The concept of "debunking" in astronomy is childish.

[Michael Mozina]

Brian Koberlein/Reality Check and EU/PC haters in general spend an inordinate amount of time on the internet trying to 'debunk' astronomy models that they disagree with, while hypocritically ignoring the same types of overt flaws in their own models. They tend to engage in an irrational, oversimplified and hypocritical process of trying to find one or two perceived "flaws" in a model and thereby pretending to "debunk" it.

This "debunking" process is even promoted using highly unethical methods based on strawman arguments, and flat out misrepresentations of the models. For instance, Koberlein flat out *lied* on his blog about the neutrino predictions of EU/PC solar models (plural). In fact, he continues to misrepresent the gamma ray predictions and heat signature predictions of EU/PC models in general. Such behavior is not only childish, it's down right unethical.

The hypocrisy factor is also totally off scale. For instance, in 2012 it was demonstrated that the standard solar model's predictions related to convection were off by two whole orders of magnitude. Solar convection is 100 times slower than their theory predicts. That's not a small margin, that's a complete train wreck.

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

By their oversimplified logic, the mainstream solar model has been thoroughly "debunked" by SDO measurements. If we were to apply that same "debunking" mentality, it would only be fair to claim that that the standard solar model has been "debunked" and therefore it should be abandoned altogether.

Their highly cited Bullet Cluster study has been 'debunked" more times than I can count.

http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... =3&t=15850

In fact the LCDM model has failed more experimental and observational "tests" than it's actually passed. In that sense it's been "debunked" more times than I can count, including failing a new observational "test" as recently as this month:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... tter-model

The mainstream engages in this childish and hypocritical "debunking" nonsense on a regular basis, while simply ignoring the huge number of times that their own models have been repeatedly "debunked". It's pure hypocrisy on a stick.

[Zyxzevn]

I distanced myself of the word "debunked", because it usually shows more
problems with the "debunker" than the topic that is debunked.

Somehow it is hard for people to understand that there can be 2 or more
different models for a phenomenon. Or different possible valid answers to a question.
Some of which can give a good answer, and sometimes under different
circumstances or assumptions.

But it is even harder for certain people to understand
that we don't understand everything or know everything.
Sometimes information is lacking, or even interpreted in a wrong way.
And sometimes there is a severe confirmation bias.
The latter is showing clearly in the dark-matter problem.
And sometimes we just don't know.
And I think it is a problem with the people that try to hold on
to the belief that we know everything and have always interpreted
things correctly.