Debunking the Human Scientist

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

Debunking the Human Scientist

Unread postby cechapman » Wed Mar 21, 2018 11:21 am

Hello,

I wanted to express concerns I have with main stream science. Specifically, how 'Professional' scientist fall into human traps such as group think, professional triablisum, desire for grants/status/money, ego, stubbornness, and pride. Since true science has no need for any of this, but relies on data, proof, observation, I am concerned that modern 'Science' acts more like a religion. For example, Sagan quote "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is absolute rubbish. Extraordinary claims require the same rigor of proof as 'Mainstream' concepts. Who gets to define Extraordinary? I think what this is really saying is 'If your claims fit with my model of the world, you get a pass, else we will make the bar so high that we will win no matter what". This is a function of ego and arrogance, not science.

Believers the scientific method have a obligation to call this out. Furthermore, I propose a test for my hypothesis. Gather 1,000 professional scientist and place them in a assures state on anonymity so that they believe that their comments are private. Then ask them fundamental question about a topic of choice. Now, in a very public setting where those same scientists will know they will be observers by their peers, ask them the same question. A delta in response indicates bias.
cechapman
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:16 am

Re: Debunking the Human Scientist

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:29 pm

Nowhere will you see a more blatant example of the problems that you describe with group think, tribalism, ego, stubbornness and pride than on lyin' Brian Koberlein's 'no neutrino" BS blog entry related to EU/PC models.

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

First of all Koberlein claimed to be discussing *Thornhill's* solar model, not Findlay's beliefs and then he tried to blame poor Findlay for his own lies while ignoring the actual words of Thornhill on this subject. It's so *obviously* and ridiculously false that Thornhill predicted "no neutrinos" that it's not even funny:

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/solar-neu ... is-solved/

To sum up, the electrical model of the Sun requires that neutrinos of all “flavours” are produced by heavy element nucleosynthesis in the photosphere of the Sun. It is far simpler than the nuclear fusion model whose major assumptions cannot be confirmed, either by visual inspection or certain “rogue” data. All of the obvious electrical discharge phenomena seen on and above the photosphere have analogs that can be seen on Earth and/or reproduced in electrical engineering laboratories. It is simpler to assume that the energy we receive from the Sun is coming from where we see it – at the surface, or photosphere, rather than a minuscule and unlikely hydrogen bomb 93 million miles distant, shrouded in opaque gas.


Any real so called "professional" would have certainly checked out *all three* of his own listed references. Similar quotes about neutrinos and where they come from are found in Thornhill's book on 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.


Even if you don't have a copy of Thornhill's book, a quick Google search easily verifies in a few seconds that Koberlein is flat out lying his ass off. Instead of anyone of the EU/PC hater posse setting Koberlein straight however, they all tried to defend his obvious BS and his blatant lies.

In fact, lyin' Brian's recent blog entry simply doubles down on the lies by claiming that Thornhill predicts excess gamma rays and a non thermal photosphere, even though Thornhill specifically puts the fusion process *in* the photosphere, not above it, and even though the gamma ways would *definitely* heat the photosphere, just like the standard model, giving it a thermal spectrum just like the standard model.

Koberlein (and the rest of them) just compounded lies upon more lies and not a *single* so called "professional" has shown the scientific integrity to set Koberlein straight in over 4 years.

As you note, scientists are human beings just like everyone else. They are prone to human error, human pride, human tribalism, etc, just like everyone else. Astronomers are no better than a bad cult that knowingly and intentionally lies to it's parishioners, only in this case it's their "students" and the uneducated public who are the ones that get fed the poison cool-aid. Brian Koberlein is the Jim Jones of astrophysics. Astronomers (plural), and particularly EU/PC haters are totally and completely unethical.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

The exotic matter fiasco is another great example.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:53 am

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

I'd also point out the the exotic matter fiasco is another great example of "group-think", tribalism, greed and ego run amuck within astronomy.

That now infamous 2006 Bullet Cluster study claimed to find direct "proof" of exotic matter, when it fact it only found direct "proof'' that the baryonic mass estimation techniques which were being used in 2006 were riddled with massive flaws and were absolutely worthless, as many later studies have since verified. Since that Bullet Cluster study, they've also spent billions of dollars at LHC, LUX, PandaX, Xenon-1T, AmdX and many other DM experiments yet they have found absolutely nothing to support the concept of exotic matter. Every single 'test' in the lab was an epic fail.

Many observational "tests" of their DM models have also shown their computer models to be completely wrong:

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/? ... edictions/

Have any of these failed tests or later revelations caused them to pause, or to reevaluate their model, or change it in any way? Hell no!

https://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/2018/02/21.htm

Instead of any sort of introspective reevaluation of their claims, they're just moving the DM goal posts at a feverish pace, throwing good money after bad at LUX-LZ, and basically burying their collective heads in the sand while parroting the same bogus and falsified dogma to a whole new generation of unsuspecting astronomy students.

If you watch any newer videos on astronomy on TV, they still sometimes cite that thoroughly discredited Bullet Cluster study as being "irrefutable evidence/proof" to support their exotic matter claims, as though nothing has changed or been learned in the last 12 years.

The LUX-LZ experiment is obviously driven by their desire for continued funding, certainly not based on any type of actual 'evidence" to support the concept of WIMPS. LUZ-LZ should push/eliminate the interaction cross section of hypothetical WIMPS down into the realm of neutrinos, at which time we'll probably see more desperate types of goal post moving and nothing much in the way of any serious questioning of the core dogma.

Another good example is the 'dark energy' *discovery* claim. The original SN1A study was based on a small number of events and it *assumed* that all SN1A events were so called "standard candles". Later studies have since shown that SN1A events are less than "standard" events in the first place.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/supern ... -after-all

The most recent SN1A study involved more than 10 times as many SN1A data points as the original SN1A study, and the newer study showed only marginal evidence of acceleration at only around 3 sigma, two full sigma short of an actual 'discovery' in physics.

https://www.space.com/34503-universe-ex ... nergy.html

Did that newer, more comprehensive SN1A study cause them to reevaluate their original "dark energy" claims, and back off of calling it a 'discovery"? Of course not!

A recent study from this year also shows that their two primary methods of determining the Hubble constant based on expansion/acceleration interpretations of redshift do not match. Adding constant acceleration from dark energy will not and does not resolve the problem between those two methods.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 ... e-universe

So did that revelation cause them to reevaluate their claim that redshift is related to expansion rather than tired light? Of course not. Instead they're claiming that that their failed 'tests" suggests evidence of even more 'new physics'! Oy Vey.

LCDM is a complete sham of truly epic/cosmological proportions. It's nothing more than falsified metaphysical dogma that simply cannot be falsified through any logical 'tests' of their claims. Every failed "test" is simply swept under the rug, and the dogma remains exactly the same. LCDM has failed more tests than it ever passed in the first place yet the dogma continues unabated.

Professional astronomers can't just admit to just being wrong because too much funding and too much prestige is at stake, and their collective ego prevents it. So rather than embrace reality, they simply sweep every failed test of their claim right under the rug, and they pretend that it never happened. :(
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Debunking the Human Scientist

Unread postby Webbman » Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:36 am

Since science is the quest for the truth there is no real science to speak of. Only a cult of professional deceivers.
We shall know them by their works
Webbman
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Debunking the Human Scientist

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:04 pm

Webbman wrote:Since science is the quest for the truth there is no real science to speak of. Only a cult of professional deceivers.


Hmmm. I wouldn't go that far actually. Empirical sciences, like circuit theory and biology have produced useful tangible goods and services like antibiotics, reading glasses, my computer, my cellphone, my car, my TV and many other useful products that I have used on an occasional, regular, or even a daily basis. That's 'real' and useful science IMO. I have no problem calling that kind of empirical science, "real science'.

Astronomy however has been consistently abused by charlatans and hucksters like astrologers and LCDM cultists who's claims *never* actually work in the lab and *never* produce any useful goods or services. Nothing that I own runs on or uses dark energy, dark matter, inflation, space expansion or magnetic reconnection for instance. LCDM deceptions are equally empirically impotent in the lab as astrology, in fact they are two metaphysical peas in pod.

The really bad and unacceptable part is that while I've never wasted my money on a astrologer, LCDM proponents keep taking and wasting my hard earned tax dollars on their deceptive metaphysical nonsense. Mercury retrogrades have never affected my actual pocketbook, but dark matter deceptions have cost me real money over the years. That really bugs me.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Debunking the Human Scientist

Unread postby Sceptical lefty » Sun Mar 25, 2018 2:29 pm

[/quote]Astronomy however has been consistently abused by charlatans and hucksters like astrologers and LCDM cultists who's claims *never* actually work in the lab and *never* produce any useful goods or services.[/quote]

For what it's worth, astrologers were the original astronomers. However, the unscientific association of their work with personality traits, short-term predictions, etc. left the name pretty well discredited in 'respectable' scientific circles, so 'Astronomy' was coined.

Oddly, modern Astronomy seems to be heading along a similar, ascientific path, but I think that the name is here to stay.
Sceptical lefty
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 5:53 pm

Re: Debunking the Human Scientist

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:00 pm

Sceptical lefty wrote:For what it's worth, astrologers were the original astronomers. However, the unscientific association of their work with personality traits, short-term predictions, etc. left the name pretty well discredited in 'respectable' scientific circles, so 'Astronomy' was coined.

Oddly, modern Astronomy seems to be heading along a similar, ascientific path, but I think that the name is here to stay.


Maybe we should go out of our way to associate ourselves with 'Astrophysics", or "Applied Astrophysics", or 'Cosmology" because it's deja-vu all over again. :) In terms of a complete lack of empirical cause/effect demonstrations of claims in the lab, it's literally six of one, a half dozen of the other between astrology and astronomy these days. :(
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Debunking the Human Scientist

Unread postby Keith Ness » Sat Mar 31, 2018 9:55 pm

cechapman wrote:For example, Sagan quote "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is absolute rubbish.


That quote goes back a long ways in various forms from various people, and it refers to fitness and simplicity, both fundamental to science. The problem is not that quote, it is some long-standing and very stubborn, yet wildly inaccurate claims of adherence to it, especially such claims made by the mainstream.
Keith Ness
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:53 am

Re: Debunking the Human Scientist

Unread postby JHL » Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:38 am

MM, with all respect, could you be encouraged to revise your system of emphasis and replace 'x', "x", and *x* - which are less than clear, with selections from the editor, such as italics, bold, and underline as you see fit? Thank you so much. I enjoy your comments immensely.
JHL
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm


Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests