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 » Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:02 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:My recent conversation with Tom Bridgman began when I made the following comment to Mr. Bridgman several weeks ago with respect to his erroneous particle flow diagram which he has posted on his blog in relationship to Birkeland's cathode solar model:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 460&bpli=1

It's rather difficult to take you seriously as a so called "skeptic" of EU/PC theory while you either willfully or ignorantly misrepresent various EU/PC concepts. For instance, you claimed this on a previous post:

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... ot-so.html

Image
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vICwYkSEzug/U ... athode.png
"Mozina's "Birkeland" model: As I read more of Birkeland's work, it's becoming clear this model is more Mozina than Birkeland."


Your particle movement diagram of Birkeland's cathode sun model however is absolutely *incorrect*, as well as your (false) assertion that his cathode solar model is mine, or has anything to do with me personally. The cathode solar model belongs to Birkeland, and I have never tried to take credit for it, although unlike you, I have tried to understand his theory properly. You apparently never did that because Birkeland predicted that *both* types of charged particles flow from the sun, to the heliosphere, whereas you have positive ions flowing into the sun, and only negatively charged particle flowing from the sun. I simply can't take you seriously when you blatantly misrepresent the scientific theory presented by Birkeland. Either your ego is still in the way, or you simply willfully misrepresent the facts. Which is it?

Either fix your serious error, or stop pretending to be a legitimate "skeptic" of concepts that you don't even begin to understand or appreciate.

August 6, 2015 at 2:45 PM


That particle flow image on his blog is absolutely *not* Birkeland's solar model as erroneously stated by Bridgman. Mr. Bridgman has the red arrow related to protons and ions flow pointed in the wrong direction. In Birkeland's cathode surface model both types of charged particles flow from the cathode surface, to the heliosphere. The inbound positively charged particles would be located outside of the heliosphere in Birkeland's one and only cathode "sun".

http://www.dnva.no/binfil/download.php?tid=44870

Electrostatic force caused sputtering which allowed intense cathode rays to escape into space. Some of these beams would intercept the Earth and cause visible light. To the objection that the cathode rays would be torn apart by Coulomb repulsion long before they reached Earth (e.g. Schuster, 1911), Birkeland responded that cathode rays escaping the Sun drag positive ions along with them. Thus, material found between the Sun and the Earth should be an electrically neutral ionized gas, with roughly the same number of positive as negative charged particles.


Instead of fixing his original wiring diagram error as requested and as warranted by scientific and historical accuracy, Bridgman continues to misrepresent Birkeland's works and statements. He's now compounding his original problem by not fixing the original error in the diagram, and instead making additional false assertions with respect to different current flow options which he erroneously calls different 'suns'. Oy Vey.


I hate to admit it, but it's the right thing to do.

I believe that I owe Tom Bridgman a partial public apology for one (not all) of my criticisms of his blog description of Birkeland's *one* cathode solar model. Tom's particle flow diagram of Birkeland's cathode solar model is in fact "oversimplified" as I pointed out to him earlier, but it's actually not entirely incorrect either.

Until I started thinking of cosmic rays as a form of high speed current, and I started including cosmic rays in the overall 'current flow" process, I didn't see the point of that inbound red arrow in Tom's diagram.

However, after reading about the composition, the charge, the speed and the quantity of cosmic rays recently, Tom's diagram actually makes a lot more sense to me today than it did a few years ago. There are actually *more* particle flow arrows to account for in Birkeland's model in terms of outbound, positively charged solar wind particles, and in terms of inbound cosmic ray electrons. There is however an observed high speed inflow of positive ions into the sun in the form of cosmic rays, and there is in fact an observed high speed outward flow of strahl electrons and electron beams flowing away from the sun, so Tom's wiring diagram is actually fine, if somewhat oversimplified.

Tom is still confusing the three current flow patterns that Birkeland observed and wrote about with the concept of promoting three different solar models, but at least Tom's wiring diagram is actually ok, if somewhat oversimplified. Sorry about that Tom.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
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 » Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:55 pm

Hagbard Celine

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

Holy shit. Brian, I have utmost respect for the 3 years of composed educated rebutals you offered the mostly very angry lot above.
I understand the defensive nature of belief and reading through literally years of repetition, insults, denial, and desperation. You’ve reinforced my own beliefs in the respectfully objective core at the heart of modern science, and humanity’s need for stability, security, and defending a ridiculous subjective understanding that makes them feel warm and fuzzy at any cost.
Primitive tribal creatures humans for the most part.
Keep inspiring!


Assuming that Hagbard isn't just another sock puppet, this response this month highlights the danger of a so called "professional' simply misrepresenting the facts to the public. Most people aren't going to take the time to do any real research on this topic. Many of his readers are "sheeple" who will believe anything they're 'told' if they believe that the source is credible, even if the source is not credible at all. :( What "educated" rebuttals? Brian banned everyone who dared to point out his bonehead errors.

Apparently it never occurred to Hagbard that the anger aspect of the various responses might have something to do with the fact that none of the crap that Koberlein posted is true to start with. Instead of doing their homework, some of Koberlein's readers will just take him as his word. They see Koberlein as some type of hero of science, even though he's basically feeding them pure BS.

For almost four years now Koberlein has been intentionally and deceitfully lying about EU/PC theory. He's simply banned everyone who's pointed out his lies. Koberlein doesn't represent the "respectfully objective core at the heart of modern science", anymore than Yosemite Sam represents the respectively objective core of self reflection. Give me a break.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYiCP1kxL1E

Lies can be a dangerous thing, particularly when they are intentional and malicious. Koberlein is the least ethical individual I've ever met in cyberspace.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Just-so Lazy And Unprofessional

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:12 am

https://briankoberlein.com/2018/01/27/just-so-story/

Just-so lazy…

Well, it looks like lying Brian Koberlein finally blinked as it relates to EU/PC solar neutrino predictions, four years too late to be considered “professional”, but his lies, his unethical behaviors, and his misrepresentations of EU/PC solar models still continue unabated. Koberlein starts his unethical and unprofessional behavior in his new blog entry by first comparing the EU/PC model to a flat Earth theory, Niribu claims, and the book/movie “Chariot of the Gods”. More unethical behavior from the start. He makes no mention of Birkeland's work or Alfven's work of course.

Koberlein continues to unprofessionally blame poor Findlay for his own laziness like a child who blames his dog for eating his homework. Koberlein specifically mentioned two other books in his original blog entry which were written by Thornhill and Scott, both of which mention neutrinos which vary with sunspot activity. Both books are *very* clear about predicting neutrinos coming from the sun, and both authors predict that neutrinos are variable with the solar cycle. Koberlein claimed to be discussing Thornhill’s model in his original blog entry, not Findlay’s model, but Koberlein still isn’t man enough to simply admit his own laziness and just admit his own mistakes. Instead he continues to misrepresent the meaning of Findlay’s statements, and he continues to unethically blame Findlay for his own unprofessional nonsense. The childish lack of professionalism hasn’t changed one iota. Lying Brian continues to flat out lie in his new blog entry when he erroneously and unethically claims that: “ ….Findlay clearly claims fusion doesn’t occur at all”. Bullshit! Just like in his first blog entry on this topic, Koberlein cites no specific quote from Findlay which explicitly states any such thing. He lists just one quote from Findlay that states that stars are powered by electrical current which of course does *not* preclude fusion in the solar atmosphere, and it is *not* the same thing as claiming that “fusion doesn’t occur *at all*” as Koberlein falsely asserts. Lying Brian continues to flat out lie through his teeth and he continues to unprofessionally blame Findlay for his own previous lies, just like he did in his first blog entry on this topic. Koberlein was caught red hand lying about neutrino predictions that Findlay, Scott and Thornhill never made, so he simply lies some more to justify his original lies. What an unethical putz.

Koberlein’s false statements continue: “To my best current understanding, some EU models say fusion doesn’t occur at all….”. No, that’s not the “best of your knowledge” lying Brian, because Findlay never made any such a claim in the reference that you cited or anywhere else in that whole PDF. Claiming that the sun is powered by electrical current isn’t the same thing a claiming that no fusion takes place at all. Koberlein's “best knowledge’ turns out to be another blatant lie, or it demonstrates his own gross negligence, gross incompetence and pure ignorance.

Since he’s finally (four year later) forced to admit that Thornhill’s book and Scott’s book *do* in fact predict neutrinos, which vary with the solar cycle, he takes a new approach to “debunking” and misrepresenting EU/PC theory using oversimplified claims about gamma rays. Z-pinch processes can and do occur *throughout* the sun, and the bulk of neutrino emitting processes would necessarily occur *under* the surface of the photosphere, where any gamma ray emissions would quickly be absorbed and would not necessarily ever leave the surface of the photosphere. The gamma rays would be absorbed by the photosphere and generate heat that would result in a *thermal* spectrum from the photosphere just like the standard solar model. Instead of *trying to understand* the model correctly and present Thornhill's model fairly to the public, Koberlein is still desperately trying to *misrepresent* the facts. Continuing to compare the solar spectrum to a florescent light bulb is another obvious example of this unethical and ignorant behavior since the temperature of the surface of the photosphere in EU/PC solar models is identical to the mainstream model. It would necessarily therefore emit a *thermal* spectrum that is inconsistent with a florescent light bulb and which is consistent with solar observations. Sheesh.

Koberlein also attempts to try to use the observation of limb darkening to insist that this observation of limb darkening demonstrates that deeper layers of the sun are necessarily “hotter” than the outer surface. This is a false premise. The sun’s limb appears to be darker because it’s made of thinner, less light emitting plasma compared to the sun as a whole. The plasma along the limb is also actually a little further away from Earth than the plasma in the middle of the sun so the inverse square law would also therefore apply and it contributes a little to the limb darkening effect.

Apparently Koberlein expects some sort of credit for *finally* coming clean over the neutrino issue (sort of), in a backhand manner, four years too late, while continuing to misrepresent the model. He also fails to mention that his own precious standard model has already been falsified. The convection predictions of the standard solar model were shown by SDO measurements to be two whole orders of magnitude slower than “predicted” by the standard model. If we used Koberlein’s same ‘debunking’ mentality, we should certainly toss out the mainstream solar model because it’s predictions fail to match observation.

A ‘professional’ scientist would simply have admitted their obvious mistakes *years* ago, and they would have made some attempt to properly present the model this time around. Koberlein however did no such thing. He’s four years too late, and he’s not man enough to admit his own mistakes. Instead of misrepresenting the neutrino predictions this time, he misrepresents the gamma ray predictions of EU/PC theory instead. In short, lying Brian simply trades one set of lies for another. It’s the very same unprofessional and unethical dance, just a different tune. Koberlein’s behavior is still totally unprofessional and utterly pathetic.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Your consistent misrepresentation of facts...

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:27 pm


Brian Koberlein

I normally wouldn’t allow Michael Mozina’s comment since it just link-spams to another site, but Mozina isn’t typically allowed to comment on my site any more for reasons I won’t go into here, so it’s understandable that he would make a link-comment in an effort to get me to see it. He wanted me to see the comment, and I’d like readers to see it as well. Not just because it tries to rebut my post, but it does so in a very particular way.

If you read my posts, I try to be clear about the difference between attacking an idea and attacking a person. After all, if EU is correct, its ideas should match observations in the long run. I don’t think they do. But Mozina and others think they do. But look at how Mozina deals with criticism of EU. He doesn’t attack the idea, he attacks the person. I’m a liar, unprofessional, unethical, pathetic, and apparently don’t know how to be a man. This ad hominem approach is unfortunately the rule rather than the exception in my experience. Both towards me and others.

Enjoy your moment in the Sun, Michael…


You're right about one thing Brian. In this specific case I did in fact choose to attack the *person* rather than the topic because it's quite clear that the *person* is the problem, not the topic itself. Your actions, your posts and your responses related to EU/PC theory have been consistently wrong, and you too have targeted the individual rather than the topic. You banned every individual that pointed out your neutrino error for instance, including three individuals before me. You've not only intentionally and publicly misrepresented EU/PC solar models, you've also engaged in attacking the individual. Here's a few examples from your original blog entry:

18 September 2014
Brian Koberlein

Sheldrake’s morphic resonance is nonsense because he presents it as a scientific model, but instead uses it to explain any “phenomena” he claims is real, while explaining away any scientific study that clearly shows the phenomena doesn’t exist, therefore rendering it completely untestable. It is pseudoscience and technobabble. Calling it nonsense is actually being kind. It is more accurately fraud and ignorance peddling.


Fraud? Wow! Accusing someone of fraud is attacking the individual rather than the topic Brian. Here's another example that was directed at me and all EU/PC proponents:

17 June 2016
Reply
Brian Koberlein

You clearly haven’t even read the comments on this very post. Nearly 400 comments on this post, and I’m tired of answering the same questions for every EU scrub that can’t be bothered to read.


Scrub? Calling me and every EU proponent a "scrub" is attacking the *person*, not the topic Brian. You brought this on yourself.

Then of course there was this over the top post that really pissed me off:

17 June 2016
Reply
Brian Koberlein

Huh, I just Googled “Michael Mozina possesses basic reading skills” and it produced no results anywhere on the internet. I guess you’re illiterate…

To be honest, I don’t think you’re illiterate. I think you clearly understand that Findlay argues against stellar fusion in any form, but have decided to reduce your argument to bad phrase searches. Read Findlay, don’t read him, I really don’t care. But if you can’t bother to read or at the very least do proper keyword searches, then you’re clearly beyond redemption.


That was a pure personal attack directed at the individual not the topic. You're not innocent Brian. Don't kid yourself.

Now of course there's also the whole question as to whether or not you're also running around as 'Reality Check' who *constantly* and *consistently* engages himself in endless personal attacks directed against any and all EU/PC proponents. Either two random guys are both actively and publicly interested in astronomy, and both of them consistently go out of their way to intentionally misrepresent EU/PC theory on the internet, and they both happen to use the very same obscure date format, and they both happen to cite the very same exact *false* argument related to Findlay's PDF to support their false assertions about EU/PC neutrino predictions rather than going to the source (Thornhill), or the handle "Reality Check" is simply your alter internet ego, and you've been engaged in *endless* personal attacks directed at everyone in the EU/PC community for *years*. I don't believe in those kinds of "coincidences" Brian.

In our first conversation, I began to try to correct your neutrino error by quoting Thornhill and Scott for you on the topic of neutrinos yet you still persisted in falsely claiming that Thornhill predicted "no neutrinos" even though he specifically claimed otherwise, as did Scott in the other two references that you cited on your blog. Both of those two authors not only predicted neutrinos in their books and in the quotes that I provided you, they both predicted that neutrinos varied with the solar cycle.

As a supposed "professional", you should have made some effort to correct your error, but you didn't. Instead you simply banned everyone, including three individuals before me, who all pointed out your same blatant error. That wasn't professional, let alone "honest" in any way. Worse yet you continued to *not* correct your error, or make any attempt to further educate yourself on that topic. It took you *four entire years* to come clean on that *simple* neutrino error. Why?

Even now you're still irrationally trying to blame Findlay for your bonehead error, like a kid who blames his dog for his missing homework. Findlay never mentioned the term "neutrino' in the whole PDF you cited so he could not possibly have predicted that the sun emitted "no neutrinos". He didn't claim that the sun experiences no fusion "at all" as you erroneously asserted this month. You made that up too. Claiming that the sun is powered by current doesn't preclude the possibility of fusion occurring in the sun as has been pointed out to you numerous times now, yet instead of taking responsibility for your own error, you persist on blaming someone else.

Your actions show no intent at being "honest" Brian. They've been consistently *dishonest* in fact. An honest individual would have made some attempt to educated themselves and if they had questions from Findlay's PDF, and they would have used the other two references that you also cited to crosscheck their claims. You didn't do that. Why not?

You have ignored everyone's criticisms for four year now, and you specifically banned three different individuals before me who all pointed out your same obvious error before I did.

I can only therefore surmise that you had no intention of showing any semblance of integrity Brian. Even now you're childishly blaming Findlay for your error. An honest professional wouldn't do that, they'd simply admit their mistake like a man and move on.

What's even worse however is that you simply made a *new* false claim this week related to gamma rays. Plasma pinches would necessarily occur *throughout the whole sun*, not just *above* the surface of the photosphere. Such gamma radiation would be absorbed inside the photosphere, and heat up the photosphere, which would result in a high temperature surface of the photosphere, which would in turn emit a blackbody spectrum just like the standard model. You simply traded one dishonest argument for another, and you dishonestly continue to blame Findlay for you own first mistake. You certainly won't quote any EU/PC proponent claiming that the sun is "predicted to emit more gamma rays" either.

In this specific case, you are the problem Brian. Of the 8000 or so professional astrophysicists on the planet, you're one of only two individuals that I've ever met who has blatantly misrepresented EU/PC theory using their real name and using their "credential" to attempt to unethically misrepresent EU/PC theory on the internet. In the only other case, I cannot even be sure that he intentionally misrepresented the model. In fact I even apologized to that other individual in this very thread for at least one of my criticisms recently after learning something about cosmic rays that I wasn't aware of prior to my original criticisms of his comments. I took full responsibility for my own error. I didn't try to blame anyone else for my own error like you did, nor did I make more false accusations like you did. You're in a class by yourself as it relates to intentionally making false claims about EU/PC theory Brian.

You clearly haven't made any real attempt to educate yourself on this topic. You're only interested in "debunking' the idea. You are not interested in *understanding* EU/PC theory as a professional should do before trying to critique it publicly, instead you go out of your way to consistently *misrepresent* it. Why?

Nobody twisted your arm or made you do any of that nonsense. If you're going to engage in such misleading and unethical behavior, don't get all whiney when someone points out your unethical BS. If multiple people really did try to get you fired for that first blog entry as you claim, then I obviously could not have been the only one that believes that your actions and your statements are less than ethical. What does that tell you Brian? Is it really all of us, or just you?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

The inherent danger in professional incompetence/misconduct.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:29 am

The inherent dangers of professional misconduct/incompetence is well illustrated by the last couple of posts to Koberlein's "Just-so" article:

https://briankoberlein.com/2018/01/27/just-so-story/

30 January 2018
John

Your write: “without nuclear fusion, the Sun would produce no neutrinos, but solar neutrinos have long been observed”. That seem to me to be a death blow of the EU theory. Unless of course, the EU theory suggested that neutrinos could be produce in another way, especially if that way was related to some kind of electrical phenomena. If none can be found, then the theory would be very weak.


Of course contrary to Koberlein's erroneous statements, every EU/PC solar model does predict fusion via the plasma pinch process and the emission of neutrinos. Even Koberlein's half-hearted acknowledgement of his neutrino error still leaves a false impression that many individuals will not fully understand and will not question if they trust the source, even if that source is entirely untrustworthy. The net result is that Koberlein is misrepresenting the facts. In doing so, he's ultimately destroying his own personal and professional credibility. Those who do check out EU/PC theory for themselves will eventually figure out that Koberlein has been misrepresenting EU/PC solar models, but unfortunately not everyone will take the time to do that. He's counting on that. Koberlein is essentially preying on their trust and their gullibility, and counting on their laziness. It's a classic confidence game.

1 February 2018
Tim Spellman

You had me at, “Thunderbolts [theory] makes no predictions.” If a theory does not advance science and make provable predictions that other theories do not, it is not much use as a theory.

Thank you for taking the time to expose this nonsense.


The really sad part of Tim's statement is the fact that EU/PC solar models absolutely *do* predict specific observations that are very unique and quite different from the standard solar model, like fusion and neutrino emissions near the surface, and variable neutrino emission rates which can and should be used to "test" the different models. It's unethical that he chooses to intentionally lead other's astray. Unfortunately however, Koberlein's false statements aren't really even 'questioned' by anyone who doesn't already understand EU/PC to begin with. He counts on that, and he preys on their trust.

I will say in Koberlein's defense that I'm pleasantly surprised that he allowed my two posts to remain in the comments section. Maybe there is still a glimmer of hope in there somewhere. I hope for his own sake, and the sake of others that Koberlein eventually overcomes his gross professional incompetence, or his irrational hatred of EU/PC theory. Whatever the motive behind his false statements, it's definitely not healthy, and it's not helpful to anyone either.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
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 » Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:14 am

https://briankoberlein.com/2018/01/27/just-so-story/

3 February 2018
Brian Koberlein

I LOVE this comment, mainly because it’s a great example of pseudoscience vs science. John’s first comment was that the Electric Universe folks (in particular Thunderbolts) does make predictions, and that I was wrong to say they don’t. My counter was that they aren’t predictions, and I gave an example specifically from the Thunderbolts website to demonstrate my point. John’s counter was that the example I gave might not be a good prediction, but there are lots of their predictions that are accurate. John doesn’t give a specific example, but the implication is that some broad, nonspecific agreement with observation (however Thunderbolts defines it) is sufficient to support EU.

But then John demands that for non-EU models, broad, nonspecific agreement with observation isn’t enough. If there isn’t a specific test that could prove the model wrong, then it isn’t valid. Rules for thee, not for me and all that. This double-standard is common with pseudoscience such as EU.


It's rather ironic that Koberlein has consistently misrepresented the neutrino predictions of Thornhill's/Scott's/Juergen's anode solar model, and then he turns right around and claims that EU/PC models do not make "predictions". The fact is that Thornhill's/Scott's anode solar model *does* make some very unique qualitative predictions related to neutrinos.

In contrast to the mainstream solar model, Thornhill/Scott predict that the bulk of the fusion and the bulk of the neutrino output should be concentrated near the surface of the sun rather than concentrated in the core. In contrast to the standard model, the anode model also predicts that the sun's neutrino output varies with the solar cycle and sunspot activity. It also predicts that the sun's corona is heated by electrical current. These are all very unique qualitative predictions of that allow us to differentiate between the two models provided that our "resolution" of neutrino output can be improved over time, and we are eventually able to directly measure the electric fields closer to the sun.

It's also ironic that he's talking about how the mainstream model makes *quantitative* predictions, yet he conveniently ignores the fact that the standard solar model *flunked* it's so called "quantitative predictions" related to the speed of convection by two entire orders of magnitude:

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

By his logic, those quantitative failures should have been the end of the standard solar model.

Kistian Birkeland also made a *whole host* of qualitative and quantitative predictions related to his cathode solar model, all of which have since been confirmed by satellites in space, including cathode rays, polar jets, both types of particles in solar wind, solar flares, and the fact that cosmic rays are positively charged with respect to the sun.

http://cnps.boards.net/thread/32/introd ... olar-model

Both the anode and cathode EU/PC solar models do in fact make unique predictions which can be tested. Instead of focusing his attention on these more important issues, Koberlein fixates at a virtually irrelevant prediction related to volcanic activity. Sheesh.

The irony overload aspect however was this particular comment and reference:

In contrast, let’s look at dark matter. One of the predictions of dark matter (specifically cold dark matter) is that it will cause galaxies to clump together in a particular way.


It should first be noted that "dark matter" is not even physically defined in LCDM. There is no way to "falsify" the claim because WIMP, axion, and sterile neutrino "predictions" have failed in the lab, time and time again, and there are any number of *other* potential definitions of 'dark matter'. By his definition that makes the whole dark matter claim "pseudoscience".

In fact, the entire basis of the exotic matter claim is predicated upon the *assumption* that the mainstream baryonic mass estimates are correct, when in fact they have been repeatedly shown to be *massively incorrect* over the past decade.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

Since that now infamous Bullet Cluster study in 2006, we have learned over the past decade that the mainstream grossly underestimated the number of entire stars in those galaxies by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. The also underestimated the brightness by a factor of 2, and they underestimated the number of stars that are shared *between* galaxies. They also just discovered two different plasma and gas "halos" around galaxies that they had no idea about until the last five years. There's no remaining logical basis for proposing exotic forms of matter in the first place.

Worse still, while LCDM does indeed make some predictions about the "clumpiness" of DM, some of those predictions have also been *falsified* including some that occurred just this month:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... tter-model

Instead of noting or citing any of those numerous failures of the dark matter model, Koberlein fixates on one specific *postidicted* number that is related to the so called "power spectrum" of the CMB. He *falsely* claims this number to be a "prediction", when it fact it's nothing more than a postdicted number that was "adjusted" yet again based on Plank data. It should also be noted that LCDM failed to "predict" those hemispheric variations observed by Planck in those same CMB observations which defy Guth's original predictions of a homogenous layout of matter. Nothing like cherry picking the "predictions" you like, while ignoring the ones you don't like.

It's also rather ironic that Koberlein refers to EU/PC theory as "pseudoscience" when 95 percent of LCMD is based on metaphysical placeholder terms for human ignorance, and most of the remaining 5 percent is mathematically modeled based on "pseudoscience" according to the author of MHD theory.

Koberlein has never taken the time to properly study and undestand EU/PC theory, and he simply buried himself with respect to DM. Not only is DM physically undefined, it's failed every real "test" it's been put to, save perhaps the *one* example that Koberlein cites, and even that number was adjusted to fit in a purely posdicted manner.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
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 » Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:29 am

5 February 2018
Reply
Brian Koberlein

Notice, dear readers, the troll in its natural habitat. Whenever the troll is confronted with evidence, it crawls deeper into the shadow under the bridge, hoping to lure another goat.


Ya Brian, you're so innocent when it comes to attacking *people*.

Oy Vey.

Never mind the fact that your solar model's "predictions" were shown to be off by two whole orders of magnitude and your "dark matter" model has failed ever 'test' it's ever been put to. Somehow it's all the "trolls" fault that he doesn't believe your falsified models. Sheesh.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby FS3 » Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:54 pm

Dear Michael,

will this diagram perhaps help you?

Image

Godspeed
FS3


Michael Mozina wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:My recent conversation with Tom Bridgman began when I made the following comment to Mr. Bridgman several weeks ago with respect to his erroneous particle flow diagram which he has posted on his blog in relationship to Birkeland's cathode solar model:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 460&bpli=1

It's rather difficult to take you seriously as a so called "skeptic" of EU/PC theory while you either willfully or ignorantly misrepresent various EU/PC concepts. For instance, you claimed this on a previous post:

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... ot-so.html

Image
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vICwYkSEzug/U ... athode.png
"Mozina's "Birkeland" model: As I read more of Birkeland's work, it's becoming clear this model is more Mozina than Birkeland."


Your particle movement diagram of Birkeland's cathode sun model however is absolutely *incorrect*, as well as your (false) assertion that his cathode solar model is mine, or has anything to do with me personally. The cathode solar model belongs to Birkeland, and I have never tried to take credit for it, although unlike you, I have tried to understand his theory properly. You apparently never did that because Birkeland predicted that *both* types of charged particles flow from the sun, to the heliosphere, whereas you have positive ions flowing into the sun, and only negatively charged particle flowing from the sun. I simply can't take you seriously when you blatantly misrepresent the scientific theory presented by Birkeland. Either your ego is still in the way, or you simply willfully misrepresent the facts. Which is it?

Either fix your serious error, or stop pretending to be a legitimate "skeptic" of concepts that you don't even begin to understand or appreciate.

August 6, 2015 at 2:45 PM


That particle flow image on his blog is absolutely *not* Birkeland's solar model as erroneously stated by Bridgman. Mr. Bridgman has the red arrow related to protons and ions flow pointed in the wrong direction. In Birkeland's cathode surface model both types of charged particles flow from the cathode surface, to the heliosphere. The inbound positively charged particles would be located outside of the heliosphere in Birkeland's one and only cathode "sun".

http://www.dnva.no/binfil/download.php?tid=44870

Electrostatic force caused sputtering which allowed intense cathode rays to escape into space. Some of these beams would intercept the Earth and cause visible light. To the objection that the cathode rays would be torn apart by Coulomb repulsion long before they reached Earth (e.g. Schuster, 1911), Birkeland responded that cathode rays escaping the Sun drag positive ions along with them. Thus, material found between the Sun and the Earth should be an electrically neutral ionized gas, with roughly the same number of positive as negative charged particles.


Instead of fixing his original wiring diagram error as requested and as warranted by scientific and historical accuracy, Bridgman continues to misrepresent Birkeland's works and statements. He's now compounding his original problem by not fixing the original error in the diagram, and instead making additional false assertions with respect to different current flow options which he erroneously calls different 'suns'. Oy Vey.


I hate to admit it, but it's the right thing to do.

I believe that I owe Tom Bridgman a partial public apology for one (not all) of my criticisms of his blog description of Birkeland's *one* cathode solar model. Tom's particle flow diagram of Birkeland's cathode solar model is in fact "oversimplified" as I pointed out to him earlier, but it's actually not entirely incorrect either.

Until I started thinking of cosmic rays as a form of high speed current, and I started including cosmic rays in the overall 'current flow" process, I didn't see the point of that inbound red arrow in Tom's diagram.

However, after reading about the composition, the charge, the speed and the quantity of cosmic rays recently, Tom's diagram actually makes a lot more sense to me today than it did a few years ago. There are actually *more* particle flow arrows to account for in Birkeland's model in terms of outbound, positively charged solar wind particles, and in terms of inbound cosmic ray electrons. There is however an observed high speed inflow of positive ions into the sun in the form of cosmic rays, and there is in fact an observed high speed outward flow of strahl electrons and electron beams flowing away from the sun, so Tom's wiring diagram is actually fine, if somewhat oversimplified.

Tom is still confusing the three current flow patterns that Birkeland observed and wrote about with the concept of promoting three different solar models, but at least Tom's wiring diagram is actually ok, if somewhat oversimplified. Sorry about that Tom.
User avatar
FS3
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:44 pm
Location: Europe

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:40 pm

FS3 wrote:Dear Michael,

will this diagram perhaps help you?


Maybe. :) I'm still chewing on that issue at the moment.

I think what really amazes me is how pitifully the mainstream really comprehends any EU/PC solar model, or EU/PC theory in general.

http://cnps.boards.net/thread/32/introd ... olar-model

From the satellite imagery, the heliosiesmology studies and the mass flow patterns under sunspots, my best estimate is that the surface of the electrode is about 4800KM under the surface of the photosphere. Most of the plasma pinches occur new the surface of the electrode, and only a very small percentage of coronal loops are large enough to rise up and through the surface of the photosphere.

I therefore would *not* expect much of the overall gamma radiation related to fusion in those pinch processes to be observable on Earth, but I would expect the atmosphere above the electrode to experience significant heating.

To listen to Koberlein and his clueless EU/PC hater posse, they seem to erroneously believe that we should expect to observe a lot of gamma radiation in Juergen's model, and the sun should emit a different EM spectrum than one that is related to a heated photosphere. Neither argument makes any sense in relationship to SDO imagery regardless of which EU/PC solar model you're talking about.

Alfven's model and Birkeland's model include fusion in the core, and a heated photosphere, but even Juergen's solar model wouldn't necessarily predict a lot of gamma radiation, or obvious spectral lines associated with an arc discharge since the photosphere is still "hot".

It's just laughable how poorly they even understand the models they pretend to "debunk". About the only thing they actually "debunk" is the their own strawman arguments, and their own erroneous belief systems.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Neutrino hypocrisy

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:59 am

It's really amusing watching the EU/PC hater posse try to use neutrino measurements to "debunk" EU/PC models. First Koberlein erroneous claimed that EU/PC solar models predict "no neutrinos' in spite of the fact that Jeurgens produced a solar model to explain why there were *fewer* of them, not *zero* of them. No EU/PC solar model *ever* predicted "no neutrinos", not even Juergen's original proposal.

EU/PC models have of course been updated as the 'neutrino deficit' issue was eventually explained *decades* after it was first noted. In spite of ignoring that neutrino deficit issue for *decades*, now they're handwaving around a paper about P-P fusion supposedly producing all the observed neutrinos based on core fusion processes, and they are claiming that EU/PC proponents are instantly required to agree with their assessment and instantly dismiss all EU/PC solar models, in spite of the fact that at least two EU/PC solar models (Birkeland/Alfven) *do* predict fusion in the core. EU/PC solar models may not *all* predict fusion in the core, but some of them certainly do. Even if their assessment of core fusion is accurate, it in no way eliminates *all* proposed EU/PC solar models. Now of course they never produced a paper that clearly demonstrates that fusion near the surface *cannot* produce the same output they simply handwaved in that claim like they handwaved in the "no neutrino" nonsense.

We're evidently supposed to just ignore the fact they're reduced to yet *another* bogus and handwavy claim about gamma radiation falsifying EU/PC solar models when no EU/PC solar model predicts an excess of gamma rays anymore than any EU/PC solar model predicted "no neutrinos". They simply traded one false claim for another. They've produced no evidence that fusion *cannot* occur near the surface, just evidence that core fusion agrees with the neutrino measurements.

We're also now just supposed to focus *only* on neutrinos, and completely ignore the fact that the convection predictions of the mainstream solar model were shown to be off by two whole orders of magnitude and blown away by SDO in 2012. Their enormous convection error has never been updated, fixed or explained, but apparently they don't care about the massive problems in *their own* model.

Watching the EU/PC hater posse try to 'debunk" EU/PC solar models and cosmology models is like watching the an old episode of the Keystone cops. They're so clueless that it's funny to watch. They fancy themselves as such great "experts" on EU/PC theory, when in fact they don't have the first clue how EU/PC models work in the first place. No EU/PC solar model ever predicted "no neutrinos" as Koberlein erroneously and unprofessionally claimed, and no EU/PC solar model predicts an excess of gamma radiation either as he now erroneously assert. They simply handwave away the massive problems in their own model, but they expect us to instantly give up the debate simply because they literally 'make stuff up" about our models that simply isn't true. They're just so clueless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8jphxpi1ro
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Koberlein is still engaging in professional misconduct

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Feb 08, 2018 12:06 pm

https://briankoberlein.com/2018/01/27/just-so-story/

Of course the problem is that there isn’t just one EU model at this point, there are several conflicting versions of them. To my best current understanding, some EU models say fusion doesn’t occur at all, some EU supporters claim neutrinos don’t even exist, and some claim fusion occurs near stellar surfaces, but (as far as I know) all claim fusion does not occur in stellar cores. Again, to my understanding, if core fusion were shown to be valid, it would overturn the electric star claims of EU models, and thus most of EU in general.


While the first statement of Koberlein's paragraph is certainly true, the rest of the paragraph is not only false, it's laughably false.

There are in fact at least three basic EU/PC solar models, Juergen's externally powered anode model, Alfven's internally powered and relatively standard solar model, and Birkeland's internally powered cathode model. There are other variations on these same themes of course, but there are at least three main EU/PC solar models, two of which *absolutely positively* do predict fusion in the core of the sun.

An honest professional would quote his actual sources but Koberlein does no such thing when making his string of false claims. Not only does he *falsely* accuse Findlay for his own error, the quote that Koberlein cited from Findlay's PDF does *not* support Koberlein's false claim. Findlay did not claim that fusion does not occur "at all". Koberlein flat out lied about that, just like he lied about everything else in that paragraph.

Even *if* core fusion were shown to be the *only* way to generate those neutrinos, it *still* would not overturn every EU/PC solar model. In fact it would only serve to *support* at least two of them! Now of course the reference that Koberlein sites to *support* core fusion doesn't eliminate surface fusion. That particular paper only serves to demonstrate that core fusion is consistent with the neutrino output that is observed, but it doesn't eliminate any other possibility. He's intentionally misrepresenting the meaning of *that* paper too!

The complete lack of professionalism by Brian Koberlein is absolutely appalling. Either he never actually researched these topics in the first place, or he has read them, and he simply engages in active misinformation related to them. Considering his earlier misrepresentation in his previous blog entry on this topic, it's more likely that Koberlein is simply engaging himself in an active smear campaign that is based upon a *willful* and intentional misrepresentation of the facts. If he were simply "confused" by Findlay's work, a real "professional" would have read and referenced the other two books that he cited as a resource, both of which not only predicted fusion and neutrinos, they both predicted that neutrino output varies over time.

Nothing about Koberlein's actions and statements would suggest he's simply guilty of profession incompetence. His consistently false statements show a *pattern* of deception, including the meaning of the neutrino paper he cited. This pattern of deception suggests that Brian Koberlein is intentionally deceiving his students and the readers of his blog. Talk about blatant professional misconduct! That's about as blatant as it gets. It would be nice to think that Koberlein is just professionally incompetent, and he never actually took the time or made the effort to understand the models properly, but the evidence suggests that he's actively misrepresenting the facts with the express intent of outright deception. No wonder several individuals apparently tried to get Koberlein fired. He deserves to be fired.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Ignroance isn't bliss

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:30 pm

I think the most disconcerting aspect of Koberlein's false statements about EU/PC theory is that no so called 'professional' astronomer ever clued him into the fact that EU/PC solar models *do* predict fusion and neutrinos after four whole years. It just demonstrates the level of ignorance that pervades astronomy today in terms of their lack of knowledge about alternatives to their own beliefs. Kinda sad really.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

I feel sorry for astronomy students today.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:37 am

When I took physics and astronomy courses in school, my teachers did their best to explain why they thought that the current model of the time was the 'best' option at that time, but they didn't go out of their way to misrepresent alternative concepts or stifle free speech and free thought.

They explained to their students that we still had a lot to learn and they didn't try to convey a sense of "certainty" like we see today on TV, and around the internet. They allowed for, and in fact they encouraged alternative thinking because they knew that we still had a lot to learn about our universe.

Today however we see websites like Cosmoquest that treat alternative thinking as "heretical". They punish anyone and everyone who tries to "think outside of the box'. We see TV shows that convey a sense of absolute certainty about a "bang" that never even took place. We see a pure lack of professionalism from folks like Brian Koberlein and his hater posse who don't even understand the models they attempt to "debunk" and who actively lie to their students and misrepresent alternative models to their students.

I really feel sorry for astronomy students who are dependent on unethical individuals for their good grades. I feel sorry for them because the fear factor in astronomy today precludes any sort of open minded approach to physics and herds them into a belief system that has failed more so called "tests" than it passes, and which actively discourages new ideas.

Once upon a time, astronomy was considered to be the 'queen of physics", but not it has now become the court jester. I feel sorry for new students of astronomy. They've being taught absolute metaphysical crap as 'dogmatic truth", and they're being taught to *not* think outside of the box, and they're being beaten into submission. They're doomed to fail their classes if they ask too many questions, or they are doomed to live out their professional careers using mostly placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe the universe around us. How sad.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: I feel sorry for astronomy students today.

Unread postby Metryq » Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:16 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:Today however we see websites like Cosmoquest that treat alternative thinking as "heretical". They punish anyone and everyone who tries to "think outside of the box'.

One of the things I liked about Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened is the treatment of science, society and politics as a pendulum, in synch throughout history, swinging from one extreme to another. I say this because much of politics and society today is also highly polarized. If you don't think the "right" thoughts, then you're an enemy and the lowest of the low, stupid, etc. (This is called "diversity.")
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: I feel sorry for astronomy students today.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:20 am

Metryq wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:Today however we see websites like Cosmoquest that treat alternative thinking as "heretical". They punish anyone and everyone who tries to "think outside of the box'.

One of the things I liked about Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened is the treatment of science, society and politics as a pendulum, in synch throughout history, swinging from one extreme to another. I say this because much of politics and society today is also highly polarized. If you don't think the "right" thoughts, then you're an enemy and the lowest of the low, stupid, etc. (This is called "diversity.")


I can't help but believe that future generations will look back at this period in history and be puzzled and amazed by the fact that in the early 21st century astronomers were still relying upon and using placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe the vast majority of the universe.

I'm certain that it will seem unbelievable to future generations that supposedly "modern" humans beings, with fairly significant electromagnetic technologies like cell phones, computers and televisions could be so blind as to the electrical nature of the universe. They almost certainly will refer to this period of time as the 'dark ages" of astronomy, and with good reason. In terms of predicting the results of laboratory experimentation there's virtually no empirical difference between astronomy and astrology in the early 21st century. How sad is that? :(
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest