Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC haters.

[Michael Mozina]

Sunday, August 30, 2015
Electric Universe: The Three Suns of Kristian Birkeland. I.

........

Since Mr. Mozina has not provided any arguments of substance that I might need to address, I can now complete Part II of The Three Suns of Kristian Birkeland…
November 22, 2015 at 8:51 PM

It's now been four months and counting while waiting for Bridgman's next installment of fantasy Kristian Birkeland theater, and 8 months and counting while waiting for Bridgman to fix his FUBAR solar wind diagram of Birkeland's (single) cathode solar model.

Six months and counting.......

[Michael Mozina]

https://briankoberlein.com/about/

Honest Science
The goal of One Universe at a Time is to convey an understanding of our Universe in a way that is honest and free of hype.

Well, Brian, let’s see how “honest” and accurate you were in presenting EU/PC concepts and see if you kept it free from “hype” as promised, shall we?

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/t ... mment-4053

Testing the Electric Universe
In Pseudoscience by Brian Koberlein 25 February 2014
There’s a cosmological model that has gained popularity on the internet known as the Electric Universe. The basic claim of the Electric Universe model is that much of the astronomical phenomena observed in the universe is driven by electrical interactions rather than gravitational ones. Proponents of the model claim that the Electric Universe is a much simpler solution that solves many of the cosmic mysteries mainstream astro-scientists are unable to solve. The model is so simple that it doesn’t require any of that mathematical obfuscation found in the standard model. But astro-scientists are too set in their ways to look at the model with an open mind. We certainly can’t ignore such a revolutionary idea, so let’s put it to the test.
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.

Dear Brian,

I’m extremely disappointed that you immediately decided to associate an empirical branch of physics (plasma physics), right or wrong, with the term “pseudoscience”. Some “open mind”. Unlike LCDM theory, every cause/effect claim that is associated with EU/PC theory has the potential of being tested in the lab under controlled conditions.

Coincidently, Hannes Alfven, the Nobel Prize winning father of MHD theory, called mainstream astronomy claims about “magnetic reconnection” theory “pseudoscience’ at the very same conference where he made that theory obsolete with his double layer paper over three decades ago.

Alfven almost exclusively used circuit theory to mathematically model events in space, and his book Cosmic Plasma is considered the foundation of the EU/PC cosmology model. This brings up my first criticism of your blog post on this topic. I’m highly disappointed, and rather offended that you did not mention any of the earlier “pioneers” in the EU/PC community, including Hannes Alfven, Kristian Birkeland, Dr. Charles Bruce, Ralph Jeurgens, Anthony Perratt, etc. I’m puzzled how you can claim to present an “honest” portrayal of EU/PC theory without even mentioning these important historical individuals?

I have no idea why you chose to focus all of your attention specifically on Thornhill or Talbot, but you ultimately made a number of erroneous claims associated with EU/PC theory that I feel compelled to respond to:

It is this basic model I’ll discuss here, using the references listed at the bottom of the post. If you want to get an overview of the model, Findlay’s ebook (available for free) is as good a reference as any. The basic idea of this particular model is that cosmic magnetic fields interact with interstellar plasma to drive astrophysical processes. Gravitational interactions play a negligible role in the universe. From this idea several claims and predictions are made. In particular:
Neither dark matter nor dark energy exist. Black holes don’t exist. The big bang didn’t happen.
Galaxies are formed by kinks in cosmic magnetic fields. They begin as electric quasars which then expand into modern galaxies.
Stars are electrically charged masses formed within galactic plasmas. They are not heated by nuclear fusion within their core, but rather by a flow of plasma, similar to a florescent light.

Most of that list isn't even true for most EU/PC proponents. It seems as though you’re confusing the various personal opinions of a couple of authors with the whole “umbrella” that is the electric universe/plasma cosmology community, and the overall range of beliefs that exist inside of that plasma cosmology community. Worse yet, it looks like you actually botched important parts of Thrornhill's presentation with respect at least to solar physics.

As you noted earlier, there are multiple dark matter models to choose from, and multiple brands of inflation theory that are discussed and debated in mainstream theory, and because of that variation, it’s rather complicated. Just so, there are actually a number of variations on the same EU/PC themes of cosmology, and an equal number of “complications” that arise from various personal variations on the same themes. As it relates to solar models in particular, there at least three primary solar models that have been discussed and debated over the decades by the EU/PC community, and a number of variations on each of those three primary themes. Unfortunately however, not a single one of them is well or even correctly represented in your blog entry. This is highly offensive for someone that professes to speak for “honest science”, and who claims to have studied this topic with an open mind.

Stars “give birth” electrically to companion stars and gas giant planets.

Hmm. Well, according to Birkeland, yes, the sun does emit particles that can give birth to companion planets, but they don’t *necessarily* have to form that way. There are actually a number of solar systems and galaxy formation possibilities that exist in the context of EU/PC theory. I’m going to skip over this issue only because I feel you simply oversimplified the argument and there are other, more pressing problems with your presentation.

Redshift is not a measure of galactic distance. It is instead a measure of galactic age.

That is not even a technically correct statement as it applies to EU/PC theory. Redshift is still a measure of distance even in a “tired light”/static universe scenario, it’s just not *necessarily* a predictor of expansion in EU/PC theory. In fairness, redshift could be related to an object movement/time dilation process in EU/PC theory, as well as caused by inelastic scattering, but redshift typically “explained” as a measure/function of distance even in EU/PC theory. I suppose that their might be exceptions to every rule of course on a person to person basis, but overall, even a static universe would imply a distance/redshift relationship. I didn’t read Wal’s book, but considering the neutrino errors that you made, I suspect you misrepresent their statements on this issue.

Special Relativity is wrong. General Relativity is wrong.

It’s certainly worth noting that neither of these statements is an actual requirement, nor an actually “prediction” of EU/PC theory, even if a few individual EU/PC proponents might harbor such personal opinions. Again however, Alfven had no problem with GR theory and he literally wrote the mathematical book (based on circuit theory) of EU/PC theory.

A neutrino image of the Sun. EU predicts this doesn’t exist.
Credit: R. Svoboda and K. Gordan – LSU
So, where to begin? Let’s start with the Sun.

Well, if we were being entirely “honest” when we start discussing the sun, we should be honest about what EU/PC theory actually does and does not “predict”. If you were portraying EU/PC theory properly, every possible EU/PC solar model does in fact necessarily predict that same neutrino image, or a very similar image. In fact all EU/PC solar models also predict atmospheric emission features that related to atmospheric instances of fusion that are actually observed in that image. That really wasn’t an actually an “honest” way to begin discussing solar physics in relationship to EU/PC cosmology theory IMO. No EU/PC solar model that has ever been discussed within the EU/PC community would predict that the sun emits no neutrinos as you erroneously stated. Every EU/PC solar model predicts that neutrino image, and every one of them predicts something unique compared to mainstream theory, specifically fusion in the solar atmosphere, and neutrino emissions from those fusion processes in the solar atmosphere. Based on the image, that’s exactly what we do observe too. We don’t see just a tiny little “dot” in the middle of the sun as we would expect to observe in the standard model, instead we see the whole surface of the sun, and areas even *outside of the surface* of the sun in that image, just as all EU/PC solar models would “predict”.

In the standard model, the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion in its core. There the fusion of hydrogen into helium produces not only light and heat, but neutrinos. In the electric universe model, the Sun is lit by electrically excited plasma. This gives us two very clear predictions. The first is regarding neutrinos. The standard model predicts that the Sun will produce copious amounts of neutrinos due to nuclear interactions in its core. The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.

That is an absolutely false statement. It makes me very sad to see a so called “professional” publicly state such unprofessional statements with respect to EU/PC theory. All EU/PC solar models predict that the sun and solar atmosphere should emit some amount of neutrinos. Furthermore, since there are multiple solar options to choose from in EU/PC cosmology theory, it’s really not as clear as you seem to naively presume. There are actually three basic solar models that have been discussed and that are still actively debated within the EU/PC community. Only one of those three basic solar models, specifically Ralph Jeurgen’s original solar model, would actually predict anything different than the standard solar model with respect to neutrinos counts from the sun. That is due to the fact that Juergen’s solar model was specifically designed to “postdict” a fit to a fewer number of neutrinos to start with, but it too predicts that the sun emits neutrinos.
For the record, Ralph Juergen’s developed his externally powered solar model theory during the “missing neutrino” days of solar physics, prior to anyone having any idea about the possibility of neutrino oscillation. It should be noted that Juergen’s tried to “make up the difference” in the perceived lack of neutrino output from the sun with an extra amount of electrical energy to provide and explain where that extra energy came from in the (perceived) absence of the correct number of neutrinos. Even Juergen’s original solar model however *required/predicted* the emission of at least a 1/3rd of the neutrinos as the standard solar model. In addition, Juergen’s original solar model can be modified, by adding (or subtracting) any amount of fusion power being produced internally, and any perceived future “neutrino deficit” could be explained by excess current. In no case however would any electric solar model predict a zero neutrino emission pattern as you erroneously claimed. That is simply a false and outrageously inaccurate assertion on your part. It’s a clear example of something that wasn’t “honest” about your presentation. Unfortunately it’s such a highly critical error that it makes one wonder if you really even understood the one book that you seem to be critiquing.
What is unique and noteworthy in terms of neutrino predictions about all EU/PC solar models compared to the standard solar model is that all EU/PC solar models allow for fusion to occur in the solar atmosphere, not just in the core. The image that you produced is consistent with that prediction. We do not see just a tiny clean “point” in the core of the sun, we see emissions from all around the atmosphere of the sun.
It should also be noted that Juergen’s solar model is simply more “flexible” than the other two EU/PC solar models with respect to predicted neutrino output. Whereas both Alfven’s solar model, and Birkeland’s “electric sun” models are both internally powered, and would both produce the same neutrinos as the standard model, Juergen’s model can be “scaled” up or down in terms of local fusion and overall neutrino counts. All EU/PC solar models predict *some* amount of neutrino emissions Brian, every single one. How could you misrepresent such a fundamental aspect of EU/PC theory as a “professional” Brian?

The EU model clearly fails this test, because neutrinos are produced by the Sun. We have not only observed solar neutrinos, we have imaged the Sun by its neutrinos.

I’m afraid that the only thing that fails this particular “test” is you and your lack of knowledge of EU/PC solar models. Not a single EU/PC solar model makes the prediction that you claim it makes with respect to neutrino counts. Shame on you.

The second prediction regarding the Sun can be seen in its spectrum. In the standard model, the nuclear reactions in the Sun’s core produce light and heat that cause the star to shine. If this is the case, then Sun should emit thermal radiation. In other words, the spectrum of colors its gives off should be an almost continuous, with dark lines where cooler gasses in its upper atmosphere absorb some of the light. If instead the Sun were lit by electrically excited plasma, as the EU model predicts, the spectrum should be a discontinuous spectrum of bright lines. ……
Beyond any shadow of a doubt, the Sun gives off a thermal spectrum, not a plasma one.

Since we’re mixing and matching cosmology theories and solar theories, we should also note that both Alfven’s “electric sun” model, as well as Birkeland “cathode sun” model, are internally powered models. Both of those models therefore predict not only the same neutrino counts as the standard solar model, but they also predict the same basic thermal pattern as the standard model. While this particular argument might be able to be used as a valid criticism of Juergen’s original solar model, it could never be used to falsify the whole EU/PC cosmology paradigm as you keep erroneously asserting. The best you might hope to do with that argument is demonstrate that Juegen’s one possible solar model is *less likely* than other options in the EU/PC paradigm. Since I personally tend to favor an internally powered Birkeland cathode solar model, I tend to think that this particular argument is in fact a valid criticism of Juergen’s original solar model as would the neutrino count predictions of Juergen’s model tend to disfavor that one solar model.

But lest we be accused of not giving the Electric Universe model a fair shake, let’s look at the other claims. Are special and general relativity wrong? Nope. They’ve been confirmed in the lab. In fact whenever you use your mobile phone’s GPS to find a local coffee shop, you’re communicating with satellites that correct for the effects general and special relativity. Relativity is not merely abstract theory, it is now applied technology.

I’m again dismayed that you’re asserting that EU/PC theory somehow requires GR theory to be “wrong”. That’s simply absurd. Alfven even proposed his own “bang” theory based on GR. After that neutrino fiasco, how can I even be sure that you did any actual research into this project, or did you just read one book by two authors that have almost nothing to do with the history of EU/PC theory?
I have no idea how many (if any) EU/PC proponents believe that gravity plays no role in events in space. Alfven and me and many others fully embrace GR theory without all the supernatural claims about “dark energy” and “space expansion”. The validity of GR theory in no way invalidates any part of Alfven’s cosmological views. This is another place where your assertions are less than “honest”. The validity of Alfven’s cosmology theories in no way rises or falls on the personal beliefs of Thornhill or Talbot!

How about the idea that stars “give birth” to other stars and planets? If that were the case, we should see stars form as isolated objects in stellar nurseries, then later form planetary systems.

That’s not actually an accurate portrayal of the formation processes described in EU/PC theory any more than was your erroneous claim about EU/PC predicting “no neutrinos”. By design, we wouldn’t expect to see things develop in “isolated” environments, rather we expect them to be “fed” by Birkland currents that bring all kinds of dust into the solar system.

It doesn’t look good for the Electric Universe model. But let’s give it one last chance. In the standard model galaxies form gravitationally, and are well developed relatively early in the universe. Quasars are powered by black holes in the center of galaxies, and are one example of what we call active galactic nuclei.

Note that even in your model, Quasars have an intrinsic redshift.

In the EU model, quasars are formed by pinches in cosmic magnetic fields, and from them galaxies form. Rather than being an indication of distance, redshift is a result of the age of a galaxy or quasar.

That’s certainly not true of EU/PC theory as a whole, and I’m not even sure it’s true of Thornhill’s position. Thus far, I haven’t heard you correctly portray any part of Alfven’s cosmology ideas or Perratt’s mathematical computer models correctly, or anyone’s solar model properly, not one single part of it. Why is that Brian?
Even though Hubble himself came to believe later in his career that while redshift probably wasn’t related to expansion, it probably was related to “tired light/distance” relationship. Even in static (and there are expanding) versions of EU/PC theories (plural), redshift is a distance related phenomenon. I really have no idea where you got any of these ideas, and I suspect you didn’t even properly understand the single book that you did profess to read, particularly after that neutrino fiasco. I can’t imagine anyone actually said the sun emits zero neutrinos in any book on EU/PC theory.

So as galaxy matures, its redshift decreases. If the EU model is right, then we should only see quasars with high redshifts (therefore large inferred distances). Also, the more distant (redshifted) a galaxy, the less developed it should appear.

So here’s a collection of barred spirals at different distances (or redshifts). Notice how the most distant ones are the least developed? No? Actually they all look pretty similar, which is exactly what the standard model predicts, and what the EU model says absolutely shouldn’t happen.

But that isn’t what the EU model predicts anymore than zero neutrino emissions was a real “prediction” of the model. You seem to be misrepresenting large swaths of what you’ve read I’m afraid, and apparently you haven’t spent anytime studying the work of Alfven, or Perratt or Birkeland or Bruce, etc.

So never let it be said that an astro-scientist has never considered the electric universe model with an open mind.

When might I expect to see you show any semblance of an “open mind” in terms of admitting your blatant mistakes with respect to solar physics? If you can’t admit that much of many mistakes, I’d say your mind was closed from start to finish.

The Electric Universe model is wrong. Provably, clearly and ridiculously wrong.
We’ve put the Electric Universe to the test. Final Grade: F-

Actually what is ridiculously wrong is your blatant misrepresentation of even the basics of solar theory as it relates to EU/PC theory and neutrinos predictions. Final Grade F--------
You’re apparently grading your own erroneous strawman representation of EU/PC theory, not the actual history of EU/PC theory which has been around, and tested in the lab for 100 years now.

[Michael Mozina]

LOL! Brian Koberlein already removed my reply to his blog that pointed to my response on this thread. One thing that all the public haters have in common is an incapacity for honest one on one public debate. That's a riot!

Welcome to the public hater list Brian. You, Tom and Sarah are in a class by yourselves in terms of your lack of ethics in public debate, and your complete lack of understanding of the various aspects of EU/PC theory.

[BeAChooser]

You, Tom and Sarah are in a class by yourselves in terms of your lack of ethics in public debate, and your complete lack of understanding of the various aspects of EU/PC theory.

You're absolutely right, Michael. This is nothing short of professional misconduct. However, I'm not even sure I'd ascribe the word professional to mainstream journalists any longer. They clearly have no code of conduct (on this or any topic) and furthermore, there is no organization that monitors and enforces a code of conduct/ethics ... as is the case of doctors, lawyers (although their code is screwy) and engineers ... true professionals.

[GaryN]

LOL! Brian Koberlein already removed the my reply to his blog that pointed to my response on this thread.

I was just composing a reply to you suggesting you not waste your efforts on his site, as any comments that could cast doubt on some of the assumptions used to support the standard model, or more importantly to him, put a dent in his "huge ego" (social media comments from some of his students, not my original words) will not be posted. He disallowed my questions and comments last year, but I just tried posting again to see if he will allow it.
Fair enough, my comments concerned the lack of visible light images of the Sun from space, and having been banned from other mainstream sites, and even conspiracy sites for asking the same question, I was not surprised. Of course most TB members and other EU proponents likely think I'm a crackpot too, but at least I haven't got banned from NIAMI yet, and appreciate that. Won't push my luck though by saying anything further here.

[Zyxzevn]

The neutrino image of the sun in interesting.


The important question is:
How big is the sun exactly in this image?

I have not seen a report how big the sun is exactly compared to this image.
Is it the whole sky that we see?
Is the sun only the yellow circle?
Is this the inside of the sun?

According to the mainstream, only deep inside the sun there would be fusion.
This fusion causes neutrinos.
So the neutrinos outside this deep region should not really be there.
The sun should be at least 2x the circle of the yellow circle.

If the is the yellow circle, we have fusion near the edge of the sun. Which is very different
from what the mainstream is saying.

Also interesting is that the middle of the sun does not change in intensity. This seems to imply that
there is a layer on which the fusion occurs most often.

.. Also, the more distant (redshifted) a galaxy, the less developed it should appear...

I thought that the mainstream big-bang theory should have this problem.

If we look at stars 10 billion lightyears away, we should see them 10 billions years older.
Since the big bang claims that everything existed at once through some divine intervention.
But we don't. Which for me means that the big bang is invalid instead.

But somehow this "scientist" thinks that the big bang does "predict" this. Strange...
Also strange that he uses problems in the big bang theory, to strengthen his point.
This person is has a very high confirmation bias.
It is sad that he is in science.

[Michael Mozina]

You, Tom and Sarah are in a class by yourselves in terms of your lack of ethics in public debate, and your complete lack of understanding of the various aspects of EU/PC theory.

You're absolutely right, Michael. This is nothing short of professional misconduct. However, I'm not even sure I'd ascribe the word professional to mainstream journalists any longer. They clearly have no code of conduct (on this or any topic) and furthermore, there is no organization that monitors and enforces a code of conduct/ethics ... as is the case of doctors, lawyers (although their code is screwy) and engineers ... true professionals.

From Brian's website:

Honest Science
The goal of One Universe at a Time is to convey an understanding of our Universe in a way that is honest and free of hype.

......

Brian Koberlein is an astrophysics professor who can't stop rambling about how awesome the Universe is.

The guy claims to represent "honest" science, yet apparently he doesn't even understand what he reads, he teaches absolutely false neutrino and photon redshift claims to his naive and unsuspecting students, while rambling on about how awesome dark energy is. What an egotistical putz.

[Michael Mozina]

The neutrino image of the sun in interesting.


The important question is:
How big is the sun exactly in this image?

I have not seen a report how big the sun is exactly compared to this image.
Is it the whole sky that we see?
Is the sun only the yellow circle?
Is this the inside of the sun?

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap980605.html

Centered on the Sun's postion, the picture covers a significant fraction of the sky (90x90 degrees in R.A. and Dec.). Brighter colors represent a larger flux of neutrinos.

According to the APOD article, the image covers about 90x90 degrees, a relatively significant part of the sky. The angular size of the sun from Earth is just over a half a degree (.53 degrees), so the entire sun would be a tiny little single pixel "dot" that would be centered in the middle of the bright spot of that image.

[Zyxzevn]

so the entire sun would be a tiny little single pixel "dot" that would be centered in the middle of the bright spot of that image.

Thanks.
It seems that the neutrinos are coming from the general direction of the sun, nothing more.

[Michael Mozina]

so the entire sun would be a tiny little single pixel "dot" that would be centered in the middle of the bright spot of that image.

Thanks.
It seems that the neutrinos are coming from the general direction of the sun, nothing more.

You're absolutely right, we can't tell much about the location of neutrino emissions from this particular image, but consider the possibilities if neutrino "resolution" were to reach the megapixel range. Even something like one 1/2 a megapixel resolution would allow us to differentiate between the standard solar model and pretty much any electric solar model. All the EU models would predict that fusion occurs all around the outside of the photosphere, as well as throughout the photosphere, whereas we would expect neutrino emissions to be concentrated in a "core" in the "standard" solar model.

I'm not really sure exactly what to expect from a "Birkeland" model in terms of any potential brighter area near the core. I personally think that neutrino emissions from fusion are going to be pretty homogeneously distributed, with possibly a brighter area around the core, but maybe not. I'd guess that Alfven's model would produce a somewhat brighter core and a lit up corona like all the other EU models. Juergen's original model would probably expect to see little or nothing from the core (kinda like Birkeland), although Juergen's model could obviously be modified accordingly in terms of internal/external power supplies depending on the desired effect.

[Michael Mozina]

Yeah, I’m not really interested in contributing to the Thunderbolts forum. I get brigaded enough on my own blog without poking that beehive. I actually read through your comments, however, and here’s a few thoughts.

I understand about your choice of where to invest your time and energy, but you did publicly poke that beehive. I suppose that you’ll have to consider me to be one of the local “bees” that feels a little displeased at your blog entry related to whatever personal strawman that you are erroneously calling “EU” theory, and the unscientific and unethical way that you’re going about presenting your “criticisms”/accusations of Thornhill’s work.

I’m particularly dismayed at the fact that your accusations about EU/PC theory to date have been utterly devoid of any citation of anyone’s actual writings, including the page number, the paragraph and sentence. Furthermore, as far as I can personally tell, in the complete absence of any such scientific citations, and based on at least two obvious major blunders on your part, I see no evidence at all that you’re honestly (or correctly) representing Thornhill or Talbott as advertised on your blog. In terms of neutrino predictions, I know for a fact that this is an obvious major error on your part based on the public statements that have been made by Thornhill over the years.

For future reference, in any “accusation” that you make publicly with respect to the beliefs of Thornhill or Talbott (or any other EU/PC author) and solar physics, it would be “typical” in a scientific debate for you to provide me with at least a page number, and paragraph as a reference. Otherwise I have no idea if you simply misread what they said, or if you’re referencing something that I’ve personally never seen or heard of before.

Apparently I’m ignoring the works of great EU scientists like Alfven, Birkeland, and others. It seems the only post you’ve read on my blog is this one.
Here’s a post on Alfven’s work in MHD and the pros and cons of his cosmology model.
Here’s one on the corona heating mystery, and how Alfven waves might be the answer. This one also talks about Birkeland currents producing aurora on Earth.
Here’s one showing evidence of Alfven waves in black hole jets.
Here’s one looking at how Birkeland currents (dark plasma) might explain dark matter.
How about z-pinches, Halton Arp’s redshift model, Fahr’s ideas about the cosmic background, etc.

Hey, that’s really quite cool! I’m honestly quite impressed. I’m really pleased to see that you’ve discussed Alfven’s work since his work forms the basis of EU/PC *cosmology* concepts, even if there are a number of different solar models to choose from in the EU/PC electrical basket of options.

Your use of the term Birkeland currents as applied to plasma in space is also a breath of professional fresh air as well. I really am impressed and pleased and I’ll read through your links as I get time.

The rest of your comments seem to focus on the fact that I’m either not representing EU fairly, or I simply don’t get it. I’ve actually dealt with a lot of EU supporters, and the biggest problem is that you never know which position on the spectrum they’re going to take:
Plasma astrophysics is a legitimate science! (I completely agree.)
Mainstream cosmologists have problems their models can’t answer (True)
Plasma physics could explain dark matter/dark energy/no big bang (Interesting, but I’m not convinced)

Fabulous. So far we have the basis of a great friendship brewing, provided that we can put the neutrino and redshift issues behind us.

The Sun is powered by interstellar electric fields (No)

I’ll actually inclined to agree with you on that particular point since I am personally a Birkeland (internally powered) solar model supporter myself.

The Valles Marineris on Mars was carved electrically! (Hoo boy…)

Ya, planetary applications of EU/PC theory are not really my thing either, but hey, some folks spend their whole careers writing about M-Theory. To each their own.

EU means the Universe is 6,000 years old (facepalm)

Agreed. In fact we seem to agree on most points. That’s certainly a good sign.

So arguing that I didn’t provide full coverage of all variations of EU is weak tea. There is no clear and specific version of EU that can be seen as reasonably “official.” If you folks would like me to make a better critique of EU, put together a summary of key tenets and predictions (say 20 pages or less) and I’d be happy to read it. Otherwise all you’re doing is whining.

My Dear Brian:

In most scientific papers and debates that I’ve been involved in, it is expected that the one that is making the claim/accusation will also provide us with a page number and paragraph with the accusation that is being made. That way we all have something specific to go by, and we have something useful to discuss and to debate. It’s absolutely not appropriate however for you to simply “accuse” Thornhill or Talbott of holding various beliefs without at least citing the paragraph that you’re talking about. I’m certain after your neutrino comments that you simply misread their statements with respect to their solar neutrinos emissions predictions. Based on that obvious error, I’d also have to guess that same criticism most likely applies to your claim about photon redshift as a distance measurement. Beyond those two topics, I really don’t much care what Thornhill and Talbott might personally believe about other various topics. I will insist however that you at least fairly represent those two issues with respect to solar physics and photon redshift cosmology claims.

I have no idea how you intend to support your claim that Thornhill predicted that the sun emitted no neutrinos, but I know for a fact that Thornhill has publicly and personally predicted the exact opposite. He’s predicted not only the existence of neutrino emissions coming from the sun as we see in that image that you posted on your blog, but also that they vary over time and vary based on the number of sunspots that are present in the atmosphere.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/solar-neu ... is-solved/

Solar neutrino puzzle is solved?
Posted on August 13, 2001 by Wal Thornhill

On the other hand, the Electric Universe proposes an electrical model for stars, based on the pioneering work of Ralph Juergens.
……
The electric Sun model expects far more complex heavy element synthesis to take place in the natural particle accelerators in the photospheric lightning discharges. In that case the various neutrino “flavours” are all generated on the Sun and do not need to “oscillate” on their way to the Earth to make up an imagined deficit. What is more, fluctuations in neutrino counts are expected in this model to be correlated with electrical input to the Sun, that is, with sunspot numbers and solar wind activity. This has been observed. The standard solar model does not expect any correlation since there is a lag estimated in the millions of years between the nuclear reaction in the core and its final expression at the surface of the Sun.


Electric discharges in plasma take the form of twisted filaments, seen here in a closeup of sunspots. Each filament is a powerful natural particle accelerator.

There is an experiment suggested by the SNO results that could confirm the Electric Sun’s photospheric origin of neutrinos. It would require continuous measurement of neutrinos of all flavours as a very large sunspot group rotated with the Sun. In this model, sunspot umbrae are not a source of neutrinos so there should be modulation effects associated with the Sun’s rotation that might be measurable with present equipment. Such an experiment, if sensitive enough, offers the possibility of detecting neutrino oscillations in the Sun as they traverse varying proportions of the body of the Sun. A positive result would falsify the standard nuclear model of the Sun.

As you can see, for over 15 years Mr. Thornhill has publicly predicted that we would observe neutrinos from the sun, and he even predicted that we could look for sunspot/neutrino variation correlations as a method of "testing" his ideas about how those neutrinos are being produced, and where those neutrinos are being produced in his model.

Now please tell us where in Thornhill’s books did he claim that the sun would emit zero neutrinos? Please be *specific* and post the book title, provide us with the the page number and post the actual paragraph that you’re discussing. Once we get beyond the neutrino misrepresentations, I’ll be happy to discuss the redshift problems in your presentation.

One more thing, you folks might want to be careful about using phrases like “professional misconduct” in your comments. It has legal implications regarding libel/slander and defamation of character. I really don’t care, but someone with a thinner skin could view it as legally actionable.

Well Brian, to be perfectly honest, I’d much rather that we develop a good friendship during this discussion or that we at least eventually just see things eye to eye on at least my two “pet peeves” about your obvious misrepresentation of Thornhill’s statements. I’d frankly rather educate you a bit, and simply cross you off the “hater” list once you’ve publicly confessed your sins and fixed the obvious errors on your blog.

As a “professional” however, I would certainly expect that you would feel professionally obligated to get your facts straight with respect to your various claims. As a professional astronomer, you have a duty to accurately represent these ideas to the best of your ability when posting public comments on these topics.

[Michael Mozina]

https://briankoberlein.com/2013/11/08/s ... -electric/

I started reading one of Brian's suggested readings on electric universe theory, and it seemed appropriate to comment on that page as well. It also points out some of the serious and numerous problems with Brian's other electric universe blog entry.

This is an elegant solution to the baryon asymmetry problem which plagues us still today, so why do we discount the Alfvén-Klein model, as well as the electric universe model which is based upon it? It doesn’t match experimental evidence.

Great question. Let me see if I can address some of your questions and your objections:

The Alfvén-Klein model is an alternative to the big bang, so it doesn’t predict the cosmic microwave background. The CMB not only exists, but agrees with the big bang model.

FYI, I addressed the CMB issue in this thread pretty thoroughly:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =3&t=16176

I’d like to point out that in your later blog entry on electric universe theory, based on Juergen’s/Thornhill version of “electric sun theory”, you kept claiming that “electric universe” theory predicts that GR theory is false. Huh? Talk about irrational arguments. You cannot allow for Alfven to use GR to describe an electric universe and then try to claim that electric universe theory predicts that GR theory is false! That’s simply not a rational argument on your part. I’m completely mystified as to how you can try to play both sides of the fence.
Now I’ll be the first to admit that there are a myriad of possible combinations and interpretations with respect to solar theory and various cosmological interpretations of photon redshift, but I can’t for the life of me recall anyone trying to peddle a cosmology theory that was even loosely based on Alfven’s electric universe/plasma cosmology concepts that didn’t treat redshift as a measurement of distance, if not a measurement of expansion, as Alfven himself preferred! How in the world can you justify claiming that electric universe theory is either incompatible with GR theory, or that redshift is not treated as a distance indicator in EU/PC theory? Even in a *static* universe redshift interpretation of photon redshift, the amount of redshift would still be an indicator of distance, even if it is not an indicator of expansion. I can’t for the life of me understand how you can try to justify either of those two particular claims that you made with respect to electric universe theory or your neutrino prediction error.
In terms of the CMB, let me remind you that Eddington produced a calculation to describe the background temperature of the known universe that was within ½ of one degree of the correct number, whereas “big banger” took three or four tries to get any closer and they weren’t even in the right ballpark on their first attempt. A simple scattering of starlight in plasma can easily account for the overall background temperature of the universe. We don’t even need a “bang” at all to explain an overall average temperature of interstellar and intergalactic dust in space when simple light or ordinary scattering processes will do the trick.

If matter and antimatter existed in pockets, the interaction of their edges would produce tremendous x-rays. This doesn’t agree with the x-ray observations we have.

That’s not entirely true for starters because we could simply be living in a pretty dusty, and relatively tiny little visible sliver of the physical universe that just so happens to mostly be made of matter around the edges that we can see. Other areas may contain more antimatter than matter and be pretty dusty too. You’re again *assuming* that light travels through a relatively empty space, and EU/PC theory typically assumes that it is much “dustier” than the mainstream imagines. Coincidently that was demonstrated to be true in 2008 when we discovered that the universe is twice as bright as we first calculated and more scattering happens in the intergalactic medium than we first imagined.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/galle ... as-bright/
By the way, we do however have potential signs of an interacting ‘ambiplasma” process that might be taking place near the core of our own galaxy:
http://phys.org/news/2016-02-galactic-c ... -dark.html
The jury is still out on the matter/antimatter layout aspects of Alfven’s cosmology theories. He left a lot of wiggle room on that front actually. It may even be that what we think of as ‘black holes’ today contain most of the antimatter that was originally expanded in Alfven’s model.

Then there is the fact that the Alfvén-Klein model doesn’t make any predictions about the abundances of hydrogen and helium in the universe, where the big bang model does.

That is true. However, the big bang model only “predicts/postdicts” these figures successfully by introducing a whopping 95 percent of what can only be described as supernatural constructs that are being added to only 5 percent actual empirical lab tested plasma physics. From my skeptical vantage point that’s akin to adding 95 percent magic and claiming that your magic universe theory is somehow “better” than mine based on that single calculation.
Furthermore your ‘abundance’ figures are essentially based upon a claim of a “non mass separated” solar model, which has been based upon a “prediction” of jet speed solar convection. In 2012 the SDO satellite demonstrated that solar convection was occurring at walking speeds at best case. How are Nickel and Iron and Lead going to stay mixed together with wispy thin hydrogen and helium inside of a walking speed convection environment?
If suns are mass separated, all bets are pretty much off about the overall composition of stars, even if you can be sure about the exact composition of all the material between stars. Since you haven’t specifically identified at least 80 percent of the mass between stars, I have no confidence at all that you can correctly claim to know the exact chemical compositions of all the clouds in spacetime.
In short, your abundance argument is a big yawn from my perspective.

Over and over, the Alfvén-Klein model fails to agree with observation. So it goes to the recycle bin.

So far I have not seen a logical argument yet that didn’t seem pretty easy to address.

Supporters of the electric universe model will argue that these discrepancies can be overcome by modifying the theory.

Not really. You’d just have to use Alfven’s building blocks somewhat ‘creatively’. I’m sure if we stick to pure empirical physics, circuit theory, MDH theory (when it’s appropriate), and GR, we can figure most stuff out.

If you tweak this or that in the model then it can be made to agree with experimental observation. But tweaking a model to make it fit is a weak argument. Using a model to make a clear prediction is a stronger one.

Is “dark energy” actually a “prediction” of the current model, or just an “ad hoc fix” to an otherwise falsified redshift interpretation?

The big bang model predicted the cosmic microwave background, which was then observed.

Eddington used ordinary starlight and scattering off dust to arrive at a much closer figure than early BB proponents. The first ‘predictions” of a background temp for BB theory were closer to 50 degrees as I recall. It was off by a whole order of magnitude, whereas Eddington nailed it to within ½ a degree, even without understanding the full size and scope of the entire universe. Eddington’s model is fine to explain a background temperature of spacetime, and he was in the right in the ballpark on his very first attempt.

The model predicted the abundances of light elements correctly.

Yet does so based on 5 percent actual lab tested physics, and the rest is “postdicted” to get a fit. In fact one of the stumbling blocks to you folks acknowledging all the mass calculation errors made in that 2006 lensing study are directly related to the fact that you cannot just replace “ordinary” matter with ‘dark matter” and get those same abundance figures. I’d argue that your so called “prediction” has become a noose around your own neck in terms of being “flexible” about new findings and new discoveries.

The distribution of galaxies in the universe matches the big bang.

Well, kinda, but again, only with 95 percent non baryonic mass/energy, and you also need an inflation thing in there too that is *in addition* to the 95 percent.
You don’t *really* have a logical explanation as to why spacetime is so ‘threaded”, whereas naturally occurring Birkeland currents (large and small) are an instant “prediction’ of any current carrying plasma cosmology model.

The big bang model works naturally,

Er, define “naturally” for me considering the fact that 95 percent of your mass/energy hasn’t ever been found “naturally” here on Earth? Natural? I’d say it’s only 5 percent empirically “natural”, and 95 percent “supernatural” in terms of its constructs, and that’s not even including inflation. I can’t think of anything less “natural” frankly.

while the electric universe model must be tweaked and modified every time new cosmological evidence comes to light.

Didn’t you folks just add 70 percent “dark energy” a decade or so ago?
I think it’s more correct to suggest that the EU model can be tweaked and modified to fit a variety of possibilities, including expanding and static possibilities. It’s got lots of wiggle room, lots of possibilities to explore, and best of all, it’s 100 percent empirical by design.

Scientific models live or die based on experimental evidence.

If that were actually true, “dark matter’ theory would have been dead and gone by now.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15850

[jacmac]

Michael,
In your dialogue with Brian Oberlein this pair of comments surfaced.

EU means the Universe is 6,000 years old (facepalm)


Agreed. In fact we seem to agree on most points. That’s certainly a good sign.

WHERE DID THIS COME FROM ?
I have been reading most of all the material and posts on this site for over five years and I do not recall anyone of substance advancing this notion ???

Would you care to elaborate .

Jack

[Michael Mozina]

Michael,
In your dialogue with Brian Oberlein this pair of comments surfaced.

EU means the Universe is 6,000 years old (facepalm)


Agreed. In fact we seem to agree on most points. That’s certainly a good sign.

WHERE DID THIS COME FROM ?
I have been reading most of all the material and posts on this site for over five years and I do not recall anyone of substance advancing this notion ???

Would you care to elaborate .

Jack

You're asking me to elaborate? In case there is any ambiguity, I simply agreed with Brian that EU theory doesn't support young earth creationism. I have no idea why Brian even associated the idea of zero solar neutrino output with EU/PC theory yet, nor do I have a clue where his redshift argument came from, let alone have the first clue why Brian associates EU theory with YEC. I gather it's just a part of his smear by association campaign.

[Michael Mozina]

Brian Koberlein

I’d be very interested in your response to Jean’s questions regarding EU claims, particularly in light of the fact that your argument against this post is that it doesn’t address all the broad and nebulous of EU. In the post I am very clear that EU ideas are wide ranging, and that I’d specifically focus on three texts that seemed to be the most popular. I cite them as references. You can disagree with my claim that these references are representative of EU, but the fact is they are the most popular EU books out there.

Well, "popular" is a subjective and relative term. I have read The Electric Sky by Dr. Donald Scott. I have read Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven, I've read Anthony Peratt's book, Physics of the Plasma Universe (very best mathematical presentation of this material by far IMO). I've read Birkeland's work, some papers by Bruce, Dungey, Juergens and a smattering of various authors. My favorite book (most popular with me personally) is Anthony Peratt's book, Physics of the Plasma Universe, simply due to the absolutely incredible mathematical depth of the book, and it's wonderful and simple style of writing. It's an amazing presentation of the EU/PC concept, and it lays out the mathematics in a concise and exhaustive manner. If you want to understand the physics and particularly the mathematics of EU/PC theory, Peratt's book is simply amazing.

Dr. Scott's book is a really great introduction to the basic concepts of an electric universe, that is aimed at a much more 'general' target audience. It's perfect for someone who wants to understand basic "concepts", including solar physics, but who aren't wanting to get blown away and bogged down by a bunch of math that they don't understand and are not interested in anyway. I've also read and recommend Dr. Scott's landmark paper on the mass flow patterns inside of complex Birkeland currents.

Each book I've read, and each paper is aimed at a very different target audience, and each book is really quite good in it's own way. Different strokes for different folks. Unfortunately I've never sat down and read Wal's books. I just haven't really had the time, and I just got the feeling that Scott's book explained Wal's basic solar physics concepts to me, and the cosmology aspects of EU/PC theory are based upon Alfven's material, and Peratt's material anyway.

I'm a very disappointed that you didn't at least address the neutrino problem of your presentation after I presented you with Wal's very own and very public statements on this topic. Thornhill clearly "predicted" that the bulk of the neutrino emissions from the sun would be observed to be concentrated near the surface of the anode (not necessarily the surface of the photosphere), they would be emitted by discharge processes, they may be emitted in the various flavors that we observe them on Earth, and they would vary with the solar cycle, presumably an 11 year cycle. Those were his *actual* predictions, as far back as 15 years ago Brian. I presented with a link to his own public statements from 15 years ago. Where have you been for the past 15 years?

Now each of those actual "predictions" of his work would allow you to use neutrino data to either confirm his predictions or refute them. For instance, if we observed no variation in output during the solar cycle, that would tend to refute his assertions. If we had a really great megapixel resolution neutrino image that precisely showed the location of the emissions so that we could tell if they came from the surface or from the core, we could again refute or support his model.

You however claimed something that Wal never claimed. You claimed that Wal's solar model predicted *zero neutrinos* would come from the sun. You misrepresented his entire life's work with that claim Brian. You misrepresented his own publicly posted statements as well. That's simply unethical and if I were Wal, I'd be *hopping* mad! You're a "professional". You have a professional duty to present your public materials accurately and honestly to the best of your professional ability. Your statements matter on the internet, whereas most ignorant rants from average posters are virtually/comparatively irrelevant. Your statements about astronomy theories (plural) should be accurate. They are not accurate. You owe Wal a public apology IMO.

I did go back and look up the term neutrino in the index of The Electric Sky and read the few pages where Scott discusses neutrinos. He's clearly and painfully aware of their presence and discusses their flavors. He clearly seems to have no problem with any electron neutrinos coming from the sun. The "issue" he raises seems to be the same one that Wal talks about, namely a sense of "doubt" that we can use fusion alone to explain those neutrinos, and a suspicion (in Wal's case a public prediction) that they may be emitted nearer the surface rather than the core. I didn't see anything to suggest that Scott would discuss solar neutrinos, and then turn right around and "predict" zero neutrinos. It looks like Wal simply took Scott's advice as to both the location of the bulk of the emissions, and with respect to solar cycle variation that Scott was eluding to in his book.

The only thing you can *assume* about any Juergen's model is fusion isn't limited to occuring near the core. The atmosphere around the anode surface is capable of producing fusion processes. It's the most "flexible" of the various solar models in terms of latitude in neutrino predictions, but no "modern" (maybe Juergen's original model the day he wrote it?) solar model based on Juergen's work predicts "zero" neutrinos as you erroneously still claim.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

Furthermore, I have presented you with a published paper that *predicts/observes/confirms* that fusion is occurring in the solar atmosphere in solar flare events which pinch plasma filaments together, and generate temperatures measured in the tens (plural) of millions of degrees. That's plenty hot enough for fusion, both hydrogen and CNO fusion, to be occurring in solar flare events.

Those types of plasma pinches could easily be occurring *under* the surface of the photosphere, particularly if that particular surface isn't the "anode". Juergen's model *easily* allows for a mass separated plasma model, and virtually any layer of mass separated plasma could be the anode. There could be all kinds of plasma pinch process causing fusion below the surface of the photosphere and we'd be none the wiser in terms of gamma radiation.

Thornhill very clearly asserts that GR is wrong. To quote him: “GR must be wrong because space is not some ‘thing’ that can be warped mysteriously by the presence of matter. The math of GR explains nothing.”

Oh well. Einstein rejected concepts in QM at first too, and he referred to his introduction of a non zero constant into GR as his greatest scientific "blunder". He used GR theory to *refute* the concept of "black holes" too. So what if Wal personally happens to be wrong on that one point? If the universe is static rather than actually expanding, how much difference might it really make in terms of cosmology theory?

I don't believe that most individuals within the EU/PC community understand the various complexities of GR, or appreciate it's value. That is a sad consequence I believe of not really understanding the history GR theory, and not knowing what Einstein *actually* said about GR theory and did with GR theory vs. the made up claims that the mainstream says about GR, or any understanding of how the mainstream has kludged together a "blunder" variation of GR theory. GR theory isn't dependent upon the legitimacy of dark energy theory, or dark matter theory or inflation theory, black hole theory, or even "space expansion" theories. It works perfectly well, and perfectly fine without *any* of that irrelevant nonsense, but unfortunately most EU advocates do not appreciate that point.

That's probably also because they've been beaten over the head by the mainstream claiming that GR theory is so "well proven" and try to ride the coattails of GR theory will presenting their "blunder" theory. The mainstream talks about "black holes" with infinite density, and claim that Einstein himself rejected.

IMO the mainstream *grossly* misrepresents the work of Einstein, Hubble, and Alfven to the general public. Einstein did not 'prove' the existence of 'black holes', he rejected the concept in fact. Hubble didn't 'prove' that the universe is expanding, he personally embraced a static universe/tired light explanation for the photon redshift phenomenon. Alfven didn't "support" the theory of "magnetic reconnection", he called it "pseudoscience". Nobody really mentions these points to the public when they talk about their work.

Findlay argues against any fusion occurring in stars.

Man is this turning into quite a mixed bag that you're now calling "Electric Universe" theory. I thought that you were critiquing Thornhill's "Electric Universe" model and statements? Now you seem to be picking and choosing from various opinions from other individuals that I've personally never even heard of in terms of presenting 'Electric Universe" theory? You seem to be intentionally creating your strawman definition of "Electric Universe" by picking a smattering of hodge podge writings that you want to complain about rather than critiquing a particular paper or book. You're then effectively attributing the whole strawman concept that you personally created to Wal Thornhill! You cannot ethically do that! Stick at least to one author or all you're doing is building your own strawman "electric universe' theory to burn down in public, while misrepresenting that strawman electric universe as being related to Thornhill's beliefs! Come on! That's not even ethical.

In chapter 6 of his ebook we stresses this is true for all stars, and uses small cool stars as an example: “Temperatures this low indicate that the thermonuclear fusion process cannot possibly be occurring inside these bodies. Yet X-rays have been detected coming from similarly cool brown dwarf stars, where again, the low temperatures involved are fundamentally incapable of initiating the production of this powerful type of radiation.” No fusion means no neutrinos, hence my statement that the Sun doesn’t produce neutrinos. Yes, other variations of EU try to fudge neutrinos into surface physics, but there are also EU folks that argue that neutrinos don’t exist at all.

The fact that they doubt the existence of fusion in the *core* does not mean they doubt the existence of fusion *anywhere else* other than the core. I've never heard anyone try to argue that the sun emits zero neutrinos. Where would they come from then? Wal clearly "precicted" their existence, location and variation. He certainly didn't predict what you claim he predicted.

You would literally have to go all the way back to Juergen's himself to find anyone that *might* have, maybe at one point in time, believed that the sun emitted *zero* neutrinos, and frankly I doubt that's the case. I think even Juergen's lived long enough to know that we found at least some of them, and I'm sure that he would have adjusted his beliefs accordingly as time progressed and more information became available. Juergen's model is simply more "flexible" with respect to neutrino counts, but nobody alive today that I've aware of has predicted that no fusion occurs anywhere in the sun or around the solar atmosphere. You're evidently intent on burning a non existent electric universe of your own creation, rather than the electric universe model that Thornhill has presented over his lifetime.

You also seem to be focused on Alfven’s works, which I’ve talked about.

Well, as it relates to cosmology theories, he's pretty much a universal standard in the EU community in terms of at least his use of circuit theory, if not his use of GR to explain expansion. In terms of cosmology theory, Alfven and Peratt are pretty much the "standard" from which all individual variation originates.

Alfven got some things right and some things very wrong.

I've yet to hear you really fully address my response to your criticisms of his work however, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. I personally prefer a cathode solar model, so I'm not exactly holding Alfven up as being infallible, but his use of circuit theory to plasma in space is "very right".

His work on MHD is still used today.

I would argue that his work on MDH theory is still being abused and misused to this day to mathematically express something that Alfven called pseudoscience, a concept that Alfven himself made obsolete with his double layer paper.

His cosmology has been completely debunked by the evidence. This is not a knock on Alfven. Einstein got some things right, and some things very wrong. Same with Eddington, etc.

We can discuss our difference with respect to Alfven, but first you owe Wal Thornill an apology, and you need to fix your problems on neutrinos and redshift/distance relationships in "electric universe" theory.

So go ahead and address Jean’s concerns, and then we can discuss things further.

As I get time today, I'll see what I can do for you. In the meantime, I think that you really must address your neutrino issue, and give me some a response with respect to my redshift/distance criticisms. For 15 years Wal Thornhill has predicted that the sun would emit the exact number of neutrinos that we observe on Earth, he has predicted they are emitted near the anode surface rather than the core, and he has predicted that they would change over time. You misrepresented his life's work Brian!