Challenges to Nereid

[Nereid]

Now that the JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work... thread has, hopefully, returned to a discussion that reflects its title, a few comments on some of the later, off-topic, posts in it.

Just imagine a proponent of standard theory in 1950 standing alongside a proponent of the electric universe. Of these two imaginary figures, which one will have had to change his mind a thousand times? At some point it's going to register with folks that almost all of the surprises of the space involve the signature of electric currents and magnetic fields, associated with electromagnetic radiation across the entire spectrum--the one thing that standard theory, prior to the space age, consistently overlooked.

(source)

Our research deals with plasmas in space as well as in the laboratory. The vast majority of our universe is plasma. The only (although important) exception is cold solid bodies like planets, comets, and asteroids. Thus, plasma physics has universal applications.

The research benefits from a fruitful combination of laboratory experiments and space experiments as well as theory and numerical simulation. We play an active role in a number of international space missions, building instruments, planning instrument operations, and analysing data.

We participate in the education programme both at the MSc and PhD level. At the MSc level a number of courses are given and MSc thesis projects are offered, often closely related to on-going research activities. We also participate in a Master's Programme in Electrophysics. At the PhD level we offer thesis projects in space and laboratory plasma physics.

There are, what, dozens of departments, laboratories, labs, etc, throughout the world, just like the Space and Plasma Physics Laboratory (from which this quote comes); there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of graduates of such places, engaged in full-time research into space physics (a branch of plasma physics).

But, curiously, (almost?) none of those people are electrical theorists; why?

We have sent several space probes to comets and planets, some of which were sent to land or crash. I think a few more of this kind would be useful.

For example, when comet nuclei have been photographed they commonly show bright white spots which are interpreted as ice (or other volatiles) in the dirty snowball theory and as a form of St Elmo's Fire in electric comet theory. If we sent a probe to descend slowly towards the nucleus (for a soft landing, not like Deep Impact) then should we not find that electrical discharges would return quite different data to ice? Are mainstream astronomers sufficiently interested in what their ice may or may not look like to make such a mission? Probably not;

(source; highlight added)

I think you're right ... but that's because we seem to be talking past each other. Today, most astronomers have little direct role to play in the planning, development, launch, management, etc of these sorts of space probe missions. As you correctly point out, most expect that significant advances in our understanding of the inner planets of our solar system, the moons in it, the asteroids, and comets, etc will come from dedicated missions such as Cassini, not millions of seconds of dedicated observations of those objects by XMM-Newton or the Hubble Space Telescope.

There are lots to be quantitatively tested, but we need measurements to know what those quantities are and not only can some not be made remotely, many cannot be made simultaneously. Knowing what orders of magnitude one variable is could affect the details of a model, or even the entire choice of which model to use. We still don't really know how many electrons and protons are in the various regions of the solar system, what speed they're travelling at, and in what direction. Some measurements have been made, maybe enough to sway some details of some models, but not enough to decide whether which model is most likely to be right.

Gravity-related models are simple: mass is mass, gravity relates directly to it; gravity only behaves one way; the function of gravity over space is consistent; you can map the gravitational field according to the obviously big, bright lumps of matter floating about; all mass behaves consistently within a gravitational field; and two gravitational objects interact in simple ways. Electricity is not so simple; even if you know that two bodies are highly charged, and even if you know what those charges are, how that manifests itself in an interaction between them depends on a lot more than just their charges and distance. How do you go about measuring their internal charge distribution or their conductivity, no matter how much maths you have your disposal? With gravity, a misjudgement of mass only affects the magnitude of an effect; with electricity a misjudgement of the characteristics can give a completely different effect.

So what's the leading ten, say, things that could be done? Concrete, specific, feasible proposals for implementable projects.

Since resources are scarce (and since I'm far more interested in astronomy, preferrably extra-galactic astronomy, than anything else), how about a half-dozen observing proposals, for XMM-Newton, or Spitzer?

Why does something need to be quantitative to be falsifiable? To use James Randi's popular quote, if I said that I had a unicorn in my garden then would be that a quantitative claim? Would it not be falsifiable by simply looking and seeing that my garden does not contain a unicorn?

Which part of the EU theory would you like to falsify?

You've hit on something that's been nagging at me for quite a while now; well done!

There are at least three different ways to express this ('falsify' paradigm, 'consistency' paradigm, and 'fact' paradigm; details later); but here's one: there's a difference between a 'mystery' - an observation or set of phenomena for which there is no explanation (the observations of the 'rotation curve' of the stars in a galaxy, say; Peratt's model is silent on that) - and a 'counter-example' (or 'contrary fact'). And both are different from an internal inconsistency (though I guess that could be a contrary fact).

In the case of the Electric Sun hypothesis (ESh), for example, the Sun's observed power output (in the form of electromagnetic radiation) is a mystery; the observed lack of gamma-rays (both numbers and specific lines) from the Sun is a contrary fact (at least it is for Scott's version of the ESh, see the Fusion in the Double Layer section); and the simultaneous use of both 'the Sun is an anode' and Alfvén's solar circuit model is an internal inconsistency.

Being (completely?) non-quantitative, mysteries are legion, contrary facts are nigh on impossible, and internal inconsistencies both easy and hard (it depends on how much textbook physics is permitted).

Not to mention, if one observes way stronger "gravity" effects than the observed and probable mass for the given region, one just adds proportionally more mass - even if it is of the undetectable type or the hypothesized ultra-dense type. Now the model is consistent...

(source)

You meant this as a parody, right?

Although it is a good example of why it is so hard to falsify (using that paradigm) a purely qualitative model ... the CDM models that are published in the literature are quantitative, so consistency is far, far, far harder to achieve (and it's truly astonishing that such a simple hypothesis has such broad explanatory power, and so few inconsistencies). The rest of this post is best addressed back in its original thread.

Wow. I'm glad I found this post of yours, Nereid, because I almost missed it. So let's see if we can communicate. Where should the new telescopes be pointed, you ask. If we live in an electric universe, why not let each telescope go where its targeted slice of the electromagnetic spectrum is most abundantly exhibited? That's what they're all doing anyway, and it's amongst the primary reasons for the growing interest in the Electric Universe. Why would we complain about the direction telescopes have been pointed, for heaven's sake? Everything revealed about hourglass discharge formations of nebulas and galaxies, or polar jets of Herbig Haro objects, or synchrotron radiation sources, or dozens of other electromagnetic phenomena are of spectacular interest. This is the universe that caught astronomers by surprise in the space age. Why would we need to be selective?

(source)

So what do proponents of EU theory need then, other than a couple of PCs, a good broadband internet connection, a few mathematics software packages (or just one), and a few weeks of spare time?

No, I'm serious.

There are dozens of good astronomy, astrophysics, and plasma physics codes, many available for free (from here, for example); why spend hundreds of hours on slick marketing material when you could be downloading the (quantitative) data, analysing it, developing (quantitative) models, testing them (quantitatively), writing up the results, and publishing them?

(I don't mean you personally Dave, but anyone bitten by the EU theory bug could do this).

But in your rhetorical response you imply the reverse of the truth, effectively denying what has occurred as a matter of historic fact.

Perhaps it might be interesting to do a bit of research into the incidence, in the historical literature, of application of plasma physics (say) published in ApJ (say)?

I suspect that we have very different understandings of what any historical facts here might be.

When you find a corner of the universe that is not dominated by the signature of electromagnetic emissions and high energy electric discharge, you will have a foothold for a counterargument to the EU.

We may quibble over "high energy electric discharge", but doing a PhD on synchrotron radiation from the jets and lobes of FRII sources, say, would make a young researcher a proponent of "the EU", by your argument. However, few, if any, such researchers would think it a productive use of their time to read more than an hour's worth of material published by electrical theorists (I suspect Physicist's response would by typical), much less join your circle.

If what you write were true Dave, then given this (to take just one example) you can declare the Thunderbolts Project now moot, can't you?

(And that's going to have to do for today; about a half-dozen posts in the 'Peratt' thread to go, before I start on the more recent ones in this.)

[mharratsc]

Ms. Nereid said:

We may quibble over "high energy electric discharge", but doing a PhD on synchrotron radiation from the jets and lobes of FRII sources, say, would make a young researcher a proponent of "the EU", by your argument. However, few, if any, such researchers would think it a productive use of their time to read more than an hour's worth of material published by electrical theorists (I suspect Physicist's response would by typical), much less join your circle.

That was a very disparaging personal opinion, I feel.

So let's consider this hypothetical young PhD who feels he has an epiphany after reading "more than an hour's worth of material published by electrical theorists" and marches straightaway into his superiors office. He states that the material he read for an hour makes perfect sense, and that he feels they should re-evaluate all of their recent data against the notion of a central plasmoid in a galactic nucleus.

His superior says "You did not just say that to me. Go back to your desk and continue compiling electron temperature values and never again broach this subject again."

Job security has a certain intrinsic value, wouldn't you say? :\

[Nereid]

Continuing ...

The JREF forum bashing of Anthony Peratt's work... thread has, hopefully, returned to a discussion that reflects its title, here are a few comments on some of the last, off-topic, posts in it.

Nereid, this statement of yours is not only offensive, you are ignoring the factual impact of Thunderbolts Project researchers on working scientists. What separates you from these scientists is that, in your every word, you seem to deny the concrete value--the essential role--of interdisciplinary research in re-directing scientific investigation. It's already happening. Wal Thornhill is not a mathematician. So what? Does this mean that his practical knowledge of how plasma and electricity, electric circuits, and electric discharge work can be ignorred? Does this mean that the success of his concrete predictions, challenging all expectations of standard theorists, mean nothing? I would like to see you cite just one theorist of the past 15 years, challenging popular assumptions, with a higher record of success than Wal Thornhill.

(source)

I've already addressed the fact that that statement of mine didn't say, or even imply, most of what Dave read into it.

What follows is this:

The only reason to believe anyone in a scientific debate is the predictive ability of his underlying claims. The preposterous implication of your repeated statements is that scientists need not consider evidence if it's not presented in the framework of a mathematical model.

Hopefully, now that you've had a chance to read the 'Nature of astrophysics' threads, Dave, you'll appreciate that what you wrote is, um, wide of the mark.

I would disagree with that for a couple of reasons. One reason is that, as David said, the general idea has been strengthened by discoveries, not falsified; any falsification occurs to individual details.

(source)

I hope you hang around here, seb!

The general idea has been adopted, and forms a key part of astrophysics; see the WOPA thread for some discussion.The only thing that makes EU theory different from the application of plasma physics to astronomy is just these 'individual details', isn't it?

Where would geology or biology be if they had to provide quantitative predictions before being accepted?

That's a good point - combined with David Talbott's post. What we see so often is the skeptics' demand for a complete mathematical model ("show me the math!") before any new hypothesis can be explored or looked into.

(source)

In relation to EU theory, these nice words don't help much, do they?

As has been pointed out, repeatedly, plasma physics has been applied to astronomy for many decades now, certainly longer than the working life of most of us. Also, if Lerner was able to write several papers, full of math and models, in just a few short years, why not you, Siggy_G? or you, seb?

First thing to look into is - is it probable? Could observations and data be explained along these lines (of the proposed model)? I'd say that a qualitative model or hypothesis does atleast point to what to look for and develop on - that later can be turned into something more quantitative.

One approach to take is to use the back of an old envelope. This is what I did for the Electric Sun hypothesis, for example; why waste hundreds of hours on the idea that the Sun is powered by giant interstellar Birkeland currents if a simple calculation shows it can't come remotely close to producing the observed electromagnetic radiation energy output^? It's a quite powerful approach, because you can get quite robust answers quite quickly.

If one already has a model that's both qualitiative and quantitative, and that predicts everything, then that would overgo the Big Bang model with a gigantic leap, no more work needed and Nobel price is awaiting. Is that the requirement before a proposed model is found to be plausible?

Of course not.

However, if the back of an old envelope is sufficient to show that your new idea faces serious difficulties - of the 'counter facts' and/or internal consistency kind - then you may consider addressing those, first, before investing a lot of time developing details of your new idea.

Sadly, I've yet to see from Nereid anything approaching a reasonable perspective on Wal Thornhill's or Don Scott's work.

(source)

But what is 'a reasonable perspective'? Did you find that none of the posts I'd written, before 22 Feb, were properly constructed scientific arguments challenging published Electric Universe theory?

The endless repetition of the same line about "quantification" can only add an exclamation point to this observation.

Well, given what I'd spent quite some time writing, here in this Future of Science board, can you at least acknowledge that I've been consistent?

Now to this thread.

So, even without looking at the context of this para, it's pretty clear that I meant 'electrical theorists have produced essentially no quantitative work in the same subject area as that of Lerner's papers (in the last ~3 decades)'."

Don Scott, for example, cites the quantitative work of Peratt and others in his papers and books, which is standard procedure for those writing down their research. This is the first obvious fact that exposes the invalidity of Nereid's question.

To respond in the same blunt style, this statement exposes the invalidity of Aristarchus' comment.

A quantitative work, Aristarchus, is one that is like the material, by Lerner, that Siggy_G quoted (it cites papers presenting estimates of the abundance of hydrogen, helium, and lithium, for example, along with the results of model-based calculations of those abundances); merely citing a quantitative work alone doth not your paper quantitative make.

Secondly, a review of the two biographies of Scott compared with Lerner will answer the part of the question pertaining to "electrical theorists have produced essentially no quantitative work in the same subject area as that of Lerner's papers." Is Nereid actually suggesting that researchers do not borrow from other subject areas?

Yes, and such a review shows that Scott produced, how many exactly? quantitative works?

Thirdly, what kind of resource funding does someone like Scott have as compared with someone who is President of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc., or in the case of Peratt doing research for Los Alamos National Laboratory, in addition to the kind of funding in the establishment science for a something on the order of CERN.

And Lerner? Are you going to try to argue, Aristarchus, that Lerner needed anything more than access to a good library, a PC, and a few quiet weeks (along with lots of paper, a few pens, and - no doubt - a great deal of coffee)?

Lastly, I can only assume the "(in the last ~3 decades)" was an added by Nereid so as to cover her bases for the fact that, yeah, there's probably been quantitative research done in the field of Electrical and Computer Engineering in those past decades.

I could easily be wrong, but the electrical theorists active today did not start their work on EU theory more than ~30-40 years ago. About three decades is a good approximation to one's working life.

We need to consider here, however, that Ms. Nereid has already called into question Dr. Peratt's understanding of the universe.

She has already commented on the fact that the model created by Dr. Peratt that modeled galactic rotation did not, in fact, actually match up with observations of galactic rotations, therefore was invalid.

So either A) we need to cite other sources than Dr. Peratt's long-published papers, or B) need to show that Dr. Peratt's simulation does in fact correctly model rotations of at least some few particular galaxies as he described.

It's rather more subtle, and complicated, than that Mike.

One key thing I pointed to was that Peratt's model, as published, relies on the Hubble redshift-distance relationship. Published Electrical Universe theory says that the Hubble relationship is unreliable (at best), ergo Peratt's model needs to be re-done (and this is just one example).

There's also a C), which I think is much more interesting (and I think Siggy_G is already working on it); namely, that the model needs to be tweaked, developed further, extended, etc.

(to be continued)

^ This is an example of the approach; whether the calculation I did does show the Electric Sun hypothesis is dead or not is a different issue, being discussed in that very thread.

[Aardwolf]

One approach to take is to use the back of an old envelope. This is what I did for the Electric Sun hypothesis, for example; why waste hundreds of hours on the idea that the Sun is powered by giant interstellar Birkeland currents if a simple calculation shows it can't come remotely close to producing the observed electromagnetic radiation energy output^? It's a quite powerful approach, because you can get quite robust answers quite quickly.

That not really a problem for the theory though is it. One could just invoke some unobservable Dark Electric to account for any shortfall. After all, the theory proves it must be there.

[Aristarchus]

A quantitative work, Aristarchus, is one that is like the material, by Lerner, that Siggy_G quoted (it cites papers presenting estimates of the abundance of hydrogen, helium, and lithium, for example, along with the results of model-based calculations of those abundances); merely citing a quantitative work alone doth not your paper quantitative make.

Insisting that your question is valid will not make it so. It's quite standard for different fields of science to cross reference each other and collaborate. Seriously, are you actually arguing against something that is so fundemental to research? First, there was the concept of Team Science, and more recently there is SciTS.

Science of Team Science

The interdiscipline of the science of team science (SciTS) promotes team-based research through empirical examination of the processes by which scientific teams organize, communicate, and conduct research. The field is concerned with understanding and managing circumstances that facilitate or hinder the effectiveness of large-scale collaborative research, training, and translational initiatives. This includes understanding how teams connect and collaborate to achieve scientific breakthroughs that would not be attainable by either individual or simply additive efforts.

In fact, even mathematicians had to consult with each other regarding string theory, so it appears that an electrical engineer is well within the norm of pulling quantitative work from another source. Now, I mentioned this to you before, perhaps more, so it really defies logic why you maintain that this isn't the case in scientific research.

I would really like to read your response arguing against a multidisciplinary approach. Should prove amusing.

[Aristarchus]

The opponents of the EU model, or at least, those that busy themselves with accusing it of lacking its own quantitative support, might be interested in the following:

So you think you can solve a cosmology puzzle

ScienceDaily (Dec. 8, 2010) — Cosmologists have come up with a new way to solve their problems. They are inviting scientists, including those from totally unrelated fields, to participate in a grand competition. The idea is to spur outside interest in one of cosmology's trickiest problems -- measuring the invisible dark matter and dark energy that permeate our universe.

The results will help in the development of new space missions, designed to answer fundamental questions about the history and fate of our universe.

"We're hoping to get more computer scientists interested in our work," said cosmologist Jason Rhodes of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., who is helping to organize the challenge, which begins on Dec. 3, 2010. "Some of the mathematical problems in our field are the same as those in machine-learning applications -- for example facial-recognition software."

The GREAT 2010 challenge is designed to improve weak-lensing know-how. Participants will start with fuzzy pictures of galaxies that have been distorted ever so slightly by invisible dark matter parked in front of them. The effect is so small that you can't see it with your eyes. The problem is even trickier because the telescopes are also distorting the galaxy images to an even greater degree than the dark matter. It takes complex techniques -- mathematical models and image-analysis algorithms -- to tease apart these various influences and ultimately discover how dark matter is warping a galaxy's shape.

"This is an image-analysis challenge. You don't need to be an astronomer or cosmologist to help measure the weak-lensing effect," said Kitching. "This challenge is meant to encourage a multidisciplinary approach to the problem."

[mharratsc]

Ms. Nereid said:

One key thing I pointed to was that Peratt's model, as published, relies on the Hubble redshift-distance relationship. Published Electrical Universe theory says that the Hubble relationship is unreliable (at best), ergo Peratt's model needs to be re-done (and this is just one example).

I'm still a little puzzled by this- I know that Dr. Peratt used redshift-distance measurements to observe galactic rotations. How does this invalidate the observation if you are not measuring absolute distance of the object, but rather simply getting the speed of rotation data from it?


Aristarchus posted:

The GREAT 2010 challenge is designed to improve weak-lensing know-how. Participants will start with fuzzy pictures of galaxies that have been distorted ever so slightly by invisible dark matter parked in front of them. The effect is so small that you can't see it with your eyes. The problem is even trickier because the telescopes are also distorting the galaxy images to an even greater degree than the dark matter. It takes complex techniques -- mathematical models and image-analysis algorithms -- to tease apart these various influences and ultimately discover how dark matter is warping a galaxy's shape.

"This is an image-analysis challenge. You don't need to be an astronomer or cosmologist to help measure the weak-lensing effect," said Kitching. "This challenge is meant to encourage a multidisciplinary approach to the problem."

Aside from why you posted this, Aristarchus- I felt I had to comment on the fact that they are asking for assistance with proving their model... not with understanding the observations.

Really- how does one 'solve' for an aberration that is less than the intrinsic error bar of the test equipment? It seems to me that they are looking for something that they expect, but cannot prove via observation. This seems like trying to use a meter calibrated to measure millivolts to try and accurately measure a voltage to microvolts. o.O

It seems to me that they are so desperate to find some sliver of proof for this 'dark matter' that they are even asking for assistance from other disciplines to help them grasp at straws. :\

[Aristarchus]

Aside from why you posted this, Aristarchus- I felt I had to comment on the fact that they are asking for assistance with proving their model... not with understanding the observations.

They're asking for help with the quantitative research, and this relates directly as a counter argument to the criticism leveled at Donald Scott for relying on quantitative mathematical computations from Peratt. In addition, I was fairly clear in writing the following:

The opponents of the EU model, or at least, those that busy themselves with accusing it of lacking its own quantitative support

From the article I posted:

The results will help in the development of new space missions, designed to answer fundamental questions about the history and fate of our universe.

"We're hoping to get more computer scientists interested in our work," said cosmologist Jason Rhodes of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., who is helping to organize the challenge, which begins on Dec. 3, 2010. "Some of the mathematical problems in our field are the same as those in machine-learning applications-- for example facial-recognition software."

"This is an image-analysis challenge. You don't need to be an astronomer or cosmologist to help measure the weak-lensing effect," said Kitching. "This challenge is meant to encourage a multidisciplinary approach to the problem."

This also relates to the multidisciplinary approach that is prevalent across scientific disciplines.

[mharratsc]

Ahh, I see your point now. I must've missed the tie-in along the way.

Rather than a weakness or flaw, I think the multi-disciplinary approach is a great strength of the EU model. Not only do you have more eyes on the data, but there is an inherent failsafe in having other disciplines helping a branch keep to the facts, and not wander off into fantastical musings like we see so often in the more secular mainstream disciplines. :\

[Nereid]

Continuing ...

So let's consider this hypothetical young PhD who feels he has an epiphany after reading "more than an hour's worth of material published by electrical theorists" and marches straightaway into his superiors office. He states that the material he read for an hour makes perfect sense, and that he feels they should re-evaluate all of their recent data against the notion of a central plasmoid in a galactic nucleus.

No need to quote any more from this post.

Mike, have you considered the possibility that the reason there are so few published papers on "the notion of a central plasmoid in a galactic nucleus" is that no one - hypothetical young PhD, grizzled veteran plasma physicist, or anyone in between - has been able to develop a model like this? One that is internally (self-)consistent as well as consistent with the relevant published observations?

That not really a problem for the theory though is it. One could just invoke some unobservable Dark Electric to account for any shortfall. After all, the theory proves it must be there.

I guess you're being ironic Aardwolf, but I don't get it; could you spell it out for me please?

A quantitative work, Aristarchus, is one that is like the material, by Lerner, that Siggy_G quoted (it cites papers presenting estimates of the abundance of hydrogen, helium, and lithium, for example, along with the results of model-based calculations of those abundances); merely citing a quantitative work alone doth not your paper quantitative make.

Insisting that your question is valid will not make it so. It's quite standard for different fields of science to cross reference each other and collaborate. Seriously, are you actually arguing against something that is so fundemental to research?

It doesn't matter how multi-disciplinary an approach is, or how many people collaborate in a team, Aristarchus.

Whether an electrical theorist has produced "essentially no quantitative work in the same subject area as that of Lerner's papers (in the last ~3 decades)" (or not) is quite independent of whether such electrical theorists worked in a multi-disciplinary team (or not).

The opponents of the EU model, or at least, those that busy themselves with accusing it of lacking its own quantitative support, might be interested in the following:

Why (would this be interesting, to such opponents)?

I'm still a little puzzled by this- I know that Dr. Peratt used redshift-distance measurements to observe galactic rotations. How does this invalidate the observation if you are not measuring absolute distance of the object, but rather simply getting the speed of rotation data from it?

I don't know.

If you're referring to the 'rotation curves' in Peratt's 1986 publication "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies" (see Fig. 14), then its relevance comes from the x-axis (kiloparsecs), not the y-axis (rotational velocity, km/s).

It seems to me that they are so desperate to find some sliver of proof for this 'dark matter' that they are even asking for assistance from other disciplines to help them grasp at straws. :\

(not really a challenge to me, but ...)

Mike, why don't you investigate this a bit further? Find out what the challenge actually involves? You may be surprised by what you learn!

(to be continued)

[kiwi]

Mike, why don't you investigate this a bit further? Find out what the challenge actually involves? You may be surprised by what you learn!

why do you admit to the hypocrisy and shameful wriggling of your colleauges Nereid ... that would be a nice start

and could you state your proffession and credentials thanks .. ( unless you already have and I missed it,.. could I have a link please)

[Nereid]

why do you admit to the hypocrisy and shameful wriggling of your colleauges Nereid [...]

What wriggling? what hypocrisy?

And who are my colleauges colleagues anyway?

and could you state your proffession and credentials thanks .. ( unless you already have and I missed it,.. could I have a link please)

WYSISYG (what you see is what you get) kiwi. I do not recall having ever stated my proffession profession or credentials ...

[Aristarchus]

And who are my colleagues anyway?

As a third party reader, it appears to me that kiwi's use of the term colleagues would fall under poetic license. Unless, of course, you're now presenting an argument that you do not defend the establishment or consensus science. I'm willing to guess the answer you might supply would provide a good example of "wriggling."

WYSISYG (what you see is what you get) kiwi.

WYSISYG (what you see is what you get), kiwi.

I do not recall having ever stated my profession or credentials ...

Yes. Indeed. Your assumed/presumed authority is to be taken at face value. Hey, way to go in not answering the question.

[Corpuscles]

[Yes. Indeed. Your assumed/presumed authority is to be taken at face value. Hey, way to go in not answering the question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissist ... y_disorder

http://www.melanietoniaevans.com/articl ... viours.htm

“I had them eating out of my hands.”


Really very sad!

Look at me.
I know better.
Challenge me, and keep them coming!

The interweb version of the imaginary Luke Skywalker.... after years of wrote learning in the high moral mainstream, is now deluded that single handedly , with powerful verbosisty & mathematics, "she" will take out the 'evil' EU empire!

[davesmith_au]

Hey Corpuscles, I see the first of your two links was to Narcissists Anonymous! ...