Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC haters.

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:13 pm

Metryq wrote:That's a very dark matter, Michael. Have you considered the gravity of this course of action?
I wouldn't actually do it on principle, and I doubt that he would answer my questions. It just struck me as an amusing thought. :)

kiwi
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by kiwi » Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:23 pm

Michael

Have you considered legal action against Koberlein? ... The guy wouldnt last 2 minutes in a courtroom on slander/deliberate misrepresentation charges? ... I wouldnt think he would, how long would it take a judge based on the information you present in this thread to find the blatant liar guilty? ... how about a go-fund-me set up for legal costs? I certainly would donate :idea:

As an aside I am somewhat perplexed about your continued belief in the CMB circus ... Robitaille hit that garbage out the park. I know you are a busy guy but I would like to hear your breakdown on his critique and your opinion on exactly where he has got this wrong

Thanks for your efforts in general at this site ... keep up the good work :twisted:

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:42 pm

kiwi wrote:Michael

Have you considered legal action against Koberlein?
Nah. It wouldn't be worth my time IMO. Only the lawyers would win. :) Koberlein has misrepresented Wal's beliefs on his public blog, but not mine. I'm sure he's done it to me in cyberspace using a "handle", but I'm not inclined to go to all the trouble of finding out the cast of players at JREF/ISF. Koberlein is not worth my time because he's destroying his own reputation. If he can't get even *simple* things like neutrino predictions right, then he's not much of a "professional". If he didn't flat out intentionally lie about Wal's solar neutrino predictions, then he is scientifically and professionally incompetent, one or the other. Either way, Koberlein is destroying his own professional reputation.

If I were to do a go-fund-me project it would be related to testing Birkeland's cathode solar model as well as the other configurations over time.
As an aside I am somewhat perplexed about your continued belief in the CMB circus ... Robitaille hit that garbage out the park. I know you are a busy guy but I would like to hear your breakdown on his critique and your opinion on exactly where he has got this wrong
I haven't really listened to or read Robitaille's ideas, but I hold no belief in the mainstream CMB circus. Every sun emits tons of microwaves photons which are scattered in the dusty plasma of space, so there is certainly a microwave background just like there's an x-ray background too, and lots of backgrounds in between.

Eddington predicted the average temperature of the "dust" of space to within 1/2 of a degree on the very first time based on nothing more than the scattering of starlight on the dust. They filter the hell out of the real image to 'smooth it out' but we still see the emissions from distant stars in distant galaxies, and universe is "pretty much" evenly spread out over distance. There are some 'cold spot' where the galaxy density is less, but by and large it's pretty homogeneously distributed.
Thanks for your efforts in general at this site ... keep up the good work :twisted:
Thanks.

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:27 pm

Michael Mozina wrote: I haven't really listened to or read Robitaille's ideas, but I hold no belief in the mainstream CMB circus. Every sun emits tons of microwaves photons which are scattered in the dusty plasma of space, so there is certainly a microwave background just like there's an x-ray background too, and lots of backgrounds in between.

Eddington predicted the average temperature of the "dust" of space to within 1/2 of a degree on the very first time based on nothing more than the scattering of starlight on the dust. They filter the hell out of the real image to 'smooth it out' but we still see the emissions from distant stars in distant galaxies, and universe is "pretty much" evenly spread out over distance. There are some 'cold spot' where the galaxy density is less, but by and large it's pretty homogeneously distributed.
In Robitaille's speech on the CMB, he shows the image that you get when you do not filter away
every detail. This unfiltered image simply shows points that emit the radio-waves.

He also showed that the filters that the "scientists" were using, were removing the
signal and replacing it with a false signal. They did it by mixing in the false earthly signal,
and by subtracting a part of the real signal.
Mainstream science can be really bad at seeing reality.

I think that the unfiltered image that he shows is very close to what Eddington describes.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:51 am

Zyxzevn wrote: I think that the unfiltered image that he shows is very close to what Eddington describes.
Any raw microwave image shows *exactly* what Eddington predicted, namely the emission patterns of point objects (suns) and the emission patterns of dust particles in and around our galaxy, and all galaxies in the universe.

Eddington not only explained and predicted the CMB, and nailed the right number to within 1/2 of degree of the correct temperature in his first attempt. It took big bangers 3 or 4 tries to get any closer than Eddington.

To make their case about these wavelengths, the mainstream has to pretend to 'filter out" all foreground microwaves and to "see" the patterns from a mythical 'surface of last scattering' that never existed in the first place. Their whole model is FUBAR from start to finish because photon redshift is *not* caused by 'space expansion", no matter how much their metaphysical dogma requires it.

The universe has *lots* of backgrounds, not just "one spacial' one. It does have an overall background temperature which Eddington nailed to with 1/2 a degree. The BB proponents missed that background temp by more than a whole order of magnitude on their first attempt. What does that tell you about the real cause of that observation?

The LCDM model is the hokiest, goofiest, most metaphysical cosmology theory on the planet. :) Big Bang theory has really gone downhill, even since I was in college. It's metaphysical garbage.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Sometimes the irony factor is overwhelming.... :)

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Sun Aug 27, 2017 7:38 pm

Sometimes the irony overload from EU/PC haters is just mind boggling. Here's a recent case in point:

https://briankoberlein.com/2017/08/26/a ... r-support/
One of the overarching goals of the Big Science TV project is to break down the perception that scientists are different from everyone else. There’s a common view that we sit in an ivory tower of academia, looking down upon the unwashed masses and telling people what to think and what to believe.
If they don't want to be perceived that way, perhaps they could at least start by being *honest* with the public in terms of various claims that they make:

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/t ... -universe/
The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos. The EU model clearly fails this test, because neutrinos are produced by the Sun.
When the haters flat out *lie* about the predictions of competing solar models and competing cosmological models, it's hard to believe that they are not sitting in their ivory towers looking down upon the unwashed masses, and feeling the need to simply *misrepresent the facts* to achieve their "mathier than thou" goals.

In reality the haters are engaging themselves in *blatant professional misconduct* of the worst possible sort, by flat out lying to their own students about the facts, and failing to acknowledge their own mistakes when they are pointed out to them by at least four different individuals. How such people can even look themselves in the mirror is beyond me. The gall of wanting to be financially rewarded, and publicly 'trusted' after that type unethical behavior is beyond comprehension.

Brian certainly does come across as different from everyone else, including different from most "scientists". Most individuals, and certainly most "scientists" at least *attempt* to be professional, honest and thorough.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Koberlein is at it again....

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:19 am

https://briankoberlein.com/2017/09/19/n ... doscience/
We’re probably lying, or haven’t looked at the “real” evidence.

It’s the same pattern for other topics. The Earth is flat, vaccines are dangerous, the Sun is electric, climate change is a hoax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... =3&t=16795
https://watchers.news/2017/08/01/study- ... wered-sun/

It's actually difficult to believe that Koberlein isn't lying, or at least he hasn't looked at the evidence since he continues to erroneously proclaim that electric solar models produce no neutrinos, *years* after he repeatedly banned everyone that pointed out his bonehead mistake.

Koberlein constantly erroneously equates working empirical models with "hoaxes". The man has no scientific ethics whatsoever, and therefore no scientific credibility either.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Brian continues to be a dishonest prick.

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:34 pm

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/t ... -universe/
23 October 2017
Reply
Brian Koberlein

A Gish gallop, for those readers who aren’t familiar, is a dishonest technique used in debates, whereby an individual makes a rapid succession of unsubstantiated claims. The idea is to flood the stage with so many topics and so many changes of topic that an honest debater isn’t able to make a cogent reply.
Then Brian, you're certainly guilty of Gish gallop because not a single one of the authors you mentioned in that article ever claimed that our sun is expected to emit no neutrinos, or that hot plasma would only emit discrete line emissions. Your first two arguments were bald faced lies, and your article just got worse from there. You also banned everyone including me and three others before me who pointed out your BS, effectively making it impossible to reply at all! You're nothing but a Gish galloping liar Brian and your own dishonest statements and dishonest actions prove it.
But I try to be honest...
Bullshit. That's just another lie Brian as evidenced by the fact you have *never* produced an actual quote from any of those three authors that you referenced in your article that actually supported your false claim that any electric sun model predicts that our sun will produce "no neutrinos". You lied when you blamed Findlay for your own damn lies, and you continue to lie about Findlay even now. You're about as *dishonest* as is humanly possible in fact. You compound lies upon lies, upon more damn lies. Gish gallop lying crap is all you ever spew as it relates to EU/PC theory in fact.
Now, careful readers of this post will note that I claimed the Electric Universe model claims that neutrinos don’t exist.
Yes, and you flat out lied when you said that, and you lied your ass off when you claimed that Wal Thornhill made such a claim. In his book, and on the internet, he claimed exactly the opposite in fact and he predicted that solar neutrinos varied with the sunspot cycle.
I inferred that by the fact that the most publicly available ebook on the EU model states very clearly that nuclear fusion doesn’t occur in stars.
http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... 75#p114033

You are a liar Brian. Findlay never even said such a thing in the first place. You flat out lied about that, and you continue to flat out lie about what Findlay actually said. The only passage you ever cited was a paragraph where Findlay was describing the *mainstream* model of brown dwarfs, not the EU model of our sun. Findlay wasn't even describing the EU/PC solar model, nor was he discussing a sun, or even neutrinos at all, just the *mainstream* beliefs about brown dwarfs and the mainstream's lack of an explanations for their emission of x-rays. You're such a frigging *LIAR* Brian. We'll just call you little lying Brian from now on. Let's see you quote Findlay for us Brian where he claimed that *our sun* is predicted to emit "no neutrinos". He made no such claim. You lied. We all know you're never going to quote him correctly or honestly because you're a sleazy frigging liar.
If you’ve read the comments you’ll know that several EU folks have given me all manner of grief over this, claiming that not only do neutrinos exist, but that I am being a deceitful liar to claim that EU folks deny neutrinos.
And you promptly banned everyone who pointed out your lies, you misquoted Findlay, and you continue to misquote him to this day. You're nothing but a two bit liar Brian and everyone in the EU/PC community knows it.

Dear lying Brian,

Let's see you quote Findlay where he specifically claimed that any EU.PC solar model is predicted to produce no neutrinos you lying coward. We know you can't and you won't do that because Findlay's entire PDF never once even mentions neutrinos. You also flat out lied when you blamed *Thornhill" when you said:
There are actually many variations to the Electric Universe model, but the most popular version seems to focus around the book by Thornhill and Talbot listed below. It is this basic model I’ll discuss here, using the references listed at the bottom of the post.
I have quoted Thornhill and Talbott's own statements from their book which you listed as a reference where they specifically predicted that A) the sun emits neutrinos which B) vary with the solar sunspot cycle. You lied your butt off about Thornhills *actual* beliefs, and you lied when you blamed Findlay for *your lies*. You're not honest at all Brian and you lied when you claimed that you try to be honest. Lies, lies, and more damn lies.

CNB had the best comment of October 2017 when he posted this response to your BS on your blog:
On thinking about it, your article against the EU is actually best non-retracted, because when the real truths finally come into the mainstream, we will need articles like this, to measure how far we have come. What you leave out of your article is that even among “peers” and university professors of quantum mechanics, there is no real agreement on anything, and if they can’t agree among themselves, how are we expected to believe anything they present?
He's right that your comments will serve as a reminder of just how far we've come, and it will demonstrate all the unethical crap that we've had to put up with for years from the so called "professionals". Either they don't begin to even understand the models they criticize, they don't have the knowledge to even notice or comment on your mistake, and some of them like you are flat out liars and your own unethical statements demonstrate that fact.

Don't kid yourself. You're nothing but a two bit frigging liar who doesn't give a damn about honesty or integrity in astronomy Brian. History won't be kind to you lying Brian.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:40 am

http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... 75#p114035
Brian Koberlein said:

EU claims that fusion occurs near the solar surface and fluctuates with solar activity, but observations show no clear correlation between solar activity and neutrinos.
I was angry when I read lyin' Brian's recent post, but the more I think about it, the more that I realize just how prophetic Captain Ned Blakely's recent comment really is. It is actually far better that Brian Koberlein just leaves his dishonest lies and his total bullshit on the web for all the world to see. Brian already admitted on his own blog that the EU/PC solar model predicts the existence of neutrinos, and their variability, so he knows that he's lying in his opening comments. He then went right back to dishonestly blaming Findlay for his own dishonest behaviors and he's perpetuated that lie for years now. That whole blog entry also demonstrates the *utter ignorance* and/or gross incompetence of the mainstream as it relates to EU/PC theory because not a single so called "professional" who has posted to that thread, or even read that blog entry has bothered to correct Koberlein's original error, or even point it out to him.

Not a single "professional" corrected Brian, so either they're all professionally incompetent, or more likely, every single one of the so called "professionals" that have posted to that blog has a serious ethics problem, one or the other.

That thread should be (actually is) a huge embarrassment to the so called "professionals", but apparently they're decided that it's in their best interest to perpetuate an obvious lie. That thread really does demonstrate the complete lack of ethics in astronomy today.

Captain Ned is right, it's better that the thread stays where it is, and the various comments from the so called "professionals" should stay too. Their ignorant comments clearly demonstrate the complete lack of professional ethics that has destroyed the entire field of astronomy. That blog entry illustrates how and why they are stuck in the "dark ages" of physics, and why they're reduced to using placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe the universe that we live in. They really don't care about truth, and they never have.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

November 2017 is irony overload month for lyin' Brian

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:10 pm

2 November 2017
Brian Koberlein: You’re having a collective tantrum against the complexity of modern science without understanding either the history or details of the work. That’s why none of you are interested in actual predictions, and why you keep taking the “you’re obviously wrong, my theory is obviously right” position without being willing to prove it.
Oh the irony. Not only didn't you correctly represent the actual neutrino predictions *any* EU/PC solar model Brian, you misrepresented them intentionally and you've thrown a temper tantrum every time someone has pointed out your absurd error. You banned them all for daring to point out your bonehead mistake, and you consistently refuse to even quote someone in the EU/PC community who ever claimed that any EU/PC solar model predicts our sun to emit no neutrinos.

It's unbelievable just how ridiculous and unprofessional you look at this point Brian. You haven't educated yourself to Juergen's solar model in over three and half years, yet you have the audacity to talk about other people not taking the time to understand the history or the details of someone's work? How pathetic. You blew up the irony meter this month Brian, big time. Boom!
The issue of neutrinos in EU vs the standard model has been addressed several times.
But never addressed honestly, at least not by you.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

November must be irony overload month at the hater blog

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:33 pm

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/t ... -universe/
14 November 2017
Jean Tate

I particularly like this: “Now I don’t think EU is correct on many things (currently from my basic understandings), but […] just makes me want to research it further.”

Great! Irrespective of what […] is, I think you should definitely research “the EU” further!

When you find an internally consistent EU model of the Sun, which objectively and independently verifiably, shows the Sun’s electromagnetic output (in watts) is the same as we observe, shows this output is ~constant over ~a few billion years, is consistent with the published results on helioseismology, please come back here and discuss it.
November definitely must be irony overload month at the EU/PC hater blog.

First of all, the *mainstream* solar model is an absolute disaster, and an *epic failure* with respect to the SDO heliosiesmology findings:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/ ... projected/

The mainstream's solar model failed it's "prediction test" by two whole orders of magnitude! If that's an important criteria, the mainstream model is absolute *toast*. It wasn't just a little wrong, it was wrong by two whole orders of magnitude for heaven's sake, and it's *never been fixed either*. How ironic that she used convection predictions as an important solar criteria all things considered. Irony overload. She shot her own solar model in the foot.

Secondly, Birkeland *assumed* that his cathode sun was entirely internally powered based on a 'transmutation of elements', AKA fusion, so it's output would be *exactly* the same as the standard model. Not only is it internally consistent, and independently verifiable, it also works in the lab, and it easily explains the heat source of the solar corona, unlike the standard model.

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

Wake me up when the mainstream model can replicate that full sphere solar corona that Birkeland both explained *and simulated* in his lab over a century ago.

Juergen's anode solar model is simply more 'flexible" in that area, but there's nothing precluding anyone from suggesting that an anode solar model has fusion occurring *throughout* the whole sun, including the core, so it's overall output could be modified to meet just about any output requirements.

What a great example of pure denial and absolute ignorance in a single post. Nicely done Jean. You put your foot in your mouth in spectacular fashion yet again.

Such comments really do demonstrate the willful ignorance of the mainstream. Not only hasn't Jean corrected lyin' Brian's bonehead neutrino error in over three years, demonstrating her gross professional incompetence, she seems to know absolutely nothing about *any* EU/PC solar model, She's also apparently in pure denial of the epic failure of the mainstream solar model with respect to convection. What a riot.

Wow!

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:05 pm

20 November 2017

ianw16

I agree with Jean Tate. You really should research it further. If it isn’t already apparent, the existence of the predicted number of neutrinos kills the electric sun nonsense stone dead. They will tell you that it doesn’t, because they have moved the fusion to the surface. Which is lunacy. Were all that fusion happening at the surface it would be rather obvious, as we would see the gamma rays which would have to be produced. The fact that we don’t is evidence that it doesn’t happen there. Yes, you might see the odd signature in some of the bigger flares, but nowhere near enough to account for the steady production of neutrinos that we observe.
As for me, I cannot think of anything that the EU is correct on. Electric cratering? Electric comets? Electric volcanoes on Io? Please………! It is a mish-mash of neo-Velikovskian mythology and very bad “science”. So don’t spend too much time researching it.
It's really ironic that Ianw16 contradicts lyin' Brian, and of course lyin Brian contradicts himself too, but nobody bothers to acknowledge that lyin' Brian is lyin' when he claims that EU/PC solar models are predicted to emit no neutrinos! Gah.

At least this guy is correct about the fact that EU/PC models moves the fusion upward from the core, towards the surface, but he seems to still be under the false illusion that the "surface" means that all fusion has to occur *above* the surface of the photosphere, which is obviously just *wrong* beyond belief. What he *should* have stated is that the EU/PC model moves the fusion process from *just* being exclusively produced in the core, to anywhere and *everywhere* inside the sun, *and* potentially above the surface of the photosphere in some rare instances.

Based on the satellite imagery, most of the coronal loop activity takes place *below* the surface of the photosphere, not above it. Only the largest coronal loops are large enough to rise up and through the surface of the photosphere. When they do rise up and through that surface, they leave their footprint signatures on the surface on the photosphere, both in terms of their heat contribution at those points, and in terms of the magnetic field orientation at the locations where the loops rise up and through, and pass back through that surface. Only the largest coronal loops even do that, and can and do sometimes emit gamma ray signatures that are consistent with fusion.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 006-9003-z
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

Higher energy X-rays shown in yellow in that first composite image can only been seen at the very tops of the loops where loops are above the surface of the photosphere and in the corona, whereas the 171 (blue) lines start *way* below the yellow x-ray emitting parts of the loops that we see in the corona.

The mainstream continues to remain willfully ignorant of even the most basic aspects of EU.PC theory, even *years* after that stupid hit piece was written. What a crock that they don't bust lyin' Brian over his BS about EU/PC predicting *no* neutrinos. They can't even keep their damn stories straight anymore.

November is definite irony overload month on the EU/PC hater blog. :)

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:13 pm

Michael Mozina wrote: ... Only the largest coronal loops even do that, and can and do sometimes emit gamma ray signatures that are consistent with fusion.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 006-9003-z
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

Higher energy X-rays shown in yellow in that first composite image can only been seen at the very tops of the loops where loops are above the surface of the photosphere and in the corona, whereas the 171 (blue) lines start *way* below the yellow x-ray emitting parts of the loops that we see in the corona.
I noticed that too.
The strong electric currents clearly ignite nuclear fusion On/Above the surface of the sun.

This observation alone is already against 3 major myths of mainstream:
Myth 1) there are no strong electric currents on the sun.
(Instead we have the magnetic reconnection unicorn).
Myth 2) there is only nuclear fusion deep inside the sun.
Myth 3) the sun has no surface (myth: Sun is gas only).
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC hat

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:15 pm

Zyxzevn wrote: I noticed that too.
The strong electric currents clearly ignite nuclear fusion On/Above the surface of the sun.

This observation alone is already against 3 major myths of mainstream:
Myth 1) there are no strong electric currents on the sun.
(Instead we have the magnetic reconnection unicorn).
Myth 2) there is only nuclear fusion deep inside the sun.
Myth 3) the sun has no surface (myth: Sun is gas only).
The ignorance factor of EU/PC haters is bad enough, including that nonsense that we should expect to "see" massive amounts of gamma rays in the solar atmosphere, but the outright lies (no neutrinos) are beneath contempt. It's bad enough that they don't take the time to actually understand the various EU/PC models before attacking them, but when they blatantly misrepresent them, it just demonstrates their utter lack of scientific ethics, and their complete lack of professionalism. Most of the folks that have posted negative comments to lyin' Brian's blog know better too. EU/PC haters are either utterly unethical, or absurdly ignorant, or both. What they definitely are not, is "professional".

I *used* to have respect for the field of astronomy, but after my experiences over the past decade, I'm certain that it's the most ignorant branch of physics. They "queen" of physics, is now the court jester. It's no wonder why the so called 'professionals" are still wallowing around in the dark ages of astronomy. They're evidently too damn lazy to research anything properly, and they are utterly dishonest to boot as evidenced by the fact that not a single so called 'professional" busted Brian over his "no neutrino" BS. That's a recipe for disaster, which explains their reliance upon 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance, and 5 percent pseudoscience. They literally have no real 'knowledge" of cosmology whatsoever, and no hope either. Most of them will go to their graves in that same sorry ignorant state too. :(

It's so sad, particularly for the new 'students' of astronomy that are simply being lied to by their so called "teachers", and given a complete snow job.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Irony overload month on the EU hater blog ends with a bang

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:21 pm

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/t ... -universe/
30 November 2017
Sjastro

Brian have you noticed individuals of the lowest intellect are generally the most aggressive.
LOL! I've certainly noticed sjastro, which probably explains why you and lyin' Brian are the most aggressive liars about EU/PC theory on the internet. The lack of intellect also explains why Brian lied about EU/PC solar models predicting "no neutrinos' and then he blatantly contradicted himself and admitted that he flat out lied:

First lyin' Brian lied his dishonest butt off:
25 February 2014
Brian Koberlein

The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.
Then lyin' Brian blatantly contradicted himself and demonstrated that he knew damn well that he lied and he's been lying for almost four years now:
3 July 2014

Brian Koberlein

EU claims that fusion occurs near the solar surface and fluctuates with solar activity, but observations show no clear correlation between solar activity and neutrinos.
Lyin' Brain aggressively and unethically lied about EU/PC solar models predicting no neutrinos, but apparently his intellect deficit problem prevents him from keeping his lying story straight. :) That's also why he's been forced to ban everyone who's pointed out his conflicted nonsense. Your aggressive behavior, your lack of intellect and your lack of intellectual integrity also explains why you and your intellectually and morally challenged fellow EU haters have never bothered to set lyin' Brian straight in over three and a half years too. LOL!

Irony overload month on the EU/PC hater blog certainly didn't disappoint. It ended with a bang in fact. :mrgreen:

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests