Talk:Pierre-Marie Robitaille

	This Pseudoscience related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Who?

Who is the author of this screed? ^{— Unsigned, by: Lkoler / talk / contribs}

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/ ^{— 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)

Unzicker now has a book out called "The Liquid Sun".. it's available in several languages and builds on the foundation that Dr Robitaille laid.. It's easy to just call somebody a crank but that adds nothing to the reader's knowledge.. Dr Robitaille has a paper and video called 40 lines of evidence for a condensed matter Sun.. what would be helpful to all that are interested is a refutation of those lines of evidence or a confirmation of those lines of evidence.. Science isn't advanced by name calling or attempts to damage someone's reputation.. some of the attacks on Dr Robitaille are clearly malicious and are contrary to all evidence such as claiming his role in developing the 8 Tesla ultra high field human MRI scanner "must have been an administration role" and "they put him in that role to get him out of the way of the science".. again. science is evidence based and criticism is fine if evidence based.. criticism and name calling with no supporting evidence is contrary to what science is about, and I thought contrary to the purpose of RationalWiki.. ^{— Unsigned, by: Usedtobesomebody / talk / contribs}

The people who are calling Dr. Robitaille a crank do so as a projection of being a crank themselves. This has happened before and continues to do so in nearly every field. Its a pity that the real cranks, such as the one at the bottom of this page, the guy telling people to "run along" below, and David Gerard above, don't get punished for the malpractice laced within their own punitive behavior. Anyone who resorts to name calling and dismissive treatment of people they might claim they are trying to educate obviously doesn't deserve the title of "professor" or "professional" and therefore shouldn't be regarded as such. Acteron (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2023 (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. ^{— 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. ^{— Unsigned, by: 135.23.199.133 / talk / contribs}

^{[citation needed]} Ioe bidome (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

references for the claim above

https://www.astronomy.com/science/what-has-the-juno-spacecraft-taught-us-about-jupiter/

https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/jupiter/the-interior?show=hs_jupiter_the-interior_story_a-dive-into-jupiter

horrible website, you will have to search for "liquid metallic hydrogen", I was not able to link to it directly, but it's there, last sentence of the penultimate paragraph

https://science.nasa.gov/jupiter/jupiter-facts/#:~:text=NASA%E2%80%99s%20Juno%20spacecraft,dilute%2C%20or%20%E2%80%9Cfuzzy.%E2%80%9D

there is loads more

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15431-5#:~:text=The%20accurate%20gravity,its%20heavy%20elements.

Also to the above, liquid sun model just means liquid plasma. It's not actually that different from the current models. All the debate seems to me about how we should imagine (model) the Sun's interior, more like gas plasma or liquid plasma. I agree with those who say that Robitaille should start working out the numbers for more measurements using his model. It's one thing to point out difficulties with a model, it's another to provide a more accurate one. That said, some of the behavior towards him truly seems undeservedly vicious and in bad faith

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi_mQ0sKOfo

"I genuinely appreciate this man (Prof. Dave). Nobody else on YouTube seems to have as much contempt for these Cro-Magnons as Dave does. I love it." — bloomsux69, 3 years ago

Even if he is a crank, I and certainly don't believe he is fully correct, this kind of comment will always say more about the people communicating this way than about him.

At this point, it should be relatively easy to just answer his claims directly, yet that's not exactly what we see here. ==

--Lby (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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. ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.187.97.65 / talk / contribs}

Indeed, they also gave him a patent just in his own name. https://patents.justia.com/patent/6255816

--Lby (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)