A simple test for the EU people. (2)

[Subduction Zone]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "A simple test for the EU people."

 

[Strathos]

Update us on what was going on?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Update us on what was going on?

Originally Posted by 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!

BBC News - Popular physics theory running out of hiding places
LUX dark-matter search comes up empty - physicsworld.com
'Perfect' Electron Roundness Bruises Supersymmetry : Discovery News​

Ahh yes, good ole SUSY theory, another Fairie Dust theory they still won't let die a natural death. The only problem with the standard theory of physics is it does not predict their beloved Fairie Dust dark matter, so of course it must be incorrect.

Who could ever think that it just might be the dark matter theories that are incorrect and mere Fairie Dust? 25 years of searching, and not even the slightest hint. All because they ignore what 99% of the universe is, and the electrical processes active everywhere.

From the Earth's near environment.

Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Coupling

To the moon.

Electric Moon Zaps Solar Winds | David Reneke | Space and Astronomy News
" Now a combination of spacecraft and computer simulations shows it reflects a lot more than just light… the Moon is crackling with electricity which affects the solar winds! Unlike an Earthly-wind, solar winds are a flow of electrically charged gases called plasma."


To Saturn.

Icy Moon Zaps Saturn with Electron Beams
"Scientists working with data from NASA’s Cassini mission – now in its sixth year of operations at Saturn – have discovered an electrical current running between Saturn and its moon Enceladus that creates an observable emission on the ringed planet... “The ion beam seen by the camera appears at exceptionally high energy, between about 30,000 and 80,000 electron volts, surprising for an interaction with such a small moon,”... This planet-moon connection also happens at Jupiter; Io, Europa and Ganymede all produce visible auroral footprints."

But astronomers still pretend space is electrically neutral, all to keep their Fairie Dust theories alive.

 

[Michael]

Update us on what was going on?

Based on the past few pages of discussion, apparently he intends to simply handwave away the peer reviewed life's work of Nobel physicist who wrote the book on MHD theory, his first generation student in plasma physics, and pretty much *every* published paper on EU/PC related topics based on a few unpublished, mostly anonymous websites, not a single one of which even *addresses* any of Alfven's work at all.

 

[Seipai]

Based on the past few pages of discussion, apparently he intends to simply handwave away the peer reviewed life's work of Nobel physicist who wrote the book on MHD theory, his first generation student in plasma physics, and pretty much *every* published paper on EU/PC related topics based on a few unpublished, mostly anonymous websites, not a single one of which even *addresses* any of Alfven's work at all.

I handwave arguments that are handwaved in and that tends to get Michael mad.

He knows that MHD is not EU, or he should.

 

[Seipai]

Sites that Michael has not been able to touch:

Neutrino Dreaming: The Electric Universe Theory Debunked

Electric Universe - RationalWiki

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Electric Universe

On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis

Part of the problem with dealing with EU believers is that there is no one "EU theory". When it is pointed out that the work of certain scientists makes some predictions they will try to claim "That was not in Alfven's work", not understanding what Alfven or other EU scientists' work predicted. A scientist is not only responsible for what he says his work predicts, he is also responsible for the work that others can derive from his concept.

 

[Seipai]

Sites that Michael has not been able to touch:

Neutrino Dreaming: The Electric Universe Theory Debunked

Electric Universe - RationalWiki

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Electric Universe

On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis

Part of the problem with dealing with EU believers is that there is no one "EU theory". When it is pointed out that the work of certain scientists makes some predictions they will try to claim "That was not in Alfven's work", not understanding what Alfven or other EU scientists' work predicted. A scientist is not only responsible for what he says his work predicts, he is also responsible for the work that others can derive from his concept.

 

[Michael]

Sites that Michael has not been able to touch:

Neutrino Dreaming: The Electric Universe Theory Debunked

Actually, in spite of his denial routine, I already posted my rebuttal to that website a long time ago. Not a single criticism on that website actually applies to either Alfven's published works, or to Birkeland's work.

I've asked you repeatedly to cite a *specific* issue listed there that has *anything* at all to do with Aflven's work, and you've run from that question each and every time, very consistently. I expect you to do it again right now in fact.

Electric Universe - RationalWiki

Pure nonsense that was clearly written by one of the 'mainstream faithful'.

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'

Again, not even applicable material as it relates to Alfven's published work, and it's criticism are again based upon a *Jeurgen's* solar model, not Alfven's model.

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Electric Universe

On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis

Yawn. Yet more criticisms related a Jeurgen's model, and again there is nothing even related to Alfven's work. Your random unpublished website references quite literally have *nothing whatsoever* to do with any of Alfven's published works.

Part of the problem with dealing with EU believers is that there is no one "EU theory".

Well, there are allowances for various options, particularly solar options, and the various options have been more or less 'popular' within the community at various times if that's what you mean. In other words, when neutrinos were thought to missing, Jeurgen's model was more "popular" than it is today. Today Alfven's model or Birkeland's model (my choice) tend to be more popular, or at least models that tend to generate fusion locally in the solar interior and atmosphere.

When it is pointed out that the work of certain scientists makes some predictions they will try to claim "That was not in Alfven's work", not understanding what Alfven or other EU scientists' work predicted.

Um, that's typical behavior for someone who's never *read* Alfven's work. Most folks that understand it don't complain about it. Most folks that don't understand it, don't actually have any valid criticisms to offer, they typically toss random websites at me that have *nothing at all* to do with his work or his "predictions".

A scientist is not only responsible for what he says his work predicts, he is also responsible for the work that others can derive from his concept.

No, absolutely not. He's not responsible for your ignorance for example. He's not responsible for the fact you can't handle circuit theory as it applies to various high energy plasma events either.

Likewise Alfven was *not* responsible for Jeurgen's claims, in fact Jeurgen's model was *radically different* from the one Alfven used. You probably have no idea what those differences might even be.

Holy cow. All you seem to know about "Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology" theory is what your read on a few hater blogs that quite literally have *nothing* to do with Alfven's work, or with Birkeland's work.

 

[Michael]

I handwave arguments that are handwaved in and that tends to get Michael mad.

Translation: Seipai is "pretending" to have a grown up "scientific" conversation on a forum related to science, but his behaviors, motives and citations thus far have all been completely "childish" and amateurish.

He knows that MHD is not EU, or he should.

I know it's a part of EU/PC theory, as is *circuit* theory, as expressed in Alfven's peer reviewed work, and that you keep running from like the plague. You're afraid. You have *nothing* of any scientific substance to offer. All you've got are random, and almost completely *unrelated* websites that literally don't even mention a single peer reviewed work by Alfven, let alone mention a *specific* problem with his work, including page number and/or formula.

 

[Seipai]

Actually, in spite of his denial routine, I already posted my rebuttal to that website a long time ago. Not a single criticism on that website actually applies to either Alfven's published works, or to Birkeland's work.

No, you didn't. You ran away from discussing it. All you could do was to call it a "hater site".

I've asked you repeatedly to cite a *specific* issue listed there that has *anything* at all to do with Aflven's work, and you've run from that question each and every time, very consistently. I expect you to do it again right now in fact.

You won't be specific with your claims. How can I run away from something that does not exist?

Pure nonsense that was clearly written by one of the 'mainstream faithful'.

Another fail by Michael.

Again, not even applicable material as it relates to Alfven's published work, and it's criticism are again based upon a *Jeurgen's* solar model, not Alfven's model.

Yawn. Yet more criticisms related a Jeurgen's model, and again there is nothing even related to Alfven's work. Your random unpublished website references quite literally have *nothing whatsoever* to do with any of Alfven's published works.[/qwuote]

Perhaps if you were specific in what you accept of the EU people we could have something to discuss. Your cloud defense is not fooling anyone any longer.

Well, there are allowances for various options, particularly solar options, and the various options have been more or less 'popular' within the community at various times if that's what you mean. In other words, when neutrinos were thought to missing, Jeurgen's model was more "popular" than it is today. Today Alfven's model or Birkeland's model (my choice) tend to be more popular, or at least models that tend to generate fusion locally in the solar interior and atmosphere.

You do realize that there are problem with Birkeland's model too. His model predicts a spectrum of light that is not observed.

Um, that's typical behavior for someone who's never *read* Alfven's work. Most folks that understand it don't complain about it. Most folks that don't understand it, don't actually have any valid criticisms to offer, they typically toss random websites at me that have *nothing at all* to do with his work or his "predictions".

Pfft, more nonsense. And just what I predicted. When a person shows how some of the EU claims are clearly wrong he simply says "That was not in Alfven's work". Yes, Alfven did not do that, others who understood the consequences of his claims did that work.

No, absolutely not. He's not responsible for your ignorance for example. He's not responsible for the fact you can't handle circuit theory as it applies to various high energy plasma events either.

Please, try again. Of course a scientist is responsible for what his theory predicts. That is a fact that you cannot run away from. An my abilities are not on trial here. The fact is that others who can do the math that neither you nor I can do have shown the error in your heroes beliefs. There is a reason that the EU never caught on. It has many more flaws than the current model. Now the current model may be wrong. That does not mean the EU is right.

Likewise Alfven was *not* responsible for Jeurgen's claims, in fact Jeurgen's model was *radically different* from the one Alfven used. You probably have no idea what those differences might even be.

You won't even clearly state what Alfven's claims were. You expect others to do your homework for you. If people are ignorant about your nonsense you have only yourself to blame.

Holy cow. All you seem to know about "Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology" theory is what your read on a few hater blogs that quite literally have *nothing* to do with Alfven's work, or with Birkeland's work.

Again, stop your cloud defense and we might have something to discuss.

You have a history of debating dishonestly. Not only here, but on various sites that eventually banned you. To get banned on the JREF takes massive effort. Not even this troll could get banned from there:

JREF Forum

 

[Seipai]

Translation: Seipai is "pretending" to have a grown up "scientific" conversation on a forum related to science, but his behaviors, motives and citations thus far have all been completely "childish" and amateurish.

I know it's a part of EU/PC theory, as is *circuit* theory, as expressed in Alfven's peer reviewed work, and that you keep running from like the plague. You're afraid. You have *nothing* of any scientific substance to offer. All you've got are random, and almost completely *unrelated* websites that literally don't even mention a single peer reviewed work by Alfven, let alone mention a *specific* problem with his work, including page number and/or formula.

Please. You are treating your beliefs as if they are holy. And you try to mix peer reviewed work in with non-peer reviewed work. If you were consistent and honest we would not have these problem, but you continually use strawman arguments and will not honestly answer questions that are asked to you.

Anytime you want to be honest we could start again from step one.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sites that Michael has not been able to touch:

Neutrino Dreaming: The Electric Universe Theory Debunked

Electric Universe - RationalWiki

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Electric Universe

On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis

Part of the problem with dealing with EU believers is that there is no one "EU theory". When it is pointed out that the work of certain scientists makes some predictions they will try to claim "That was not in Alfven's work", not understanding what Alfven or other EU scientists' work predicted. A scientist is not only responsible for what he says his work predicts, he is also responsible for the work that others can derive from his concept.

Your Neutrino problem is still very much a problem, despite what is claimed.

Comments on the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Report

But you want me to believe that by measuring neutrinos at one end of a transmission line from the sun to the earth, we can know what types left the sun. Hogwash. All we can know is what arrives at earth, far short of the number of electron neutrinos. And reports have it that muon neutrinos may change flavors to electron neutrinos, doubling your problem, since it is the electron neutrinos that are in short supply, and if muon neutrinos change flavors to electron, then electron neutrinos must be in even shorter supply. Get a life and learn some real science instead of Fairie Dust.

As for creationism in astronomy, nothing more than an attempt to divert. The EU says nothing about creation, they believe the age of the universe is unknowable. You on the other hand want a big bang creation event some 13.7 billion years ago. The only difference between creation and the big bang is time. Both require miracles of creation. A creation event purposed by a priest to bridge the gap between science and religion. That's what your big bang is, the primeval atom of religious cosmology.

Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Mature Galaxies Defy Big Bang | Space News - YouTube

Here, get the info from the source instead of 20th hand.

Space News from the Electric Universe - YouTube

 

[Seipai]

Justatruthseeker, when trying to debunk science try to find valid sources.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justatruthseeker, when trying to debunk science try to find valid sources.

What, like you do with your web sites? lol, so says the man that links to psuedoscientific websites.

Your web site claimed all is well with solar convection. That's not what REAL science says.

Anomalously weak solar convection

You can't uphold your theory with a solar convection that is 99 orders weaker than your theory demands.

Come on Seipai, give us some more hand-waving and excuses and blogsites that don't know anything about science.

That one science experiment debunks your entire theory of a thermonuclear core, how stars are formed and thereby how galaxies are formed. It actually destroys your entire cosmology, you just can't see it with your head stuck in the sand. But doesn't affect EU cosmology at all.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Then lets talk about the false statement of the solar wind.

"Maxwell’s theory of acceleration, however, talks about a time variable field, not a fixed one, and what’s more the solar wind contains both positive and negatively charged ions (protons and electrons mainly). An electric sun would be positively charged and all the negatively charged electrons would be attached to it – not be pushed out from the Sun on a solar wind. This fact proves the Sun is not electric."


First he misrepresents what EU theory says. They say the electric field is fixed ON the sun, not fixed in time. Good strawman tho.

And you should really study up on plasma some.

Plasma acceleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Then you have to ask yourself why is there a slow solar wind and a fast solar wind? Because of the difference in charges.

"At this point it is important to note that the inverse square law only applies to radiant energy (as opposed to convection or conduction) and only in a vacuum. When energy moves through an atmosphere (such as the corona of the Sun) then the law does not hold. In addition, the inverse square law applies to all energy, not just heat. The colder ‘surface’ (photosphere) actually has more energy. The energy drops dramatically at the corona as we would expect. There are a myriad of explanations for the temperature differences, none of which involve throwing out physics as we know it."

But we already debunked his convection ideas.

Anomalously weak solar convection

 

[Seipai]

What, like you do with your web sites? lol, so says the man that links to psuedoscientific websites.

Your web site claimed all is well with solar convection. That's not what REAL science says.

Anomalously weak solar convection

You can't uphold your theory with a solar convection that is 99 orders weaker than your theory demands.

Come on Seipai, give us some more hand-waving and excuses and blogsites that don't know anything about science.

That one science experiment debunks your entire theory of a thermonuclear core, how stars are formed and thereby how galaxies are formed. It actually destroys your entire cosmology, you just can't see it with your head stuck in the sand. But doesn't affect EU cosmology at all.

Just like Michael you conveniently forget that you have the higher standard to meet. You are trying to argue against the current paradigm. To do that you need much better than garbage sites. To defend the current paradigm all it takes is to point out how you are wrong. That can be done with the sort of links I have provided.

Don't blame me, overturning the current paradigm is your idea not mine.

 

[Seipai]

Then lets talk about the false statement of the solar wind.

"Maxwell’s theory of acceleration, however, talks about a time variable field, not a fixed one, and what’s more the solar wind contains both positive and negatively charged ions (protons and electrons mainly). An electric sun would be positively charged and all the negatively charged electrons would be attached to it – not be pushed out from the Sun on a solar wind. This fact proves the Sun is not electric."


First he misrepresents what EU theory says. They say the electric field is fixed ON the sun, not fixed in time. Good strawman tho.

And you should really study up on plasma some.

Plasma acceleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Then you have to ask yourself why is there a slow solar wind and a fast solar wind? Because of the difference in charges.

"At this point it is important to note that the inverse square law only applies to radiant energy (as opposed to convection or conduction) and only in a vacuum. When energy moves through an atmosphere (such as the corona of the Sun) then the law does not hold. In addition, the inverse square law applies to all energy, not just heat. The colder ‘surface’ (photosphere) actually has more energy. The energy drops dramatically at the corona as we would expect. There are a myriad of explanations for the temperature differences, none of which involve throwing out physics as we know it."

But we already debunked his convection ideas.

Anomalously weak solar convection

What are you trying to argue against? I supplied several links.

And I hope that I don't have to hand hold you through understanding the various links that you have used.

 

[Seipai]

And a post of Michael's a while back reminded me of this article:

Particle physicists discover strongest ever evidence of dark matter | ExtremeTech

The odds that they found dark matter is not sure, it is about "3 sigma" which is not quite the 3.5 sigma of the article that Michael linked, but it is very close. Don't count dark matter out yet.

 

[Michael]

Please. You are treating your beliefs as if they are holy.

Not me. You're the one bowing to invisible, impotent on Earth sky thingamabobs, not me. I only worship *one* God, and he's not impotent on Earth.

And you try to mix peer reviewed work in with non-peer reviewed work.

Nope. You're the one that has no "peer reviewed" work, and therefore you're the one doing all the "mixing" of all the "junk"!

If you were consistent and honest we would not have these problem, but you continually use strawman arguments and will not honestly answer questions that are asked to you.

Anytime you want to be honest we could start again from step one.

An "honest" start would be one that cited a *specific* paper, and *specific* page number and/or a formula that you supposedly had a problem with in one of Alfven's papers. Care to step up to the plate and have an *adult* conversation on this topic?

 

[Michael]

Just like Michael you conveniently forget that you have the higher standard to meet.

This is the start of your false rationalization. No scientific theory is held to a "higher" standard than any other. There is only one standard. Nobody is obligated to meet *your personal* standards, which is ultimately how you ultimately end up twisting the rationalization. The standard is a "peer reviewed" standard. Period. There is no super duper, "extra special" scientific standard that we must meet, nor any "lower" standard of mud that you get to play around in. There is only one scientific standard, and nobody is obligated to any "higher" standards!

You are trying to argue against the current paradigm. To do that you need much better than garbage sites.

True, but apparently you're projecting again. We provided peer reviewed materials, including the peer reviewed materials of a Nobel Prize winning physicist. You're the one running around listing "garbage websites", not the EU/PC proponents.

To defend the current paradigm all it takes is to point out how you are wrong. That can be done with the sort of links I have provided.

Apparently your entire argument amount to a two-for-one combination fallacy that combines an appeal to authority fallacy, combined with an appeal to popularity fallacy. You can't claim *just* an appeal to authority is all that matters, because then you're then stuck with dealing with Alfven's work. Instead you have to combine a second fallacy in there somewhere and pick some random hater websites while *claiming* they and they alone represent the "mainstream position' on Alfven's work. You can't even personally use any of those references to pick out any *specific* criticism of Alfven's work, because not one of them actually *dealt with Alfven's work*!

Don't blame me, overturning the current paradigm is your idea not mine.

That doesn't mean you get to play the role of "science god" based on your two-for-one logical fallacy thingy.

Face it, you can't even cite a *specific* criticism in Alfven's entire body of published work that includes a paper citation, a page number and formula.