Lambda-CDM - Pure Confirmation Bias Run Amuck

[RealityCheck01]

You cannot understand English because you and Clinger left out the *transfer of energy*!-...

Your delusions about MR in vacuum is nothing to do with MR in plasma.
28 June 2016 Michael: A lie that I cannot comprehend the English in the Wikipedia article describing MR happening in plasma.

28 June 2016 Michael: Lies again about lightning ("actual electrical discharges') being mentioned in Dungey's papers.

28 June 2016 Michael: Lies again about no published reference to MR in vacuum (Somov's textbook and papers are published reference!)
28 June 2016 Michael: The delusion that moving fridge (bar) magnets will not cause magnetic lines to reconnect, i.e. magnetic reconnection!
Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum continues from Nov 2011!

28 June 2016 Michael: Valid papers get cited thus your ignored paper is so obviously invalid that one has cited it or bothered to write a rebuttal.

28 June 2016 Michael: Persists with the lie that he does not know about a Findlay quote given to him on 21 June 2016.
22 June 2016 Michael: It is a lie that I have stated that Findlay states that no neutrinos are emitted from stars.

 

[Michael]

Your delusions about MR in vacuum is nothing to do with MR in plasma.

Unlike you and Clinger, Somov's example was *inclusive* of the transfer of field energy into charged particle acceleration and therefore his example, unlike your example was *congruent* with the WIKI definition. You don't even have a math formula to describe a *rate* of reconnection in Clingers toy.

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?

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 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

 

[Michael]

28 June 2016 Michael: Lies again about lightning ("actual electrical discharges') being mentioned in Dungey's papers.

RC lies about me saying a word about "lightning" with respect to Dungey's claim about electrical discharges in solar flares. RC lies again when he suggests that the term "actual" has any scientific meaning.


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?

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 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

 

[Michael]

Sock puppet or mind reader RC?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Unlike you and Clinger...

Usual delusions about Somov, etc (see my signature).

1. 28 June 2016 Michael: A lie that I cannot comprehend the English in the Wikipedia article describing MR happening in plasma.
2. 28 June 2016 Michael: Valid papers get cited thus your ignored paper is so obviously invalid that one has cited it or bothered to write a rebuttal.
3. 28 June 2016 Michael: Lies again about lightning ("actual electrical discharges') being mentioned in Dungey's papers - see my signature.
4. 28 June 2016 Michael: Lies again about no published reference to MR in vacuum (Somov's textbook and papers are published reference!) - see my signature
5. 28 June 2016 Michael: The delusion that moving fridge (bar) magnets will not cause magnetic lines to reconnect, i.e. magnetic reconnection!
6. 28 June 2016 Michael: Persists with the lie that he does not know about a Findlay quote given to him on 21 June 2016.
7. 22 June 2016 Michael: It is a lie that I have stated that Findlay states that no neutrinos are emitted from stars.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Sock puppet or mind reader RC?

No: Still ignorant enough to believe in the ideas of the lying and deluded Wal Thornhill, Michael?

 

[Michael]

No: Still ignorant enough to believe in the ideas of the lying and deluded Wal Thornhill, Michael?

You're still ignorant enough to believe in the lies and bigoted delusions of Brian Koberlein.

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?

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 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

 

[Michael]

Usual delusions about Somov, etc (see my signature).

You lied about Somov's example. Unlike you and Clinger, Somov *transferred field energy to charged particle kinetic energy. You and Clinger lied, and your lack of math formula to describe the *rate* of reconnection in your model is proof positive that you're talking nonsense.

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?

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 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

 

[RealityCheck01]

You're still ...

Are you admitting that Wal Thornhill is a liar and deluded (see my signature).

1. 28 June 2016 Michael: Do you agree with Wal Thornhill that comets are rocks blasted off the surface of planets in the last few thousand years by electrical discharges between planets as they whizzed around to meet the needs of various ancient stories?
   Any answer or can we assume that you believe in this EU delusion?
2. 28 June 2016 Michael: That web page from the deluded (a Velikovskian!), liar Wal Thornhil is 15 years old - it is outdated even in the EU world !
3. 28 June 2016 Michael: Citing an outdated, invalid, ignorant Thornhill idea does not make you look smart.
4. 28 June 2016 Michael: A lie that I cannot comprehend the English in the Wikipedia article describing MR happening in plasma.
5. 28 June 2016 Michael: Valid papers get cited thus your ignored paper is so obviously invalid that one has cited it or bothered to write a rebuttal.
6. 28 June 2016 Michael: Lies again about lightning ("actual electrical discharges') being mentioned in Dungey's papers - see my signature.
7. 28 June 2016 Michael: Lies again about no published reference to MR in vacuum (Somov's textbook and papers are published reference!) - see my signature
8. 28 June 2016 Michael: The delusion that moving fridge (bar) magnets will not cause magnetic lines to reconnect, i.e. magnetic reconnection!
9. 28 June 2016 Michael: Persists with the lie that he does not know about a Findlay quote given to him on 21 June 2016.
10. 22 June 2016 Michael: It is a lie that I have stated that Findlay states that no neutrinos are emitted from stars.

You are really insisting that all of your old delusions be posted again, e.g. Denial of Plasma physics:
20 March 2012 Michael Mozina: A delusion that a reconnection rate exists without plasma
20 March 2012 Michael Mozina: What is the Alfvén speed for a reconnection rate for a vacuum (i.e. dividing by 0 gives?)

 

[Michael]

Are you admitting that Wal Thornhill is a liar and deluded (see my signature).

No, I'm admitting that Brian Koberlein is a pathological liar when he claimed EU theory predicts no neutrinos, and a deluded liar when he blames his *mistake* on Findlay on page 102. You're lying that Koberlein even cited page 79, and you're lying when you claim it's an "either/or" proposition on page 79. Thornhill's model *is electric* and it generates *fusion* in the upper atmosphere.

 

[Michael]

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?

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 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

 

[Michael]

Sock puppet or mind reader RC? Koberlein never even mentioned page 79, and page 79 doesn't "predict no neutrinos". Such erroneous claims are based upon pure bigotry and ignorance.

 

[Michael]

28 June 2016 Michael: Lies again about lightning ("actual electrical discharges') being mentioned in Dungey's papers - see my signature.

RC is lying when he claims that I said anything about lightning with respect to Dungey's electrical discharges in plasma paper. He lies some more when he claims that the term "actual" has any scientific meaning whatsoever.

 

[RealityCheck01]

No, I'm admitting ....

Usual irrational insults about Brian Koberlein.
28 June 2016 Michael: A iie that I claimed "Koberlein even cited page 79" when I never stated that.
I was the one who cited page 79. Brian Koberlein cited page 102.

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.

This particular book has been endorsed by Thornhill as a good introduction to EU, so it is fair to hold it up as an example. If no fusion occurs in the Sun, the Sun must therefore produce no neutrinos.

The only thing that makes me look foolish is continuing to engage with EU folks who don’t understand the ridiculous predictions of their model

28 June 2016 Michael: A delusion about Findlay's page 79 being an imaginary "either/or" proposition.
Page 79 is an explicit statement the Sun (and so stars) are not fusion powered. No "either" No "or". No EU idea.
Page 79 is an explicit statement that Findlay will be returning "to take a close look at how all stars actually do work, electrically of course."

1. 28 June 2016 Michael: Do you agree with Wal Thornhill that comets are rocks blasted off the surface of planets in the last few thousand years by electrical discharges between planets as they whizzed around to meet the needs of various ancient stories?
   Any answer or can we assume that you believe in this EU delusion?
2. 28 June 2016 Michael: That web page from the deluded (a Velikovskian!), liar Wal Thornhil is 15 years old - it is outdated even in the EU world !
3. 28 June 2016 Michael: Citing an outdated, invalid, ignorant Thornhill idea does not make you look smart.
4. 28 June 2016 Michael: A lie that I cannot comprehend the English in the Wikipedia article describing MR happening in plasma.
5. 28 June 2016 Michael: Valid papers get cited thus your ignored paper is so obviously invalid that one has cited it or bothered to write a rebuttal.
6. 28 June 2016 Michael: Lies again about lightning ("actual electrical discharges') being mentioned in Dungey's papers - see my signature.
7. 28 June 2016 Michael: Lies again about no published reference to MR in vacuum (Somov's textbook and papers are published reference!) - see my signature
8. 28 June 2016 Michael: The delusion that moving fridge (bar) magnets will not cause magnetic lines to reconnect, i.e. magnetic reconnection!
9. 28 June 2016 Michael: Persists with the lie that he does not know about a Findlay quote given to him on 21 June 2016.
10. 22 June 2016 Michael: It is a lie that I have stated that Findlay states that no neutrinos are emitted from stars.
11. 20 March 2012 Michael Mozina: A delusion that a reconnection rate exists without plasma
12. 20 March 2012 Michael Mozina: What is the Alfvén speed for a reconnection rate for a vacuum (i.e. dividing by 0 gives?)

 

[Michael]

Usual irrational insults about Brian Koberlein.

It's not my fault he's been pathologically lying about EU theory for 2+ years. Nobody forced him to be so unprofessional as to cite two references that he never bothered to read and erroneously misrepresent Findlay's work. He did that all to himself, and that's why he's been forced to ban the first four people that pointed out his neutrino error.

28 June 2016 Michael: A iie that I claimed "Koberlein even cited page 79" when I never stated that.

Then stop putting words in Koberlein's mouth or just admit that your nothing more than his sock puppet.

You lied about the contents of page 79, and Koberlein lied about the contents of page 102. Neither page "predicts no neutrinos". You (both?) lied.

 

[Michael]

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?

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 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

 

[Michael]

Page 79 is an explicit statement that Findlay will be returning "to take a close look at how all stars actually do work, electrically of course."

If Brian Koberlein were actually a "professional" as advertised, he would have read *all three* references and made sure that his "interpretations" of their work were all congruent before he claimed to be presenting *Thornhill's* model. Koberlein is apparently no "professional" at all since evidently he was too cheap and/or too lazy even read all the references he listed, let alone make sure that his own personal *interpretations* were correct! Koberlein has no ethics and neither do you which is why I'm certain that you're nothing more than his sock puppet RC.

Scott's model "works electrically of course" RC, and it *includes* fusion in the atmosphere. Get it?

 

[Michael]

28 June 2016 Michael: A lie that I cannot comprehend the English in the Wikipedia article describing MR happening in plasma.

You cannot understand English because you and Clinger *left out* the transfer of energy! Duh! Where's your math related to the *rate* of reconnection that we can expect from Clinger's "toy"? Run sock puppet run.

 

[Michael]

22 June 2016 Michael: It is a lie that I have stated that Findlay states that no neutrinos are emitted from stars.

Really? Then you freely admit that you personally disagree with lying Brian?

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.

Is he right or wrong RC?

The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Then you freely admit that you personally disagree with lying Brian?

I do not freely admit anything about a post that includes irrational insults, Michael.

I agree with the true statements that Brian made in his blog.
Findlay states stars are not fusion powered - he is wrong. I and Brian agree on this.
Scott predicts neutrino flux varying with sunspot number - he is wrong. I and Brian agree on this.

28 June 2016 Michael: A iie that I claimed "Koberlein even cited page 79" when I never stated that.
28 June 2016 Michael: A delusion about Findlay's page 79 being an imaginary "either/or" proposition.

1. 28 June 2016 Michael: Do you agree with Wal Thornhill that comets are rocks blasted off the surface of planets in the last few thousand years by electrical discharges between planets as they whizzed around to meet the needs of various ancient stories?
   Any answer or can we assume that you believe in this EU delusion?
   I will give you a week from 28 June 2016 to reply. and include the question in many replies so you have no excuse for missing it
2. 28 June 2016 Michael: That web page from the deluded (a Velikovskian!), liar Wal Thornhil is 15 years old - it is outdated even in the EU world !
3. 28 June 2016 Michael: Citing an outdated, invalid, ignorant Thornhill idea does not make you look smart.
4. 28 June 2016 Michael: A lie that I cannot comprehend the English in the Wikipedia article describing MR happening in plasma.
5. 28 June 2016 Michael: Valid papers get cited thus your ignored paper is so obviously invalid that one has cited it or bothered to write a rebuttal.
6. 28 June 2016 Michael: Lies again about lightning ("actual electrical discharges') being mentioned in Dungey's papers - see my signature.
7. 28 June 2016 Michael: Lies again about no published reference to MR in vacuum (Somov's textbook and papers are published reference!) - see my signature
8. 28 June 2016 Michael: The delusion that moving fridge (bar) magnets will not cause magnetic lines to reconnect, i.e. magnetic reconnection!
9. 28 June 2016 Michael: Persists with the lie that he does not know about a Findlay quote given to him on 21 June 2016.
10. 22 June 2016 Michael: It is a lie that I have stated that Findlay states that no neutrinos are emitted from stars.
11. 20 March 2012 Michael Mozina: A delusion that a reconnection rate exists without plasma
12. 20 March 2012 Michael Mozina: What is the Alfvén speed for a reconnection rate for a vacuum (i.e. dividing by 0 gives?)