Got it, thanks pln2bz ... you will continue to make claims that are false - and can be shown to be false, objectively - in order to promote a bunch of ideas whose principal proponents no longer publish those ideas in relevant, peer-reviewed journals.Re: "Science is about building relationships, keeping an open mind, reading as much as you can about the various theories, and waiting until you've actually learned a theory to compare and contrast it with those you already understand": Funny that, I thought science was about formulating hypotheses to *quantitatively* test various aspects of theories (or models), making astronomical observations (or conducting experiments) accordingly, and publishing your results so everyone can see what you did, how you did it, and where it all fits.But even within your own framework ("reading as much as you can about the various theories"), there's a serious problem ... the "various theories" (EU ones) are nowhere to be found! For example, where is EMOND published (the theory that is, not some calorie-free word salad )?So, to answer my questions (above):In which of Peratt's papers, on simulations of galaxy formation, is a description of how gravity is simulated to be found? There are no such papers.Does Thornhill propose any testable hypotheses of EMOND? No.Did Lerner and Peratt write papers on the synchrotron radiation expected to be observed from Birkeland currents in plasma filaments? Yes, several ... but their models are inconsistent with observations (i.e. the synchrotron radiation expected has not been observed, ergo, the Birkeland currents do not exist, or do not behave per Lerner and Peratt's models).Can Verschuur's HI-CMB features "associations" be independently verified? The claims can be independently checked ... and the "associations" shown - objectively - to not exist.