Lambda-CDM - Pure Confirmation Bias Run Amuck

[Michael]

Taking about hijacking threads. I tried to get back to the topic...

If you *actually* want to get back on topic, deal with your missing references already!

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

Pathological lying can be described as a habituation of lying. It is when an individual consistently lies for no personal gain. The lies are commonly transparent and often seem rather pointless.

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, 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

 

[RealityCheck01]

If you *actually* want to get back on topic, ..

The usual insults, lies and delusions are not a rational reply to an attempt to return to the topic of this thread:

• 31 May 2016 Michael: The delusion that the universe must cater for your expectations and contain dark matter particles that can be detected in experiments here on Earth.
• 31 May 2016 Michael: Ignorance about dark energy which has several lines of evidence, not one "entire basis".
• 31 May 2016 Michael: What looks like a fantasy that the discovery that Type 1A supernova as not as standard as we thought will make dark energy not exist.
• 31 May 2016 Michael: Ignorance about the several lines of evidence for inflation and that not detecting gravitational waves from it (yet) leaves inflation valid.
• 7 June 2016 Michael: Delusions about papers unrelated to dark matter and a lie about dark matter !
• 15 June 2016 Michael: Cite the scientific literature that shows that Kauffmann et al. 2003 is wrong.
• 15 June 2016 Michael: Can you understand the difference between inside a galaxy and outside a galaxy?
• 15 June 2016 Michael: Repeats an argument from authority (Edwin Hubble) as if thousands of cosmologists did not exist !

 

[Michael]

The usual insults, lies and delusions are not a rational reply......

Then why do you keep doing those things 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

Pathological lying can be described as a habituation of lying. It is when an individual consistently lies for no personal gain. The lies are commonly transparent and often seem rather pointless.

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, 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

 

[Michael]

Are you *ever* going to provide us with a quote from Findlay and demonstrates that Brian Koberlein is *not* a pathological liar, or can we assume you've given up all hope of finding such a quote at this point?

 

[RealityCheck01]

RC's ever growing list of missing references:

30 June 2016 Michael: A list of the lies and delusions in your "list of missing references" !

1) 22 June 2016 Michael: It is a lie that I have stated that Findlay states that no neutrinos are emitted from stars.

2) Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.
This is simply that electrical discharges that result from the breakdown of a insulating medium are impossible in plasma because plasma conducts!
30 June 2016 Michael: The delusion that the simple fact that plasma conducts needs a published reference!

3) 30 June 2016 Michael: The pathological lie that I have not provided published references to magnetic reconnection in vacuum. Pathological because Michael knows about: Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum continues from Nov 2011! This lists a plasma physics textbook section and example which contains only currents and vacuum + half a dozen published papers that refer to MR in vacuum + a textbook exercise on MR in vacuum.
3rd November 2011: I give 2 published references (Priest 1990 and Somov's textbook) to MR in vacuum as requested by Michael Mozina !

4) 30 June 2016 Michael: The delusion that I would waste my time catering to the demands of a liar as documented in this post.
30 June 2016 Michael: Your delusion that MR does not happen in vacuum does not stop magnetic field lines from reconnecting in air.

5) 30 June 2016 Michael: The delusion that I am as deluded as he is about a rate of magnetic reconnection defined for plasma existing for MR in vacuum.
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?)
30 June 2016 Michael: The delusion that his ignorance and denial of electromagnetism makes a tutorial derivation of MR in vacuum from Maxwell's equations invalid.

6) 30 June 2016 Michael: The delusion that people cite scientific papers that have never been written !
This is the real world of evaluating scientific papers which leads to Michael's ignored CNO paper being invalid, e.g. because of the ignorance and delusions of the authors.

Plus
30 June 2016 Michael: A blatant lie that I have never provided a *published* reference when you asked for it. I have provided you many references when you made a rational request (see my signature).

 

[Michael]

Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.

Lies, lies, lies ya....

You've lied *repeatedly* about the term "actual" having any *actual* scientific meaning for over 5 years now RC. That's definitely *pathological* behavior. Every time I ask you for a *published* paper to support that claim, you run like a frightened rabbit just like your going to do again right now, just watch.

 

[Michael]

It is a lie that I have stated that Findlay states that no neutrinos are emitted from stars.

Since you're evidently distancing yourself from that erroneous claim, can we assume that you've given up and you admit that Brian Koberlein is a pathological liar?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_lying

Pathological lying can be described as a habituation of lying. It is when an individual consistently lies for no personal gain. The lies are commonly transparent and often seem rather pointless.

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, 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

 

[Michael]

It is a lie that I have stated that Findlay states that no neutrinos are emitted from stars.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...enial-ignorance.7947642/page-25#post-69774518

EU claim 1 (from the eBook): The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...enial-ignorance.7947642/page-25#post-69772233

The page and paragraph where Findlay states that stars are not fusion powered is Page 79

Lies, lies, lies, ya.....

 

[Michael]

Do you even know how to tell the truth RC?

 

[RealityCheck01]

This is the real world of evaluating scientific papers which leads to Michael's CNO paper being invalid, e.g. because of the ignorance and delusions of the authors.
has had the following added:
30 June 2016 Michael: Anyone who knows about the Sun and nuclear physics (not any of the authors of the paper!) will note that

1. The temperature and pressure in solar flares is not enough to create fusion.
2. The cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection which is not a viable mechanism to create fusion, e.g. no proposals for MR fusion power systems!
3. The CNO cycle does not release neutrons. The "13C(alpha, n)16O" reaction in the abstract is not part of the CNO cycle !

If I was sure that Michael's response would not be the repeated 30 June 2016 Michael: A list of the lies and delusions in your "list of missing references" ! or something equably irrelevant, irrational or insulting then I would investigate whether the Wikipedia article was complete. Maybe there is a rare path in the CNO cycle in the literature that did not get into Wikipedia.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Since you're evidently distancing yourself from that erroneous claim,..

Your lie about my claim is not "distancing yourself"
30 June 2016 Michael: A list of the lies and delusions in your "list of missing references" !
or support for lies that are now definitely pathological about Brian Koberlein.
Delusions, lies, etc. about Electric Universe sources and an EU critique.
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]

This is the real world of evaluating scientific papers...

That is true, but then we have to ask ourselves why are you personally incapable of supporting your claims with any *published* papers?

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

Pathological lying can be described as a habituation of lying. It is when an individual consistently lies for no personal gain. The lies are commonly transparent and often seem rather pointless.

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, 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

 

[Michael]

Your lie about my claim is not "distancing yourself"

What? You're totally losing it at this point. You can't even keep your stories straight about Findlay. Did you make that erroneous claim about Findlay predicting "no fusion" on page 79 or not? Are you *falsely* accusing Findlay of predicting no neutrinos in Thornhill's solar model like Koberlein, or do you admit that Koberlein has simply lied for 2 and a half years?

 

[Michael]

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

Pathological lying can be described as a habituation of lying. It is when an individual consistently lies for no personal gain. The lies are commonly transparent and often seem rather pointless.

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, 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

 

[RealityCheck01]

Strange nothing new to add to
30 June 2016 Michael: A list of the lies and delusions in your "list of missing references" !
except maybe: 1 July 2016 Michael: A lie about an "ever growing" list - your lies and delusions in that post have fairly constant!

 

[RealityCheck01]

What? ...

No rational response to: 30 June 2016 Michael: A list of the lies and delusions in your "list of missing references" !
Or
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]

That is true, but then we have to ask ourselves why are you personally incapable of supporting your claims with any *published* papers?

No one is asking that question because it is a pathological (thanks for the definition , Michael) lie - see my signature or 30 June 2016 Michael: A list of the lies and delusions in your "list of missing references" !

 

[RealityCheck01]

An attempt to return to the topic of this thread seems doomed to failure since Michael cannot understand even simple facts about the real world, e.g. that a paper that does not count stars does not count stars or that the mass of a galaxy does not include stars outside of the galaxy.

• 31 May 2016 Michael: The delusion that the universe must cater for your expectations and contain dark matter particles that can be detected in experiments here on Earth.
• 31 May 2016 Michael: Ignorance about dark energy which has several lines of evidence, not one "entire basis".
• 31 May 2016 Michael: What looks like a fantasy that the discovery that Type 1A supernova as not as standard as we thought will make dark energy not exist.
• 31 May 2016 Michael: Ignorance about the several lines of evidence for inflation and that not detecting gravitational waves from it (yet) leaves inflation valid.
• 7 June 2016 Michael: Delusions about papers unrelated to dark matter and a lie about dark matter !
• 15 June 2016 Michael: Cite the scientific literature that shows that Kauffmann et al. 2003 is wrong.
• 15 June 2016 Michael: Can you understand the difference between inside a galaxy and outside a galaxy?
• 15 June 2016 Michael: Repeats an argument from authority (Edwin Hubble) as if thousands of cosmologists did not exist !

I guess we have to stay with the current topic of Michael digging himself ever deeper into a pit of ignorance, delusions and even lies about science.

This is a pity because there are actual issues with the Lambda-CDM model but trying to discuss them would be buried in a flood of irrelevant, fact less posts.

 

[Michael]

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

Pathological lying can be described as a habituation of lying. It is when an individual consistently lies for no personal gain. The lies are commonly transparent and often seem rather pointless.

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, 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

 

[Michael]

It is a lie that I have stated that Findlay states that no neutrinos are emitted from stars.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...enial-ignorance.7947642/page-25#post-69774518

EU claim 1 (from the eBook): The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...enial-ignorance.7947642/page-25#post-69772233

The page and paragraph where Findlay states that stars are not fusion powered is Page 79

Lies, lies, lies, ya.....