A reply to Graeme

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

A reply to Graeme

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:07 pm

Every so often I take another glance at Koberlein's hit piece on the EU cosmology model in the misplaced hope that Brian actually has a scientific conscience and he someday chooses to fix his horrible mess, but alas apparently he has no ethics whatsoever.

While I was there today, I did see a relatively new post by someone going by the handle of Graeme that I thought warranted a response. Since Koberlein banned me from his blog along with everyone else that pointed out his numerous bonehead errors, I thought I''d post my response here in the hope that Graeme eventually checks out this website again. Apparently Graeme checked out the EU/PC model at some point in the past, so it's possible that he still checks out this website occasionally. Several of his comments warranted a response IMO. You can read his whole post at the link below if you like. I simply picked out a few points that I felt were worth addressing.

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


13 January 2019
Graeme

......

Now it appears to me that the EU crowd are attempting to validate Velikovsky’s nonsense. They continue to praise Velikovsky as an unsung genius.
Here are some questions for Velikovsky supporters, and by default the EU people.


First off Graeme, not every EU/PC proponent thinks exactly alike, or shares exactly the same views on every possible topic related to EU/PC cosmology theory. About the only things that we share in common is that we are typically "free thinkers" who prefer an EU/PC oriented cosmology model rather than the LCDM metaphysical monstrosity that passes for science today. We typically allow ourselves to think outside of the box, and we typically reject the LCMD model of cosmology and embrace the concept that the universe is primarily electrical in nature. Those are the primary things that we have in common.

I for one don't care one iota about Velikovsky or his beliefs, whereas I do support Alfven's work, Birkeland's work, Bruce''s work, Peratt's work, Lerner's work, Scott's work, and much of Thornhill's work with respect to cosmology theory. You can't really lump us all into the same category with respect to every possible belief associated with EU/PC models (plural in the case of solar theory). We are all individuals with different views on different topics. For instance, while many folks here promote and support Jeurgen's anode solar model, I personally prefer Birkeland's cathode solar model. While I don't share Dr. Scott's preference for an anode solar model, I have a great deal of respect for his work on Birkeland currents in space.

EU/PC proponents aren't all forced to think in lockstep like the Stepford wives crowd who support the LCDM nonsense. We're allowed to hold different viewpoints here and discuss our difference here openly and without hostility. If you didn't figure that out much, you apparently didn't spend much time here or explore the work of Birkeland or Bruce, or Alfven or Peratt, or Lerner, or Scott, etc. It sounds like you didn't check out the published material very much other than reading Velkovsky's book. That's a pity. There is so much more to the EU/PC cosmology model than Velikovsky. Hannes Alfven is typically credited with developing the EU/PC *cosmology* model, not Velikovsky.

Since I'm not personally a Velikovsky supporter, I'll simply skip your questions related to his beliefs and focus on the other few questions you asked.

2. Why does the EU reject Plate Tectonics?


EU doesn't reject Plate Tectonics even if some EU/PC proponents choose to do so. Alfven never once mentioned that topic in his book "Cosmic Plasma" which is typically cited as the defining book of PC/EU cosmology theory. Here's a recent article about the Earth/Space electrical interactions, but I seriously doubt they reject plate tectonics in the book described by the article. Suffice to say it's entirely possible to embrace the concept that we live in an electric universe without assuming anything about plate tectonics.

https://eos.org/editors-vox/electric-cu ... n-the-show

3. If interplanetary/interstellar “birkeland” current exist, the why don’t we seen the signature RF noise predicted by Hannes Alfvén?


Huh? We absolutely do see RF noise and RF output from Birkeland currents in space in virtually every radio/microwave image of the universe:

https://public.nrao.edu/radio-astronomy ... astronomy/
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubb ... les-a.html
https://www.universetoday.com/85841/bes ... hole-jets/

You can't even look the universe in radio wave and microwave wavelengths without seeing massive amounts of noise associated with the currents flowing in and around our own galaxy:

http://www.u-psud.fr/en/news/news-2/planck.html

All that RF and microwave noise has to first be "stripped out" of the Planck data sets in order to determine anything about the "background" beyond our own galaxy in fact.

Your assertion that we don't see RF noise as Alfven predicted is simply horribly wrong. I really get the impression that you didn't do you homework and you didn't spend much time studying anything about EU/PC theory other than reading Velikovsky's book perhaps. That's a real pity.

I also have no idea why you would align yourself with Brian Koberlein of all people, particularly since he intentionally *misleads* everyone about EU/PC theory, even intentionally misrepresenting it's core solar predictions. For instance both of Koberlein's other two cited references in that horrible blog entry (Scott and Thornhill) both predicted and explained that fusion occurs in and around the sun which varies with the solar cycle and sunspot activity, and therefore the solar model they support must emit neutrinos. Koberlein falsely and unethically asserted that EU/PC theory predicts that the sun should emit no neutrinos based on a single statement by Findlay that is taken completely out of context. No EU/PC solar model predicts no neutrinos or a non thermal emission spectrum, or any such thing! Koberlein isn't even remotely honest, so why on Earth would you believe anything that he has to say about EU/PC theory? Oy Vey. Koberlein screwed up something as simple as the neutrino predictions of EU/PC solar models (plural). He's certainly no "expert" on EU theory, he's just an expert at spewing false misinformation related to the EU/PC topic.

4 February 2019
Reply
Graeme

Hi Brian What is Mirza on about. Logic – incorrect premise leads to nonsense. It was the logic of Plato, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas among others that kept Europe in the Dark Ages for over 1000 years and held back science for a similar period.
Regards
Graeme


FYI Graeme, It's the incorrect mainstream premise that redshift is related to "space" expansion and the incorrect premise that the mainstream baryonic mass estimation techniques based on luminosity are accurate that has kept the mainstream in the dark ages of astronomy now for over 80 years. A full 95 percent of their cosmology model is nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance. That's just dark metaphysical nonsense, not science. It's all based on two false premises. Contrary to their blatantly false claims, Edwin Hubble did *not* prove that the universe is expanding, in fact Hubble himself preferred a static universe/tired light explanation of Hubble's law, not an expansion interpretation for that phenomenon. That's false premise number one. The second major false premise is that the mainstream's baryonic mass estimates based on luminosity are correct, but more than a half dozen recent studies have all demonstrated that premise to be false too.

The whole of the LCDM model is based entirely upon two false premises, and metaphysical nonsense, not physics.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

Sorry I couldn't respond to you on Koberlein's blog, but Koberlein had to quickly ban everyone who pointed out his BS and his blatant errors, myself included. I hope you eventually read this response to your questions and you take a closer look at Alfven's work and Birkeland's work. They're a lot more important to EU/PC cosmology theory than Velikovsky IMO.

By the way, here's a link to a recent book on the topic of EU/PC theory, along with a link the first chapter of the book. Check it out sometime. EU/PC enjoys a long history of support by many scientists and astronomers over the centuries, not just Velikovsky.

https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Electric+Cu ... 1119324492
https://media.wiley.com/product_data/ex ... 4491-8.pdf
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1584
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: A reply to Graeme

Unread postby BeAChooser » Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:44 am

Michael Mozina wrote:I for one don't care one iota about Velikovsky or his beliefs, whereas I do support Alfven's work, Birkeland's work, Bruce''s work, Peratt's work, Lerner's work, Scott's work, and much of Thornhill's work with respect to cosmology theory.


Make that TWO. Same goes for plate tectonics.

Your assertion that we don't see RF noise as Alfven predicted is simply horribly wrong. I really get the impression that you didn't do you homework and you didn't spend much time studying anything about EU/PC theory other than reading Velikovsky's book perhaps. That's a real pity.


This sorta reminds me of that hit piece Sarah Scoles did on EU back in 2016. But she at least had the courtesy to introduce herself to the forum when she decided to do *research* for her article. It's a shame that she pretty much ignored whatever we told her and decided to start her attack by focusing on Velikovsky, too.
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: A reply to Graeme

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:48 am

BeAChooser wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:I for one don't care one iota about Velikovsky or his beliefs, whereas I do support Alfven's work, Birkeland's work, Bruce''s work, Peratt's work, Lerner's work, Scott's work, and much of Thornhill's work with respect to cosmology theory.


Make that TWO. Same goes for plate tectonics.

Your assertion that we don't see RF noise as Alfven predicted is simply horribly wrong. I really get the impression that you didn't do you homework and you didn't spend much time studying anything about EU/PC theory other than reading Velikovsky's book perhaps. That's a real pity.


This sorta reminds me of that hit piece Sarah Scoles did on EU back in 2016. But she at least had the courtesy to introduce herself to the forum when she decided to do *research* for her article. It's a shame that she pretty much ignored whatever we told her and decided to start her attack by focusing on Velikovsky, too.


I think that most people who check out EU/PC theory are lazy. They only do a cursory investigation with the express intent of "debunking" the idea, not with the intent of studying it seriously and with an open mind. Velikovsky is an easy target compared to someone like Birkeland or Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Scott, etc. It provides them with a convenient way to "write off" the whole concept of an electric universe without much effort. They tend to find what they're looking for in Velikovsky's work.

On the other hand, I've yet to see anyone anywhere find an actual error in Alfven's published papers or his book, and I've yet to see anyone find any serious problems with Birkeland's laboratory experiments. The same is true of Dr. Scott's paper on Birkeland currents, Bruce's work, Lerner's work, etc. At best all they offer are handwavy arguments which are easily dealt with in a public debate.

Sarah was a great example of someone who started off with an obvious agenda, namely to discredit the EU/PC model and the EU/PC community as a whole. She only focused on the things that are loosely associate with the EU/PC model which provided her with the ability to fulfill her agenda. She did not even mention or consider any of the serious published materials associated with EU/PC theory. She ignored anything that might actually be attractive about the EU concept or our community. She wasn't interested in being fair or balanced.

The irony of course is the fact that LCDM model is probably the single easiest model of cosmology to "debunk". Any model which is based on GR theory would result in the whole thing imploding *instantly* from the start. Nothing would have escaped the gravitational well and the event horizon associated with a mass body the size of our physical universe compressed to something smaller than a breadbox. It's completely internally inconsistent. "Space" could not possibly have "expanded" in the presence of such a huge amount of mass if they were being consistent with their model because "Space" doesn't do any magic expansion tricks inside of our solar system or galaxy due to the presence of only a infinitesimally tiny fraction of that same mass which is spread out over a much larger volume of space. The LCDM model grossly violates the conservation of energy laws. It's based mostly on placeholder terms for human ignorance and four metaphysical claims which all defy empirical cause/effect justification in any lab on Earth. It's failed more tests than I can remember, both in the lab as well as failing numerous observational tests at higher redshifts, most recently that quasar study. The whole LCDM model is a bad metaphysical joke.

Dissatisfaction with the LCDM model is what motivated me and many others to even checkout alternative concepts. The preference for empirical physical explanations for events in space is a naturally attractive aspect of the EU/PC model too. Sarah never mentioned any of that.

About all we can do is keep chugging along. Eventually the scientific community will get tired of playing with their magic beans and they mythical magical forms of matter and energy. They'll start looking for real empirical explanations just like we did, if not today, someday. When they finally do, they'll find what they're looking for in EU/PC theory just as we did. Until they abandon creation mythology and until they grow tired of playing with fantasy forms of matter and energy however, and they are finally motivated to seek honest empirical scientific answers, there's not a lot that we can do to change their minds. The switch from metaphysical creation mythology to empirical physics It's more about internal self motivation and honest scientific curiosity than anything else.

As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to (empirical) water but you can't make them drink.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1584
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: A reply to Graeme

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:14 am

It's extremely obvious that the only way for the mainstream to keep the public duped, and to keep the flock in line, is to prevent any serious scientific debate from occurring on their websites, or blogs. They are forced to ban anyone and everyone who questions the scientific validity of the LCMD model, or who dares to discuss alternatives to their supernatural creation mythology.

Lying Brian Koberlein was forced to ban anyone and everyone from his blog who pointed out his lies because he can't handle the truth. No EU/PC solar model predicts that the sun emits no neutrinos and he knows it. He took one sentence by one random author *completely* out of context and he built a completely dishonest "hit" piece around it. There was nothing honest about his actions or his motives. Not a single so called "professional" even bothered to correct him either, because they aren't interested in scientific honesty or scientific integrity.

The same is true of Sarah Scholes. She just cherry picked what she wanted to talk about and she ignored everything that we told her about our motives for seeking real empirical answers. Tom Bridgman unethically misrepresented Birkeland's *single* cathode solar model on his blog too. Cosmoquest holds public "witch hunts" on their website for anyone that dares to post anything they deem to be "against the mainstrream". I got banned *instantly* from the astronomy forum on Reddit simply for posting a single link to one of Peratt's published papers there.

There's nothing honest or scientific about the attacks by the mainstream on the EU/PC model. It's all dishonest behavior that is motivated by pure fear of losing control and losing respect once the public finally figures out that the LCDM model is a metaphysical piece of crap. They can't handle the truth.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1584
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

I missed this gem......

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:29 am

I missed this gem from lyin' Brian's blog:

27 December 2018
Reply
Brian Koberlein

When conveying information to folks, it’s always important to present things at an appropriate level of detail. If I simply linked scientific articles in rebuttal, it would be too advanced for the vast majority of EU folks. So you get blog links explaining concepts at a simple level. Often they have links to research articles as well, but most people don’t even click on them. But given that EU folks often think an unsubstantiated YouTube video constitutes proof, it’s clear that blog links is about as complex as the discussion should go.


Irony overload. Lyiin' Brian picked three EU/PC references for his hit piece and apparently he didn't bother to even read two of them which clearly discuss fusion on the sun that varies with the solar cycle and sunspot activity. He evidently doesn't expect his lazy and gullible readers to ever bother to read Scott's book or Thornhill's book which he also lists as references. so he took a single sentence completely out of context out of a PDF by a random author and used it to mislead his readers about the EU/PC solar neutrino predictions.

The only other references that Koberlein has ever cited on his blog to support his outrageous lies are simply links to *himself* and his own other blog entries. Apparently he believes that his *own* readers are so unsophisticated and so lazy that they'll never bother to read anything other than his blog entries. Since nobody outside of the EU/PC community has bothered to try to correct his false BS, apparently he's absolutely right about that too.

Koberlein then *projects* the ignorance and sloppiness of himself and his own unsophisticated readers onto the EU/PC community. Wow. That's just classic misdirection. Evidently it works quite effectively in most cases because not even one so called "professional" ever once noticed or corrected his "no neutrino" BS in over five years and Koberlein has never bothered to correct his blatant errors either.

What Koberlein clearly demonstrated is that neither he, nor any so called professional A) ever bothered to read two of the three EU/PC references he listed, which do in fact discuss fusion on the sun, and/or B) have the scientific integrity to set the record straight. Wow. Irony overload.

FYI Grame, Thornhill absolutely does predict fusion to occur in his book near the photosphere of his solar model. I quoted Scott's book for you on lyin' Brian's blog where Scott predicts fusion which is also cited as a reference, but you'll find Thornhill's references to fusion on page 70 of his book which I cited here for you.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15939&start=90#p116662

Of course you can go on foolishly believing that Koberlein is actually some sort of expert on this topic, but in fact he's nothing but a two bit charlatan who doesn't expect you to actually do any research of your own, so he simply preys upon your laziness and your ignorance of the topic.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1584
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA


Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest