Lambda-CDM - Pure Confirmation Bias Run Amuck

[mzungu]

Whoops, I should really not use Google to search for people: Dr. Oliver Manuel. This is nothing to do with his abysmal solar physics.

There is no debating with Michael. He is an ardent supporter of the crank science of EU.
I fear you are basically debating with a wall.

 

[Michael]

There is no debating with Michael. He is an ardent supporter of the crank science of EU.
I fear you are basically debating with a wall.

Since most of your claims don't show up in labs on Earth, and don't work in the lab, you're reduced to attempting to bash a form of pure empirical physics, by trying to label it "crank science". That's fine. History has shown repeatedly that empirical physics always ultimately replaces supernatural nonsense sooner or later. Your pantheon of invisible, impotent on Earth sky entities will eventually seem as silly to future astronomers as the claim of epicycles sounds to them now.

 

[Michael]

Whoops, I should really not use Google to search for people: Dr. Oliver Manuel. This is nothing to do with his abysmal solar physics.

Speaking of staying on topic, why do you feel the need to personally hijack all of my threads RC? If you wish to discuss *Birkeland's solar model*, start your own threat on *that topic*, and quit hijacking all of my various threads on unrelated topics.

 

[Michael]

Lots of insults,

In fact, every single one of your posts is always and constantly stuffed with lots of insults RC. That's your one claim to fame. I guess you figure that since you don't know anything at all about plasma physics, and you can't handle a scientific discussion on that topic, you might as well toss in as many loaded language terms, and personal insults into every post as you can squeeze in there. How sad that you refuse to educate yourself properly RC, and how irrational that you then insist on playing the role of "expert" on a topic that you clearly known *nothing* about!

Every post of yours includes multiple instances of the following terms: Deluded, ignorant, lies, crank, crackpot, yada, yada, personal attack yada! You're a one trick personal attack pony RC.

Ask yourself, Michael, how deluded someone would have to be to state that the mass of the Earth includes the mass of the Sun !

Better yet, ask yourself what that ridiculous comment has to do with LCDM theory or the topic of this thread RC? Do you just make this junk up as you go or what?

Now think about how deluded it is to state that things outside of galaxies add to the mass of the galaxies.

Since the 2006 lensing study relates to *galaxy cluster* collisions, not just galaxies, the mass *between* galaxies also matters RC. You botched those "guestimates" too. Every single aspect of your lame mass calculation process was flawed, every single part of it. Nothing used as a mass guestimation technique in 2006 was worth the paper it was printed on as *many* later studies have since demonstrated over and over and over again.

Repeated lies about Clowe et. al. who do not count stars and use I-band near infra red (not visible) light to estimate the mass of the galaxies doing the lensing.

You seem to forget that you and I have already been through this conversation RC, and I have already picked out the brightness/mass calculations of their paper for you. Do you simply ignore the stuff you can't handle or what?

Since you didn't provide any actual rebuttal to my criticisms in the rest of your post, I'll just stop here.

 

[Michael]

A fact less post

That's pretty much par for the course in all of your posts RC.

 

[Michael]

The usual insults and delusions following by a link to the scientific literature with an omission.
ALCOCK-PACZYŃSKI COSMOLOGICAL TEST by M. López-Corredoira (2014)
This test matches concordance ΛCDM (not mentioned by Michael) and "static universe with tired-light redshift".

If Michael had bothered to read and understand this paper he would see it is dubious. Just read the references which include PDFs on the PDF upload web site vixra (Ashmore and Holushko), arXiv preprints from cranks (Brynjolfsson), the 1st Crisis in Cosmology Conference, etc.

I did read it, and I did understand it (for the most part at least ). What I definitely understand is that it demonstrates that a static universe theory passes that particular test as well if not better than BB theory. There's nothing "dubious" about it. The only thing that's "dubious" is some guy who's never published a paper on topic related to astromony calling it "dubious".

Fantasies about Hubble again so:

So.....

More links to yourself quoting yourself! Oh Joy. You're like the only reference you can site on most of your nonsense as witnessed by the fact that you never did provide us with any published reference that agreed with your erroneous claim that "actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma".

Michael[/B]: Repeats an argument from authority (Edwin Hubble) as if thousands of cosmologists did not exist !

Huh? I don't care if they exist or not RC. The guy that found the redshift dissed on your cause/effect claims about it's actual cause.

15 June 2016 Michael: Linking again to reports that Edwin Hubble did not support the Big Bang theory as is well known makes an assertion that Hubble supported tired light theories into a lie.[/URL] (evidence supplied at last!)

What? Do you just make this up as you go? The only lie is the lie the mainstream tells when it lies to the public by claiming that "Hubble proved the universe is expanding"! That's the big "lie" being told to unsuspecting children and to the public.

 

[Michael]

At last, Michael, backs up an unsupported assertion with evidence !

That's more than you will ever do about your erroneous claim that "actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma". You will *never* cite a published reference to support that nonsense because you simply made it up! Notice how a real debate with real *published* references actually works RC?

I am sure that other readers can see that the delusions

You cheat with your personal attack terms in every single post RC. You're the single sleaziest debater on the internet. Proud of yourself RC? The real "delusion" is you pretending to be an expert, and fancying yourself to be an expert on the topic of plasma physics without ever reading a real textbook on the topic. That's why you're under the *delusion* that you can get "magnetic reconnection" without particle acceleration and without a transfer of magnetic field energy into particle acceleration.

Michael has retained for many years about science (the transition region seen in the solar atmosphere

Stop hijacking my thread on LCDM theory RC. If you really want to discuss solar physics, start your own thread on that topic. In the meantime, please stop hijacking this thread!

There is Edwin Hubble's personal opinion from an interview. This is not modern science where knowledgeable people know the evidence that a tired light theory does not work in the real universe.

Hubble was knowledgeable about this topic RC, certainly more knowledgeable than you. He observed the evidence and he rejected your expansion claims. Deal with it, and represent his statements honestly. He didn't "prove" expansion RC. He proved redshift occurs over distance. Period. He solved the problem with *inelastic scattering*/tired light, not "expansion".

For the record, I've never known anyone to quote themselves so prolifically and hold themselves up as the sole authority on a topic before. Likewise, I've never seen anyone try to pack each post with as many ad homs, personal attacks and loaded language. Your circular and dishonest debate tactics are the absolutely least ethical debate tactics I've ever seen from anyone in cyberspace RC.

Are we *ever* going to see an actual published paper that claims that "actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma", or see you retract that bogus claim? Ever?

 

[Michael]

That is not right, Michael.
You deny eyesight: Solar images show a gap in the solar atmosphere that is called the transition region.

No RC, they don't. The iron ion wavelengths simply show coronal loops that traverse the entire atmosphere of the sun, starting *under* the surface of the photosphere, and extending *far* out into the corona. The existence of a relatively flat "transition region" is a myth caused by absorption of these wavelengths at the limb and the visual effect that absorption process creates at the limb.

It is possible that Babylonian astronomers noticed that gap thousands of years ago during total solar eclipses.

There is no "gap". The coronal loops do *not* start their existence at some random height above the photosphere. We can see them rise up and through the surface of the photosphere, and they leave their heat and magnetic field signatures on that surface.

Now stop hijacking my thread already!

You deny English: A textbook section on magnetic reconnection in vacuum with an example containing no plasma has plasma according to your knowledge of English!

While you might personally remain in staunch denial of the two little X points (marked in the diagram with the capital letter I) which mark the location of the *plasma* particles in Somov's diagram, and you remain in staunch denial of the transfer of magnetic field energy into plasma particle movement in Somov's example, everyone else can see it for themselves RC. Priest even called your understanding of the process a "toy" RC, and he explained that the "real" process requires plasma, and Priest was *your own* reference no less!

You have never managed to publish *any* paper on *any* topic related to astronomy RC, and you've never read a single textbook on MHD theory, so I couldn't care less what you think of the work that I've managed to get published.

Speaking of your inability to comprehend basic English:

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

Magnetic reconnection is a physical process in highly conducting plasmas in which the magnetic topology is rearranged and magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy, thermal energy, and particle acceleration.

What do you not comprehend about the English terms that I bolded for you RC? What about the phrase "in highly conductive plasma" and "magnetic energy is energy is converted to kinetic energy" do you not understand RC? Even though we both know that you've never read a book on the topic of MHD theory, anyone can understand that sentence RC, anyone EXCEPT you apparently.

Your entire argument amounts to an oversimplification fallacy. The WIKI definition says:

Magnetic reconnection is a physical process in highly conducting plasmas in which the magnetic topology is rearranged and magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy, thermal energy, and particle acceleration.

It doesn't say:

Magnetic reconnection is a process in an empty vacuum where the magnetic field topology is rearranged!

You're intentionally trying to *oversimplify* the *real* process, and apparently you have a tough time embracing reality.

 

[RealityCheck01]

There is no debating with Michael. He is an ardent supporter of the crank science of EU.
I fear you are basically debating with a wall.

I know that it is useless to point out the real world to Michael because I have been doing that for maybe 7 years now ! Have a look at my signature, e.g.
8th July 2009: Your hypothetical solid iron surface has been in thermal contact with at least one object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for about 4.57 billion years.

It was on JREF (now ISF) that Michael's delusion that empirical does not include observations first appeared (by his logic stars do not exist because we have never had one in the lab!).

Preventing other people from being fooled by delusions is always a good thing though.

Despite being foolish enough to post that the Thunderbolts forum, he does know about
The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. So maybe not an "ardent supporter" of EU there.

Thornhill and Talbott are rather deluded Velikovsky believers, e.g. they believe that comets are rocks that were blasted from the surface of the Earth by electrical discharges from Venus when it made one of several passes (stopping the Sun and Moon in the sky, manna from the sky and maybe the comet pass).

 

[RealityCheck01]

Better yet, ask yourself what that ridiculous comment has to do with LCDM theory or the topic of this thread RC?

You are the one claiming in this thread that stars outside of a galaxy contribute to the mass of the galaxy.

I pointed out that a claim that the mass of the Sun contributes to the mass of the Earth is deluded. This is a bit less deluded than the claim the stars outside of a galaxy contribute to the mass of a galaxy. The gaseous halo that has only been detected outside the Milky Way so far also does not contribute to the mass of the Milky Way.

7 June 2016 Michael: Delusions about papers unrelated to dark matter and a lie about evidence for dark matter !

Missed out:
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.

 

[RealityCheck01]

What I definitely understand is that it demonstrates that a static universe theory passes that particular test as well if not better than BB theory.

You obviously did not understand the paper because you are misrepresenting it, Michael.
ALCOCK-PACZYŃSKI COSMOLOGICAL TEST by M. López-Corredoira (2014)
The paper if correct demonstrates that a static universe with a specific tired light theory passed the test.
The paper if correct demonstrates that the Lambda-CDM model passed the test.

What makes the paper likely to be wrong is the dubious references.

• PDFs on the PDF upload web site vixra (the cranks Ashmore and Holushko)
• arXiv preprints from cranks (Brynjolfsson)
• the 1st Crisis in Cosmology Conference, etc.

A competent scientist does not cite a PDF upload web site.
A competent scientist cites the published papers, not pre-prints.
A competent scientist does not cite an old conference - they look for the published papers resulting from the conference.
This hints that López-Corredoira looked for sources to confirm his biases rather than citing the published, peer reviewed literature.

What makes the paper partially invalid is that tired light theories do not match the real universe, e.g. distant galaxies are not blurred by the scattering that they need.
16 June 2016 Michael: A paper including a tired light theory is bund to be partially invalid.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Hubble was knowledgeable about this topic RC, certainly more knowledgeable than you....

15 June 2016 Michael: Repeats an argument from authority (Edwin Hubble) as if thousands of cosmologists did not exist !

Edwin Hubble died in 1953. Physics students know about 63 years of progress in astronomy and cosmology that Hubble did not know. Much of the evidence for an expanding universe was found after he died.
Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:

• The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
• The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
• Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
• Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
• Time dilation in supernova light curves.

The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:

• Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
• Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
• Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
• Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.

Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.

We could argue that you know more than Hubble did but your displays of ignorance in this thread alone show that is not the case, e.g. thinking that stars outside of galaxies contribute to their masses.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The iron ion wavelengths ..

Hijacking this thread with delusions needs a response, Michael.
The "iron ion wavelengths" are from H + He mostly + other elements including Fe plasma at temperature of between 160,000 and 2,000,000 K. That is the part of solar flares that starts in the transition region ~2,500 kilometers above the photosphere.

There is a "gap" in the solar atmosphere as any one with eyes can see in the images of total solar eclipse. It is that gap which has the label transition region.

This is Somov's diagram of magnetic reconection in vacuum from his textbook where Michael has the delusion that there is plasma.
The "two little X points" are the currents running into the page, e.g. a couple of wires with moving electrons, not a lie about plasma being currents.
The big X point is where the magnetic reconection happens - halfway between the currents in vacuum.

 

[Michael]

I know that it is useless to point out the real world to Michael

Your "world" isn't "real" RC. You have more invisible friends than most theists. Your pantheon of invisible friends in the sky are all more impotent on Earth than most supernatural concepts of God. At least God is assumed to interact with humans on Earth, whereas your dark matter deity has been a total dud in the lab, and your invisible inflation deity is apparently dead. You know nothing about the "real" world of "real" particles and "real" kinetic energy transfers RC. You've demonstrated that over and over and over again throughout the years.

because I have been doing that for maybe 7 years now

Actually the only thing that you've been doing is stalking me around the internet now for 7 years hurling multiple personal insults at me in every single post. You're the least ethical debater on the internet.

Your hypothetical solid iron surface has been in thermal contact with at least one object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for about 4.57 billion years.

There you go again blatantly *misrepresenting* my "rigid" surface as a solid. There you go applying your concept of "opacity" in your solar model to mine too. You have no ethics in debate RC, none.

Preventing other people from being fooled by delusions is always a good thing though.

Maybe then you should try sitting down and actually reading a real textbook on MDH theory RC. Maybe then you would be deluded into believing that you can get anything other than a zero amount of transfer of magnetic field energy into kinetic energy without a plasma particle to your name. Sheesh are you ever deluded.

 

[Michael]

Hijacking this thread with delusions needs a response, Michael.

Start your own thread RC. You're the one interjecting solar physics conversations into discussions that aren't related to solar physics. You're blatantly breaking the rules of the forum.

The "iron ion wavelengths" are from H + He mostly + other elements including Fe plasma at temperature of between 160,000 and 2,000,000 K. That is the part of solar flares that starts in the transition region ~2,500 kilometers above the photosphere.

The coronal loops are heated by the current that flows through them RC. That current starts flowing *under* the surface of the photosphere according to Alfven's circuit diagram of coronal loops. The loops reach *millions* of degrees, and they operate at those temperatures both above and below the surface of the photosphere. You have a the most *overly simplified* concepts possible as it relates to your *own* solar model, and you insist on trying to apply them to Birkeland's solar model. They don't apply.

There is a "gap" in the solar atmosphere as any one with eyes can see in the images of total solar eclipse. It is that gap which has the label transition region.

There's what amounts to "scattering/absorption" taking place along the limb. So what? That does not demonstrate that the coronal loops originate above the photosphere. The don't. They rise up and through the surface of the photopshere.

This is Somov's diagram of magnetic reconection in vacuum from his textbook where Michael has the delusion that there is plasma.

You are delusional when you try to ignore the two little X points that mark the position of two plasma particles in his "vacuum". You're delusional when you ignore the fact that those two little plasma particles moved as a result of "Reconnection" too. Somov transferred field energy into particle kinetic energy, whereas you and Clinger don't have a plasma particle to your name, and are therefore incapable of achieve a rate of reconnection that exceeds *zero*!

The "two little X points" are the currents running into the page, e.g. a couple of wires with moving electrons, not a lie about plasma being currents.

The only "lie" is your assertion that they represent "wires". There are no "wires" listed in that diagram that relates to *plasma physics* and the movement of charged particles. Solid wires would not move, and Somov has no "wires" in that vacuum. You're lying to yourself over and over and over again RC.

The big X point is where the magnetic reconection happens - halfway between the currents in vacuum.

You don't even properly understand *solid state* physics RC. The topology of the magnet field changes *everywhere* in *both* fields. There are no little actual little "lines" in magnetic fields as you perceive them. They are *whole 3D fields* that move and change, not one little line! Oy Vey. I might as well talk QM with my cat.

 

[Michael]

Michael: Repeats an argument from authority (Edwin Hubble) as if thousands of cosmologists did not exist

I don't care if they "exist" RC, I care that not a single one of them can so much as explain a single source of "dark energy", and their dark matter predictions have been utterly worthless at predicting useful lab results.

Edwin Hubble died in 1953. Physics students know about 63 years of progress in astronomy and cosmology that Hubble did not know.

Birkeland's been dead a lot longer, and yet he still knew more about solar atmospheric physics that you do, and more than most folks today.

Much of the evidence for an expanding universe was found after he died.

Like what? Those so called "standard candles" that weren't really standard after all?

Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

Let's see Ned address that list of problems then.

We could argue that you know more than Hubble did but your displays of ignorance in this thread alone show that is not the case, e.g. thinking that stars outside of galaxies contribute to their masses.

This coming from the guy that has never read a textbook on MHD theory but fancies himself as a greater "expert" on magnetic reconnection theory than Preist who called your understanding of the process a "toy", and Dungey who claimed that electrical discharge are *possible* in plasma. Are you ever going to produce a published reference that claims that "actual electrical discharge are impossible in plasma" RC, or were you going to run from that request again?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Your "world" isn't "real" RC.....

Usual fact less post from Michael. The real world science about Lambda-CDM and his ignorance/delusions and one lie:
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 evidence for dark matter !

 

[Michael]

You obviously did not understand the paper because you are misrepresenting it, Michael.

You misrepresented Dungey's statements with respect to electrical discharge in solar flares. You misrepresented Peratt's *definition*. You misrepresent Wal with respect to neutrino counts. You misrepresent my statements on a daily basis RC. You are one gigantic misinformation campaign.

What makes the paper partially invalid is that tired light theories do not match the real universe, e.g. distant galaxies are not blurred by the scattering that they need.

You simply made up everything on that list, and none of it is valid. How much blurring do they "need" RC?

I've never seen anyone cite themselves as often as you do, but since you can't produce any external reference that claims that magnetic reconnection is a plasma optional process, or that "actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma", that's pretty much all you can do. You're stuck on your own personal denial-go-round and no published paper matters to you.

 

[RealityCheck01]

....

Another fact less post with a delusion that needs addressing.
I do not ignore anything in Somov's diagram of magnetic reconnection in vacuum:

This is Somov's diagram of magnetic reconnection in vacuum from his textbook where Michael has the delusion that there is plasma.
The "two little X points" are the currents running into the page, e.g. a couple of wires with moving electrons, not a lie about plasma being currents.
The big X point is where the magnetic reconnection happens - halfway between the currents in vacuum.

Your denial of English and science about that diagram have been documented for years as in my signature.

 

[Michael]

Usual fact less post....
ignorance/delusions, lie,delusion,Ignorance, fantasy, Ignorance, Delusions,lie

You packed nine personal insults into that single post. and every link was to yourself. You are the single sleaziest debater on the internet RC. You are incapable of even having an honest conversation. You're nothing but a two bit, scientifically ignorant bully RC.