Reality Check is the clueless king of sleaze

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Reality Check is the clueless king of sleaze

Unread postby BeAChooser » Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:19 pm

I gave up on JREF years ago ... or rather they banned me for being a conservative. ;)
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Reality Check is the clueless king of sleaze

Unread postby neilwilkes » Wed Jul 26, 2017 1:37 am

kell1990 wrote:
neilwilkes wrote:Hi Michael.

To give a parallel here, I used to spend a lot of audio forum hours arguing with the usual posse of morons who all try to state that High Resolution audio is all snake oil because "nobody can hear anything above CD resolution" and in the end I gave up - some folks will simply not be told, and I think it was best summed up by Dr. Alzofon when he stated that "you will never get a man to understand something that his salary depends on him not understanding". Sadly it has always been thus, with Max Planck also saying something along the lines of new ideas will not gain acceptance by converting the adherents to the old ways, and only when they all die off will it become accepted.

The parts that really used to get up my nose were the constant personal attacks but I have learned to ignore them now.
It really is a waste of your time, effort & energy that given the quality of your posts here will be much better spent by doing more of the same and even though it is hard to do, ignore these muppets. You are better than that.


I completely agree with both the tone and content of this post. Michael has done yeoman work trying to convince the unconvinceable of the error of their ways.

Progress in science really does occur one death at a time.

The only quibble I have is that the quote: "you will never get a man to understand something that his salary depends on him not understanding" is attributed to Upton Sinclair.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quot ... 38285.html


Appreciate the clarification - Dr Alzofon was obviously quoting this, and I thank you for the information.
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: Reality Check is the clueless king of sleaze

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:25 pm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=867
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... count=1246

Yep, Reality Check is still the biggest scum sucking pig on the internet. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Reality Check is the clueless king of sleaze

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:13 pm

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=882

Argumemnon:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
5 December 2017

You and your ridiculous time zones!


The only individual that I've ever seen use that particular and highly unusual date/time format in relationship to astronomy is lyin' Brian Koberlein on his blog:

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

In fact the only anonymous handle that I've seen try to defend Koberlein's nonsense about blaming Findlay for the false "no neutrino" claim associated with EU solar models was Reality Check in a conversation over at CF. Reality Check and lyin' Brian both sure have the very same propensity for flat out lying about EU/PC theory and attacking individuals too.

Image

If Pinocchio isn't lyin' Brian Koberlein, then he's his twin evil brother with all the very same false beliefs and dishonest mannerisms. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Reality Check is the clueless king of sleaze

Unread postby verisimilitude » Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:19 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:I'm just shocked and blown away by the mainstream's complete lack of ethics, and their willful self imposed ignorance.

The "mainstream" sells the narrative as truth. That is their job, yeah?

I spend the bulk of my free time reading publications in journals - especially relating to the solar wind and MR - and many, if not the majority, of those published, peer-reviewed papers acknowledge that the facts are simply not known.

But you go to a mainstream page quoting the same article and viola! they know the whole process, inside and out.

Sell the narrative.
verisimilitude
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: Reality Check is the clueless king of sleaze

Unread postby JHL » Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:28 am

neilwilkes wrote:I used to spend a lot of audio forum hours arguing with the usual posse of morons who all try to state that High Resolution audio is all snake oil because "nobody can hear anything above CD resolution" and in the end I gave up - some folks will simply not be told, and I think it was best summed up by Dr. Alzofon when he stated that "you will never get a man to understand something that his salary depends on him not understanding".


Interesting that you bring up audio. (Neil may refer to the particularly virulent crowd of self-styled "objective" psuedo-scientists in high fidelity audio whose pontifications invariably come down to the claim, assertion or charge that something cannot exist. The core principle, if you can call it that, is that their "science" is therefore complete, infallible, and eternal, and that as authorities they possess it and the rest of the audience neither possesses it or has the integrity to admit that deficiency honestly. People like this really like to psychologically project what they want to think is reality onto others as an accusation - what they think is someone else's reasoning and experience is secondary to their own dogmatic beliefs. They engage in a circular QED and apparently it doesn't bother them at all.)

"nobody can hear anything above CD resolution". In other words, they know you better than you know yourself, notwithstanding the vast body of corroborating evidence, evidence that generally turns out to have been true all along. It was always a plausible theory, after all, it just needed its facts filled in and made provable to others, others who invariably rejected it for just as long as possible and then a little longer.

I raise the point because it highlights the usual problems with self-styled establishment Objectivists versus anyone with the audacity or temerity to question their establishment with other fact, observation, or opinion. The Internet being the marvelous instrument it is for anonymous malcontents to holler on just because they can, these "discussions" almost immediately devolve into train wrecks. But they have familiar, usual components, and those components will be no different for the EU as it battles (or even simply mildly observes) the LCDM brigade.

I offer these next ingredients as someone who's seen them for years in another field. They're human nature, I suspect.

1. There is an established order and there is a more creative, visionary, daring, and creative new order. The two shall eventually meet and they shall naturally disagree. Their findings are as different as their natures and that's an important, even core point. How they react is not rooted in knowledge but in belief and personality, as we'll see.

2. The established self-identified Objective order will entrench itself as the scientific norm. Note the S word, because while it denotes knowledge of a methodical, provable kind, Objectivists neither hold that degree of knowledge to the length or breadth that they can then use it as they always do, nor do they, where their own theoretical work goes as well, permit the kind of dissension the new creative order represents.

3. As self-styled Objectivists, the old order engages in its familiar denial as a nod to what it hopes is its scientific consensus. Note the word consensus too because it denotes opinion and opinion - a lot of it - is what most informs the Objectivist school about the universality of its library. Remember, it shall own, maintain, and repair that library by its own means and lights. Regarding theory, they shall theorize and it shall be scientific; you shall not theorize because, conversely, it therefore just can't be. Here the dynamic tension is established: The established order is now defensive.

4. The Subjectivists - they being this new, creative school and its more liberal, far-reaching, and open-minded mindset - is naturally confronted by the Objectivists just for possessing different material. Some of this material is theoretical and much of it is experiential. It's therefore now out of step with scientific theory or even with scientific fact. It's just different. It's how this camp is branded subjective and as such, how they must be policed by the Objectivists.

5. The two go at it, the established Objectivists and their dogmatic library, such as it is, actually proving their scientific subjectivity and the upstart Subjectivists, having started with theory and creative interest, with their objective, unfettered point of view and their new findings. The Objectivists will deny this new, known science that conflicts their view. The presumably inferior Subjectivists in fact pursue and possess a much richer knowledge base because they do not condition everything they find and know by whether it's allowed.

I write this as a guy versed in what Neil alludes to. I've seen it for over thirty years. The Objectivist crowd is deeply subjective as it turns out; subjective to its own established order and very friendly with the notion of telling others what they may think or even know. It prevents reality from encroaching into its presumed space, which strikes me as humorously ironic. Meanwhile, the Subjectivists' experience speaks with the power of dozens or even hundreds of multiple independent corroborations and substantial logic of theory and rarer and less-known but real findings not allowed by Objectivist consensus to become vastly more objective, in truth, because Subjectivists don't spend their time ruling on the work, thought, or experience of others.

Which brings us back to Neil's observation. At the core, the established Objectivist insists on the authority to tell you what you may know and what you may experience. This, then, means that the Objectivist isn't really interested in knowledge. The Objectivist, as he calls himself, is interested in power.

There's little to recommend the self-styled, projecting Objectivist in what I'm sure are more than a few fields (I live in one and they're simply wrong.) They will tell you what reality is, what you know, what you know is wrong, and what constitutes their science. They have no ability, power, or footing to tell you how things actually work, however, and what enrages them most is when your experience is richer than theirs. It's at that point when you have both the real higher ground and them at a point of exasperation. It's at that point your view of reality - none of us know reality, of course - becomes evidently fuller and thus, superior.

The EU never struck me as a cabal of power or attention seekers. Quite the opposite, which is a telling indicator. Established orders are almost invariably power and attention-seeking. That psychology is just as telling.
JHL
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm

Re: Reality Check is the clueless king of sleaze

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:26 am

verisimilitude wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:I'm just shocked and blown away by the mainstream's complete lack of ethics, and their willful self imposed ignorance.

The "mainstream" sells the narrative as truth. That is their job, yeah?


Is it their job to sell a narrative as "truth"? I used to believe that there was a difference between science and religion. Functionally however, it seems to be six of one, a half dozen of the other. What exactly is "truth" in science, particularly "hypothetical" science?

I spend the bulk of my free time reading publications in journals - especially relating to the solar wind and MR - and many, if not the majority, of those published, peer-reviewed papers acknowledge that the facts are simply not known.


I think I've been guilty at times of painting with an overly broad brush. I'm sure that there are folks in the "mainstream" who freely admit that the facts are not yet known, but I tend to bump heads with those whole seem to treat their belief systems as "truth" as you put it. They don't seem to be overly concerned with acknowledging the limits of their models and beliefs. I think it's fair to say that "we believe" that an exotic form of matter "probably" exists but I don't think it's fair to claim we "know" that dark matter exists. All they know for sure is that they've had a difficult time trying to identify the amount of mass present based on light emission/absorption patterns. In order to "know" or to have 'proof' of exotic matter, you'd have to have empirical laboratory evidence that it exists and/or you'd have to know for a fact that your mass estimation techniques are "perfect'. When astronomers claim to have "proof" (and they've used that term) of dark matter, they have to "know" that their bayonic mass estimation techniques are accurate, and they'd have to be willing to treat science like religion, and believe in the "absolute truth" of a hypothetical entity. That isn't "science" anymore, that's religion.

But you go to a mainstream page quoting the same article and viola! they know the whole process, inside and out.

Sell the narrative.


I don't really mind them selling the narrative so much as drowning out all opposition to their beliefs. If they adopted a more "live and let live" approach, their statements would not sound so obnoxious and so closed minded. As it stands however, they ban all EU/PC conversations, they burn all their heretics at the public stake, and they personally attack anyone and everyone who disagrees with them.

Case in point:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=814

Selfsim:

Scott not only plagiarised Lundquist's solution in his original 2013 paper, he then blundered his way forward, and in the process, completely screwed up the fundamental physical definitions underpinning Lundquist's model.

Scott doesn't have a clue as to the physics giving rise to real Birkeland Currents! The words: 'Scott' combined with 'Birkeland Currents' is cause for uproarious laughter!


The mainstream claims that they *want* us to produce mathematical models to support our beliefs and yet when we do, we're personally attacked, and publicly ridiculed for our efforts. Scotts's original (unpublished) paper was actually a very important and landmark paper, probably the single most important paper that has been written by anyone in our community for the past decade. By the time Scott actually got his paper "published", Lundquist was given full credit for his work. Because Scott did that work himself, it's not altogether clear that he even knew at the time that he wrote the original paper that he was duplicating some of Lundquist's work. Scott did however do due diligence when working to get that paper published and he added many additional references to that paper before it was actually "published".

Instead of Selfsim acknowledging Scott's Herculean mathematical efforts, he instead slanders the man. He misrepresents the efforts that went into his paper,and he never even has the courage to use his real name while slandering Scott publicly. Selfsim didn't even have the common decency to point out any actual specific mathematical errors in his work, either. That's the kind of cowardly and dishonest behavior that I'm referring to. It's obnoxious, unethical and unprofessional nonsense. Selfsim has no honor, no courage and no ethics whatsoever. That's also true of Reality Check. They don't care who the slander, or who they publicly attack because they're cowardly haters hiding behind an anonymous handle.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Reality Check is lyin' Brian Koberlein

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:46 am

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-71157720

Image

Here was that thread at CF where Pinocchio was blaming Findlay for Koberlein's bogus claim: "The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos". You'll note he also used the same peculiar date formatting that is also used on lyin' Brian Koberlein's blog. Of course Findlay never used the term "neutrino" in the entire PDF presentation. Besides "Reality Check", only lyin' Brian ever accused Findlay of making that bogus "no neutrino" claim. Reality Check and lyin' Brian even cited the very same paragraph from Findlay's PDF, a paragraph that doesn't even describe EU/PC solar models, but was actually describing the *mainstream* model of brown dwarfs.

Like I said, if "Pinocchio Check" isn't lyin' Brian Koberlein, he's his evil twin brother. :mrgreen:

Who else on the internet even routinely uses that absurd date format and discusses astronomy? Only a gutless coward would hide behind an anonymous handle and post that kind of junk to start with, and only a pathological liar would continue to blame Finlay for that bogus "no neutrino" claim. Reality Check and Koberlein also routinely engage in personal attacks rather than sticking to the topics. Reality Check has to be lyin' Brian Koberlein. Koberlein is a pathological liar and he's also a gutless coward who hides behind anonymous handles while dishonestly misrepresenting the beliefs of everyone he meets and everyone in the EU/PC community.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Reality Check is the clueless king of sleaze

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:23 pm

verisimilitude wrote:I spend the bulk of my free time reading publications in journals - especially relating to the solar wind and MR - and many, if not the majority, of those published, peer-reviewed papers acknowledge that the facts are simply not known.

This is what I found in many other areas of science too.

On the surface people claim that they have discovered and explained "everything",
but if you look at the actual research AND their actual results, there are suddenly
uncertainties and errors that are completely ignored.

Image
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Gish Gallop

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:24 am

One of the terms that lyin' Brian Koberlein introduced me to on his blog was the term "Gish Gallop". I'd never heard of the term, so I looked it up:

http://blogs.bu.edu/pbokulic/2013/11/18 ... f-the-day/

The term “Gish Gallop” was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. The phrase refers to a debate tactic that was a favorite of Duane Gish, a young-Earth creationist who was also a highly skilled debater.

The Gish Gallop is the tactic of snowing your opponent under a mountain of supposed “pieces of evidence” or “problem cases” and claiming that the opponent’s inability to respond to this pile of evidence shows that your side is right. This tactic counts as a fallacy because its effectiveness doesn’t depend on presenting arguments that are right or even well-supported. Quantity is offered as a substitute for quality.

The tactic is nevertheless often quite effective, for the following reasons:

The audience is left with the impression that there’s a huge amount of evidence on your side.
It’s impossible for your opponent to respond to all the misleading/false claims in the limited amount of time allowed in a debate.
A falsehood can be quickly and appealingly stated. It takes much more time to offer an accurate account of the science.
Even if your opponent shoots down one or two arguments, you’re still left with a dozen untouched arguments.
The audience is left with the impression that your opponent can’t respond to the other problems.
Because of specialization in science, no one will have knowledge of all the “problem cases” you can dredge up.\
Your opponent will often seem defensive: offering rebuttals that may seem arcane to non-scientists.
The audience won’t remember details, but will remember “there were a whole lot of problems for evolution/climate change, and the scientist didn’t really have answers.”


The one thing that Reality Check is absolutely *famous* for is "Gish Gallop", starting with his stupid lists, which he *never* updates, and only "adds to" over time. This is *classic* Gish Gallop behavior because he knows that nobody could possibly respond to every single line item on his lying lists, and he never changes the lists even when one does respond to one or more of those points. It just makes the lists grow longer over time. He's also famous for simply making a series of misleading claims, as he did on his blog over his "no neutrino" commentary, and his bogus nonsense about emission lines. As the author points out, it takes *far* longer and it requires far more energy to correct a false claim than it takes to make one. For instance, I had to go lookup and find the various quotes from Scott and Thornhill about neutrinos, which of course took a bit of time. Koberlein simply handwaved them all away, and blamed Findlay for his dirty deed. When I finally cornered him by asking him to quote Findlay, he handwaved only a vague reference at me. When I spent the time and effort to look up the statement in question, Findlay's comment wasn't even related to EU/PC solar models, it was related to *mainstream* models of *brown dwarfs* no less.

Koberlein knows the term "Gish Gallop" because it's his favorite trick as his alter ego, and even on his own blog. He creates an endless list of false claims which of course nobody could fully respond to. He started off his blog presentation by falsely blaming Findlay for the 'no neutrino" comment. In his second false hit point, he erroneously left out the fact that the photosphere is "hot". He makes a second false claim about emission lines that wouldn't look like a 'black body", when in fact the temperature of that layer would make it look like a black body regardless of the heat source.

Koberlein's entire unethical methodology is based on "Gish gallop". He knows if he makes a series of false claims, it's virtually impossible to correct them all in one fell swoop, and he continues to repeat the same false claims *endlessly*. As his alter ego "Reality Check", he simply takes his Gish gallop routine to the next level by creating an endless series of false statements in a list format, and he utterly refuses to remove anything from any list regardless of how many times that false claim has been addressed and blown away.

He also adds an endless number of insults to his posts, both as himself, and as RC, although admittedly he goes ballistic in that respect when hiding like a coward behind his anonymous handle. Koberlein is a complete sleaze with no ethics at all. He knows damn well that "Gish Gallop" is effective. It's confusing for the reader for the reasons that are cited in that article, so he simply engages himself in that behavior every chance he gets, starting with his bogus blog article about EU/PC theory and 'no neutrinos" and emission lines.

The utter lack of ethics is pretty much par for the course with both Koberlein as himself, and his handle RC in every single post. It simply cannot be a coincidence that lyin' Brian uses that ridiculous date format as both himself and as RC, they both resort to Gish Gallop tactics, and they both continue to lie endlessly about EU/PC models. He even cited the same quote as himself and as Reality Check from Findlay's PDF which had absolutely nothing to do with EU solar models or EU predictions about neutrino output.

The complete lack of ethics is evident on his blog too because he later refers to the *actual* neutrino predictions of EU/PC solar models (variation of neutrino output with sunspot activity/solar cycle), yet he refuses to acknowledge his original error.

Lyin' Brian Koberlein constantly resorts to"Gish Gallop" and lies, both as himself, and as his alter ego, Reality Check. Koberlein is definitely Pinocchio.

Image
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Reality Check is the clueless king of sleaze

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:50 am

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=930
Reality Check
More adding to a litany of lies:


Dear Pinocchio,

For a guy who claimed that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasma, and who erroneously claimed that Peratt's book supported that bogus claim, and who claimed that Dungey's use of the term "electrical discharges" in solar flare activity wasn't a falsification of your bogus claim, you sure are quick with your "liar liar pants on fire" routine.

You also lied your ass off when you tried (and failed) to blame Findlay for your (Koberlein's) ridiculous "no neutrino" nonsense too.

Seven years later, I'm *still* waiting for you and clueless Clinger to provide us with a mathematical formula to describe a non zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" in Clinger's ridiculous vacuum contraption without a single plasma particle to your sorry names, and we both know you're never going to come up with it too.

Your lying Gish Gallop routine is busted. No amount of lying and badmouthing people is going to change *physics* or history and history will not be kind to you. You can lie about me, lie about Peratt, lie about Dungey, lie about Thornhill and everyone else in the EU/PC community until the cows come home, but you can't change history, and history is not on your side. History demonstrates very conclusively that metaphysical nonsense always eventually gives way to real empirical physical explanations, and you have nothing but blind faith in metaphysics and pseudoscience. You don't even have a decent grasp of MDH theory or you would *never* have claimed that plasma was optional in the process known as 'magnetic reconnection".

You of all people really have no right to call anyone a "liar". Where's your missing math formula Pinocchio, or did you just flat out lie about magnetic reconnection being a plasma optional process, just like you lied when you blamed Finlay for your other lie about EU solar models predicting "no neutrinos"?
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

EU haters have No scientific honor and no integrity

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:42 am

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=942

jonesdave116

.....

Only a loon would believe in such idiocy. I could go on - however, I think you get my point.


This statement comes from a guy who believes in "dark energy", "inflation", "space expansion" and "dark matter"? Please! Talk about irony overload.

Oh we get the point alright. You have no answers to offer anyone, so you're forced to resort to pure personal attacks.

I've been thinking about this issue all day, and I've come to realize that what irritates me the most about EU/PC haters is that they have no scientific honor, and no personal integrity when it comes to science and scientific ethics in debate.

It's fine of course for anyone to "lack belief" in whatever concept one wishes. It's another thing entirely to attempt to use "brute force", to ridicule free thought, and to attempt to shut down dissent by pure personal attacks and virtual execution. I realize now that what bothers me the most about EU/PC haters is the way they'll flat out lie, like Koberlei's no neutrinos bullshit, and the so called "professionals" refuse to correct such false statements when they see them. Instead, they resort to relying upon deceit and personal attacks in the absence of any real scientific debate.

I don't even personally have a "dog in the fight" as it relates to electric comet concepts. There's actually very little about mainstream astronomy that I think has any merit, but I don't really have a problem with the mainstream models of comets and asteroids although I suspect that comets and asteroids are more alike than the mainstream believes. What I do resent however is the way that RC and the his gang of EU/PC hater thugs attempt to "control the masses" by personal ridicule, dishonest statements, Gish gallop, and brute force intimidation. That's scientifically bankrupt behavior, and it's devoid of any scientific integrity.

Considering the fact that "dark matter" theory is now the single most expensive scientific waste of time and money in the entire history of physics, it's utterly absurd for EU/PC haters to talk about "loons" and "idiocy". They do however engage in such childish nonsense on a regular basis. They ban dissent from their boards by brute force. They refuse to even allow for the discussion of dissenting opinions on most of their websites. Anyone who can articulate their points well, like pointing out the fact the whole of JREF/ISF/EU hater central, can't come up with a single measly math formula to express a non zero rate of 'reconnection" in the absence of plasma is essentially 'put to the death" lest anyone find out the fact they have no clue what their talking about.

I've come to realize that there's a damn good reason why we're stuck in the dark ages of astronomy. It's because mainstream astronomers have no scientific integrity or ethics to start with. All they care about is protecting their jobs and their false 'status", even if that means making false claims about other theories, misrepresenting the facts, and resorting to pure personal attacks and Gish gallop galore. They don't care if they doom their students to ignorance through deceipt. That's exactly what they're doing, not just at ISF, but also at Cosmoquest, and even on mainstream Reddit forums. They can't handle an honest debate on science when it requires "truth' and honesty. They only give lip service to caring about math too, as evidenced by Selfsim's commentary toward Scott's Birkeland current paper. They'll resort to using any excuse that can come up with to slam the individual rather than dealing with the actual material. They have no honor and no ethics whatsoever.

I "feel sorry" for them because they're doomed to live out their lives in pure ignorance, but I feel more sorry for their current astronomy students who are being led down the "dark" primrose path, a path that only leads to ignorance, and lifelong reliance upon placeholder terms for ignorance. How sad it is to realize that Kristian Birkeland knew more about solar physics than the mainstream knows to this day. How sad it is to realize that the math formulas that mainstreamer's *abuse* with respect to MHD theory are nothing more than "pseudoscience' according to the author of MHD theory. How sad it is that Edwin Hubble embraced tired light concepts whereas LCDM proponents have to misrepresent his own statements to their students. How sad that the mainstream clings to "black hole" concepts which Einstein himself rejected. They hold up people like Einstein, Hubble, Zwicky and Alfven as their mathematical heroes, while they simply ignore and kludge everything they tried to teach them. Were those individuals alive today, they'd be banned from their boards, and personally ridiculed like the rest of our community. They'd be labelled "cranks" and "crackpots", "loons" and "idiots" for their scientific heresy. :( How sad. :(
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Reality Check is the clueless king of sleaze

Unread postby Webbman » Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:28 am

all a hater need do to justify their cause is to get you hating.

Without your posts these people have no presence here. Don't do their work for them.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Reality Check is the clueless king of sleaze

Unread postby neilwilkes » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:51 am

Webbman wrote:all a hater need do to justify their cause is to get you hating.

Without your posts these people have no presence here. Don't do their work for them.


A very nice and civilized way to look at it, but all that turning the other cheek will achieve is a matching bruise. It will not get any respect from these dreadful people and indeed all it will do is convince them that they are correct.
The worst of it, and I am certain Michael would agree with me, is that the nastiest abuses they dish out are not here at all, but instead they spread their lies in other places.

High time they were put in their place
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: Reality Check is the clueless king of sleaze

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:59 pm

Webbman wrote:all a hater need do to justify their cause is to get you hating.

Without your posts these people have no presence here. Don't do their work for them.


Your point is noted. I'm not really worried so much about their presence "here" however. As neilwilkes points out, I'm more worried about the effect they have on other forums. I don't mind honest debates and even contentious honest debates, but EU/PC haters aren't honest to begin with. In fact, they're the most *dishonest* bunch of scum bags that I've ever met in cyberspace.

My intent is also to *educate* our community as to the unethical "tactics" that are typically thrown at us on the internet.

I didn't realize at first that I had stepped into an ongoing war 12 years ago when I first started discussing Birkeland's solar model in cyberspace based on what I learned from satellite imagery. I certainly didn't expect all the dishonest Gish-gallop tactics, the slander and the flat out lies coming from EU/PC haters.

I know from experience just how hard it is to understand EU/PC theories and models even *without* the dishonest disinformation that is coming from so called "professionals" like Koberlein, Bridgman, Scoles, etc. Most of them aren't even honest enough or courageous enough to use their real names when spewing their dishonest nonsense. Koberlein's "no neutrino" claims on his blog are a perfect example of not only *his* utter dishonesty, but it demonstrates the dishonesty of everyone who failed to correct him, and who have actually supported him on his blog.

It clearly demonstrates how ignorant and flat out dishonest and unethical this industry has become. Astronomers today seem to be far more interested in butt protection, financial protection, and slander than they seem interested in honest scientific answers and honest scientific debate.

That dishonest nonsense tends to explain how and why they remain stuck in the dark ages of physics too. They don't care about "science" or they would "self correct". They don't self correct. In fact the EU/PC hater posse goes from website to website spewing their dishonest crap our way, and the rest of the astronomy community gives them the green light and actually eggs them on! I find that unethical behavior to be beneath contempt, particularly from so called "professional scientists". What a bunch of sleazy, unethical predators. They prey on other people's ignorance and their fears. When the can't win a debate based on science, they burn their heretics at the public stake and then they flat out misrepresent them personally and their scientific models. What a bunch of unethical cowards.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1251
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