To which I responded at great length in post #118.
annalex: "In 120 I explained it to you in sufficient precision."
To which I responded at even greater length in post #125.
annalex: "In 130 and then in 134 I explained what parts of your hypothesis are indeed supported by fact and which are not."
Those, plus your posts #126 and 128 I responded to at incredible length in my posts #125, 127, 129, 131, 133 and 135."
annalex: "In 176 I defined an experiment that would prove your hypothesis."
I responded at great length to all nine of your posts between #134 and 176.
See my posts #137, 139, 152, 153, 162, 171, 173, 175 & 177.
annalex: "Since then you made no substantive posts but a lot of repetitions of stuff previously ridiculed by me successfully."
I note with interest that you consider "ridicule" a method of "successful" response to scientific arguments.
In fact, all ten of my posts from #179 to #200 are cogent, coherent thoughtful and lengthy responses to each of your arguments, "word salads" and ridicule (or ridiculous) posts.
Nothing you've claimed remains unanswered, but no answer matters to you, does it -- because actual science is not what you care about.
Discrediting science is what you care about, isn't it?
But in most of your indeed, lengthy responses you exhibit no understanding of the essence of the objections to your cult, nor of the central ideas in the experiment that might resolve the dispute. That is funny.