Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" program?

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

There's no way to falsify dark matter theory

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:57 am

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.06655

Translation: Nope, we didn't find any dark matter snipes in Xenon-1T either!

What is even the point of the mainstream even having a "research" program when they don't give a damn about anything that contradicts their claims?

The dark matter fiasco has devolved into an exotic matter snipe hunt of the gaps. Not only have they struck out at LHC, LUX, PandaX, AMDx, Pico-60, Xenon-1T etc, they don't even care about those results. Instead they throw more money at the next LUX experiment, or the next Xenon experiment and they just close their eyes to every failure.

What is the point of them "testing' their model if they won't accept any type of falsification of the idea in the first place? Not only were their baryonic mass estimates from 2006 falsified a half dozen ways, they've stuck out in the lab more times than I can count off the top of my head.

Exotic matter theory is a pathetically useless and impotent theory, and what a pathetically useless testing methodology. Billions spent, nothing found, nothing changed. Totally pointless.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: There's no way to falsify dark matter theory

Unread postby BeAChooser » Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:31 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:Billions spent, nothing found, nothing changed. Totally pointless.


No, Michael, the point has been to prolong their prestigious careers and line their pockets.

In that regard, mission accomplished.
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:10 pm

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-video-dar ... eplin.html

I love how the mainstream simply ignores their *numerous* failures of the past when they present their 'new' version of the very same experiment which already found absolutely "nothing". :) The LUX-LZ detector is presented as though no other experiment like it was ever done before, and all previous results are irrelevant. :)

What good is their so called "research programs" when "no" isn't an acceptable answer? Their "methodology amounts to: Test->ignore all negative results->lather->rinse->repeat.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Metryq » Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:24 pm

You're just not getting it, Michael. The scientific method demands that mistakes be repeatable!

Meanwhile, budgets must be expandable to keep up with the universe.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby comingfrom » Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:11 am

lol

Meanwhile, budgets must be expandable to keep up with the universe.

And expand they will, until they shift into the red.
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:30 pm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=109

I still haven't seen anything from an Electric Universe fan that could be viewed as even the outline of a possible research program.


Then you haven't paid attention very well. :)

The first thing I'd spend money researching are the full body of Birkeland's terella experiments in the lab, complete with all the spectral data, and Langmuir probe data.

The second thing I'd be willing to research *in the lab* is this concept:

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-atomic-ma ... radox.html

Both of those experiments need to happen, but alas you keep blowing our public lunch money on invisible snipe hunts. LUX didn't find anything, so you just ignore those negative results and you build and fund "LUX-LZ"!

Empirical physical *experiments* are always preferable to mathematical models and computer models. What "works" on paper (and software) doesn't necessarily work in the real world. Just ask Chapman.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

There is no such thing as an actual "test" of DM

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:44 am

http://www.nature.com/news/dark-matter- ... E-20171109

There's really no point in claiming that the mainstream "tests" their own theory. They don't. They only accept *positive* results. All negative results, just like this one are simply ignored, swept under the rug, and used as an excuse to fund yet *another* failed experiment.

I've simply lost count now in terms of the number of failed "tests" of the LCDM model. They've wasted *billions* of dollars on this invisible snipe hunt, and we know for a fact that their bayronic mass estimates have been a *joke* all along. Article after article, paper after published paper has shown that there is zero supporting evidence for exostic forms of matter. The mainstream does not care about negative results in the least.

If ever there was a more glaring example of confirmation bias, DM is it. There's literally no way to falsify it and no legitimate supporting evidence in the first place.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:16 pm

Metryq wrote:You're just not getting it, Michael. The scientific method demands that mistakes be repeatable!

Meanwhile, budgets must be expandable to keep up with the universe.


:) The dark matter mistake does indeed appear to be infinitely repeatable, regardless of the expanding budgets. :)

I'd have to say that the DM issue is probably the single best example of why LCDM "tests" utterly irrelevant. They demonstrate conclusively that metaphysical LCDM dogma is impervious to any negative results of even billion dollar "tests" of the model. They'll probably never have the kind of budget they've enjoyed at LHC to "test' their various DM models. These million dollar "chump change" Xenon experiments are more easily justifiable than the massive budgets which are required to build colliders, probably because Congress has to approve billion dollar collider budgets.

I must say that after all the crap I took in 2006 after that now infamous Bullet Cluster study, its been rather gratifying to watch the *epic* failure of DM to materialize in any of these big money experiments. Even more revealing, and more gratifying are the numerous cosmology studies that have since undermined mainstream estimates of galaxy mass based on light. Their bullet cluster mass estimates based on light were shown to be utterly worthless, and shown to be seriously flawed in numerous different ways. A decade ago they were using that bullet cluster study, and the upcoming LHC experiments to bash us over the head on this issue, but now they've both become a huge embarrassment to DM proponents. It's poetic justice IMO.

The DM hypothesis is not only failing spectacularly in the lab, the mainstream mass estimates of galaxies based on light have been shown to be absurdly flawed over the past decade. It's been a really rough decade for "dark matter" proponents, and especially for SUSY proponents. Some SUSY proponents wasted their entire professional careers writing about SUSY models which have since been falsified by the LHC results. That has to be pretty humbling for SUSY proponents in particular. LHC results were not kind to them.

These various DM tests all demonstrate that LCDM is a form of unfalsifiable (bad) religion, akin to Scientology in terms of the sheer absurdity of it. It's devolved into a "dark matter of the gaps" religion. It's definitely not a form of science or physics because the LCDM model has spectacularly failed all of it's so called experimental 'tests' and nobody even cares. Their "faith' in supernatural forms of matter is unshaken, even while their so called "evidence" has utterly evaporated.

The real dilemma for DM proponents will happen in another five years or so when LUX-LZ, Xenon-NT and PandaX-III also fail to find anything, and they cumulatively push the WIMP interaction cross-section into the range of neutrinos. At that point they're petty much out of wiggle room and out of gaps to justify their search.

I suspect they'll just continue to ignore all the cosmological observations that undermine their claims, and they'll dream up new DM models to "test", only so they can ignore those negative results too. :(

It totally blows up the irony meter to see pseudo-skeptics like Tyson, Krauss, and Shermer publicly bash on religion while promoting their own faith based belief systems, which consistently fail all of their own billion and million dollar 'tests". Oy Vey. What huge public hypocrites.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:38 pm

I found out that most astronomy "scientists" uphold a failing model, because
they don't think that alternatives can exist.

First: It is a logical fallacy to uphold a failing model.

Second: It is arrogance to state that alternatives do not exist.

Third: Use strawman to do away with existing alternatives.

A good scientific strategy would be to investigate alternatives, and to
get more accurate data on how the galaxy works.
So even if there is no alternative, we can drop the "dark matter" hypothesis.

But what is really the EU alternative to galaxy rotation speeds?
Let me state an EU based theory:
The galaxy starts with a quasar. (See Halton Arp).
The quasar has the same charge as the centre of the galaxy, so it moves away.
The quasar might be formed by "quarks merging together" or maybe just common nuclear reactions.
The quasar's matter is both charged (possibly positive) and in a state of decay.
The opposite charge forms a small halo around the quasar. Maybe those are electrons.
The quasar creates a current towards the halo.
It also creates decaying matter.
The electric current connects the quasar with the interstellar plasma,
and moves some positive charged matter along with it.
It ejects matter into 2 opposite directions, while rotating.
The matter moves outside and into the rotation direction.
The charges causes matter to clump together, and the
currents ignite the nuclear reactions in first stars.
Stars also rotate around each other, due to currents and magnetic forces giving direction.
Older stars decay into planets.
The electric charge, the magnetism, the gravity and the electric currents keep the stars together,
giving them a faster speed than possible with just gravity alone.
When galaxies get very old, matter merges again in the centre and forms new quasars.

This explains the following observations:
1) galaxy formation,
2) quasars,
3) old age of stars on outside of galaxies,
4) formation of galaxy arms,
5) rotation of stars,
6) rotation of planets around stars,
7) rotation velocity,
8) the formation of stars and planets
9) galaxy halos, galaxy bulbs

But oh wait,
there is no invisible dark matter.
How sad.
This theory must be wrong.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:34 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:I found out that most astronomy "scientists" uphold a failing model, because
they don't think that alternatives can exist.

First: It is a logical fallacy to uphold a failing model.

Second: It is arrogance to state that alternatives do not exist.

Third: Use strawman to do away with existing alternatives.

A good scientific strategy would be to investigate alternatives, and to
get more accurate data on how the galaxy works.
So even if there is no alternative, we can drop the "dark matter" hypothesis.

But what is really the EU alternative to galaxy rotation speeds?
Let me state an EU based theory:
The galaxy starts with a quasar. (See Halton Arp).
The quasar has the same charge as the centre of the galaxy, so it moves away.
The quasar might be formed by "quarks merging together" or maybe just common nuclear reactions.
The quasar's matter is both charged (possibly positive) and in a state of decay.
The opposite charge forms a small halo around the quasar. Maybe those are electrons.
The quasar creates a current towards the halo.
It also creates decaying matter.
The electric current connects the quasar with the interstellar plasma,
and moves some positive charged matter along with it.
It ejects matter into 2 opposite directions, while rotating.
The matter moves outside and into the rotation direction.
The charges causes matter to clump together, and the
currents ignite the nuclear reactions in first stars.
Stars also rotate around each other, due to currents and magnetic forces giving direction.
Older stars decay into planets.
The electric charge, the magnetism, the gravity and the electric currents keep the stars together,
giving them a faster speed than possible with just gravity alone.
When galaxies get very old, matter merges again in the centre and forms new quasars.

This explains the following observations:
1) galaxy formation,
2) quasars,
3) old age of stars on outside of galaxies,
4) formation of galaxy arms,
5) rotation of stars,
6) rotation of planets around stars,
7) rotation velocity,
8) the formation of stars and planets
9) galaxy halos, galaxy bulbs

But oh wait,
there is no invisible dark matter.
How sad.
This theory must be wrong.


You are absolutely right of course, but this is an "all or nothing" problem as it relates to the viability of their entire cosmology model, so it creates a huge dilemma for them.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

It would not even be necessary for the mainstream to embrace EU/PC theory just to replace exotic matter with ordinary matter in order to explain galaxy rotation patterns, and lensing patterns. In fact there is *overwhelming* evidence in 2017 that they botched those 2006 baryonic mass estimates in that Bullet Cluster study by huge amounts, starting with the fact that they underestimated the number of whole stars in those bullet cluster galaxies by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times. They "could" also simply note that those "halos" that they found of hot plasma in 2012, and the second halo of non-ionized hydrogen gas in 2017 are located right where their "dark matter" models predicted. In theory, they could simply replace exotic matter with ordinary gas and plasma to explain galaxy rotation patterns and still ignore EU/PC theory. They really have no evidence that their baryonic mass estimates were ever worth the paper they were printed on in 2006, in fact they have overwhelming evidence in 2017 that they were not worth the paper they were printed on in 2006.

Their real dilemma however comes from their claims about the CMB, and their nucleosynthesis predictions. They can't just replace exotic matter with ordinary matter in those various formulas and get the correct results. It would destroy both their nucleosynthesis predictions, and their "power spectrum" curve fit. Neither one works with ordinary matter so they're pretty much stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they admit that they screwed up in terms of their baryonic mass estimates, their entire BB model bites the dust. It's really an "all or nothing" issue for them, which is what creates such a huge dilemma. Admitting that there is no evidence of exotic matter is a catastrophic problem for them which is why they keep burying their heads in the sand to all the negative test results, and they keep throwing good money after bad at LUX, XENON-1T and PandaX experiments.

The part that really kills me however in terms of their rejection of EU/PC theory is their pitiful solar model. The standard solar model has technically been dead since 2012 when SDO measured convection to be only about 1 percent of their "predicted" value. Those convection predictions directly tie back to the magnetic field strengths they require to explain solar atmospheric activities, and "magnetic reconnection" events. They literally lost their power supply to explain high energy solar atmospheric events and they have no idea how to fix that problem, so they have never updated their model. Those SDO revelations of slow convection also destroys their claim about heavy elements like iron and nickel staying mixed together with very light elements like hydrogen and helium. Such a slow convection process would preclude the elements from staying mixed together as they claim. We should expect to see mass separation by elements at such slow convection speeds. They still can't explain the heat source of the solar corona, let alone *simulate* it in the lab as Birkeland did with electricity over a century ago.

EU/PC theory is destined to replace their nonsense, but that just makes them mad because they've invested themselves so heavily in trying to 'debunk' the whole concept for many decades now, and EU/PC theory just won't die. It makes them look bad now to do an about face and embrace EU/PC theory after trashing the idea online for decades.

Koberlein's bullshit blog entries about EU/PC theory demonstrate that some people in the mainstream are willing to flat out *lie* about EU/PC theory in order to try to kill it, and not a single mainstream astronomer has shown the intellectual integrity to set Koberlein straight for over three years now. They really aren't particularly "honest" as a group, and they aren't about to admit to screwing up with respect to exotic matter theories for fear of losing all credibility entirely.

They really are stuck between a dark rock and an exotic matter hard place, and their huge egos prevent them from admitting their mistakes. That's why they have to simply bury their collective heads in the sand with respect to the outcome of the LHC results in particular. They put all their eggs in the SUSY/WIMP basket prior to LHC, and LHC utterly and systematically destroyed their pretty mathematical models about WIMPS. It also showed that the standard particle physics model correctly predicts even the most exotic subatomic particle decay processes with stunning accuracy.

The real deal breaker for WIMP theory will come in about 5 years when LUX-LX, Xenon-NT and PandaX-3 push the WIMP interaction cross section with ordinary matter down into the realm of neutrino interactions, and that will leave them with no more gaps to surf. All hell will break loose at that point until they figure out how to rally around a different dark matter model. I don't think that will be easy either. Nothing else really works nearly as well as WIMPS. Axions are really too light and too hot to work properly, as are sterile neutrinos, so all their current computer models are still based on WIMP theory.

You're absolutely correct that it *should* be possible to falsify one claim without even having a replacement theory. An honest "I don't know" is a hell of a lot better than burying your heads in the sand and ignoring all the failed predictions of exotic matter. The problem for them is that if they give an honest answer, they have to admit that they don't really know anything at all about the universe that we live in because their entire theory collapses.

The major fear factor is directly related to EU/PC theory. I think they know in the back of their mind that empirical physics will triumph eventually, but they don't want to lose their professional prestige, let alone their funding. Were they to admit that they don't really know anything, it would destroy the whole funding processes in place at the moment, and everyone's job would be in jeopardy. Better in their opinions that they simply sweep all the lab failures of DM under the rug, as well as all the problems with their baryonic mass estimates.

It really is pointless to test their dogma because they absolutely refuse to abide by the outcome of any test that doesn't give them what they want. The so called "testing" process just creates the illusion of respectability and keeps them employed for a few more years.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Does "science" or truth even matter to the mainstream?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:09 pm

The dark matter fiasco makes me wonder if astronomers actually even care about "science" or whether their motives are all about protecting their funding streams.

In terms of dollars spent, there has never been a more "tested" hypothesis in the history of physics which has failed so miserably in the lab. We quite literally spent *billions* of dollars at LHC and we found no hint of exotic forms of matter, and yet LHC found ample evidence to support the standard particle physics model. The standard model has passed every conceivable test to date at LHC. We have also invested many tens of millions of dollars on various dark matter models in other types of experiments, including Xenon-1T, LUX, PandaX, AMDX, nEDM, icecube, etc, all of which have utterly failed to find even a hint of any type of exotic forms of matter, let alone a form that would plug the holes of LCDM theory.

The so called cosmological "evidence" to support exotic matter have all been based on the premise that mainstream astronomers could properly calculate the amount of ordinary matter in various galaxies based on light, but over the past decade that assumption has been repeatedly undermined by numerous revelations of massive underestimation problems in their techniques.

There is literally *zero* evidence to support the existence of exotic matter, yet the mainstream continues to insist it must exist in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Nothing has changed, nothing has been updated, and no effort has been made to find alternative explanations for various observations in space.

Instead we seem to be stuck on a denial-go-round where no amount of 'testing' is capable of falsifying the claim, and no matter what the results of various tests, the metaphysical dogma continues unabated.

What's the point of applying the scientific method to the dark matter claim if it can never be falsified, and the results of tests don't matter to those who are making these claims? Is there any actual evidence to support dark matter which *cannot* be explained with ordinary matter, or which don't begin with a bad case of special pleading?

How can astronomers claim to be interested in "science" if they refuse to allow the LCDM model to actually be 'tested' in a way that allows it to be falsified? It appears as though there is far more interest in protecting the funding streams associated with current theory than there is any real interest in "science", or truth. What's the point of testing a model if you refuse to embrace the results of those tests?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Evidently "facts" don't tend to convince people.....

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:48 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... EWLY3mdk8E

This Youtube video describing a study about human beliefs tends to explain why the consistent failure of DM theory in the lab seems to have little or no effect on the outcome of the beliefs of it's proponents. It's evidently pretty common for contradictory "facts" to simply be ignored or rationalized away. This probably explains why DM proponents don't seem to care one iota about the outcome of their failed lab tests, or the fact that their baryonic mass estimates of various galaxies have been shown to be a complete joke.

The disconcerting part of the study is that it's hard to imagine what we even share in common with LCDM proponents. I guess we all seek "truth", but if 'facts don't matter', how is it even possible to find "truth"? I suppose that we all share an interest in astronomy, but in terms of basic beliefs there doesn't seem to be a lot of common ground between our two communities. Our community seems to be primarily interested in empirical solutions to observations in astronomy, and LCDM proponents seem to shun empirical physical solutions entirely. :(
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Does "science" or truth even matter to the mainstream?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:01 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:The dark matter fiasco makes me wonder if astronomers actually even care about "science" or whether their motives are all about protecting their funding streams.


Unfortunately, protecting funding is what it's all about. That can be the only explanation for ignoring the obvious.
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Sometimes ISF just cracks me up.....

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:48 pm

Sometimes the so called "criticisms" that are leveled at EU/PC theory really crack me up, particularly when there's a sliver of truth in it, but then someone in the next few posts, or even in the next sentence comes along and blows up the irony meter. A recent post at ISF falls into that category. Jeantate at ISF decided to resurrect a recent EU/PC hit thread with this post.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=110

JeanTate:

Yet, despite several avid EUers being well aware of this sort of thing, I've never seen so much as a peep about how such a platform/tool could be used to do some interesting scientific research, based on EU ideas!

What can account for this amazing, apparently complete, lack of interest?


Let me start by admitting that Jean probably does have a valid point that I'm probably guilty of not really checking out Zooniverse very well, and not spending enough time considering the implications of trying to tap into it's potential as it relates to helping to work on EU/PC models and possible projects. Ok, I'll cop to a bit of guilt on that issue, and I'll consider that criticism as it relates to the future, but...

Jean's last question however is probably best answered by suggesting that the complete lack of interest in EU/PC projects *by the mainstream* is most likely related to their complete and total ignorance of EU/PC theory to start with, their professional incompetence, combined with an obvious lack of ethics on their part, not to mention a hefty dose of pure hypocrisy.

Before I get to into the willful ignorance, incompetence and ethics problems, I think I'll tackle the hypocrisy factor first. That particular ISF thread had been dormant since last August before Jean dug it up again, so let's take a look at some of the recent "tests/observations" that the mainstream went to all the trouble to "work on" since that time with respect to their own model, only to sweep the results and the implications of those tests right under the rug.

First we found even more evidence to demonstrate that the bayronic mass estimates of the mainstream have *never* been worth the paper they were printed on:

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-teams-ast ... yonic.html

We also found out that they've been underestimating the mass of the largest stars that we observe:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 010318.php

Now keep in mind that these recent revelations of baryonic mass estimation problems are all *on top* of all the other major baryonic mass estimate problems that have been revealed over the past decade.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

If ever there was a premise that has been so ripped apart by later "tests", it's been the baryonic mass estimate claims of the mainstream. They made so many *major* mistakes in their previous estimates, I've literally lost count now. Worse still, they've never fixed them, addressed them in later studies, or changed them to reflect any of those numerous problems.

So how have their "lab tests" been working out recently?

https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.06917

Nope, no dark matter WIMP snipes found in China.

https://www.nature.com/news/dark-matter ... E-20171109

Nope, no dark matter WIMP snipes found in Europe either.

Both WIMP test results came out just before 'dark matter day" (aka Halloween). We got all tricks, and no treats. :)

So did their other, somewhat less popular "axion" model fair any better since last August?

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-bound-axions.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_s ... e_999.html

Nope! Axions models failed both an observational test *and* a more sensitive lab tests to boot since last August.

So while the mainstream *claims* that these "studies" and 'tests' are the heart of science, they simply demonstrate their own hypocrisy factor because anything and everything that doesn't jive with their supernatural dogma is instantly swept under the rug, like this recent study which also blows huge holes in the LCDM model.

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

I therefore have to ask again: What's the point of supposedly 'testing' your beloved model if you're simply going to sweep all the results you don't like right under the rug? Hypocrites!

Now let's address the obvious ignorance and incompetence factors that preclude the mainstream from exploring EU/PC models. I think the best evidence of the utter ignorance and gross incompetence by the mainstream is best exemplified in Brian Koberlein's misinformation campaign about EU/PC neutrino predictions since 2014, along with this absolute gem posted by jonesdave116 in response to Jean's question:

I notice that Brian Koberlein has disabled comments on his blog, but a recent reading (before they went down) of the nonsense proposed in the comments on his latest blog on EU, and the previous one from a few years ago, would back that up.

BK gets excoriated by a certain poster for not knowing that Thornhill & Scott changed their electric sun models to accommodate neutrinos. Big deal. The poster fails to realise that such nonsense doesn't match observation, so arguing about whether or not these loons propose neutrinos is neither here nor there.


First of all, we all know that lyin' Brian just can't handle the public heat he's getting for lying his unprofessional ass off which is why he not only disabled future comments, he removed them all! I didn't give lyin' Brian a hard time for not knowing anything, I let him have it for flat out lying about Thornhill's own claims (and Scott's). He claimed to be using Scott and Thornhill as references too. He also flat out misrepresented Findlay's statements because Findlay never predicted 'no neutrinos" either. Lyin' Brian Koberlein is either grossly professionally incompetent, or he is a flat out liar, or both. That's why I continue to give lyin' Brian his public due and we all know it.

Secondly, if jonesdave knew *anything at all* about the history of Juergen's anode solar model, he'd know that the entire motivation for that model had to do with the "neutrino deficit" problem that was plaguing the mainstream at the time that he wrote the anode solar model. The purpose of Juergen's model was *not* to suggest that the sun emitted "no neutrinos" as Koberlein falsely asserted, but to explain why the sun produced *fewer electron neutrinos* than expected by the mainstream. In other words, there was never a time when Juergens attempted to explain *no* neutrinos with an anode solar model, just to explain why the sun produced *fewer of them*. That ignorance of the whole concept of his model just blows up the irony meter.

It is true that Scott and Thornhill have since modified Juergen's original solar model to include *other neutrinos* (besides electron neutrinos), but at no time in history did any EU/PC solar model, including the anode model predict "no neutrinos". Gah. The ignorance factor is simply unbelievable. FYI, that' lame excess gamma ray claim is also a flat out misrepresentation of their updated model because they do not suggest that the majority of the heavy element production takes place *above* the surface of the photosphere.

So Jean, the obvious answer to your question is the reason that the *mainstream* has no apparent interest in EU/PC projects is directly related to their own professional incompetence, and their complete ignorance of EU/PC theory.

Let's review the events of the last four years. Not one of you so called "professionals" ever corrected lyin' Brian's false "no neutrino" claim in over four years, which also speaks to either gross professional incompetence on all your parts, or a complete lack of ethics. Which is it Jean?

1) Why did you personally never correct lyin' Brain's bonehead misrepresentation of facts when he erroneously claimed that EU/PC models predict 'no neutrinos'?

2) What's the point of "testing" your own model when you refuse to look at any negative results from any of those so called "tests"?

Let's hear you answer those two questions honestly for us Jean.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" prog

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:45 pm

I think I might as well respond to a couple of other misconceptions that were stated by jonedave116 in that ISF thread. I'm going to start off by pointing out that I personally favor an internally powered *cathode* solar model rather than the anode solar model that Scott and Thornhill prefer, so my interest in educating you, and my involvement here have nothing to do with protecting their model from valid scientific criticisms, and everything to do with scientific integrity.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=112

jonsdedave115:
Of course, this doesn't match observation, as the neutrino count would be heavily stacked toward the part of the energy spectrum of the heavier element neutrino production; it isn't. It would also mean there would be intense gamma rays observed from surface fusion. They aren't.


If you go back and read my website (thesurfaceofthesun.com) it's primarily based upon solar satellite imagery and heliosciesmology data. Both of those areas of research suggest that the "electrode surface" sits about 4800KM below the surface of the photosphere, and the vast majority of coronal loops never rise up through the surface of the photosphere. I would therefore *not* expect that the bulk of the gamma ray production would be visible, in fact I would assume that most of the gamma rays from plasma pinches would be absorbed by the atmosphere above the electrode surface (anode or cathode) long before it has the chance to exit the photosphere. Only the *largest* coronal loops rise and and through and fall back into the surface of the photosphere. When they do, they leave their heat signatures in 1600A and 1700A images, and they show up in magnetogram images as N/S alignment features on that surface. You can check that out for yourself in Helioviewer images, along with the persistence of electrode features in 131A and 171A images. Those two iron ion wavelengths seem to produce the "clearest' images in 'running difference' images. In short, your gamma ray argument is just another one of those red herring claims made by Koberlein that is scientifically bankrupt and simply "made up".

While published papers do support the idea that the the neutrino emission patterns are consistent with 'core fusion', you can't claim that neutrino output is inconsistent with heavy element production based on those same papers. Those papers do not attempt to make any such claim, only that the neutrino production can be explained with core fusion. Keep in mind that nothing prevents either a cathode or an anode solar model from experiencing core fusion, although I believe (I'm not certain) that Scott and Thornhill would not predict that to occur in their models. Birkeland certainly *did* believe that most if not all of the energy from the sun came from the sun itself from a "transmutation of elements" and his cathode EU/PC model does and would support a core fusion process, as well as fusion near the electrode surface. You really can't say that the neutrino production is inconsistent with anything based on any published papers that have been cited, you can only claim that such papers support a core fusion model.

So, all in all, I think it backs up something I've said before; it takes a considerable amount of scientific ignorance to even give EU ideas any head space. And as JT has said before; whatever EU is, it certainly isn't science.


You have that completely backwards.

It takes a considerable amount of scientific *effort* to actually take the time and attempt to fully *understand* the various EU/PC solar models (plural: 3 main ones at least). Only then can one make valid scientific criticisms that have real scientific merit. FYI, there actually are some valid scientific criticisms of an anode solar model, but I personally haven't heard an EU/PC hater posse member make one yet.

On the other hand, it takes a considerable amount of scientific ignorance of EU/PC theory to claim that any EU/PC solar model predicts "no neutrinos" or that any of them predict excess gamma rays compared to the standard solar model. No such prediction was ever made by an EU/PC proponent, and the evidence from satellite images do not support any such claim about any of the primary EU/PC solar models.

Even if you *could* eliminate an anode solar model based on those two arguments (and you cannot), neither of those arguments would even apply to the (nearly standard) solar model that Alfven preferred, or the cathode solar model that Birkeland preferred, so you could never hope to eliminate the whole EU/PC *cosmology* model that way, even if you could eliminate one specific solar model that way.

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

For the record, your precious standard solar model *failed* it's 'prediction test" with respect to solar convection by *two whole orders of magnitude* and that problem has *never* been fixed or addressed. Even if you have some scientific beef with one specific EU/PC solar model based on observation, it's not like your standard solar model is "perfect" either.

So getting in a huff about what these woomeisters propose is pointless, when their explanations are scientifically illiterate, and simply don't match observation.


Speaking of scientifically illiterate nonsense......

I listed a whole bunch of failed "tests" of your precious LCMD model that have taken place in just the last five or six months and that is just the tip of the iceberg. That lame cosmology theory requires faith in *four* different forms of metaphysical "woo", none of which show up in a real lab experiment. You can't even explain 95 percent of LCMD which is why it's mostly just composed of placeholder terms for human ignorance, and billions of dollars of dark matter tests have all failed miserably to support that model. You're therefore the last person on the planet who should be accusing anyone else of scientific illiteracy, particularly when you can't even correctly explain *any* EU/PC solar model with respect to it's *actual* neutrino or gamma ray predictions. Get off your high horse before you hurt yourself.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Previous

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest