/sci/ - Science & Math

There's no proof.

That's pretty much it. Everybody assumes it's true, but we need a proof because the proof would be useful for some other stuff, and people are already doing work with the assumption it's true and that would help justify them

>>9440101
>vixra

>>9440111
>>9440118
Don't respond to the schizo and he'll eventually leave. He's just looking for attention.

>>9440126
You will rue the day.

>>9440126
Actually his mom finally kicked him out of the house and he wants people to buy his book now.

How Israeli intelligence failures led to a ‘devil's advocate’ role
>https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2017/05/21/how-israeli-intelligence-failures-led-to-a-devils-advocate-role.html


"The Tenth Man is a devil’s advocate. If there are 10 people in a room and nine agree, the role of the tenth is to disagree and point out flaws in whatever decision the group has reached."

How come when it comes to fucking me out of my accolades, it is somehow "not suspicious" that not even one person in many thousands of competent physicists on Earth has said, "You know, these equations that Jonathan W. Tooker wrote down are undeniably truthful. Why are we ignoring them?"

What is the global network of social control that prevents even one person on Earth from dissenting from the big groupthink? It is pathetic. There is always someone to chime in with "tfw viXra" and "le schizo viXra maymays" but there has not been even one person to my knowledge in almost a decade of my ongoing research program who has dissented from the unanimous detraction. If 10 people in unanimity is too many, then what does it say when tens of thousands of physicists all act in the same uniform fashion without even a single dissenter?

>>9440451
>that not even one person in many thousands of competent physicists on Earth has said, "You know, these equations that Jonathan W. Tooker wrote down are undeniably truthful. Why are we ignoring them?"
Because they aren't. It's like going to /o/ and claiming that your Stratus is actually a veyron then crying when nobody takes you seriously.

>>9440451
The devil's advocate role doesn't necessarily translate over into all systems. The Israeli's had to make decisions, in some limited time frame on questionable data, this isn't really the scientific model at all.

>>9440455
They are though. If they weren't then you would be able to post an example.

If they weren't someone would have been about to post at least one example at some point during the last ten years of senseless detraction.

>>9440462
"to disagree and point out flaws in whatever decision the group has reached."

That is exactly the scientific model. How is it unscientific to review a group decision with the intention to point out flaws (potential flaws) in the conclusion?

>>9440515
You really don't know what you are talking about here. There is no time constraint. There is no need for a decision as there is no deciding body and there is no course which to correct. Delusional.

Read this guys view on DNA changing and how his model demonstrates there hasn't been enough time. He mentions biblical creation and the Anunnaki. He also reduces mutational changes to cosmic rays. The dude is not clearly presenting his ideas in a convincing manner. It is targeted at counter-popsci groups. Such crap.

>>9440527

Please do read about my disproof of Darwin's theory. Unlike people who argue against my theory, I was able to formulate my detractions in equation form

>The Truth About Evolution
>http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0132

>>9440527

YEAH BUT WHAT IS THE GLOBAL NETWORK OF SOCIAL CONTROL THAT PREVENTS ANYONE AT ALL FROM PRAISING MY NAME UNSARDONICALLY?

>>9440558
>YEAH BUT WHAT IS THE GLOBAL NETWORK OF SOCIAL CONTROL THAT PREVENTS ANYONE AT ALL FROM PRAISING MY NAME UNSARDONICALLY?
Sanity

>>9440563

because if anything describes the powers that be in our modern world it's "sanity"

>>9440549
"In brief, mutations in DNA are essentially caused by the same random
cosmic rays that make the radiocarbon. "

Can you prove that statement? Your whole "model" hinges on it. Why not prove it?

>>9440620

Proof follows from self-evidence.

There can be no mutation in a deterministic evolution of biological molecules. Determinism has an inherent constraint that it must obey conservation of information and a new gene is new piece of information. Therefore mutations are stochastic... just like the flux of cosmic rays.

The regular carbon isotope will never become the radiocarbon isotope under determinism. You have to add an external information reservoir (cosmic rays) which interacts with the deterministic subsystem through some assumed mode of stochastic injectivity. Sometimes a cosmic ray makes carbon turn into radiocarbon and sometimes some other stochastic process (possibly also a cosmic ray) breaks the deterministic evolution of the DNA molecule in a way that leads to a new gene.

>>9440666
>Proof follows from self-evidence.

>>9440683
Pic related for proof that doesn't rely on self-evidence

>>9440694
I wasn't aware that a series of statements begging the question constituted a proof, nor was I aware that abuses of ratiocination constituted an acceptable answer to an empirical question.

>>9440700

No question is begged. Radiocintation has nothing to do with my argument at all, and it certainly wasn't abused. You almost sound smart, but you don't quite pull it off like I do. Fuck off little girl.

>>9440720
Maybe when you understand what 'ratiocination' means you might be able to pull off sounding smart. I'll leave you to your cute little LARP where you pretend to be a scientist. Good night.

>>9440101
Go away.

How do you know that DNA isn't altered by a molecular or biological process?

Well, actually we know that DNA is altered by biological processes. Entropy, as one other example, is just as valid of a source. Your premise is invalid and you have failed to demonstrate it.