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 » Thu Jun 16, 2016 2:12 pm

16 June 2016
Reply
Jean Tate

Over in TBF, you took Brian to task for not providing an exact, primary source, reference (down to the paragraph, no less).


Yep. Brian misrepresented Wal's life's work, without the benefit of a book title, a page number or a sentence from his work. That's certainly not very "professional". If you write a paper you have to document every claim that is being made so people can look up your references. I have no idea what Brian is even talking about, because (I just found out today) apparently he's just picking randomly from various authors of his choosing to create a strawman definition of an "electric universe" that *nobody alive today* within the electric universe community even believes in! What a unethical way to debate the lifes' work of Wal Thornhill. Give me a break.

Yet in discussing “the neutrino image of the Sun”, you seemed much less concerned (FWIW, I think the primary source is Figure 2 in “Measurements of the Solar Neutrino Flux from Super-Kamiokande’s First 300 Days”, Physical Review Letters, Volume 81, Issue 6, August 10, 1998, pp.1158-1162).


So what? I wasn't critiquing their work, nor do I have any doubt about the authenticity of the image. I didn't misrepresent the image in any way did I?

On Alfven’s cosmological model: in which of his papers covering this does he show that it is consistent with GR?


http://www.plasma-universe.com/Klein-Al ... _Cosmology

H. Alfvén, O. Klein (1963). "Matter-Antimatter Annihilation and Cosmology". Arkiv för Fysik 23: 187–194.
H Alfven, Worlds-Antiworlds: Antimatter in Cosmology, 1966, WH Freeman, San Francisco, ISBN 978-0716703174

FWIW, I’ve read what I think is all of them, and there is no such demonstration; in fact, I think it’s pretty clear he doesn’t understand GR, as applied to cosmology (I’d love to be shown to be wrong, however).


Do you have a problem with that paper for some reason?

On Thornhill’s “prediction of solar neutrinos”, as you wrote in TBF yesterday: Per your source (which is not, as I’m sure you are well aware, a paper published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal),


Um, I don't think Thornhill's book passed peer review either, but that didn't stop Brian from critiquing it. In terms of what he has been saying for the past 15 years however, there are plenty of other references to consider. Brian isn't even debating "peer reviewed" material to start with, and I didn't require him to produce such work. All I wanted was a real citation so I could figure out what the heck Brian is talking about, and figure out where he got such a ridiculous idea.

“photospheric lightning discharges” generate all “the various neutrino “flavours””. Really? Do you have a source for that (other than the one you quote from)?


As long as one accepts the concept of oscillation (and I do) I don't technically need one. Whether they are emitted in all the flavors won't make one iota of difference with respect to the image in question.

It seems ridiculously wrong, in so many respects … so I would expect that it’s been rigorously studied, and (per your own standards) is backed by extensive lab-based experimental results.


My own standards? Did Brian even pick a published and peer reviewed source *anywhere* on his blog entry? I went with the standards Brian started with, but without a real citation, I have no clue how Brian got the false impression that Wal Thornhill predicted zero neutrinos. Inquiring minds want to know.

Back to solar neutrinos. You wrote (in TBF) “I am personally a Birkeland (internally powered) solar model supporter myself”. How are solar neutrinos produced (generated) in such a model? What does such a model have to do with Birkeland?


Birkeland assumed that the sun was internally powered by a "transmutation of elements". I'd assume the power source is fusion and it's occurring throughout the sun, as well as the atmosphere above the cathode surface.

There’s lots more, but just this one for now: in TBF you wrote ” A simple scattering of starlight in plasma can easily account for the overall background temperature of the universe”. As I’m sure you are well aware, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) has a spectrum that is almost identical to that of a black body. How, in detail, can starlight scattered by plasma produce a black body spectrum?


I don't really need anymore 'detail' other than to assume that most if not all the elements in the universe exist and are present in the intergalactic medium and they get heated by starlight. Carbon dust alone would probably do the trick. The temperature is just the *average temp* of spacetime. No big deal, and Eddington *predicted* it a whole lot *closer* than any early big banger.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:00 pm

16 June 2016
Reply
Jean Tate

Brian’s comment, earlier today, addresses much of what I had intended to write, based on my re-reading your TBF posts Michael; in particular, Brian was clear in this blog post as to the sources he used for what “EU theory” is.


Brian was clear which basic documents he was using to base his various claims on, but he was not at all specific when it came to his list of wild (and often erroneous) accusations. Since there were multiple authors mentioned, it was confusing to say the least. Brian did claim in his blog that he was focusing specifically on the work/beliefs of Thornill and Talbott. He simply suggested Findlay as a reference of useful material.

“EU/PC community”: This blog post is explicitly about “the Electric Universe”,


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

Brian uses the same exact term ("Electric Universe") to describe Alfven's cosmology model. That's fine by me, I'm comfortable with either term, hence the EU/PC references in my posts. I don't care what you call it.

and uses Findlay’s e-book as the primary reference.


Ya. I just downloaded the PDF, and I did a quick search. Nowhere in the entire PDF does it use the term "neutrino". How then can Brian, you or anyone else be using this particular document a reference to predict neutrino counts that are related to Wal Thornhill or Dave Talbott? WTF?

The letter combo “EU/PC” does not appear in Findlay; indeed, even “plasma cosmology” appears only twice (and one of those uses is by a reviewer). So how did you infer that what’s in the blog post is about “the EU/PC community” (or concepts, theory, cosmology model, themes of cosmology, cosmology theory, solar models, cosmology paradigm, paradigm, or theories (plural))?


Would you prefer we just use the term "Electric Universe" or EU? I'm fine with any abbreviation as long it's *inclusive*, not exclusive of any particular solar model. If you folks can have a billion different "dark matter" models, we can have a few different electric solar models to chose from and debate among ourselves. Brian still has an ethical duty to present each of the solar models *accurately* and the redshift cosmology issue *accurately*.

FWIW, a quick google seems to show that the phrase “EU/PC community” is associated far more often with you than anyone else.


Ya, so? I'll stick to the term EU during our debate if it makes you happy. I don't care what you call it.

Solar neutrinos (again): Have you read Findlay’s e-book?


I actually never even heard of the guy until today. I did however download his (pretty cool) PDF today and looked at it. It looks very nice. One small problem however. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence with respect to what Findlay *did not* say with respect to neutrinos! Holy Cow! Let me see if I got this right: Is your entire argument about predicting "zero" neutrinos in Jeurgen's model in some way related to one random PDF file that happened to *not* mention neutrinos? Is that *really* your entire argument? Wow! Just wow.

The version in the link in the blog is dated 5th January, 2013, and copyrighted 2012. It includes glowing comments by reviewers, who include both Thornhill and Scott, the authors of the two secondary sources used for this blog post. The word “neutrino” does not appear anywhere in the nearly 200 pages of this book! Indeed, there are two places where you’d expect mention of neutrinos would be mandatory, both in the section “Some basic theory that would help”:


So what Jean? The fact it's not mentioned in one random PDF doesn't mean that Thornhill did not discuss neutrino predictions anywhere else. What makes this one random PDF file any more authoritative on Thornills beliefs than then blog link that I handed you earlier to Thornhills *real* (and published on the internet) predictions?

I'm not even going to touch the particle physics commentary by Findlay. I simply don't care what he personally thinks about particle physics. Period.

So, how to explain Findlay’s glaring omission? Or, more pertinently, how to explain Thornhill’s glowing review, given what he wrote, about solar neutrinos, in 2001?


Beats me. Maybe Thornhill didn't expect or assume that every single detail and aspect of his cosmology beliefs to be expressed in one particular PDF file? Honestly, is this really your entire reason for misrepresenting Juergen's solar model and electric universe theory in general? Talk about a lack of ethics.

I don't know if I'll have time to get to your other post this afternoon, but here's a link to all of Alfven's papers that I've personally collected. I also have his book Cosmic Plasma, but I cannot put it online.

http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Jun 17, 2016 1:54 am

17 June 2016
Reply
sjastro

“….You are claiming to be specifically critiquing the cosmology model that is described by Thornhill and Talbott, but you are erroneously claiming that their model predicts zero neutrino emissions….”

Your own link mentioned in TBs ( http://www.holoscience.com/wp/solar-neu ... is-solved/ ) clearly indicates Thornhill DOES NOT PREDICT NEUTRINO “EMISSIONS”.


What the *heck* are you talking about?

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.

......

To sum up, the electrical model of the Sun requires that neutrinos of all “flavours” are produced by heavy element nucleosynthesis in the photosphere of the Sun.


That's about as simple as it gets. He predicts that we will observe the exact same number and type of neutrinos as the standard solar model, only oscillation presumably isn't required in his model. I'll personally hedge my bets on that particular point, but I'll still publicly defend his ideas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tevatron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DONUT

The sun is the most prolific particle accelerator in our solar system.

Seriously do you actually bother reading the links you supply or is this spin doctoring bordering on pure dishonesty?


The dishonesty is purely your own evidently. I'm quoting Thornhill directly and he insisted 15 years ago that all the same neutrinos are generated in the photosphere of his model due to particle collisions, just not in the core from fusion as predicted in the standard solar model. He even makes specific predictions related to the *location* of the emission pattern that is unique and different from the standard model. If we had access to high megapixel resolution neutrino images of the sun we could differentiate between Thornhill and Talbott's model and the standard solar model.

I would have expected to see a model that made a theoretical prediction on the neutrino count instead what we have is a poorly constructed popsci type article full of inaccuracies and typical EU cliches.


Thornhill and Talbott did predict a neutrino "count", specifically the exact same neutrino count as the standard model and the exact same number of all three types of neutrinos. He has the added benefit/prediction of not requiring any type of oscillation between the surface of the sun and the Earth. All that's required is particle acceleration and powerful particle collisions, which we know for a fact are occuring 24/7 in the atmosphere of the sun, and inside the surface of the photosphere as well.


16 June 2016
Reply
Jean Tate

Michael, simple question: have you read “The Electric Universe” by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbot?


Nope, sorry. It's late and I'm going to bed now. I see no point in opening up another can of worms with respect to the CMB or the redshift/distance relationship issue in EU theory before Brian comes to terms with his neutrino error. Once we get that far, I'll be happy to discuss the redshift/distance relationship, and any other topic you want to discuss.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:16 am

I think I'll post my last conversation with Brian Koberlein form his ridiculous blog right before he banned me from posting there, and then I'll respond to his absurd nonsense here. I'll include the last few of my posts there as background, and I'll respond to Brian Koberlein in following post to keeps reasonable in size:


17 June 2016
Reply
Michael Mozina

Brian Koberlein from 2014: “EU claims fusion doesn’t occur in the Sun’s core, when we clearly see a distribution of neutrinos from the core. EU claims that fusion occurs near the solar surface and fluctuates with solar activity, but observations show no clear correlation between solar activity and neutrinos.”

Wait a minute! As far back as 2014 you personally acknowledge that the EU solar model in question *does* experience fusion near the solar surface, and you even acknowledged and discussed the fluctuation argument that Wal had made! Huh? You knew that in 2014?

As I have pointed out over AT TB, the that particular neutrino image that you are referring to is far too low of a resolution image to ever allow us to distinguish a location on/in the sun from which these fusion based neutrinos may have originated. The entire sun would be a tiny single less than single pixel spec in the center of that image. There’s no way to tell where the neutrinos came from, but you already acknowledged back in 2014 that EU theory predicts fusion, it’s location, yada, yada, yada.

Here’s what I had posted about that image at TB earlier:

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

“Centered on the Sun’s position, the picture covers a significant fraction of the sky (90×90 degrees in R.A. and Dec.). Brighter colors represent a larger flux of neutrinos.”

According to the APOD article, the image covers about 90×90 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.

How did you decide where those neutrinos originated, and how come you haven’t fixed your oversight on the neutrino argument in over 2 years if you already knew that EU theory predicts fusion in the photosphere that is variable over time? Now I’m *really* confused.


17 June 2016
Reply
Michael Mozina

You have no right whatsoever to question my honest and integrity while you continue to blatantly misrepresent the statements made by Thornhill and Scott with respect to the plasma pinch process that generates fusion in the Juergens solar model. They predicted to observe exactly the *same* number of neutrinos as we already observe. They isolated the location of the neutrino emission, something that is unique compared to the standard model. They explained and isolated the exact mechanism (plasma pinch) and other features that would allow us to “test” their model. That particular prediction of their model has already been *verified* by our CNO fusion paper. Not a single one of those “tests” of their neutrino predictions however revolves around the *number* (math) of neutrinos that we observe. We all know how many neutrinos we that observe. The only debate is *where* fusions occurs and how it occurs, not *if* it occurs! Wow!

For two entire years you have all known that the EU solar model in question (Juergen’s model) emits neutrinos, and nobody has fixed the problem. Don’t you dare pretend to lecture me about honesty and integrity.


17 June 2016
Reply
Michael Mozina

Brian Koberlein: “The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.”

Is anyone going to fix this nonsense?


19 June 2016
Reply
Michael Mozina

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

FYI, this is the CNO fusion paper that have already I posted on the TB thread for you to read. Since you didn’t read it there, I’m posting it for you on this thread too.

Since everyone here seems to be discussing dishonesty and gross incompetence, let me point out that Scott’s book mentions the term “fusion” in relationship to the electric sun model that they are describing 25 times according to the index. I’ve looked some of them up, and posted the one from page 106 which specifically mentions the production of (neutrinos) from fusion occurring in plasma pinches in the photosphere. Scott included Alfven’s circuit diagram on page page 110, and that methods of atmospheric fusion has already been *verified* by that CNO fusion paper we published.

I have quoted Thornhill on this topic, and clearly he expects fusion to occur around the photosphere just like Scott. I don’t own Thornhill’s book, so I can’t speak much about it, but I’m sure that it discusses fusion in the solar atmosphere just like Scott did, and I’d bet that it contains exactly the same predictions as the ones from his website.

Findlay’s book was more focused on cosmology theory than on solar physics as far as I could tell. He wrote a good *beginners* guide to EU *cosmology* theory, but it wasn’t really much focused on solar theory specifically and didn’t spend much time differentiating between the various solar models in EU theory. That’s completely fine however because it’s only meant to be an introduction to the overall EU concept. It advertises itself to be a “beginners” guide that wasn’t meant to be *fully* comprehensive to start with! You folks made a big deal about the fact that the term “neutrinos” isn’t found in Findlay’s PDF, but lo and behold, the term “fusion” does appear *many* times.

In terms of solar physics, Brian is claiming to have used Scott as a reference and he is specifically claiming that he is critiquing the beliefs of Wal Thornhill and Dave Talbott.

I’ve posted a page number and reference about the predicted cause and location of neutrino emissions with respect to Scott/Thornhill/Juergens model. I have handed you a published paper that has actually verified that this specific atmospheric fusion prediction from their model has already been verified by satellite systems in space. Keep in mind that our focus on CNO fusion in that one particular paper was only meant to explain the origin of oxygen that produces water and which gives life to things here on Earth. It wasn’t really focused on the *most likely* type of fusion that is occurring in the solar atmosphere, specifically hydrogen fusion. I suspect if I check there may already be other hydrogen fusion papers associated with plasma pinches in the solar atmosphere.

No electric solar model that I know of predicts the false claim that Brian made, specifically *no* neutrino output:

Brian: “The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.”

This false statement could conceivably go down and the most deceitful, most dishonest, most factually inaccurate statement that was ever uttered in the history of electric universe theory presentation, and it came from a supposed ‘professional’ astrophysicist. If you folks do not have the common decency to correctly present EU beliefs and theories, what right do you have to lecture me or anyone else anyone about anything related to honesty and integrity?

It might have been “honest” to claim that Juergen’s solar model, while uniquely predicting that fusion occurs primarily in the upper atmosphere, still currently lacks a mathematical explanation of that expected neutrino emission prediction. So what? Your mathematical model for the speed of convection got blown completely away in 2012, and your mathematical model was falsified, along with your entire “solar model”. Do you even have a new mathematical model to ‘predict’ walking speed convection? You folks don’t give a rat’s backside about the math, or the validity of the mathematical predictions that you make with respect to your own theory, so why would it matter with respect to any other model? It was *not* ethical, moral, or even logical to claim that EU solar theory predicts no neutrinos. No solar model does that.

When are you “professional(s)” going to fix your dishonest nonsense?


Keep in mind that I had already pointed out that he had discussed the fact that Jeurgen's model predicts fusion in the solar atmosphere and is predicted to vary over time, here was Brian Koberlein's supposedly "professional" response about his gross public professional misconduct in terms of his outright misrepresentation of neutrinos predictions from EU theory:

19 June 2016
Reply
Brian Koberlein

Michael, let me be blunt. I will not be editing this post.

Folks can disagree with the post. Folks can argue against my basic conclusions. They have many times, and I’m sure they will continue to over the years. So the post will remain unchanged, while (civil) comments will continue to be allowed. Readers can make their own decision about me, my post, and the various EU models as they see fit. That is, in my opinion, the ethical way to maintain a post that has become so deeply contentious.

What would be unethical would be to make claims on a blog post, and (when folks call out your errors) completely rewrite the post erasing any mention of your previous claims. You know, what you’ve done, Mr. Mozina. In January 2013 your blog made wild claims about the Sun. After Tom Bridgman demonstrated how little you understand basic science here and here, you revised your blog to become a personal attack on Mr. Bridgman. When Bridgman pointed out your attempt to bury past mistakes, you added a minor comment “confessing” your “error.” What you didn’t bargain for is the fact that the internet always remembers.

As Bridgman summarized your behavior: “The most disturbing aspect of Mr. Mozina’s post is he has falsely attributed a claim to me which he expects me to retract as an act of reciprocity. Mr. Mozina seems to treat the facts of Nature and Science as if they are something that can be negotiated or traded around like debate points. Nature does not plea bargain.”

Your grievous behavior has become legend in many circles, which is why you’ve been banned from so many forums. You can now add this blog to that list. I’ve been very tolerant of your rantings, but it is clear that the only forum worthy of you is one where revisionist history and made up facts are allowed.


Ya know.....

This has to be the most ironic response that I could possibly imagine with respect to this specific issue, and solar physics in general. I'll post my response in the next post. Stay tuned. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:39 am

Brian Koberlein

Michael, let me be blunt. I will not be editing this post.


Translation: Even though Brian Koberlein, a so called “professional”, has known about his error for over two full years, he doesn’t care about historical accuracy, and he doesn’t have any scientific integrity whatsoever. Better that Brian Koberlein simply ban any and all messengers that happened to come along and point out his outrageous and deceitful public behavior, while he continues to blatantly and unashamedly mispresent the historical “facts”.

Folks can disagree with the post. Folks can argue against my basic conclusions. They have many times, and I’m sure they will continue to over the years. So the post will remain unchanged, while (civil) comments will continue to be allowed.


The concept of “civil” conversation doesn’t seem to apply to any of your posts Brian. A civil conversation would have resulted in you correcting your outrageous misrepresentations of EU neutrino predictions two years ago when you were personally discussing and acknowledging the *real* fusion predictions of EU solar models with other posters, long before I stumbled across your erroneous claims on the internet. You aren’t interested in civil conversation or honesty or you would have fixed your error years ago, and I never would have seen your continued misrepresentations to begin with.

Readers can make their own decision about me, my post, and the various EU models as they see fit. That is, in my opinion, the ethical way to maintain a post that has become so deeply contentious.


Ethical? What would you personally know about ethics as it relates to this issue Brian? You have intentionally and outrageously ignored the real neutrino predictions that were made by Scott and Thornhill, and you have grossly and erroneously misrepresented their statements and predictions for over two *years*, long before I even found your unprofessional trash. Ethics? What do you know about ethics Brian Koberlein?

What would be unethical would be to make claims on a blog post, and (when folks call out your errors) completely rewrite the post erasing any mention of your previous claims.


Well then, it’s a very good thing that I didn’t do that. In fact, I went out of my way to provide a link on my revised blog to my original/erroneous blog post so that others could see exactly what I had said about the image in question. By the way, Loudmouth at CRUS pointed out that error on a Friday, and I verified his point just as I was leaving work. By Sunday night I had already *fixed my error*, something you haven’t done for two full years Brian Koberlein! What right do you have to lecture me about honestly and integrity while you falsely accuse me and blatantly misrepresent what I actually did (fixed my error and left a reference to the original error). What right do you have to lecture me about honesty and integrity while you have continued to misrepresent the statements of Scott and Thornhill for two years and counting?

You know, what you’ve done, Mr. Mozina. In January 2013 your blog made wild claims about the Sun. After Tom Bridgman demonstrated how little you understand basic science here and here, you revised your blog to become a personal attack on Mr. Bridgman. When Bridgman pointed out your attempt to bury past mistakes, you added a minor comment “confessing” your “error.” What you didn’t bargain for is the fact that the internet always remembers.


Evidently you just engage yourself in all sorts of revisionist history. Between a Friday afternoon when I realized my mistake on one image, and the following Sunday evening, Bridgman had taken it upon himself to *pounce* on the image error in question that was pointed out by Loudmouth at CRUS, and which I acknowledged that same Friday, and he tried to make a *huge* deal about it. A few hours later, I simply corrected my error as I had planned to do all along. I would have corrected my blog error before Sunday, but I simply had plans with my family that weekend, and I didn’t get to it till Sunday. Unlike you however, I had the common decency to *acknowledge* my error, to *fix* my error, and to *leave links to my error*. Yes indeed, the internet always remembers and it will remember your scientifically erroneous claims about the neutrino predictions of EU theory forever unless you take steps to *fix* your error as anyone with ethics would have done *before* I even ran across your false and unethical statements. Do you have any common decency at all Brian Koberlein?

As Bridgman summarized your behavior: “The most disturbing aspect of Mr. Mozina’s post is he has falsely attributed a claim to me which he expects me to retract as an act of reciprocity. Mr. Mozina seems to treat the facts of Nature and Science as if they are something that can be negotiated or traded around like debate points. Nature does not plea bargain.”


First of all, it’s highly amusing that you’re required to cite another individual who has been blatantly guilty of professional misconduct as your supposed “reference” about my character. If you had any integrity you both would have simply fixed your errors as I asked you to. Instead, you went on a personal attack rampages and you have continued to propagate the same false statements for over two years.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 748&bpli=1
Tom Bridgman
November 22, 2015

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…


Speaking of Bridgman, when can we expect to see his next installment on the other two mythical and made up suns of Kristian Birkland as falsely spewed on the internet by Tom Bridgman? When were we going to see Bridgman actually quote Birkeland on the direction of solar wind particle flow as I did for Bridgman over 6 months ago? When are either of you going to deal with the falsified convection predictions of your falsified solar model?

Your grievous behavior has become legend in many circles, which is why you’ve been banned from so many forums. You can now add this blog to that list. I’ve been very tolerant of your rantings, but it is clear that the only forum worthy of you is one where revisionist history and made up facts are allowed.


How ironic. As I have demonstrated repeatedly based on their own statements, both Thorhill and Scott *predicted* that fusion and neutrino output would be concentrated in the photosphere and solar atmosphere rather than the core of the core of the sun. Mozina (et all), verified that CNO fusion occurs in the solar atmosphere too. Those are of the historical “facts” as I have demonstrated with actual quotes and statements from their own lips, and with a published paper on CNO fusion in the solar atmosphere that was published by another 'electric universe' supporter before your erroneous blog was ever written. You didn’t even have the common decency to even quote either author while erroneously claiming that they predicted zero neutrinos. In fact, you simply revised the history of their statements, based evidently on some random PDF file that Thornhill happened to think was a good ‘introduction” for “beginners” to the whole EU paradigm but that didn’t happen to discuss solar theory. Nevermind what Thornhill or Scott actually said in their books, which you also claimed to have used as a reference. You even noted yourself in 2014 what Scott and Thornhill *really* predicted in terms of photosphere fusion, yet you’ve propagated the same lie about EU theory neutrino predictions in a purely unethical and deceitful manner.

Bridgman did exactly the same thing with respect to the particle flow predictions of Birkland’s cathode solar model. I handed Bridgman a published paper that was written by Birkeland himself where he personally predicted that *both* types of charged particles flowed from the sun, into the Earth, not just electrons coming from the sun as Bridgman erroneously claimed. Bridgman rewrote history to suit himself just like you rewrote history to suit yourself Koberlein, because you two are both two unethical peas in the same unprofessional revisionist pod!
Last edited by Michael Mozina on Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:01 am

FYI, with respect to Heliosiesmology, there's been evidence for more than a decade to support a plasma layered solar model:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111

Waiting4MOST: If the Sun were actually producing all it’s energy in the solar atmosphere like this then it would glow brightly in gamma rays constantly, it doesn’t.


I also don't know of anyone suggesting that all the fusion would occur above the surface of the photosphere. In fact plasma pinches and fusion in those pinches are likely to occur throughout the entire sun. I would agree that *if* all the fusion occurred above the surface of the photosphere, we'd see more gamma rays than we observe, but nobody is actually making such a claim. The top (and probably the bottom) of that stratification subsurface is where most of the discharge processes are taking place. Only the largest magnetic ropes rise up and through the surface of the photosphere. The vast majority of them occur under that surface.

Image

This Trace/Yohkoh composite image of solar moss activity on the sun's transition layer. The blue area of the image shows Fe IX/X iron ion emissions in the lower part of the arc that are visible to the Trace satellite using its 171A filter. As the arc reaches the warmer layers of the chromosphere, the arcs glow in soft x-rays that Yohkoh can observe. This composite image shows the flow of electricity through iron ion arcs that travel from sun's surface, through the relatively cool photosphere and into a warmer corona where the iron particles pick up heat and begin to emit soft x-rays.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Jun 21, 2016 11:10 am

2 June 2014
Chris Reeve

“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.”

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

The cool sunspots have no arc-mode activity like the photosphere, so the larger the sunspot area on the Sun, the lower the neutrino count.
.....



Brian Koberlein banned Chris for pointing out Koberlein's slanderous and erroneous statements about Thornill over two years ago. Of course this same lie has been pointed out to Brian Koberlein by other posters as well:

7 May 2015
Reply
Matthew Alexander

Wait a minute.

“EU claims that fusion occurs near the solar surface and fluctuates with solar activity, but observations show no clear correlation between solar activity and neutrinos.”

Now that contradicts what you said in your article. So either between February and July of 2014 you learned a little more about EU theory – but decided to critique it anyway in your state of ignorance – or you just lied your ass off knowing full well that EU can accommodate solar neutrinos.

The solar neutrinos are a problem for standard theory, not EU theory, yet through verbal contortions you try to make the reverse seem true. And after all that, you have the nerve to complain that we accuse you of being dogmatic!

Can’t think of a single reason why we would do that. [eye roll]

#AnotherDoucheyMainstream”Scientist”


27 April 2015
Reply
tony

“The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos. 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 hate to throw words back in your face, but I wanted to make sure I provided you the direct quote from you proof to establish the fact that you are not only misquoting the Thunderbolts.info website and their associates, but you are essentially publishing a bald-faced lie when you state that “…The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.”

The EU model, as you call it, explores the possibiity of an electrically-powered sun, and nuclear fusion taking place near the surface of the sun. At no time did anyone associated with Thunderbolts.info ever say that neutrinos are not emitted during these processes. At no time did anyone associated with Thunderbolts.info ever say that nuclear fusion was not taking place.

If you are going to provide a critique of a particular stance, I would encourage you to thoroughly review your material prior to publishing it on the web for all to see. Otherwise, It makes you look foolish.


The result? More bannings of honest posters by Brian because Koberlein simply cannot handle the truth and he doesn't wish to listen to the truth. It doesn't matter to Brian Koberlein how many times that his erroneous EU neutrino claims have been shown to be false by various posters since 2014. For more than two years and counting, Koberlein has known full well that his neutrino statements about EU theory were false, he has steadfastly *refused* to correct the error, he bans anyone that points out the error, and he has continued to perpetuate that very same lie, knowing full well that it is a complete and utter lie. You have no ethics whatsoever Koberlein, none at all.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Jun 21, 2016 11:38 am

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

I never even got to Koberlein's second big blunder with respect to electric sun models (plural), but apparently Ben already blew Koberlein's second erroneous solar claim out of the water back in February of this year:

26 February 2016
Reply
Ben

While I think that the EU theory is false, the comparison between a CFL bulb’s spectrum and the sun’s thermal spectrum is not a good comparison. It is a comparison designed to give a certain result, disproving the EU theory. Scientific analysis should NEVER be based around trying to produce a predetermined result.

Here’s what’s wrong with that comparison specifically. The fact is that when an electrically created plasma has enough current flowing through it, the resulting high temperature in the gas will broaden the emission lines of the spectrum. As current continues to increase, the resulting temperature will eventually be so high, that the spectrum will be broadened to the point that it is a continuous black-body spectrum. At this point the hotter inner part of the plasma will be emitting true thermal spectrum, and the outer cooler part of the plasma will actually produce an absorption spectrum, with the absorption lines being at the exact same spots as the emission lines if the overall plasma was cooler. And it doesn’t matter whether the gas is heated by electric current or by nuclear fusion. At the temperatures involved in a star, you will always have a thermal spectrum marked with some absorption lines.

You can see this that effect in this diagram, with increased temperature and pressure in a mercury arc lamp, the spectral lines broden, from narrow emission lines to wide emission lines. http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Images/Illust ... pectra.jpg
And the maximum pressure there is 200atmospheres. In the core of the sun, it’s millions of times atmospheric pressure. If you assume that EU is true, and that this super hot plasma is generated by an electric current rather than nuclear fusion, that doesn’t negate the fact that at these temperatures and pressures the emission spectral lines will be so broad that they will create a continuous black-body spectrum.

Now I don’t believe in EU theory, as there are many other ways it fails. However this particular comparison between a CFL bulb and the continuous spectrum of the sun is completely inaccurate comparison, that actually abandons well known scientific principles. In other words, in order to disprove one scientific theory that abandons well known scientific principles, the writer of this article himself abandoned scientific principles. That is BAD science writing.


Koberlein's "hit piece" on EU solar theories (plural) is as Ben described it: BAD science writing. It's nothing but a pathetic and misleading piece of fiction that was created by Koberlein himself. He owes Thornhill, Talbott and Scott a *public* and complete apology, but we all know that Brian is simply too unethical to do the right thing.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Jun 21, 2016 2:15 pm

21 June 2016
Reply
Jean Tate

One aspect of the EU – or rather its proponents’ attempts to explain/defend it – is the disingenuous at best/dishonest otherwise claim that everything in the EU has been proven in lab tests (or “every cause/effect claim that is associated with EU/PC theory has the potential of being tested in the lab under controlled conditions” as MM puts it).

We’ve seen this dishonesty at work recently, re claims of neutrino production on/in/near the Sun’s photosphere, via physical processes described as “natural particle accelerators in […] lighting discharges” (Thornhill), neutrinos being produced in electron-positron annihilation (Thornhill again), and “the z-pinch-produced fusion occurring in the double layer (DL)” (Scott); not even the slightest hint of any lab experiment to confirm these. Nor the slightest concern about such a lack.

At the largest scales, there’s the various claims re the CMB’s black body spectrum; not even a whisper from any EU acolyte on what lab experiments have confirmed their wild speculations as to how this arises (within whatever variation of the EU is fave de jour). Nor the slightest concern about such a lack.

In between, there are various things which are likely too technical for most EU groupies to even understand, so here it’s not so much dishonesty as wilful ignorance.

For example, the 21-cm hydrogen hyperfine transition, and the [OIII] 5007 and 4959 (restframe) “forbidden” emission lines. As far as I know, none of these has been observed in any lab experiment, here on Earth. That’s no mystery; the physical conditions for their formation – per standard (quantum mechanics-based) atomic physics – are nigh on impossible to create in such a lab (and even if, one day, they are so observed, there are hundreds of other emission lines, often observed in astronomical sources, which would be even more difficult to see). Tens of thousands of astronomy and astrophysics papers are based on these lines’ reality and the validity of the relevant atomic physics, papers which EU fans take as totally reliable (e.g. for Arpian ‘discordant’ or ‘intrinsic’ redshifts). Yet not a peep from those fans re the lack of results from lab experiments, confirming their existence.

I must try to remember this, for the next time someone trying to defend the EU drops by here. It’s such an obvious, and fundamental, inconsistency (or deceit).


Ya know.....

It's ignorant responses like this one by Jean that tend to make me stop and realize that a lot of the problems that "EU haters" tend to have with EU theory have nothing whatsoever to really do with actual EU theory to begin with. The "haters" are obviously just completely ignorant of the basic ideas in EU theory, and they are completely unwilling to educate themselves. Worse still, they resent anyone that even tries to "help" them try to *properly* "understand" the basic concepts. In fact they are intent on *misrepresenting* the concepts!

Somehow in their twisted sense of reality, the messengers of empirical physics are the anti-Christ figures in their little melodrama, and they all have to be burned at the virtual stake, or hung on the virtual cross until virtually dead and buried.

I realize now how much of that public hater nonsense is really just born of pure ignorance of the most *basic* concepts, the like the erroneous claim about EU theory predicting "no neutrinos", and their pure ignorance of plasma physics in general.

If they simply took a few minutes of their time, and they went over to Google Scholar for themselves, and typed in "plasma pinch fusion" they could find all kinds of published scientific articles that describe real laboratory experiments related to that particular phenomenon in plasma that are done right here on Earth. Scott's described *method* (plasma pinch) has already been shown to produce fusion here on Earth.

Likewise if they bothered to type in 'particle accelerator neutrino', they'd discover a whole lot of published scientific material to peruse at their leisure on that topic of conversation as well. Again, we make neutrinos here on Earth all the time with particle accelerators.

Now of course all such empirical laboratory experiments begin and end with the flow of electricity to produce the particle kinetic energy.

Fortunately an electrode at the surface of the sun provides exactly the type of environment that we would expect to produce prolifically powerful plasma pinches and incredible particle collisions anywhere and everywhere around the electrode.

The public EU haters really don't even accurately understand the basic concepts that they childishly try to discuss in cyberspace. It's also quite obvious from incredibly ignorant statements such as this one, that they know little or nothing at all about empirical laboratory plasma physics and various experiments that are already being done here on Earth in the lab. They're apparently too busy misrepresenting the statements of Thornhill to be bothered with historical details or empirical plasma physics experiments here on Earth.

I could also never quite understand until this moment why they constantly "projected" their own dishonest and unethical behaviors upon all the various empirical plasma physics messengers, including me personally. I finally get it, particularly after that conversation on Brian's blog.

It's evidently psychologically much easier for them to believe that the various empirical messengers that disagreed with them lied to them rather than to believe that the messengers of empirical physics told them the truth, particularly when it threatens their invisible sky religion to it's core. The most dishonest among them, like Brian have know for years that their statements were scientifically inaccurate, and yet they personally have so little ethics even as it relates to "science", that they simply continue to misrepresent a scientific theory anyway!

That is why Koberlein has been forced to ban every single poster that has pointed out that his own statements are entirely self conflicted, and they have been self conflicted for two years.

Brian Koberlein said:

The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.

Brian Koberlein said:

EU claims that fusion occurs near the solar surface and fluctuates with solar activity, but observations show no clear correlation between solar activity and neutrinos.


Brian has been preaching a self-conflicted gospel of pure scientific deceit for two years now.

What's up with that unethical nonsense Jean? What right do you have to question my honesty and integrity while all of you that are still left posting on Brian's pathetic blog are blatantly, knowingly, and continuously misrepresenting Thornhills own statements and Scott's own statements on the topic of neutrino production and the location and method of their production? Why don't any of you correct him? What right do you have to question my ethics or the ethics of anyone trying to teach you to properly understand empirical physical alternatives to your invisible sky religion?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby comingfrom » Wed Jun 22, 2016 5:28 am

Your grievous behavior has become legend in many circles

You're a legend, Michael :D .

Three cheers to you, for grieving them.

As Bridgman summarized your behavior: “The most disturbing aspect of Mr. Mozina’s post is he has falsely attributed a claim to me which he expects me to retract as an act of reciprocity.

Is he now saying he never said Birkeland had three suns?

~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Jun 22, 2016 7:35 am

21 June 2016
Reply
sjastro

Another example that can be added to the list which is one of Michael’s favourite themes is the lack of a laboratory experiment that shows that space-time expands.


First of all, let's differentiate between 'spacetime expansion" (object movement) and "space" expansion. Spacetime (object movement) expansion can be demonstrated in the lab, and I have no problem at all with that type of an "expansion" explanation, or ordinary time dilation to explain at least *part* of the photon redshift observation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

It's not even altogether clear that we *absolutely need* any type of "space" expansion to begin with even if we wanted to try to explain *all* redshift based on expansion.

I'm open to *combo* options too, where some object expansion and some inelastic scattering combine to produce redshift. All of those would be considered "empirically demonstrated" forms of photon redshift from my vantage point.

The only place that we actually differ in our beliefs/opinions is with respect to the LCDM claims of "space expansion". That claim cannot be demonstrated in a lab. It's therefore a belief system that requires an "act of faith" on the part of the believer in a physical process that cannot be empirically demonstrated in controlled experimentation. IMO that original "act of faith" in the unseen (in the lab), puts LCDM theory somewhere in the gray area between "science" and "religion".

In order to even "go there" and try to explain all photon redshift via "space expansion", we would have to presume that every photon that reaches Earth has miraculacely weaved and dodged it's way around every particle, every EM field gradient, and every temperature gradient in the universe, to arrive on Earth without a shred of any inelastic scattering. That alone sounds rather like a "miracle" from my vantage point.

I'd simply apply an Ockham's razor argument here and suggest that "supernatural" (non demonstrated) cause/effect claims are not even *necessary* to explain redshift, so I simply see no reason to 'go there'. I'm more inclined to believe that Hubble was correct and that we simply live in a static universe where photons lose some of their momentum to the plasma of spacetime as they travel to Earth. The further the distance, the more momentum they lose.

Admittedly, I *could* elect to embrace Alfven's "space" expansion model, I just don't think that model is the "best" option available in terms of various EU/PC options to explain photon redshift. I still have such options within the context of EU/PC theory, I just don't personally find them attractive *because* they aren't "necessary" in the first place.

Yet Michael continues to perpetrate the myth the lack of a laboratory experiment essentially falsifies space time expansion (which is a logical fallacy in itself).


I'm not claiming that a lack of a empirical justification in the lab is an automatic falsification of the idea. I'm claiming that simply makes the concept a *much less attractive* option than the various *empirically demonstrated* cause/effect options that I have to choose from already.

I know I've also posted several links that show that a static universe passes the same basic cosmology tests as LCDM, so "tired light" options still warrant consideration IMO.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... /2/96/meta

Once again the dilemma is whether Michael’s omission of these counterarguments is based on pure dishonesty or he lacks the capacity for comprehension in which case the counterarguments are automatically deleted from the neurological processes going on inside his brain:)


The first four individuals to point out Koberlein's *bonehead* neutrino error all got banned by Brian, starting with Chris Reeve. You have all allowed Koberlein to publicly and *dishonestly* misrepresent Thornill's own statements. You have all allowed Koberlein to get away with simply handwaving in arguments from Findlay's PDF, without even so much as a specified paragraph, which simply are not true. Not one of you have stepped up to the plate to make Brian fix his *obvious* neutrino error. He's *intentionally* misrepresenting Thornhill's own public and published statements but you folks don't care one iota that he's intentionally and publicly misrepresenting a specific scientific theory. I don't even personally like or prefer Juergen's anode solar model, but I'm not simply going to sit back and watch someone *lie* about the predictions that it makes. Don't you dare even think about lecturing me about "dishonesty". You're all a bunch of hypocrites on that particular score and we all know it. Get busy and make Brian *fix* that neutrino mess, and then you can lecture me about me about *my* lack of integrity.
Last edited by Michael Mozina on Wed Jun 22, 2016 8:22 am, edited 3 times in total.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Jun 22, 2016 7:44 am

comingfrom wrote:
Your grievous behavior has become legend in many circles

You're a legend, Michael :D .

Three cheers to you, for grieving them.


I'm a legend! Whoooo whoooo! :)

Is he now saying he never said Birkeland had three suns?


Beats me. I've been waiting around for Bridgman's next work of fiction on Birkeland's solar model with baited breath for over 6 months. :) I can't wait to see what type of silly nonsense that Bridgman makes up next. :)

If I recall correctly, I think Bridgman was simply complaining to me in that paragraph because he felt that I had associated something that LoudMouth from CRUS had said with Bridgman's statements. I don't think it had anything to do with Birkeland's model.

I think my favorite quote from Koberlein's thread was Ben's post where he obliterated Koberlein's second solar model criticism about spectral predictions, and this post about Koberlein's neutrino fiasco:

7 May 2015
Reply
Matthew Alexander

Wait a minute.

“EU claims that fusion occurs near the solar surface and fluctuates with solar activity, but observations show no clear correlation between solar activity and neutrinos.”

Now that contradicts what you said in your article. So either between February and July of 2014 you learned a little more about EU theory – but decided to critique it anyway in your state of ignorance – or you just lied your ass off knowing full well that EU can accommodate solar neutrinos.

The solar neutrinos are a problem for standard theory, not EU theory, yet through verbal contortions you try to make the reverse seem true. And after all that, you have the nerve to complain that we accuse you of being dogmatic!

Can’t think of a single reason why we would do that. [eye roll]

#AnotherDoucheyMainstream”Scientist”


Apparently I wasn't the first to notice Koberlein's outright dishonesty, and his self-conflicted statements on this topic.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

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

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:59 am

21 June 2016
Reply
sjastro
This version of the experiment fails because space time expansion cannot occur in a gravitational bound system.
We would have to perform this experiment not only beyond the Earth, the solar system and the galaxy but also beyond the local cluster….. and perhaps beyond that as well.


http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/ ... -clusters/

I'd like to ask you a philosophical question sjastro. Based upon various lensing studies, we've learned a lot about the layout of matter/energy in our universe over the last 50 years, if not learning much about it's "composition". Now that we have evidence that neutrinos do contain some small amount of mass, and considering all the various wavelengths of light, various cosmic rays, dust, plasma and all the other (dark?) stuff that is likely to be present in, and traversing all the 'space' between galaxy clusters, what makes you think that it's not all one big gravitationally (and EM) bound system? The more we seem to look at the lensing patterns, the more we observe "filaments" that connect various clusters together. What makes you believe that anything is not gravitationally (and otherwise) bound to other parts of the universe?

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/s ... rk-matter/
Image
Essentially you're creating a case of 'special pleading' where you're insisting that the mass/energy density drops to some magic number which you're sure applies to all those regions of space. How can you be sure that's even the case?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Is Koberlein completely illterate or is he just a liar

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Jun 24, 2016 9:53 am

27 April 2015
Reply
Brian Koberlein

If you actually read Findlay’s book (the pdf of which I linked to in the post) you will find it specifically argues against stellar fusion. This is clear at various points throughout the book. On page 102, for example, Findlay argues that since dwarf stars emit x-rays, but are clearly too cool for fusion to occur, the fusion model must be wrong.

This particular book has been endorsed by Thornhill as a good introduction to EU, so it is fair to hold it up as an example. If no fusion occurs in the Sun, the Sun must therefore produce no neutrinos.

The only thing that makes me look foolish is continuing to engage with EU folks who don’t understand the ridiculous predictions of their model.


For over two and a half years, Brian Koberlein has erroneously, unethically, and falsely claimed that Findlay made the statement that Thornhill's model 'predicts' that our sun experiences no fusion, and predicts no neutrinos. Based on his own statements, Koberlein has also known that Scott and Thornhill *did* predict fusion after his discussion with Chris Reeve over two years ago.
Brian Koberlein said:

Koberlein: EU claims that fusion occurs near the solar surface and fluctuates with solar activity, but observations show no clear correlation between solar activity and neutrinos.


For whatever reason, rather than just fixing his pitifully unprofessional mistake, Koberlein has continuously blamed *Findlay* for his outrageous statement about EU theory predicting "no neutrinos" since the start of his slander campaign. I've asked Koberlein (and everyone else) repeatedly for an actual reference/citation from Findlay's 195 page PDF which included the specific sentence where Koberlein got the idea that Findlay predicts "no fusion" in EU theory, but alas I never got one. That is because Findlay never said anything of the sort and they all know it!

Since the citation above is the *only* citation that Koberlein *ever* cited in 2+ years of dishonest statements about Findlay's work, let's take a look at the paragraph in question, and ask ourselves if Koberlein is being dishonest, or if he is just utterly illiterate.

Findlay: Here is a contradiction that underlines the relevance of questioning what we are told about stars. There are classes known as T and L type dwarf stars. Relative to normal stars, these are very cool indeed with estimated temperatures of between 600 to 1000K. Interestingly, these are temperatures in the same region as areas on the surface of the planet Venus. 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. Straightforward evidence like this that indicates things are not right with the thermonuclear theory of stars should be all that is needed to drive a more open and inclusive investigation, but sadly, it does not.


So exactly what is Findlay saying in this particular paragraph which Koberlein refers us to? Well, first of all, Findlay is discussing *dwarf* stars, not ordinary stars like our own sun. He's specifically discussing the fact that *according to mainstream theory* (not EU theory), dwarf stars are expected to experience "no fusion" in their core, particularly the class types that he mentions (T & L). This particular *no fusion* claim is not a prediction of EU theory, this is a "no fusion" prediction of *mainstream theory* for crying out loud!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf

What Findlay also notes in this paragraph is that such cool stars are still are capable of emitting x-rays at their surface. If anything, Findlay is eluding to the fact that electrical discharges near the surface (potentially involving fusion) could be the cause of those x-rays, and Findlay is eluding to the fact that the mainstream model is incomplete and it can't explain those x-rays. Period! That's all that Findlay ever implied in that paragraph. Nowhere in that paragraph did Findlay ever state that EU theory "predicts no fusion" from our sun. That is a *blatant lie*! Nobody with any actual reading skills could make that mistake!

Unless Brian Koberlein is simply utterly illiterate, it's absolutely impossible to get the idea that "EU theory predicts no neutrinos" from our own sun, from that one paragraph in his PDF. That's just complete BS. Koberlein is a flat out liar.

Since Findlay is actually discussing the "no fusion" claims of dwarf star *mainstream* theory, by Koberlein's logic, we can assume that the since the *mainstream* theory predicts "no fusion" from a dwarf star, then it also has to predict "no neutrinos" from a sun our size too! What an asinine and utterly absurd argument! Koberlein has no scientific or professional ethics whatsoever!
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Pathological lies

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:33 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_lying

Pathological lying can be described as a habituation of lying. It is when an individual consistently lies for no personal gain. The lies are commonly transparent and often seem rather pointless.


Brian Koberlein said:

The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.

Brian Koberlein said:

EU claims that fusion occurs near the solar surface and fluctuates with solar activity, but observations show no clear correlation between solar activity and neutrinos.


Dear Brian Koberlein:

In case you ever decide to change your mind, and join our discussion about your slanderous blog entry on the topic of Electric Universe theory, perhaps you could start by telling us which of your two mutually exclusive statements is a habitual, pointless, baseless, irrational lie that you have told for more than two years?

If you intend to blame Findlay again for your own lack of professionalism, you better have a *specific* page number and paragraph that doesn't come from page 102! I've already shown you quotes from both Scott and Thornhill that directly refute your erroneous claim about EU theory predicting no neutrinos.

Did you forget to do your homework and actually *read* all three of the references that you cited and claimed to have used in your analysis?

Scott, Page 106: The neutrino flux from the sun seems to vary inversely with sunspot number. This is not unexpected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is the z-pinch-produced fusion occurring in the double layer (DL) – and sunspots are the locations where there is no DL in which this process can occur.


You claimed to have used Scott's book as a reference, and yet Scott clearly states that fusion and neutrino production near the photosphere are prediction of his model, and the index of his book lists 25 different references to fusion in his book.

I have also quoted you from Thornhill's website where he makes exactly the same prediction as Scott with respect to the location, and method of neutrino production in his solar model.

Please explain to us all why a so called "scientist" would go *out of their way* to *intentionally misrepresent* any scientific theory for more than two years and counting? You call that being a "professional"?

Most importantly of all, when are you going to *publicly apologize* to Thornhill and to this community for your blatant unprofessional presentation of EU theory and actually *fix* your numerous errors?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
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

cron