Unethical (and cowardly) EU/PC skeptics.

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.
Michael Mozina
Posts: 1862
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:35 pm

Re: Unethical (and cowardly) EU/PC skeptics.

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Tue Feb 25, 2020 3:43 pm

No comment on Koberlein's "no neutrino" nonsense Higgsy? Cat got your tongue?

How can you expect anyone to take astronomers seriously when so called "professionals" (a professor no less) are either so professionally incompetent, or so pathologically challenged in terms of honesty that they can't even correctly describe *basic* features of an EU/PC solar model? Whatever the physics departments are "teaching" their students these days, they certainly aren't teaching them ethics, or common sense, or actual "physics". In fact apparently their "professors" can't even read or understand the *simplest* aspects of competing models.

So don't tell me that astronomers understand actual physics, or actual science. They don't. Some of them are so ethically challenged that they are incapable of even telling their students the truth when it comes to alternative models, and folks like you don't lift a finger to fix the problem either.

For God sakes, Koberlein even cited Scott's book and Thornhill's book as references to his article, and I cited quotes from their books that show that not only do they predict the existence of neutrinos in their anode solar model, but they predict variations in the output that are related to the number of sunspots and the solar cycle. Talk about blatantly distorting the facts! Why aren't you bitching at Koberlein about his blatant BS?

Holy cow. No wonder astronomers are stuck in the metaphysical dark ages of physics. Their "professors" are dishonest as hell and they feed them *misinformation" intentionally. Sheesh. I pity astronomy students today. Their teachers are sometimes flat out liars who don't even understand their own models and they intentionally lie to them about alternative models.

And you actually expect me to believe that astronomers understand plasma physics when most of their mathematical models are based on pure "pseudoscience" according to the Nobel prize winning author of MHD theory? Come on!

Higgsy
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

Re: Unethical (and cowardly) EU/PC skeptics.

Unread post by Higgsy » Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:10 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 3:43 pm
No comment on Koberlein's "no neutrino" nonsense Higgsy? Cat got your tongue?

How can you expect anyone to take astronomers seriously when so called "professionals" (a professor no less) are either so professionally incompetent, or so pathologically challenged in terms of honesty that they can't even correctly describe *basic* features of an EU/PC solar model? Whatever the physics departments are "teaching" their students these days, they certainly aren't teaching them ethics, or common sense, or actual "physics". In fact apparently their "professors" can't even read or understand the *simplest* aspects of competing models.

So don't tell me that astronomers understand actual physics, or actual science. They don't. Some of them are so ethically challenged that they are incapable of even telling their students the truth when it comes to alternative models, and folks like you don't lift a finger to fix the problem either.

For God sakes, Koberlein even cited Scott's book and Thornhill's book as references to his article, and I cited quotes from their books that show that not only do they predict the existence of neutrinos in their anode solar model, but they predict variations in the output that are related to the number of sunspots and the solar cycle. Talk about blatantly distorting the facts! Why aren't you bitching at Koberlein about his blatant BS?

Holy cow. No wonder astronomers are stuck in the metaphysical dark ages of physics. Their "professors" are dishonest as hell and they feed them *misinformation" intentionally. Sheesh. I pity astronomy students today. Their teachers are sometimes flat out liars who don't even understand their own models and they intentionally lie to them about alternative models.

And you actually expect me to believe that astronomers understand plasma physics when most of their mathematical models are based on pure "pseudoscience" according to the Nobel prize winning author of MHD theory? Come on!
I have no idea what you are going on about here, and I have had no part in this discussion. Do Scott and Thornhill predict solar neutrinos? By what mechanism and in what quantities? How do their predictions compare with measurement? I don't know, so I don't understand why you are dragging me into a discussion that you have had with some third party in the past.

But I do know two things:
1) Ralph Juergen's prediction was that the entire source of the Sun's energy output is electrical, and he inveighs against the idea that it is thermonuclear to the extent of claiming that the lack of detection of solar neutrinos in 1979 demonstrates that it is not thermonuclear (see for example R. E Juergens, "Stellar Thermonuclear Energy: A False Trail?", KRONOS IV:4)

2) The language you have used to abuse professional scientists in this thread is immoderate and unseemly.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1862
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:35 pm

Re: Unethical (and cowardly) EU/PC skeptics.

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:52 pm

Higgsy wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:10 pm
I have no idea what you are going on about here, and I have had no part in this discussion.
You implied/stated that I didn't know any physicists/astronomers or have any basis by which to judge them, so I cited a "professor" who I've talked with that obviously hasn't a clue what they're talking about.
Do Scott and Thornhill predict solar neutrinos?
Yep.
By what mechanism and in what quantities?
Fusion near the surface and heavy particle collisions. I'd have to assume that they'd predict/expect the measured number of neutrinos.
How do their predictions compare with measurement? I don't know, so I don't understand why you are dragging me into a discussion that you have had with some third party in the past.
The point was to cite an example of a so called "professor' of astronomy that 'thinks'/claims to know something about EU/PC theory who clearly either doesn't have a clue, or more likely simply went out of their way to blatantly lie about it. I've met *lots* of astronomers on the internet over the last 15 years or so. I've met very few that seem to understand the first thing about plasma physics, and fewer still that know anything at all about EU/PC theory. Most of what they 'think" they know about EU/PC theory is simply wrong.
But I do know two things:
1) Ralph Juergen's prediction was that the entire source of the Sun's energy output is electrical, and he inveighs against the idea that it is thermonuclear to the extent of claiming that the lack of detection of solar neutrinos in 1979 demonstrates that it is not thermonuclear (see for example R. E Juergens, "Stellar Thermonuclear Energy: A False Trail?", KRONOS IV:4)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem

Even in 1979 Juergens knew that electron neutrinos came from the sun and they'd been 'measured'. At the time, they still had a "missing neutrino" (or a neutrino deficit) problem, but it's not as though solar electron neutrinos had not already been measured and quantified. His use of electrical energy was intended to explain how the sun emitted as much energy as it did, without producing the expected number of neutrinos, but he was well aware of the fact that the sun produced *some* number of neutrinos (roughly 1/3rd of the predicted number).

Scott and Thornhill both expect/predict to see neutrinos from the sun as a result of fusion near the surface and particle collisions, only they predict that they vary with the solar cycle in conjunction with sunspot activity. If you read though the link that I cited to Koberlein's blog, I even posted relevant links to Scott's book to show him that Scott talks about fusion near the surface and variation due to sunspot activity.
2) The language you have used to abuse professional scientists in this thread is immoderate and unseemly.
Well, unfortunately the behaviors and statements that I've seen over the years from so called "professional astronomers" have quite often been immoderate and unseemly, hence my skepticism of their scientific literacy, and my attitude in general. I don't frankly even believe that Koberlein for instance actually believes the complete crap that he writes about EU/PC theory. I think he's just a pathological liar. It's a little hard for me to believe that he's actually still ignorant of the relevant material, since I've quoted it for him personally, nor do I believe that he's actually that professionally incompetent. Whatever the cause however, his statements about EU/PC theory are absurdly false, and not a single so called "skeptic" of EU/PC theory once corrected any of that BS on his blog in over four years. It's rather hard to believe that astronomers are really that scientifically incompetent, so I can't help but believe that many of the ones that I've met are simply dishonest. Most of the trolling that I've seen on this forum (and many other forums) fall into that category as well.

One of the most "telling" conversations I've had with astronomers/physicists/math professors relates to the topic of "magnetic reconnection", a concept that Hannes Alfven called 'pseudoscience" till the day that he died. In my conversations on that topic over at JREF/ISF, I was promised a mathematical proof of MRx in a *vacuum*, completely devoid of plasma particles no less. When it was first proposed, I said that was physically impossible and it is physically impossible.

I waited for *months* for clueless Clinger to finish up his so called five part "presentation", while being personally attacked and personally harassed by the whole EU/PC hater posse atJREF, only to discover at the 'end" of his so called presentation that he'd left out the most important mathematical formula to support his bogus claim, specifically the formula to express a non-zero rate of "reconnection" without a plasma particle to his name! That conversation taught me everything that I needed to know about the mainstream's complete lack of understanding of plasma physics, and the EU/PC hater posse. They really don't have a clue. They can't even tell the physical or mathematical difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum, and the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle acceleration! It really was that bad.

No astronomer on planet Earth can name so much as a single source of "dark energy", let alone explain how it retains a constant energy density over multiple exponential increases in volume. Their "dark matter" mathematical models have been completely useless in terms of predicting the outcome of any laboratory experiments for the past two decades. High redshift observations of mature galaxies and massive quasars all defy the BB model of galaxy evolution too.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 110541.htm

Since 95 percent of the LCMD cosmology model is nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance, and Alfven called their MRx models "pseudoscience", what exactly do astronomers "know" about actual physics?

I'm sorry if I sound jaded, but frankly I'm disgusted at the treatment I've received at astronomy websites, and I'm sick and tired of the blatant lies and constant ad homs that are thrown my way. I don't have any tolerance for the blatant BS anymore.

Higgsy
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

Re: Unethical (and cowardly) EU/PC skeptics.

Unread post by Higgsy » Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:28 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:52 pm
Higgsy wrote:
Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:10 pm
I have no idea what you are going on about here, and I have had no part in this discussion.
You implied/stated that I didn't know any physicists/astronomers or have any basis by which to judge them, so I cited a "professor" who I've talked with that obviously hasn't a clue what they're talking about.
I don't see either a) how an online discussion with the "professor" constitutes actually knowing their work, what they know, and what they think and b)in any case how your disagreement with hm can justify your attempt to drag me into that long past discussion.
Do Scott and Thornhill predict solar neutrinos?
Yep.
By what mechanism and in what quantities?
Fusion near the surface and heavy particle collisions. I'd have to assume that they'd predict/expect the measured number of neutrinos.
The questions were rhetorical. But as we are here, I wonder what you mean by saying that you assume their model predicts the measured number of neutrinos? Either they do or they don't. If you are claiming that they do, I suppose you have a reference which supports that
The point was to cite an example of a so called "professor' of astronomy that 'thinks'/claims to know something about EU/PC theory who clearly either doesn't have a clue, or more likely simply went out of their way to blatantly lie about it. I've met *lots* of astronomers on the internet over the last 15 years or so. I've met very few that seem to understand the first thing about plasma physics, and fewer still that know anything at all about EU/PC theory. Most of what they 'think" they know about EU/PC theory is simply wrong.
My view of the matter is that there is no such thing as "EU/PC theory" as everyone seems to have a different idea as to what that constitutes - you only have to consider the posts of the EU/PC adherents on this forum. Having said that, one common theme of EU/PC proponents is the proposition that the Sun is powered electrically rather than by thermonuclear reaction. But even though that is a common theme, I am not sure whether you, personally do. Regarding your characterisation of astronomers' knowledge of plasma physics, some are knowledgeable about the subject and some are not depending on whether their particular area of interest calls for such a knowledge. What is certain is that plasma physics is taught, at least as an elective subject, in every good physics department to a level that is vastly more sophisticated than anything discussed in detail on this forum. I say that from an intimate knowledge of university physics courses.
But I do know two things:
1) Ralph Juergen's prediction was that the entire source of the Sun's energy output is electrical, and he inveighs against the idea that it is thermonuclear to the extent of claiming that the lack of detection of solar neutrinos in 1979 demonstrates that it is not thermonuclear (see for example R. E Juergens, "Stellar Thermonuclear Energy: A False Trail?", KRONOS IV:4)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem

Even in 1979 Juergens knew that electron neutrinos came from the sun and they'd been 'measured'. At the time, they still had a "missing neutrino" (or a neutrino deficit) problem, but it's not as though solar electron neutrinos had not already been measured and quantified. His use of electrical energy was intended to explain how the sun emitted as much energy as it did, without producing the expected number of neutrinos, but he was well aware of the fact that the sun produced *some* number of neutrinos (roughly 1/3rd of the predicted number).
Then you'll have to explain these quotations from his paper published near the end of his life that I cited above:
"The certainty that the Sun generates its prodigious outpourings of energy through thermonuclear reactions deep in its interior has been with us about half a century. But now, suddenly, suspicions are being voiced that this may not be the case after all. Doubts have been raised by recent findings on several fronts. Probably the most distressing of these discoveries concerns the sub-atomic particles called neutrinos, which ought to be showering down on us from the Sun but apparently aren't...The null result of the solar-neutrino experiments, which still go on, has been a fact of astrophysical life for more than a decade....So the Sun fails to emit neutrinos in detectable numbers"
In any case, it is clear that Juergens, to the end of his life, thought solar neutrinos did not exist, whatever the opinion of the general physics community was at that time. In fact the cited paper is clear that his position wasn't that electrical energy suplemented thermonuclear energy as a source for the Sun's radiation, but that electrical phenomena explained it all. In the paper he calls into question the very concept of controlled (ie non-explosive) thermonuclear reactions.
2) The language you have used to abuse professional scientists in this thread is immoderate and unseemly.
Well, unfortunately the behaviors and statements that I've seen over the years from so called "professional astronomers" have quite often been immoderate and unseemly, hence my skepticism of their scientific literacy, and my attitude in general...
I need say no more. You reinforce my point.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1862
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:35 pm

Re: Unethical (and cowardly) EU/PC skeptics.

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:59 am

Higgsy wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:28 am
I don't see either a) how an online discussion with the "professor" constitutes actually knowing their work, what they know, and what they think and b)in any case how your disagreement with hm can justify your attempt to drag me into that long past discussion.
First of all you dragged yourself into the discussion with this comment:
It seems clear from this that neither of you know any physics students or physicists, or indeed have much idea about the courses in physics departments.
I've probably talked to well over a 100 astronomers and physicists over the last 15 years, including discussions at LMSAL (in person) and many online conversations and email exchanges. Koberlein is one such fine specimen that clearly demonstrates that even astronomy "professors" are utterly clueless when it comes to EU/PC theory and plasma physics in general. Regardless of what classes he might have taught over the years, he doesn't apparently have the ability to comprehend anything he reads about EU/PC theory correctly, or present the model honestly. I could cite some additional examples if you like.
The questions were rhetorical.
You seem to ask a lot of rhetorical questions with obvious answers which I personally find to be quite annoying frankly. Why ask me if you already know the answer?
But as we are here, I wonder what you mean by saying that you assume their model predicts the measured number of neutrinos? Either they do or they don't. If you are claiming that they do, I suppose you have a reference which supports that
I cited an appropriate reference from Scott's book at Koberlein's website which predicts fusion near the surface and variation in output over the solar cycle. I can' recall reading a *quantified* explanation from Juergen's, Scott or Thornhill, but they were/are well aware of the measured number and an anode model is actually more "flexible" that most solar models in terms of the range they might predict.
My view of the matter is that there is no such thing as "EU/PC theory" as everyone seems to have a different idea as to what that constitutes
Pfft. Do you have any idea how many different inflation models and dark matter models there are to choose from these days? Pots and kettles.
- you only have to consider the posts of the EU/PC adherents on this forum.
Well, I'd certainly grant you that various individuals hold differing beliefs, but AFAIK, there's only one 'cosmology" model that's been quantified and described in scientific literature, specifically the model proposed by Alfven and Peratt. On the other hand there are three radically different solar models to choose from in EU/PC theory (and several minor variations on the same theme), including an externally powered anode model (Juergens), an internally powered cathode version (Birkeland) and an internally powered semi-standard model (Alfven). None of them predict "no neutrinos" however. Admittedly, such variation leads to divergence in belief even within the EU/PC community. That's not so radically different however from the the various "dark matter" models there are to chose from, including wimps, axions, simps, sterile neutrinos, MACHOS, etc within the mainstream cosmology model. Don't even get me started on the different variations of inflation theory, quintessence models, multiverse models, etc. Like I said, pots and kettles.
Having said that, one common theme of EU/PC proponents is the proposition that the Sun is powered electrically rather than by thermonuclear reaction. But even though that is a common theme, I am not sure whether you, personally do.
Actually, as it relates to solar theory, I personally prefer Birkeland's internally powered cathode solar model.
Regarding your characterisation of astronomers' knowledge of plasma physics, some are knowledgeable about the subject and some are not depending on whether their particular area of interest calls for such a knowledge. What is certain is that plasma physics is taught, at least as an elective subject, in every good physics department to a level that is vastly more sophisticated than anything discussed in detail on this forum. I say that from an intimate knowledge of university physics courses.
Well, Alfven wrote MHD theory and he referred to "magnetic reconnection" concepts as "pseudoscience" till the day that he died. Furthermore he asserted that his double layer paper made the whole concept irrelevant and obsolete. When you talk about "sophisticated", you're essentially talking about MHD models which Alfven flat out rejected in favor of circuit theory when describing high energy events in plasma. Alfven's models are much more "sophisticated" than mainstream models when it comes to using circuit theory to describe high energy events in plasma.

Furthermore, if my conversations at JREF/ISF are any indication, most astronomers cannot even tell the physical or mathematical difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum and the process in plasma of transferring magnetic field energy into particle acceleration known as "magnetic reconnection". In fact they all seem to erroneously believe there's a unique physical transfer process that *isn't* actually just induction, in spite of not being able to show a single plasma physic experiment where any such clear and obvious physical difference was ever actually demonstrated.

Have you even read Peratt's book "Physics of the plasma universe"? It's quite "sophisticated" from the standpoint of mathematical modeling.
Then you'll have to explain these quotations from his paper published near the end of his life that I cited above:
"The certainty that the Sun generates its prodigious outpourings of energy through thermonuclear reactions deep in its interior has been with us about half a century. But now, suddenly, suspicions are being voiced that this may not be the case after all. Doubts have been raised by recent findings on several fronts. Probably the most distressing of these discoveries concerns the sub-atomic particles called neutrinos, which ought to be showering down on us from the Sun but apparently aren't...The null result of the solar-neutrino experiments, which still go on, has been a fact of astrophysical life for more than a decade....So the Sun fails to emit neutrinos in detectable numbers"
In any case, it is clear that Juergens, to the end of his life, thought solar neutrinos did not exist, whatever the opinion of the general physics community was at that time. In fact the cited paper is clear that his position wasn't that electrical energy suplemented thermonuclear energy as a source for the Sun's radiation, but that electrical phenomena explained it all. In the paper he calls into question the very concept of controlled (ie non-explosive) thermonuclear reactions.
Um, you left out some important parts of that paper as it relates to neutrinos:
Suppose we let John N. Bahcall and Raymond Davis, Jr., two researchers who have followed this trail for a long time, tell part of the story:

"For the past 15 years we have tried, in collaboration with many colleagues in astronomy, chemistry, and physics, to understand and test the theory of how the sun produces its radiant energy (observed on the earth as sunlight). All of us have been surprised by the results: there is a large, unexplained disagreement between observation and the supposedly well established theory. This discrepancy has led to a crisis in the theory of stellar evolution; many authorities are openly questioning some of the basic principles and approximations in this supposedly dry (and solved) subject.
Obviously he was well aware that *some* electron neutrinos had been measured, they just didn't agree with mainstream theory at that time.

Scott and Thornhill both assume that the sun generates fusion near the solar surface which varies over time. I can look up the thread where I quoted their books if you like, but you can read several quotes about neutrinos/fusion by both Thornhill and Scott on the internet with a simple Google search. Note that Koberlein cited two books written much later by Scott and Thornhill as his reference material for his blog description of a modern anode solar model, not Juergens. Regardless of what Juergen's might have believed in the 70's, Koberlein still flat out lied about more modern versions of anode solar models. No EU/PC solar model that I'm aware of, including Juergen's original model predicted that the sun emits "no neutrinos". That's a flat out lie by a so called "professor' of astronomy. Sheesh.
I need say no more. You reinforce my point.
Likewise I don't really need to say much more than what Koberlein has already written on his blog as it relates to astronomers knowledge of actual physics. Essentially Koberlein just lied through his teeth and not a single so called "professional" or EU/PC "skeptics" ever even tried to correct his bonehead errors. That says it all about their lack of integrity and/or their complete ignorance of this topic, and physics in general.

For the record, I haven't seen you personally go out of your way to intentionally *misrepresent* EU/PC models or my beliefs which is frankly rather refreshing. I might be painting with an overly broad brush at times, and probably so with respect to you personally. However, I've been around the internet long enough to know that most of what astronomers think that they know about EU/PC theory is flat our wrong, and 95 percent of their own model amounts to nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance. Furthermore, their models of plasma based on "magnetic reconnection" have yet to produce a working full sphere corona in a lab, or sustained high temperature coronal loops, or any of the things that Birkeland accomplished in a lab over a century ago based on circuit theory.

Since 95 percent of the LCDM model amounts to placeholder terms for human ignorance, it's hard to say what astronomers today actually "know" about real empirical (working laboratory) physics, save perhaps GR theory, but even then they tend to kludge up GR theory with unnecessary metaphysics, and physically unsupported (in the lab) claims that blatantly violate the conservation laws of physics. Their knowledge of actual working laboratory physic and their ability to correctly 'predict" the outcome of laboratory tests is less than impressive actually. In fact, their predictive track record in the lab with respect to "dark matter" is downright embarrassing IMO.

Higgsy
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

Re: Unethical (and cowardly) EU/PC skeptics.

Unread post by Higgsy » Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:05 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:59 am
Higgsy wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:28 am
But as we are here, I wonder what you mean by saying that you assume their model predicts the measured number of neutrinos? Either they do or they don't. If you are claiming that they do, I suppose you have a reference which supports that
I cited an appropriate reference from Scott's book at Koberlein's website which predicts fusion near the surface and variation in output over the solar cycle. I can' recall reading a *quantified* explanation from Juergen's, Scott or Thornhill, but they were/are well aware of the measured number and an anode model is actually more "flexible" that most solar models in terms of the range they might predict.
So the answer is that you do not have a reference in which the presumed mechanism of neutrino production at the surface is shown to produce the same number of neutrinos as detected. Maybe such a calculation doesn't exist?
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina

Higgsy
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

Re: Unethical (and cowardly) EU/PC skeptics.

Unread post by Higgsy » Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:13 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:59 am
Suppose we let John N. Bahcall and Raymond Davis, Jr., two researchers who have followed this trail for a long time, tell part of the story:

"For the past 15 years we have tried, in collaboration with many colleagues in astronomy, chemistry, and physics, to understand and test the theory of how the sun produces its radiant energy (observed on the earth as sunlight). All of us have been surprised by the results: there is a large, unexplained disagreement between observation and the supposedly well established theory. This discrepancy has led to a crisis in the theory of stellar evolution; many authorities are openly questioning some of the basic principles and approximations in this supposedly dry (and solved) subject.
Obviously he was well aware that *some* electron neutrinos had been measured, they just didn't agree with mainstream theory at that time.
Is that why Juergens wrote: "Probably the most distressing of these discoveries concerns the sub-atomic particles called neutrinos, which ought to be showering down on us from the Sun but apparently aren't...The null result of the solar-neutrino experiments, which still go on, has been a fact of astrophysical life for more than a decade....So the Sun fails to emit neutrinos in detectable numbers"? Seems odd. Was he trying to hoodwink the readers of Kronos?
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1862
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:35 pm

Re: Unethical (and cowardly) EU/PC skeptics.

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:19 pm

Higgsy wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:13 pm
Michael Mozina wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:59 am
Suppose we let John N. Bahcall and Raymond Davis, Jr., two researchers who have followed this trail for a long time, tell part of the story:

"For the past 15 years we have tried, in collaboration with many colleagues in astronomy, chemistry, and physics, to understand and test the theory of how the sun produces its radiant energy (observed on the earth as sunlight). All of us have been surprised by the results: there is a large, unexplained disagreement between observation and the supposedly well established theory. This discrepancy has led to a crisis in the theory of stellar evolution; many authorities are openly questioning some of the basic principles and approximations in this supposedly dry (and solved) subject.
Obviously he was well aware that *some* electron neutrinos had been measured, they just didn't agree with mainstream theory at that time.
Is that why Juergens wrote: "Probably the most distressing of these discoveries concerns the sub-atomic particles called neutrinos, which ought to be showering down on us from the Sun but apparently aren't...The null result of the solar-neutrino experiments, which still go on, has been a fact of astrophysical life for more than a decade....So the Sun fails to emit neutrinos in detectable numbers"? Seems odd. Was he trying to hoodwink the readers of Kronos?
That's some pretty selective quote mining that you have going on there. I suspect that particular quote is related to this comment that was published in 1974 in Scientific American:
At a meeting of the International Astronomical Union in Warsaw late in 1973, W. A. Fowler of the California Institute of Technology reported that the status of the theory had gone from bad to worse. Instead of detecting about one neutrino per day, as previously estimated - and this only ten percent of the predicted number, the experimenters were recording only about one per month, and even this one might well be of extraneous origin. Actually, "the number of [solar] neutrinos reaching the earth . . . may even be essentially zero" (Scientific American, January 1974, p. 50).
Evidently W.A. Fowler published an article in Scientific American that discussed the neutrino problem and *he* suggested that solar neutrinos might essentially be zero. That isn't how Juergen's ended the paper however.

You seem to have ignored this later (in the paper) quote entirely:
Could it be that the search for thermonuclear energy is a false trail that has been followed all these years with no real hope of success?

If the Sun and the stars indeed succeed in fusing lighter elements to form heavier ones, are the relevant activities carried out more or less in plain sight - in their atmospheres?*

Flagstaff, Arizona

Spring 1976

* Some years ago, R. Shapiro and F. Ward reported (J. Atmos. Sci. 19, 506-508, 1962) that, of the basis of their power spectral analyses, relative sunspot numbers vary with a period of 25.7 months. Providing the above citation, Kunitomo Sakurai of Kanagawa University in Yokohama has recently suggested (Nature 278, 146, 8 March 1979) a correlation between solar neutrino production and the activity responsible for sunspots. The flux of neutrinos, while inexplicably low, seems to vary with a similar period (he arrives at 25.3 months).

Although Sakurai favors an explanation for both phenomena in terms of "some unknown process . . . in the interior of the Sun . . . [with motions penetrating] into the region where the thermonuclear fusion is taking place . . .", it would seem more straightforward to seek a cause of sunspotting and a source of neutrinos (too few, in any case, to be coming from postulated thermonudear fires in the interior) much closer to the visible surface of the Sun (see following article).
So even way back in the 70's, Juergens was suggesting that fusion might be occurring near the surface rather than the core, and suggesting it varied with, and it might be caused by sunspot activity, just as Scott and Thornhill also suggest today. There is forty years of continuity in this regard with respect to the anode model.
So the answer is that you do not have a reference in which the presumed mechanism of neutrino production at the surface is shown to produce the same number of neutrinos as detected. Maybe such a calculation doesn't exist?

Actually, building a fusor based on high speed particle collisions and circuit theory is pretty straight forward. You can find plenty of videos on Youtube in fact. Discover magazine suggests that it costs less than $1000 to build one.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... r-basement

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... PEPgsSB0AY

Not surprisingly SAFIRE has also observed and described a number of new elements that are found in their experiments after they are turned on that do not seem to relate to, or come from any of the known elements of any of the parts that they're using. Plasma pinches might also result in fusion near the surface.

You seem to be engaged in selective and creative editing/quote mining with respect to Juergen's work. It's true that he described the very serious problems that were still going on with respect to the 'solar neutrino problem" in the early 70's, but even back then he was discussing the likelihood of fusion occurring near the surface, and discussing the possibility that it's correlated with sunspot activity, just as Thornhill and Scott suggest today. Not only is there a mechanism to explain fusion based on circuit theory, there are actually active experiments that reproduce that process.

Koberlein still lied his butt off when he claimed that *any* (not just an anode model) EU/PC solar model predicted that the sun emitted "no neutrinos". That's certainly not true of Thornhil or Scott, and he's claiming to base his blog entry on their work and their books. "Professor" Brian Koberlein either professional incompetent, or he's a pathological liar, or both.

FYI, AFAIK, nobody has bothered to quantify the number of neutrinos coming from any particular EU/PC solar model, mostly because nobody doubts that solar neutrinos are produced in the amounts that they are measured to be. Alfven's EU/PC solar model (pretty much a standard solar model) and Birkeland's cathode model are both expected to produce their power internally and would necessarily have to produce the same number of neutrinos as the measured number. An anode model is actually a bit more "flexible' in terms of what numbers it could be used to 'predict. However, nobody other than perhaps W.A Fowler (not even associated with EU/PC theories) has ever suggested that the sun emits no neutrinos at all and even he seemed to hedged his bets.

At the end of his paper, Juergen's suggested that fusion was possibly occurring "in plain sight", near the surface rather than the core, and he was already suggesting back in the 70's that the process was related to solar sunspot production. Nothing has changed in 40 years, save perhaps better measurement capacity with respect to total solar neutrino output.

Higgsy
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

Re: Unethical (and cowardly) EU/PC skeptics.

Unread post by Higgsy » Wed Feb 26, 2020 5:28 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:19 pm
Higgsy wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:13 pm
Is that why Juergens wrote: "Probably the most distressing of these discoveries concerns the sub-atomic particles called neutrinos, which ought to be showering down on us from the Sun but apparently aren't...The null result of the solar-neutrino experiments, which still go on, has been a fact of astrophysical life for more than a decade....So the Sun fails to emit neutrinos in detectable numbers"? Seems odd. Was he trying to hoodwink the readers of Kronos?
That's some pretty selective quote mining that you have going on there.
No. It is clear beyond doubt that in the body of the paper Juergens is saying that there are no solar neutrinos. He repeats it three times in those three quotes (the last is from the summary of all his arguments.
You seem to have ignored this later (in the paper) quote entirely:
Because it forms no part of his theory - it's pure speculation to cover the possibility that some solar neutrinos might be detected. In fact, it appears to be no less speculative, and as entirely devoid of nuclear mechanism and quantity prediction as Thornhill's and Scott's.
So the answer is that you do not have a reference in which the presumed mechanism of neutrino production at the surface is shown to produce the same number of neutrinos as detected. Maybe such a calculation doesn't exist?
Actually, building a fusor based on high speed particle collisions and circuit theory is pretty straight forward.
Thanks for confirming that the answer is no.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1862
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:35 pm

Re: Unethical (and cowardly) EU/PC skeptics.

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:23 pm

Higgsy wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 5:28 pm
Michael Mozina wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:19 pm
Higgsy wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:13 pm
Is that why Juergens wrote: "Probably the most distressing of these discoveries concerns the sub-atomic particles called neutrinos, which ought to be showering down on us from the Sun but apparently aren't...The null result of the solar-neutrino experiments, which still go on, has been a fact of astrophysical life for more than a decade....So the Sun fails to emit neutrinos in detectable numbers"? Seems odd. Was he trying to hoodwink the readers of Kronos?
That's some pretty selective quote mining that you have going on there.
No. It is clear beyond doubt that in the body of the paper Juergens is saying that there are no solar neutrinos. He repeats it three times in those three quotes (the last is from the summary of all his arguments.
https://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k0404-stellar.htm

Boloney. You're blatantly quote mining and you are intentionally ignoring everything else that Juergens wrote or quoted in that very same paper which refutes your claim.
"If the confirmation of coronal holes in the 1970's solved one long-discussed problem about the sun, the mystery of the missing neutrinos has deepened throughout the decade to become one of the major unsolved scientific problems of our time . . . . Only about a fourth of the expected number of solar neutrinos - tiny particles produced in the core of the sun as a byproduct of the fusion reaction - have been monitored by a detector a mile beneath the earth in a gold mine in South Dakota. Something is wrong. . . .

"Astronomers' ideas about the interior structure of the sun may be wrong. If so, our understanding of the evolution of stars may be in error, and that would have far-reaching consequences.

"The apparent neutrino deficit could mean that some of the fusion reactions in the sun's interior have switched off; perhaps it is at heart a variable star. . . .
Emphasis mine. He deliberately cites a quote that uses the term "Only about a forth of the expected number of solar neutrino...have been monitored by a detector...in South Dakota". He's obviously and deliberately discussing a *deficit*, not a complete absence. That's also why he later takes up the issue of fusion occurring in the upper solar atmosphere. He's well aware that there is a deficit problem and he's offering ways to explain that deficit.

This selective 'quote mining" technique is very common among EU/PC "skeptics". They always take a phrase or two out of context and twist it like a pretzel while blatantly ignoring everything else that's been said in a paper. Koberlein tried to do the very same thing with respect to a single quote that he cited from an unrelated PDF by Findlay, which wasn't even written by Thornhill or by Scott, while erroneously and dishonestly claiming to be critiquing *Thornhill's* work and Thornill's model no less. It's totally unethical behavior.
You seem to have ignored this later (in the paper) quote entirely:
Because it forms no part of his theory - it's pure speculation to cover the possibility that some solar neutrinos might be detected. In fact, it appears to be no less speculative, and as entirely devoid of nuclear mechanism and quantity prediction as Thornhill's and Scott's.
More horse manure. Juergen's is obviously well aware of the fact that underground detectors are operational and observing solar neutrinos because he specifically cites them, and he specifically cites the "deficit" involved in those measurements in terms of percentages.

EU/PC skeptics tend to resort to selective quote mining and deliberate misrepresentation. I find that to be very disturbing and highly unethical behavior. Congrats on earning the title of "EU/PC skeptic".
Actually, building a fusor based on high speed particle collisions and circuit theory is pretty straight forward.
Thanks for confirming that the answer is no.
That's another great example of selective quote mining to suit yourself. Not only is the fusion mechanism obvious, the concept works in the lab and it's been verified by SAFIRE experiments too. Whether it's been quantified or not is utterly and totally irrelevant. Nobody "predicts" an electric sun to emit "no neutrinos" and nobody alive today really doubts the detection of solar neutrinos or their observed type and quantity.

Higgsy
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

Re: Unethical (and cowardly) EU/PC skeptics.

Unread post by Higgsy » Wed Feb 26, 2020 7:44 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:23 pm
Higgsy wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 5:28 pm
Michael Mozina wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:19 pm
Higgsy wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:13 pm
So the answer is that you do not have a reference in which the presumed mechanism of neutrino production at the surface is shown to produce the same number of neutrinos as detected. Maybe such a calculation doesn't exist?
Actually, building a fusor based on high speed particle collisions and circuit theory is pretty straight forward.
Thanks for confirming that the answer is no.
That's another great example of selective quote mining to suit yourself. Not only is the fusion mechanism obvious, the concept works in the lab and it's been verified by SAFIRE experiments too. Whether it's been quantified or not is utterly and totally irrelevant. Nobody "predicts" an electric sun to emit "no neutrinos" and nobody alive today really doubts the detection of solar neutrinos or their observed type and quantity.
I didn't ask whether it is possible for fusion to occur at some unknown rate at the Sun's surface. I asked whether you have a reference to a paper where Scott and Thornhill propose a nuclear reaction at the sun's surface and predict the total solar neutrino flux. The answer is a simple "no". You don't.

The original exchange went as follows:
Higgsy wrote:
Higgsy wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:Do Scott and Thornhill predict solar neutrinos?
Yep.
By what mechanism and in what quantities?
Fusion near the surface and heavy particle collisions. I'd have to assume that they'd predict/expect the measured number of neutrinos.
I wonder what you mean by saying that you assume their model predicts the measured number of neutrinos? Either they do or they don't. If you are claiming that they do, I suppose you have a reference which supports that.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina

Higgsy
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

Re: Unethical (and cowardly) EU/PC skeptics.

Unread post by Higgsy » Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:05 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:19 pm
Higgsy wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:13 pm
Is that why Juergens wrote: "Probably the most distressing of these discoveries concerns the sub-atomic particles called neutrinos, which ought to be showering down on us from the Sun but apparently aren't...The null result of the solar-neutrino experiments, which still go on, has been a fact of astrophysical life for more than a decade....So the Sun fails to emit neutrinos in detectable numbers"? Seems odd. Was he trying to hoodwink the readers of Kronos?
That's some pretty selective quote mining that you have going on there.
No. It is clear beyond doubt that in the body of the paper Juergens is saying that there are no solar neutrinos. He repeats it three times in those three quotes (the last is from the summary of all his arguments.) They are all in his own words . In fact here is fourth from the same paper: "At the very least, therefore, it can be said that neutrino astronomy, by failing to find neutrinos coming from the Sun, has raised serious doubt as to the validity of the "conventional wisdom"". What could be clearer.
Boloney. You're blatantly quote mining and you are intentionally ignoring everything else that Juergens wrote or quoted in that very same paper which refutes your claim.
"If the confirmation of coronal holes in the 1970's solved one long-discussed problem about the sun, the mystery of the missing neutrinos has deepened throughout the decade to become one of the major unsolved scientific problems of our time . . . . Only about a fourth of the expected number of solar neutrinos - tiny particles produced in the core of the sun as a byproduct of the fusion reaction - have been monitored by a detector a mile beneath the earth in a gold mine in South Dakota. Something is wrong. . . .

"Astronomers' ideas about the interior structure of the sun may be wrong. If so, our understanding of the evolution of stars may be in error, and that would have far-reaching consequences.

"The apparent neutrino deficit could mean that some of the fusion reactions in the sun's interior have switched off; perhaps it is at heart a variable star. . . .
Emphasis mine. He deliberately cites a quote that uses the term "Only about a forth of the expected number of solar neutrino...have been monitored by a detector...in South Dakota". He's obviously and deliberately discussing a *deficit*, not a complete absence. That's also why he later takes up the issue of fusion occurring in the upper solar atmosphere. He's well aware that there is a deficit problem and he's offering ways to explain that deficit.
Except that none of those quotes are from Juergen's pen. They are all part of the editor's notes, one Lewis M Greenberg. Mr Greenberg is definitely aware that some deficient flux of solar neutrinos were being detected, Dr Jeurgens not so.
This selective 'quote mining" technique is very common among EU/PC "skeptics". They always take a phrase or two out of context and twist it like a pretzel while blatantly ignoring everything else that's been said in a paper. Koberlein tried to do the very same thing with respect to a single quote that he cited from an unrelated PDF by Findlay, which wasn't even written by Thornhill or by Scott, while erroneously and dishonestly claiming to be critiquing *Thornhill's* work and Thornill's model no less. It's totally unethical behavior.
What I find to be rather startling behaviour is to accuse your discussion partner of quote mining a particular scientist, and offer as proof quotes from someone else entirely.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1862
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:35 pm

Re: Unethical (and cowardly) EU/PC skeptics.

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:35 am

Higgsy wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:05 pm
No. It is clear beyond doubt that in the body of the paper Juergens is saying that there are no solar neutrinos. He repeats it three times in those three quotes (the last is from the summary of all his arguments.) They are all in his own words . In fact here is fourth from the same paper: "At the very least, therefore, it can be said that neutrino astronomy, by failing to find neutrinos coming from the Sun, has raised serious doubt as to the validity of the "conventional wisdom"". What could be clearer.
I can see that we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this topic because it doesn't seem black or white to me. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to suggest that Juergens was firmly insisting that there are no solar neutrinos coming from the sun when he included this ending commentary:
If the Sun and the stars indeed succeed in fusing lighter elements to form heavier ones, are the relevant activities carried out more or less in plain sight - in their atmospheres?*

Flagstaff, Arizona

Spring 1976

* Some years ago, R. Shapiro and F. Ward reported (J. Atmos. Sci. 19, 506-508, 1962) that, of the basis of their power spectral analyses, relative sunspot numbers vary with a period of 25.7 months. Providing the above citation, Kunitomo Sakurai of Kanagawa University in Yokohama has recently suggested (Nature 278, 146, 8 March 1979) a correlation between solar neutrino production and the activity responsible for sunspots. The flux of neutrinos, while inexplicably low, seems to vary with a similar period (he arrives at 25.3 months).

Although Sakurai favors an explanation for both phenomena in terms of "some unknown process . . . in the interior of the Sun . . . [with motions penetrating] into the region where the thermonuclear fusion is taking place . . .", it would seem more straightforward to seek a cause of sunspotting and a source of neutrinos (too few, in any case, to be coming from postulated thermonudear fires in the interior) much closer to the visible surface of the Sun (see following article).
At the end of his paper, Juegens cites a fairly "recent" (March 1979) article suggesting a correlation between solar neutrino production and sunspot activity and further suggests that may occur near the visible surface. He describes it as 'too few' but implies that at least some neutrino emissions are involved. The variable neutrino count is entirely consistent with Thornhill/Scott's model as well.

You're absolutely right however that the previous (1/4 neutrino) quote that I cited earlier actually comes from the editors note at the end of the paper rather than from Juergen's actual paper. I didn't catch that at first. Based on his previous citations it's clear that there was still some question in Juergen's mind as to how much output (if any) could be directly measured in the early to mid 1970's. For instance he talks about:
At a meeting of the International Astronomical Union in Warsaw late in 1973, W. A. Fowler of the California Institute of Technology reported that the status of the theory had gone from bad to worse. Instead of detecting about one neutrino per day, as previously estimated - and this only ten percent of the predicted number, the experimenters were recording only about one per month, and even this one might well be of extraneous origin. Actually, "the number of [solar] neutrinos reaching the earth . . . may even be essentially zero" (Scientific American, January 1974, p. 50).
This is about 5 years earlier than the sunspot/neutrino quote at the end of the paper, but it suggests that as late as 1974 they were recording only about one event per month. I haven't spent that much time figuring out how things progressed in neutrino measurements between 1974 and 1979, but based on his statements it could be that Juergen's wasn't necessarily convinced that neutrinos came from the sun in 1979, but he seems to be open to the possibility and offers his own ideas of where they originate (near sunspots on the surface).

Suffice to say that it seems to me that Juergen's isn't necessarily committed to overwhelming evidence of neutrino detection in 1979, but he's not adverse to the concept either and he entertains the possibility and entertains the belief that fusion and neutrino output is related to sunspot activity rather than from solar core fusion. That's pretty much how the anode model remains to this day, albeit updated to reflect better neutrino measurements.

Higgsy
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

Re: Unethical (and cowardly) EU/PC skeptics.

Unread post by Higgsy » Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:05 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:35 am
Higgsy wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:05 pm
No. It is clear beyond doubt that in the body of the paper Juergens is saying that there are no solar neutrinos. He repeats it three times in those three quotes (the last is from the summary of all his arguments.) They are all in his own words . In fact here is fourth from the same paper: "At the very least, therefore, it can be said that neutrino astronomy, by failing to find neutrinos coming from the Sun, has raised serious doubt as to the validity of the "conventional wisdom"". What could be clearer.
I can see that we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this topic because it doesn't seem black or white to me.
I am happy to agree to disagree because you seem so wedded to your opening stance on this, that no evidence to the contrary will change your mind, not even Juergens's plain statements.
You're absolutely right however that the previous (1/4 neutrino) quote that I cited earlier actually comes from the editors note at the end of the paper rather than from Juergen's actual paper.
Thank you. Do you regret at all your accusations of blatant quote mining and unethical behaviour?
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina

Cargo
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: Unethical (and cowardly) EU/PC skeptics.

Unread post by Cargo » Thu Feb 27, 2020 4:30 am

Regarding your characterization of astronomers' knowledge of plasma physics, some are knowledgeable about the subject and some are not depending on whether their particular area of interest calls for such a knowledge
Now I'm curious how far your skepticism goes. A simple question(s). Just a yes/no answer.
Space is 99.9% Plasma?

If the answer is Yes, do you think that might be an area of interest for people professing in the science which deals with space, and the physical universe as a whole?
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest