in the lab). It's a form of "religion" which apparently you worship to the point of trying to "debunk" other competing concepts in cyberspace. You're definitely projecting again.

Yes and they don't match the observed phenomena of the universe. Your theory has failed.

Sure they do. We observe redshift in moving plasmas in the lab, and we observe redshift in the plasmas of spacetime. We observe discharges that emit positrons and gamma rays in our on Earth's atmosphere, and we observe gamma rays and positron emissions from every atmosphere of every large body in this solar system with a reasonably thick atmosphere.

You're the one pointing at the sky and claiming your dark (but now light emitting) deities did it! Talk about worship and acts of faith.

They work in the lab but they do not match observations. They fail.

They match everything we might *ever* see in an electric universe that is 99+ percent plasma.

No, wrong. Simply wrong. If they did not find Tiktaalik that would not have been a "strike against evolution". Not finding something is simply not finding something. Look how long it took to detect neutrinos.

Bad comparison. We had a known probable *source* for neutrinos from day one. Either a law of physics was wrong, or we knew some small amount of energy was not accounted in decay processes that were measured in *controlled experimentation* on Earth! The source and the missing pieces were all available for lab testing here on Earth.

Why on Earth would you make a claim like that? Those are minor setbacks at the most.

Your setbacks aren't minor, they're major. The last three setbacks for exotic matter theory alone were *huge* in terms of their implications. You're rather quickly running out of hiding places in your exotic matter of the gaps claims. Within the next five years or so even LHC's last possible energy ranges will have been explored. What happens then if your impotent on Earth friends are still a no show in the lab?

Once again, redshift says that you are wrong. You have no explanation for the rotation rates of galaxies.

Peratt's work demonstrates that you are wrong, and not interested in peer reviewed material either.

You have no explanation for the observed gravitational anomalies left over when two galaxies collide. I am sure there are others.

Sure I do. It's probably just more missing plasma that we haven't found yet. 99+ percent of the known universe is in the plasma state, so it's a safe bet that most of what "missing" is probably plasma and/or dust.

And Michael, if you want to be taken seriously why don't you study the math and start writing peer reviewed papers?

I've already been involved in several published papers. I have studied the math, not just from Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma, but several other textbook on MHD theory as well. Psst: It's your math hero that never bothered to study the maths related to reconnection theory (including the rate of reconnection), which is why he couldn't present any maths that *actually* demonstrated the process of magnetic reconnection.

No one on your side seems to be willing to take this subject on. All I hear are conspiracy stories about physics journals. If your idea is correct you should be able to defend it against experts, not against lay people.

Experts provide *peer reviewed* rebuttals. Haters and lay people rely upon what they've read on a few unpublished websites. Most 'experts' don't go out publicly bashing EU/PC theory. Most of them adopt a 'live and let live' attitude about it. A few mostly misguided amateurs tend to fancy themselves as 'website debunkers' of course, just like you'd expect on just about any topic under the sun. Just like all haters however, none of it is peer reviewed or published in terms of an actual rebuttal. It's all personal handwaves and handwaves to unpublished hater websites, typically written by ignorant and mostly autonomous handles in cyberspace somewhere. Clinger at least has the decency to use his real name, whereas most of them do not. Like Clinger however, none of them cite published work that *actually* supports their claims.

 

[Michael]

Michael since there are no "hater" websites you just admitted that your claims have been debunked.

Thank you.

FYI, "hater" websites exist for pretty much every topic under the sun. From evolutionary theory, to the moon landings, to EU/PC theory, someone, somewhere, on some website claims to have "debunked" the idea on their unpublished website, using nothing but their own unpublished material, or similar *unpublished* website materials.

Haters never base their opinions upon *published works* related to the topic, but rather upon *unpublished* handwaves. Like Clinger, they have typically *never bothered to even read* a textbook on the topic, nor do they know even the *first thing* about it. Their commentary isn't published. It's typically directed at the *individual* rather than the topic, and it's usually wrong and lame just like Clinger's claim about demonstrating "magnetic reconnection" *without* plasma! Hater's are all alike. Education in the topic is never even a consideration before going on 'crusade' about a topic they know almost *nothing* about.

 

[Seipai]

FYI, "hater" websites exist for pretty much every topic under the sun. From evolutionary theory, to the moon landings, to EU/PC theory, someone, somewhere, on some website claims to have "debunked" the idea on their unpublished website, using nothing but their own unpublished material, or similar *unpublished* website materials.

Haters never base their opinions upon *published works* related to the topic, but rather upon *unpublished* handwaves. Like Clinger, they have typically *never bothered to even read* a textbook on the topic, nor do they know even the *first thing* about it. Their commentary isn't published. It's typically directed at the *individual* rather than the topic, and it's usually wrong and lame just like Clinger's claim about demonstrating "magnetic reconnection" *without* plasma! Hater's are all alike. Education in the topic is never even a consideration before going on 'crusade' about a topic they know almost *nothing* about.

Let me put it this way, no "hater" websites have been given to you. Now Clinger may not like you, that still does not make his site a "hater" website.

And you have been supplied websites by physicists that debunk your beliefs.

You will not find any hate in any of the websites provided by others here.

And I see that you got banned from the JREF. Since that is a very easy going group you must have been very bad to get kicked off of there. I am sure that you very quickly got kicked off of PhysicsForums. They do not put up with nonsense there, especially if someone cannot defend their beliefs. It looks like you have been exiled to the wilderness when it comes to debating physics.

 

[Seipai]

You still haven't produced a *published* rebuttal to *anything* related to EU/PC theory. How sad (and predictable).

As I said there is no need to debunk something that has already been debunked. Your idea never caught on. It does not take a peer reviewed article to debunk it. To demand peer reviewed articles to debunk your beliefs it must first have been accepted by the peers. Otherwise there is no need.
this is basic logic that you should be able to understand.

[qute]Sure there are, particularly JREF as it relates to EU/PC theory. It's full of haters like Clinger that hate a concept they don't understand, in this case plasma physics. In fact none of the haters at JREF bothered to correct Clinger's nonsense about reconnection in a vacuum over a period of *months*, not just hours, days or weeks. Like Clinger, most of them have never even read a textbook on the topic of plasma physics, let alone cited any error in Alfven's work.[/quote]

Sorry, stopped at "haters". Again, I don't accept that term and it is an admission of defeat on your part.

So you're like the proverbial creationist handwaving away published material about EV theory based on some unpublished creationist website he read somewhere in cyberspace.

You have presented your ideas with a handwave. All it takes to dismiss them is the same

Bingo! So are you. Alfven's work has been peer reviewed. So has some of Peratt's work, some of Dr. Scott's work, etc.

Wrong, some of his work has been peer reviewed. Getting peer reviewed once is not a stamp of approval of all future work.

I'm simply pointing out that you have yet to provide a *peer reviewed rebuttal* to anything I've provided you on EU/PC theory in this thread, not once.

And I am simply pointing out there is no need for me to do so. Your ideas have not been accepted by peers. That automatically lowers the bar on what it takes to debunk them.

In other words, you're running from the debate like anyone who lacks a peer reviewed rebuttal. How predictable.

And I see you can on and on with your Yada yada yada.

Get back to me when you have something.

 

[Michael]

As I said there is no need to debunk something that has already been debunked.

So claims the creationist about the theory of evolution while handwaving at an unpublished website......

Your idea never caught on.

It hasn't become the majority position *yet*. So what? Science isn't a popularity contest.

It does not take a peer reviewed article to debunk it.

You've been handed all kinds of peer reviewed materials to review, from Abrams, to Nobel Prize winning physicists like Alfven, to his students like Peratt and many others. You've frivolously handwaved at every single one of them, while posting nothing but links to unpublished website rants!

To demand peer reviewed articles to debunk your beliefs it must first have been accepted by the peers.

Most of Alfven's work falls into that category, and they use his precious MHD theory to this very day.

Otherwise there is no need.

You have a strong emotional need to run from the materials of the Nobel Prize winning Physicist, as well as from Abrams and Scott, and Bruce and many, many, many others. Like any good *hater* you dismiss published works based on your own personal choices, and you frivolously dismiss a topic of science that you do not even *begin* to understand. Worse yet, you seem intent on *debating the topic publicly no less*.

Sorry, stopped at "haters". Again, I don't accept that term and it is an admission of defeat on your part.

Got any published material to support any of your false assertions?

You have presented your ideas with a handwave. All it takes to dismiss them is the same

This is where you got stuck on the pure denial go round. Alfven's work *was* published. Peratt's work *was* published. You're the one handwaving away at peer reviewed material based on nothing but an unpublished website!

Wrong, some of his work has been peer reviewed. Getting peer reviewed once is not a stamp of approval of all future work.

So what? You haven't shown me any peer reviewed rebuttal to *any* of the peer reviewed papers presented to you in this thread, not from Alfven, not from Peratt, not from Abrams either.

And I am simply pointing out there is no need for me to do so. Your ideas have not been accepted by peers. That automatically lowers the bar on what it takes to debunk them.

There's your two bit rationalization apparently. You pulled an appeal to popularity fallacy out of your back pocket, slapped a big fat juicy hypocritical rationalization in there, and ran like hell! Typical hater nonsense, regardless of the topic under debate.

And I see you can on and on with your Yada yada yada.

Get back to me when you have something.

I still have yet to see you present at peer reviewed rebuttal by the paper by Abram. Got one?

 

[Michael]

Let me put it this way, no "hater" websites have been given to you. Now Clinger may not like you, that still does not make his site a "hater" website.

What makes it a "hater" website is folks like Clinger who *refuse* to educate themselves by reading a textbook on the relevant topic, yet *insist* on pretending to be an 'expert' anyway. That place is absolutely *packed* with them!

And you have been supplied websites by physicists that debunk your beliefs.

Who? Clinger isn't a physicist. He made that *extremely* clear and he was 100 percent honest about it. If you're in denial on that point, it's your own fault, not his, and not mine.

You will not find any hate in any of the websites provided by others here.

Nothing you've linked to thus far in nearly 100 pages of this thread has been peer reviewed or published however. How long do you think your charade is going to last anyway?

And I see that you got banned from the JREF. Since that is a very easy going group you must have been very bad to get kicked off of there.

Actually, I'll accept my fate like a man at JREF. I got *very* bored there at the end, and I allowed myself to stoop to their level and retaliate. The rest of your silly stuff is simply not worth commenting on. You are right back to attacking *people* rather than *ideas*!

Honestly, your behaviors in this thread are *classic* denial oriented behaviors. You've been handed *peer reviewed* material from Nobel Prize winning physicists to review. You handwave them away based on an unpublished website you read in cyberspace somewhere, without so much as a *published* rebuttal!

 

[Seipai]

Why do all debates with you expand? You like to blow up your response too much

I did not read your last two since I am tired of your extreme eagerness to blow up a debate endlessly.

My points still stand. There is no peer reviewed science that supports the EU. Do not mix up MHD with the EU one is accepted, the other is not. You should learn the difference. You have not provided any peer reviewed articles that support the EU, only MHD and other related sciences.

In other words you are handwaving your arguments in. Here they go again

I will repeat myself, if you want to be taken seriously do some real work. Or find some scientists willing to do some real work. So far you only have the failures in your camp.