Lambda-CDM - Pure Confirmation Bias Run Amuck

[RealityCheck01]

Who do you think you're kidding?

Obviously not someone who seems to be lying about the contents of this thread!
16 June 2016 Michael: List the posts before yours by other posters on the topics of your science denial, electrical discharges and magnetic reconnection in vacuum by other posters.

 

[Michael]

Obviously not someone who seems to be lying about the contents of this thread!
16 June 2016 Michael: List the posts before yours by other posters on the topics of your science denial, electrical discharges and magnetic reconnection in vacuum by other posters.

Everyone can read the various threads for themselves RC.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Everyone can read the various threads for themselves RC.

So you acknowledge that you hijacked this thread thorough not answering a simple question:
16 June 2016 Michael: List the posts before yours by other posters on the topics of your science denial, electrical discharges and magnetic reconnection in vacuum by other posters.

If you want. lets make all of the threads on topic. This thread is about your "evidence" against the Lambda-CDM model that turned out to be ignorance, fantasies, delusions and a lie before you hijacked it.
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 !

Any post that does not address the issues, e.g. that Clowe et. al did not count stars or use visible light, that stars outside of galaxies add mass to the galaxy, etc. are hijacks.

You can be honest and acknowledge mistakes, for example that not detecting dark matter particles in labs here on Earth does not make then not exist.

You can astound us with your knowledge of science and cite the scientific literature that shows that only dark matter particles that we should have already detected in labs here on Earth can exist.

 

[mzungu]

Galaxies, stars, etc. Do not exist. The evidence being that no one has managed to create them in a lab here on Earth!
Case closed.

 

[Michael]

So you acknowledge that you hijacked this thread thorough not answering a simple question:

No, I acknowledge that *you* hijacked three different threads by interjecting stuff that has nothing to do with the thread(s) (plural) in question. If you want to discuss solar theory, start your own thread!

16 June 2016 Michael[/B]: List the posts before yours by other posters on the topics of your science denial, electrical discharges and magnetic reconnection in vacuum by other posters.

None of you have provided a published reference that supports you bogus claims, so there's really nothing to 'deny'. The only denial going here is your denial process which is easy to demonstrate. Where's you external published reference that claimed that "actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma" RC? Watch how fast you run!

If you want. lets make all of the threads on topic. This thread is about your "evidence" against the Lambda-CDM model

That would be a nice change in your case.

that turned out to be ignorance, fantasies, delusions and a lie

Hey look, you cheated again by interjecting your emotional terms from your sleazy bag of tricks again! Who would have guessed? Just out of curiosity, is it even possible for you to engage in moral debate behaviors, or is your immorality such that you're incapable of actual debating topics ethically?

The delusion that the universe must cater for your expectations and contain dark matter particles that can be detected in experiments here on Earth.

The only real delusion RC is you delusion that your theory is falsifiable in the first place or that you so called "tests" matter to you in the first place. Dark matter "tests" have all been a complete and total disaster. Nothing you "predicted" was correct. Nothing you "tested" worked out as you "guessed". No number of failed attempts can falsify the claim so it's become a *religion* devoid of any real falsification potential.

How many failed 'tests' does it take to falsify your claim anyway?

Ignorance about dark energy which has several lines of evidence, not one "entire basis".

Dark energy was "invented" to explain SN1A data patterns RC. There are no 'several' lines of evidence. There's only one line, and it's been shown to be a *false assumption* about the nature of SN1A events.

the discovery that Type 1A supernova as not as standard as we thought will make dark energy not exist.

Your entire basis for the original claim has been falsified. The *assumption* that SN1A events all the same has been blown out of the water. You have no idea how much *if any* 'dark energy' is required to explain the real SN1A events now that we know that they come in multiple flavors.

Ignorance about the several lines of evidence for inflation and that not detecting gravitational waves from it (yet) leaves inflation valid.

You kludged that so bad I have no idea what you're talking about. It's not my fault that you so called 'experts' can't tell the difference between inflation evidence and the emission patterns of polarized photons from dust around our own galaxy. What a fiasco that Bicep2 paper turned into. The existence (or lack thereof) of gravity waves does nothing to support inflation theory. GR isn't dependent upon inflation for it's scientific legitimacy.

I haven't seen you even tough the dark matter problems. You've simply handwaved at them thus far. I've also cited the exact evidence that lays waste to your various dark matter claims and you haven't touched any of it with a 10 foot pole. I'll skip the irrelevant stuff.

You can astound us with your knowledge of science and cite the scientific literature that shows that only dark matter particles that we should have already detected in labs here on Earth can exist.

What's the point of your "tests" RC? You don't care about the outcome of them anyway. A million fails won't falsify the claim apparently. You have five or six fails going already, many of them multiple times, with multiple upgrades, supposedly based on "better" technology. Still nothing. It's been one giant fail after another in the lab for over a decade. Worse yet, the baryonic mass estimates used in that landmark 2006 paper were shown to be utterly and totally flawed in nearly every possible way imaginable.

 

[Michael]

Galaxies, stars, etc. Do not exist. The evidence being that no one has managed to create them in a lab here on Earth!
Case closed.

You're still confusing scaling problems with ad hoc insertion problems. Peratt used ordinary physical processes in plasma to simulate galaxy formation processes and they turned out to look remarkably like the real deal. Who would have guessed? He also did so *without* liberally adding a bunch of supernatural forces of nature into his computer simulations too.

 

[RealityCheck01]

No, I acknowledge that ...

You present no evidence so I have to suspect that you are lying, Michael.
The evidence is that this thread was hijacked by you: 16 June 2016 Michael: List the posts before yours by other posters on the topics of your science denial, electrical discharges and magnetic reconnection in vacuum by other posters.

The rest of your post is fact less text (not one citation of the scientific literature stating that any part of the Lambda-CDM model is wrong !) so back to the thread topic:
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 !

 

[RealityCheck01]

Peratt used ordinary physical processes in plasma to simulate galaxy formation processes and they turned out to look remarkably like the real deal.

Do you really want to hijack the thread into a fantasy about an obsolete invalid theory of galaxy formation?

The point is that no one has ever had a star or galaxy (or universe ) in a lab here on Earth. But no one is crazy enough to say that stellar physics or galaxy formation theories (or cosmology) cannot exist because of this. This is because empirical evidence includes observations. We observe light from stars, thus they exist and we can apply laws of physics to them and test models against observations. We observe light from galaxies, thus they exist and we can apply laws of physics to them and test models against observations.

For everyone else: Peratt's computer simulation back in 1986 created "mass images". i.e. maps of the positions of plasma particles. He wrongly compared these to light images. A spiral galaxy has mass between its arms, not none as in his images. A double-lobed radio galaxy is actually an elliptical galaxy with the radio lobes outside of the galaxy, not shaped like a double lobe as in his images.
For a full description of his model and its flaws see my ISF thread:
Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation from 4 June 2009
ETA: Peratt never repeated his computer simulations with bigger computers or better software. No one else has bothered either.
The computer simulations ignored gravity. A later paper that Peratt co-authored calculated an equation for the plasma an gravitational effects in his model. Plugging in reasonable values (which they seem never to have done) gives a gravitational term 10,000,000 times that of plasma!
Peratt seems to have abandoned the model after 1995.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Some science actually related to the thread for a change .
New Evidence Challenges Rate Of Cosmic Expansion is the blogger Brian Koberlein reporting on new research calculating the Hubble constant from 11 galaxies with 2,400 Cepheid variables where a Type Ia supernova also occurred.

That by itself is good work, but the result was surprising. The value for the Hubble parameter they got was about 73 km/s per megaparsec, which is higher than the “accepted” value of 69.3. The difference is large enough that it falls outside the uncertainty range of the accepted value. If the result is right, then it means the Universe is expanding at a faster rate than we thought. It could also point to an additional dark energy component in the early Universe, meaning that dark energy is very different than we’ve supposed.

N.B. By using local galaxies where we can observe Cepheid variables, the authors also avoided a recent finding with Type Ia supernova possibly having 2 classes - one of which is more frequent at higher z (distant galaxies) from memory.

 

[RealityCheck01]

This is the pre-print for the paper mentioned in the previous post:
The Changing Fractions of Type Ia Supernova NUV-Optical Subclasses with Redshift (Submitted 7 Aug 2014, Published 2015 April 9)
About a year old and no confirmation of the result yet.

 

[Michael]

Some science actually related to the thread for a change .
New Evidence Challenges Rate Of Cosmic Expansion is the blogger Brian Koberlein reporting on new research calculating the Hubble constant from 11 galaxies with 2,400 Cepheid variables where a Type Ia supernova also occurred.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15939&start=75

You mean that same author that lied through his teeth with respect to the neutrino predictions of EU theory? What should I care about any thread that Koberlein wrote?

So what? You guys are always changing your mind from week to week anyway.

 

[RealityCheck01]

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15939&start=75

Oh dear - a presumably ignorant or gullible poster foolish enough to post on the deluded Thunderbolts web site, Michael !

That poster is ignorant at least. The blog Testing the Electric Universe by Brian Koberlein clearly states that he is using a book on the EU theory. It is the book that lied to Brian Koberlein by not mentioning the neutrino part of the EU theory of the Sun.

When the EU "fusion at/near/below/anywhere but the core" idea was raised in the comments, Brian Koberlein replied with the obvious flaws, e.g. fusion at the surface releases detectable gamma rays. That fusion requires temperatures of ~13 million K and high pressures is obvious.
I do not think he mentions the violation of the known laws of physics - a body of plasma under the influence of gravity can only be stable if temperatures and pressures increase with depth unless fusion happens at the core.

You should care because Brian Koberlein is an astrophysics professor who knows abut astrophysics, not any of the deluded Thunderbolts authors.

ETA: Did you really mean to end with implying that valid evidence should not change the minds of rational people?

 

[Michael]

Oh dear - a presumably ignorant or gullible poster foolish enough to post on the deluded Thunderbolts web site, Michael !

You are personally the sleaziest personal attack artist on the internet RC. You dishonestly misrepresent my statements, and Dungey's statements, Somov's statements, Priests statements and virtually every published reference I can think of.

That poster is ignorant at least. The blog Testing the Electric Universe by Brian Koberlein clearly states that he is using a book on the EU theory. It is the book that lied to Brian Koberlein by not mentioning the neutrino part of the EU theory of the Sun.

You're lying RC because Brian Koberlein mentioned three specific books, including one by Thornhill and by Scott. I've shown him page 106 where Scott predicts fusion near the photosphere, predicts it's caused by plasma pinches in plasma, and predicts neutrino emissions. Koberlein has lied for 2 solid years and counting. Lies, lies and more unprofessional lies.

When the EU "fusion at/near/below/anywhere but the core" idea was raised in the comments, Brian Koberlein replied with the obvious flaws, e.g. fusion at the surface releases detectable gamma rays. That fusion requires temperatures of ~13 million K and high pressures is obvious.

EU solar models allow for plasma pinches to occur *anywhere* underneath of the surface of the photosphere, not necessarily above it. That has also been pointed out to Brian. He doesn't care. He's not interested in truth or being "honest" as he falsely advertised.

I do not think he mentions the violation of the known laws of physics - a body of plasma under the influence of gravity can only be stable if temperatures and pressures increase with depth unless fusion happens at the core.

If that were true then the corona would be cooler than the chromosphere and the chromosophere would be cooler than the photosphere. The reverse is true. So much for that claim. Birkeland even showed why that's not necessarily true with his planeterella experiments.

You should care because Brian Koberlein is an astrophysics professor who knows abut astrophysics, not any of the deluded Thunderbolts authors.

He's simply a pathological liar by his own admission. Two years ago he acknowledged that the model predicts fusion in the upper atmosphere and he's been lying about it predicting no neutrinos ever since that day. Whatever "ignorance" may have applied at the beginning, it didn't apply after that quote in 2014. He knows full well that every EU solar model predicts fusion somewhere in and/or around the sun.

ETA: Did you really mean to end with implying that valid evidence should not change the minds of rational people?

A rational person would not be contradicting themselves. Brian Koberlein correctly explained that the EU solar model in question predicts fusion near the surface, and that it varies over time. He has therefore lied for years that the EU theory predicts no neutrinos. Go tell Brian to stop lying about the EU solar model that Thornhill promotes and stop pestering me for a change.

 

[Michael]

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/testing-electric-universe/

Reference: The Electric Universe by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbot

Reference: The Electric Sky by Donald E. Scott

I don't own Thornhill's book, but here is his public statement from 15 years ago.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/solar-neutrino-puzzle-is-solved/

The electric Sun model expects far more complex heavy element synthesis to take place in the natural particle accelerators in the photospheric lightning discharges. In that case the various neutrino “flavours” are all generated on the Sun and do not need to “oscillate” on their way to the Earth to make up an imagined deficit. What is more, fluctuations in neutrino counts are expected in this model to be correlated with electrical input to the Sun, that is, with sunspot numbers and solar wind activity. This has been observed. The standard solar model does not expect any correlation since there is a lag estimated in the millions of years between the nuclear reaction in the core and its final expression at the surface of the Sun.

Electric discharges in plasma take the form of twisted filaments, seen here in a closeup of sunspots. Each filament is a powerful natural particle accelerator.

There is an experiment suggested by the SNO results that could confirm the Electric Sun’s photospheric origin of neutrinos. It would require continuous measurement of neutrinos of all flavours as a very large sunspot group rotated with the Sun. In this model, sunspot umbrae are not a source of neutrinos so there should be modulation effects associated with the Sun’s rotation that might be measurable with present equipment. Such an experiment, if sensitive enough, offers the possibility of detecting neutrino oscillations in the Sun as they traverse varying proportions of the body of the Sun. A positive result would falsify the standard nuclear model of the Sun.

......

To sum up, the electrical model of the Sun requires that neutrinos of all “flavours” are produced by heavy element nucleosynthesis in the photosphere of the Sun.

Donald Scott also refutes Brian Koberlein's false claim that the EU sun predicts no neutrinos:

Page 106 of the cited reference:

The neutrino flux from the sun seems to vary inversely with sunspot number. This is not unexpected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is the z-pinch-produced fusion occurring in the double layer (DL) – and sunspots are the locations where there is no DL in which this process can occur.

Brian Koberlein simply lied.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...

Usual lies about Dungey, Somov, Birkeland - see my signature. And insults. Which does not leave much to address. Maybe the delusion that you can read minds, Michael?
Any one can read: Testing the Electric Universe by Brian Koberlein where he links to the one book that is publically available. He references 2 others. There is no evidence that he brought or read the other 2 books.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I don't own Thornhill's book, but here is his public statement from 15 years ago.

15 year old delsuions should not impress you, Michael.
Thank you for confirming that Brian Koberlein has never read The Electric Sky. Otherwise he would have read Donald Scott's fantasy about z-pinches creating neutrinos on the surface of the Sun.

 

[Michael]

Usual lies about Dungey, Somov, Birkeland - see my signature. And insults. Which does not leave much to address. Maybe the delusion that you can read minds, Michael?
Any one can read: Testing the Electric Universe by Brian Koberlein where he links to the one book that is publically available. He references 2 others. There is no evidence that he brought or read the other 2 books.

If Brian Koberlein didn't actually bother to read the other two books, then his professional misconduct is directly related to his gross negligence and false advertising with respect to what he claimed to have used as source material and what he was claiming to represent. He claimed to be critiquing the EU beliefs of Thornhill, not Findlay.

 

[Michael]

15 year old delsuions should not impress you, Michael.
Thank you for confirming that Brian Koberlein has never read The Electric Sky. Otherwise he would have read Donald Scott's fantasy about z-pinches creating neutrinos on the surface of the Sun.

If we've established that Brian Koberlein never read the source material that he cited, and claimed to have used a source material, then we've also established that Brian is guilty of gross negligence and professional misconduct too.

 

[RealityCheck01]

If Brian Koberlein didn't actually bother to read the other two books, ....

The expectation that anyone buy and read every book that exists on a topic is insane . University students do not buy three books on electromagnetism!
Brian Koberlein looked for accessible texts on EU theory and found one endorced by Wal Thornhill. Why should he think that Wal Thornhill was incompetent enough to miss the missing neutrinos?

 

[RealityCheck01]

If we've established that Brian Koberlein never read the source material that he cited, and claimed to have used a source material, then ...

No we have not established that. You continue to go on about a claim that that Brian Koberlein never made
He listed 3 references for his readers. One is accessible as a PDF. He never claimed to have brought or read the other 2 references.
21 June 2016 Michael: Testing the Electric Universe starts on 25 February 2014 with a list that agrees with Findlay's understanding of EU.