Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC haters.

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:13 pm

Metryq wrote:That's a very dark matter, Michael. Have you considered the gravity of this course of action?


I wouldn't actually do it on principle, and I doubt that he would answer my questions. It just struck me as an amusing thought. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread postby kiwi » Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:23 pm

Michael

Have you considered legal action against Koberlein? ... The guy wouldnt last 2 minutes in a courtroom on slander/deliberate misrepresentation charges? ... I wouldnt think he would, how long would it take a judge based on the information you present in this thread to find the blatant liar guilty? ... how about a go-fund-me set up for legal costs? I certainly would donate :idea:

As an aside I am somewhat perplexed about your continued belief in the CMB circus ... Robitaille hit that garbage out the park. I know you are a busy guy but I would like to hear your breakdown on his critique and your opinion on exactly where he has got this wrong

Thanks for your efforts in general at this site ... keep up the good work :twisted:
kiwi
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:42 pm

kiwi wrote:Michael

Have you considered legal action against Koberlein?


Nah. It wouldn't be worth my time IMO. Only the lawyers would win. :) Koberlein has misrepresented Wal's beliefs on his public blog, but not mine. I'm sure he's done it to me in cyberspace using a "handle", but I'm not inclined to go to all the trouble of finding out the cast of players at JREF/ISF. Koberlein is not worth my time because he's destroying his own reputation. If he can't get even *simple* things like neutrino predictions right, then he's not much of a "professional". If he didn't flat out intentionally lie about Wal's solar neutrino predictions, then he is scientifically and professionally incompetent, one or the other. Either way, Koberlein is destroying his own professional reputation.

If I were to do a go-fund-me project it would be related to testing Birkeland's cathode solar model as well as the other configurations over time.

As an aside I am somewhat perplexed about your continued belief in the CMB circus ... Robitaille hit that garbage out the park. I know you are a busy guy but I would like to hear your breakdown on his critique and your opinion on exactly where he has got this wrong


I haven't really listened to or read Robitaille's ideas, but I hold no belief in the mainstream CMB circus. Every sun emits tons of microwaves photons which are scattered in the dusty plasma of space, so there is certainly a microwave background just like there's an x-ray background too, and lots of backgrounds in between.

Eddington predicted the average temperature of the "dust" of space to within 1/2 of a degree on the very first time based on nothing more than the scattering of starlight on the dust. They filter the hell out of the real image to 'smooth it out' but we still see the emissions from distant stars in distant galaxies, and universe is "pretty much" evenly spread out over distance. There are some 'cold spot' where the galaxy density is less, but by and large it's pretty homogeneously distributed.

Thanks for your efforts in general at this site ... keep up the good work :twisted:


Thanks.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:27 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:I haven't really listened to or read Robitaille's ideas, but I hold no belief in the mainstream CMB circus. Every sun emits tons of microwaves photons which are scattered in the dusty plasma of space, so there is certainly a microwave background just like there's an x-ray background too, and lots of backgrounds in between.

Eddington predicted the average temperature of the "dust" of space to within 1/2 of a degree on the very first time based on nothing more than the scattering of starlight on the dust. They filter the hell out of the real image to 'smooth it out' but we still see the emissions from distant stars in distant galaxies, and universe is "pretty much" evenly spread out over distance. There are some 'cold spot' where the galaxy density is less, but by and large it's pretty homogeneously distributed.



In Robitaille's speech on the CMB, he shows the image that you get when you do not filter away
every detail. This unfiltered image simply shows points that emit the radio-waves.

He also showed that the filters that the "scientists" were using, were removing the
signal and replacing it with a false signal. They did it by mixing in the false earthly signal,
and by subtracting a part of the real signal.
Mainstream science can be really bad at seeing reality.

I think that the unfiltered image that he shows is very close to what Eddington describes.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:51 am

Zyxzevn wrote:I think that the unfiltered image that he shows is very close to what Eddington describes.


Any raw microwave image shows *exactly* what Eddington predicted, namely the emission patterns of point objects (suns) and the emission patterns of dust particles in and around our galaxy, and all galaxies in the universe.

Eddington not only explained and predicted the CMB, and nailed the right number to within 1/2 of degree of the correct temperature in his first attempt. It took big bangers 3 or 4 tries to get any closer than Eddington.

To make their case about these wavelengths, the mainstream has to pretend to 'filter out" all foreground microwaves and to "see" the patterns from a mythical 'surface of last scattering' that never existed in the first place. Their whole model is FUBAR from start to finish because photon redshift is *not* caused by 'space expansion", no matter how much their metaphysical dogma requires it.

The universe has *lots* of backgrounds, not just "one spacial' one. It does have an overall background temperature which Eddington nailed to with 1/2 a degree. The BB proponents missed that background temp by more than a whole order of magnitude on their first attempt. What does that tell you about the real cause of that observation?

The LCDM model is the hokiest, goofiest, most metaphysical cosmology theory on the planet. :) Big Bang theory has really gone downhill, even since I was in college. It's metaphysical garbage.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Sometimes the irony factor is overwhelming.... :)

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Aug 27, 2017 7:38 pm

Sometimes the irony overload from EU/PC haters is just mind boggling. Here's a recent case in point:

https://briankoberlein.com/2017/08/26/a ... r-support/

One of the overarching goals of the Big Science TV project is to break down the perception that scientists are different from everyone else. There’s a common view that we sit in an ivory tower of academia, looking down upon the unwashed masses and telling people what to think and what to believe.


If they don't want to be perceived that way, perhaps they could at least start by being *honest* with the public in terms of various claims that they make:

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/t ... -universe/

The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos. The EU model clearly fails this test, because neutrinos are produced by the Sun.


When the haters flat out *lie* about the predictions of competing solar models and competing cosmological models, it's hard to believe that they are not sitting in their ivory towers looking down upon the unwashed masses, and feeling the need to simply *misrepresent the facts* to achieve their "mathier than thou" goals.

In reality the haters are engaging themselves in *blatant professional misconduct* of the worst possible sort, by flat out lying to their own students about the facts, and failing to acknowledge their own mistakes when they are pointed out to them by at least four different individuals. How such people can even look themselves in the mirror is beyond me. The gall of wanting to be financially rewarded, and publicly 'trusted' after that type unethical behavior is beyond comprehension.

Brian certainly does come across as different from everyone else, including different from most "scientists". Most individuals, and certainly most "scientists" at least *attempt* to be professional, honest and thorough.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Koberlein is at it again....

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:19 am

https://briankoberlein.com/2017/09/19/n ... doscience/

We’re probably lying, or haven’t looked at the “real” evidence.

It’s the same pattern for other topics. The Earth is flat, vaccines are dangerous, the Sun is electric, climate change is a hoax.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16795
https://watchers.news/2017/08/01/study- ... wered-sun/

It's actually difficult to believe that Koberlein isn't lying, or at least he hasn't looked at the evidence since he continues to erroneously proclaim that electric solar models produce no neutrinos, *years* after he repeatedly banned everyone that pointed out his bonehead mistake.

Koberlein constantly erroneously equates working empirical models with "hoaxes". The man has no scientific ethics whatsoever, and therefore no scientific credibility either.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Brian continues to be a dishonest prick.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:34 pm

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/t ... -universe/

23 October 2017
Reply
Brian Koberlein

A Gish gallop, for those readers who aren’t familiar, is a dishonest technique used in debates, whereby an individual makes a rapid succession of unsubstantiated claims. The idea is to flood the stage with so many topics and so many changes of topic that an honest debater isn’t able to make a cogent reply.


Then Brian, you're certainly guilty of Gish gallop because not a single one of the authors you mentioned in that article ever claimed that our sun is expected to emit no neutrinos, or that hot plasma would only emit discrete line emissions. Your first two arguments were bald faced lies, and your article just got worse from there. You also banned everyone including me and three others before me who pointed out your BS, effectively making it impossible to reply at all! You're nothing but a Gish galloping liar Brian and your own dishonest statements and dishonest actions prove it.

But I try to be honest...


Bullshit. That's just another lie Brian as evidenced by the fact you have *never* produced an actual quote from any of those three authors that you referenced in your article that actually supported your false claim that any electric sun model predicts that our sun will produce "no neutrinos". You lied when you blamed Findlay for your own damn lies, and you continue to lie about Findlay even now. You're about as *dishonest* as is humanly possible in fact. You compound lies upon lies, upon more damn lies. Gish gallop lying crap is all you ever spew as it relates to EU/PC theory in fact.

Now, careful readers of this post will note that I claimed the Electric Universe model claims that neutrinos don’t exist.


Yes, and you flat out lied when you said that, and you lied your ass off when you claimed that Wal Thornhill made such a claim. In his book, and on the internet, he claimed exactly the opposite in fact and he predicted that solar neutrinos varied with the sunspot cycle.

I inferred that by the fact that the most publicly available ebook on the EU model states very clearly that nuclear fusion doesn’t occur in stars.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15939&start=75#p114033

You are a liar Brian. Findlay never even said such a thing in the first place. You flat out lied about that, and you continue to flat out lie about what Findlay actually said. The only passage you ever cited was a paragraph where Findlay was describing the *mainstream* model of brown dwarfs, not the EU model of our sun. Findlay wasn't even describing the EU/PC solar model, nor was he discussing a sun, or even neutrinos at all, just the *mainstream* beliefs about brown dwarfs and the mainstream's lack of an explanations for their emission of x-rays. You're such a frigging *LIAR* Brian. We'll just call you little lying Brian from now on. Let's see you quote Findlay for us Brian where he claimed that *our sun* is predicted to emit "no neutrinos". He made no such claim. You lied. We all know you're never going to quote him correctly or honestly because you're a sleazy frigging liar.

If you’ve read the comments you’ll know that several EU folks have given me all manner of grief over this, claiming that not only do neutrinos exist, but that I am being a deceitful liar to claim that EU folks deny neutrinos.


And you promptly banned everyone who pointed out your lies, you misquoted Findlay, and you continue to misquote him to this day. You're nothing but a two bit liar Brian and everyone in the EU/PC community knows it.

Dear lying Brian,

Let's see you quote Findlay where he specifically claimed that any EU.PC solar model is predicted to produce no neutrinos you lying coward. We know you can't and you won't do that because Findlay's entire PDF never once even mentions neutrinos. You also flat out lied when you blamed *Thornhill" when you said:

There are actually many variations to the Electric Universe model, but the most popular version seems to focus around the book by Thornhill and Talbot listed below. It is this basic model I’ll discuss here, using the references listed at the bottom of the post.


I have quoted Thornhill and Talbott's own statements from their book which you listed as a reference where they specifically predicted that A) the sun emits neutrinos which B) vary with the solar sunspot cycle. You lied your butt off about Thornhills *actual* beliefs, and you lied when you blamed Findlay for *your lies*. You're not honest at all Brian and you lied when you claimed that you try to be honest. Lies, lies, and more damn lies.

CNB had the best comment of October 2017 when he posted this response to your BS on your blog:

On thinking about it, your article against the EU is actually best non-retracted, because when the real truths finally come into the mainstream, we will need articles like this, to measure how far we have come. What you leave out of your article is that even among “peers” and university professors of quantum mechanics, there is no real agreement on anything, and if they can’t agree among themselves, how are we expected to believe anything they present?


He's right that your comments will serve as a reminder of just how far we've come, and it will demonstrate all the unethical crap that we've had to put up with for years from the so called "professionals". Either they don't begin to even understand the models they criticize, they don't have the knowledge to even notice or comment on your mistake, and some of them like you are flat out liars and your own unethical statements demonstrate that fact.

Don't kid yourself. You're nothing but a two bit frigging liar who doesn't give a damn about honesty or integrity in astronomy Brian. History won't be kind to you lying Brian.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:40 am

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15939&start=75#p114035

Brian Koberlein said:

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.


I was angry when I read lyin' Brian's recent post, but the more I think about it, the more that I realize just how prophetic Captain Ned Blakely's recent comment really is. It is actually far better that Brian Koberlein just leaves his dishonest lies and his total bullshit on the web for all the world to see. Brian already admitted on his own blog that the EU/PC solar model predicts the existence of neutrinos, and their variability, so he knows that he's lying in his opening comments. He then went right back to dishonestly blaming Findlay for his own dishonest behaviors and he's perpetuated that lie for years now. That whole blog entry also demonstrates the *utter ignorance* and/or gross incompetence of the mainstream as it relates to EU/PC theory because not a single so called "professional" who has posted to that thread, or even read that blog entry has bothered to correct Koberlein's original error, or even point it out to him.

Not a single "professional" corrected Brian, so either they're all professionally incompetent, or more likely, every single one of the so called "professionals" that have posted to that blog has a serious ethics problem, one or the other.

That thread should be (actually is) a huge embarrassment to the so called "professionals", but apparently they're decided that it's in their best interest to perpetuate an obvious lie. That thread really does demonstrate the complete lack of ethics in astronomy today.

Captain Ned is right, it's better that the thread stays where it is, and the various comments from the so called "professionals" should stay too. Their ignorant comments clearly demonstrate the complete lack of professional ethics that has destroyed the entire field of astronomy. That blog entry illustrates how and why they are stuck in the "dark ages" of physics, and why they're reduced to using placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe the universe that we live in. They really don't care about truth, and they never have.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

November 2017 is irony overload month for lyin' Brian

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:10 pm

2 November 2017
Brian Koberlein: You’re having a collective tantrum against the complexity of modern science without understanding either the history or details of the work. That’s why none of you are interested in actual predictions, and why you keep taking the “you’re obviously wrong, my theory is obviously right” position without being willing to prove it.


Oh the irony. Not only didn't you correctly represent the actual neutrino predictions *any* EU/PC solar model Brian, you misrepresented them intentionally and you've thrown a temper tantrum every time someone has pointed out your absurd error. You banned them all for daring to point out your bonehead mistake, and you consistently refuse to even quote someone in the EU/PC community who ever claimed that any EU/PC solar model predicts our sun to emit no neutrinos.

It's unbelievable just how ridiculous and unprofessional you look at this point Brian. You haven't educated yourself to Juergen's solar model in over three and half years, yet you have the audacity to talk about other people not taking the time to understand the history or the details of someone's work? How pathetic. You blew up the irony meter this month Brian, big time. Boom!

The issue of neutrinos in EU vs the standard model has been addressed several times.


But never addressed honestly, at least not by you.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

November must be irony overload month at the hater blog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:33 pm

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/t ... -universe/

14 November 2017
Jean Tate

I particularly like this: “Now I don’t think EU is correct on many things (currently from my basic understandings), but […] just makes me want to research it further.”

Great! Irrespective of what […] is, I think you should definitely research “the EU” further!

When you find an internally consistent EU model of the Sun, which objectively and independently verifiably, shows the Sun’s electromagnetic output (in watts) is the same as we observe, shows this output is ~constant over ~a few billion years, is consistent with the published results on helioseismology, please come back here and discuss it.


November definitely must be irony overload month at the EU/PC hater blog.

First of all, the *mainstream* solar model is an absolute disaster, and an *epic failure* with respect to the SDO heliosiesmology findings:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/ ... projected/

The mainstream's solar model failed it's "prediction test" by two whole orders of magnitude! If that's an important criteria, the mainstream model is absolute *toast*. It wasn't just a little wrong, it was wrong by two whole orders of magnitude for heaven's sake, and it's *never been fixed either*. How ironic that she used convection predictions as an important solar criteria all things considered. Irony overload. She shot her own solar model in the foot.

Secondly, Birkeland *assumed* that his cathode sun was entirely internally powered based on a 'transmutation of elements', AKA fusion, so it's output would be *exactly* the same as the standard model. Not only is it internally consistent, and independently verifiable, it also works in the lab, and it easily explains the heat source of the solar corona, unlike the standard model.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

Wake me up when the mainstream model can replicate that full sphere solar corona that Birkeland both explained *and simulated* in his lab over a century ago.

Juergen's anode solar model is simply more 'flexible" in that area, but there's nothing precluding anyone from suggesting that an anode solar model has fusion occurring *throughout* the whole sun, including the core, so it's overall output could be modified to meet just about any output requirements.

What a great example of pure denial and absolute ignorance in a single post. Nicely done Jean. You put your foot in your mouth in spectacular fashion yet again.

Such comments really do demonstrate the willful ignorance of the mainstream. Not only hasn't Jean corrected lyin' Brian's bonehead neutrino error in over three years, demonstrating her gross professional incompetence, she seems to know absolutely nothing about *any* EU/PC solar model, She's also apparently in pure denial of the epic failure of the mainstream solar model with respect to convection. What a riot.

Wow!
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Previous

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest