Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
A simple test for the EU people. (2)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael" data-source="post: 65039634" data-attributes="member: 627"><p>That's absolutely not true. I discussed those websites *on* those websites in fact. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> I pointed out to you (and them) that none of it even *relates to* Alfven's peer reviewed work. You remain in staunch denial on this point too.</p><p></p><p>It's quite easy to demonstrate as well as evidenced by the fact that you cannot cite a *specific* criticism in Alfven's work *to this very day*.</p><p></p><p>You really have no business throwing such stones all things considered.</p><p></p><p>That's not even true. EU/PC theory has in fact "caught on" within the EU/PC community. The fact it's still a minority viewpoint is irrelevant in terms of the actual physics.</p><p></p><p>Which "scientists"? If their reasons are based on pure ignorance, just like your opinions, that really wouldn't be very impressive.</p><p></p><p>Which "scientists"? Clinger is math jock, nothing more. Nobody else even used their real names on most of those hater blogs. I think you cited exactly *one* actual "scientist", and he never touched Alfven's papers.</p><p></p><p>Creationists quote from non published creationist websites too. So what? Ignorant people quoting ignorant blogs is hardly much of an argument.</p><p></p><p>I know what a real *peer reviewed* rebuttal looks like, but apparently you do not.</p><p></p><p>Actually, I just want you to see that you don't know the first thing about EU/PC theory, as evidenced by your behaviors in this thread.</p><p></p><p>Lots of published papers get peer reviewed rebuttals. You can't mean to tell me you've never seen a peer reviewed paper get a peer reviewed rebuttal before?</p><p></p><p>You're right about one thing. Real scientists do have better things to do than to write article that *contradict* empirical physics, and they don't tend to write such papers.</p><p></p><p>You've cited a total of exactly *one* identifiable "scientist", but he never once mentioned *any* of Alfven's work! What exactly can I say about his deafening silence toward Alfven's work?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael, post: 65039634, member: 627"] That's absolutely not true. I discussed those websites *on* those websites in fact. :) I pointed out to you (and them) that none of it even *relates to* Alfven's peer reviewed work. You remain in staunch denial on this point too. It's quite easy to demonstrate as well as evidenced by the fact that you cannot cite a *specific* criticism in Alfven's work *to this very day*. You really have no business throwing such stones all things considered. That's not even true. EU/PC theory has in fact "caught on" within the EU/PC community. The fact it's still a minority viewpoint is irrelevant in terms of the actual physics. Which "scientists"? If their reasons are based on pure ignorance, just like your opinions, that really wouldn't be very impressive. Which "scientists"? Clinger is math jock, nothing more. Nobody else even used their real names on most of those hater blogs. I think you cited exactly *one* actual "scientist", and he never touched Alfven's papers. Creationists quote from non published creationist websites too. So what? Ignorant people quoting ignorant blogs is hardly much of an argument. I know what a real *peer reviewed* rebuttal looks like, but apparently you do not. Actually, I just want you to see that you don't know the first thing about EU/PC theory, as evidenced by your behaviors in this thread. Lots of published papers get peer reviewed rebuttals. You can't mean to tell me you've never seen a peer reviewed paper get a peer reviewed rebuttal before? You're right about one thing. Real scientists do have better things to do than to write article that *contradict* empirical physics, and they don't tend to write such papers. You've cited a total of exactly *one* identifiable "scientist", but he never once mentioned *any* of Alfven's work! What exactly can I say about his deafening silence toward Alfven's work? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
A simple test for the EU people. (2)
Top
Bottom