On the basis that you didn't disagree with my deduction that your english comprehension is abysmal, you will therefore appreciate I might have some difficulty making sense of the rest of your post.
Most of us have a problem supplying an answer to a contradiction - answering questions is far easier.
Louis - "Your english comprehension is abysmal - I did not say there is no such thing as fusion, I said "no one has been able to produce a sustainable fusion reaction"."
Yours is even worse. You did not JUST say this at all. You are even cherry picking your own statement now. You said:
"So your science asserts that the sun is powered by a fusion reactor but no one has been able to produce a sustainable fusion reaction."
Which in this context clearly means that you doubt that the sun is powered by a fusion reactor because we cannot reproduce it experimentally.
Cherry picking your own statements is a new low even for you.
Your english comprehension is abysmal - I did not say there is no such thing as fusion, I said "no one has been able to produce a sustainable fusion reaction".
Ender,
On the basis that you didn't disagree with my deduction that your english comprehension is abysmal, you will therefore appreciate I might have some difficulty making sense of the rest of your post.
Most of us have a problem supplying an answer to a contradiction - answering questions is far easier.
Louis - "So my deduction that your english comphrension is abysmal must now stand doubly proven."
However you still not have supplied an answer for the contradiction that is at the heart of the debate.
Again your statements are but a distraction as you duck and weave trying to keep your illogical and unscientific notions alive.
Ender,
That is right, the implication is that I doubt the sun is powered by a fusion reaction because we cannot reproduce it experimentally.
However I did not state that there is no "No such thing as fusion ........ " nor did I imply it.
So my deduction that your english comphrension is abysmal must now stand doubly proven.
Louis - "Your english comprehension is abysmal - I did not say there is no such thing as fusion, I said "no one has been able to produce a sustainable fusion reaction"."
Yours is even worse. You did not JUST say this at all. You are even cherry picking your own statement now. You said:
"So your science asserts that the sun is powered by a fusion reactor but no one has been able to produce a sustainable fusion reaction."
Which in this context clearly means that you doubt that the sun is powered by a fusion reactor because we cannot reproduce it experimentally.
Cherry picking your own statements is a new low even for you.
I should correct my previous statement.
I should have said that no one has experimentally produced a sustainable fusion reaction.
I do this because I found it odd that an individual could do that - none can of course.
So we will now wait for Ender to react.
Ender
Your english comprehension is abysmal - I did not say there is no such thing as fusion, I said "no one has been able to produce a sustainable fusion reaction".
Quite a significant difference, don't you think?