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: bboyer, MGmirkin

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Oh the irony....

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:25 am

13 February 2018


I don´t think this is an argument. This is something else. Things that Brian picked out to test EU model, were seemingly random but crucial according to their own claims.
Sometimes what comes out of the mouths of EU/PC skeptics simply blows up the irony meter. Koberlein's "no neutrino" (false) claim isn't crucial to any EU/PC solar model, it's only crucial to Koberlein's *false* strawman argument. It's not 'crucial to any EU/PC model. Ditto for Koberlein's equally false claims about EU/PC solar models predicting excessive gamma ray emission from the sun. Nobody in the EU community made that claim to start with anymore than they claimed 'no neutrinos" came from our sun. Koberlein flat out lied his ass off in both cases. That's why lyin Brian never actually quotes anyone in the EU community who made any of those false claims. He made them up all by himself, so he cannot quote anyone else. Findlay didn't even use the term 'neutrino' in his whole PDF so he certainly didn't predict "no neutrinos' as Koberlein falsely asserts. Findlay never said that no fusion ever occurs in the sun either, he simply suggested that current flow plays a role in the heating process.
EU model didn´t stand the test,
Actual EU/PC models and predictions stand their own real tests just fine. Only Koberlein's lies didn't stand "the test", but he already knew that all along.
but more importantly I don´t think they even know why he picked up those points – what is he talking about.
Well, he's right about that much. I have no idea why lyin' Brian chose to lie his unprofessional butt off about those specific issues and make up those specific strawman arguments. I certainly have no idea what lyin' Brian is talking about since no EU/PC proponent ever made those "no neutrino" or "excessive gamma ray" predictions to start with.
I think the conspiracy folks just counter what critics say, they have no real understanding in theory of relativity, QED, particle physics – thinks that they try to overthrow.
I can say for sure that EU/PC proponents typically understand what we're trying to overthrow in mainstream theory better than the EU/PC hater posse members actually understand EU/PC theory. That's for damn sure.
To even think what science/physics we know today have required during centuries – astronomical amount of hours in work and experiments, brilliant minds from all over the world, mindboggling accomplishments like Manhattan project, moon landings, LHC to counter what
Here's where the "newbie" EU/PC critic blows up the irony meter. LHC was a very impressive scientific experiment that was definitely *not* kind LCMD theory. LHC experiments fully supported the standard particle physics model, but that doesn't help LCDM proponents. I consider LHC to be a great human accomplishment, but unfortunately LCDM proponents throw it's importance and it's value right out the window! They simply choose to toss out all those results and still put their faith in a non-standard particle physics model.
– some random name and word dropping, youtube videos? This is absurd.
What's utterly absurd IMO is how little EU/PC "critics" actually understand EU/PC models to start with. No EU/PC solar model predicts "no neutrinos". No EU/PC proponent ever predicted an excess of gamma rays either, nor did any of them predict that the photosphere wasn't radiating at 5800K and emitting EM radiation consistent with that temperature. These so called "tests' are all 'make believe claims that have absolutely nothing to do with EU/PC theory, and everything to do with Koberlein's complete lack of ethics, or his complete scientific incompetence, or both.

EU/PC proponents evidently don't spend even five minutes honestly trying to understand the EU models that they try to 'debunk'.

At least we make an honest effort to understand the mainstream's models before we point out it's flaws, like the fact that the standard solar model overestimated the speed of convection by two full orders of magnitude. That's an example of an *actual* valid scientific criticism of their model. ... projected/

If I were acting as unethically as lyin' Brian Koberlein, I'd first have to go out of my way to blatantly misrepresent the standard model and then I would have to turn around and "debunk" my own strawman argument.

Posts: 103
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 8:41 am

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

Unread post by antosarai » Wed Feb 14, 2018 6:04 am

Are these tactics, clamoring against mainstream science — so enthusiastically embraced by some members of this forum, and even itself as of late — in any way productive in bolstering Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe ideas to the general public?

Or is it just preaching to the choir?

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:06 am

antosarai wrote:Are these tactics, clamoring against mainstream science — so enthusiastically embraced by some members of this forum, and even itself as of late — in any way productive in bolstering Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe ideas to the general public?

Or is it just preaching to the choir?
I think this kind of thread does serve to illuminate and to point out the corrupt "methodology" that is being used to shackle us and imprison us in the dark ages of astronomy even to this very day. I doubt that everyone here shares my 'enthusiasm" as you put it or my willingness to confront the corruption, but they aren't naive. We all know that this kind of systemic professional corruption does have a tangible effect on the acceptance, or lack thereof of PC/EU theory.

Most new students of astronomy don't understand EU/PC theory well enough to judge it for themselves. They "trust" their professors and teachers to tell them the truth, and to give them some guidance. That trust however is often very misplaced.

Astronomy teachers do not even give their students a proper understanding of basic history. They don't tell their students, or tell the public that Edwin Hubble wrote about *two* potential solutions to the redshift/distance problem, expansion *and* tired light. Instead they erroneously claim in their videos and classrooms that Hubble 'proved" that the universe is expanding.

Astronomy teachers don't tell their students that Albert Einstein flat out rejected the concept of infinitely dense point like objects. Instead they falsely assert that GR theory predicts and requires such objects.

They don't tell their students that Hannes Alfven referred to magnetic reconnection theory as "pseudoscience" nor do they discuss his double layer paper, and circuit theory papers in their classrooms and their videos. Instead they herd their students and the public into a magnetic reconnection mindset that attempts to downplay, minimize and deny the important role of electricity in space and in plasma.

They don't even *honestly* portray EU/PC theory to their students as lyin' Brian Koberlein so blatantly demonstrates. No EU/PC solar model predicts "no neutrinos", excess gamma ray emissions, or a limited photon spectrum from the sun. Those are all just blatant lies that astronomers try to shove down the throats of their unsuspecting, gullible and trusting students. The fact that no professional astronomer has even bothered to confront Koberlein on his BS demonstrates that this unethical behavior is a *serious* problem in astronomy. They literally prey on their student's trust!

This type of blatantly unethical behavior does shackle us all. It has the net effect of enslaving us and imprisoning us in the dark ages of astronomy.

I think a few folks here are glad that I (and many others) have the courage to publicly confront that kind of unethical nonsense, but I'm sure that we *all* would prefer it if such confrontation wasn't necessary or warranted in the first place.

I'm not nearly as "enthusiastic" as you imagine. I'm just doing my job to point out the unethical BS IMO. I wish I didn't have to do that, but unfortunately it has to be done.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Koberlein removed the comments section apparently.

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:18 pm

Well, I just noticed that Koberlein removed the comments section entirely from his blog pages, but he left the two offending EU/PC blog entries with all the absurdly false and misleading claims intact.

I'll tell you what Brian.....let's make a deal.

If you remove the two offending EU/PC blog entries from your website which contain all that false information about EU/PC theory, and you promise not to do anymore false and misleading "hit pieces" on EU/PC theory on your blog, I'll petition to have this whole thread removed from Thunderbolts, I'll stop talking about you, and we'll be done with this nonsense once and for all. ... -universe/

How about it Brian? Care to do the right thing and make this easy?

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Koberlein can't handle the heat.

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:30 pm

I can only assume that Koberlein removed the blog responses, but kept the offending blog EU/PC entries because he can't handle the criticism.

I have no idea why Koberlein took it upon himself to post false information about EU/PC theory to start with, or why he chose to ignore the real neutrino predictions by Scott and Thornhill, but removing hundreds of responses (over 550 between both threads) only demonstrates that Koberlein cannot handle the criticism. It was bad enough that Koberlein banned everyone who pointed out his numerous errors, but removing the comments after four years in some cases only demonstrates a pure lack of professional ethics. Why claim that he'll let me respond to that erroneous nonsense only to go back on his word a week or two later? It's clear that this action of removing the comments was directed at the EU/PC threads and our community because the two offending EU/PC threads had more comments than most of the rest of his blog entries combined.

Oh well. His actions only serve to demonstrates a complete lack of professional ethics on his part, and he continues to to find creative new ways to destroy his own professional reputation. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

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

Unread post by Metryq » Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:15 am

Just out of curiosity, could you "unban" yourself with VPN?

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Fri Mar 30, 2018 2:33 pm

The danger of professional misconduct is pretty obvious, and the blatant ignorance of EU/PC theory is simply astounding at times. What shocks me the most is that nobody bothers to correct such utter nonsense, including but not limited to Koberlein, so I can only assume they're all either ignorant of the various EU/PC models, or they simply intentionally misrepresent them.
30 March 2018

@ Jim,
Sorry, you’ve just gone off on a rant, and answered nothing. Neutrino data falsifies all electric sun models. Done deal. Forget it.
Ian obviously has no clue what he's even talking about because Alfven's "electric sun" model is essentially the mainstream solar model in terms of it's hydrogen fusion powered core, and everything else out to the photosphere. Alfven simply added circuit theory from the photosphere outward to connect the sun to the rest of the galaxy.

Birkeland's cathode solar model is *also* internally powered by a transmutation of elements according to Birkeland, and it's core could also be *identical* to the standard solar model as well.

Neither of those two EU/PC models could *possibly* be falsified by any neutrino data without also falsifying the standard solar model.

Koberlein specifically claimed to be discussing *Thornhill's* solar model and Thrornhill clearly states that the fusion processes occurs *in* the photosphere, so nothing related to gamma rays or the temperature of the photosphere that has been said on Koberlein's blog is even true to begin with.

The only neutrino papers presented simply support the standard model at best case, and they *do not* rule out any other model, nor does it even mention *any* EU/PC solar models! Thornhill has made it clear that he expects all the same neutrinos emissions to come from his model, they just originate in plasma pinches in the photosphere, not just in the core.

Not only is it impossible to falsify two of the three EU/PC models based on neutrino output from the sun without also falsifying the standard solar model, it's not even true that Thornhill's model can be falsified that way either. Thornhill's model however does make one unique prediction that is very different from the standard model. He predicts that the *whole sun* should emit numerous neutrinos, not just the core. Assuming we ever achieve high enough solar neutrino images of the sun, it *may* in fact be possible to falsify one or more of the EU/PC models, but without such images, that's simply an absurdly false and ignorant argument.
And what the hell is ‘dark mode space’? A current is a current. Electrons (or ions) flowing TOWARD the Sun. Battling past the solar wind.
Current does flow toward the sun in the form of cosmic rays. We don't "see" them however with our naked eyes. That would be a 'dark mode current'. Cosmic rays do in fact "battle past" the solar wind on their way to Earth and to the sun.
And the magnetic field carried by the solar wind.
That magnetic field is also a verification of net current since there are more higher speed electrons than protons flowing off the sun. The mainstream refers to them as "electron beams" and "strahl". Psst: Those magnetic fields are *caused by current*! Plasma isn't a solid and it cannot create magnetic fields without current.
There is absolutely zero evidence for this,
Wrong. Even the presence of those magnetic fields is evidence of the constant current, as are those million degree coronal loops, polar jets, cathode rays/electron beams and all the other observations that Birkeland "predicted" with his model which have now been verified by satellites in space.
nor even a viable scientific mechanism, as far as I can see.
There are none so blind.....
Every time we put plasma instruments on a spacecraft, and fly them, they are collecting data that shows that this incoming current doesn’t exist.
No, they all show that cosmic rays *do* exist and pummel our solar system every single moment of every single day.
Therefore, I reiterate; you are wasting time and money, chasing something that is nothing more than the musings of people who simply don’t understand the astrophysical environment.
LOL. LCDM proponents have wasted *billions* of dollars on their dark matter snipe hunts. Please. Don't make me laugh.
Did you ever hear the one about Scott using an electric field to explain solar wind acceleration?!!! This is the level of ignorance we are dealing with here.
I also see that Birkeland *demonstrated* that effect in his lab!

Ian's whole posts just speaks to the pure ignorance of the mainstream. They know *nothing* about the various EU/PC solar models, or what makes them different from each other and different from the standard model. All they seem to *believe' are the blatant lies that Koberlein posts on his blog, and that's the sum total of their understanding of EU/PC theory. :( All EU/PC haters suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect apparently. They ego's prevent them from actually even bothered to study the models they attempt to 'debunk". ... ger_effect

I don't think history will be kind to Koberlein and his ilk. He dishes out false statements, and the public and his friends simply drink his poison cool-aid without question, and without ever doing any research at all. How sad. :(

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Koberlein is still misleading the public. :(

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:31 am ... -universe/
31 October 2018

Today I’ve learned three things:
What EU theory is, and why it’s wrong
People who subscribe to EU theory are cultists
Brian Koberlein has the patience of a saint
After almost five years of being refuted repeatedly, Koberlein steadfastly refuses to address or correct any of the numerous errors in his presentation on EU/PC theory from 2014. How sad and yet how predictable. Oh the irony of associating empirical physics with a "cult", while defending a cosmology model that is 95 percent metaphysical mumbo-jumbo and has failed every lab test to date. This constant stream of misinformation does have a detrimental effect on the progress of actual science too as these various quotes from the past month continue to demonstrate:
17 December 2018
Morgan Allen

I would just like to say that I applaud Brian’s nigh-herculean efforts to outline the overwhelming evidence in favour of solar fusion, relativity, cosmic inflation and other accepted aspects of, well, our shared physical reality. He has exhibited far more patience in this regard than I could probably muster.
How very sad that some folks are so gullible that they allow the likes of Koberlein to shape their views on EU/PC theory rather than taking the time to read and comprehend the materials for themselves. Had they actually read the cited references for themselves, they'd have noticed that two of the three references which are cited by Koberlein in his hit piece on EU/PC theory *explicitly* state that EU/PC solar models *do* emit neutrinos in fusion near the surface, and they would have noticed that Findlay's PDF doesn't mention neutrinos at all. Findlay only suggested that fusion isn't limited to the *core* in his PDF.

I think the most ironic post by Koberlein was this one from 2017:
23 October 2017
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. The dear Captain’s gallop tells us that he not only thinks this is a debate, he’s not concerned about the debate being honest. But I try to be honest, so I’ll take Ned up on his offer, specifically on the work of Carl Johnson.
LOL. Koberlein is the undisputed king of Gish Gallop, in fact his entire hit piece is Gish gallop galore. He has *never* tried to be "honest", in fact he's never fixed a single one of the *numerous* errors in his article. He can't even keep his own stories straight either:
Ned didn’t list any references, but a Google search finds a series of self-published works by a Carl W Johnson claiming that neutrons don’t exist in atomic nuclei. I assume this is the gentleman Captain Ned intended. The relevant article seems to be “Nuclear Physics may be fairly Simple” but the author emphasizes that you should probably read a different article first. That article is titled (and I kid you not) “Neutrinos Do Not Exist” where he argues very clearly that neutrinos aren’t real.

Now, careful readers of this post will note that I claimed the Electric Universe model claims that neutrinos don’t exist. 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.
That statement is of course is a flat out lie since I demonstrated for Koberlein (and others did too) that both Dr. Scott and Wal Thornhill explicitly predict in their books that fusion occurs near the solar surface, so two of the three references he cited explicitly and directly refute his lies and his misrepresentation of Findlay's statements. Koberlein inferred whatever he wanted to infer from a couple of paragraphs from Findlay's 90+ page PDF that do *not* state that EU models predict no fusion.
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.
That's due to the fact that Koberlein has been deceitful all along, Scott's book and Thornhill's book, which he also cited as references for his article directly refute his false claims, and he even knows it too:
I don’t know if Carl Johnson is a fan of EU models, but does share many things in common, such as a rejection of most mainstream astrophysics such as relativity, dark matter, dark energy, the big bang, etc.

So which is it, Ned, are the EU folks right and neutrinos exist, or are you claiming that even the EU folks are wrong?

So there you have it. Koberlein knows for a fact that he flat out lied about the neutrino predictions associated with EU/PC solar models (plural), and he continues to lie and misrepresent EU/PC solar models to this very day, nearly five years later.

This kind of wilful deceit gives astronomers a bad reputation, but the fact that no so called "professional" ever corrected Koberlein in almost five years gives them *all* a bad reputation. Astronomy is in such a sorry state today because there is no such thing as "honesty" in astronomy and they remain utterly ignorant of alternatives to their metaphysical nonsense while engaging in confirmation bias every single day. They willfully and intentionally misrepresent the work of Edwin Hubble, Hannes Alfven, and Albert Einstein, and they ignore the negative results of their own lab "tests" too, so I suppose it should be no surprise that they willfully and intentionally misrepresent Dr. Scott, Wal Thornhill and Findlay too. :(

Gah, no wonder we're living in the dark ages of astronomy. This kind of misleading nonsense is just sad, and it's even more sad that such utter nonsense has never been corrected or refuted by even a single "professional". :(

When professionals deceitfully mislead their readers, they cross the line into blatant professional misconduct. Such wilful deceit is indeed harmful to scientific progress too as those two quotes from the past month so clearly demonstrate. Koberlein methodically preys on the misguided trust of his readers to intentionally and willfully lead them astray, and no so called "professional" was ever honest enough to even set the record straight. :( Astronomers are the Pinocchios of science.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

It's been over five years and counting.....

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:45 pm ... -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.
It's now been *more* than five years since lyin' Brian posted this total nonsense on his blog. To date not a single so called "professional" astronomer has bothered to set him straight, and he's never fixed the problem or even admitted to his *bonehead* mistake.

We must therefore conclude that professional astronomers are simply unethical to the core, which I'm absolutely certain is the case with Koberlein, and/or the so called "professionals" don't know anything at all about EU/PC solar models. How sad is that? The deafening silence by the professional establishment only makes them all look like professional con artists and liars.

Brian, you're doing your entire profession a grave disservice by being such an ass. When are you going to remove that nonsense or at least be man enough to own up to your own stupid mistakes?


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests