Talk:Pierre-Marie Robitaille

Who is the author of this screed?


 * The article? Hit the "History" tab. I started it here, based on a deleted article from Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you the block chain guy @davidgerard 161.28.255.170 (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

disagreement
http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0123v1.pdf is Robitaille's criticism of the Planck methodology. He is portrayed as a crank on Rational Wiki. If there is a refutation of his criticism regarding the 4 K reference loads, please upload here. Here is a recent update from Sky Scholar/Robitaille discussing the CMBR data and a 1999 paper on the Herouni antenna: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p8lKQMEYYLw.Vorpal1 (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Article by Alexander Unzicker
In support of Robitaille, and offering an explanation to the contents of the article here on rationalwiki.org: https://www.euroscientist.com/astrophysics-ready-draw-lesson-thomas-kuhn/ &mdash; Unsigned, by: 213.66.113.108 / talk


 * last para: "I do not have the expertise to decide whether Robitaille is right or not." No shit - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

New York Times citation problem
So as a rational thinker its useful to have the debate of why professionals think another is wrong or incorrect. The NYT article does not go into any depth on this and simply compares Robitaille's model presented in his ad to unrelated creationalism, which was not part of his claim at all. This is strawmaning. As rational thinkers we should recognize an obvious logical fallacy employed by the NYT reporter. Less name calling, more raitonal rebuttal. 161.28.255.170 (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "simply compares Robitaille's model presented in his ad to unrelated creationalism"


 * >>>no, that's not what they did. what they DID was say his ramblings and logic exactly MIRROR how creationists present their claims.  IOW, he's the one strawmanning cosmology, just like creationists strawman evolution.  now run along. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 121.98.228.243 / talk

"He also maintains that the Sun is not a gaseous plasma, but is in fact made of liquid metallic hydrogen. None of his ideas have been accepted by any reputable physics publication." -And yet Juno has shown us that Jupiter is actually liquid metallic hydrogen.

Led project
This must have been an admin role. His crank output since his directorship makes it abundantly clear that the tech and physics underpinning the advances made was entirely beyond his understanding. I surmise they even put him in that role to get him out of the way of the science. It seems likely that he had been pestering colleagues with his theories long before any of this happened. If you ask why they would accord such a role to a nuisance, that is not unusual in academia.