Sometimes what comes out of the mouths of EU/PC skeptics simply blows up the irony meter. Koberlein's "no neutrino" (false) claim isn't crucial to any EU/PC solar model, it's only crucial to Koberlein's *false* strawman argument. It's not 'crucial to any EU/PC model. Ditto for Koberlein's equally false claims about EU/PC solar models predicting excessive gamma ray emission from the sun. Nobody in the EU community made that claim to start with anymore than they claimed 'no neutrinos" came from our sun. Koberlein flat out lied his ass off in both cases. That's why lyin Brian never actually quotes anyone in the EU community who made any of those false claims. He made them up all by himself, so he cannot quote anyone else. Findlay didn't even use the term 'neutrino' in his whole PDF so he certainly didn't predict "no neutrinos' as Koberlein falsely asserts. Findlay never said that no fusion ever occurs in the sun either, he simply suggested that current flow plays a role in the heating process.13 February 2018
I don´t think this is an argument. This is something else. Things that Brian picked out to test EU model, were seemingly random but crucial according to their own claims.
Actual EU/PC models and predictions stand their own real tests just fine. Only Koberlein's lies didn't stand "the test", but he already knew that all along.EU model didn´t stand the test,
Well, he's right about that much. I have no idea why lyin' Brian chose to lie his unprofessional butt off about those specific issues and make up those specific strawman arguments. I certainly have no idea what lyin' Brian is talking about since no EU/PC proponent ever made those "no neutrino" or "excessive gamma ray" predictions to start with.but more importantly I don´t think they even know why he picked up those points – what is he talking about.
I can say for sure that EU/PC proponents typically understand what we're trying to overthrow in mainstream theory better than the EU/PC hater posse members actually understand EU/PC theory. That's for damn sure.I think the conspiracy folks just counter what critics say, they have no real understanding in theory of relativity, QED, particle physics – thinks that they try to overthrow.
Here's where the "newbie" EU/PC critic blows up the irony meter. LHC was a very impressive scientific experiment that was definitely *not* kind LCMD theory. LHC experiments fully supported the standard particle physics model, but that doesn't help LCDM proponents. I consider LHC to be a great human accomplishment, but unfortunately LCDM proponents throw it's importance and it's value right out the window! They simply choose to toss out all those results and still put their faith in a non-standard particle physics model.To even think what science/physics we know today have required during centuries – astronomical amount of hours in work and experiments, brilliant minds from all over the world, mindboggling accomplishments like Manhattan project, moon landings, LHC to counter what
What's utterly absurd IMO is how little EU/PC "critics" actually understand EU/PC models to start with. No EU/PC solar model predicts "no neutrinos". No EU/PC proponent ever predicted an excess of gamma rays either, nor did any of them predict that the photosphere wasn't radiating at 5800K and emitting EM radiation consistent with that temperature. These so called "tests' are all 'make believe claims that have absolutely nothing to do with EU/PC theory, and everything to do with Koberlein's complete lack of ethics, or his complete scientific incompetence, or both.– some random name and word dropping, youtube videos? This is absurd.
EU/PC proponents evidently don't spend even five minutes honestly trying to understand the EU models that they try to 'debunk'.
At least we make an honest effort to understand the mainstream's models before we point out it's flaws, like the fact that the standard solar model overestimated the speed of convection by two full orders of magnitude. That's an example of an *actual* valid scientific criticism of their model.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/ ... projected/
If I were acting as unethically as lyin' Brian Koberlein, I'd first have to go out of my way to blatantly misrepresent the standard model and then I would have to turn around and "debunk" my own strawman argument.