RE: Can we trust peer-reviewed papers?
I really really hate this video.
He states, that the paper wasn't wrongly published because it was about intelligent design, it was that it was full of holes.
Well, if that was the case, then why was the professors entire life destroyed?
Why was he black-balled?
Further, he goes on to state that darwin is criticized, by ... grrrr, all the references are in the form, well darwinism could have happened this way of that way. But no one ever questioned darwinism itself
Having dealt with cancer research and who gets published in peer reviews...
If you come up with a new treatment, or a new classification, your golden.
If you find, discuss or apply a cure, you are black-balled, thrown out, your name destroyed and often shot and killed.
Since we are supposedly looking for a cure for cancer, than the ENTIRE peer reviewed cancer papers are rubbish.
And don't even get started on Monsanto buying the peer reviewed papers to publish their own papers and discredit any opposing views.
Now, to stick a fork in this topic.
In two generations, our current science books will be looked at as works of fiction. The works of Einstein will be ridiculed in jokes. Dark matter will be equated with believing in magical invisible dragons that live in your garage. The Hadron collider will be a museum of stupid things scientists did.
Yeah not really true. Have any evidence against evolution?
See this is where you took a reasonable critique of the journal industry and ran the trike off the road. We know the works of Einstein are accurate to essentially as much percision as we can fathom. He will not be laughed at, certainly not by anyone with any respect. Nobody is laughing at Newton even though he was totally wrong.
Really need to clarify your position if you really believe the things it seems.
HAhah... this may be my new favorite way to describe jumping to conclusions and creating stories which our brains enjoy.
xD
Sorry @kyle.anderson I meant what I said, and there is a huge amount of evidence backing it up.
But, none of it is peer reviewed... well, because it goes against everything the peer review / ivory towers believe in.
Einstein's theories of relativity are about 96% accurate in determining the orbit of Mercury.
There is a lady, published recently, her works on equal area in equal time, and her theories match the orbit of Mercury 99.9999%
No one is laughing, but everyone either, doesn't know about Tesla, or says he was a shyster. Although our modern world is completely dependent on his inventions.
So, which do you believe? Tesla or Einstein?
When I say that science books are wrong, I mean they are going completely in the wrong direction.
As in, you can never understand electricity as long as you think it depends on an electron.
As in, you can't understand how light travels if you discard the luminiferous aether.
I understand where you are coming from. I loved science. I have more college units then you do. In more subjects than you do. And then I started finding out where I was lied to in these college courses/ science books. I started finding that there was little evidence actually supporting "settled science" and found a huge amount of evidence debunking it. And then more evidence discarding it. And even more evidence showing that there is a conspiracy trying to keep mankind from actually knowing the world around them. (look into who owns the peer reviewed papers. It like the MSM, but worse. A handful of people get to decide who gets to be seen.)
So, when faced with this opposing information, I was skeptical, then confused, then angry.
I imagine you will be too.
... sigh.
I don't care where it is located, show me whatever evidence you got.
I did not know they were mutually exclusive. Also Tesla was a loonie.
So um how do you propose describing electromagnetism? I don't think you understand how light works or what an electron even describes. No such thing as the luminiferous ether. Quantum feild theory and Relativity do remarkable jobs describing the physical universe - down to essentially the level of measurement. If you or anyone else found a better way - everyone is all ears.
Lmao.. how do you know?
You clearly haven't taken enough mathematics and physics.
Go ahead, debunk the math.
You are right that some of the journals have their fair share of issues - the good thing: science does not care about the journals. It cares about evidence and reproducibility.
I will get around to debunking the math, but it is hard.
You have been so programmed, and then had you mind sealed shut from the truth.
So, writing a piece that worms its way in through that sealed box is proving rather difficult.
But, some hints.
Why do we teach calculus immediately after algebra? As opposed to something really useful, such as discreet mathematics.
Why do we believe that you can always add one to a number? It goes against set theory.
Why can't we divide by zero?
If Tesla is correct, Einstein is wrong. But, you have to find and then read Tesla's works. And they have been buried and obscured. And further, to understand them, you basically have to unlearn all you learned in science class.
But hey, our entire modern world is based off of Tesla's work.
Einstein, on the other hand, did nothing for our modern world. Even the atomic bomb; there is evidence that he really didn't help.
And, maybe I should have said, statistically speaking I have more semester units then you do. That is factually true.
.........
Well Tesla is wrong if that is what you are wondering. Like I said, he went pretty loonie in his older years. Wireless power xD.
... so calculus is not useful, got it. Can you name 3 things that involve change of any kind?
My mind is open, if you have anything to share to support your points I would love to be linked.
Sure most people my age don't have too many units - I give you that one.
If you have something logical to say please do, otherwise I am done wasting time with someone like you.
I am one of the few people that I know that knows what calculus is for and uses it. For everyone else, especially engineers, calculus is a waste of time. The formulas have already been worked out.
However, my statement is extremely meta.
If you aren't taught calculus, then the entire math is in danger of collapsing upon itself. Calculus adds a self reinforcing loop to the structure. So that any person who is decent at math doesn't immediately find its edges and start to ask the teacher embarrassing questions.
I don't even know what to tell you.
Calculus is very important for any science feild.
Looks interesting. How would one going about proving its existence without the scientific method?
You seem to be following a similar pattern I see in many who love conspiracy theories: change the subject. You bring up Tesla and Mercury and luminiferous aether instead of answering the very clear question that was asked about evolution.
Do you know Kyle personally to know his educational background? If not, you're making unsubstantiated claims right here for all to see. You very well may have more institutional education and you may have found some very important facts about reality the world can benefit from. From my perspective, the way you go about explaining yourself does not inspire critical thinkings to follow down your path.
I made the claim based on statistics. There indeed, is a small chance that I am wrong.
Yes, they are brought up by conspiracy theorist, because there is so much there that has been hidden and obscured.
Its like 9-11 truthers talking about free fall speeds. If you know anything about physics/engineering, then the statement "buildings fell free fall speeds thus explosives were used" is a factual statement. However, those for the "official" story will say, there those crazy conspiracy nuts go again talking about free fall speeds again.
In the same vein, I will bring up Tesla and Mercury because they are very big disproofs of Einstein.
My view on michelson-morley (how modern science doesn't believe in the aether)
https://steemit.com/science/@builderofcastles/the-michelson-morley-experiment-the-error-in-the-errors
My view on the scientific method
https://steemit.com/science/@builderofcastles/the-scientific-method-is-crap-it-is-a-mental-prison-for-scientists