Plasma Cosmology in 2019-2020

[Michael]

Nope. Speaking the truth.

Nope you're just making it up as you go based on random website comentary, not relevant published materials.

Wrong. Induction is impossible.

Gee, I wonder why my car starts every day? Induction is "possible" in *any* conductor when change magnetic fields are introduced, and plasma is a conductor.

Only somebody with no idea about the subject would claim such a thing.

Only someone with on idea about *basic* EM field theory would claim that induction is
"impossible" in plasma or any conductor for that matter.

Trivially false. Alfven's explanation CANNOT REPRODUCE THE OBSERVED CHANGE IN MAGNETIC FIELD TOPOLOGY. How many times?

Trivially false because coronal loops move around all the time.

Wrong. It is MR. You obviously do not know what DLs are. It is the only explanation I can think of as to why you think DLs could possibly be mistaken for MR.

MR isn't distinct from flux+induction so MR is simply a redundant term whereas DL are a real physical reality.

Thankfully, nobody who is scientifically knowledgeable in the relevant area is claiming such a thing. You are on your own.

No, not on my own, but in the minority perhaps. All those knowledgeable folks can't manage to simulate a working corona in a lab, so I guess I don't mind being in the minority in this case. At least my beliefs work in the lab.

No, the problem here, Michael, is that you do not understand the science.

Says the guy who never cites any valid scientific reference in our debates, and who confuses theories with "facts" and confuses his own personal opinions as facts. I at least understand how to engage in an actual scientific debate and cite actual published papers to support me case. That's more that I've seen you do. All you cite are meaningless gibberish from random unpublished websites and repeat the mistakes you read there.

You have not read the papers, you have not replied to them, and you cannot quote a single scientist who is questioning those interpretations. You opinion is worthless.

Actually, I've read a *lot* of such papers over the last 10 years and a couple of textbooks on MHD theory too. My opinions work in the lab, whereas you can't even produce a simple corona or an aurora in a laboratory simulation based on MR theory. I'll take one experimental test over a thousand "expert" opinion any day of the week.

Yawn. You have not got a corona in the lab. Stop making things up.

I do and stop misrepresenting Birkeland's own statements! I quoted him from his book which you apparently never bothered to read.

And Alfven is clearly wrong.

In over ten years of debates, nobody has ever shown any specific error in even a single one of his 100 or so papers. You can't either.

Which is why not a single scientist is following his erroneous claims about MR.

False. Peratt still describes the same events based on double layers and circuit theory to this day.

Only you, and you do not understand the science. All you have is a vomit inducing hero worship of long dead scientists.

And I have laboratory experimental results that are a century ahead of MR theory and counting.

I love the hypocrisy factor of you appealing to authorities constantly, while accusing me of hero worship to citing Alfven. That's hysterical.

Lerner doesn't even have a PhD.

I'll take the guy with practical hands on experience any day of the week particularly when his ideas work in the lab, and yours do not.

I'll take real plasma physicists views over his weird, erroneous claims. He is a nobody.

We're all ultimately nobodies, so get over your egotistical nonsense already. Einstein was a patent clerk when he wrote the paper that won him the Nobel Prize. Who cares what you think of Lerner anyway? You can't even understand his papers properly!

Hahahaha! A rebuttal to a bloke who sees plasma woo in rock art? Who the hell would write that? From memory, such massive aurorae would increase the (Be?) content in ice cores. Is it there? Nah. Rebutted.

I really don't think you're capable of engaging in a real scientific debate because you never do. Instead you attack the *person*, not the relevant papers. You base you beliefs on random website materials, not published scientific papers. You never cite any specific scientific resource, just some random websites. You haven't "rebutted" anything in any scientific sense. I don't think you even understand what a scientific debate is supposed to look like.

Wrong. The change in MAGNETIC FIELD TOPOLOGY is seen in the lab,

So what if magnetic flux is seen in the lab? That's all a changing magnetic field topology is, *magnetic flux*. Insert that into a conductor like a plasma and you get induction. So what?

and in-situ.

You're still confusing "observation" with "interpretation". Sheesh. You really don't grasp the concept of a real scientific debate.

So please stop going on about things you don't understand.

You make false accusations and make false statements in every single post, including that last one. I obviously know a lot more about it than you do.

Yes there is. It seems that you are the only person on the planet who has a problem with it.

That's another false statement....not to mention a fallacious argument. Aristarchus of Samos was probably the only guy who had a problem with Ptolemy too, maybe the only guy in 1800 years for all I know, but he had the last laugh.

And your views are worthless, due to you not understanding the subject.

Not only do I understand the subject, I have working simulations to back up my beliefs, and my beliefs aren't multiple orders of magnitude short of a valid mathematical model to explain solar flares.

Nope. The interpretation of experts.

Those "experts" are a century behind in the lab and counting.

As opposed to the interpretation of someone who does not understand the subject.

Speaking about yourself again?

No he doesn't. Show me where Peratt claims MR is actually DL nonsense.

He wouldn't bother with MR, he'd just use DL's and circuit theory.

Yes I did claim precisely what Martin wrote. Stop making things up.

No, you kludged that too. Circuit theory isn't limited to plasma physics.

No, Michael. I have told you until I am sick to death of it - it cannot be induction.

It is absolutely possible to induce currents in plasma by introducing magnetic flux in the plasma.

Nobody is going to write a paper saying it is not induction, when NOBODY is claiming that it is.

You're claiming that it is *not* ordinary induction so let's see your lab work to back up that claim.

I referred you to a plasma physicist telling you that it cannot be induction.

The same guy that cannot produce a working aurora or corona in a lab, or come up with his missing math formula he and everyone else promised me 8 years ago? That guy?

The thoughts of an unqualified layman are of no interest.

Maybe not, but Alfven was no layman and he could explain solar flares without being off by multiple orders of magnitude.

Link to the science. MR is seen in solar flares. Tough. There is no other explanation.

Absolutely false. You evidently have never read Alfven's work on circuit theory and double layers for yourself, or you're intentionally misrepresenting it. Which is it?

Thus far I've seen you misrepresent Lerner's published paper with respect to his tired light predictions, misrepresent my published paper with respect to a *rigid* surface, misrepresent Birkeland's opinions with respect to his own lab experiments, and misrepresent Alfven's work entirely. Wow!

 

[Smithi]

Well, I understand it better than you because I've actually read a few textbooks on the topic. I doubt you have actually.

Wrong. You may have read books, but you certainly didn't understand them. Why do you think a professional plasma physicist continually told you that you didn't know what you were talking about? Hmmm? He's never said that to me. However, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to claim I knew better than he did.

I think is rather pathetic watching you try to defend a feeble concept that is already more than century behind circuit theory in the lab, and several orders of magnitude short of a valid mathematical model to explain a solar flare. That's downright embarrassing IMO.

Lol. MR is seen in solar flares. Get over it. I have even started a thread on it. There are three papers there at the moment. Deal with them. Point by point. Just like a real scientist would. Or quit whinging.

And yet here we are, years later, and I've still never seen your misinformation HQ produce their missing math formula to describe a non-zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" in a vacuum without a single charged particle their names, and they *still* can't produce a simple corona in a vacuum based on MR theory. Man, that's just sad, sad, sad.

No idea what you are talking about. And you have never produced a corona in a lab. At least, nothing like the actual corona of the Sun. So stop making things up.

It's also plenty long enough to come up with their missing math formula and come up with a simulation of a corona based on MR theory too, but alas nothing has changed. All those PHd's and they can't produce one simple requested math formula they promised, or one simple experiment to demonstrate their model has any useful value in the lab. It's just sad to watch frankly.

Lol. You are sad to watch, Michael. Or comical. Can't make my mind up.

 

[Smithi]

Nope you're just making it up as you go based on random website comentary, not relevant published materials.

Wrong. Real scientists telling you that you haven't got a clue.

Gee, I wonder why my car starts every day? Induction is "possible" in *any* conductor when change magnetic fields are introduced, and plasma is a conductor.

Hahahahahahahahahaha! MR cannot be induction. Nobody would be so stupid as to claim such a thing. Where is the link to the paper? There isn't one, because nobody is claiming such nonsense.

Only someone with on idea about *basic* EM field theory would claim that induction is
"impossible" in plasma or any conductor for that matter.

Who said that? I said; MR CANNOT BE INDUCTION. INDUCTION CANNOT CHANGE THE MAGNETIC FIELD TOPOLOGY AS OBSERVED. As did a professional plasma physicist.

Trivially false because coronal loops move around all the time.

Hahahaha! What has this got to do with DLs not being MR? Your posts are just bizarre! Lol.

MR isn't distinct from flux+induction so MR is simply a redundant term whereas DL are a real physical reality.

Yes it is distinct, and nobody is claiming otherwise. End of story. Find a link, or give up with this nonsense. And DLs are not the cause of MR. Which is bleeding obvious to anyone that understands the science. I don't think you even know what a DL is!

 

[Smithi]

No, not on my own, but in the minority perhaps. All those knowledgeable folks can't manage to simulate a working corona in a lab, so I guess I don't mind being in the minority in this case. At least my beliefs work in the lab.

Nope, none of your belief system works in a lab, or anywhere else. Managed the non-existent CNO fusion in the lab yet? Lol.

Says the guy who never cites any valid scientific reference in our debates, and who confuses theories with "facts" and confuses his own personal opinions as facts. I at least understand how to engage in an actual scientific debate and cite actual published papers to support me case. That's more that I've seen you do. All you cite are meaningless gibberish from random unpublished websites and repeat the mistakes you read there.

Hahahahahahahaha! Says a bloke who is banned from pretty much every physics forum going! And you have no papers to support your case. You don't have a case. You are not a scientist, and understand little about any of the relevant science.

 

[Smithi]

Absolutely false. You evidently have never read Alfven's work on circuit theory and double layers for yourself, or you're intentionally misrepresenting it. Which is it?

Thus far I've seen you misrepresent Lerner's published paper with respect to his tired light predictions, misrepresent my published paper with respect to a *rigid* surface, misrepresent Birkeland's opinions with respect to his own lab experiments, and misrepresent Alfven's work entirely. Wow!

Your own 'work' is a heap of scientifically impossible nonsense. Lerner hasn't got a clue, and ran away when that was pointed out to him. I am still waiting for you to correct Ben's and my examples, based on Lerner's stupid description. Get on with it.

 

[Smithi]

Maybe not, but Alfven was no layman and he could explain solar flares without being off by multiple orders of magnitude.

Hahahaha! Except his mechanism is not seen, and is very unlikely to occur. So, that is the end of Alfven on solar flares, isn't it? Carl-Gunne had the right idea. He knew that solar flares were likely to be MR.

 

[Smithi]

The same guy that cannot produce a working aurora or corona in a lab, or come up with his missing math formula he and everyone else promised me 8 years ago? That guy?

You cannot produce a corona in a lab. It has never been done. So stop pretending that it has. And I have no idea what missing formula you are wittering on about. Link it.
So, yes, that guy who is a professional plasma astrophysicist. Who knows far more about the subject than you do. Mind you, that isn't saying much!

 

[Michael]

Hahahaha! Except his mechanism is not seen, and is very unlikely to occur.

We don't have the resolution to "see" such a thing in the first place in solar flare activity in SDO images, and MR proponents don't have a mathematical explanation for the speed of such events that is even in the right ballpark. It's orders of magnitude off in fact. Talk about "unlikely" explanations.

So, that is the end of Alfven on solar flares, isn't it?

Absolutely not since we simply don't have the resolution to know one way or the other.. It's pretty much curtains however for the current mathematical models to express "reconnection". They simply aren't fast enough to explain what we observe.

 

[Smithi]

You're claiming that it is *not* ordinary induction so let's see your lab work to back up that claim.

Whaaat? You are losing it Michael. Nobody is claiming it is induction. Not a soul. Nobody is that stupid. The lab work shows a CHANGING TOPOLOGY OF THE MAGNETIC FIELD. INDUCTION WON'T DO THAT. How many times? Stop making stupid claims, and then expecting people to write a paper to debunk those stupid claims.

 

[Smithi]

We don't have the resolution to "see" such a thing in the first place in solar flare activity in SDO images, and MR proponents don't have a mathematical explanation for the speed of such events that is even in the right ballpark. It's orders of magnitude off in fact. Talk about "unlikely" explanations.

Yes we do have the resolution. And MR is seen. End of story.

Absolutely not since we simply don't have the resolution to know one way or the other.. It's pretty much curtains however for the current mathematical models to express "reconnection". They simply aren't fast enough to explain what we observe.

Yes we do. And not a soul is claiming that it is DL nonsense. They are seeing MR. Fact. There is a thread for this. Use it.

 

[Michael]

You cannot produce a corona in a lab. It has never been done.

Oh but Birkeland did:

He specifically compared the corona in his experiments to the sun's corona, and made numerous *correct* predictions based on his model, starting with the composition of solar wind particles being made of *both* types of charged particles.

So stop pretending that it has.

Stop "pretending" that it hasn't been done with circuit theory because I can see that it has been done with my own eyes. Your denial of what I can see for myself with my own two eyes is simply bizarre.

And I have no idea what missing formula you are wittering on about. Link it.

Go do some reading. MR proponents at misinformation HQ claimed to me that they could mathematically describe MR in a vacuum without plasma, so I asked to see their math formula to describe a non-zero rate of MR in the absence of plasma. I got the run around for *months* while a "presentation" was handed to me one "section" at a time, until we got to the supposed end of the presentation, and there was no math formula to demonstrate their claim. When I asked for the missing math formula to describe a non zero rate of reconnection, and pointed out the obvious problem, they eventually just banned me to get rid of me. I'm *still* waiting to see their promised mathematical expression of a non zero rate of MR in a vacuum. I'll never see it.

So, yes, that guy who is a professional plasma astrophysicist. Who knows far more about the subject than you do. Mind you, that isn't saying much!

It's almost comical that you hero worship the guy *without* the Nobel and blame me for trusting the guy who wrote MHD theory and won the Nobel. Your personal attacks are just sad, particularly since every argument that you make comes from some random lame website instead of a published scientific resource.

 

[Michael]

Whaaat? You are losing it Michael.

Nope, I'm simply asking you to demonstrate that MR is a *unique* process and not redundant.

Nobody is claiming it is induction. Not a soul.

Nobody has shown that it is *not* simply a combination of magnetic flux and induction. Even that Somov example of MR in a vacuum was physically indistinguishable from quite ordinary magnetic flux. Stick that flux in a conductor and you *must* get induction.

Nobody is that stupid.

Your personal insults are *boring*. Nobody seems to be able to produce even something as simple as a corona based on MR theory either. I'm not naive enough to buy any old claim, sight unseen.

The lab work shows a CHANGING TOPOLOGY OF THE MAGNETIC FIELD.
INDUCTION WON'T DO THAT.

Magnetic flux does do that.

How many times?

How many times will you keep ignoring the fact that changing topology of magnetic fields is simply ordinary magnetic flux?

Stop making stupid claims,

Stop making personal insults in every post. It isn't helping to support your bogus claim one iota.

and then expecting people to write a paper to debunk those stupid claims.

I'm not claiming that MR theory exist at all, nor am I claiming that it *is* anything. I simply expect you to demonstrate that it's not simply a redefinition of the terms "magnetic flux" and/or ordinary induction and see evidence that MR is something "unique and different" from ordinary processes in ordinary conductors. Don't blame me if you can't support your claim that MR is a unique way to accelerate charged particles that requires a special name.

 

[Michael]

Yes we do have the resolution.

SDO does *not* have the resolution to determine if double layers are present or not present. You're making that up.

And MR is seen. End of story.

If your MR models weren't multiple orders of magnitude too slow to explain solar flares, maybe, but since they don't work to explain flares, you can't claim it's the end of story. Where's your math?

Yes we do. And not a soul is claiming that it is DL nonsense. They are seeing MR. Fact. There is a thread for this. Use it.

You obviously can't distinguish between "facts" and opinions. Even GR theory isn't a "fact", it's a theory to explain the observation of gravity which may one day be replaced with a QM definition of gravity. No theory is "fact" in physics. Even laws can change over time if the right observations disproves the law.

The only "facts" are that we observe flares. Period. How flares are produced and what their cause is remains open to debate. No theory is "fact" and your mathematical models of MR are too slow to explain every solar flare.

Magnetic reconnection - Wikipedia

A current problem in plasma physics is that observed reconnection happens much faster than predicted by MHD in high Lundquist number plasmas (i.e. fast magnetic reconnection). Solar flares, for example, proceed 13–14 orders of magnitude faster than a naive calculation would suggest, and several orders of magnitude faster than current theoretical models that include turbulence and kinetic effects.

 

[Smithi]

SDO does *not* have the resolution to determine if double layers are present or not present. You're making that up.

It has the resolution to see MR. And does. Which behaves nothing like a DL. End of argument.

If your MR models weren't multiple orders of magnitude too slow to explain solar flares, maybe, but since they don't work to explain flares, you can't claim it's the end of story. Where's your math?

Go look in the literature. Do I have to do everything for you?

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=fast+reconnection+rate&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2014&as_yhi=

You obviously can't distinguish between "facts" and opinions. Even GR theory isn't a "fact", it's a theory to explain the observation of gravity which may one day be replaced with a QM definition of gravity. No theory is "fact" in physics. Even laws can change over time if the right observations disproves the law.

Reconnection is a fact. There are a few debates about the inside-out and outside-in models. However, everybody involved accepts that it is real. The dissenting opinions of non-qualified laymen are not worth anything. If anyone was going to defend Alfven on this, it would be Falthammar. He didn't. Although he tried to make out that Alfven's contribution to MR was important!

The only "facts" are that we observe flares. Period. How flares are produced and what their cause is remains open to debate. No theory is "fact" and your mathematical models of MR are too slow to explain every solar flare.

Magnetic reconnection - Wikipedia

Nope, we observe MR in those flares. Fact. And there is a thread for this. Use it.

 

[Smithi]

Nope, I'm simply asking you to demonstrate that MR is a *unique* process and not redundant.

No you are not. You are making a stupid claim about an impossibility, and expecting to be shown why it is impossible. Well, that has been done. You cannot explain the changing field topology with MR. Get it through your head. If you had clue one about this subject, you wouldn't even make such a stupid claim.

Nobody has shown that it is *not* simply a combination of magnetic flux and induction. Even that Somov example of MR in a vacuum was physically indistinguishable from quite ordinary magnetic flux. Stick that flux in a conductor and you *must* get induction.

Wrong. Learn the subject. You have been told multiple times in multiple places that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Do something about that.

I'm not stupid enough to buy any old claim, sight unseen.

Really? Cathode Sun, anyone? CNO fusion on the solar surface?

Magnetic flux does do that.

Lol. Wrong.

How many times will you keep ignoring the fact that changing topology of magnetic fields is simply ordinary magnetic flux?

Wrong.

Stop making personal insults in every post. It isn't helping to support your bogus claim one iota.

I have no bogus claims. That would be you Michael! Induction! Lol.

I'm not claiming that MR theory exist at all, nor am I claiming that it *is* anything. I simply expect you to demonstrate that it's not simply a redefinition of the terms "magnetic flux" and/or ordinary induction and see evidence that MR is something "unique and different" from ordinary processes in ordinary conductors. Don't blame me if you can't support your claim that MR is a unique way to accelerate charged particles that requires a special name.

Yawn. I do not need to demonstrate anything. Nobody is questioning MR.

 

[Michael]

Wrong. You may have read books, but you certainly didn't understand them.

I understood them just fine.

Why do you think a professional plasma physicist continually told you that you didn't know what you were talking about? Hmmm?

Probably because he disagreed with me. Then again, he also disagreed with Alfven and Alfven certainly understood MHD theory, double layers, circuit theory, and plasma physics.

He's never said that to me. However, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to claim I knew better than he did.

Well, I had to choose to either believe the guy *with* the Nobel prize for MHD theory, or just some guy I met in cyberspace. Wanna guess who I picked to believe? Alfven's perspective was also 100 percent congruent with my education in EM field theory even prior to reading anything about MHD theory.

Lol. MR is seen in solar flares. Get over it.

No, heating and charged particle acceleration are seen in solar flares. The cause isn't "seen".

I have even started a thread on it. There are three papers there at the moment. Deal with them. Point by point. Just like a real scientist would. Or quit whinging.

I find that comment rather ironic since you have yet to refute a single paper I've cited to you "point by point, like a real scientists would", but you expect me to do so. Irony overload. I glanced at the flare paper and it didn't seem to include any mathematical models whatsoever, so I'm not sure how you expect me to deal with a "looks like a bunny" paper, point by point. What point did it make other than it "looked" like reconnection to them? Where was the math in that flare paper that showed a direct correlation between their observations and MR theory in terms of the speed of propagation and any particular MR model? I didn't see a single such reference in the whole paper, just a single sentence that implied it was 'fast' rather than slow and a few graphs.

No idea what you are talking about. And you have never produced a corona in a lab. At least, nothing like the actual corona of the Sun. So stop making things up.

Wow! I can see with my own eyes that a corona forms around the cathode and the term 'corona' is used extensively to describe such structures in many other areas of science. Your denial process is just bizarre. You expect me to believe you rather than what I can see with my own eyes. That's not even a rational request.

Lol. You are sad to watch, Michael. Or comical. Can't make my mind up.

I'm really tired of your personal insults. You ask me to debate your papers and citations point by point like a real scientist would, while you resort to nothing but personal insults and links to random websites. Wow. Talk about sad behaviors.

 

[Smithi]

From March 2012;

Michael (unqualified layman);

Oh, Sweet himself explained the difference quite clearly. He noted that WITHOUT PLASMA no CURRENTS would be INDUCED! That's the part you can't handle.

Apparently you wish to "dumb down" the process to the point that ANY magnetic field FLUX CHANGE ends up being relabeled "magnetic reconnection", with or without plasma, with or without MHD theory, with or without *PUBLISHED MATH*. Actually WITHOUT published math.

Martin Volwerk, plasma astrophysicist;

Well srcew my nipple nuts and send me to alaska!
No plasma means no currents??? whoddatoughtdat!!!!
I have no idea what I can't handle, but maybe it is your blatant lack of knowledge of basic electrodynamics, let alone plasma physics. Let's look at your next paragraph, where, as usual you are misusing clearly defined physical terms and try to sound important, but instead sound ridiculous.
Your claim that "any magnetic field flux change" ends up being labeled "magnetic reconnection" is so weird, that I cannot even fathom it, let alone accept that you have ever actually read Alfvén's work.

Example: If I have a coil and I crank up the current in the coil the magnetic field will increase and thus the flux will increase. Reconnection does not come anywhere close to describing this, because it has nothing to do with reconnection, it has to do with changing flux.

However, to you flux and topology apparently are the same thing. I cannot help here, I can only say read some real books about electrodynamics and maybe at some point you will understand that flux and topology are not the same.

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - [Merged] Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

Anybody seeing a recurring theme here?

 

[Smithi]

I'm really tired of your personal insults. You ask me to debate your papers and citations point by point like a real scientist would, while you resort to nothing but personal insults and links to random websites. Wow. Talk about sad behaviors.

Because Michael, you have a very strange compunction to question science and scientists when you have very little knowledge of the subject. You regurgitate the same old rubbish that you have been spamming round the internet for years. You have a massively over inflated view of your relevance to any scientific discussion.
You are of zero consequence to science. Your opinions of science and scientists are worthless. You accuse them of not understanding the science that they have studied for years (and you haven't). You accuse them of covering up data. And you have a vomit inducing hero worship thing going on with certain dead scientists. That is why people get fed up with you. That is why you are banned from so many fora.

 

[Michael]

From March 2012;

Michael (unqualified layman);

Would you like me to quote Alfven on MR theory?

Anybody seeing a recurring theme here?

The "theme" I'm seeing is the fact that your MR model doesn't work in the lab as well as circuit theory, and I have to choose to either believe the guy with the Nobel prize in MHD theory, who claimed that MR theory was made obsolete and irrelevant or believe some random guy from some random website. Ya, I see a pattern alright.

Do you ever stop with the personal attacks? Do you ever debate any scientific paper "point by point like a real scientist would"?

 

[Smithi]

Would you like me to quote Alfven on MR theory?

Why would you do that? He was wrong. As proven. Be a bit silly, wouldn't it?

The "theme" I'm seeing is the fact that your MR model doesn't work in the lab as well as circuit theory, and I have to choose to either believe the guy with the Nobel prize in MHD theory, who claimed that MR theory was made obsolete and irrelevant or believe some random guy from some random website. Ya, I see a pattern alright.

You do not understand the subject Michael. Alfven was wrong. There is no scientific support for his erroneous claims. Your vomit inducing hero worship of him is not going to change that.

Do you ever stop with the personal attacks? Do you ever debate any scientific paper "point by point like a real scientist would"?

How can we debate science with somebody who is clearly ignorant of the relevant science?
Personal attacks? Want me to post some of your outbursts on ISF?
And you just called a well published, professional scientist, 'a random guy on a website'. Said random guy kicked your backside up and down that forum for years. As did other scientists. Until you got banned.
Now you are reduced to spamming your nonsense on here and Dunderdolts!
Don't expect any sympathy, Michael.