A simple test for the EU people.

[Seipai]

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.

Here is a clue, if you want to be regarded as honest: Do not attempt to change the argument that the other side is using.

You do strawman quite a bit. You should recognize that flaw in you. You also have to much religiously invested in your beliefs. Otherwise you would not call blogs that disagree with you "hater blogs". If someone cuts off your discussion because you won't listen to reason that is not the action of a "hater".

And you never said what happened to you on PhysicsForums"?

 

[Elendur]

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 agree.

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.

Yeah, you're right about that and I will try to strive towards that in the future.
I have a couple of ideas for debate threads that could be interesting, and I'd love to see the arguments that should crop up. And I'd be even more interested in trying to monitor it.

But as of now I'm spending most of my time lurking (though Justa broke that for a moment), I'm nearing a couple of big hurdles with my studies (and perhaps even larger stuff than that, I'm so exited!).

 

[Michael]

No, some of his work may not have been based upon peer reviewed science. You found one place where he may have been wrong.

He's wrong on *both* points which is why there are no *peer reviewed* papers to support him on *either point*!

Let's go back to Alfven, just because he was sometimes wrong does not make his work on MHD wrong.

You haven't demonstrated that Alfven was "wrong" about anything! Alfven won the Nobel Prize in MHD theory. What has Clinger done in physics other than to make a complete *fool* out of himself?

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.

That *should* be very easy to demonstrate if you're right. If you're correct you should *easily* be able to site *published and peer reviewed* papers that agree with him. Can you?

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.

Huh? First he cited his textbook on basic EM field theory (Purcell I believe), but he had to admit that Purcell never once mentioned the topic of 'magnetic reconnection', but he did explain *magnetic flux* in that book! He pointed to some other paper involving *plasma* which ultimately *hurt* his argument. Someone at JREF (not sure if was Clinger) mentioned a presentation by Somov, but Somov's example was *inclusive* of charged particles and charged particle movement/acceleration which was exactly the *opposite* of what Clinger claimed!

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.

Why is that? I read papers based on 'magnetic reconnection' theory almost every week on Arxiv. I read papers based on GR theory almost every week too.

The three of us had no trouble citing published works to support our various points. What's your pitiful excuse?

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.

The coherent idea behind every paper on magnetic reconnection theory is *charged particle acceleration*. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Clinger *left it out*! He has a bad habit of simply *missing* the key point in terms of *physics*! He did so on *both* points in fact.

It seems you don't know what "published" means either. Anything on the internet is by definition "published".

It's certainly not *peer reviewed*, nor published in any *peer reviewed* journals!

What you want is not going to happen.

You're right about that part. It's not going to happen because plasma isn't optional in 'reconnection' theory. Likewise you can't debate the finer points of Schwarzchild and Hilbert without *noticing the difference*! You've been provided with three published authors that noticed the difference.

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.

Pffft. You're not even being honest with yourself at this point. *All* scientific debates require *published* material to work with, otherwise there is no actual "scientific debate". What you're doing is no better than a creationist handwaving away every peer reviewed paper on evolutionary theory based on one mathematician's website claim that "Evolutionary theory is bunk because I say so, and I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night".

Come on! If you can't find published papers to support your various claims, they simply aren't true. Many of your claims have fallen flat on their face in fact. First you claimed there were no peer reviewed materials on EU/PC theory. I showed you that was false when I handed you Alfven's papers on solar flares based on *circuit theory*. You then tried to falsely assert that it "didn't count" because it wasn't "large scale enough" for your personal tastes, or somehow part of mainstream theory. Pure nonsense.

Face it. Not only *is* there *plenty* of published material on EU/PC theory, you really don't have any *published* rebuttal to any of it. You're got some bogus argument by *bogus* pretenders that know *nothing* about physics. That's apparently all you have.

The *best* reference you cited was Brigman, but I'm almost certain his so called "raw" image wasn't "raw" at all, nor would his criticism be a death blow to Peratt's *basic concept* of *including* MHD theory in galaxy rotation models with the intent of minimizing the need for exotic forms of matter. The concept is *still valid* even if some of Brigman's points are valid. Since it's not even published however, it's *utterly irrational* for you to base your *entire understanding* of PC/EU theory on *one blog entry* from one guy.

 

[Michael]

I agree.


Yeah, you're right about that and I will try to strive towards that in the future.
I have a couple of ideas for debate threads that could be interesting, and I'd love to see the arguments that should crop up. And I'd be even more interested in trying to monitor it.

But as of now I'm spending most of my time lurking (though Justa broke that for a moment), I'm nearing a couple of big hurdles with my studies (and perhaps even larger stuff than that, I'm so exited!).

Glad to hear you have a real life. Enjoy your life, and don't let a few minor disagreements in cyberspace get to you.

 

[Seipai]

He's wrong on *both* points which is why there are no *peer reviewed* papers to support him on *either point*!

What do you mean "both points"? You only may have been right on him misinterpreting the term "magnetic reconnection".

[/quote]

You haven't demonstrated that Alfven was "wrong" about anything! Alfven won the Nobel Prize in MHD theory. What has Clinger done in physics other than to make a complete *fool* out of himself?[?quote]

Sure I have. You just ignored it. Yes, yada yada yada, Alfven won the Nobel Prize. That does not protect him from making errors. You keep making your false argument from authority. Meanwhile forgetting that the real authorities thought that Alfven was wrong when he tried to claim an EU.

That *should* be very easy to demonstrate if you're right. If you're correct you should *easily* be able to site *published and peer reviewed* papers that agree with him. Can you?

His work where he was wrong was never peer reviewed. Why do I need to find peer reviewed articles that show he was wrong? Besides it has already been done. His work predicted a spiky spectrum that is not observed. Alfven may have never made that prediction but his work did. That lack is one of the reasons his work was never accepted. If you want me to get specific you must promise to behave. So far you have not been able to.

Huh? First he cited his textbook on basic EM field theory (Purcell I believe), but he had to admit that Purcell never once mentioned the topic of 'magnetic reconnection', but he did explain *magnetic flux* in that book! He pointed to some other paper involving *plasma* which ultimately *hurt* his argument. Someone at JREF (not sure if was Clinger) mentioned a presentation by Somov, but Somov's example was *inclusive* of charged particles and charged particle movement/acceleration which was exactly the *opposite* of what Clinger claimed!

Yes, I already admitted that Clinger may have been wrong about magnetic reconnection. But sadly it seems you still do not now the difference between peer reviewed articles and science based upon peer review.

The three of us had no trouble citing published works to support our various points. What's your pitiful excuse?

Once again, I did. You ignored them. I am going to cut this short since you are approaching reportability in your snarkiness.

 

[Michael]

What do you mean "both points"? You only may have been right on him misinterpreting the term "magnetic reconnection".

He completely ignored Abram's point too! You were presented with a second paper by two more peer reviewed authors that also noted and discussed the key differences between Schwartzchild's *actual* solution, and the one Hilbert attributed to him! Clinger simply ignored the whole point and went on another one of his irrelevant mathematical tirades, all the while *blissfully ignorant* of the *physics* aspects *entirely*!

Sure I have. You just ignored it. Yes, yada yada yada, Alfven won the Nobel Prize. That does not protect him from making errors. You keep making your false argument from authority.

Not at all. I've/we've handed you the various peer reviewed papers, and you've yet to refute any them with any *published* rebuttals.

Meanwhile forgetting that the real authorities thought that Alfven was wrong when he tried to claim an EU.

Real authority? Who are they? Clinger? Please! You aren't really going to pull another *false* appeal to authority fallacy out of your back pocket while complaining about me citing the Nobel Prize winning author as an *authority* on MHD theory are you?

His work where he was wrong was never peer reviewed.

Why not? If he was wrong it should be easy enough to demonstrate his *error* in print.

Why do I need to find peer reviewed articles that show he was wrong?

Because otherwise you're pulling an appeal to authority fallacy routine without even citing any published *authorities*!

Besides it has already been done. His work predicted a spiky spectrum that is not observed.

Oh boloney. They see gamma rays coming from those polar jets in many cases.

Alfven may have never made that prediction but his work did. That lack is one of the reasons his work was never accepted. If you want me to get specific you must promise to behave. So far you have not been able to.

You have yet to provide me with anything of any peer reviewed substance. What exactly did you expect?

Yes, I already admitted that Clinger may have been wrong about magnetic reconnection.

Then he's not a useful "authority" on anything related to *physics*! For crying out loud, he told you point blank he's no physicist, so why on *Earth* did you cite him of all people on a topic related to physics?

But sadly it seems you still do not now the difference between peer reviewed articles and science based upon peer review.

Because sadly, you invented the concept in your head, and it doesn't even *apply* to your so called "peer" who isn't anyone's *peer* in physics to start with!

Once again, I did. You ignored them. I am going to cut this short since you are approaching reportability in your snarkiness.

You're going to cut it short because you haven't got a peer reviewed rebuttal to even one single paper presented to you in this thread, not one. It's obvious that you don't have one too because otherwise you would have presented it to us, and be gloating about it already. Since that hasn't happened, who do you think you're fooling?

 

[Seipai]

Michael, you still do not understand what the word "published" means and what it takes to debunk nonsense.

And I see that you still cannot behave yourself.

Once again, I do not need "peer reviewed" articles to debunk nonsense. All I need are articles based upon science that has gone through the whole process of acceptance. Not just peer review. That is only a first step. Once an idea has been fully tested by the scientific community we no longer need peer review to support it. I do not need a peer reviewed article when discussing Newton's Laws of Motion, or of Maxwell's Equations. It is new ideas that need at least the bare minimum that peer review offers. And that is still a rather tenuous support to say the least.

I have given evidence with those qualifications. It is all that is required to debunk your nonsense. You can keep denying the obvious. I don't really care. You are the one that wants to change the current paradigm, you are the one that has to go by a higher standard. You don't like it because you know that you cannot meet that higher standard.

 

[Michael]

Michael, you still do not understand what the word "published" means and what it takes to debunk nonsense.

Nothing presented to you in this thread has been "nonsense", it's all been "peer reviewed science". You can argue that it has some type of error in it, but you'll need to back up such a claim with "peer reviewed science", not some random quote from some random guy from some random website.

And I see that you still cannot behave yourself.

You mean I won't buy your handwave song and dance routine?

Once again, I do not need "peer reviewed" articles to debunk nonsense.

You have not provided any evidence whatsoever that any of a Nobel Prize winning authors work was 'nonsense'. You never even *touched* that first paper on circuit theory applied to solar flares.

All I need are articles based upon science that has gone through the whole process of acceptance.

You haven't even technically provided a single "article" that so much as *touches upon* any of Alfven's published and peer reviewed work.

Not just peer review. That is only a first step.

This is where your ridiculous rationalization starts. You didn't even take the "first step" as you put it. You didn't even demonstrate that Clinger's claims *represent mainstream belief* on any topic related to physics. I know for a fact that it's definitely *not* the mainstream position in the case of magnetic reconnection, and I know for a fact your witness isn't credible when it comes to *accurately* representing the opinions and positions of important scientific figures! He's not even a *credible* witness!

Once an idea has been fully tested by the scientific community we no longer need peer review to support it.

Boloney. By your standards, science actually "proves" things. It doesn't ever "prove" anything. It provides "evidence", but even "laws" of physics are open to scrutiny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle

If that were actually the case, we'd be stuck in the Ptolemaic view of the cosmos!

I do not need a peer reviewed article when discussing Newton's Laws of Motion, or of Maxwell's Equations. It is new ideas that need at least the bare minimum that peer review offers. And that is still a rather tenuous support to say the least.

I have given evidence with those qualifications.

Who? Clinger told you bluntly and very honestly that he wasn't a physicist. Not a single reference you cited actually poked a single hole in the *entire peer reviewed works* of Hannes Alfven, the recognized "father" of EU/PC theory.

It is all that is required to debunk your nonsense.

Sorry, you're wrong. You can't "debunk" a Nobel Prize winning author, or a published and peer reviewed physicist with handwaves from a witness that isn't credible or qualified in physics.

You can keep denying the obvious. I don't really care. You are the one that wants to change the current paradigm, you are the one that has to go by a higher standard. You don't like it because you know that you cannot meet that higher standard.

Your "rationalization" apparently begins with the *false* assumption that I personally must adhere to some loftier "higher standard" than you do. Sorry, science (real science) does not work like that. By your logic Darwin was toast the moment he introduced the theory of evolution because he wasn't in the 'mainstream' at first, and his beliefs weren't immediately accepted by the mainstream. Likewise Einstein's GR theory would go up in flames by your standards. It took *decades* for his ideas to win out over Newton's ideas, and we *still use* Newton's formulas for puttering around inside of our own solar system. They work just fine for most things.

About the only real area of so called "science" where GR theory is used extensively is astronomy, but only when it's married to a host of supernatural constructs and ridiculous claims that aren't even *necessary* in GR theory. GR theory for instance is in no physical or logical way dependent upon "dark energy" theory, or "inflation theory" for it's scientific credibility. Only one otherwise falsified creation mythos depends on such supernatural constructs.

 

[Seipai]

How sad. Even when told what he was doing wrong Michael still cannot see it.

Okay, time for the true test to see how self deluded Michael is.

Do you still stand behind your claim in post #86 in this thread:

No dark matter? - Page 5

?

The currents that flow through the physical universe are the energy source that power the stars. The gravitational and EM fields around the stars cause the materials withiin the stars to mass separate by the element, with the outer most layers being composed of the lightest elements, namely hydrogen and helium. The outer most layers are the lightest and most electrically active layers of the solar atmosphere, and thus they also form the hottest layers of the sun and they emit the most photons. The electrical interactions between the sun and the universe generate a great deal of heat in the upper solar atmosphere, and generate fusion reactions in the upper atmosphere that can be observed by the Rhessi satellite.

Most of the mass of the universe is found within the stars and the solar system, and in the electron mass that flows between stars. The light plasmas between stars make up some of the mass as well, but these clouds are generally composed mostly of hydrogen and helium, and the lightest elements that can more easily escape the gravity well of stars. Most of the mass of stars is actually located in the iron and nickel within the star rather than hydrogen and helium. We therefore vastly underestimate the mass of stars, particularly the largest ones in the universe. IMO, the "missing mass" you seek is found within these large heavy element stars, and it is specifically located within the solar systems of galaxies, not in some form of exotic matter. IMO your missing mass is found inside of the solar systems, mostly inside the iron an nickel suns. Ironically, while I do consider a MOND type theory to also be scientifically viable and worthy of further research, I actually consider a MACHO oriented "dark matter" explanation (involving heavy element suns) of various observations to be more viable than MOND theories.

 

[Michael]

How sad. Even when told what he was doing wrong Michael still cannot see it.

Okay, time for the true test to see how self deluded Michael is.

Do you still stand behind your claim in post #86 in this thread:

No dark matter? - Page 5

?

The currents that flow through the physical universe are the energy source that power the stars. The gravitational and EM fields around the stars cause the materials withiin the stars to mass separate by the element, with the outer most layers being composed of the lightest elements, namely hydrogen and helium. The outer most layers are the lightest and most electrically active layers of the solar atmosphere, and thus they also form the hottest layers of the sun and they emit the most photons. The electrical interactions between the sun and the universe generate a great deal of heat in the upper solar atmosphere, and generate fusion reactions in the upper atmosphere that can be observed by the Rhessi satellite.

Most of the mass of the universe is found within the stars and the solar system, and in the electron mass that flows between stars. The light plasmas between stars make up some of the mass as well, but these clouds are generally composed mostly of hydrogen and helium, and the lightest elements that can more easily escape the gravity well of stars. Most of the mass of stars is actually located in the iron and nickel within the star rather than hydrogen and helium. We therefore vastly underestimate the mass of stars, particularly the largest ones in the universe. IMO, the "missing mass" you seek is found within these large heavy element stars, and it is specifically located within the solar systems of galaxies, not in some form of exotic matter. IMO your missing mass is found inside of the solar systems, mostly inside the iron an nickel suns. Ironically, while I do consider a MOND type theory to also be scientifically viable and worthy of further research, I actually consider a MACHO oriented "dark matter" explanation (involving heavy element suns) of various observations to be more viable than MOND theories.

Hmmm. Actually I agree with some of it, but actually not that much of it these days. That just goes to show you how much my beliefs have 'evolved' over the past 7 years. It's still an interesting trip down memory lane. I'll give you that much.

My beliefs in terms of stars, as well as mass location have evolved quite a bit since then. I've since adopted Birkeland's solar model outright, as well as his opinions about most of the mass being located in the plasma "between" the stars, not in the stars themselves. I've also moved towards Birkeland's position as it relates to the source of energy. I agree with him that it's generated *inside* the stars. I share Alfven's view that the stars are 'wired together' to some degree, but I would say that the primary power source of stars are the stars themselves.

I'd have to assume that I had not yet read Peratt's paper on galaxy mass layouts at that point in time either. That particular paper did change my viewpoints related to the mass layout of galaxies rather drastically actually, as did a full reading of Birkeland's work. I'd have to assume I hadn't yet read (or fully comprehended) Peratt's paper at that point in time.

If I remember correctly, I believe I had just read a lensing paper on "dark matter" at that point, and the mass that "passed through' looked to simply be the stellar infrastructure. I was right about the fact we grossly underestimated the mass of suns in a given galaxy, but that mass alone wouldn't result in the mass layouts I was looking for. As I said, Peratt's galaxy modeling way a real eye opener for me personally.

Universe is twice as bright as previously thought | TopNews
Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

These days I'd have to assume that the most of the mass that we 'missed' inside of stars themselves relates to the fact we underestimated their size as well as their number, and I would now have to agree with EL that the composition is less important than I believed at that moment in time. I now have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, and I can see how and why they underestimated the mass inside of stars now. I no longer believe it had a lot to do with composition at this point.

FYI, Birkeland was one of the first folks to suggest that most of the mass of the universe did not exist inside the stars themselves, but in the plasmas between the stars. As time goes by, and I understand his work better, the more I am impressed with his work.

 

[Michael]

FYI, my criticisms of WIMP theories in that thread turned out to be rather prophetic after those three straight strikes over the past 18 months! Nice!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20300100
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/oct/31/lux-dark-matter-search-comes-up-empty
http://news.discovery.com/space/perfect-electron-roundness-bruises-supersymmetry-131219.htm

 

[Michael]

Actually, after rereading the thread, I still agree with quite a few of the things that I said in that thread. I would say that Peratt's paper on galaxy mass layouts had the greatest influence on my views since that point in time, but otherwise I was pretty on target.

It turns out that I was absolutely right about the fact that the mainstream grossly underestimated the amount of mass in stars, though not necessarily for the right reasons. I was right about WIMP theory and SUSY theory in general. It's since been utterly *trashed* in the lab. Dark energy is still just an ad hoc gap filler too.

I'd say that since then some of my *solar* beliefs have changed, and some of my beliefs related to energy generation probably have changed since then as well, but a lot of my commentary in that thread related to exotic forms of matter have since been vindicated in the lab.

 

[Michael]

It was entertaining to reread that thread after so long. Thanks.

It seems I was still entertaining MOND theory back then as an alternative to exotic matter theories, and apparently I had not read Peratt's paper yet because I didn't cite it anywhere in the conversation. It looks like I was still willing to publicly debate/entertain options about the energy production aspects of solar physics, but even then I was leaning toward a *mostly* internal energy production process. Our papers had already been published by then, and they were in fact based on an internal energy production process. I'm not sure why I phrased things in the quote you cited in quite the way I did as it relates to the energy production process, but I do recall being rather 'open minded' about the possibilities of suns being 'wired together' and sharing energy early on.

It's interesting to see how difficult it really was to be a 'skeptic' back then of exotic matter claims. There really just wasn't that much data to work with, and perhaps even a "little" evidence to support the concept. About the only evidence "against" the idea related to neutrinos and a lack of any sort of signal for WIMP annihilation in the sun. Just not much data there to work with actually.

In retrospect however, LUX killed off that early so called 'evidence' of WIMP signals in underground experiments. LHC actually falsified all the then "popular" brands of SUSY theory, and SUSY theory failed it's own "golden test" in those experiments. There's still some hope I suppose in terms of LHC once it comes back online in 2015, but so far it's come up empty. I wonder of WIMPS are dead to EL as he suggested, or if he's hoping for a miracle in 2015 still?

Overall I'd say that I no longer find MOND theory to be interesting, Peratt has since enlightened me as to galaxy mass layout patterns, and I've since become Bireland's biggest supporter in terms of basic solar theory. Other than that, not a lot has changed.

I would agree with EL in retrospect that he was probably correct that the composition of the suns was probably less of a factor in terms of the mainstream underestimation of mass in stars compared to the fact that they underestimated the number of smaller stars in galaxies by a lot (a factor of 4) and they also underestimated the sizes of the larger stars due to dust. Those were in fact likely to be *larger* factors in terms of them underestimating the mass in stars than anything related to solar composition.

 

[Michael]

Just out of morbid curiosity, are you personally still praying for some sort of a miracle in 2015 experiments at LHC as it relates to WIMP/SUSY theory, or do you have some *other* concept of "dark matter" than you personally support these days?

 

[Seipai]

Hmmm. Actually I agree with some of it, but actually not that much of it these days. That just goes to show you how much my beliefs have 'evolved' over the past 7 years. It's still an interesting trip down memory lane. I'll give you that much.

My beliefs in terms of stars, as well as mass location have evolved quite a bit since then. I've since adopted Birkeland's solar model outright, as well as his opinions about most of the mass being located in the plasma "between" the stars, not in the stars themselves. I've also moved towards Birkeland's position as it relates to the source of energy. I agree with him that it's generated *inside* the stars. I share Alfven's view that the stars are 'wired together' to some degree, but I would say that the primary power source of stars are the stars themselves.

I'd have to assume that I had not yet read Peratt's paper on galaxy mass layouts at that point in time either. That particular paper did change my viewpoints related to the mass layout of galaxies rather drastically actually, as did a full reading of Birkeland's work. I'd have to assume I hadn't yet read (or fully comprehended) Peratt's paper at that point in time.

If I remember correctly, I believe I had just read a lensing paper on "dark matter" at that point, and the mass that "passed through' looked to simply be the stellar infrastructure. I was right about the fact we grossly underestimated the mass of suns in a given galaxy, but that mass alone wouldn't result in the mass layouts I was looking for. As I said, Peratt's galaxy modeling way a real eye opener for me personally.

Universe is twice as bright as previously thought | TopNews
Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

These days I'd have to assume that the most of the mass that we 'missed' inside of stars themselves relates to the fact we underestimated their size as well as their number, and I would now have to agree with EL that the composition is less important than I believed at that moment in time. I now have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, and I can see how and why they underestimated the mass inside of stars now. I no longer believe it had a lot to do with composition at this point.

FYI, Birkeland was one of the first folks to suggest that most of the mass of the universe did not exist inside the stars themselves, but in the plasmas between the stars. As time goes by, and I understand his work better, the more I am impressed with his work.

You do realize that we can measure how massive a star is regardless of its size? Size or volume, has nothing to do with a star's mass.

And this is pure Newtonian mechanics, no need for the exotic matter that you have such an objection to.

 

[Seipai]

And wow!! Talk about going off of the deep end!

Michael, one of my objections to you is that you are not honest. I am ignoring most of your screed since I have better things to do.


But talk about insecurity in your own religious beliefs. If you really believed your nonsense without doubt you could answer questions quickly and to the point

 

[Michael]

You do realize that we can measure how massive a star is regardless of its size?

True.

Size or volume, has nothing to do with a star's mass.

That depends on the specific circumstances, but in most cases we measure them in a way that doesn't depend on their volume.

And this is pure Newtonian mechanics, no need for the exotic matter that you have such an objection to.

MHD theory can incorporate and accommodate GR theory or Newtonian mechanics just fine.

 

[Michael]

And wow!! Talk about going off of the deep end!

Huh?

Michael, one of my objections to you is that you are not honest. I am ignoring most of your screed since I have better things to do.

In what way was I in any way dishonest? I even acknowledged that EL was probably correct that the reason we grossly underestimated the stellar infrastructure was related to various flaws in their galaxy mass 'guestimation' techniques, and not due to the composition issues as I speculated back then. Time has vindicated EL on that point, and I acknowledged it.

On the other hand, EL's hopes and faith in WIMP theory have been falsified in the lab 3 straight times in just the last 18 months.

But talk about insecurity in your own religious beliefs. If you really believed your nonsense without doubt you could answer questions quickly and to the point

I have answered every rational question you've put to me as openly and honestly and directly as I can. On the other hand, I've waited nearly 100 pages for you to produce a *peer reviewed* rebuttal to anything handed to you in this thread, and none have been forthcoming.

It's really irrational for you to be running around questioning my honesty and my integrity while your run from the *scientific need* for *peer reviewed rebuttals* if you really expect to engage yourself in a *real* scientific debate some day. As it stands however, you've spent 100 pages just blithely handwaving away every peer reviewed paper put to you based on nothing more than unpublished hater blogs, not a single one of which actually dealt with *any* of Alfven's peer reviewed work!

 

[Michael]

FYI, I'm still curious if you're praying for a miracle at LHC in 2015 in terms of WIMP/SUSY theory, or it you are betting on a different favorite exotic matter of the gaps argument?

 

[Seipai]

Michael, I have shown how you are dishonest. Your main method of dishonesty is the strawman argument. That indicates that you cannot answer the actual arguments or questions asked.

And you are still blowing up responses that do not need blowing up.