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.Metryq wrote:That's a very dark matter, Michael. Have you considered the gravity of this course of action?
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
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.Metryq wrote:That's a very dark matter, Michael. Have you considered the gravity of this course of action?
Nah. It wouldn't be worth my time IMO. Only the lawyers would win.kiwi wrote:Michael
Have you considered legal action against Koberlein?
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.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.Thanks for your efforts in general at this site ... keep up the good work
In Robitaille's speech on the CMB, he shows the image that you get when you do not filter awayMichael 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.
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.Zyxzevn wrote: I think that the unfiltered image that he shows is very close to what Eddington describes.
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: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.
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.The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos. The EU model clearly fails this test, because neutrinos are produced by the Sun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4We’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.
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.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.
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.But I try to be honest...
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.Now, careful readers of this post will note that I claimed the Electric Universe model claims that neutrinos don’t exist.
http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... 75#p114033I 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
But never addressed honestly, at least not by you.The issue of neutrinos in EU vs the standard model has been addressed several times.
November definitely must be irony overload month at the EU/PC hater blog.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.
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.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.
I noticed that too.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.
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".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).
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:30 November 2017
Sjastro
Brian have you noticed individuals of the lowest intellect are generally the most aggressive.
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:25 February 2014
Brian Koberlein
The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no 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.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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests