In what way are they not mutually exclusive RC? Where's your *specific* quote to support the lie that EU theory predicts no neutrinos RC? Run, run, run....
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Lambda-CDM - Pure Confirmation Bias Run Amuck
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
- Status
In what way are they not mutually exclusive RC? Where's your *specific* quote to support the lie that EU theory predicts no neutrinos RC? Run, run, run....
No sign of fixing the ignorance, delusions and lies about the Electric Universe and even English from Michael:
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.
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.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Your "no neutrinos" idea has nothing to do with EU theory, it's Brian's *pathological lie*. That's why I can never get either one of you to cite a *specific* sentence where Findlay claims "no neutrinos". Koberlein personally made that up, and it's never been true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_lying
Brian Koberlein said:
Brian Koberlein said:
Which of those two mutually exclusive statements is a habitual, pointless, baseless, irrational lie that Brian has told for more than two years RC?
Upvote
0
A lie and still displaying ignorance about EU theory, Michael.
24 June 2016 Michael: A lie about the "no neutrinos" idea being mine- it is Tim Findlay's statement that stars are not fusion powered, etc. that predicts no neutrinos.
Tim Findlay's eBook is EU theory literature reviewed by Thornhill and Scott.
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.
A summary so people do not have to clamber down into Michael's pit of ignorance, delusions and insults.
The professional astrophysicist Brian Koberlein wrote a blog article Testing the Electric Universe on 25 February 2014. His first problem was that there are many versions of EU. He decided to try to critique the Thunderbolts version (Talbott, Thornhill, and Scott). The article does not explicitly state his source but he does not mention buying their books, the characteristics listed and later comments show that he used the eBook A Beginner’s View of Our Electric Universe by Tom Findlay (PDF). This was reviewed favorably by Thornhill and Scott so a reasonable person would expect it to be an accurate representation of the Thunderbolts version.
Brian Koberlein gave EU an F- because of several failures.
Has Michael written reasonable, evidence based posts showing that the science that Brian Koberlein presented is wrong? No!
- The Sun emits neutrinos from fusion (Findlay's assertion that stars are not fusion powered is wrong).
- The Sun gives off a thermal spectrum, not a plasma one (not lit by a flow of plasma).
- GR and SR have been experimentally verified (are not wrong).
- We have observsions of the births of stars and planets (stars “give birth” to other stars and planets is wrong).
- Galaxies are mature up to large redshifts (redshifts from "aging" galaxies is wrong)
The posts since about 21 June 2016 are an obsession with one EU failure (solar neutrinos), repeated insults of Brian Koberlein being a pathological liar, lying about English comprehension, and the irrational demand that Brian Koberlein edit the blog article to lie about what he wrote!
The truth is that there are several EU ideas about solar neutrinos:
- Findlay: Stars are not fusion powered + no mention of other stellar fusion thus no neutrinos.
Debunked - we observe neutrinos from the Sun as Koberlein stated.- Talbott + Thornhill: Maybe stars are not fusion powered. Neutrinos from electrical discharges.
Debunked - electrical discharges do not create neutrinos - they come from nuclei reactions.
- Talbott + Thornhill: Maybe stars are not fusion powered. Neutrinos from electron-positron annihilation.
Debunked - electron-positron annihilation creates photons, not neutrinos.- Scott: Stars are not fusion powered. Neutrinos from fusion in z-pinches at the surface of stars.
Z-pinches have only been created in laboratories. No evidence that they exist elsewhere.
Z-pinches have never created fusion even in the controlled conditions of laboratories.
Enough fusion to power the Sun will produce easily detectable gamma rations, etc.
Scott is denying the science that first year astronomy students use to work out the pressure and temperature at the center of the Sun to see that fusion has to be happening there.
Scott predicts that fusion and so neutrino flux fluctuates with solar activity which Koberlein states does not happen in a comment on 3 July 2014- Michael?: Stars are partially fusion powered. Neutrinos from fusion in z-pinches? below the surface of stars.
See above about z-pinches not seen outside of labs or producing fusion in labs.
The neutrino flux from the Sun matches what is worked out for the amount of fusion at the core of the Sun.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This is called "projection" RC. You're projecting your ignorance of EU theory on me personally, but in fact you are incapable of citing a specific sentence from Findlay that claims that Thornhill's model predicts "no neutrinos". You're lying RC. You're pathologically lying about what Findlay said, and that is why you will *again* run from my request for a specific citation and sentence where you *think* (we all know he didn't) say that EU theory predicts no neutrinos. You lied RC. We all know it. Run sock puppet run.
You and/or Koberlein (assuming you're even two different people) have consistently and methodically and unethically *lied* about Findlay. Where is your *specific* quote?
Upvote
0
FYI, I think that is the first time that I've ever seen someone commit three non sequitur fallacies in a single sentence.
1) Findlay only compares EU theory to a fusion *only* solar model, but it does not follow that Findlay predicts *no* power from fusion or that he predicts no neutrinos from the sun. It's not an "either/or" proposition to begin with.
2) After the "+" sign, you added your second non Sequitur fallacy because even if Findlay failed to mention fusion in relationship to solar physics, it doesn't automatically follow that you can simply *assume* that the author in question "predicts" that the sun experiences "no fusion".
3) Since Koberlein claimed to specifically be critiquing Thornhill's EU model, it also does not follow that any other third party author will necessarily correctly represent the beliefs of Thornhill and Scott who were also cited as references.
In all the years that I've debated various topics on the internet, I think that's the first time that I've ever seen anyone commit a triple non Sequitur fallacy extravaganza in a single sentence. Congrats on your epic achievement in disastrous and convoluted logic RC.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It is called reading English, not ignoring the science and not going on rants about a person being a pathological liar:
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.
Upvote
0
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.
For everyone's information: That is lies from Michael since he knows that
- Findlay explicitly states that stars are not fusion powered.
- Findlay does not have any other sources of stellar fusion.
- Koberlein actually critiqued Talbott and Thornhill's model as represented by Findlay (the only freely accessible source Koberlein cited).
Thornhill reviewed and recommended Findlay's book.
Scott reviewed and recommended Findlay's book.
Other EU authors reviewed and recommended Findlay's book.
!The evidence from Thornhill in 2001 was ignorant fantasies about neutrinos: Solar neutrino puzzle is solved?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This is simply a false statement as *PROVEN* by the fact you *NEVER* provide a *specific* quote to support that false statement. Where is it? Do you ever tell the truth in relationship to EU/PC theories RC? Run sock puppet run.
False again. EU/PC theory is not an "either/or" proposition with respect to stellar core fusion. It simply assumes that at least *some*, perhaps *most* of the fusion from the sun is concentrated in the upper half of the sun.
Only someone who was utterly unprofessional would list three references to his article, and never even bother to cross check his work between them. That is only made worse by the fact that he claimed to be critiquing the beliefs of Thornhill and Talbott and he lists their book as a reference. Even more damning to Koberlein's claim, Thornhill's actual neutrino predictions are freely available from his website. Epic professional triple fail.
Worse yet, the whole claim about Findlay is false. Go ahead and run from my request for a specific quote *again*. We all know it's simply a false statement RC. If you had something, you would have presented it by now. You've got nothing to support that statement, just like you have no published work to support your claim that the term "actual" has any scientific meaning, or that magnetic reconnection doesn't require a *transfer* of energy! You made up all three of those claims RC, and you will *never* produce a published or specific reference to support any of those erroneous claims.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
RC's missing references:
1) No specific quote from Findlay to support RC's erroneous claim that Findlay predicts "no fusion" or "no neutrinos" from the sun. All we get are vague handwaves.
2) No published reference that agrees that RC's term "actual" has any scientific meaning to contradict Dungey's claim that electrical discharges occur in solar flares. No published reference ever claimed "actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma". Never. None ever said "actual" had any scientific meaning either.
3) No published reference to support his RC's/Clinger's erroneous and absurd claim that "magnetic reconnection" does *not* require a transfer of magnetic field energy into particle acceleration.
When are you going to finish your physics homework assignment RC, or shall I just give you an F- in reading comprehension skills?
1) No specific quote from Findlay to support RC's erroneous claim that Findlay predicts "no fusion" or "no neutrinos" from the sun. All we get are vague handwaves.
2) No published reference that agrees that RC's term "actual" has any scientific meaning to contradict Dungey's claim that electrical discharges occur in solar flares. No published reference ever claimed "actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma". Never. None ever said "actual" had any scientific meaning either.
3) No published reference to support his RC's/Clinger's erroneous and absurd claim that "magnetic reconnection" does *not* require a transfer of magnetic field energy into particle acceleration.
When are you going to finish your physics homework assignment RC, or shall I just give you an F- in reading comprehension skills?
Upvote
0
Michael's lie: 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.
1) Findlay on page 79 explicitly states that stars are not fusion powered.
The rest is not about his delusions, lies and insults about Brian Koberlein.
Michael's delusions about the Sun held since 2005, lightning in plasma, magnetic reconnection in vacuum, the work of Birkeland.
Upvote
0
Michael's lie: 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.
Findlay on page 79 explicitly states that stars are not fusion powered.
Upvote
0
False. Quote Findlay *specifically* to the sentence and paragraph where you made your reading mistake RC. From your gross misrepresentation of "magnetic reconnection", we all know you have a comprehension problem with basic English.
Brian Koberlein said:
Why would a supposed "professional" like Koberlein list three specific references, claim to be be talking about Thornhill's beliefs, and then not cross check his work? Why didn't a professional like Koberlein check Wal's *free* website explanation?
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/solar-neutrino-puzzle-is-solved/
Solar neutrino puzzle is solved?
Posted on August 13, 2001 by Wal Thornhill
On the other hand, the Electric Universe proposes an electrical model for stars, based on the pioneering work of Ralph Juergens.
……
The electric Sun model expects far more complex heavy element synthesis to take place in the natural particle accelerators in the photospheric lightning discharges. In that case the various neutrino “flavours” are all generated on the Sun and do not need to “oscillate” on their way to the Earth to make up an imagined deficit. What is more, fluctuations in neutrino counts are expected in this model to be correlated with electrical input to the Sun, that is, with sunspot numbers and solar wind activity. This has been observed. The standard solar model does not expect any correlation since there is a lag estimated in the millions of years between the nuclear reaction in the core and its final expression at the surface of the Sun.
Electric discharges in plasma take the form of twisted filaments, seen here in a closeup of sunspots. Each filament is a powerful natural particle accelerator.
There is an experiment suggested by the SNO results that could confirm the Electric Sun’s photospheric origin of neutrinos. It would require continuous measurement of neutrinos of all flavours as a very large sunspot group rotated with the Sun. In this model, sunspot umbrae are not a source of neutrinos so there should be modulation effects associated with the Sun’s rotation that might be measurable with present equipment. Such an experiment, if sensitive enough, offers the possibility of detecting neutrino oscillations in the Sun as they traverse varying proportions of the body of the Sun. A positive result would falsify the standard nuclear model of the Sun.
Brian Koberlein said:
Brian Koberlein said:
Which of those two mutually exclusive statements is a habitual, pointless, transparent lie that Brian has told for more than two years RC?
Upvote
0
28 June 2016 Michael: A lie that I cannot comprehend the English in the Wikipedia article describing MR happening in plasma.
Plus a little idiocy of scare quotes around magnetic reconnection.
Magnetic reconnection (in plasma) is not a textbook to teach students abut plasma physics. It dos not contain teaching examples such as magnetic reconnection in plasma. It does not state that MR only happens in plasma
!Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum continues from Nov 2011!
A plasma physics textbook section and example contains only currents and vacuum. MR happens in the vacuum away from the currents. It is a delusion that the example contains plasma or that MR has to happen in plasma. The section ends with a couple of sentences about charge particles and then the next section is MR in plasma
!
Upvote
0
RC persists with his bigoted lie about Findlay saying anything about "no neutrinos" on page 79. RC never told us whether he's a sock puppet of Koberlein or a mind reader because Koberlein never even mentioned page 79 in over 2 years! Which is it RC, sock puppet or mind reader?
Upvote
0
You have a serious comprehension problem because you seem to think you can remove the *transfer of energy* requirement, and nowhere have you presented us with any reference that *didn't* transfer field energy into particle kinetic energy.
You flat out lied about Somov's example because it *included* that transfer of energy that you and Clinger forgot! You refuse to present us with a mathematical expression for "reconnection" in Clinger's pitiful strawman model too! What a bunch of ignorant lies you and Clinger have been telling.
Upvote
0
You cannot understand English because you and Clinger left out the *transfer of energy*!
RC's ever growing list of missing references:
1) No specific quote from Findlay to support RC's erroneous claim that Findlay predicts "no fusion" or "no neutrinos" from the sun. All we get are vague handwaves. Neither page 101 or 79 say what you claim they say.
2) No published reference that agrees that RC's term "actual" has any scientific meaning to contradict Dungey's claim that electrical discharges occur in solar flares. No published reference ever claimed "actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma". Never. None ever said "actual" had any scientific meaning either.
3) No published reference to support his RC's/Clinger's erroneous and absurd claim that "magnetic reconnection" does *not* require a transfer of magnetic field energy into particle acceleration.
4) No published reference to support RC's absurd and ridiculous claim that "magnetic reconnection" can be demonstrated with a couple of refrigerator magnets in the air.
5) RC has not provided a published reference to refute the published CNO fusion paper that supports Scott's fusion from plasma pinch ideas.
6) RC refuses to provide a mathematical description of the *rate* of reconnection in Clinger's lame/toy model of "reconnection".
When are you going to finish your physics homework assignments RC, or shall I just give you an F- in reading comprehension skills?
Brian Koberlein said:
Brian Koberlein said:
Which of those two mutually exclusive statements is a habitual, pointless, baseless, irrational lie that Brian has told for more than two years RC?
No, Findlay didn't say "EU theory predicts no neutrinos" on page 79.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...e-advertizing-4.7844589/page-79#post-69799507
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
