Usual ranting: See my signature for Michael's many delusions about magnetic reconeciton in vacuum repeated many time over the last 5 years.
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
RC is lying again. Somov *included* the very thing that Clinger and RC left out, namely *the transfer of field energy to particle kinetic energy*. RC is clueless about plasma physics. That's why he never provides us with a *rate* of 'reconnection' in Clinger's "toy", and that's why his toy is *falsified* by Somov's example. Even his own reference "Priest" called his model a "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?
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
You are simply lying about what Findlay states, and your lack of a supporting quote is the proof that you're lying.
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 102 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
RC simply lied when he claimed that page 79 supported his erroneous claim about "no neutrinos".
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...e-advertizing-4.7844589/page-79#post-69799507
Upvote
0
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 102 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?
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
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 102 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
Usual lies about me and Brian Koberlein's blog article:
Michael's delusions about the Sun held since 2005, lightning in plasma, magnetic reconnection in vacuum, the work of Birkeland, Electric Universe sources and an EU critique.
Michael's delusions about the Sun held since 2005, lightning in plasma, magnetic reconnection in vacuum, the work of Birkeland, Electric Universe sources and an EU critique.
Upvote
0
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 102 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?
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, transparent 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
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Here's six of the blatant lies that you have personally told that you've never addressed:
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 102 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?
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, transparent 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
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Repeating his list of missing references lie yet again: Michael's delusions about the Sun held since 2005, lightning in plasma, magnetic reconnection in vacuum, the work of Birkeland, Electric Universe sources and an EU critique, his invalid, ignored CNO cycle paper.
Upvote
0
Here are the dozens or even hundreds of delusions and lies that you have not addressed in the last 11 years
!Michael's delusions about the Sun held since 2005, lightning in plasma, magnetic reconnection in vacuum, the work of Birkeland, Electric Universe sources and an EU critique, his invalid, ignored CNO cycle paper.
Upvote
0
Yep. When are you going to provide them RC?
RC's ever growing list of missing references:
1) No specific quote from Findlay was cited to support RC's erroneous claim that Findlay predicts "no fusion" or "no neutrinos" from the sun. All we ever get are vague, absurd handwaves that don't say what RC claims that they say. Neither page 102 or 79 say what RC claims that EU theory predicts no neutrinos.
2) No published reference agrees with RC that the term "actual" has any *actual* scientific meaning to contradict Dungey's claim that electrical discharges occur in solar flares and plasma. No published reference ever claimed that "actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma". Never. No published reference ever said "actual" had any scientific meaning either. RC made that all up by himself.
3) No published reference to support RC/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 refuses to provide a mathematical description of the *rate* of reconnection in Clinger's lame/toy model of "reconnection".
6) RC has not provided a published reference to refute the published CNO fusion paper that supports Scott's fusion from plasma pinch ideas.
When are you going to finish your physics homework assignments RC, or shall I just give you an F- in reading comprehension skills?
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, transparent lie that Brian has told for more than two years RC?
No, Findlay didn't say "EU theory predicts no neutrinos" on page 79 or page 102.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...e-advertizing-4.7844589/page-79#post-69799507
Upvote
0
Here are the dozens or even hundreds of delusions and lies that you have not addressed in the last 11 years with the published scientific references showing that you have stated delusions and lies
Michael's delusions about the Sun held since 2005, lightning in plasma, magnetic reconnection in vacuum, the work of Birkeland, Electric Universe sources and an EU critique, his invalid, ignored CNO cycle paper.
Do you want me to list everyone of them again in new posts? I will start with the latest and you reply with rational posts.
Upvote
0
The delusions start with putting the transition region which is in the solar atmosphere, inside the Sun !
!
Upvote
0
Enough published references yet, Michael - you will have to know how to click links to the Wikipoedia references
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Speaking of delusions and lies, you have lied consistently. We can all tell that you're lying because you have *never* addressed any of these *specific* questions/request, and you've never provided any *published* answers. You just lie on a daily basis because you're an EU bigot.
RC's ever growing list of missing references:
1) No specific quote from Findlay was cited to support RC's erroneous claim that Findlay predicts "no fusion" or "no neutrinos" from the sun. All we ever get are vague, absurd handwaves that don't say what RC claims that they say. Neither page 102 or 79 say what RC claims that EU theory predicts no neutrinos.
2) No published reference agrees with RC that the term "actual" has any *actual* scientific meaning to contradict Dungey's claim that electrical discharges occur in solar flares and plasma. No published reference ever claimed that "actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma". Never. No published reference ever said "actual" had any scientific meaning either. RC made that all up by himself.
3) No published reference to support RC/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 refuses to provide a mathematical description of the *rate* of reconnection in Clinger's lame/toy model of "reconnection".
6) RC has not provided a published reference to refute the published CNO fusion paper that supports Scott's fusion from plasma pinch ideas.
When are you going to finish your physics homework assignments RC, or shall I just give you an F- in reading comprehension skills?
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, transparent lie that Brian has told for more than two years RC?
No, Findlay didn't say "EU theory predicts no neutrinos" on page 79 or page 102.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...e-advertizing-4.7844589/page-79#post-69799507
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
