Lambda-CDM - Pure Confirmation Bias Run Amuck

[RealityCheck01]

The running difference (RD) imaging transformation of original images as used by many astronomers does not alter the position of the original images. - more a real world observation, e.g. making RD images of a mountain does not shoot it into space!

 

[Michael]

Denial of the location of the transition region.

I don't deny that you have an oversimplified concept of where those electrical discharges *begin*, and in fact you're in pure denial of electrical discharges in plasma!

 

[RealityCheck01]

How about Somov's textbook: 7th November 2011: A section describing the process of reconnection in a vacuum has Michael going on about induction!

 

[Michael]

The running difference (RD) imaging transformation of original images as used by many astronomers does not alter the position of the original images. - more a real world observation, e.g. making RD images of a mountain does not shoot it into space!

Is it even possible for you to *correctly* present the views of an EU proponent or is it a personal requirement that you blatantly *lie* about each and every claim being made in EU theory? You've pathologically lied about everyone from Thornhill, to Dungey, to Peratt and of course me personally:

RC's ever growing list of missing references:

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]

I don't deny that you have an oversimplified concept of where those electrical discharges *begin*,...!

Whoops another lie - what a surprise!
29 June 2016 Michael: Lies about the definition of the transition region which is the observation that plasma heats up in the solar atmosphere. A solar flare will start in images at different heights according to the passband being used, e.g. >2500 km for the 171A band.
Nothing to do with imaginary electrical discharges or the delusion that solar flares are are electrical discharges.

 

[Michael]

How about Somov's textbook:

What about it? Unlike you and clueless Clinger, Somov *transferred mangnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy* like the WIKI reference RC. Do you even grasp the English language? What does the term "and" mean in the first sentence of the WIKI definition of "magnetic reconnection" mean RC? What published reference ever claimed that a *transfer of energy* was "optional" in the process in plasma that is known as "magnetic reconnection". Somov *transferred* energy and Priest called your model a "toy". Where's your math formula to define a *rate* or reconnnection in Clinger's pathetic kludge RC?

Run RC, run! Lies, lies, lies, ya....

 

[Michael]

Whoops another lie...

Yep, you tell lies about EU/PC theory almost every single day of your bigoted life RC. We all recognize that fact.

RC's ever growing list of missing references:

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]

Is it even possible for you to ...

29 June 2016 Michael: The observation that running difference images do not change the location of source images is a comment on Michael's personal delusion, not EU theory.

My signature link now has: Collecting another set of delusions and lies:
29 June 2016 Michael: Lies about the definition of the transition region which is the observation that plasma heats up in the solar atmosphere

 

[Michael]

29 June 2016 Michael: The observation that running difference images

Stop blatantly trying to hijack my thread so you can try to divert the attention from your numerous lies RC:

RC's ever growing list of missing references:

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]

What about it?

29 June 2016 Michael: The usual delusions, lies and insults about Somov's textbook, me and W. D. Clinger.

 

[Michael]

29 June 2016 Michael: The usual delusions, lies and insults about Somov's textbook, me and W. D. Clinger.

You and Clinger have been lying your butts off about "magnetic reconnection" and Somov (your own reference no less) demonstrated that point for you when he *transferred magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy*. That is the specific *process* and *requirement* that you and clueless Clinger forgot! Doh!

Priest also called your oversimplified understanding of the process a "toy" RC. Both of your very own references *refute* your own claim!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Stop blatantly trying to hijack my thread ..

Collecting another set of delusions and lies in the Lambda-CDM - Pure Confirmation Bias Run Amuck thread:

1. 29 June 2016 Michael: Lies about the definition of the transition region which is the observation that plasma heats up in the solar atmosphere.
2. 29 June 2016 Michael: The observation that running difference images do not change the location of source images is a comment on Michael's personal delusion, not EU theory.
3. 29 June 2016 Michael: The usual delusions, lies and insults about Somov's textbook, me and W. D. Clinger.
4. 29 June 2016 Michael: The blatant delusion that Michael owns this thread !
5. 29 June 2016 Michael: The delusion that the thread topic has not been exhausted - all we have is Michael's ignorance and delusions to "refute" the Lambda-CDM theory.
6. 29 June 2016 Michael: A lie about "lies and misinformation from the mainstream".
7. 29 June 2016 Michael: A delusion that the mainstream is afraid of the ignorance and delusions of the EU "cult".
   Any rational and knowledgeable person who reads EU sources, e.g. Findlay's book or the Thunderbolts web site, soon sees that they make EU into an ignorant faith (not an evidence based science). The Electric Universe is to be pitied, not feared.
   
8. 29 June 2016 Michael: The blatant delusion that Michael owns this thread [as in "my thread"] !
9. 29 June 2016 Michael: The delusion that the thread topic has not been exhausted - all we have is Michael's ignorance and delusions to "refute" the Lambda-CDM theory.
10. 29 June 2016 Michael: It is a lie that I stated you owned the forum when I stated that your "my thread' demand was you owing this thread.
11. 29 June 2016 Michael: The delusion that I am Brian Koberlein when he should know that I am not (I remember telling him that I am IT person like with a science background - MSc in theoretical solid state physics).

 

[Michael]

29 June 2016 Michael: The blatant delusion that Michael owns this thread !

More of your pathetic and endless stream of lies. I never claimed to own this website or this thread. You've consistently lied about my beliefs on almost every topic RC. Why? Do you even have any ethics at all?

RC's ever growing list of missing references:

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]

More of your pathetic and endless stream of lies.

A pathetic lie since your demand was about this thread not the forum. Is that worth adding to the new list? I updated the delusion to make this clear.
Collecting another set of delusions and lies in Lambda-CDM - Pure Confirmation Bias Run Amuck thread

29 June 2016 Michael: The blatant delusion that Michael owns this thread [as in "my thread"] !

 

[Michael]

A pathetic lie since your demand was about this thread not the forum. Is that worth adding to the new list?

Do you even know how to tell the truth RC?

RC's ever growing list of missing references:

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]

Do you even know how to tell the truth RC?

Yes. the truth is - 29 June 2016 Michael: It is a lie that I stated you owned the forum when I stated that your "my thread' demand was you owing this thread.

 

[Michael]

Yes. the truth is

I don't think you even know the meaning of the word "truth" RC.

Sock puppet or mind reader RC?

Answer the question *honestly* this time or just demonstrate that you personally live in pure fear.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I don't think you even know the meaning of the word "truth" RC.

The documented truth is that you have lied and have one delusion among dozens (see my signature)

• 29 June 2016 Michael: It is a lie that I stated you owned the forum when I stated that your "my thread' demand was you owing this thread.
• 29 June 2016 Michael: The delusion that I am Brian Koberlein when he should know that I am not (I remember telling him that I am IT person like with a science background - MSc in theoretical solid state physics).

 

[RealityCheck01]

Taking about hijacking threads. I tried to get back to the topic on Jun 16, 2016
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.

And then I went back on 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 !

Guess who tried to hijack the thread into a fantasy about an obsolete invalid theory of galaxy formation?
Guess who when I linked to a blogger presenting science hijacked the thread into another blog article by the blogger?
Guess who was not honest enough to acknowledge mistakes, for example that not detecting dark matter particles in labs here on Earth does not make them not exist?

 

[Michael]

The documented truth

You do not know the meaning of the term "truth" RC.

RC's ever growing list of missing references:

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