A simple test for the EU people.

[Seipai]

Michael, you blew up a response that did not need to be blown up.

That is another open admission of defeat by you.

The material that I have provided has been based upon peer reviewed science. I don't need the actual peer review to debunk your nonsense. Meanwhile your nonsense was never accepted by peer review. You handwave it in, I hand wave it out.

 

[Seipai]

One more time in case Michael cannot understand. Mike, you are the one who wants to climb the mountain. You might not like the current paradigm, but it has been supported by peer review. Your ideas have not been. I have tried to show you articles based upon peer reviewed science that debunks your ideas. In my book articles based upon peer reviewed science debunks claims that have never been accepted.

 

[Michael]

One more time in case Michael cannot understand. Mike, you are the one who wants to climb the mountain. You might not like the current paradigm, but it has been supported by peer review.

No complaints so far.

Your ideas have not been.

Huge complaint! Your statement is false, it's been demonstrated to be false, and yet you continue to parrot the same false statement!

It's fair for you to claim that I have s steep climb ahead of me, and it's even fine for you to "prefer" one theory over another. It's not fine to make false claims however!

I have tried to show you articles based upon peer reviewed science that debunks your ideas.

You handed me two hater blogs where nobody used their real names, neither of which had anything at all to do with Alfven's work. You then handed me a link to a guy I've already had the pleasure of meeting in cyberspace, and as he explained to you, he's not a physicist and I can vouch for him on that point. The last reference was to the only *named physicist* you actually cited, but alas his work wasn't published, it's got at last one visual error I can pick out, and it wouldn't represent the death of the entire concept, even if his criticism turn out to have *some* merit. You still never met the requirement of *peer reviewed rebuttal* his nobody "peer reviewed" his blog.

In my book articles based upon peer reviewed science debunks claims that have never been accepted.

The term "accepted" amounts to an appeal to popularity/authority fallacy rolled into one. It's not valid scientific rebuttal of the papers I/we presented to you. Abrams went to a lot of work to publish his paper. It deserves more than a frivolous handwave from some random guy on some random website that admitted for the record he's not a physicist! Come on! Your whole denial thing is getting old. Just because EU/PC theory is not the "maintream" way of looking at the universe (yet), does not mean that there is no peer reviewed material to support it! You're mixing up your arguments left and right, and trying to ignore the *peer reviewed* papers you've been handed. Sorry, but that's just pure denial on your part.

Like I said, you're welcome to your opinion and your preferences, but you aren't welcome to misrepresent the facts. The fact of the matter is that there are *peer reviewed* works to support EU/PC theory, and I resent you making false statements related to that fact.

 

[Michael]

Michael, you blew up a response that did not need to be blown up.

That is another open admission of defeat by you.

Has anyone ever compared you to Walter Middy?

The material that I have provided has been based upon peer reviewed science.

False. Not one single link you have provided has been "peer reviewed" or published in any relevant journal. They've all been links to *random websites*!

I don't need the actual peer review to debunk your nonsense.

Denial at it's finest. It's nice for you that you've elevated your own beliefs to the status of Godhood and all, but it's not real impressive from where I sit.

Meanwhile your nonsense was never accepted by peer review.

This is the false statement that actually annoys me by the way. You're not telling the truth. Abram's paper was peer reviewed. Alfven's paper was peer reviewed. Peratt's paper was peer reviewed. They all were *peer reviewed*.

The word *accepted* is your little twisted disclaimer apparently where the majority is immediately required to change their position immediately, or it's "not accepted". By your standards, GR theory itself wasn't "accepted" for decades.

You handwave it in, I hand wave it out.

The difference is one hand has peer reviewed material. The other hand has nothing but unpublished hater blogs.

Honestly, your behaviors are a form of classic denial, particularly that false statement you keep making about EU/PC work not being peer reviewed. That statement has been shown to be false as it relates to Abrams, false as it relates to Peratt, and false as it relates to the Nobel prize winning physicists work as well. You're in complete denial of scientific and historical fact!

 

[Seipai]

Oh Michael, pure fail on your first attempt.

The name is Walter Mitty.

Once again, I don't need peer reviewed material to debunk nonsense. Who ever told you that?

You try to sneak in peer reviewed material that is not about the discussion at hand and then claim you have provided "peer review".

Another handwaved in argument handwaved away.

And you keep making the same mistake. Some of Alfven's work was peer reviewed. His "EU" claims weren't. Peratt's work may have been. It has since been debunked. Of course you ignore the debunking by calling the work "hater blogs".

One more time the links I gave explained why the work was rejected.

Try again.

 

[Elendur]

Michal, I'd like some input from you, as you're probably one of the most neutral persons on this board (on this matter between Justa and me). What was your take of my discussion with Justa (if you even followed it. If not, feel free to disregard these questions)?

Was I unclear in my stance?
Was I unfair towards him?

Was there anything that I could have done to improve my communication with him?

 

[Michael]

Michal, I'd like some input from you, as you're probably one of the most neutral persons on this board (on this matter between Justa and me). What was your take of my discussion with Justa (if you even followed it. If not, feel free to disregard these questions)?

Was I unclear in my stance?
Was I unfair towards him?

Was there anything that I could have done to improve my communication with him?

Hmmm. I've kind of grown fond of you over the years, but I'll try to be neutral.

I think you were entirely fair (as always), you were clear in the point *you* were trying to make, although that's typically a major issue in all debates in terms making sure the other side *hears* you clearly. You always do well in my experience of citing the specific post where you believe the ball got dropped from your perspective, and you did so again in this case too.

If you noticed, I 'tried' to warn Justa that you weren't necessarily promoting any particular cosmology theory, nor dissing any particular cosmology theory either. You're a little difficult to 'pin down' in my experience in terms of where you're coming from, and the nature of your motives. It took me awhile to see where you were coming from.

One of biggest mistakes I made when I first started debating publicly is "assuming" the other person held certain beliefs. It took me quite a while to really learn to treat everyone as an individual and to 'listen' and 'ask' before making a lot of assumptions about peoples motives. I think Justa "assumed" some things early on that actually didn't apply to you as a unique individual.

In many circumstances, and in fact on most "general" topics that I debate, I'm typically in the majority position, or there are plenty of others that share my views. If I'm in error, it's typically on a minor point, not the whole theory itself.

EU/PC theory happens to the be one exception where the numbers aren't in usually in my favor on the internet to start with, *and* the mainstream astronomy websites do a really ruthless job in some cases of weeding out all dissenters on a regular basis. The rule system over at Cosmoquest for instance is down right draconian.

In that outnumbered scenario, it's hard to know exactly where people stand, but you can be pretty sure that most of them are shooting scientific bullets at you from some angle or another.

I'm not sure if it quite true, but I've come to see you as pretty neutral toward the science itself. From your perspective, you're just making sure the conversation stays "honest". You're a bit like a referee in that way. You also have some pitbull tendencies that I find down right admirable if one expects to be a good public debater. You can however be a bit intimidating in that way. You also tend to pick your battles very strategically, and very methodically. Going into the 'specific battle' that you've chosen, I've noticed that your odds tend to be pretty high. I've had to concede several points to you in fact. You're like a "newbies" worst nightmare.

The only way I can think of that you might try to communicate better is when you first start your conversation/attack. You might try to make it little more clear that you are not emotionally or personally invested in the scientific outcome of the thread, so much as interested in the specific point that you're focused on. I'm still not sure I would have completely understood your motives (or trusted you fully yet), but at least I might have felt less threatened in terms of the scientific points I was trying to make.

 

[Michael]

One point however I should note here Elendur as a fellow pitbull:

The pitbull aspects can become problematic in the sense that the other person may or may not be willing to concede their error. Seipai may or may not be willing to concede the point that there are peer reviewed EU/PC materials out there. In fact, he still looks to be in denial on that point. I can't ultimately *force* him to concede that point however. He'll either do it because it's the "right thing to do', or he ultimately won't. I've learned at some point I have to become emotionally detached from an outcome, even when I think I'm right.

 

[Riberra]

Oh, don't bother with Peratt's paper. I found this site that will explain to you the problems with it. In particular his model predicts light spectra that are not observed in nature:

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Scott Rebuttal. II. The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. the Cosmic Microwave Background

WMAP data can also be used against the mainstream cosmology:
Each successive probe of the background: COBE, WMAP, and now Planck, have demonstrated a lack of the signature strength that would validate inflation as a testable, physically plausible theory.

"Guth had two motivations for developing an inflationary epic: 1) The universe is too large to have a common origin in the time frame constrained by background temperatures. 2) There is too much structure (in the form of large galactic clusters) to have evolved in ~13 billion years.

Guth reasoned that their may have been a period of extremely rapid expansion in which structure also evolved, and that with sensitive enough instruments; we could find within the background the signatures - the waves in space and time necessary to develop structure. Each successive probe of the background: COBE, WMAP, and now Planck, have demonstrated a lack of the signature strength that would validate inflation as a testable, physically plausible theory. --The flat rendition inflation has been relegated to doesn't link the background to a common root event; so the uniform temperature of the microwave background becomes an amazing coincidence, --rather than the signature proof of an expanding, aging universe.-- Since neither of the motivations of inflation are satisfied by the observational data, it should be rejected as a scientific theory: It becomes an unknown.

Prior to Planck, the boundary conditions and constraints were barely touching. WMAP scientist pointed out that the overlap in the various constraints were so small, they could pin the age of the universe down to an incredibly precise number. But the Planck data requires a greater number, well out of the WMAP constraint; and inconsistent with the Dark Energy content constraint provided by the Supernova distance ladder. At this moment, we don't have a working model. Keeping inflation on-the-table implies we know and understand more that we do. It is melded into the Big Bang, where the physics are not known."

You can find details about how the mainstream astronomy deals with observed datas that does not fit the prediction made by their model.
Here:
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?147429-Tension-between-Planck-and-type-1-supernovae

 

[Michael]

Once again, I don't need peer reviewed material to debunk nonsense.

You do however need peer reviewed material to debunk peer reviewed material. Thus far you have provided absolutely no peer reviewed material at all, in fact nothing but random unpublished websites.

You try to sneak in peer reviewed material that is not about the discussion at hand and then claim you have provided "peer review".

Circuit theory as it applies to various events in spacetime *is* a part of this discussion. You don't wish to discuss it of course because you can't handle it, but it is a part of the whole EU/PC paradigm, and what sets it apart from 'mainstream' models. Alfven's paper on *circuit* theory as it applies to solar flares is *not* a part of mainstream theory. The mainstream uses something that Alfven called "pseudoscience' to explain solar flares. Alfven's flare is driven by the *electric field*, not the magnetic field. That is the *core difference* between EU/PC theory and *mainstream theory* as it relates to solar physics, and pretty much everything else in spacetime.

And you keep making the same mistake. Some of Alfven's work was peer reviewed. His "EU" claims weren't.

You're arbitrarily personally deciding what *is* and *is not* a part of EU/PC theory. You can't do that! Circuit theory as applied to solar physical process is a core part of EU/PC theory. It effects *every* "electric sun' model, including Birkeland's model, Alfven's model, and every other one I can think of. Your denial routine is wearing thin at this point. Alfven literally personally wrote the book on EU/PC theory. It's called "Cosmic Plasma". I recommend you actually read it sometime.

Peratt's work may have been.

"May have been"? Please!

It has since been debunked.

Not by any *published* reference you've ever cited.

Of course you ignore the debunking by calling the work "hater blogs".

Unpublished websites are not "peer reviewed" rebuttals to "peer reviewed' work! You can't just handwave in *one guys personal viewpoint* as "gospel", particularly when it's never even been through a peer review process!

One more time the links I gave explained why the work was rejected.

You rejected them because you're in denial of published scientific fact. Abrams works was peer reviewed and published. You've offered no logical rebuttal, just some random guy from some random website who openly admits he's *not even a physicist*! Your concept of 'peers' doesn't even make any sense! You're making this up as you go apparently.

Try again.

Why? You're clearly stuck on a denial-go-round of your own creation. You've painted yourself into a corner over the peer review claim, and you have nowhere to go. There is no peer reviewed rebuttal to anything offered to you in this thread, just one personal handwave after another.

You're subjectively including and excluding materials you don't like in a purely subjective and irrational manner. Alfven's published caused of flares is *nothing* like mainstream models. Alfven personally called their "magnetic reconnection" models "pseudoscience" in fact.

His model is driven by the *electric fields*, not the magnetic fields of the sun. That's what makes it an *electric sun* model in fact. It's electrically interacting between the surface and the heliosphere, as well as between various surface points. You can't deny the whole 'electric sun' theory and claim it's a part of mainstream theory. It's absolutely *not*!

 

[Seipai]

I see that Michael is still in deep denial.

Once again, the sites I have linked have shown why EU is not respected. They are based upon peer reviewed science. You have done practically nothing to defend your views.

I see that you still cannot help to blow up replies. That is a sure sign of someone that is in denial.

Let's see links that actually support your claims, otherwise my simple "handwaves" as you call them have been sufficient to debunk your nonsense.

And one more time you must remember that unfortunately for you you are the one that has a much higher burden of proof than I do. You want to change the current paradigm. If I do nothing I still win. You are the one who has to make his case. You have not come anywhere close to doing that.

 

[Seipai]

Michael, you need to do a lot better than to post some obscure never accepted peer reviewed papers. You are the one who is trying to upset peer review. The handful of papers by kooks that you have found is hardly enough to even dent the current works. No one is paying attention since they never made their point sufficiently.

Give us something that we can sink our teeth into.

 

[Michael]

Michael, you need to do a lot better than to post some obscure never accepted peer reviewed papers. You are the one who is trying to upset peer review. The handful of papers by kooks that you have found is hardly enough to even dent the current works. No one is paying attention since they never made their point sufficiently.

Give us something that we can sink our teeth into.

That first peer reviewed paper by Alfven on solar flares was something you could sink your electric teeth into. It's based on *circuit* theory, not 'magnetic reconnection' theory. You're emotional desire to sweep that fundamental difference under the carpet is just not going to work. Alfven's model uses the *E* field to do all the work, not the B field as does the mainstream model.

 

[Michael]

I see that Michael is still in deep denial.

You're projecting again.

Once again, the sites I have linked have shown why EU is not respected.

By citing unpublished website haters that don't even know the difference between magnetic flux in a vacuum and charged particle acceleration? Who *cares* what they think?

They are based upon peer reviewed science.

False. Clinger's nonsense was never "peer reviewed". Not a single link you handed me is 'peer reviewed science". You're making that up. Your claims about EU/PC theory are based upon *unpublished hater nonsense*, not "peer reviewed science".

You have done practically nothing to defend your views.

Besides provide you with *peer reviewed* papers and books you won't read or comment on intelligently? Not a single reference you've cited even *mentions* Alfven's solar flare paper!

I see that you still cannot help to blow up replies. That is a sure sign of someone that is in denial.

They are blown up as you put it because you're dodging and making up stories about what is and what is not 'peer reviewed'. Not a single link you've cited has been 'peer reviewed'.

Let's see links that actually support your claims, otherwise my simple "handwaves" as you call them have been sufficient to debunk your nonsense.

That very first paper I handed you by Alfven should suffice. Your absurd handwaves and unpublished hater blogs don't even mention that paper.

And one more time you must remember that unfortunately for you you are the one that has a much higher burden of proof than I do.

No, I don't. I have the *same* burden as everyone.

You want to change the current paradigm.

Ya, because the current one doesn't work. It's loaded with supernatural garbage because it won't work right.

If I do nothing I still win.

What exactly do you 'win' in your mind, a lifetime of pure ignorance of EU/PC theory? Wow, what a "win"!

You are the one who has to make his case. You have not come anywhere close to doing that.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you lost the moment you claimed that EU/PC theory had no peer reviewed support. You lost the moment you had to handwave at that very first paper by Alfven that is based on *circuit theory*, not "magnetic reconnection'. You're in pure denial of the fundamental *electric universe* nature of that circuit theory paper.

 

[Seipai]

You're projecting again.

Nope, that has always been you.

By citing unpublished website haters that don't even know the difference between magnetic flux in a vacuum and charged particle acceleration? Who *cares* what they think?

And you know what I said about the unwarranted use of the word "hater". Thanks for admitting you are wrong on everything that follows.

Try again.

 

[Seipai]

Sorry, but this error of Michael's is so glaring I cannot help but to respond to it:

False. Clinger's nonsense was never "peer reviewed". Not a single link you handed me is 'peer reviewed science". You're making that up. Your claims about EU/PC theory are based upon *unpublished hater nonsense*, not "peer reviewed science".

This is a perfect example of you being dishonest. You are trying to use a strawman argument here. I did not say that Clinger's work was peer reviewed. I said it was based upon peer reviewed science.

Do you understand the difference? This is the sort of tactic that I have seen creationists use time after time. They site a process that is too big for one peer reviewed article and then demand a peer reviewed article that covers that process. When an article that is based upon several peer reviewed articles is sited they point out that that article is not "peer reviewed". Of course it isn't. It is based upon peer reviewed science. Clinger's work that you disturbed you so much was of course not peer reviewed. It was based upon peer reviewed science and his answers agree with the current paradigm.

Do you understand this basic concept yet?

 

[Elendur]

Hmmm. I've kind of grown fond of you over the years, but I'll try to be neutral.

I think you were entirely fair (as always), you were clear in the point *you* were trying to make, although that's typically a major issue in all debates in terms making sure the other side *hears* you clearly. You always do well in my experience of citing the specific post where you believe the ball got dropped from your perspective, and you did so again in this case too.

If you noticed, I 'tried' to warn Justa that you weren't necessarily promoting any particular cosmology theory, nor dissing any particular cosmology theory either. You're a little difficult to 'pin down' in my experience in terms of where you're coming from, and the nature of your motives. It took me awhile to see where you were coming from.

One of biggest mistakes I made when I first started debating publicly is "assuming" the other person held certain beliefs. It took me quite a while to really learn to treat everyone as an individual and to 'listen' and 'ask' before making a lot of assumptions about peoples motives. I think Justa "assumed" some things early on that actually didn't apply to you as a unique individual.

In many circumstances, and in fact on most "general" topics that I debate, I'm typically in the majority position, or there are plenty of others that share my views. If I'm in error, it's typically on a minor point, not the whole theory itself.

EU/PC theory happens to the be one exception where the numbers aren't in usually in my favor on the internet to start with, *and* the mainstream astronomy websites do a really ruthless job in some cases of weeding out all dissenters on a regular basis. The rule system over at Cosmoquest for instance is down right draconian.

In that outnumbered scenario, it's hard to know exactly where people stand, but you can be pretty sure that most of them are shooting scientific bullets at you from some angle or another.

I'm not sure if it quite true, but I've come to see you as pretty neutral toward the science itself. From your perspective, you're just making sure the conversation stays "honest". You're a bit like a referee in that way. You also have some pitbull tendencies that I find down right admirable if one expects to be a good public debater. You can however be a bit intimidating in that way. You also tend to pick your battles very strategically, and very methodically. Going into the 'specific battle' that you've chosen, I've noticed that your odds tend to be pretty high. I've had to concede several points to you in fact. You're like a "newbies" worst nightmare.

Thank you very much for the kind words! Much of what you've written here is what I strive to do. Perhaps not the "intimidating" and "nightmare" part, but I guess that can be an unintended side effect, I'll see if I'll manage to tone those parts down.

The only way I can think of that you might try to communicate better is when you first start your conversation/attack. You might try to make it little more clear that you are not emotionally or personally invested in the scientific outcome of the thread, so much as interested in the specific point that you're focused on. I'm still not sure I would have completely understood your motives (or trusted you fully yet), but at least I might have felt less threatened in terms of the scientific points I was trying to make.

I'll definitely work on this. I think you might be spot on with this, so thank you for helping me.

One point however I should note here Elendur as a fellow pitbull:

The pitbull aspects can become problematic in the sense that the other person may or may not be willing to concede their error. Seipai may or may not be willing to concede the point that there are peer reviewed EU/PC materials out there. In fact, he still looks to be in denial on that point. I can't ultimately *force* him to concede that point however. He'll either do it because it's the "right thing to do', or he ultimately won't. I've learned at some point I have to become emotionally detached from an outcome, even when I think I'm right.

I won't express any opinion on the content of the debate you've had with Seipai, but I agree with you on what you've written otherwise.

I won't specify what part I agree or disagree with you regarding your debate (there are parts of both), but feel free to quote me on this:

It is not alright to flippantly disregard a whole post because of a perceived lie.
It's not even alright to disregard the perceived lie itself.
If anything you have to show how the poster lied (if he/she did, and I'd bet this is the hardest one), show how the poster was mistaken (i.e. not lying, just misinformed), admit you're wrong (i.e. pretty much accepting that stance) or admit that you cannot show that the poster was wrong or lying.

Of course, if I see some arguing against how I perceive one should react to a perceived lie, I'll evaluate that and possibly change my mind.

I do not like it when a debate boils down to
"You're lying!"
"No, you!"
Or just the one way exchange, or similar.

From what I've read, you've got more debate mistakes to go on (not counting the latest pages). But again, I'm not addressing the content.

Thanks again for the feedback

 

[Michael]

Sorry, but this error of Michael's is so glaring I cannot help but to respond to it:

This is a perfect example of you being dishonest. You are trying to use a strawman argument here. I did not say that Clinger's work was peer reviewed. I said it was based upon peer reviewed science.

Do you understand the difference?

Oy Vey. In terms of the claims about dishonesty, you're clearly projecting again. You're apparently not being honest with yourself, so you're blaming me.

Clinger's unpublished comments on JREF are absolutely, positively *not* "based upon peer reviewed science", not in any way shape or form. I tried for *months* to get Clinger to provide a *peer reviewed* reference to support his ridiculous handwaves, and I *never* got one. Likewise the published opinions by Abrams, and the two other authors that were cited in the Schwarzchild/Hilbert debate were based upon *peer reviewed science* from *published* authors. You have *never* provided any published paper that demonstrates that Clinger was correct about *either issue*!

Do you understand this basic concept yet?

Yes, I understand the concept of dishonest evasion very well, which is why I'm sure you're *never* going to cite any published work to demonstrate that Clinger was correct on *either* point related *physics*.

 

[Michael]

I won't express any opinion on the content of the debate you've had with Seipai, but I agree with you on what you've written otherwise.

You can however see the parallels, can't you? There really can be 'honest disagreements of opinion', but it's rare that both sides "feel" that way at the end.

I'd also point out that if you're going to referee the debates with 100 percent integrity, you'll have to start busting both sides over their goofy claims sooner or later.

 

[Seipai]

Oy Vey. In terms of the claims about dishonesty, you're clearly projecting again. You're apparently not being honest with yourself, so you're blaming me.

Clinger's unpublished comments on JREF are absolutely, positively *not* "based upon peer reviewed science", not in any way shape or form. I tried for *months* to get Clinger to provide a *peer reviewed* reference to support his ridiculous handwaves, and I *never* got one. Likewise the published opinions by Abrams, and the two other authors that were cited in the Schwarzchild/Hilbert debate were based upon *peer reviewed science* from *published* authors. You have *never* provided any published paper that demonstrates that Clinger was correct about *either issue*!

No, some of his work may not have been based upon peer reviewed science. You found one place where he may have been wrong. Let's go back to Alfven, just because he was sometimes wrong does not make his work on MHD wrong. I showed how you were not being honest previously and you are not being honest again. And I am betting that you are not telling the truth about Clinger. I know that in the case where he may have been wrong he cited some work based upon peer reviewed science. You seemed to have ignored it even though it may have supported you.

And you do realize that the demand for peer reviewed articles can be dishonest, don't you? Peer reviewed articles really only apply to science on the cutting edge of discovery. They are very specific in what they cover. Sometimes you have to take a step back and use articles that are supported by peer reviewed articles. Since they take multiple articles and give a coherent idea behind them. For example TalkOrigins is a very good tool to use against creationists. Its articles are not peer reviewed, but they are based upon peer reviewed science and they have links to the articles that support them. Ideas like the evolution of a class of animals is much too large for one article that is peer reviewed.

Some of your EU claims may have been peer reviewed, but in later experiments shown to be wrong. Not just one experiment, which would be perhaps one peer reviewed article, but multiple ones. That is where the "hater" blogs shine. They tell you what experiments your idea failed.

Yes, I understand the concept of dishonest evasion very well, which is why I'm sure you're *never* going to cite any published work to demonstrate that Clinger was correct on *either* point related *physics*.

It seems you don't know what "published" means either. Anything on the internet is by definition "published". What you want is not going to happen. You can find one article on a few data points that goes against your theory. But as I said it is going to take several to debunk it. Your idea is too broad to find in one peer reviewed article. Your request is not one hundred percent honest.