Cults, religions, falsification, LCDM, EU/PC theory

[Michael Mozina]

From JeanTate

jd116, and RC and tusenfem, have done a terrific job of showing just how hopeless "the EU" is, in terms of providing consistent, objective, independently verifiable explanations of relevant data on comets (etc). Whether such explanations come directly from what Sol88 posts, or what the "electrical theorists" Talbott and Thornhill have published.

They have also been wonderful in educating readers - whether lurkers or not - on various aspects of plasma physics, space science, etc.

However, I think there's one aspect which has not really gotten the prominence it deserves, namely that whatever "the EU" is, it is not science.

There's something highly amusing, and more than a little ironic, about the LCMD cult followers accusing a form of pure empirical physics of not being a form of 'science'. Right or wrong, every concept, every idea that is related to EU/PC theory can be verified and/or falsified, including any and all predictions related to comets. The only reason that's possible is because there are no "predictions" related to EU/PC theory that cannot be replicated in a lab, or simulated in a lab, or show up in a lab. In other words, we could in fact build equipment here on Earth to 'test' various comet theories, solar theories, inelastic scattering models, etc. There's nothing about EU/PC theory that is not based exclusively upon pure empirical physics. Right or wrong, the ideas presented in EU/PC theory are "scientific" and empirical by design. They all therefore have a clear falsification mechanism associated with them, and a clear verification mechanism with them.

For instance, various solar models can be 'put to the test" in the lab. Within the EU/PC community, we certainly understand that not all the various 'electric' solar models can be correct, and various beliefs within the context of EU/PC theory are controversial even within our own community. We recognize that while some of these options might be correct, they cannot all possibly be correct. We therefore would *love* to see many of these ideas put to the "test" in real labs on Earth, but such big money projects require public funding.

Let's now compare and contrast that falsification potential of EU/PC theory with the LCDM cult. 95 percent of the LCDM model is *supernatural* in origin. Nothing like "space expansion" has any tangible effect on a photon in a lab. Nothing like exotic forms of matter have been seen at LHC, LUX, PandaX, or anywhere else for that matter. Billions were spent. Nothing was observed. No "source" of "dark energy" is even defined in LCMD, let alone any logical explanation of how it could possibly retain a constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. "Inflation" came with three "predictions" that were actually *postdicted* from observation and all three of them have been shown to be worthless, including the claim that inflation "explains" the non-existence of monopoles and unicorns, as though any theory had to "explain" the non-existence of something. Penrose showed that it's 10 to the 100th power *less* likely that a "flat" universe "supports" the theory and 10 to the 100th power *more* likely that inflation had no part in explaining why we live in a flat universe. Those hemispheric variations defy his last claim of "homogeneity" too. There's *nothing* left to support inflation theory, yet the cult keeps pointing at dust in our galaxy and claiming that inflation did it.

There isn't even a valid way to *falsify* any of the four supernatural deities of the LCMD cult. Their dark matter god is pathetically impotent in the lab. Every "prediction' they made about it blew up in their face in the lab. Worse still their baryonic mass estimates that were used in 2006 to supposedly "prove" the idea were later shown to be *worthless* numbers. Did that deter their cult from "having faith" in the concept? Did it falsify the concept? Of course not. Cults don't care about little details like the negative outcome of their "tests".

Yes, it's incredibly easy to find things T&T (and Sol88, and Scott, and MM, and ...) have said (in documents openly available on the internet) which may be characterized as "lies", "fraud", and so on.

Those are strong words for someone who won't even use their real name when posting on the internet.

But doing so misses a key point, I think. A great many of these, I submit, are "alternative facts", and acceptable as such in the worldview of a great many EU fans. To see this, take a step back for a moment, and look at "the EU" more broadly.

Originally Posted by Brian Koberlein

Brian Koberlein? Really? This is the same guy that *flat out lied* when he claimed that Thornhill's solar model predicts "no" neutrinos. This is the same guy that *banned* all four individuals who dared to point out his bonehead error too. You're using *that guy* as your superhero? Really? Wow. Cults require flat out *pathological liars* to hold them together I suppose.

The rest of your comments seem to focus on the fact that I’m either not representing EU fairly, or I simply don’t get it. I’ve actually dealt with a lot of EU supporters, and the biggest problem is that you never know which position on the spectrum they’re going to take:

Like we know which of your axion/WIMP/sterile neutrinos models any individual LCMD proponent might personally fancy? Which specific inflation model they prefer (if any)?

Plasma astrophysics is a legitimate science! (I completely agree.)

Wow, that's nice. One small problem however: You folks continue to model plasma via pure "pseudoscience" according to the author of MHD theory. You don't even do *that* part "legitimately" to start with.

Mainstream cosmologists have problems their models can’t answer (True)

But of course when any EU/PC proponent cannot answer a question, they get banned/lynched/told to shut up at Cosmoquest. Cults do stuff like that. They're blatant hypocrites.

Plasma physics could explain dark matter/dark energy/no big bang (Interesting, but I’m not convinced)

Even though the baryonic mass estimates that were used to calculate baryonic mass in 2006 were *flawed in five uniquely different ways*, somehow he's not convinced that ordinary mass can explain the very same lensing data, and he won't accept that ordinary scattering has a direct effect on the "brightness" of galaxies.

On the other hand, in spite of every failed *lab test* on exotic matter, he still thinks that there's any case for exotic forms of matter. I guess a "faith" based belief system cannot be deterred by "facts".

The Sun is powered by interstellar electric fields (No)

FYI, only one of the three primary EU/PC solar models even makes such a prediction, and no model predicts that *all* of the energy we see from the sun comes from an external source. None of the EU/PC solar models predict that *no* neutrinos come from the sun, which is apparently his own made up lie. If that's the basis of his "belief" about external power, it's no wonder that he rejects his own strawman.

The Valles Marineris on Mars was carved electrically! (Hoo boy…)
EU means the Universe is 6,000 years old (facepalm)
(source)

And of course not all EU/PC proponents even hold such beliefs to start with. Where did Alfven write about that?

It takes just a few minutes of careful reading - e.g. of the posts in the Thunderdolts Forum - to appreciate that all these positions are acceptable to EU fans (though the last one is, perhaps, not acceptable to the (self-appointed) "electrical theorists"). In terms of underlying physics, the viewpoints acceptable to EU fans are equally extraordinary and diverse (if you have a few idle moments, I think you can compile a list of ten real eye-openers in less than half an hour).

Ya, but when your side proposes something as absurd as claiming to see polarized photon patterns on the wall of some mythical snow globe universe, and it turns out to come from *LOCAL DUST* particles around our own galaxy, you still expect us to ignore your ridiculous problems. When you propose "explanations" that include *violating conservation of energy laws*, that's just fine by you folks. When you simply *lie* about there being no VETO event around the time of that LIGO signal, we're not supposed to open our eyes and cry fowl either. Give me a break. You folks have *no* right to complain about anything "over the top" that might be under the umbrella of "EU/PC" theory in someone's mind.

Yet this is not seen as a weakness of "the EU", by EU fans, but a great strength.

No. In fact a lot of us prefer to simply discard/ignore/reject "controversial" ideas entirely and stick to things that work in the lab, like Birkeland's solar model, or Jeurgen's solar model. I for instance have *zero* interest in comet theories. It's just not my "thing". I"m more interested in solar physics and cosmology theory.

In fact, just about the only thing which such fans do seem to agree on is that calling the EU "pseudoscience" is indeed an instant permaban offense. And thus that who do so - loudly, publicly - fully deserve all the trolling a handful of EU ardents unleash on them.

We ban people here? Really? You mean banning people like your hero Brian Koberlein had to ban all four individuals that dared to point out to him that no EU/PC solar model predicts that "no" neutrinos come from the sun? You mean like JREF/ISF had to ban me for pointing out that Clinger has no mathematical formula to support a non-zero rate of 'reconnection' in a pure vacuum? You mean like Cosmoquest bans *everyone* that wants to talk about EU/PC theory? You can't even handle an honest scientific debate on a neutral forum where you can't rely exclusively on lies and ad-homs and skewed moderation that promotes personal attacks on one side, and forbids it from the other.

I *dare* you to start up a thread over at CRUS that compares EU/PC theory to LCDM *dogma*. You'd be crushed in no time and you all know it too, which is exactly why you avoid me there like the plague. Who do you think you're fooling? You can't handle an open and honest debate with me, let alone *many* EU/PC proponents at once, so you just ban the individuals that you can't handle.

How easy is it to show that "the EU" has a great many features in common with a religious cult? That there are very few differences between "the EU" and a religious cult? I submit that it's extremely easy to do so.

So start a thread on the topic over here and see how you do, or better yet, start that debate at CRUS. You'll utterly bury yourself, and you know it. People who live in supernatural glass houses really shouldn't be throwing stones at empirical physics. You'd be toast in no time.

And that, I think, is why calling the EU pseudoscience (or anti-science) arouses such a vehement response in so many EU fans...

You're actually right about that. It does hurt deeply to see supposed "scientists" promote a form of 95 percent supernatural nonsense, combined with 5 percent "pseudoscience" (according to Alfven) while claiming that a form of pure empirical lab tested physics is a form of "pseudoscience".

the truth hurts, deeply.

No, the *LIES* hurt deeply, like Koberlein's *lies* about Jurgen's solar model and Bridgman's *lies* about Birkeland's model. Those lies hurt, along with your lies about the characterization of a form of pure empirical physics. It hurts to know how out of touch with empirical physics that your supernatural cult has become. You've completely and totally lost all touch with reality.

It is also why there is such apparent persistence by EU fans, to promote the cult in fora such as the ISF, in the comments sections of physics-blogs, and the Rosetta blog. And also why responding rationally - with chapter and verse of the relevant bits of science and objective analyses of data - has little effect on these fans.

You mean like it had no effect on any of you when I pointed out Clingers missing math formula to express a non-zero rate of "Reconnection" in a pure vacuum? You mean like it had no effect when I pointed out that RC had no published support for his erroneous claim that "electrical discharges are impossible" in plasma?

Psst: Some of us within the EU/PC community don't have a problem with mainstream comet theory even if we doubt the "dirty snowball" model applies to *all* comets.

So, yes please, by all means jd116, RC, and tusenfem keep up the good work of pointing out the inconsistencies etc in what Sol88 posts, and in educating ISF readers and lurkers.

Ya know......

It's perfectly acceptable from my perspective to point out the *real* problems with any hypothesis. Personally I'd be focused on the lack of observed discharges near the surface of comets that we've visited as a "falsification" mechanism of Thornhill's comet model. I focus on that lack of a pre-impact flash from a discharge too. I wouldn't however be *blatantly misrepresenting* his statements by suggesting that *any* observation of water automatically falsifies his entire model, and I wouldn't be lying about his beliefs by claiming that his solar theory predicts *no* neutrinos.

May I suggest adding some words about "the EU" being anti-science? Concentrating more on its resemblance to a religious cult (and less on "lies", "fraud", etc)?

Sure. Go right ahead and resort to the use of more ad-homs and pitifully inaccurate debate tactics if you think that helps you. Just pretend that there is no irony at all in a bunch of 'invisible sky cult' followers to be bashing on empirical concepts like "inelastic scattering" as an alternative to your 'space expansion genie". Let's see how well you stack up to EU/PC theory with all your dark invisible unfalsifiable nonsense.

The irony is simply off scale. Nothing can falsify LCDM or all those failed *tests* dark matter at LHC and LUX, etc, combined with all those revelations of the numerous problems in your baryonic mass estimates would have done the trick. Nothing can falsify 'space expansion did it" because no empirical physical evidence exists to support it in the first place. Nothing can falsify "inflation did it", or the fact it's 10 the 100th power *less* likely to produce a flat universe would have done the trick, not to mention those hemispheric variations in the CMB and *holes* in the CMB that *defy* Guth's claim about homogeneity. There's not even a logical way to falsify your cult's dogma, because it's all based upon supernatural entities galore, and a form of pure "pseudoscience". Let's see you make that comparison to cults and religions. It would be a blast, particularly at CRUS, or somewhere neutral to both sides and that allows everyone to participate.

https://www.christianforums.com/forums/ ... ences.408/

I dare you.

[Michael Mozina]

jonesdave116:

I would agree that it bears far more resemblance to a religion/ cult than it does to science. The problem with EUers, in common with e.g, IDers, is that they try to pass off their beliefs as being scientific. One would struggle to find anything vaguely scientific in what they write.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

Right, and the fact that at least some of the ideas we promote actually work in the lab doesn't sway you either? How exactly was any of Birkeland's work "unscientific", or Alfven's work, or Peratt's work? You seem to be picking on what you perceive to be the "low handing fruit" in terms of what *can* be falsified, and claiming that your one issue (comets?) somehow falsifies the entire cosmology theory put forth by Alfven. How does that nonsense work?

However, I think this belief system resembles religion due to the fact that Wal & Dave are unashamedly pro-Velikovskian.

Assuming that's even true, since when did Wal and Dave speak for the *entire* EU/PC community on any specific idea? What makes you believe that even *most* people who happen to post to this forum or read this forum hold any positive opinions about Velikovski in the first place? What does Velikovski have to do with Alfven or Birkeland or Bruce or Peratt, or anyone I actually *do* believe with respect to EU/PC theory?

Pretty much every piece of nonsense they come out with will, if you scratch away at it, reveal itself to be Velikovskian in nature.

So you can obviously explain how Birkeland's cathode solar model, or Alfven's cosmology theory is somehow "Velkovskian in nature"? Sure you can. Go right ahead and try.

Such as the need for comets to be rocks, blasted off planets during a recent game of interplanetary billiards.

Oh, you mean *low hanging concept* you found happened to be associated with that idea, not *every* idea under the EU/PC umbrella? Do you have any idea how many "weird" ideas fall under the LCDM model?

If one is basing the whole of ones worldview on Velikovsky, then it is, by definition, absolutely nothing whatever to do with science.

Then it's a pretty good thing that most of us here base their beliefs on the work of Birkeland and Alfven and folks like that rather than on anything written by Velikovsky. I can't recall *anyone* using Velikovsky to explain cosmology, but I'm sure you can point out to us how that works.

It simply has to be a belief system, involving faith, and a suspension of one's higher thinking skills.

Just the opposite is true. Birkeland's solar model *works in the lab*. I don't have to hold "faith" in the model, I can watch it work in that video I posted. That's not 'faith', that's empirical working physics. You have to suspend your higher thinking skills to pretend that your 'pseudoscience' has even been able to produce a whole spherical corona around a sphere for hours on end, whereas I can watch his cathode model produce that corona as well as that aurora in the lab.

Even with the scientists that they do invoke, such as Birkeland and Alfvén, the regard in which they are held borders on a cultish hero worship.

If you are accusing me personally of 'worshiping empirical physics' like that working model in that video, and appreciating mathematical models from Alfven, guilty as charged. I have a particular fondness for empirical physics and mathematical models of empirical physics. That's because empirical physics has a long and proven track record of replacing supernatural constructs over time.

Very few of them actually seem to have much of a clue about what Alfvén, in particular, wrote.

If that's true, it pales in comparison to the number of mainstream astronomers that are clueless of Alfven's work. If Bridgman and Koberlein are any indication of how well you folks "understand" various works in EU/PC theory, your industry is completely clueless. Bridgman's particle flow diagram of Birkeland's solar model is completely FUBAR, and Koberlein flat out lied about *any* EU/PC solar model predicting "no" neutrinos. What a lying putz.

They just trot out the usual whines of his about the dreaded 'mainstream.'

You mean like all your lab failures on "dark matter" and your reliance of pure pseudoscience instead of *working solar models*? Ya, we tend to whine about your failures alright, just like you're whining about Thornhill's comet model.

So, indeed, whatever it is, it isn't science.

Except for the fact it actually works in the lab, unlike your solar model which could *never* produce a working model of a corona or an aurora like we see in that video.

[Michael Mozina]

Let's take a look at the supposed 'ethical' folks over at ISF and see just how many times *in a single post* that EU/PC proponents (as a whole in many cases) get to be personally attacked at ISF *with impunity*. God forbid someone like me should return the favor by pointing out all the *LIES and BULLSHIT* that you folks spew over there, like claiming to produce "magnetic reconnection" without a plasma particle to your names! The moment I reciprocated even a little tiny bit, I got banned forever:

jonesdave116:

"extremely hard of thinking"
"idiot"
"Velikovskian woo"
"idiot"
"scientifically illiterate idiot"
"fraud"
"Thunderdolts"
"lying by omission"
"neo-Velikovskian rubbish"
"deluded followers"
"loon"
"scientifically illiterate nobody"

That's a *least* thirteen personal attacks that you managed to pack into a single post. Proud of yourself? Worse yet, you're trying to imply that this *one* comet theory, or *one guy* (Velikovski and/or Thornhill) somehow defines or describes or speaks for the entire EU/PC cosmology community and the entire EU/PC paradigm. None of that nonsense is true of course, but the verbal abuse that is hurled at the EU/PC community is simply non-stop. Talk about cult behaviors rather than *scientific debate*! Anyone that dares to call you folks on you BS is instantly banned, so that you don't have to really "debate" anyone, you just get to spew your constant hater nonsense with impunity, and without any real debate.

You simply ignored the fact that the predictions which Thornhill made on that link you provided came *prior* to any of the events or data which would either validate or falsify his model. You're insisting that Thornill is personally *required* to keep us all posted on the outcome of his "predictions" and you act like we're incapable of looking the results up for ourselves. Why? Did you complain when Koberlein *falsely* and unethically claimed that Juergen's solar model predicts *no* neutrinos, or complain when Koberlein personally banned everyone that pointed out his lie? Did you require him to fix his error on his blog or admit his error ever? Hell no. Did you complain when Bridgman posted complete BS about Birkeland's predictions about solar wind and it's direction of flow? Hell no! Did you complain when Clinger falsely and irrationally claimed to get "magnetic reconnection" in a vacuum when I pointed out his missing math formula? Hell no! You're all a bunch of complete hypocrites!

Is all that vitriol and hatred that you constantly direct at the EU/PC community because one EU proponent who is still allowed to post at ISF believes that Thornhill's comet model still has merit? Really? I personally *never* put a lot of stock in Thornhill's comet model or his preferred solar model for that matter. So what if Thornhill is wrong about both ideas? It would have absolutely *zero* effect on EU/PC *cosmology* theory, and less than ZERO effect on my personal "beliefs" in the first place! In fact, you'd probably do me a favor if you *did* manage to falsify Thornhill's preferred solar model (Juergen's model).

Gah. Your entire attitude is simply ridiculous. You're beating up a total strawman of your own creation. Velikovki's work is *irrelevant* to many EU/PC proponents. It's not even a *cosmology* theory in the first place, and he didn't even propose a solar theory that anyone cares about today anyway. At *worst case* you might falsify a single comet model that happens to *loosely* fall under the umbrella of "EU/PC" theory. So what? Do you really think that matters to me or to *every* EU/PC proponent? Pull your head out of your backside.

The fact that you picked *Tom Bridgman* of all people to make your point is simply absurd. He totally screwed up Birkeland's real "predictions" with respect to solar wind and it's direction. When are you going to bust Bridman's chops to fix his *erroneous* crap? Never! You folks *never* admit your mistakes, just like you'll *never* provide me with that math formula that I asked you all for over five years ago. You're incapable of admitting your own mistakes, but you expect everyone in the EU/PC community to admit theirs, or the entire EU/PC community gets verbally abused on a daily basis. Wow. What superior ethics you have......NOT!

[Michael Mozina]

JeanTate:

While it may take some time to find them, it's not all that hard to cite published papers whose contents are clearly and obviously inconsistent with the "Electric Comet" ideas as published by T&T, Sol, MM, etc. Despite the fact that such "Electric Universe"-based ideas are almost wholly devoid of quantification, numbers etc.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... count=3255

Well, now we can all see that you have no ethics at all, and we now know that you're all a bunch of pathological liars because I have personally *never* published any paper on the topic of 'electric comets', and I've never supported the idea in the first place. You're a flat out liar Jean, as well as an EU/PC bigot. You ban me so I can't defend myself and then you *intentionally* lie about me and my beliefs on your board. What a bunch of lowlife scumbags.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... count=3257

Jonesdave116
Ahh, would this be the magnetic reconnection that Alfvén's mate, Falthammar, doesn't seem to have a problem with, as I linked to previously?

No jonesdave, Falthammar never claimed that the process known as "magnetic reconnection" could occur in a vacuum without a single plasma particle involved in the process like your clueless friend Clinger:

http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/ ... zina0.html

Remind Clinger that he still owes me his missing math formula to describe a non-zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" in a pure vacuum devoid of plasma particles. Better yet, force clueless Clinger to publicly admit his *bonehead* mistake or continue to hurl verbal abuse at him on a daily basis like you do to Thornhill over his errors. Or maybe you're just a hypocrite about who's errors you complain about?.......

[Michael Mozina]

JeanTate:

However, this is more general (not limited to "Electric Comet" ideas), so it still stands: "Yes, it's incredibly easy to find things T&T (and Sol88, and Scott, and MM, and ...) have said (in documents openly available on the internet) which may be characterized as "lies", "fraud", and so on."

Fraud? Wow!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

Let me remind you that my ideas actually work in the lab Jean.

You know.....

For *years* you folks have badmouthed my math skills and acted all "holier than thou" with respect to mathematical capabilities. When however I cornered Clinger over his missing mathematical formula to describe a non-zero rate of "magnetic reconnection" in his pure vacuum, devoid of any plasma particles, you *all ran for the hills*! You had to ban me to shut me up and quit asking you for your math! Show us all those mythical superior math skills of yours, and mathematically explain to me how you and Clinger got a non zero *rate* of magnetic reconnection in a pure vacuum. I'm *sill* waiting for your missing math formula *five years later*, all the while being accused of "fraud". Who's the fraud? Where's your math?

You guys and gals talk pure trash while you hide behind anonymous handles, but when asked for the math to support your claims, you all run and hide like frightened little children. Hypocrites. Put on your big girl mathematical panties for us Jean and give us the formula which supposedly describes a non zero rate of "magnetic reconnection' in a pure vacuum as outlined by Clinger.

http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/ ... zina0.html

Better yet, just admit that you folks don't have clue about what your talking about and quit trying to pretend to take the mathematical or scientific high ground anymore. You disgust me.

[Metryq]

Michael, don't let them get to you. I know it's frustrating, and you're probably writing here (for those who visit) since you've been banned there. You can't argue with a cultist. For them science is not a method but capital-S Science, the authority.

When the paradigm shift occurs—and for EU proponents it already has—the cultists will have egg on their faces. Yet they'll never know it, or admit it because they're not scientists. (I don't mean professionally, but intellectually or ethically.)

Educate those who will listen—and EU may be new to many. But don't waste energy worrying about those who seek Truth™ in bizarre mathematical fantasies.
https://youtu.be/jMyD3TSXyUc

(I assume you've seen Mel Acheson's latest TPOD, Slip Sticks and Wrong Theories.)

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, don't let them get to you. I know it's frustrating, and you're probably writing here (for those who visit) since you've been banned there. You can't argue with a cultist. For them science is not a method but capital-S Science, the authority.

When the paradigm shift occurs—and for EU proponents it already has—the cultists will have egg on their faces. Yet they'll never know it, or admit it because they're not scientists. (I don't mean professionally, but intellectually or ethically.)

Educate those who will listen—and EU may be new to many. But don't waste energy worrying about those who seek Truth™ in bizarre mathematical fantasies.
https://youtu.be/jMyD3TSXyUc

(I assume you've seen Mel Acheson's latest TPOD, Slip Sticks and Wrong Theories.)

Thanks for your wise advice. I suppose I just need to chill-out and let nature take it's course.

One key point that you mentioned which I think is very true is that the EU/PC "hater posse" as I call them are really *not* scientists at all, certainly not intellectually and definitely not ethically. I think it's the complete lack of ethics that I have the hardest time with frankly.

I fully expected that there would be 'skeptics', but what I didn't really expect is the blatant bigotry, the constant stream of lies, and the pure intellectual dishonesty. I always thought that "science' was different from religion in the sense that it "kept an open mind" about competing ideas, and alternative options. I realize now that it's pretty much six of one and half a dozen of the other particularly in the world of astronomy. It's a human flaw I suppose.

It's scientifically ethical to correctly represent the model in question, and to skeptically take it apart based on it's merits. The mainstream however seems to go out of their way to *willfully misrepresent* the ideas themselves. Koberlein's intellectually bankrupt claim about Juergen's solar model predicting "no" neutrinos is an excellent example of that unethical behavior. It's certain that Koberlein knows that his "no neutrino" claim is a false claim, yet he really doesn't care that he's misrepresenting historical fact, nor does anyone in the "hater posse care for that matter. There's simply no ethical boundary they will not cross. Even when I handed Tom Bridgman a paper by Birkeland that showed Bridgman to be wrong about the particle flow predictions of Birkeland's model, Bridgman *still* ignores it to this day and continues to spew *misinformation* about *historical fact*. The recent claim at ISF that the presence of *any* water near comets somehow falsifies Thornhill's comet model is another great example of that complete lack of ethics. "Reality Check" (Koberlein?) in particular seems to have no ethics whatsoever. His comments are almost all willfully untrue, and stuffed to the brim with personal attacks. That type of behavior bothers me. It's anything *but* scientific or "open minded". He's way worse than any fundamentalist that I've run into because there's no way to appeal to any sense of fair play. He willfully and intentionally bears false witness about the various models and the various people associated with EU.PC theory. He simply lies about my (everyone's) beliefs, and they all let him get away with it, in fact they *encourage* it. it's disgusting behavior IMO.

I must admit that I do struggle with their constant lies, and their complete lack of ethics. They don't seem to mind calling me a "fraud' by my real name while hiding behind anonymous labels. God forbid anyone should return the favor however. They're about as "thin skinned' as they come. It's amazing to me that they can be so totally and completely wrong about a topic, and simply ignore their errors. Even when I've made my case through math, or pointed out their missing math formula, they simply run and hide and pretend it never happened.

Even the recent LIGO paper was based upon the presentation of completely false information. How can they look at themselves in the mirror and think that's 'ok' behavior? I don't understand that kind of a lack of ethics. It bothers me, particularly when it's important to physics and science, as that paper is important. It was pretty clear to me that the BICEP2 fiasco paper would eventually go down in flames and sure enough, it finally did. I pretty much assumed that at least the problems in this recent LIGO paper would be discussed by the mainstream openly and honestly. Thus far I really haven't seen that however. It looks like they've simply "rubber stamped" the claim, even with that false information about the presence of vetoes, the flaws in their methodology, the fact the signal looks almost exactly like a "blip transient" which they've been seeing in both detectors from the start, the lack of visual confirmation, etc, etc. One gets the distinct feeling that after that exceptionally rough year last year that the mainstream simply need a "victory' in astronomy, any kind of "victory', even if it means turning the other way when it comes to the original veto, and the complete misrepresentation of that veto. What is "science" without honesty and without ethics?

I'm mainly rattling their cage a bit because they need to have their cage rattled. They need someone to point out their BS and expose it publicly. They simply can't be trusted to police themselves, or even be honest with the facts anymore.

I guess I take some consolation in knowing that they simply cannot handle a real and honest scientific debate, so they attempt to compensate for their lack of scientific knowledge and scientific understanding with pure unethical behavior. Denial and misinformation seems to be the name of their game.

IMO it's just so sad. Here we are, literally stuck in the "dark ages" of astronomy where there is no actual "knowledge" to be found in astronomy. Their placeholder terms for human ignorance make up the vast majority of their "beliefs", and the rest is based on pseudoscience. They need four supernatural constructs just to get the math to work right. You'd *think* they would actually be looking for some *real* answers, some empirical answers. Instead they seem to be quite content to wallow around in pure ignorance, and to teach others how to wallow around in pure ignorance. It's just sad IMO.

It's also unbelievable to me that they could be so completely out of touch with reality that they would actually refer to a form of pure empirical physics as "woo' or "religion". LCDM is nothing *but* a "faith based" belief system, that's held together by pure supernatural "dogma", whereas EU/PC theory is a form of pure empirical physics. Sure, not every EU/PC solar model can be correct, and maybe there are ideas associated with EU/PC theory that will go down in flames over time, but whatever it's flaws, it's definitely a form of empirical physics.

Anyway.........

Thanks for the advice. I'll try to calm down and just let it go, but I really just felt the need to bust their chops a bit.

[D_Archer]

Water at comets is still not proven, mainstream still only assumes it is there. Yes really.

I asked for direct data once but it is not found online anywhere, yes there are some pictures that state water was found and there is spectrograph data, but it only shows H peaks, lyman alpha/beta, not an actual water signature, this is electrically excited hydrogen ONLY, the interaction is with electrons and UV photons.

EU predicts OH and other possible H[x) molecules in the coma or any number of extra interactions with the solar wind. As far as i can tell the Electric Comet has become more viable as a theory that can be quantified due to recent observations/measurements, before it was just a very good paradigm that was proposed because of an electric sun.

Regards,
Daniel

[willendure]

... rant ...

I don't see how anyone can look at what we now know about the electric sun and come away from that sticking to the standard model, and still call themselves a scientist. Unless they are so dead inside and sold out to some bs career path that they have no shred of genuine curiosity left. A real scientist is fascinated by this stuff, intrigued by the multitude of anomalous observations, and constantly thinking of new explanations, new experiments and new observations that can be taken to verify or reject them.

EU is full of bs too, too many "mad ideas" and cranks promoting them, that it is far too easy to straw-man the whole thing and dismiss it. But of course, real scientists don't resort to that sort of thing.

[Michael Mozina]

I don't see how anyone can look at what we now know about the electric sun and come away from that sticking to the standard model, and still call themselves a scientist. Unless they are so dead inside and sold out to some bs career path that they have no shred of genuine curiosity left. A real scientist is fascinated by this stuff, intrigued by the multitude of anomalous observations, and constantly thinking of new explanations, new experiments and new observations that can be taken to verify or reject them.

EU is full of bs too, too many "mad ideas" and cranks promoting them, that it is far too easy to straw-man the whole thing and dismiss it. But of course, real scientists don't resort to that sort of thing.

I absolutely agree. I can't even look at SDO images anymore and *not* see the electrical influences. I have no idea how they can *not* see them. It's almost comical were it not so sad. Astronomers are like the keystone cops of science. What kills me is that they'll waste *billions* of dollars on an invisible matter snipe hunts, but they won't spend 10-20 million replicating any electric solar model experiments using state of the art equipment. It's disturbing frankly.

[Michael Mozina]

Water at comets is still not proven, mainstream still only assumes it is there. Yes really.

I asked for direct data once but it is not found online anywhere, yes there are some pictures that state water was found and there is spectrograph data, but it only shows H peaks, lyman alpha/beta, not an actual water signature, this is electrically excited hydrogen ONLY, the interaction is with electrons and UV photons.

EU predicts OH and other possible H[x) molecules in the coma or any number of extra interactions with the solar wind. As far as i can tell the Electric Comet has become more viable as a theory that can be quantified due to recent observations/measurements, before it was just a very good paradigm that was proposed because of an electric sun.

Regards,
Daniel

My concern is about honesty and integrity in science. In terms of scientific integrity, it's completely unethical to stick *false* words in other people's mouths. There's a very important integrity issue at stake here, and an important historical accuracy issue at stake here.

Thornhill has stated on numerous occasions that he predicts that comets will contain *less* water than the standard comet model. Nowhere however have I seen Thornhill state that comets contain no water at all. There's an important and clear factual difference between those two predictions. Likewise, there's a clear factual difference between predicting that suns emit neutrinos near the surface of the photosphere in all their various flavors, and predicting that neutirinos vary over time, vs. predicting that suns emit *no* neutrinos whatsoever.

Each prediction that Thornhill (or anyone else) has made deserves to be scrutinized and put to the test, but only fairly and ethically. When the EU/PC haters start making up false statements about his beliefs, they cross the line into purely unethical behavior. That's simply not acceptable.

There's also a clear factual difference between claiming that a data quality veto occurred with 18 seconds of an event, and claiming that no data quality vetoes took place within an hour of that same event. Both statements cannot be true.

The mainstream seems to be engaging themselves in the presentation of "alternative facts", AKA pure deception. That's simply unacceptable behavior, and it's unscientific behavior. So called "scientists" should not be engaging themselves in that that kind of unethical and deceitful nonsense.

[D_Archer]

My concern is about honesty and integrity in science. In terms of scientific integrity, it's completely unethical to stick *false* words in other people's mouths. There's a very important integrity issue at stake here, and an important historical accuracy issue at stake here.

Thornhill has stated on numerous occasions that he predicts that comets will contain *less* water than the standard comet model. Nowhere however have I seen Thornhill state that comets contain no water at all. There's an important and clear factual difference between those two predictions. Likewise, there's a clear factual difference between predicting that suns emit neutrinos near the surface of the photosphere in all their various flavors, and predicting that neutirinos vary over time, vs. predicting that suns emit *no* neutrinos whatsoever.

Each prediction that Thornhill (or anyone else) has made deserves to be scrutinized and put to the test, but only fairly and ethically. When the EU/PC haters start making up false statements about his beliefs, they cross the line into purely unethical behavior. That's simply not acceptable.

There's also a clear factual difference between claiming that a data quality veto occurred with 18 seconds of an event, and claiming that no data quality vetoes took place within an hour of that same event. Both statements cannot be true.

The mainstream seems to be engaging themselves in the presentation of "alternative facts", AKA pure deception. That's simply unacceptable behavior, and it's unscientific behavior. So called "scientists" should not be engaging themselves in that that kind of unethical and deceitful nonsense.

I agree, but these "people" can not be changed with words, ever.

The electric comet (or actually asteroid) is dry, the mainstream is wet. The difference causes the 'strife', when we go to comets (actually asteroids) we find them to be dry...result, anger from the mainstream.

So for them to then go and actually represent the EU model as it is and not twist it to their own advantage is impossible.

Regards,
Daniel

[willendure]

Thornhill has stated on numerous occasions that he predicts that comets will contain *less* water than the standard comet model. Nowhere however have I seen Thornhill state that comets contain no water at all.

H and OH are detected in the comets tail. They could be electrical in their origin, but it seems perfectly possible that a small amount of it could recombine and also fall back onto the surface of the comet. So I might expect a comet to be a mostly dry asteroid with a little frosting.

[Metryq]

Many authors have written about the "science is supposed to be pure and self-correcting" phenomenon. Before introducing, say, a friend to PC/EU, I give them a little perspective on how science, history and human nature work. Yes, science-as-a-method is self-correcting, but in matters of prestige and influence, it is like any other human endeavor.

Most of the Establishment standard-bearers I encounter are sci-fi fans, not scientists. And the discussion never gets into elaborate math or peer reviewed papers. Thus, many such people conflate conclusions with facts. They are told black holes exist, for example, that Cygnus X-1 is one, and spews out massive amounts of x-rays, gamma rays, UV, etc. That we've observed the emissions is fact, that a black hole is the cause is speculation (conclusion).

Some get defensive, others almost hysterical ("All those scientists can't be wrong!") if you then throw water on the idea of black holes. "But we've seen them!" and so on. For those who will sit still long enough, I prefer to wedge a little doubt into their confidence, rather than openly sell PC/EU. That will come later, if they can overcome the natural deference to authority figures.

I might say something like, "Ask any electronics bench tech about x-rays and UV." One doesn't have to resort to contorted, Rube Goldberg constructions to explain such things. If some other "handle" is available, I use that. For example, in the movie Jurassic Park there is a scene where Grant is explaining raptors—that they hunt in packs, and one will distract you while the other two will jump you. How the heck could a paleontologist possibly know that from a handful of bones? The answer is: he can't. And much stew gets made from very few (if any) oysters in many fields of science. (I know that example is fictional, but you get the idea.)

Depending on the audience, sometimes a strange-but-true item might maintain the sense of wonder that drew them to science in the first place. For example, tell them about naturally occurring fission reactors. (I've seen a lot of slack jaws from that one.)

Loosen those foundations—if you have time to do so—and someone well versed in the orthodoxy will be more willing to entertain something like PC/EU, and perhaps be better suited to evaluate it critically. All too much of science instruction is rote memorization. True "scientists" must be taught to think and analyze all the time.

[Michael Mozina]

And again, for the hard of reading over at woo central: I didn't say that Thornhill never said there would be ANY water at a comet. I said he was a liar. Full stop. Read the post again:

Really? You're pulling the character assassination routine again? The problem with calling him a liar for being wrong (assuming he is), is that *every single human being* is a liar by your definition of the term. The whole "liar lair, pants on fire" routine gets real old, particularly after a *decade* worth of failed "dark matter tests". You're all "liars" by your own definition. Being wrong about claiming the EU/PC model predicts "no" neutrinos didn't make Brian Koberlein a liar. His refusal to fix his error and instead chosing to ban everyone for pointing out his error made him a flat out liar. Somewhere in there you're going to have to acknowledge your own lies with respect to "dark matter" and Thornhill's neutrino predictions or play the role of blatant hypocrite.

I don't believe that Clinger is a "liar" for screwing up "magnetic reconnection". I think that he is utterly *clueless* and *ridiculously wrong*, but I'm sure he somehow (I have no idea how mind you) believes that he is correct, or he would have taken down his mathematically challenged website by now. You'd *think* that a mathematical professor who cannot produce a math formula would acknowledge their mathematical error after five whole years. But nooooooooo! What's the point of calling him a "liar" however? I'm sure he *ignorantly believes* that nonsense.

Quote:
Thornhil, Dec 2014:
However, it’s a shame that scientists misled the engineers with their cherished story of icy comets, which resulted in an inappropriate design for the lander, Philae
Accusing scientists of misleading engineers with a 'story' of icy comets. Essentially he's accusing scientists of lying.

No, you're projecting again. Admittedly his use of the term "mislead" implies intent, but it doesn't *necessarily* imply intent. I might be "misleading" you by claiming that Birkeland's solar model is better than the standard model, but I honestly and firmly believe it's true, even if I happen to be wrong. Whatever my mistake, it's an honest mistake.

I think that the mainstream "misleads" you with respect to the heat source of the corona too, but I don't think that they do so intentionnally. I'm sure they really believe that the magnetic cart should be in front of the electric horse, I simply don't agree with them. By your standards, the mainsteam is always right, so I'm a liar for even questioning their model. Nevermind the fact that their convection predictions were off by two whole orders of magnitude of course.....

His comment about Philea is absurd. It was well designed and did in fact land on the surface. The *one part* that wasn't well designed was the explosive charges that were supposed to help it stick into the surface. I'll call a fowl on that point.

Quote:
Thornhill, Dec 2014:
But despite the stark reality, the story of comets remains unchanged. The ice ‘must be’ buried beneath that rocky-looking crust. This is a favourite recourse of astrophysicists to have mechanisms buried out of sight inside celestial bodies or black holes where they are difficult or impossible to verify. But this time the Philae lander may have sent sufficient information to expose this convenient fiction.
Multiple lying going on there, and again accusing scientists of lying by using the word 'fiction.'

Again, I'm sure Thornhill believes what he's saying, just like I'm sure that Clinger thinks he's right. I wouldn't call either of them liar simply because I disagree with them. I see no intent to deceive, just ignorance at worst case.

Quote:
Me:
Sorry, but that is just outright lying. See above, re the Tempel 1 impactor excavating a load of solid ice. And CO2 jets (electric discharges according to the genius Thornhill!) excavating an immense amount at Hartley 2.
He KNEW there was ice below the surface. So what is he saying in those posts in Dec 2014? Did Tempel 1 never happen? Did all that ice at Hartley 2 never happen? He KNEW about it, and then lied about it. Very, very, simple to see. Which part of Thornhill denying that there was ice below the surface, and knowing that it was below the surface from the Tempel 1 and Hartley 2 missions, and then accusing scientists of essentially making up stories to keep their model alive by 'burying' the ice, is not lying? It was known to be there. It had been proven to be there. Get it?
So I'm sorry if I wasn't clear; I'll say it again - he was lying. It is not about whether he has said there might be some water there or not. It is about any lie he used to prop up his idiotic nonsense. And I've just pointed a couple out.

tl;dr? Thornhill lied.

Oh for crying out loud! The mainstream has continuously lied since 2006 about claiming to have "proof" of "dark matter" too. Are they all "liars" too, and why aren't you busting *their* chops over all their *failed* claims? Why aren't you busting Brian Koberlein's chops over his *lies* about EU/PC theory predicting "no" neutrinos? Hypocrisy much?