Lambda-CDM - Pure Confirmation Bias Run Amuck

[Michael]

No one is asking that question because ....

because you are incapable of answering it. You lied about Findlay:

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.....

 

[RealityCheck01]

because you are incapable of answering it. ...

Is this: 30 June 2016 Michael: A list of the lies (one pathological) and delusions in your "list of missing references" !
or the updated today: 21 June 2016 Michael: Digging himself an ever deeper pit of delusions and even lies on EU sources and Brian Koberlein answering both the EU "no neutrinos" and "surface fusion" ideas.

I wrote: 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" !

It is both - the pathological lie that I do not provide published references (I cited Somov's textbook back in 2011 ) and Michael's irrelevant to my post lie about Findlay.

 

[Michael]

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

That's a flat out lie:

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]

2) Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.

That is a flat out lie. Dungey proved you wrong and the term "actual" has no scientific meaning. You're incapable of admitting your *blatant* mistakes.

 

[Michael]

3) 30 June 2016 Michael: The pathological lie that I have not provided published references to magnetic reconnection in vacuum.

Somov *destroyed* your claim because he transferred field energy into particle kinetic energy whereas you and pitiful Clinger don't have a charged particle to your sorry names. You're lying if you claim he didn't transfer field energy just like the WIKI reference. Are you going to lie about that RC? Yes or no?

 

[RealityCheck01]

That's a flat out lie:

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

 

[RealityCheck01]

Somov ..

Your delusions about Somov do not remove the fact that you lied about me providing published references: 30 June 2016 Michael: A list of the lies (one pathological) and delusions in your "list of missing references" !

 

[Michael]

Your delusions about Somov do not remove the fact that you lied about me providing published references

RC's ever growing list of missing references which actually *support* his following claims:
(Does that make you feel better RC?)

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]

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

Which one didn't didn't *destroy* your claim RC? Dungey? Somov? Priest? Which one?

 

[Michael]

RC's ever growing list of missing references which actually *support* his following claims:

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]

Dungey proved you wrong and the term "actual" has no scientific meaning.

Missed these 2 from 30 June 2016 Michael: A list of the lies (one pathological) and delusions in your "list of missing references" !
1 July 2016 Michael: The lie that I think that the word "actual" is a scientific term - it is a word in English ! I explain what "actual" means in my signature link.
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!

Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc. and as Michael knows "actual" is short for "electrical discharges that occur because a dielectric medium breaks down, e.g. lightning in the atmosphere".
1 July 2016 Michael: The repeated lie that Dungey proved that lightning for example happens in plasma - plasma conducts so no lightning, his "electrical discharge" was high current density in magnetic reconnection.
18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection

The question is does the at almost 5 years that Michael has repeated the Dungey lie make it pathological?
I will see on Monday - if he repeats the lie after being warned that is becoming pathological then it is pathological.

 

[Michael]

Missed these 2 from 30 June 2016 Michael: A list of the lies (one pathological) and delusions in your "list of missing references" !

In case you didn't notice, I updated my list to include the requirement that your listed references actually *support* your claim rather than destroy it as they have to date.

1 July 2016 Michael: The lie that I think that the word "actual" is a scientific term - it is a word in English ! I explain what "actual" means in my signature link.

You flat out lied when you claimed that electrical discharges are "impossible" plasma, and you lied when you put the term "actual" in there because it has no scientific meaning whatsoever.

This is simply that electrical discharges that result from the breakdown of a insulating medium are impossible in plasma because plasma conducts!

This is your own personal nonsense that has no *scientific* meaning. If you had any class at all you would have simply admitted the mistake. Instead you put the same mistake in your *sig line* for months if not years.

You've lied about that issue continuously since I first met you.

Say it for me now RC:

*Actual* electrical discharges are possible in plasma because the term "actual" is scientifically irrelevant, and electrical discharges are possible in plasma.

Go ahead RC, and just admit your mistake (or run as usual).

The question is does the at almost 5 years that Michael has repeated the Dungey lie make it pathological?

Er, which 'Dungey lie" might that be RC? The lie you told about electrical discharges being impossible in plasma? That was *your* lie, not mine and Dungey proved it.

I will see on Monday - if he repeats the lie after being warned that is becoming pathological then it is pathological.

Speaking of lies. Do you admit that EU solar models predict neutrinos? Yes or no?

RC's ever growing list of missing references which actually *support* his following claims:

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.....

Are you going to admit that you lied about Findlay yet?

 

[RealityCheck01]

...

4 July 2016 Michael: Cannot understand the meaning of the word predicts creating a lie about my quote of Findlay !
EU claim 1 (from the eBook): The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos (this is not a quote from Findlay).


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

 

[Michael]

4 July 2016 Michael: Cannot understand the meaning of the word predicts creating a lie about my quote of Findlay

You have blatantly lied about everyone from Dungey, to Findlay, to Thornhill and everyone else involved in EU theory because you're blind bigotry towards EU theory knows no bounds RC and you simply have no ethics at all.

RC's ever growing list of missing references which actually *support* his following claims:

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.....

Are you going to admit that you lied about Findlay yet?

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]

You have blatantly lied about everyone from Dungey, ...

Usual lies: 30 June 2016 Michael: A list of the lies (one pathological) and delusions in your "list of missing references" !
21 June 2016 Michael: Digging himself an ever deeper pit of delusions and even lies on EU sources and Brian Koberlein answering both the EU "no neutrinos" and "surface fusion" ideas.
Now including: 4 July 2016 Michael: Cannot understand the meaning of the word predicts creating a lie about my quote of Findlay !
EU claim 1 (from the eBook): The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos (this is not a quote from Findlay).

Maybe I should have one big list of the ignorance, delusions and lies though - that Findlay lie belongs in both lists.

 

[RealityCheck01]

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

Anyone who reads that post sees that you are lying about it, Michael.
21 June 2016 Michael: Digging himself an ever deeper pit of delusions and even lies on EU sources and Brian Koberlein answering both the EU "no neutrinos" and "surface fusion" ideas.
Now including: 4 July 2016 Michael: Cannot understand the meaning of the word predicts creating a lie about my quote of Findlay !
EU claim 1 (from the eBook): The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos (this is not a quote from Findlay).

 

[RealityCheck01]

Michael still 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 !

 

[Michael]

Anyone who reads that post sees....

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...enial-ignorance.7947642/page-25#post-69774984

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.....

Are you going to admit that you lied about Findlay yet?

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