Lambda-CDM - Pure Confirmation Bias Run Amuck

[RealityCheck01]

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

6 July 2016 Michael: The insane demand that I lie about what I wrote about Findlay !
People can read what I wrote: 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.

Findlay: Stars are not fusion powered + no mention of other stellar fusion thus no neutrinos.
...
21 June 2016 Michael: When is any evidence for the insult of "pathological lies" going to be presented?

1. Idiotically unsourced quotes repeated many times which I fixed lead to your comment there on 16 June 2016 showing you know that "2 years of lies" is a lie
2. 21 June 2016 Michael: A delusion that two (self contradicting!) EU claims cannot be addressed by two statements!
3. 21 June 2016 Michael: A lie that Koberlein did not "fix" the problem when you quote him addressing ("fixing") the problem!
4. 21 June 2016 Michael: It is a lie that there are quotes in the blog body (there are in the comments) and that these imaginary quotes have sources.
5. 21 June 2016 Michael: It is not a conflict to address one EU theory (no neutrinos) and later address another EU theory when you learn about it (neutrinos from imaginary z-pinches)
6. 21 June 2016 Michael: Testing the Electric Universe starts on 25 February 2014 with a list that agrees with Findlay's understanding of EU.
7. 21 June 2016 Michael: The delusion that a missed EU idea addressed in July 2014 becomes "lies" forever!
8. 22 June 2016 Michael: An obvious lie about Brian Koberlein being ignorant about the EU "no neutrinos" idea.
9. 22 June 2016 Michael: The probable hypocrisy of accusing Brian Koberlein of not doing his research when it looks like Michael has not read the source Koberlein cites (an accessible PDF!).
10. 22 June 2016 Michael: The repeated demand that Brian Koberlein lie by editing his comments.
11. 22 June 2016 Michael: The repeated inanity of thinking I can make Brian Koberlein lie by altering his blog. I do not own his blog. I cannot make him do anything. I do not want to make him lie.
12. 22 June 2016 Michael: A fact less assertion (lie?) about 4 people being banned for calling Brian Koberlein a liar: "pointed out his lie about 'no neutrinos'". If true this is reasonable - this is his blog, he can ban people who insult him or other commentators.
13. 22 June 2016 Michael: The delusion that Brian Koberlein states that Findlay states "no neutrinos" when he actually writes that Findlay says the Sun is not powered by fusion.
14. 22 June 2016 Michael: It is a lie that I have stated that Findlay states that no neutrinos are emitted from stars.
15. 23 June 2016 Michael: It is not mutually exclusive to address one EU theory (no neutrinos) in the body of a log and later address another different EU theory in comment when you learn about it (neutrinos from imaginary z-pinches)
16. 23 June 2016 Michael: Cite the page and quote the text where Thornhill predicts the production of solar neutrinos from z-pinches.
17. 23 June 2016 Michael: Cite the many scientific papers reporting that satellites in space detected z-pinches in the solar atmosphere.
18. 23 June 2016 Michael: Cite the many scientific papers reporting that satellites in space detected fusion from z-pinches in the solar atmosphere.
19. 4 July 2016 Michael: Cannot understand the meaning of the word predicts creating a lie about my quote of Findlay !

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

We will be returning to the idea of nuclear fusion-powered stars later to delve into why this, in fact, is not the way the Sun works and to take a close look at how all stars actually do work, electrically of course.

 

[Michael]

6 July 2016 Michael: The insane demand that I lie about what I wrote about Findlay

You lied about what Findlay wrote RC, and you bore false witness against him in the following posts:

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

Those were lies that you told, and false witness that you bore against your fellow man, Findlay. The only "insane" part is your refusal to acknowledge the lies that you keep telling with respect to EU theory in general, not just the false witness you bear against me personally.

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 lied about what Findlay wrote RC,...

Added 6 July 2016 Michael: The repeated insane demand that I lie about what I wrote about Findlay !
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]

6 July 2016 Michael: The insane demand that I lie about what I wrote about Findlay

You lied about what Findlay wrote RC, and you bore false witness against him in the following posts:

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

Those were lies that you told, and false witness that you bore against your fellow man, Findlay. The only "insane" part is your refusal to acknowledge the lies that you keep telling with respect to EU theory in general, not just the false witness you bear against me personally.

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 lied ...

Your documented lies: 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.
And then there is:
30 June 2016 Michael: A list of the lies (one pathological) and delusions in your "list of missing references" !
and
Another set of delusions and lies in Lambda-CDM - Pure Confirmation Bias Run Amuck thread
and the lies listed in my signature, e.g. that several magnetic reconnection in vacuum examples contain plasma.

 

[Michael]

6 July 2016 Michael: The insane demand that I lie about what I wrote about Findlay

You lied about what Findlay wrote RC, and you bore false witness against him in the following posts:

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

Those were lies that you told, and false witness that you bore against your fellow man, Findlay. The only "insane" part is your refusal to acknowledge the lies that you keep telling with respect to EU theory in general, not just the false witness you bear against me personally.

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 lied ...

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]

6 July 2016 Michael: The insane demand that I lie about what I wrote about Findlay

You lied about what Findlay wrote RC, and you bore false witness against him in the following posts:

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

Those were lies that you told, and false witness that you bore against your fellow man, Findlay. The only "insane" part is your refusal to acknowledge the lies that you keep telling with respect to EU theory in general, not just the false witness you bear against me personally.

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 lied ...

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.
To be added:

• 6 July 2016 Michael: The delusion that a personal blog is scientific literature !
• 6 July 2016 Michael: It is a lie that I have stated pages 102 and 79 of Findlay contain predictions.
• 6 July 2016 Michael: How stupid do you think Thornhill is - he read Findlay's eBook and did not see that it missed his idea(s) for neutrino production!
• 6 July 2016 Michael: How stupid do you think Scott is - he read Findlay's eBook and did not see that it missed his idea for fusion!
• 6 July 2016 Michael: Findlay on page 102 argues against the fusion model but is just ignorant about stellar fusion and x-rays.
• 6 July 2016 Michael: An admission of not reading Findlay or the usual lie about Findlay?
• 6 July 2016 Michael: Listing the evidence that an author has written ignorance and delusions (presumably borrowed from other EU sources by Findlay) is not slander which is generally making false claims.

 

[Michael]

Spam, spam, spam, spam.......

You can't even keep your stories straight about what you said about Findlay. What a self conflicted riot!

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

THIS THREAD IS CLOSED FOR REVIEW

The flaming needs to stop now!​

 

[mnorian]

Mod Hat On

This Thread Permanently Closed
For Flaming
Thank You
Mod Hat Off ​