Lambda-CDM - Pure Confirmation Bias Run Amuck

[Michael]

The expectation that anyone buy and read every book that exists on a topic is insane .

To claim to be critiquing Thornhill and Talbott's model without actually reading their book is insane! It's par for the course with you of course, but most rational human beings don't intentionally misrepresent the beliefs of others.

University students do not buy three books on electromagnetism!

If he's too cheap to buy *multiple* books, then he should have purchased *Thornhill's* book if he's claiming to review *Thornhill*. Otherwise he should be claiming to be rebuking some random PDF writer, not *Thornhill*! What a huge lie Koberlein told if he never even bothered to read Thornhill's book, while claiming to critique his work! Liar.

Brian Koberlein looked for accessible texts on EU theory and found one endorced by Wal Thornhill. Why should he think that Wal Thornhill was incompetent enough to miss the missing neutrinos?

Why would Wal Thornhill require that every random PDF file on EU *cosmology* theory be required to discuss every single possible aspect of EU solar theories (plural) to get his endorsement?

Brian Koberlein is *lying* when he claims that EU cosmology theory predicts no neutrinos, and even his own statements in 2014 prove it. His own statements are *self conflicted*. There's your *sign* that Koberlein *lied* through is public teeth.

 

[RealityCheck01]

To claim ...

Nothing to be do with the expectation that anyone buy and read every book that exists on a topic is insane .
21 June 2016 Michael: Testing the Electric Universe starts on 25 February 2014 with a list that agrees with Findlay's understanding of EU.

21 June 2016 Michael: Lying about Koberlein remains bad - he relied on a book endorsed by Thornhill as good introduction to EU theory. Blame Thornhill for not understanding what the book contained !

 

[Michael]

Nothing to be do with the expectation that anyone buy and read every book that exists on a topic is insane .
21 June 2016 Michael: Testing the Electric Universe starts on 25 February 2014 with a list that agrees with Findlay's understanding of EU.

Who cares? As he noted there are many variations to chose from but he specifically claimed to be critiquing the model described in the book by *Thornhill*. The free PDF was apparently supposed to be a "bonus" document at best case!

There are actually many variations to the Electric Universe model, but the most popular version seems to focus around the book by Thornhill and Talbot listed below.

Brian Koberlein *lied*! If he's too cheap to buy Thornhill's book, and he's too lazy to read it, and he's *actually* critiquing Findlay rather than Thornhill, then Koberlein should say so. Koberlein simply lied instead, apparently because he's too cheap and too lazy to actually buy and read the books that he claims to be critiquing! What a huge liar.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Who cares?

Rational, polite people?
21 June 2016 Michael: Digging himself an ever deeper pit of delusions and even lies about Brian Koberlein knowing both the EU "no neutrinos" and "surface fusion" ideas.

 

[Michael]

Rational, polite people?

Brian Koberlein stopped being rational and polite two years ago when he clearly knew and correctly stated that EU theory produces fusion and neutrinos near the photosphere, yet he chose to continue to pathologically lie about it anyway for another two years and counting.

The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.

EU claims that fusion occurs near the solar surface and fluctuates with solar activity, but observations show no clear correlation between solar activity and neutrinos.

Self conflicted nonsense, and it's a great example of the *complete* lack of scientific ethics that passes for astronomy today.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Brian Koberlein ...

Usual repeated insults without any evidence: 21 June 2016 Michael: Digging himself an ever deeper pit of delusions and even lies about Brian Koberlein knowing both the EU "no neutrinos" and "surface fusion" ideas.

 

[Michael]

In which of the two self-conflicted sentences did Brian choose to flat out lie about Thornhills model?

The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.

EU claims that fusion occurs near the solar surface and fluctuates with solar activity, but observations show no clear correlation between solar activity and neutrinos.

 

[RealityCheck01]

In which of the two self-conflicted sentences did Brian choose to flat out lie about Thornhills model?

He did not lie so neither: 21 June 2016 Michael: Digging himself an ever deeper pit of delusions and even lies about Brian Koberlein knowing both the EU "no neutrinos" and "surface fusion" ideas.

 

[Michael]

He did not lie so neither:

They are self conflicted sentences, mutually exclusive claims, and only one of them is a true statement. Which statement is true, and which is a lie?

The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.

EU claims that fusion occurs near the solar surface and fluctuates with solar activity, but observations show no clear correlation between solar activity and neutrinos.

 

[RealityCheck01]

They are self conflicted sentences, ...

They are replies to self conflicted EU ideas: 21 June 2016 Michael: Digging himself an ever deeper pit of delusions and even lies about Brian Koberlein knowing both the EU "no neutrinos" and "surface fusion" ideas.

 

[Michael]

They are replies to self conflicted EU ideas:

Liar. The first sentence has nothing whatsoever to even do with EU theory. It's related to a *lie* that Koberlein told, and that you keep telling. The author of the PDF did not make any specific prediction with respect to neutrinos, Thornhill did. Koberlein claimed to be critiquing *Thornhill and Talbott*, not Findlay!

The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.

EU claims that fusion occurs near the solar surface and fluctuates with solar activity, but observations show no clear correlation between solar activity and neutrinos.

Which self-conflicted statement is the lie RC?

 

[RealityCheck01]

The first sentence has nothing whatsoever to even do with EU theory.

22 June 2016 Michael: Findlay states in his introduction to EU theory book that stars are not "nuclear fusion-powered" (his phrase!). Thus no neutrinos.

27 April 2015 Reply Brian Koberlein

If you actually read Findlay’s book (the pdf of which I linked to in the post) you will find it specifically argues against stellar fusion. This is clear at various points throughout the book. On page 102, for example, Findlay argues that since dwarf stars emit x-rays, but are clearly too cool for fusion to occur, the fusion model must be wrong.

22 June 2016 Michael: The delusion that Brian Koberlein states that Findlay states "no neutrinos" when he actually writes that Findlay says the Sun is not powered by fusion.

21 June 2016 Michael: Digging himself an ever deeper pit of delusions and even lies about Brian Koberlein knowing both the EU "no neutrinos" and "surface fusion" ideas.

 

[Michael]

22 June 2016 Michael: Findlay states

Liar. No no specific paragraph was cited, just lies, lies and more lies about what people didn't say!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Liar. No no specific paragraph was cited, just lies, lies and more lies about what people didn't say!

Just more and more ignorance about EU theory as stated in EU books !
The page and paragraph where Findlay states that start are not fusion powered is Page 79

And a probable lie (this was added to the post): 27 April 2015 Reply Brian Koberlein

If you actually read Findlay’s book (the pdf of which I linked to in the post) you will find it specifically argues against stellar fusion. This is clear at various points throughout the book. On page 102, for example, Findlay argues that since dwarf stars emit x-rays, but are clearly too cool for fusion to occur, the fusion model must be wrong.

Page 102 is Findlay arguing against fusion in types of dwarf stars:

There are classes known as T and L type dwarf stars. Relative to normal stars, these are very cool indeed with estimated temperatures of between 600 to 1000K. Interestingly, these are temperatures in the same region as areas on the surface of the planet Venus. Temperatures this low indicate that the thermonuclear fusion process cannot possibly be occurring inside these bodies. Yet X-rays have been detected coming from similarly cool brown dwarf stars, where again, the low temperatures involved are fundamentally incapable of initiating the production of this powerful type of radiation. Straightforward evidence like this that indicates things are not right with the thermonuclear theory of stars should be all that is needed to drive a more open and inclusive investigation, but sadly, it does not.

However this is really EU or Findlay ignorance. These are brown dwarf stars that are not undergoing fusion.
Page 101 with currents driving plasma arcs is Findlay's EU explanation for the power source of stars - no fusion is mentioned. Findlay actually borrows a graph from Scott's book so it is strange that he does not mention Scott's fusion at the surface producing neutrinos fantasy. But then he does not mention Thornhill and neutrinos either: “natural particle accelerators in […] lighting discharges” (Thornhill), neutrinos being produced in electron-positron annihilation (Thornhill again),

 

[Michael]

Just more and more ignorance about EU theory as stated in EU books !
The page and paragraph where Findlay states that start are not fusion powered is Page 79

Liar. Quote him specifically and quote the exact *paragraph* where you think he made that claim. Based on our past conversations, and your personal track record, I have personally seen you misrepresent the scientific published opinions of everyone from Dungey to Somov and Peratt and Thornill, not to mention me personally. I *absolutely refuse* to allow you to handwave in any claim about EU theory without a cited paragraph. I'm sure you've misrepresented Findlay too. It would be par for the course in your case.

And a probable lie (this was added to the post): 27 April 2015 Reply Brian Koberlein

Page 102 is Findlay arguing against any fusion in types of dwarf stars:

Boloney! He's talking about the temperature of the surface of that object and how it's *too cold* to explain x-rays. He's suggesting surface discharges and/or fusion might be the cause of those x rays! Wow! I know for sure that you personally have a serious comprehension problem, starting with the word *and* in the first sentence of the WIKI definition of magnetic reconnection. I can see now that this comprehension problem you have extends to pretty much any author and any paragraph that you might happen to read.

Where did Findley predict "no fusion" or "no neutrinos" from a sun our size RC?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Quote him specifically and quote the exact *paragraph* where you think he made that claim.

Two lies: Not my claim. I quoted the page and paragraph where Findlay claims that stars are not fusion powered.
21 June 2016 Michael: Digging himself an ever deeper pit of delusions and even lies about Brian Koberlein knowing both the EU "no neutrinos" and "surface fusion" ideas.

 

[Michael]

However this is really EU or Findlay ignorance. These are brown dwarf stars that are not undergoing fusion.
Page 101 with currents driving plasma arcs is Findlay's EU explanation for the power source of stars - no fusion is mentioned.

What? The fact he doesn't mention fusion doesn't give you the right to make *assumptions* about his statements RC! You're sticking words in his mouth exactly like you did with Dungey and Thornhill.

Findlay actually borrows a graph from Scott's book so it is strange that he does not mention Scott's fusion at the surface producing neutrinos fantasy.

It's only "strange" that you expect a paper on "Cosmology theory" to included detailed explanations about every possible solar theory model under the sun RC! That's an *insane fantasy*.

But then he does not mention Thornhill and neutrinos either:

But Koberlein did. In fact Koberlein claimed to be specifically critiquing the solar theory and cosmology beliefs that were held by Wal Thornhill and Dave Talbott. Findlay was simply a bonus side reference. Nobody in the EU community holds up Findlay as a comprehensive or definitive resource about various solar theory models in EU theory RC.

 

[Michael]

Two lies: Not my claim. I quoted the page and paragraph where Findlay claims that stars are not fusion powered.

You lied when you claimed that Findlay claims that stars are not fusion powered. That is a flat out lie!

Findlay does not make that claim anywhere in his PDF, anymore than Dungey claimed that "actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma"! You put words in everyone's mouth that they simply didn't say RC. You simply did it again, as your own reference demonstrates. It's another Priest/Dungey moment for you I'm afraid.

 

[RealityCheck01]

What?

Do you really think that Findlay is stupid enough not to mention that stars are fusion powered when describing how stars are powered (page 101) if he thought stars were fusion powered?
21 June 2016 Michael: Digging himself an ever deeper pit of delusions and even lies about Brian Koberlein knowing both the EU "no neutrinos" and "surface fusion" ideas.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Findlay does not make that claim anywhere in his PDF....

Flat out lying, Michael, since I quote Findlay making the claim that stars are not fusion powered, powering them with current without mentioning fusion and wrongly arguing against brown dwarfs being fusion powered
21 June 2016 Michael: Digging himself an ever deeper pit of delusions and even lies about Brian Koberlein knowing both the EU "no neutrinos" and "surface fusion" ideas.

It looks like the answers to:

• Will I get an honest acknowledgment, Michael?
• Will Brian Koberlein get an honest acknowledgment that he was using what Findlay stated, Michael?

is No. Will you be honest or will you continue to lie to everyone here about the contents of Findlay's book?