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: bboyer, MGmirkin

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

The hypocritical entertainment continues.....

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:59 am ... tcount=115
One might imagine this as being only a temporary measure(?) The mainstream debunks contained in the blog comments served as highly useful reference material, after all.
(Bring 'em back if possible, Brian! .. )
One might also imagine that lyin' Brian can't handle the professional criticism and therefore it's a permanent change, or he'll simply delete everything that he doesn't like and he will only bring back the responses that he likes. :) Time will tell. I suspect he's too big of a scientific wimp to bring them all back. He's used to being able to fail and/or ban everyone that he disagrees with. He can't handle a straight up and fair debate on these topics. Who do you think you're kidding?
An aside: just had a looong discussion with (I think) the same poster you're referring to on the topic of Olber's Paradox in infinite static universes.
Ya, and you two got your butts kicked really badly in that thread, so badly that you had to change the subject and cite a paper by a third party (Scott) to try to divert the conversation away from all of the problems that I pointed out in your lame and childish arguments, starting with that erroneous claim about surface brightness never changing with distance, your 200+ billion missing stars in our own galaxy, and those 100,000 or so missing galaxies in our own supercluster, none of which are visible in the night sky. That fact that you folks believe that kind of oversimplified nonsense just shows how gullible you are.
And hilariously, the lame excuse of assumed pinch produced gammas being absorbed by the atmosphere above the assumed electrode surface, (before it exits the photosphere), also has to be assumed ... and never demonstrated with a real model ... (after all, that would be a violation of the 'EU conde of quantitative modelling silence'!)
Boy, the hypocrisy factor never ends with you guys does it? You don't actually give a damn about quantitative modelling unless it happens to support your case as your failed and falsified convection 'predictions" so clearly demonstrate. You didn't care one iota that Clinger and RC *never* produced a quantified description of a rate of "reconnection" without a plasma particle to their names either. Your fixation on quantification is a ruse. Quantification arguments only matter to you if you just so happen to be on the right side of that argument, otherwise you ignore them, just like you've ignored all those quantitative failures related to convection and dark matter.

Now of course you didn't provide any quantified argument when you folks handwaved in that bogus gamma ray argument, nor when lyin' Brian falsely claimed that the EU/PC model 'predicts no neutrinos" either. Like I said, you don't care one iota about quantification unless it happens to agree with your argument. You're the one trying to *disprove* Juergen's anode solar model, so it's really up to you to do it. Then again you simply ignored your quantitative convection predictions when they blew up in your face, now didn't you? Hypocrisy at it's finest.

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

Your arguments aren't quantified or qualified.

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:10 pm

Yep, that is precisely the sort of idiocy I'm talking about! So, who has done the maths and science on this?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but hypocrisy aside related to your failed convection predictions, *your* arguments are neither quantified *or* qualified in the final analysis. You're the one trying to disprove/debunk an anode solar model this way, so it's really up to you to provide such numbers. Besides, you just shot your argument in the foot as I'll demonstrate for you.
How deep below the photosphere would Thornhill and Scott's woo need to be to have all the gamma radiation blocked? Last I read, the photosphere was about 1 x 10-6 the density of Earth's atmosphere at sea level. I assume (not really) that one of those geniuses has worked this out? I suspect their answer would be - "you work it out, and that is how deep it'll be!"
Bingo! There went your argument. See, you're fully capable of figuring those numbers out for yourself if you're actually interested in them. Frankly I'm not personally that interested because I don't happen to support an anode solar model in the first place, so it's pretty much a moot point from my perspective. We both know it's going to be a number that is less than the diameter of the sun and plasma pinches could be occurring all throughout the sun (would be in fact), so it's ultimately not an argument that could hope to actually falsify any anode solar model, let alone every single possible arrangement, including ones with some amount of core fusion. The best you might hope to do is demonstrate that it's a large number, but what would that prove exactly? Nothing! It's ultimately just "busy work" that would be based on postdicting whatever result you want/need.

By the way, you wouldn't have to block/absorb *all* gamma radiation from the sun since we see gamma rays from the sun, you'd simply have to come up with a number that resulted in the absorption of most gamma radiation inside the photosphere.
And the pp neutrinos have been detected by Borexino, and match very well with the standard model. For the uninitiated, those are the lowest energy neutrinos, that were very difficult to detect previously, but account for the vast majority of the fusion going on in the solar core. From the reaction:
p + p --> 2H + e+ + ve
So, we know that this accounts for ~ 99% of the Sun's energy. There is no place left for Thornhill's 'heavy element' nucleosynthesis at the surface. It has to be from hydrogen fusion. Hydrogen fuses at ~ 4 million K.

Neutrinos from the primary proton–proton fusion process in the Sun
Borexino Collaboration
Before you get all carried away on that high neutrino horse of yours, let me point out that while you may in fact have a valid *quantified* argument to support your own model in that paper, in terms of *qualification*, you've ultimately got nothing to support your claim. That paper also does *not* rule out other fusion options. Let me explain it for you.

Let's be clear. While I personally "hold belief/faith" that neutrinos do in fact oscillate from one type to another just as you do, I've yet to see a qualified actual 'experiment" that showed conclusive evidence that electron neutrinos oscillate into muon or tau neutrinos. The reverse has actually been demonstrated however:

At least one experiment that I know of shows some evidence (3.1 sigma), although not conclusive evidence (5+ sigma) that muon neutrinos can/do oscillate into electron neutrinos, but to my knowledge no experiment demonstrates that electron neutrinos oscillate into muon or tau neutrinos. Please feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken on this point. Without such evidence however, your entire argument is a "statement of faith' in the "unseen" (in the lab), not a statement of fact. Your argument in this case is quantified, but it's not entirely (completely) qualified. Some of your neutrino oscillation beliefs are *not* demonstrated, and they are not qualified. Electron neutrino oscillation into muon and tau neutrinos cannot be considered "fact", just "belief/faith".
Of course, that is only one of the problems caused by some non-event EE suggesting this electric sun nonsense back in the 70s. There is also the invisible incoming current.
That actually "could* be a valid argument against a "fully" externally powered solar model, but despite your oversimplified notion of EU/PC solar models, EU/PC solar models can (and most are) internally powered as well. Alfven used what is basically the "standard" internally powered solar model with circuit additions at the surface when he wrote the EU/PC cosmology model. Birkeland's cathode solar model was also internally powered by what he called a "transmutation of elements". We also just so happen to see a continuous inflow of cosmic rays that are overwhelmingly positively charged, which is also another successful prediction of his model. Birkeland predicted that 'space" was positively charged with respect to the surface of the sun (the electrode surface, not the photophere).

Juergen's probably assumed that most energy from the sun came from outside the sun, but I know of no actual *requirement* imposed on *all* potential anode models that requires that *no* fusion takes place inside the sun or it's core. I'm pretty sure that Scott and Thornhill reject the concept of core fusion, but their model does have fusion occurring inside the sun, so not *all* of the energy has to come into the sun in the form of current. Some energy is certainly being produced by fusion inside the sun in their model too. I have no idea how that all works out quantitatively and I doubt anyone else does either at this point in time.
And then there is the usual nonsense about Birkeland, and his various models for the Sun - models I'm sure he'd have chucked in the dustbin if he'd been around when nuclear fusion was discovered.
Wow. Your own ignorance is showing again. It was in fact Birkeland himself that first "predicted" that the sun was internally powered by what he called a "transmutation of elements". I'm sure that he would have simply embraced fusion, as I do, had he or anyone else actually known about fusion a century ago. He did however "predict" an internal power source in the final analysis. Why on Earth would he reject something that he actually predicted successfully with his cathode model?

This is why I am absolutely certain that it's pure ignorance on your part that causes you to reject these ideas. You obviously haven't' studied them in any depth, or you wouldn't make such ignorant proclamations. Have you even read Birkeland's work for yourself yet? Evidently not.
I expect he'd be flabbergasted that people (one person?) a hundred years on were still holding onto his pre-nuclear musings, given what we know now.
I suspect that he would actually be flabbergasted at the state of your own personal ignorance of his cathode solar model a century after he first successfully predicted that the sun was internally powered by a "transmutation of elements". ... keland.pdf

Even that NY Times writer obviously knew more about Birekland's internally powered model than you do. I'm sure he would have acknowledged that "fusion" is ultimately just a "transmutation of elements" just as Birkeland predicted.

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

And one more point.....

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:09 pm

And then there is the usual nonsense about Birkeland, and his various models for the Sun - models....
What "various models" (plural) are you even talking about? Kristian Birkeland only ever wrote about and promoted one specific cathode solar model. Your bogus claim about Birkeland promoting "various models" (plural) is another great example of your industry's gross professional incompetence, or your complete lack of ethics as it relates to EU/PC solar theories. I think you guys just make stuff up on a whim and then you blindly or intentionally parrot one another's mistakes to make it sound more credible. Oy Vey.

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

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

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:28 am ... tcount=118
Why would they bother when the mantra clearly lays down the primary EU law (lore?) of:

'Never be seen as questioning the primary assumptions of the holy scriptures .. especially concerning the ubiquitous universal plasma'
It never ceases to amaze me when LCDM proponents try to compare EU/PC theory to religions, cults, holy scriptures, etc, particularly since LCDM requires four separate statements of 'faith' in four separate supernatural/metaphysical/"never been seen in the lab" entities, and beliefs in miracles, whereas EU/PC theory is based on pure lab tested physics. Irony overload.

The "holy scriptures" of the LCDM model start with a statement of faith in exotic forms of matter, specifically "CDM". What have they spent so far in search of their holy exotic matter entity anyway? Well, that basically depends on whether or not one includes the actual total cost of labor in that figure, but suffice to say if we *only* look at the cost of LHC, it's somewhere between 13.25 and 52.86 *billion* dollars. ... iggs-boson

Now of course not *all* of those funds were spent exclusively on the search for exotic forms of matter, but suffice to say that the total amount of money spent in search of mythical forms of metaphysical and hypothetical forms of matter which are described in the holy LCDM texts runs into the tens of billions of dollars. That's not even including the 10's of millions spent on LUX, PandaX, Xenon-1T, etc. Suffice to say it's a *huge* amount of money and effort, and what do LCDM proponents have to show for it? Absolutely *nothing*!

The holy CDM metaphysical dogma however continues unabated because the "true believers" adhere to their holy scriptures, in spite of the fact that the mainstream baryonic mass estimates have been repeatedly shown to be riddled with numerous and massive flaws.

That whole ISF thread demonstrates everything that's wrong with astronomy today. Since Birkeland first built and ran his laboratory experiments, and he took in-situ measurements of the Earth's magnetic fields during solar storms, EU/PC theory has enjoyed over a century of scientific research. Based on his experiments, Birkeland successfully predicted both types of solar wind particles, polar jets, electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, solar flares, a high temperature corona, field aligned currents in planetary aurora, etc, all of which have since been verified by satellites in space.

Unfortunately with all the "big money" that is being spent on invisible snipe hunts, the paltry amount of public funding going towards projects like SAFIRE have severely hamstrung their efforts to even replicate Birkeland's full range of experiments using modern equipment. Even still the research into EU/PC theory continues to this day. Serious scientific experimentation requires public support, but unfortunately almost all of that public money is being squandered on invisible snipe hunts which have failed every "test" to date.

That thread also demonstrates the total scientific incompetence of the mainstream, and the unethical nature of the mainstream when it comes to their *blatant* misrepresentations of EU/PC theory. Birkeland never promoted 'various" solar models, just one cathode model. No EU/PC solar model predicts that our sun emits 'no neutrinos" either. Koberlein and his unethical cronies simply *lied* about those false claims, and they continue to willingly misrepresent EU/PC theory all around the internet. The lack of ethics is wide spread too, as demonstrated by the fact that not a single so called 'professional" ever corrected those bonehead misrepresentations of historical fact in over four years. Even to this day they continue to 'make up' so called "predictions" of the EU/PC models which are not actually made by any EU/PC proponents or models. No model predicts an excess of gamma radiation from the sun. Every EU/PC model predicts a 5800K photosphere too, which obviously would produce a heat related spectrum.

The dishonest "cult-like" mentality plagues astronomy to it's core, which is why we remain stuck in the dark ages of astronomy. It doesn't matter to the LCMD faithful how many times their models fails in the lab, or it is falsified by some observation. They simply bury their collective heads in the sand and pray to their Christ-like Guth figure to save their metaphysical souls. Even their very first "claim", the expansion of a object that fits well inside of it's own Schwartzchild radius, requires a *miracle* of truly epic proportions. Talk about holy books and supernatural miracles. Guth wrote their whole book of genesis for them, and it starts off with the greatest miracle in the history of physics.

Selfsim wins the award for irony overload.

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

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

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:38 am ... tcount=119
Personally, I’m a by surprised that BK has kept the comments up for so long.
Ya, why would he want to let anyone question his false authority and call him out on his false statements? That would be too fair and too ethical. :) It's far better for lyin' Brian Koberlein if he hides the fact that he lied through his teeth and then he banned everyone (at least four different individuals) who dared to point out his numerous errors. :) The fact he never fixed any of them and *still* tries to blame Findlay for his false "no neutrino' claim just demonstrates his utter lack of scientific ethics.
EU nonsense has been thoroughly shown to be, well, inconsistent,
What pure hypocrisy. Like your Schwarzschild radius defying creation miracle isn't entirely inconsistent with GR? The whole thing should have imploded before it began if you were being consistent with GR theory! How many inconsistent inflation and dark matter models are there to choose from now anyway?
not science etc,
Our cause/effect claims all work in the lab, whereas your metaphysical dogma isn't actually "science" and it's entirely impotent in the lab. It's not even a falsifiable model to start with as your multi-billion dollar dark matter financial fiasco so clearly demonstrates.
and a rather large number of EU acolytes more interested in trivial arguments than in discussing science.
Trivial? Trivial my eye! His arguments are all *false* and misleading! He doesn't list any specific quote from any author that actually supports his false claims, and he flat out misrepresented Scott and Thornhill's own statements with respect to neutrinos and neutrino variability. That's not trivial. That's a flat out lie, it's entirely false, and it destroys his whole argument.
So continuing to allow comments permits these ideas to be endlessly repeated, without anyone becoming any wiser.
The whole point of removing the evidence of his dirty deed is to make sure that his students and the public are none the wiser about his dishonest arguments, and his numerous lies. He can't handle an honest scientific debate on this topic, and neither can you. You didn't even have the personal integrity to even try to set the record straight in over four years. Your use of the word "trivial" to describe those lies and your continued support of those lies simply demonstrates that you all suffer from a serious lack of scientific ethics. You aren't interested in science, or scientific facts. You're only interested in misrepresenting EU/PC theory to the public which you do on a continuous basis, including today.

You're all guilty of being complicit in the lies. EU haters have no ethics whatsoever.
These days it’s such a fringe activity perhaps it’s best to just ignore it.
It would be a lot more scientifically ethical to just ignore EU/PC theory rather than continuously and intentionally misrepresent the EU/PC model using anonymous handles like a bunch of lying cowards. How can you even look yourself in the mirror in the morning and be happy with that blatantly unethical behavior?

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

I don't think that EU/PC haters even know how to be honest

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:04 am


One could even take the position that, in the overall 'rankings' from amongst the set of 'Non-standard cosmologies', EU (& TBolts) has even done considerable damage to say, Plasma Cosmology.
LOL! Considering the fact that as a group, you can't even correctly describe a single solar model in the EU/PC framework, it's highly doubtful that you could distinguish between what you're calling "electric universe cosmology' and plasma cosmology. I don't even recall Thornhill or Scott proposing a separate *cosmology* theory to begin with. :) Assuming you could actually somehow distinguish between them, your response would simply demonstrate your own biases.
The recent CQ ATM thread 'Is the Universe Static?' and Crawford's accompanying paper, at least demonstrated his willingness to put pen-to-paper, and perform analysis on what he thought was raw SN data. That he showed no particular affiliations with the EU nonsense, also raised the credibility of his arguments, thereby warranting more attention than EU ramblings, (IMO).
Ya, and look what good it did him at CQ. For his efforts David was belittled and threatened, as was poor Jerry just for just trying to explain the paper to the Cosmosquelch Spanish inquisition crowd. The thread was closed after thirty days and David is forbidden to discuss it there ever again. You guys are pathetic. You can't handle an honest scientific debate.

Note also that David's paper, in spite of not being an 'EU' oriented paper is *perfectly congruent* with EU/PC theory, whereas it *utterly obliterates* LCDM.
Either way, the point is that at least Crawford made the effort to use the data (even though his analysis technique was flawed). This distinguishes him from the EU mindset ..
All of Alfven's work was published as was Peratt's work which even noted *many* similarities of his computer models to the observed data sets.
and also in terms of the 'mirror' thread I was actively involved in at CFs, where you-know-who was just waiting poised to swoop on any morsels of road-kill, (from Crawford's thread), he could use to support his own nonsense agendas .. (which included incredible misconceptions about Olber's paradox (Static, Infinite Universes)). Evidently that nonsense agenda favours a non-banged, static, finite (yet somehow 'eternal') universe which starts out as some kind of 'fog' substance! (I kid you not .. )
While it's quite amusing that I've apparently achieved Voldemort status among LCDM proponents, it's a lot less amusing that you continuously misrepresent my statements selfsim. Not only do you indeed "kid them", you flat out misrepresented my statements (again) in that CF thread since I absolutely *do not* 'favor" a finite universe as I clearly explained to you in that thread. The finite universe nonsense was your own *hijack* of the thread! Your Obler's (non) paradox claim also went down in flames in that thread. Surface brightness *isn't* unrelated to distance at large distances as you erroneously tried to claim. You also came up 200 billion stars and a 100,000 galaxies short of a valid argument while staring at the night sky. Olber's paradox is a complete joke.

I don't think EU/PC haters even know how to be honest anymore. You've all become so used to simply misrepresenting everyone and everything that doesn't conform with your metaphysical dogma that you can't even tell fact from your own fiction anymore.

Your hero RC can't even get EU solar neutrino predictions right, and he can't come up with his missing rate of "magnetic reconnection" formula without plasma as promised 7 years ago, and yet you still think he's some sort of "expert" on anything other than sleazy debate tactics. Gah. EU/PC haters are as dishonest as they are clueless.

Oh, and by the way, your precious LCDM model apparently failed yet *another* important 'test' of your metaphysical cause of redshift claims: ... t.8051181/

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

The electric duck....

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:10 am ... tcount=123

Same old, same old as in (varying degrees of): “looks like a duck” analyses,
I hate to break it to you, but a whole *lot* of science is based upon pattern recognition.

In this case it not only looks like an electric duck, it has a corona like an electric duck, both types of charged particles flowing from the sun like an electric duck, electron beams like an electric duck, million degree electrical discharge solar flares like an electric duck, polar jets as Birkeland predicted from his electric duck, planetary aurora like his electric duck, etc, etc, etc.
abhorrence of anything to do with mathematics beyond simple arithmetic,
Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven, Peratt, and Lerner all provided math for you, not that you're read any of it. Your ignorance of their work isn't evidence that it doesn't exist!
“mainstream is RONG!
It is wrong in just about every conceivable way in fact: ... =3&t=15850 ... t.8051181/
Therefore EU must be RITE!!!”,
Not necessarily of course, but it's lot less "wrong" than your metaphysical disaster of a model, that's for damn sure.
willingness to embrace “alternative” physics
Pure projection. All of our stuff work in the lab and it's consistent with the *standard* particle physics model. You're the one's embracing anything *other* than empirical physics, including four different types of "alternative physics".
irrespective of how inconsistent it is with core EU ideas,
It's clear from those lyin' Brian Koberlein threads that EU/PC haters don't even understand the most *basic* aspects of EU/PC solar models (plural) or anything much about EU/PC cosmology theory in general. EU/PC ideas are simply inconsistent with your own false ideas/beliefs about EU/PC theory. Your don't even understand the models you attempt to criticize.
reliance on YT vids and pop-sci articles as primary sources,
Ya, that and working laboratory physics by Birkeland and SAFIRE, Peratt's computer models, Alfven's mathematical models, Lerner's work, Bruce's work, etc.
and long-dead scientists having their work stolen and grotesquely misrepresented (e.g. Birkeland).
LOL! You folks haven't a clue how his model worked in the first place! You've been running around claiming he supported *three* different solar models and drawing up oversimplified particle flow diagrams that don't begin to do his work justice. Who the hell are you folks to be talking about anyone here misrepresenting his work?

You even screwed up the neutrino, heat signature and gamma ray predictions of Jeurgen's anode solar model!

Pull the logs out of your own eyes before complaining about someone else's splinters.
You no longer see any EU stuff being promoted here; even Sol88’s EC thread isn’t about EC ideas any more.
Gee, I wonder way? You've banned all the EU/PC proponents from posting there. You banned me when when I pointed out that RC and his clueless sidekick never came up with a math formula to demonstrate a non-zero rate of 'reconnection" without a plasma particle to their names! You folks can't handle a real science debate so you have to ban everyone that disagrees with you and then you wonder why nobody talks about it there anymore. Man, that's hysterical.
Ditto on moderated sites seriously interested in discussing astronomy etc (e.g. CQ,
You mean the Spanish Inquisition forum where they burn *all* their heretics at the stake, not just EU/PC proponents?
I got banned there simply for point out the problems with dark matter claims. Again, the fact you folks burn your heretics at the stake isn't evidence that EU/PC isn't growing in popularity.
Starship Asterisk);
Yep, banned from there too. :) It's funny that you think that the 'silence' isn't related to the small matter of the fact that you burn all the witches at the stake. :)
So EU ideas have suffered greatly ... they are simply ignored as irrelevant to anyone or anything.
They aren't so much as "ignored' as "banned" from discussion at astronomy websites because you folks cannot handle an honest scientific debate on cosmology anymore, especially after that disaster of a last decade and those billions of dollars of dark matter experiments that all went up in flames.

Its really amusing that you ban all dissent from your websites and then you wonder why alternative ideas aren't discussed there anymore.

Just go ask David why he's not allowed to discuss his static universe ideas on CQ anymore. Better yet, ask him if he even cares. What a draconian website. ... rse-static

If you folks *could* handle an honest scientific debate, you'd be happy to ridicule anyone and everyone without resorting to ridiculously draconian rule systems, and banning everyone that makes you look bad. As it stands however, you folks are absurdly ignorant of even alternative solar models which you don't begin to actually understand in the first place, because you consistently ban everyone that tries to educate you. Pssst: No EU/PC solar model predicts "no neutrinos" by the way. :)

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

You've ignored the model and the data for a century

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:46 pm ... tcount=125
Ah yes, so much irony!

Certainly a lot of new stuff was learned from Rosetta, but as tusenfem never tires of saying, a huge treasure trove of comet data existed long before Rosetta arrived, but no EU acolyte ever availed themselves of it. Opportunity to avoid a lot of red faces, squandered.
Actually Jean, not all of us in the EU/PC community squandered any such opportunity. While I think that the mainstream solar model and the LCMD cosmology model are utterly ridiculous, I've never really had much of a problem with mainstream planetary exploration or comet theories.

I'm not sure why jonesdave seems to think that the last GR wave detection is a problem for EU/PC theory. I've personally always supported GR theory. and I applauded LIGO on that *single* example of multimessenger astronomy. That last paper was actually very impressive to me, even if the first several papers were not.

GR theory is fully compatible with EU/PC theory. I think that we probably all believe that some "theory of everything' is likely to tie all the known forces of nature together, but I'm fine with GR theory for now and I'm sure others in the EU community are fine with it too. That doesn't mean we won't explore methods of tying the forces of nature together however.
Thornhill’s, um, gravity idea is a nice segue to “EU/PC theory”. Many have pointed out, BK among them, that there is no such thing. It’s a shorthand often invoked, but no EU acolyte bothers with trying to explain what it is, complete with reliable references.
You mean lyin' Brian lied about something else related to EU/PC theory? Gee, what a surprise. There is indeed such a thing as EU/PC cosmology theory and there has been such a cosmology model since Alfven literally wrote the book on it. That book is called Cosmic Plasma. His student, Anthony Peratt wrote an even better book on the topic called Physics of Plasma Universe which I've also read and I'm pretty sure that *none* of you, including lying Brian Koberlein have actually read. There's actually only one "EU/PC Cosmology" theory AFAIK and it's well documented even if you and lyin' Brian are too lazy to read it. FYI, Lerner's book "The Big Bang Never Happened" is also a pretty good reference.
At its purest - i.e. what the leading “electrical theorists” wrote in published books - no one can take it seriously ...
First of all, why do you "assume" that Thornhill is the "leading electrical theorist" rather than say Peratt or Lerner or Scott or Alfven? I certainly can't take your holy LCDM books seriously since they're filled with metaphysical nonsense that has failed more "tests" than it actually passes.
stars powered by giant currents,
That's not how Alfven described it, or Peratt described it, or even Birkeland described it. There is however some amount of documented current flowing into the stars in the form of cosmic rays that are overwhelmingly positively charged, and the stars are "wired together' in interwoven circuits according to Alfven.

Even Thornhill's solar model produces some energy from fusion locally despite the lies told by lyin' Brian Koberlein.
General Relativity is nonsense,
Well, I certainly don't believe that that GR theory itself is nonsense, but I'm damn sure that your metaphysically kludged "blunder" theory is nonsense.
and so on. And the argument gets really lame when Alfven, Arp, Peratt, and even Birkeland get roped in, with nonsensical claims about them buying fully into the EU of Scott and Thornhill.
I doubt that anyone here actually believes that all those various authors shared exactly the same viewpoints. I certainly don't. I don't care much for an anode solar model for instance, nor for Alfven's preferred solar model for that matter. I'm fully aware that both of those solar models are inconsistent with the solar model that I personally prefer, namely Birkeland's cathode solar model. The problem for EU/PC haters is that one actually has to take the time to understand the various solar models, and read the various books involved to understand which ideas they prefer and which they do not.
Does anyone, even MM, even try to pull together a consistent framework? One that is more than a “Just So” story?
I put together a consistent solar model framework for you a long time ago. I cited relevant references including Birkeland and Bruce and many other authors. I even setup a website and discussed that model publicly for you. For my efforts you banned me at the Spanish Inquisition board in spite of the fact the Birkeland's model actually works in the lab, and in spite of the fact that the mainstream has *never* produced a working model of a sustained full sphere corona based on "magnetic reconnection".

It frankly seems silly for me to try to rewrite Peratt's book, or Lerner's book, or Alfven's book on cosmology theory, or rewrite Birkeland's book on solar physics when you're unwilling to read those works for yourself and point out any errors in them. What would be the point of writing another book that your folks won't bother to read, or to understand? I'm sure lyin Brian would simply make up lying crap about my book based on something he made up and blamed on Findlay anyway, just like he did to Thornhill and Scott. You personally wouldn't correct him either, just like you refused to correct lyin' Brian Koberlein on any of his bullshit.
To close the circle ...

Safire aside (that’s covered extensively above), there is no ongoing experimental or observational work on whatever EU theory is.
Besides the *one* publicly funded experiment that hasn't even been as well funded as a *minor* dark matter fiasco experiment? I love how you put in a qualifier that simply ignores the fact that there actually *is* a real experiment in progress and the fact that it's hamstrung by a *pitifully small* budget because you're busy spending all our public funding on pure metaphysical nonsense.

You also have *no* ideas what anyone in this community might be working on so you're just making crap up again. Scott has in fact produced an excellent paper on Birkeland currents, not that any of you care. I know that my research into solar physics is ongoing too.
Not even ~zero cost projects in the style of the Zooniverse’s Galaxy Zoo or Radio Galaxy Zoo.
You seem to be making a *really* big deal about Zooniverse, but it's not the be-all-end-all of scientific research.
What, then, do EU acolytes spend their time on? Certainly not writing new EU papers; by their own admission, very few have the ability to do such a thing.
Not that you folks had much useful input on the papers I did publish, or Scott's recent paper on Birkeland currents or even pointed out a single error in Alfven's entire body of work including over a 100 published papers.
Instead, it seems they spend their time, outside EU central, arguing with all the lyin’ liar mainstream folk, whether professional or amateur.
Well some of us "amateurs' have to actually earn our living outside of the public funding gravy train, and someone has to publicly point out your professional incompetence. I can bust your unprofessional lies between tech calls at work. ;)
And within EU central, a lot of whining about how unfair those lyin’ liar mainstream folks are, forever banning honest EU folk for constantly breaking the clearly published rules!
When the published rules are as draconian and as ridiculous as what we find on CQ, it's pretty damn clear that you're afraid of any real scientific debate on your boards. I spent *months* defending Birkeland's solar model there when the board was (more appropriately) called 'Bad Astronomy". I answered *tons* of questions, as did Dr. Manuel and yet you banned us both. They're not exactly 'fair' rules since the "Against the Mainstream" forum is nothing but a witch hunt forum in the first place. Just ask David how well that forum works today.
But no time at all on even thinking about how to test EU ideas.
I can think of *tons* of ways to 'test" Birkeland's ideas related to solar physics *in the lab* but it would in fact require some serious public funding. I'm also not a professional "astronomer" by trade, I earn my living programming. It's not my job to do your job for you.

Jean, what's the point of even "testing" ideas when you folks simply ignored tens of billions of dollars of failed dark matter tests? What's the point of 'testing" your solar model when you swept your failed convection predictions right under the rug? Please answer that question for me. You simply sweep all failed "tests" of your models (including observational tests) right under the rug! There's no scientific point in any of the "tests" done on LCDM. It's been the single biggest laboratory failure in the entire history of physics. You spend all our public money on metaphysical mumbo-jumbo and then you condemn us amateurs for not doing your job for you *on our dime* no less. What pure hypocrisy.
Proof positive that whatever the EU is, it certainly isn’t science.
Except for the fact that Birkeland's EU/PC solar model actually works in the lab, and even Jeurgen's anode model actually works in the lab, unlike your dark matter snipe who's been a laboratory no-show for over a DECADE now.

Astronomy is in a total shambles today because you're too dishonest to even accept the results of your own "tests" and you're too blind to appreciate *working laboratory models*.

Whatever LCDM is, it's definitely not "science'. It's more like a bad dogmatic cult, akin to Scientology. No matter how many observational and experiment tests it *utterly fails*, you continue to pray for miracle and throw good money after bad. You spend all our public funds on faith based supernatural dogma and then you hypocritically whine at the amateurs for preferring *working empirical models*. What a ridiculous attitude from a bunch of clueless and dishonest haters who hide like cowards behind anonymous handles and who cannot even get the neutrino predictions of EU/PC theory right! Gah. You people are the poster children of everything that is wrong in astronomy today. Even your personal behaviors are contemptible, including your 'high priests". ... .giW4XVv4g

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

Scientific death by ignorance.

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:53 am


I conducted an unofficial, not very scientific, experiment. After my initial post, a few days ago, I noticed that someone in EU central was not only reading this thread, but actually responding to parts of some of the posts here.

Yes, some of those responses are funny, some reflect what we wrote here remarkably well, but there’s a meta I find most interesting: no posts except by MM. Maybe there’ll be some later?

Anyway, a key take-away: exceedingly few acolytes who hang out at EU central care about critiques of the EU, posted here or elsewhere. And ~none have any interest in engaging in a science-based discussion of the EU; likewise none have any interest in testing the EU.
The likely reason that most folks in the EU/PC community don't respond to EU/PC haters at ISF is because we all know how clueless you folks really are when it comes to EU/PC theory. No EU solar theory predicts "no neutrinos", but for four years not a single EU/PC hater set lyin' Brian Koberlein strait. The fact is that most folks just ignore your lies now. I however do actually "care" about scientific accuracy and integrity, unlike any of you haters. I also saw first hand how clueless you all are when Clinger and RC were claiming to get "magnetic reconnection" without a plasma particle to their name. You folks never did come up with your missing math formula to express a non-zero rate of 'reconnection' without plasma and plasma particle acceleration and we all know that you never will. We know you're clueless, but I still care about scientific accuracy, even if most folks here are willing to just ignore your constant stream of lies.

You're also flat out lying some more when you say that we are not interested in 'testing' the EU/PC models. We're doing so in fact in SAFIRE experiments and we'd love to have the funding to replicate all of Birkeland's work using modern equipment, but alas you keep taking all our public lunch money and wasting in on dark matter "tests" and other observational tests which you simply ignore because your model fails all of those tests. You're projecting. It's you that don't care about "testing" your model unless of course it happens to agree with your preconceived ideas. While I prefer Birkeland's cathode solar model, I'm happy to see Juergen's anode model being tested as well. I'd rather not have my own biases and personal preferences determine the future of solar theory.
And unless you are concerned about the feelings of just one acolyte, there’s no reason to shed any tears over BK removing comments from his blog. Nor any reason to continue to even mention the EU, here in the ISF.
That's only true if one simply does not care about "truth" or honesty or care about science or astronomy. Anyone who cares about science and astronomy cares that lying Brian Koberlein is spreading lies and refusing to remove those lies when they've been shown to be lies. You folks don't really care about honesty, integrity or science, just protecting your own damn egos.
An ignominious end? Death by being totally ignored, due to complete irrelevance!
A solar model that actually predicted no neutrinos deserves to die such a death, but unfortunately for you no EU/PC solar model actually predicts any such thing. The main reason I continue to respond to your BS is because someone should tell the truth, and it's obviously not going to be you folks.

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

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

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:16 am

Can something that never really started actually end?
If Guthanity is any indication, apparently not. None of our metaphysical dogma works in the lab so it never really "started" from the standpoint of empirical cause/effect physics. Guth's supernatural nonsense can be traced back to the wild, overactive imagination of a *single* individual, and his ridiculous nonsense has failed more tests than it passes, including those hemispheric variations in the Planck data. The whole thing should have imploded before it even began expanding if you folks used GR consistently.
At the end of the day it comes down to two people who have a bizarre belief that Velikovsky was right. By definition, that disqualifies it from being remotely related to anything scientific.

This is just another example of more EU/PC hater bullshit, more of your own damn lies, and more pure ignorance on your part. Birkeland started EU/PC theory, not Velikovsky, and he started it with *real working experiments* and in-situ measurements that continue to beat anything that the mainstream has ever been able to do in a lab. Birkeland's published work predates anything Velikovsky published by 30 years. The fact that you spread such disinformation only demonstrates your own ignorance. I personally don't adhere to any of Velikovsky's ideas or beliefs so your claim is obviously just pure bullshit. You're apparently all just a bunch of dishonest liars and total cowards who hide behind anonymous handles while you spread your dishonest BS.
By definition, that disqualifies it from being remotely related to anything scientific.
No, by definition your false beliefs about EU/PC theory disqualify you from being able to speak honestly about EU/PC theory.
Even the adoption of certain ideas from the likes of Alfven, Peratt, Juergens et al, can be traced back to the loon Velikovsky, and his "Cosmos without Gravitation" nonsense.
More lies. Which papers or books by Birkeland, Alfven or Peratt have anything to do with Velkovsky? You're just flat out lying yet again. Do you people have any scientific integrity at all?
Thornhill wants to force fit everything into a Velikovskian worldview, with Venus doing handbrake turns around the solar system a couple of weeks ago last Tuesday.
Even *if* that were true, Thornhill isn't the only EU/PC advocate on planet Earth, and Velikovki is dead. Since you cannot and will not accurately describe the neutrino predictions of Thornhill's solar model, why would anyone believe anything that you say about Thornhill? You're all a proven pack of flat out liars about Thornhill's beliefs as your "no neutrino" BS demonstrates.
Hence his risible attempts to describe gravity as an EM effect.
What a bunch of horse manure. Theories of everything have attempted to tie all the forces of nature together since before any of us were even born, and they'll continue long after we're all dead too. Condemn Thornhill all you like, but your condemnation won't change history.
It can't possibly be that the loon Velikovsky was wrong, and the laws of physics are correct - nope, V was right, therefore we need to rewrite everything we know about physics. The fact that his acolytes can't see through this is sad.
What's sad is that none of that is true from my perspective, but you keep misrepresenting everything I say, everything Thornhill said about neutrinos and solar theory and everyone and everything about EU/PC theory. You're a coward too since you refuse to even use your real name while you spread disinformation galore.

The irony is that it's *you folks* that refuse to accept the standard particle physics model, or abide by the laws of physics as it relates to the conservation of energy, and you promote pure metaphysics rather than empirical physics. You're obviously projecting your own dishonest behaviors on our entire community.
All of their electric sun ideas are laughably bad.
No, all of our electric sun ideas actually work in the lab, including both the anode and cathode configurations, whereas your solar model fails to produce even a sustained hot corona in a lab, and it's convection predictions have been falsified by SDO. Your *beliefs about* EU/PC solar models are laughably bad, starting with your bogus "no neutrino" BS. Your own ignorance of EU/PC theory is laughably bad.
Juergens was, I'm afraid, clueless.
Not nearly as clueless as EU/PC haters however since Juergens never claimed that our sun produced "no neutrinos' ever. Again, you're obviously projecting your own ignorance of his work on him.
As is Scott, when it comes to astrophysics.
More lies. Let's see you find any error in his recent Birkeland current paper hotshot. Watch how fast you run and hide from that request.
Talbott has never studied science, and Thornhill has a bachelors degree. Whoopee.
Koberlein can't even get their predictions about neutrinos right, so what good is a 'better' degree? Whoopee. Lying Brian Koberlein is still frigging clueless and he's still dishonest as all hell. Do more degrees justify those outrageous lies in your mind?
They don't even manage to understand what their heroes, such as Alfven, were actually saying.
More false BS from a guy who thinks that EU/PC solar models predict no neutrinos and excess gamma rays and doesn't even realize that Alfven used a *standard* solar model in terms of it's power source. You don't have a clue what Alfven even wrote and you certainly can't pick out any error he ever made.
They learn, by rote, passages from papers or speeches.
You're clearly projecting again as your previous BS about Birkeland's "various models" and your "no neutrino" nonsense clearly demonstrates. You probably haven't bothered to even read Birkeland's work or Alfven's book for yourself, have you? Haters just read a few websites and then spew the same erroneous nonsense which is why none of you set lyin Brian straight in over 4 years. You just repeat each other's BS.
They don't actually understand any of the science.
I understand that Birkeland's solar model works in the lab and that your solar model convection predictions are DOA. You're obviously projecting again because you don't even understand the neutrino predictions of EU/PC solar models.
Magnetic reconnection is a prime example.
Oh *PLEASE*! Let's see Reality Check's missing math formula to describe a non zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" without plasma or plasma particle acceleration and then (and only then) can you folks lecture me about "magnetic reconnection". You're all totally clueless as that whole "reconnection in a vacuum" conversation at ISF/JREF so clearly demonstrated. You can't even tell the difference between magnetic reconnection in plasma and magnetic flux in a vacuum.
They can't figure out that Alfven said that it could be possible under certain circumstances.
Actually, *only* in a *dense plasma* environment where *no current* is present would Alfven even listen to such a BS argument but you try to apply that pseudoscience to *light*, current carrying plasma, and Alfven's double layer paper eliminates the need for it in those circumstances. He called the whole idea "pseudoscience' 7 times in the keynote speech he gave where he presented his double layer paper that makes the whole thing obsolete.
Or that his mate, Falthammar, fully accepted it having been a PI on the Cluster mission, and seen the data with his own eyes.
Falhammar is like me in that he also recognizes that Maxwell's equations solve for both E and B and he embraces the "math" aspect. He certainly isn't clueless enough to believe it happens in a vacuum without plasma like your clueless heroes Clinger, and Reality Check. Oy Vey. EU/PC haters are the last people on Earth who should be talking about 'magnetic reconnection" after Clinger's laughable presentation.
They'll still believe in lunatic electric cratering, even though they have no viable mechanism. They'll still believe that Io's volcanoes are some sort of electric woo, even though another hero, Peratt, would (and did) tell them that it is due to tidal heating. They'll still believe that comets are rock, and all the stuff we see is due to some sort of unexplained electrical woo. Despite a complete lack of a valid hypothesis nor any evidence.
All because of Velikovsky's rubbish
Not all of us, but you never cared about being scientifically accurate.
Now, I'm sure that they have followers who will say that they don't take Velikovsky seriously. Well, here's some news guys; that is precisely what the EU is built upon. It wouldn't exist otherwise.
More flat out lies. EU/PC was built upon Birkeland's work first in terms of solar physics and solar system physics, and later upon Alfven's work and Peratt's work in terms of the cosmology aspects. Velikovsky is actually a *nobody*. Some people here may entertain his work, but not all of us. Birkeland's work, Bruce's work, Alfven's work, Peratt's work all would still exist, with or without Velikovski, and EU/PC theory would continue to be a "better" alternative to your LCMD dogma.
The laws of physics, and an awful lot of well established science needs to be thrown out,
You're the one that throws out the conservation of energy laws and the standard particle physics model, not us. Projection at it's finest.
just so that Wal and Dave can continue to peddle their unscientific idiocy to the faithful.
Very, very sad.
That part that's sad is your constant stream of lies. Wal and Dave graciously allow me to post here and I'm a part of the EU/PC community but I don't share all of their beliefs. We don't all think in lockstep like LCDM zombies as you so ignorantly imagine. You folks may all think in lockstep, and swallow the same poison metaphysical cool-aid, but our community is diverse and we allow for dissent and we hold different ideas, all of which you're completely ignorant of, as your ignorant "various" Birkeland models comment and your "no neutrino" BS so clearly demonstrates. You're tilting at strawman arguments every time you post something, and none of it is actually true. You don't care either because you're not even interested in science, or working laboratory models.

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

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

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:27 pm

Talking about unscientific idiocy, the above is another quote from MM.
For a guy who's peddling a process that Alfven called pseudoscience, along with four different metaphysical/supernatural entities, you're a little loose with the 'idiocy' claim. That's just another example of your dishonest debate tactics by the way. You're attacking the *person* instead of sticking to the topic.
It doesn't seem to have registered with him that it doesn't matter what Thornhill or Scott have said about neutrinos in their models.
Of course it matters! Science requires *honesty*. Without honesty, there is no "science'. if I ran around claiming that LCDM predicts that nothing should be redshifted, and therefore redshift demonstrates that LCMD is crap, you'd be rightfully pissed off at me lying about your model. That's not what LCDM "predicts", nor does EU/PC theory predict "no neutrinos"! What a lame and dishonest rationalization. Of course honestly matters in science.
The models are crap, and scientifically impossible.
Bullshit! Unlike your nonsense, our solar models work in the lab!

Even the anode model works in the lab too as the SAFIRE experiments demonstrate. You can't even generate and sustain a full sphere hot corona in the lab in your lame model based on "reconnection". That's scientifically impossible too because "reconnection" is a localize process and it would heat up the whole corona at the same time.
And if the neutrinos were from heavy element fusion, as stated by Thornhill, then the detections would not match theory.
No, you don't know that. You're *assuming* that it wouldn't match your 'theory' when in fact your "theory" was actually modified just so it *would* match! You modified your theory to include neutrino oscillation. Scott/Thornhill also predict other types of neutrinos too, but it generates them in a different way.
The fact that they do match theory shows that the standard model is correct, and Thornhill et al are wrong. As usual.
Pure BS as usual. You modified your theory to include neutrino oscillation to make your theory match observation, otherwise it *doesn't match*! You still can't demonstrate in any lab on Earth that electron neutrinos oscillate into muon or tau neutrinos either! You just *assume* that they do.
Fusion at, or anywhere near the surface, would lead to an obvious gamma ray signal.
More lyin' Brian Koberlein BS which you then parrot from each other. You can't quote anyone in the EU/PC community making such a ridiculous claim, so you just make it up! The SDO images show that the bulk of the discharges never rise up and through the surface of the photosphere, and plasma pinches would occur all throughout the sun, not just *above* the surface of the photosphere. Furthermore we *do* see gamma rays in solar flare events when the fusion just so happens to occur above the surface of the photosphere.
Detections show that the standard model is correct
More BS. Your model *failed* the convection predictions by two entire orders of magnitude which demonstrates that your model is a falsified piece of crap.
in that the vast majority of the energy to power the Sun is from the first step in the p-p chain.
So what? That would be true of *any* EU/PC solar model too, including Birkeland's internally powered model, Alfven's *standard* model, and Juergen's modified anode model as well. Even if that is true, you cannot eliminate *any* EU/PC solar model that way. You're also *assuming* that muon and tau neutrinos *cannot* be produced another way which you have not demonstrated, and which is actually demonstrably false.
And the detections match theory for the amount of fusion happening to power the Sun.
So what? You modified your theory to make it fit so it *has* to fit! Give it a rest. Show me that electron neutrinos can and do change into muon and tau neutrinos in a real experiment.
Ergo, there is no need for idiotic,
Your childish "idiotic" comments are "unscientific". You can't win the debate via physics so you cheat by ridiculing the person/idea and hide like a coward behind an anonymous handle no less.
unscientific woo about electric power, because it isn't required.
It is "required" to heat that hotter (than the surface) corona and sustain it at those higher temperatures which is why your model does not work in the lab, and our models do work in the lab.
All the power comes from fusion, as has been demonstrated.
All that demonstrates is that fusion happens inside of the photophere of the sun which nobody disputes in the first place. I hate to have to try to educate you when you refuse to listen but only Juergen's *original* anode solar model actually predicted fewer neutrinos but it's since been updated by Scott and Thornhill. Even if the bulk of the overall energy comes from fusion inside the sun, that doesn't preclude the current from generating and sustaining that fusion process to begin with.
None of it comes from electric woo. For which there is no viable model, nor evidence. Which is why nobody takes it seriously.
You still have no valid explanation for a full sphere sustained hot corona! You need electricity! There's *tons* of evidence to support that current in the form of a hotter chromosphere and a million degree corona! Get a clue!

It's the *current* flow that heats the corona and your falsified model can't explain it, particularly since your convection prediction went up in smoke!
It might also be worth Thornhill, or one of the other wooists, doing a calculation for how much fusion they are going to get, based on the temperatures and pressures encountered in the photosphere. Hint: it is nowhere near hot and dense enough.
Fusion occurs in *plasma pinches* (aka magnetic ropes), not in the 5800K photosphere plasma!

Ask me if I care what you think since I don't even prefer their anode model, and you obviously don't understand anything at all about the plasma pinch processes that they're referring to in their model in the first place. Let's see you produce a hot corona in a lab, and sustain hot plasma for hours on end in a lab with "reconnection" and then you can ignorantly tell me that you don't need sustained current to do it.

Face it, you guys can't handle a real scientific debate on this topic of sustained hot plasma which is why you banned me from JREF when I pointed out the blatant *fraud* that Clinger and Reality Check were trying to perpetrate on their bogus vacuum "reconnection" claim, and I pointed out their missing math formula to describe a non-zero rate of 'reconnection' without a plasma particle to their names. You people are so clueless it's pathetic. You can't even tell the physical difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum and the transfer of magnetic field energy into charged particle acceleration in plasma known as 'magnetic reconnection". You're all clueless which is why you erroneously parrot each other and you believe that any EU/PC solar model predicts "no neutrinos" or excess gamma rays. You're all ignorant and/or dishonest. Which is it?

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

EU/PC haters are all liars, cowards and frauds.

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:18 pm

If ever there was direct evidence that EU/PC haters are all liars, cowards and frauds, it's found in the last post at ISF by Reality Check:
Reality Check:
What has also never registered with MM is that A Beginner’s View of Our Electric Universe by Tom Findlay exists and that was the e-book that Brian Koberlein cited with the PDF link. This is an e-book reviewed by Wallace Thornhill, Dr Donald E Scott, etc. who know about the EU !
Lyin' Brian Koberlein cited a total of *three* references on his blog, not just one, and lyin' Brian Koberlein claimed to be describing and debating the specific model proposed by *Thornhill and Talbot*, not some third party, *Findlay*. Koberlein flat out lied about all three references. Any honest and scientific competent professional would never have made such a stupid mistake. If they had any questions about any one of the three references, they surely would have consulted the other *two main* authors as well as the third reference that he cited by Scott.

First off, lyin' Brian said the following:
Lying Koberlein:

There are actually many variations to the Electric Universe model, but the most popular version seems to focus around the book by Thornhill and Talbot listed below. It is this basic model I’ll discuss here, using the references listed at the bottom of the post.
Lyin' Brian didn't claim to be discussing *Findlay's* solar model, he claimed to be discussing *Thornhill's model*! So what did Thornhill actually say about neutrinos in his book which is *also* cited as a reference by lyin Brian?
Thornhill (Page 70)
Neutrino deficiency.

Solar physicists have acknowledged for decades that the Sun’s output of neutrinos, a by-product of nuclear fusion, is about 1/3 of that expected in the standard solar model. Three types or ‘flavors’ of neutrinos have been identified, and recent attempts to solve the problem require unwarranted assumptions about neutrino ‘change of flavor’ en route from the center of the Sun. An electric Sun, however, can generate all flavors of neutrinos in heavy element synthesis at its surface. Therefore, it requires no assumptions about ‘changing flavors’ to hide the deficit.

Neutrino variability.

The neutrino output varies inversely with the surface sunspot cycle. Were they produced in the nuclear ‘furnace’ at the center of the Sun, this relationship would be inconceivable, since solar physicists calculate that it takes about 200,000 years for the energy of internal fusion to affect the surface. In the electrical model, more and larger sunspots mean less ‘lightning’ at the surface, where the nuclear reactions occur. Thus, the decline in neutrinos with increasing sunspot number is expected.
So right from the horses mouth, in the specific reference that lying Brian claims to be using, we find a quote about neutrinos from Thornhill that directly refutes lyin' Brian's bogus claim.

And what did we find in Scott's book which is also used as a third reference?
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.
The fact that Findlay states that stars "work electrically" does not preclude them from experiencing *fusion* nor from emitting neutrinos. That's just a non sequitur fallacy and another flat out lie by Koberlein/RC. Furthermore, both Scott and Thornhill predicted neutrinos that vary over time, so Koberlein/RC is/are either being willfully deceitful or grossly professionally incompetent, or both. Koberlein cited three references and claimed to be discussing *Thornhills* model, not Findlay's model, so even if there is some perceived discrepancy between references, an honest and competent professional would have noted the discrepancy, and focused specifically on Thornhill's own statement. There ultimately is no discrepancy anyway! Only a lying piece of crap would stick false words in *every author's mouth* and continue to blame poor Findlay to this very day for his own stupid and unprofessional mistakes. Koberlein is a professionally incompetent jerk.
Anyone who reads Testing the Electric Universe will understand that the article is based on that PDF which explicitly states that stars are not fusion powered at all
Liar. He never said they were "not fusion powered at all". You flat out lied yet again. Here's what he *actually* said:
Findlay:Page 79

Our star, the Sun, does not operate through the action of a gravity-moderated nuclear explosion. It works instead as a concentrated ball of electrically excited plasma, where its visible glowing surface is maintained in arc mode by a drift of electrons flowing inward from the distant cathode region of our solar system, the heliopause, and by positive currents flowing into its poles from the interstellar circuit of which our star is a single component. The Sun is, in fact, an enormous fluorescent light that glows around a smaller, solid and much cooler anode core.
Findlay absolutely, positively did *not* say that stars were "not fusion powered at all". He said they did not operate through the action of a gravity moderated nuclear explosion"! Either you're a flat out liar (likely) or scientifically incompetent RC (also likely). I already know that you're both due to your missing non-zero rate of reconnection formula, and your BS about electrical discharges being "impossible" in plasma in spite of Dungey's direct quote to the contrary.

You're all a pack of liars, cowards and frauds, and RC is the biggest one.

And while I"m at it, I might as well address the BS by selfsim too:

And here we have yet another example of the gross dishonesty of Mozina (which is the real reason he gets banned everywhere .. and nothing to do with his claims that he is 'mainstream-persecuted' .. eg: by some perceived 'Spanish Inquisition' at CQ)..
After that whopper of a flat out lie about Thornhill's neutrino predictions, and four years of your personal silence on that topic, you're that last person on Earth who should be talking about *my* dishonesty. You're clearly projecting selfsim.
Even though I raised the matter of Scott's misconceptions about Birkeland Currents in this thread, and linked to another thread I raised in 2014 at CFs about it, Mozina completely ignores this past history and then puts the matter directly back to jonesdave. Talk about deceitful!
What's "deceitful" is the fact that your link that you just listed has absolutely nothing to do with Scott's Birkeland current paper, nor does it cite any scientific error in that paper as I asked.
Regardless of Mozina's lies, Scott has the basic physics of Birkeland Currents demonstrably dead-flat wrong in his paper.
Which specific page, paragraph and sentence is "dead-flat wrong"? Stop dodging that question.
Scott plagiarised, without formal references to Lundquist's original solution in his first paper on the topic,
You're a liar and a coward. His first rough draft revision was never published and you have no evidence he even knew at the time that he was duplicating work that was done by anyone else. The more likely scenario is that he simply didn't know at the time that he was duplicating work which had already been done, which would explain why the only *published* version contains that specific reference! You're a total coward by hiding behind an anonymous handle while you slander people. I have no respect for EU/PC haters due to that type of unethical behavior. You're all scummy.
and then allowed it to be widely dispersed across the public webspace domain.
Yes, Scott released a rough draft for feedback before he published the paper, and yes indeed he asked our community for feedback. Yes he got that feedback and yes he also included the Lundquist reference in the only published paper, so no he didn't plagiarize anyone. You're not even man enough to use your own name while you try to smear Scott's good name.
Scott's paper about Birkeland Currents is fundamentally flawed in mulitple ways,
Be specific with real page numbers and paragraphs and prove it. Put up or shut up.

I won't even rehash your stupid Olber's paradox nonsense since you came up 200 billion stars and 100,000 galaxies short of a valid scientific argument. You aren't even man enough to admit that either.

Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: EU/PC haters are all liars, cowards and frauds.

Unread post by BeAChooser » Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:19 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:If ever there was direct evidence that EU/PC haters are all liars, cowards and frauds, it's found in the last post at ISF by Reality Check
Have to agree. I certainly remember that during my time at JREF, Reality Check insisted that dark matter had been observed: ... tcount=716 . LOL!

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

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

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:17 am ... tcount=133
Thanks SS, that's a good point.

To spell it out a bit, if someone at EU central claims that there's no experimental evidence of neutrino oscillation (say), or that no one has replicated or extended Birkeland's terralla experiments, make a wry smile at the ignorance and finish drinking your morning coffee by doing a cross-word puzzle.
Speaking of ignorance (and EU/PC hater dishonesty), it's simply unbelievable how many times EU/PC haters either intentionally flat out lie about what I, or someone else in the EU/PC community said, or you imply something that I didn't say. For the record, I did not say there was no experimental evidence of neutrino oscillation. In fact I previously cited this paper on Arxiv to demonstrate to JD116 that muon to electron neutrino oscillation enjoyed some (3 sigma) evidence of oscillation, but *the reverse was still not true*.

The only thing that your paper confirmed is the following:
Furthermore, there is currently no observation at the 5-sigma level of the appearance of neutrino flavors due to oscillations, only disappearance.
Disappearance could be cause by scattering, misalignment of the beam, etc, whereas appearance measurements would be more definitive but they do not currently rise to the five sigma level. Furthermore your paper does not show the reverse to be true either. It does not begin with only electron neutrinos which are then shown to oscillate into tau and muon neutrinos as I pointed out to JD to start with. These experiments also demonstrate that proton collisions resulting in muon production, and potentially similar collisions at the solar electrode are capable of producing tau and muon neutrinos without resorting to flavor oscillation to start with! JD's "oh so important" "fusion production neutrino paper is therefore not that 'oh so important" after all.

By the way Jean, it looks like BeAChooser also decided to weigh in with their feelings about being blatantly lied to by RC. That now infamous Bullet Clusterf*ck study/paper has since been shown to be *riddled* with numerous and massive baryonic mass estimation problems. ... =3&t=15850

It turns out that you folks botched nearly every aspect of baryonic mass estimates of galaxy clusters in that study.
or that no one has replicated or extended Birkeland's terralla experiments,
Care to point me to such experiments that have been as well funded as say the next round of LUX-LZ experiments Jean? You waste all our public funding on invisible snipe hunts and you have the sheer audacity to wonder why it's "slow going' in terms of validating EU/PC theories in the lab?
MM was a member here, and was banned for violating the (clearly stated) membership agreement. There is no reason to repeat, or even paraphrase, what he posts in EU central.
I got banned there for doing to Clinger at JREF what you and RC and Clinger and the rest of the EU/PC hater posse had been doing to me there for *years*, and continue to do to me to this day. I attacked him personally. I dared to call Clinger a fraud for failing to provide his missing non-zero rate of "reconnection" formula after Clinger had promised me for almost a whole year that he would demonstrate mathematically that "magnetic reconnection" was a plasma, and plasma acceleration optional process. RC and Clinger are *still* missing their math homework assignment 7 years later too. It turns out that the entire EU/PC hater posse can't tell the physical difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum, and 'magnetic reconnection'. You're all clueless. That's why you're reduced to attacking me as a person, and attacking Scott and attacking every other EU/PC proponent as a person, as you folks continue to do on a regular basis. You're all blatant cowards too because you do that crap without even using your real names. You folks can dish it out, but you can't take it.

Yes .. it is the same one... Although he produced two versions of the same paper. The first is widely circulated (and didn't accredit Lundquist with the vector calculus derived solution for a force-free field aligned current in space),
You have no evidence that Scott even knew at the time of his rough draft that he'd even duplicated Lundquist's work to start with! You're so sleazy. Instead of pointing out a specific mathematical or physics error, you attack the *person*. That's all you folks know how to do since it's damn clear from our conversations on Olber's paradox that you're clueless when it comes to physics. You came up 268,770 AU shells, 200 billion stars, and 100,000 galaxies short of valid scientific argument and yet you'll *still* peddle those lies to the next generation of students, just watch.
and the second version was published in the shonky 'Progress in Physics' journal,
Oh, ya, and of course there's the ever obligatory attack of the *publication* since you don't have a valid scientific criticism to offer. Haters are all alike and unethical as hell.
in which he eventually confessed the origin of the solution as not being his own!
More unethical lies. Your characterization of this change as a "confession" is pure character assassination. You're just scummy and unethical like RC and the rest of the hater posse. He cited Lundquist the moment he found out he had duplicated his work, and you *still* attack him as a person. What a sleazy debate tactic.
In fact, all both papers did, was to completely screw up the context of the original Lundquist solution!
You keep saying the same lie over and over without even the benefit of a specific formula or paragraph to support your handwavy claims. That's just more evidence of the unethical nature of your BS.

Whilst your highly valid point homes in on his utter malarkey about the M2-9 twin jet (butterfly) nebula, the theoretical errors tend to be far more concerning because they have wider-reaching impacts .. these being that:

- his claim that a force free field, (where the magnetic field and the direction of current density are parallel), is at its minimum, and therefore at its most stable energy state, is grossly nonsensical and;
It's somewhat "idealized" and oversimplified because plasma isn't a "perfect" conductor, but it's not "nonsensical".
- the inability of his model as stated, to produce synchrotron radiation, completely contradicts the observed basis underpinning the fundamental definition of a 'Birkeland Current' (BC). Are we now supposed to now go forward blindly accepting that BCs don't have to generate synchrotron radiation signatures and thus, there is not even any need to look for any? What sort of misleading, negligent garbage is this?
No, you're supposed to do some real reading on these topics, but alas you never do:

Do yourself a favor and fire up your search engine. Try 'field aligned currents synchrotron emission". You'll find all sorts of materials. Plasma is messy and so is space. It's not an idealized environment to start with, and there is plenty of evidence that field aligned currents produce such emissions.
The paper, (and Scott's subsequent dog and pony shows), have appeared everywhere, (and unopposed from what I can see), across the web,
Unopposed scientifically perhaps, because apparently you can't oppose it scientifically, but that hasn't stopped your from engaging in character assassination while hiding like a coward behind an anonymous handle.
since. (Eg: presentation slides, YouTubes etc). Scott needs to hang his head in shame, and also own up to the responsibility of the net result of his blatant, unprofessional, errored-in-Physics blunders!
When you can show a real error *specifically* then you might have an argument. As it stands, you're clearly projecting. After you own epic fail on Olber's paradox, you're the one who should be hanging your head in shame. Nothing like being 200 billion stars short of a valid scientific argument.
But wait .. there's more .. he then goes on pushing more of this crap out .. this time, in the form of his brain-dead 'Olber's Paradox' blundering fiasco paper!
Wow, what pure projection. You came up 200 billion stars short, 100 thousand galaxies short, and 268,770 shells short of a valid scientific argument. Talk about a blundering fiasco!
I tell ya matey, this dude is nothing but bad news .. and he keeps on doing it, virtually unopposed!
No, he has to put up with the same unethical and cowardly personal attacks that everyone in the EU/PC community has to put up with from a bunch of clueless jerks who's scientific arguments are a total joke and who clearly don't even know the first thing about the models they profess to 'debunk" as your clueless BS about "no neutrinos" so clearly demonstrates.

FYI Scott was certainly right about this comment:
An observation that is ’anomalous’ is one that is inconsistent with accepted hypotheses. In real science this requires the replacement of the falsified hypothesis, not an eighty-five year hunt for invisible entities that will preserve it. The work being presented here demonstrates that the root cause of the now vast collection of observed ’anomalous’ galactic stellar rotation profiles is the electrical nature of the Birkeland Currents on which those galaxies have been or are being formed.
That massive mainstream prediction failure was just demonstrated again this month: ... tter-model

You guys just bury your collective heads in the sand every single time your so called "predictions' fail the observational tests, and your invisible snipe hunts continue unabated.

EU/PC haters are so electrophobic is not even funny. That's why your solar model is DOA in terms of your convection predictions and you still can't create and sustain a full sphere hot corona a whole century after Birkeland show you exactly how to do it in his lab. EU/PC haters are a clueless bunch of unethical and cowardly jerks.

By the way JD, I haven't read Scott's newest paper yet so I can't really comment on it, but there's plenty of evidence that our galaxy and all galaxies are surrounded not just by a neutral gas halo, but also surrounded by high temperature plasma which wasn't even discovered around our own galaxy until just the last five or six years: ... 2-331.html
The scientists determined the temperature of the absorbing halo is between 1 million and 2.5 million kelvins, or a few hundred times hotter than the surface of the sun.

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

Oh the irony...

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:23 pm

Does anyone, even MM, even try to pull together a consistent framework? One that is more than a “Just So” story?


What, then, do EU acolytes spend their time on? Certainly not writing new EU papers; by their own admission, very few have the ability to do such a thing. ... =3&t=16988

Jean, in light of Dr. Scott's most recent paper, your recent comments about our community working on pulling together a consistent framework, and asking what EU/PC proponents have been working on, couldn't be more ironic.

Dr. Scott's most recent paper pulls together a consistent framework in the form of a Birkeland current model which applies to and explains everything from solar coronal loops, to planetary auroras and polar rotation patterns, to galaxy rotation patterns, and galaxy alignment patterns over hundreds of millions if not a billion or more light years. It's an elegant mathematical model that describes multiple observations in nature at virtually every scale imaginable, and none of it requires anything new or exotic, or anything that is unseen in the lab. No acts of faith in metaphysical mumbo-jumbo are required, unlike your dark matter fiasco.

You folks claim that math is oh so important to you, but that's just a convenient lie that you tell yourselves. If it's not a lie, prove it. Show me the mathematical error in Scott's most recent paper, or better yet, just admit that it's a damn good model.

I'm inclined to believe that you won't do any such thing because handing EU/PC haters mathematical models is like throwing pearls before swine. You grunt and you groan awhile, and then you go right back to wallowing around in your dirty dark ignorance and you act like nothing ever happened. A day later you'll be lying to yourself and everyone else again and erroneously claiming that there is no math to support EU/PC theory. God forbid that anyone should call you on your lying crap, lest they be banned instantly, or lest all the rebuttal comments on your lying blogs utterly disappear one day.

EU/PC haters are so ignorant and so lame that they do *not* even understand the models that they seek to 'debunk' as your "no neutrino" nonsense so clearly demonstrated. In over four years not a single one of you EU/PC hater hot shots set lyin' Brian Koberlein straight, and to this very day you continue to support his blatant lies and his unprofessional bullshit. You're all complicit in the blatant and wanton dishonesty.

You're not actually interested in math, science or physics. You're only interested in protecting your financial gravy train, and protecting your own egos. If you were actually interested in real science and math, Scott's new paper should pique your curiosity at least enough to get off your lazy asses and find the math error if you believe there is one, or to embrace his model as a *serious* alternative to your exotic matter snipe hunt and MOND theory.

It's rather ironic that your dark matter snipe hunt has been the biggest single financial and metaphysical boondoggle in the history of physics which can easily be replaced with ordinary math and ordinary physics. More ironic is the fact that all of that physics actually shows up and works in the lab and it was actually demonstrated and simulated in a lab over a century ago by Kristian Birkeland. You're *at least* a century behind the times.

In terms of empirical physics, math and basic logic, Dr, Scott puts your entire industry to shame! The real question is what the hell are you folks working on that actually pulls your head out of the metaphysical sand? Look at how many 'tests' you precious LCDM model has failed since just last August alone. LCDM is a truly pitiful cosmology theory.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests