Lambda-CDM - Pure Confirmation Bias Run Amuck

[Michael]

Flat out lying, Michael, since I quote Findlay making the claim that stars are not fusion powered

That's not what your own reference said however, anymore than Dungey claimed that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. You simply put words in *everyone's* mouth, apparently Findlay too!

All Findlay was discussing in that paragraph is that the surface temperatures of that star, and probably the core too, are incapable of sustaining fusion, *however* we still observe x-rays from the surface. His implication is that the x-rays are electrical discharge related since they *cannot* be related to fusion at those surface temperatures.

That's all he actually said in that paragraph, not "I personally predict that EU solar theories emit no neutrinos". You're lying again just like you lied about Dungey, and Thornhill, me and everyone else.

 

[RealityCheck01]

That's not what your own reference said however,

The citations of Findlay are Findlay arguing against stellar fusion. In tis case, he thinks that brown dwarfs are powered by fusion in the mainstream (they are not!) and argues that brown dwarfs cannot be powered by fusion.
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]

The citations of Findlay are Findlay arguing against stellar fusion. In tis case, he thinks that brown dwarfs are powered by fusion in the mainstream (they are not!) and argues that brown dwarfs cannot be powered by fusion.
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.

Liar:

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

All Findlay stated is that *even according to standard theory*, whatever is producing those x-rays in the atmosphere cannot be fusion related. Period. That's all he stated, and that's exactly what the standard definition of a brown dwarf states too. Period.

If he *implied* anything, he implied that electrical discharge processes were likely to be the cause of those x-rays. *Period*. That's the *very most* you could hope to "read into" his claims from that paragraph.

Nowhere did he say that EU theory predicts no neutrinos. That's a bald faced lie.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Liar:

Liar: A Beginner’s View of Our Electric Universe By Tom Findlay

Here is a contradiction that underlines the relevance of questioning what we are told about stars. There are classes known as T and L type dwarf stars. Relative to normal stars, these are very cool indeed with estimated temperatures of between 600 to 1000K. Interestingly, these are temperatures in the same region as areas on the surface of the planet Venus. Temperatures this low indicate that the thermonuclear fusion process cannot possibly be occurring inside these bodies. Yet X-rays have been detected coming from similarly cool brown dwarf stars, where again, the low temperatures involved are fundamentally incapable of initiating the production of this powerful type of radiation. Straightforward evidence like this that indicates things are not right with the thermonuclear theory of stars should be all that is needed to drive a more open and inclusive investigation, but sadly, it does not.

This is an argument against the thermonuclear theory of stars from a stance of ignorance. The thermonuclear theory of stars states that stars that do not undergo fusion such as brown dwarfs cool down!
Next paragraph is also arguing against stellar fusion:

Mainstream astro-science can talk about size, temperature, colour, radiation emissions and behaviours of their range of star types, but it does not matter, for there seems to be an electrical bottom line to what has traditionally been interpreted as different types of star. According to the EU model, all stars started as different combinations and amounts of ionised matter as plasma, being brought together by the EM force then maintained in appearance as the stars we recognise or as other phenomena by a certain level of current density delivered to them from their environments. The standard list of star types is misleading and the thermonuclear star theory is wrong. What we see in space are fundamentally all the same things; concentrated bodies of plasma reacting to different levels of electrical energy

.
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]

Here is a contradiction that underlines the relevance of questioning what we are told about stars. There are classes known as T and L type dwarf stars. Relative to normal stars, these are very cool indeed with estimated temperatures of between 600 to 1000K. Interestingly, these are temperatures in the same region as areas on the surface of the planet Venus. Temperatures this low indicate that the thermonuclear fusion process cannot possibly be occurring inside these bodies. Yet X-rays have been detected coming from similarly cool brown dwarf stars, where again, the low temperatures involved are fundamentally incapable of initiating the production of this powerful type of radiation. Straightforward evidence like this that indicates things are not right with the thermonuclear theory of stars should be all that is needed to drive a more open and inclusive investigation, but sadly, it does not.

This paragraph does not claim what you say it claims RC anymore than the WIKI reference forgot to include the term *and* in the first sentence of the definition of magnetic reconnection, or that the term "actual" has any scientific meaning at all.

All he's noting is that *even according to mainstream theory* (not EU theory), the temperatures of that small of an object cannot justify fusion as a power source of those x-rays. *Period*. It's not even a reference to *EU* theory specifically, rather it's a reference to *standard* dwarf theory! Gah. You really do have a serious comprehension problem, or a serious ethics problem or both. Which is it?

What does the term "and" mean in the WIKI definition of magnetic reconnection mean to you personally RC?

This is an argument against the thermonuclear theory of stars from a stance of ignorance.

Then mainstream theory must be pretty ignorant because it doesn't predict that brown dwarfs experience fusion either!

The thermonuclear theory of stars states that stars that do not undergo fusion such as brown dwarfs cool down!

Duh! That's his whole point! Fusion cannot be causing those x-rays.

Mainstream astro-science can talk about size, temperature, colour, radiation emissions and behaviours of their range of star types, but it does not matter, for there seems to be an electrical bottom line to what has traditionally been interpreted as different types of star. According to the EU model, all stars started as different combinations and amounts of ionised matter as plasma, being brought together by the EM force then maintained in appearance as the stars we recognise or as other phenomena by a certain level of current density delivered to them from their environments. The standard list of star types is misleading and the thermonuclear star theory is wrong. What we see in space are fundamentally all the same things; concentrated bodies of plasma reacting to different levels of electrical energy

That doesn't claim that EU theory "predicts" zero neutrinos either. You're just making this up, and randomly picking anything you like. Apparently you read minds because Brian Koberlein didn't reference a single specific sentence in Findlay's entire PDF. Are you just a sock puppet for Koberlein, or do you just profess to be a mind reader RC?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[RealityCheck01]

This paragraph does not claim ,,,,

Repeating almost 5 year old delusions about magnetic reconnection will not make anyone trust your opinion!
Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum continues from Nov 2011!
A textbook section and example contains only currents and vacuum. MR happens in the vacuum away from the currents. It is a delusion that the example contains plasma or that MR has to happen in plasma. The section ends with a couple of sentences about charge particles and then the next section is MR in plasma !

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]

Repeating almost 5 year old delusions about magnetic reconnection will not make anyone trust your opinion!

Nobody has to trust my personal opinions because my opinions are exactly the same as WIKI, and like the WIKI definition, Somov converted magnetic field energy into charged particle acceleration. You and Clinger don't have a charged particle to your name in your *toy*, and no means of even mathematically expressing a *rate* of reconnection. Let's see your math related to RATE RC. Run, RC, run......

If you cannot understand the meaning of the word *and* in a single sentence, and you cannot grasp the idea of a transfer of field energy into charged particle acceleration, you're simply too scientifically illiterate to work with.

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 lie that Brian has told for more than two years RC?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Nobody has to trust my personal opinions ...

You missed the point:
How can any one trust the reading comprehension or physics knowledge of someone ignorant enough to say that an example of magnetic reconnection in vacuum which contains no plasma, contains plasma?
Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum continues from Nov 2011!
A textbook section and example contains only currents and vacuum. MR happens in the vacuum away from the currents. It is a delusion that the example contains plasma or that MR has to happen in plasma. The section ends with a couple of sentences about charge particles and then the next section is MR in plasma !

We cannot trust your reading comprehension of Findlay either. As for physics knowledge, you do not realize that that PDF is largely arguments from ignorance and incredibility !

Michael, really read the Findlay book and see Findlay arguing against stellar fusion is a small part of Findlay's ignorance/denial of science or the ignorance/denial of science of his sources.
Part 2: Findlay page 18 onwards
Part 3: Findlay: The thinking that got us here (page 24).
Part 4: Findlay: We are waiting for answers to these questions (Page 32).

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]

You missed the point:

No, you did. Somov *added current, AKA moving charged particles of *plasma* to his vacuum, and he also transferred kinetic energy to those plasma particles.

How can any one trust the reading comprehension or physics knowledge of someone ignorant enough to say that an example of magnetic reconnection in vacuum which contains no plasma, contains plasma?

How can anyone trust the reading comprehension skills of physics knowledge of someone that cannot explain the term "and" in a single sentence!

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 does the term "in highly conductive plasmas" mean to you RC? Did you fail to notice that Somov *transferred* field energy into kinetic energy RC? How did you and confused Clinger intend to do that without a single charged particle to your names? Where's Clinger's mathematical expression for the *rate* of reconnection RC? Quit dodging that last question!

Which statement by Koberlein is the big fat lie RC?

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.

If you blame Findlay again, I better see a page number and specific paragraph or I'll just call you a liar.

 

[RealityCheck01]

No, you did.

Making the point repeated lies and delusions about English and science is not good:
Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum continues from Nov 2011!
A textbook section and example contains only currents and vacuum. MR happens in the vacuum away from the currents. It is a delusion that the example contains plasma or that MR has to happen in plasma. The section ends with a couple of sentences about charge particles and then the next section is MR in plasma !

My point is that a book full of ignorance and denial of science is not a good source for science, especially when supported by a person with an 11 year documented record of ignorance and denial of science and English (see my signature).

My recommendation is that that you read the book and try to comprehend its ignorance and denial of science before I have to ask you specific questions about the points of ignorance and denial of science I noted in it:
Michael, really read the Findlay book and see Findlay arguing against stellar fusion is a small part of Findlay's ignorance/denial of science or the ignorance/denial of science of his sources.
Part 2: Findlay page 18 onwards
Part 3: Findlay: The thinking that got us here (page 24).
Part 4: Findlay: We are waiting for answers to these questions (Page 32).

The first question would be easy to answer . Using your great knowledge of stellar physics, show that the models of stellar fusion do not produce the measured neutrino flux from the Sun. This debunks the EU denial of stellar fusion.

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]

Making the point repeated lies and delusions about English and science is not good:

True, which is why I have no idea why you constantly keep doing it. You and Clinger forgot the thing that Somov included, namely the transfer of field energy into particle kinetic energy. Doh! Your lies and delusions are best exemplified by your complete incapacity to provide us with a mathematical expression for the *rate* of reconnection that you and Clinger hope to get from your "toy"!

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 *pathological* lie that Brian has told for more than two years RC? Maybe you should tell him to stop lying about one of them.

 

[Michael]

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

Pathological lying (also called pseudologia fantastica and mythomania) is a behavior of habitual or compulsive lying.[1][2] It was first described in the medical literature in 1891 by Anton Delbrueck.[2] Although it is a controversial topic,[2] pathological lying has been defined as "falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, may be extensive and very complicated, and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime".

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 lie that Brian has told for more than two years RC?

 

[RealityCheck01]

True, which is why I have no idea why you constantly keep doing it.

An insult and usual ranting about trivial physical process of magnetic reconnection in vacuum. Many years ago I cite a textbook and the scientific literature and Michael replies with ignorance and delusions about plasma. Thanks, Michael, I missed the denial of scientific literature and English of toy models.
Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum continues from Nov 2011!
A textbook section and example contains only currents and vacuum. MR happens in the vacuum away from the currents. It is a delusion that the example contains plasma or that MR has to happen in plasma. The section ends with a couple of sentences about charge particles and then the next section is MR in plasma !
I cited the trivial physical process of MR in vacuum in papers from scientific literature. Michael's response is denying them and abysmally ignorant posts about the word toy in the toy models used throughout physics!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Which of those two mutually exclusive statements is a lie that Brian has told for more than two years RC?

A repeated lie about the statements being mutually exclusive (or conflicting as you used before) is becoming pathological.
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)
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)

 

[Michael]

An insult and usual ranting about trivial physical process of magnetic reconnection in vacuum.

Whereas you and Clinger don't have a charged particle to your name, Somov *transferred magnetic field energy* into particle *acceleration*! Get it RC? You forgot the transfer of energy process. That's why you are forced to run from my request for a mathematical equation describing the *rate* of reconnection in your toy model! You're so far detached from reality that it's not even funny.

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, irrational lie that Brian has told for more than two years RC?

 

[Michael]

A repeated lie about the statements being mutually exclusive (or conflicting as you used before) is becoming pathological.
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)
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)

The fact you believe that they are not mutually exclusive demonstrates the nature of your problem in a nutshell. That's also the basis of the pathological nature of your inability to tell the truth. It's also why you're incapable of citing a specific sentence from any of the three listed references that claimed that EU theory predicts no fusion/neutrinos.

As far back as 2 years ago, Chris Reeve showed Brian Koberlein that his statement about Thornhills model were false. Your personal *fantasy* that you get to ignore that point is irrelevant RC. I don't even care whether you belief his model is true or false. You're not *ethically* allowed to misrepresent Thornhills statements, but unlike most resident atheists around here, you have no sense of fair play, honesty, or morality. You're not even capable of *honestly* presenting any materials on any topic. Somov didn't *leave out* the transfer of energy like you and Clinger did. Dungey demonstrates that electrical discharges are *possible* in plasma, and you've never provided any reference that to support your claim that the term "actual" has any scientific meaning whatsoever!

You haven't accurately presented *any* EU/PC material honestly and with integrity, so it's no surprise that you set yourself up for your own personal professional Waterloo experience with Thornill's model. Your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance, and you refuse to provide any published references to support the erroneous claim that EU theory predicts no neutrinos.

See a reoccurring problem here RC?

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, irrational lie that Brian has told for more than two years RC?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Whereas you and Clinger...?

Nothing coherent to answer so I added the rational response to
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's delusions about MR in vacuum, etc. is described in in my signature.

 

[Michael]

Nothing coherent to answer

You mean there's nothing that you can answer coherently.

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, irrational lie that Brian has told for more than two years RC?

 

[Michael]

Nothing coherent to answer

You and Clinger don't have a charged particle to your name, no formula to express a rate of reconnection, and no way to transfer field energy into particle kinetic energy.

Somov on the other hand *did* transfer magnetic field energy into particle acceleration.

You just don't have a coherent response as to why you and Clinger left that transfer of energy part out! Wow. You're *so* detached from the reality of actual *physics*, that you don't even grasp the concept of kinetic energy and energy *transfers*.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The fact you believe that they are not mutually exclusive demonstrates the nature of your problem in a nutshell..

23 June 2016 Michael: The repeated denial of English that we are seeing from you is the fantasy that different statements on different dates on two different mutually exclusive EU ideas are themselves mutually exclusive.

I will waste my time with an simple to understand example for you.

There exists a hypothetical theory XX.
XX statement 1 is that the sky is blue because space is blue.
XX statement 2 is that the sky is blue because fairies eat all light except the blue light.
These statements are mutually exclusive.
You, Michael, address these mutually exclusive statements separately:
* Space is not blue.
* There is no evidence for fairies.
You, Michael, did not write mutually exclusive answers.​

When digging a pit of ignorance, denial, delusions and even lies, the first step is to stop digging !
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.