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So you're like the proverbial creationist handwaving away published material about EV theory based on some unpublished creationist website he read somewhere in cyberspace.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