[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 18 KB, 512x468, 103978904-The_meme_formerly_known_as_Kuk_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14728664 No.14728664 [Reply] [Original]

genuine question. suppose a professor who spent 20 years of his life studying and researching his field is met by someone with 1 year of experience, maybe less, who fundamentaly disagrees with that professor. Both have claims to back their arguments up and both have (supposed) counter arguments. Such situations are prevalent in soft sciences or social science where some claims are hard to reproduce (populus votes, small case studies), but also math (disagreeing on axioms, see finitards).
Who is right? Is this democratically determined and if so just by the other scientists?

>> No.14728708

>>14728664
It's not like there's some standard way to deal with that, but my impression is the main thing that determines how a field treats views that vary from the norm is how competitive that field is for funding. The more competitive a field is, the more people with similar views band together, give each other citations, give poor reviews of papers espousing opposing views, etc. In fields that are less competitive, researchers are generally more willing to humor ideas that they don't believe in but at least think merit some investigation.

>> No.14728733

>>14728664
The professor who studied for 20 years is right, because he is an expert, and the other guy is a nobody.

The guy who studied for 1 year must prove himself by studying for at least 19 more years, at which point he will have the privilege of being wrong still, because he is an expert with a minority opinion.

>> No.14728736

>>14728664
Whoever is right is right. Unless both are wrong. What a retarded question.

>> No.14728740

>>14728664
Reality has only one truth, you can't have 2 people with different opinions both of which are right, both could certainly be wrong but practically one of them is retarded which you can read as you are wrong.

>> No.14728748

>>14728664
Common sense says the professor obviously, but above that you have to realise that dunning kruger is a very real thing and that undergrads are especially zealous at challenging foundations, especially in bad faith.

>> No.14728755

>>14728740
>you can't have 2 people with different opinions both of which are right
Yes you can. It's very possible for two different models that appear to be contradictory to turn out to both be valid under different conditions.

>> No.14728804

>>14728708
But disregarding wether what you said was true or false, shouldn't such a monetary bias be abolished in science? After all, building knowledge and understanding is the main goal of science.
>>14728740
wrong take. mathematical truth is reliant on axioms which are an arbitrary system, you can make up your own axioms and still be right this way. Also subjectivity can vary, the sky being 'blue' can not be verified by someone without eyesight.

>> No.14728886

>>14728804
>shouldn't such a monetary bias be abolished in science?
How would that work? Without completely unlimited funding there will always be some amount of jostling and maneuvering for it.

>building knowledge and understanding is the main goal of science.
Debatable. A lot of scientists feel that way, but outside of academia, most people probably think the main goal of science is to improve society and make people's lives better.

>> No.14728928

>>14728886
that's an anthropocentric view of science which I believe most western scientific communities would not uphold. It's also debatable if the atomic bomb was for the benefit of the dying humans living outside the respective society.

>> No.14728934

>>14728664
>Who is right?
Scholze.

>> No.14728940

>>14728928
>most western scientific communities
I already said as much in the post you're replying to, but the scientific community doesn't have a monopoly on deciding what the purpose of science is when all of society has to bear the costs. The atomic bomb is one of the most obvious examples of science serving society rather than the other way around. It was not developed primarily for knowledge, but to win a war.

>> No.14728943

>>14728664
Who is right? Unless i know enough about the field i could not really say. If i knew nothing at all i would say the professor unless a good argument was presented. Sometimes professors are just mafiosi and need debunking to stay honest.

>> No.14728948

>>14728886
>most people probably think the main goal of science is to improve society and make people's lives better.
Just yesterday i was thinking of an argument to show to dumb strongmen how not funding science leads to them being assassinated by their own bodyguards

>> No.14728958

>>14728804
In math it's even easier to be objectively right so you are now double wrong

>> No.14728995

>>14728958
not at the fundamental level

>> No.14729005

I never understood wilberger argument that finite big natural numbers are not real. Like he will say a number is bigger than how many atoms are in the universe so its not real

>> No.14729726

>>14728664
>disagreeing on axioms
how?

>> No.14729907

A kid can come up with a discovery or innovation.

Stop buying into progressive credentialism and muh age boomer logic.

Is someone with 20 years experiance better at the job? Probably, definatly? No.

>> No.14729912

>>14728664
>12 year old geniuses aren't credible

>> No.14730126

>>14728733
Sorry to burst your retarded bubble, Anon but your comment is directly illogical. This is called appeal to authority logical fallacy. Logical fallacy means your argument is pseudoscience.

>> No.14730129

>>14728748
Common sense says that you present an appeal to authority logical fallacy which is illogical. Directly illogical. Retard.

>> No.14730132

>>14728804
Yes, it should be abolished.

>> No.14730137

>>14728958
Like 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM but mathematicians and scientists imagine that mathematical proofs only count when they like the conclusion.

>> No.14730147

>>14728733
Yeah, just like the curch said about heliocentric theory. You need to study the bible for 400 years to be an expert! The only way to proceed with this is experimenting their theory to realize which is MORE precise (they both could be right. The advantage for the professor is that he got 20 years to do that and probably is right if noone refute his ideas in the past. But there always could be a genius/talented person which can see it better. You don't have to choke talented people by shutting them down like that.

>> No.14730282

>>14728664
If your theories are wrong is up to you (the world is full of insane people with big egos and a simplistic vision), if you're right they'll crush you like the bullies they are.

In the first case, this is the classical bullet list of such a conversation
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

For a short period of time, I was part of a small participatory democracy civic list in my town, mostly eco-left oriented. There were many people from la creme of the small city, even a couple of professors. One of those lives in the same hamlet of mine and is teaching in my same uni. Once he told me (with a big smile) «I'm being paid 80 bucks per hour, you're a student and paid 0, therefore my opinion is worth 80 times yours». Apart from the bad math, the power trip and the arrogance, it was really not necessary because I was asking a non-threatening question in his field of knowledge. He wasn't even a failure, because he's the first the state calls when a particular disaster happens (i.e.: stranded beached cetaceans). Maybe he was jealous because the women in the civic list eyed me constantly (yes I'm one of the few with this peculiar problem). I left few months afterwards, because the environment and the general vibe were very toxic (the irony for a green movement). That one time, I was speechless for the stabbing. The others were looking at me with a dull eye and pursed lips, as it was my obvious fault.
(cont.)

>> No.14730284

>>14730282
(cont.)
Sometimes we met him at the local minimarkets. We never acknowledge each other, just reciprocal disapproving stares. 10 years later, I could crush him right now with my supposed accomplishments, but I've better things to do.
There are more details on it, maybe I will flesh out in a novel in the future, sure they make a good tale. For one, the participatory democracy, as the peer review system, can be easily manipulated by strong players, psychopaths, people with money or status and bullies, decoupled from ideas genuineness. It's good only as the people in it.

Anyway the moral of the story is that the smart move is minimizing interactions with the academia world until they civilize up.

>> No.14730418

>>14730147
>The only way to proceed with this is experimenting their theory to realize which is MORE precise (they both could be right.
If his theory correctly predicts an experiment (the professor could be wrong) then the guy's theory can be written off by saying "sure, but what about (other experiment)?", while a new field of study arises in order to find out a way to make the experimental result consistent with the professor's theory.

If many such experiments begin to pile up, part of the theory and developments can be salvaged while giving no credit, and the guy's theory is upgraded from a fringe to a niche field with no new significant experimental predictions.

>> No.14730449

>>14730126
>>14730129
the fallacy fallacy makes an appearance

>> No.14730466

>>14730449
No. The fallacy fallacy is itself a fallacy. If an argument is presented that is shown to be fallacious then it does not count as an argument and must be withdrawn.
Trying to claim that just because the argument is a fallacy does not mean that the conclusion is wrong, is just plain fucking stupid. The argument is defeated concede. If you think your conclusion is still right then present a better argument which is not fallacious. Saying “fallacy fallacy” does not make your fallacious argument true. Only a dumbass can imagine it does.

>> No.14730486

>>14728664
At times science is a popularity contest where most people believe the wrong thing because someone authoritative said so. Eventually the successful research yields something concrete and wins out. When none of the research produces anything of value, then it's just shitflinging and nobody wins.

>> No.14730499

>>14728664
If the guy’s been doing it 20 years and he can’t prove the guy whose been doing it for one year is wrong, the 1 year guy is probably right.

The friction occurs when the old guy can’t admit he’s wrong and the new guy is slowly learning that he’s more right than he realized.

The caveat here is that “soft sciences” are consensus-driven, not fact-based.
So if the old guy arguing that men can’t have babies, he’s wrong.

>> No.14730505

>>14730486
How about when the research produces results which go against the accepted dogma and are neglected as poor quality on the basis that the results don’t match the accepted dogma and the dogmatics refuse to measure and refuse to accept measurements or any other evidence which contradict the dogma?

>> No.14730510

>>14728733
>The professor who studied for 20 years is right, because he is an expert, and the other guy is a nobody.

This is certainly correct for some social studies and bullshit fields which rely on indoctrination and intimidation towards dissenting viewpoints. Though in fields like Mathematics right is right. When Dantzig solved what were previously considered unsolved problems in mathematics and gave the answer to his teacher (who presented them as examples of such) his teacher was so delighted he accepted them as his doctoral thesis.
Though to be fair to Dantzig he had been studying more than 1 year.

>> No.14730561

>>14728664
>Who is right? Is this democratically determined and if so just by the other scientists?
Supposing it doesn't just stay between them: The younger one publishes a paper. This opens up a discussion on the subject. The professor can then publish his own paper arguing with the original one. At this point more people get involved, and more papers get published. Most participants in general share the same goal, which is getting to know the scientific truth. They falsify claims of each side and point out the flaws. Sometimes the argument can't be easily resolved so it stays open for years. But in the end the people in the loop of the discourse decide by a de facto consensus which side is right, or they work up a new theory which somehow merges both POV or creates an entirely new one. Obviously, there can be some bitter people left on each side, but in the end, when something is claimed a scientific truth, it means that virtually all experts on this subject agreed on it.

>> No.14730565

>>14730510
And yet, it happens in mathematics, too.

http://projectwordsworth.com/the-paradox-of-the-proof/

Regardless of what you think of Mochizuki's supposed proof, he thinks his proof is correct and misunderstood, Stix and Scholze disagree.
He has no obligation to further explain his proof, the proof is the explanation, and a proof can be either correct or wrong, regardless of who is able to understand it.
Yet the abc conjecture is still considered a conjecture, and Mochizuki being right is a niche position. So for the time being, Mochizuki's proof is declared wrong by popular expert opinion.

>> No.14730569

>>14730565
Wellm how about that. Though as you have explained it is at least a more understandable reason for it to shake out that way.

>> No.14730579

>>14730561
What if the older one is the “expert” so he prevents publication of the younger ones work.

>> No.14730582

>>14730561
btw. I'm omitting the whole publication process. He would still need to publish the paper somehow, and what's way more important, get people to read it, so the discussion would start in the first place.
This is why he needs a good supervisor with a esteemed "name" in the field under whom he would publish it, preferably in a popular journal. Which means, if the person he was in argument with was this person, then he would need to find another one under whose name he would publish it.
This is basically the "1 year, 20 years" difference you're talking about. Which actually isn't just years in the field, it's how well established you are. Titles and years obviously help your esteem, but what you achieved is even more important. The difference is, that if he was that guy with 20 years, he could publish it himself and people would read it, while the 1 year guy would need to go through a painful battle to publish, and get people attention.
And mind you, reviewing scientific papers isn't a bedtime read, this requires a lot of work, it can even take months. So people don't want to do it for papers published by some noname randos who they don't even have ties with

>> No.14730585

>>14730579
See >>14730582

>> No.14730588

>>14730582
People don’t want to publish that against which they are biased. Everyone is biased against a new discovery. So it’s catch 22.

>> No.14730594

>>14728733
You are either a retard or a jew, if you mean this seriously.

>> No.14730596

>>14730588
A bit, but not really. You are too fatalistic.
Just because it's harder, doesn't mean it's impossible. If the guy is determined, he will eventually grab someone's attention, especially if he's right.

>> No.14730608

>>14730596
Also, it's not like you have only one possible supervisor candidate. You can obviously even look around other institutions for one. And if the field is very narrow, it doesn't necessarily have to be someone in that field, but preferably someone close enough (which is almost always the case in new fields)
But yeah, the romantic view of an antisocial genius who can't talk to people locked up in a basement discovering something entirely on his own is BS. The better you are at establishing contacts and working with people, the bigger chances you have

>> No.14730612

>>14730594
Stating what actually happens doesn't mean that I agree with it happening.

>> No.14730632

>>14730596
Not if the “expert” makes it his job to follow the “young guy “ around and censor any opportunity to grab attention using slander.

>> No.14730652

>>14728664
>Both have claims to back their arguments up
claims? nigga, you can only back up your arguments with FACTS and PROOFS. claims mean jack shit what the fuck even is this thread ffs

>> No.14730664

>>14730652
The pedantic semantic bullshit you are a spouting shows your emotional response, and your own bad grammar makes your language indecipherable.
Do you have a point or are you just here pulling your wire.

>> No.14730669

>>14730652
Yes, anon, every single professor in the world reads every single paper ever published with an unbiased mind, taking the time to understand each and every single detail of the proof, and have infallible logical skills so that they can spot every single mistake and follow every single argument, while still having the time to do their own work, so the only thing that matters to them, so in practice as in theory, are proofs and facts.

>> No.14730702

>>14730632
That's possible to some degree. But first, it's not like they'll have to comply to him, second, imagine how that would make him look like. If the young guy was some no name and the professor would be stalking him for no reason to a degree you're describing, it would be bad for his own reputation. That would either involve making crazy empty schizo claims, or straight up lies, and you don't want those to be exposed. OTOH, if the professor had some legit reason that would make it justified to do so, like if the young guy had proven himself to be a fraud, then maybe he should warn them about him.
Besides, it's not like it's a homogeneous society that agrees on everything. On the contrary, it's an environment that supports rivalities, because it's basically people's job to step on interests of their peers. Everyone has some rivals, they belong to different institutions etc. So if it doesn't work with professor A because he doesn't like you, then you could try with professor B that has bad blood with him. And if B gets a notice from A warning against you, the it could even work as sort of a letter of recommendation for you since B might want to get back on A by promoting you.
Well, that being said, once again , it's definitely possible for him to make your life harder, but I don't think it would be impossible

>> No.14730717

>>14730129
>Common sense says that you present an appeal to authority logical
Appeal to authority is not a fallacy. People say it is but its not. You can challenge an authority if you can show they are not the experts they pretend to be, if you can prove yourself to be even higher of an authority at least on some specific topic. This is very common with recent discoveries where nobody can be an expert with 20 years of experience, if an undergrad discovers something then he is the experts despite a lack of general expertise on other things.
For established knowledge then authorities will always be right unless they are lying on purpose, which is also a possibility.
If you simply have no arguments and dont know shit about a topic then you should simply trust whatever an authority says.

>> No.14730729

>>14728664
That's your mind on critical theory...

>> No.14730731

>>14730717
Of course it is a logical fallacy, retard. You neglect the presented argument. ie: evading. ie: logical fallacy.

>> No.14730740

>>14730565
That's hardly for lack of trying. He had an entire classroom full of mathematicians trying to understand wtf he was doing. Even if you're right, if you're too opaque to understand then it's going to be a while before anyone else agrees.

>> No.14730792

>>14730731
People that dont know anything about a field cant make logical arguments. So your premise that "logic>authority" fails in many cases.

>> No.14730794

>>14730740
Of course, but, being the proof either right or wrong, there's clearly more to it than just the correctness of the proof. We are in an interregnum in which Mochizuki's proof is taken as false by consensus until he admits a mistake or people prove him correct.
It is asserted by the idealists that the experts will come to an eventual agreement that is the truth.
That assumes that the length of the interregnum cannot be infinite, but even granting that, it may take an arbitrarily long amount of time for experts to come to the realization that the proof was correct. That means that for any single controversial claim, you cannot trust expert opinion not to change over time, and with that the whole notion of expert opinion guiding truth collapses, and you're on your own again.

The article I linked relates a story that is even more relevant to the discussion.
>Columbia professor Dorian Goldfeld tells the story of Kurt Heegner, a high school teacher in Berlin, who solved a classic problem proposed by Gauss. “Nobody believed it. All the famous mathematicians pooh-poohed it and said it was wrong.” Heegner’s paper gathered dust for more than a decade until finally, four years after his death, mathematicians realized that Heegner had been right all along.

>> No.14730838

>>14730717
>You can challenge an authority if you can show they are not the experts they pretend to be, if you can prove yourself to be even higher of an authority at least on some specific topic.
That isn't how science works.

>> No.14730869

>>14730838
Actually, it is how science is supposed to work. It is called the scientific method. If you can predict the outcome of an experiment better than the expert, then the expert is shown wrong and must concede and adopt your theory.

You are right that scientists don’t operate like that because they believe that they are above the scientific method and can just stamp their feet and demand to be right because they think that is what “expert” means.

>> No.14730877

>>14730869
>Actually, it is how science is supposed to work.
No it absolutely isn't. Go kill yourself.

>> No.14731081

>>14730869
> trains neural network on measured data
> neural network outperforms well formulated and reasonable physical equation
physics debo0nked

>> No.14731749

>>14731081
All you had to do was listen to the fact that angular momentum is not conserved.

>> No.14733261

>>14730137
Eh that's not true.

>> No.14733457

>>14733261
It is a simple obvious objective fact that a ball on a string demonstration does not spin as fast as a Ferrari engine which directly falsifies the “law” of conservation of angular momentum.
It is absolutely true and you must be in denial.

>> No.14733640
File: 744 KB, 1415x1721, COAM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14733640

>>14733457
I have won.

>> No.14733655

>>14733640
No, you present an evasive appeal to tradition logical fallacy argument and you do not even attempt to address the 12000 rpm. Ie: you neglect the evidence like a flat earther.

>> No.14733920

>>14733655
I'm probably the only person who's seen your posts today, John. Do you really want to stay in this shithole if nobody gives a fuck about your ramblings anymore? Why not organize a debate with some r/Mandlbaur retard?

>> No.14734018

>>14733920
Fuck you you piece of shit.

>> No.14734021

>>14734018
Genuinely why not organize a debate with one of those obsessed retards at r/Mandlbaur?

>> No.14734025

>>14733457
Rotational invariance of the system coordinates implies CoAM

>> No.14734029

>>14734025
John thinks circles don't exist, though

>> No.14734058

>>14728934
I see SS is still salty.

>> No.14734064

>>14734021
Because I did that and when I won the debate I got censored, so what is the point, asshole.

>> No.14734065
File: 30 KB, 390x310, 7f3611d60c269f57831de3441cae21fa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14734065

>>14728664
>claims
>axioms
Dude, just formulate a proper argument with evidence/proof to back it up

>> No.14734074

>>14734064
Like a live-streamed, moderated debate on YouTube. The point would be to show the world that there are people gang-stalking you for thinking differently. Considering how severe their stalking is to the point of doxing you, I don't think you could lose that at all.

>> No.14734088

>>14733655
Have you branched out of physics and maybe tried addressing other science theories people are just blindly accepting?

>> No.14734092 [DELETED] 
File: 219 KB, 660x817, 1659697782422805.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14734092

>>14734088

>> No.14734305

>>14734065
Proof and evidence mean nothing to a person who is in denial.

>> No.14734311

>>14734074
I cannot lose at all because I am right. I have not ever lost any debate at all.
Jack lost the debate by proving me right twice and then abandoning rationality and blurting friction against a contradiction which I defeated in my introduction.

>> No.14734314

>>14734311
But you should show everyone that people are gangstalking you and harassing you. People may not know that. Do you not agree?

>> No.14734316

>>14734088
I have never been a physicist and have no intention of becoming one.

>> No.14734324

>>14734314
In my experience, if I do that, the number of people gangstalking me increases. It feels as if the enemy gets advertising from my effort.

>> No.14734331

>>14734324
Have you tried contacting reddit admins about this subreddit harassing you? Communities made to gangstalk a single person are not allowed on reddit

>> No.14734365

>>14734316
What about the logical inviability of pure mathematics? https://youtu.be/F8eO2z13BLI
There are a lot of issues in the foundations of math, physics, biology, etc. so why not generally call such out? You've seen how much attention you get once you dare to claim COAM is false. Maybe more people need to be aware that most sciences are not as rigorous as people pretend they are?

>> No.14734454

>>14734365
Bullshit. If Noether’s maths counts as proof then my maths counts as proof. Abandoning reason to avoid accepting the conclusion is unreasonable.

>> No.14734460

>>14734331
If I am the victim then it is considered perfectly reasonable behavior and “does not violate any rules.”
When I complained, that is when I started being censored.

>> No.14734468

>>14734460
Really? You contacted reddit admins and they did nothing about it?

>> No.14734498

>>14734468
When I complained about the impersonating, they eventually closed the account of the forum originator who was using my surname with an i instead of an l. But they refused to delete the thread. They told me it did not break any rules. I have yet to see moderators without insane bias. Even here. It is generally socially acceptable to personally attack me, it seems.

>> No.14734507

>>14734498
you can contact 4chan mods here https://www.4chan.org/feedback
also on their IRC server

>> No.14734604

>>14734507
Thank you, however mods have already been actively censoring me and even telling me directly they are justified because I am harassing people. My posts started dropping down the pages within seconds.
Complaining to a biased person usually causes them to respond more aggressively.

>> No.14736545

>>14734305
retard

>> No.14736574

>>14728664

Ideally they have an open, on-record exchange of some kind (via journals, talks or otherwise) so that others can judge for themselves as to the force of the better argument. Younger people tend to be less experienced and may get things wrong, perhaps in a bid to establish a reputation. On the other hand, established professors have strong emotional and confirmational biases attaching to their own research which may give them blind spots and an unwillingness to change. These are some of the human considerations in such a hypothetical. Also sometimes two assholes just want to have a pissing match.

>> No.14736577

>>14736545
No, the person in denial is literally the retard. Ie: you.

>> No.14736579

>>14736574
Even an “open, on record” exchange can easily be misinterpreted by a mass psychosis.

>> No.14736594

>>14736579
There isn't a single historical event that even remotely resembles a mass psychosis. It's just a way for schizos to evade arguments

>> No.14736618

>>14736594
There is a historic event right now that is triggering mass psychosis.

>> No.14736620

>>14736618
meds

>> No.14736638

>>14736620
Yes. You do need meds.

>> No.14736763

>>14736638
What is so difficult about accepting that someone can make a scientific discovery?

>> No.14736783

>>14730129
imagine genuinely thinking you can collect as broad and deep understanding of a narrow field as 20 in 1 year. see you sweeping leaves in a month

>> No.14736794

>>14736783
Imagine making a discovery and then not being listened to because you happen to have less qualification.

>> No.14736799

>>14736794
that's just life

>> No.14736979

>>14736799
Nope. That is not a life. It is terror.

>> No.14737143

>>14730466
>Both have claims to back their arguments up and both have (supposed) counter arguments.
Try paying attention sometime, dipshit.
Both must be withdrawn...

>> No.14737616

>>14730129
low iq post

>> No.14737631

>>14736794
There's worse, not being listened to BY the unqualified or qualified

>> No.14737818

>>14737143
You are the dipshit for presenting logical fallacy argument, dipshit.

>> No.14737823

>>14737616
Fuck you you mindless insulting cunt.

>> No.14737828

>>14737631
The unqualified appeal to authority, so are obviously not listening.

>> No.14737853

>>14737818
Asswipe, i presented no argument.
That was my first post.

>> No.14737856

i read all the thread and now I really depressed, if you are in the right place with good connections you can make it otherwise youre fucked

>> No.14738004

>>14737853
So you are shitposting.

>> No.14738115

>>14728664
>suppose a professor who spent 20 years of his life studying and researching his field
20 years is not a lot

>> No.14738125

>>14738004
pay at least a modicum of attention to a lines of posts, fucktard.

>> No.14738158

>>14736794
you are retarded. 1 in a billion you make a discovery, the other 999 999 999 times it's gonna be someone that WORKS at the field. This is not about being listened to or not. Simply, greenhorns don't make discoveries, they wouldn't even know what to discover. Would you able to find a never before seen star on the sky just by looking up?
I am not saying novel methods don't work or that we don't need fresh blood. We definitely do, but don't mistake luck for knowledge.

>> No.14738160

>>14737856
yes its all luck, kys

>> No.14738232

>>14738125
Fuck you. If you have nothing useful to say then shut the fuck up you piece of shit.

>> No.14738235

>>14738232
I'm now following your example.
Lead on!

>> No.14738238

>>14738158
Stop pulling statistics out of your ass you ignoramus. Wtf.

>> No.14738239

>>14738235
Have you got a mental problem or something you annoying pice of dog shit.

>> No.14738242

>>14738239
someone has been eating a warm fresh pile.
Woof woof.

>> No.14738253

>>14736783
Did it not occur to you that what took 20 years to acquire doesn't take 20 years to teach?
The results of that 20 years will get reduced to a chapter in the next required book for a high-level course.
The new get the benefit of that 20 years of research without having to spend 20 years. They just build on what already exists.

>> No.14738268

>>14728804
>shouldn't ... bias be abolished
No, that sounds jewish.

>After all, building knowledge and understanding is the main goal of science
>Claims to talk on behalf of science

>> No.14738289

>>14728664
If you think there could be an answer to this question in general, you’re too stupid to be reasoned with. It depends on who happens to actually be correct and your assumptions tell us nothing about that.

>> No.14738428

>>14734058
>literally saying people disagree with you because they're nazis trying to oppress you
Mochizuki is peak Reddit.

>> No.14738651

>>14738242
You have got a mental problem.

>> No.14738667

>>14738651
But damn did that post trigger you and trigger you hard.
Put down the mirror while typing.

>> No.14738669

>>14738651
Oh wait, sorry.
Don't we all! Yours just happens to be related to eating fresh steaming piles of shit, and loving it.

>> No.14738914

>>14738669
Some have a mental problem that they can control. You are out of fucking control simply because you can’t defeat the truth. Grow the fuck up and stop harassing me.

>> No.14738918

>>14738667
The person who is desperately trying to “trigger” someone because they are afraid to face facts, is the unreasonable one.

>> No.14739018

>>14728664
The measure you are looking for is not "rightness" but orthodoxy, and the old guy has the stark advantage in that regard. Mostly, orthodoxy is preferable.

Who is right is determined by the arguments themselves, not oversocialized social bullshit.

>> No.14739037

>>14738918
highly based, Mr. Mandlbaur

>> No.14739230
File: 1.76 MB, 235x150, 1655850767644.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14739230

>>14738914
Take your meds. You definitely can't control your mental problem.

>> No.14739282
File: 4 KB, 205x245, incel.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14739282

>>14730129
t. low IQ poltard moron who thinks he understands science better than actual scientists

Anon, you are so wrong and so stupid that you don't even realize how wrong you are.

>> No.14739311
File: 64 KB, 645x729, brainlet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14739311

>>14738158
>you are retarded. 1 in a billion you make a discovery, the other 999 999 999 times it's gonna be someone that WORKS at the field.

Not the same anon, but you're actually the one who is retarded. I'm pretty sure most of the people making these sort of claims that only "experts" make discoveries are actually retarded fucking normies and undergrads. Anyone who works in science or studies science as a grad student or researcher or professor is probably familiar with non-experts making "discoveries" and publications all the time. It is extremely common. There are probably thousands of peer-reviewed scholarly papers published every year by non-experts. This is especially common in interdisciplinary or very applied fields. I'm studying graph theory, and probably more than a quarter of the papers I see, if not more, aren't even published by mathematicians. A lot of them are published by computer scientists, but also physicists and biologists, and even philosophers and people with humanities degrees. You may be a retard, so its difficult for you to understand how someone could be competent in multiple fields, and I guess you're not reading a lot of journal articles, so you're not really aware, but it's actually extremely common for non-experts to find and publish new results, even in extremely rigorous fields like mathematics.

The irony of all of this is the condescending tone of your post and your insistence that you're correct despite the fact that you clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. When people talk about "non-experts" talking out of their ass with extreme confidence, they're actually talking about people like you. Your post is ironically a great example of the very phenomenon that you claim to hate.

Also, from what I've heard amateur astronomers routinely discover new planets with no training whatsoever, although I don't personally know as much about that since I'm not studying astronomy.

>> No.14739579

>>14739230
Fuck you. Retarded ignorant moron.

>> No.14739586

>>14739282
I am right and you are the wrong and stupid one.

>> No.14739588

>>14739579
meant for >>14739311

>> No.14739592

>>14739588
Fucking delusional retard in denial.

>> No.14739595

>>14739586
what's wrong, chud?

>> No.14739599

>>14739595
As I said you fucking idiot. I am right. Is that difficult for you.

>> No.14739602
File: 134 KB, 974x998, 1632175720684.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14739602

>>14739586
>I am right and you are the wrong and stupid one.

>> No.14739603
File: 429 KB, 1001x999, 1652989331727.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14739603

>>14739599
Sure, little chuddy

>> No.14739608

>>14739602
Have you seen a ball on a string doing 12000 rpm?

No.

The the person who says it does not happen is right. And the one who says that the law, which predicts that, is right, is a fucking idiot.

Ie: I am right and you are a fucking idiot.

>> No.14739610

>>14739608
>Have you seen a ball on a string doing 12000 rpm?
Yes I have.

>> No.14739613

>>14739603
The person who is so desperate that he pretended to be two people because he thinks that two people with the same idiotic argument is convincing, is the retard. Retard.

>> No.14739614

>>14739613
schizophrenia

>> No.14739616

>>14739610
Liar.
Lies are bad science.
Retard pretending to be more than one person is a fucking psychotic.
FUCK OFF MORON.

>> No.14739618
File: 130 KB, 640x640, 1645761570803.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14739618

>>14739616
seethe, chud

>> No.14739619

>>14739614
No, it is called multiple personality disorder. And when it is intentional then it is just plain psychotic. What the fuck is wrong with you. You think that lying through your teeth is good science. Retarded fucking psychotic motherfucker. Fuck you.

>> No.14739625

>>14739618
Stop provoking me asshole. You provking me will never make me wrong. It just shows how fucking desperate you are asshole.

>> No.14739628
File: 176 KB, 856x524, 1654487326049.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14739628

>>14739619
still denying the holocaust, eh?

>> No.14739632

>>14739625
>Stop provoking me asshole
what are you gonna do, racist prick? Throw a temper tantrum, dox random people, and then get banned again? You're retarded.

>> No.14739650

>>14739632
I am retarded because you provoke me and have the moderators on your side?

Fuck off you mindless moron

>> No.14739655

>>14739628
Fuck you. You lying piece of shit.

>> No.14739664

>>14739628
Oy vey. It reminds me of the time the Nazis spun jewish infants to death to test their 1200000 rpm centrifuges.

>> No.14739672

>>14739650
>I am retarded
Thank you for conceding.

>> No.14739677

>>14739650
Dumbfuck, this has nothing to do with jannies being on my side, when you dox someone, you're gonna get banned. Why the fuck are you even evading the ban so obviously?

>> No.14739679

>>14728733
Hahaahhaha KEK. Nice bait.

>> No.14739689

>>14739655
The holocaust is not a lie you cunt. Go back to /pol/ so you can fantasize about "muh ethnostate Rhodesia" with your low IQ friends

>> No.14739788

>>14739689
I have never denied the holocaust you FUCKING LYING PIECE OF SHIT.

>> No.14739791

>>14739664
Fuck off you mental case.

>> No.14739792

>>14739788
You're equating your non-existent torture to the holocaust, hence denying it. Stop being such a cunt.

>> No.14739793

>>14739672
Fuck you. Mental case.

>> No.14739797

>>14739792
Bullshit. I am pointing out that your personal harassment of me is as bad as the nazis behavior and you are as fuckjng wrong

>> No.14739800

>>14739797
But there is no personal harassment, hence why you're saying the nazis did something as equally harmless. Stop denying the holocaust, cunt.

>> No.14739844

>>14739800
There is nearly seven years of personal harassment which I believe that you are very well aware of because you have been the main motivator. Effectively you are the hitler of the movement. The fact that there is only one of me right now does not justify your behavior.
Soon there will be eight billion people who understand that COAM is false despite your regime and impersonation and pretending to be multiple people insanity.
You are wrong. Face up to it. Stop behaving so badly.

>> No.14739878

>>14739844
You're wrong, that's it. If it's true, it can be proved, you haven't done anything of that kind. You don't even know how to prove something.

>> No.14739892

>>14739878
My mathematical physics paper has never had any error directly pointed out in it. That is proof.
Besides my measurements of prof Lewin and the independent confirmation of my theory by the LabRat. Which are also proof. Not only that, but every ball on a string demonstration in history did not spin as fast as a Ferrari engine which is overwhelming independent experimental confirming “proof”.

>> No.14739896

>>14739892
>That is proof
It's not, but let me throw you a bone here. Define the following 4 types of proof:

direct proof
indirect proof
inductive proof
constructive proof

You have 10 minutes

>> No.14739926

>>14736618
See
>>14737143
The initial post in no way was an attempt to trigger.
The replies, including yours, are Triggered.

>> No.14739933

>>14739892
>>14739896
Time's over. Go on and explain it now.

>> No.14739936

>>14738914
Who the hell are you?
This may have escaped your notice but for the vast majority of posts the displayed name is 'Anonymous'.

>> No.14739949

>>14739892
Just because you don't acknowledge all the posts pointing out errors doesn't mean those posts don't exist.
Burying your head in the sand is no way to address the errors.
Btw, different anon.

>> No.14739986

>>14738289
> who is right or wrong depends on who is right or wrong
retard

>> No.14739993
File: 706 KB, 298x200, 1639760827368.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14739993

>>14728664
>Who is right? Is this democratically determined and if so just by the other scientists?
You're asking the wrong question. Unless you are talking about your own area of expertise, your job isn't to decide who is right and who is wrong, but to figure out the appropriate weight to give each source of information before you place your bet on a particular conclusion.

>> No.14740036

>>14739993
That's bullshit.

>> No.14740037

>>14740036
Prove me wrong, then. Protip: you literally can't.

>> No.14740100

>>14739949
I have addressed and defeated every argument ever presented against any of my papers. The fact that you are in denial does not alter reality, it just means you neglect it.

>> No.14740105

>>14739926
Of course it is an attempt to trigger. That is the only possible purpose to post. Otherwise there’s it is pointless.

>> No.14740107

>>14740037
My ass is better “pro” than you.

>> No.14740121

>>14740100
Actually no, you have in fact not done as you said. The threads you litter this site with are full of loose ends you ignore.
Take your own words to heart and apply them to the posts you ignore.

>> No.14740126

>>14740105
So, you are attempting to trigger others with every post you make.
Interesting, that is the only reason to post.

>> No.14740258

>>14740126
No. I have something to tell you which triggers you.

>> No.14740261

>>14740121
There is no loose end. You are simply a liar. Why do you have such en emotional issue with facts?

>> No.14740381

>>14740261
Correct, there is no 'loose end'.
There are loose ends, plural.
The archive is there, the loose ends are not going anywhere.

>> No.14741331

>>14740381
There is no loose end at all.
That is why you are left making up errors that you cannot point out.
You are a liar.

>> No.14741636

>>14728664
Truth is just majority opinion. I used to think that was a logical fallacy but science is determined by consensus.

>> No.14741651

>>14741636
That is why they call it revolution. The consensus has to be overturned.

>> No.14741766

>>14738914
sorry retard, but you will never be a scientist.

>> No.14741771

>>14741766
I am not trying to be a scientist you fucking moron.

>> No.14741961

>>14730717
>you should simply trust whatever an authority says.

Kys

>> No.14741962

>>14741771
then leave this board. It's for scientists only

>> No.14742002

>>14741962
You leave this board because ignorance is the behavior of a flat earther, retard.

>> No.14742008
File: 55 KB, 342x342, 1658957549685.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14742008

>>14742002
man, you're like a broken fucking clock, repeating the same sentences over and over again. Are you even sentient? Do you even understand this sentence?

>> No.14742145

>>14742008
I have not said the same thing twice, dumbo. You have a mental problem of sorts if you imagine that. Or you are just trolling. Fuck off.

>> No.14742181

>>14742145
You're so fucking clueless, holy shit. You've said "flat earther" twice already in this thread and probably 50000 times the past year

>> No.14742189

>>14742181
If you don’t like to have it pointed out that you are behaving like a flat earther then stop behaving like a flat earther. Face the facts instead. 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. Fact. Grow up. Stop behaving like a child and running away from the facts. Retard. Why do you harass me?

>> No.14742192

>>14742189
>12000 rpm
>COAM
>flat earther
>harass
Like a monkey, this South African low iq retard repeats the same words over and over again.

>> No.14742197

>>14742192
It is you responding with the same evasive insults over and over because you are literally afraid to face the facts.

>> No.14742217

>>14728664
In math, you can do your own math with your own axioms while the rest do their thing and neither would be «more right» than the other. In fact, because you are working in different axiom systems, comparing the validity of one vs the other does not even make sense.

>> No.14742316

>>14741331
You fucking imbecile
All of your previous posts are in the archive, dipshit.
That what you accuse me of lying is readily proven true in the archive.

>> No.14742321

>>14742145
You're the only one using the term "mental problem" in this thread you unaware piece of garbage.

>> No.14742322

>>14742189
Retard, idiot ignoramus, dipshit, fucktard, asshole, nimrod, etc.
By your own words, if you dont like being called out then dont act in a manner that can be called out.
12000rpm does not falsify COAM.
One does not need to be a scientist to properly apply formula but in your case it would have cleared up things years ago.

>> No.14742374

>>14742322
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.
Rebuttal 3: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>> No.14742379

>>14742374
>12000 rpm
>objectively
>falsifies
>COAM
>Rebuttal
and here he goes again, reading off of his script verbatim like a mindless fucking dog

>> No.14742385

>>14742379
Please address my written rebuttal number 3, sir ?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>> No.14742391

>>14742374
No, it doesn't.
Misapplication or ideal formuals to a nonideal experimental setup does not falsify the underlying claim.
All it does is prove you have no clue what you are doing.

>> No.14742392

>>14742391
It absolutely does falsify COAM. Directly and undeniably. You are grasping at straws and literally neglecting the evidence.

>> No.14742393

>>14742392
No.

>> No.14742395

>>14742393
Please stop trolling?

>> No.14742396

>>14742392
Using the wrong formuals for the experiment only falsifies your paper.
Using the wrong experiment for your chosen formuals only invalidates your paper.
Do you see a pattern?

>> No.14742401

>>14742396
If my formulas are wrong then you agree that my paper falsifies COAM.
Do you see your insanity?
Rebuttal 9 : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>> No.14742422

>>14742401
Whaaa
Your reply is nonsensical.
If your formuals are wrong, that you are using the wrong formuals, that just proves your paper is garbage.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

>> No.14742424

>>14742422
Please read rebuttal 9 : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>> No.14742426

>>14739655
What the fuck man? Why are you denying the holocaust you massive piece of shit?

>> No.14742431

>>14742424
>the NPC doesn't realize he's already posted it

>> No.14742434

>>14742426
Please stop these lies and personal attack. This is not reasonable behavior. You are trolling.
Why are you harassing me?

>> No.14742438

>>14742434
Oh no, you will not get away with this one you piece of shit. Explain why you deny the holocaust.

>> No.14742443

>>14742438
I have never denied the holocaust now why are you lying and personally insulting me?

>> No.14742446

>>14742434
So, it is OK when you do it but not others?
Sounds perfectly reasonable.w

>> No.14742447

>>14742443
wrong, you also accused others of racism for no reason https://old.reddit.com/r/Mandlbaur/comments/ufj48i/guilty/i6vasn4/
You are a disgrace, sir.

>> No.14742456

>>14742446
I have never personally attacked you. You have done nothing but personally attack me and when I eventually lost my temper, you censored me. Why are you attacking me?

>> No.14742458

>>14742456
Nobody ever censored you on 4chan.

>> No.14742459

>>14742447
I have never denied the holocaust and you are the disgrace, literally horribly attacking me. Why do you attack me?

>> No.14742463

>>14742458
Yes they did. Not you personally here, but I have been censored here. You are not the only biased moderator in the world moron.

>> No.14742466

>>14742459
Why the fuck are you comparing random people to the KKK you insensitive piece of shit?

>> No.14742473

>>14742463
No, they haven't.

>> No.14742474

>>14742466
Stop this stupid made up bullshit character assassination, retard. Face the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM. Trying to defeat your opponent by slandering them is horrible.

>> No.14742475

>>14742474
not made up, see https://old.reddit.com/r/Mandlbaur/comments/ufj48i/guilty/i6vasn4/

>> No.14742479

>>14742475
Totally made up. Total slander. Total evasion of the fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>> No.14742481

>>14742479
ahahah so who made this post? Your father? Please stop with the nonsense. It's a post made by you

>> No.14742483

>>14742481
12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>> No.14742487

>>14742483
>CTRL-F "12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM"
>6 results
Just like a robot you repeat the exact same phrases. And you wonder why you got banned for being a spambot.

>> No.14742491

>>14742456
Yes, you have attacked me. On multiple occassions even.
I have plenty of posts where no attacks on you occurred, that makes you a liar.
I'm not a jannie, i cannot censor you.

>> No.14742492

>>14742487
I am trying to get you to address the argument and stop personally attacking me.

>> No.14742495

>>14742492
You first apologize for being a piece of shit by comparing some guy to the KKK.

>> No.14742500

>>14742491
No. You have personally attacked me. You harass me until I tell you to fuck off and then you blame me for your inability to face the simple fact that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>> No.14742503

>>14742500
>repeats himself verbatim once again

>> No.14742505

>>14742492
Different anon but no, that is not what you are doing.
You will only accept vaidation of your paper. Everything else is discounted. You don't want anyone to engage your argument because in doing so they show that is doesn't hold water, it is just one massive hole.

>> No.14742506

Starting to think it's just a bot.

>> No.14742507

>>14742495
No. You apologize for being faux upset about it. You bullshitter.

That has got nothing to do with the fact that COAM is false.

You literally present as hominem attacks.

Your behavior is literally dishonest and disgusting.

>> No.14742515

>>14742505
My paper is a mathematical physics paper so you have to falsify the maths or accept the conclusion.

>> No.14742517

>>14742507
You're the piece of shit who compared some guy pointing out a flaw in your argumentation to the KKK and himself to jews during the holocaust. You are not the victim and never will be one. Be forthright; stop being such a piece of shit

>> No.14742520

>>14742506
Retards can’t fucking think moron.

>> No.14742522

>>14742515
Yeah it's a bot. Probably some GPT3 shit.

>> No.14742523

>>14742507
Asking others to engage with you then systematically ignoring or disregarding their replies because they don't validate your proposal.... literally dishonest and disgusting.

>> No.14742524

>>14742517
Stop the personal attacks. If you can’t falsify my maths then accept that the conclusion is proven.
Stop being unreasonable.

>> No.14742528

>>14742515
The maths have been falsified, oh so many times.
Its all in the archive spread across every thread you bring your paper up in.
FACT

>> No.14742530

>>14742524
>>14742515
Wtf is this bot?

>> No.14742531

>>14742522
Fuck you. Idiot. Why this stupid fucking harassment.
12000 rpm = COAM false.

>> No.14742537

>>14742530
Mandlebot, version 12000

>> No.14742540

>>14742531
>12000 rpm = COAM false
The bot has said this 50 times already. Fix it

>> No.14742546

>>14742523
I have rejected logical fallacies. My proof stands undefeated no matter how many lies you tell yourself. Moron.
No equation can be falsified so you have to accept the conclusion. 12000 rpm = COAM false.

>> No.14742548

>>14742546
>12000 rpm = COAM false
and the bot will just keep on repeating this phrase from now on, it seems

>> No.14742552

>>14742528
Which equation number has been falsified you liar.
You imagining you have won is insane.

>> No.14742558

>>14742548
This is the crux of the matter so why are you so afraid to face up to the 12k?

Truth scares the shit out of you or something???

>> No.14742563

>>14742552
All of them... As has been mentioned before.
Your equations don't apply to the example you provide, in the conext of your paper.
See, now I'm starting to look like a bot repeating the same facts in response to you.

>> No.14742564

>>14742558
What kind of proof is it?

>> No.14742568

>>14742563
That is simply neglecting my maths and saying my conclusion is wrong.

Unscientific much.

>> No.14742572

>>14742564
It is reductio ad absurdum. 12000 rpm is objectively unrealistic, so the “law” of COAM is wrong. Very simple and clear.

>> No.14742573

>>14742568
Not that guy but you don't even know what a proof constitutes.

>> No.14742576

>>14742573
It makes no difference what you think of me. If you can’t fault my maths then you must accept the conclusion.

>> No.14742578

>>14742576
I can. Your math does not constitute a proof.

>> No.14742579

>>14742568
When applied to the proper setup your equations hold true, there is noone that would deny that.
You are not using an example representated by your maths.

>> No.14742581

>>14742578
Yes it does and you lying about that and neglecting my maths totally, is unreasonable.

>> No.14742585

>>14742581
>Yes it does
How would you know? Go on and tell me what proofs contain.

>> No.14742588

>>14742579
Are you seriously going in this same circle again????

Read rebuttal 9 properly and fuck off.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357302312_Rebuttals

>> No.14742590

>>14742588
man that post went way over your head

>> No.14742591

>>14742585
Fuck you.
Maths is proof.
Face it or fuck off.
Fucking annoying faggot retard.

>> No.14742593

>>14728664
>genuine question.
No this isn't a genuine question, it's a larp to get (you's) Kys u faggot

>> No.14742597

>>14742591
>mentally challenged boomer can't answer a simple question
What makes a proof? Come on, think about it.

>> No.14742604

>>14742590
Nothing goes over my head faggot.
My maths stands as proof until it is addressed.
You queens being too afraid to face up to my maths does not defeat it because ignorance is the behavior of flat earthen.

>> No.14742606

>>14742604
But it just went right over your head. Why is that?

>> No.14742611

>>14742593
I am not the op idiot.
You provoke me like a cunt and then try to insult me for responding to your fagggot cunt behavior. Fuck you.

>> No.14742616

>>14742606
My maths stands as proof, so nothing is over my head, ignorant moron.

>> No.14742618

>>14742611
I'll tell the nurses to come right over, don't worry.

>> No.14742621

>>14742618
Fuck off faggot.

>> No.14742623

>>14742616
It did thoughever

>> No.14742627

>>14742597
12000 rpm makes proof. Asshole.

>> No.14742629

>>14739282
damn this post made him mad

>> No.14742634

>>14742623
You have failed to defeat any of my papers.

>> No.14742637

>>14742627
What kind of proof is it?

>> No.14742638

>>14742629
Either falsify my maths or accept the conclusion and stop behaving like a faggot.

>> No.14742640

>>14742634
https://youtu.be/BBR_eOnZ-UQ

>> No.14742645

>>14742637
It is a physics paper proof.
Either falsify my maths or accept the conclusion and stop behaving like a faggot.

>> No.14742647

>>14742640
http://www.baur-research.com/Physics/

>> No.14742655
File: 37 KB, 807x380, 1649961800722.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14742655

>>14739793

>> No.14742659

>>14742647
https://youtu.be/BBR_eOnZ-UQ

>> No.14742664

>>14742655
Stop being an evasive weasel. Face the face that 12000 rpm objectively falsifies COAM.

>> No.14742666

>>14742645
>It is a physics paper proof.
What is that?

>> No.14742670

>>14728733
>The professor who studied for 20 years is right, because he is an expert, and the other guy is a nobody.
This. If you want to contribute, become an expert.

>> No.14742671

>>14742659
Again, this is called appeal to tradition logical fallacy and does not address my maths. Stop being a faggot. Face up to my proof.

>> No.14742676

>>14742671
Noether's theorem proves COAM, stop denying the math https://youtu.be/BBR_eOnZ-UQ

>> No.14742680

>>14742666
Please either address my paper or fuck off. This faggot style harassment is fucking frustrating. Face the fact that 12000 rpm falsifies coam. Harassing the proponent is really horrible behavior. Why are you behaving so badly? What is your emotional issue here?

>> No.14742684

>>14742680
Simply tell me what kind of proof your paper is.

>> No.14742686

>>14742676
It makes no difference to the fact that my paper falsified COAM.

>> No.14742691

>>14742686
It does, watch the video https://youtu.be/BBR_eOnZ-UQ

>> No.14742692

>>14742684
No. Either falsify my maths or accept the conclusion. Personal harassment of the author is disgusting behavior. Fuck you.

>> No.14742694

>>14742692
Thank your for you concession. I will stand by my argument that your paper contains no proof.

>> No.14742699

>>14742691
It cannot possibly falsify my paper without addressing my paper moron. Fuck off. This is just plain stop circular harassment what the fucknis wrong with you retard.

>> No.14742702

>>14728733
based

>> No.14742706

>>14742694
Fuck you. Seriously this childish shit I should have to be confronted with. Fuck off.
this is trolling

Stop
Trolling.

>> No.14742707

>>14742699
Yes it can.

>> No.14742713

>>14742706
Just a few more posts, retard

>> No.14742716

>>14742707
Please explain how you can falsify my maths without pointing out an equation number?

>> No.14742720

>>14742716
Simple. To prove [math]Q[/math], you want to prove [math]P\rightarrow Q[/math] but the video shows [math]P[/math] is false, meaning that you cannot prove [math]Q[/math] by proving [math]P\rightarrow Q[/math].

>> No.14742723

>>14742720
Nope. That simply contradicts my conclusion which is a formal logic fallacy.

>> No.14742726

>>14742723
For a mathematical proof, you need to look at propositional logic, not "formal logic"

>> No.14742733

>>14742726
Formal logic fallacy is illogical. You are simply neglecting my maths.

>> No.14742737

>>14742733
Don't talk about logic with me, dumbfuck. You don't even know what logic is.

>> No.14742742

>>14742737
You are literally behaving directly illogically.

>> No.14742744

>>14742742
Terrible post.

>> No.14742748

>>14742744
Simple fact. Your personal insults are illogical.

>> No.14742751

>>14742748
See, you don't even know what illogical means. Thread's hit the bump limit, so have fun in this dying, empty thread, retard

>> No.14742759

>>14742751
Illogical is your refusal to accept that COAM is false.

>> No.14742766

>>14742751
Illogical is your censorship behavior.

>> No.14742794

>>14742640
You're terrible, all you do provide youtube links never specially point out his arguments at all

disingenuous at best

>> No.14742818

>>14742794
You are correct Anon. Disingenuous at best. At worst though is the direct admission that the intent was to push the post over the bump limit. Ie: directly trying to censor discussion because they fear the truth. How reasonable is that behavior?

>> No.14742825

>>14742716
As has been pointed out multiple times , for your chosen example to build your paper on your error occurs before equation 1.
You are using the wrong equations.

>> No.14742840

>>14730126
It's also how real life works and the reality of the pride of man. This permeates everything in life including the sciences. It's why I hate everything calling itself "concensus" or "settled opinion". First time browsing /sci/ btw.

>> No.14742853

>>14742825
It has been rejected as illogical to claim that the premiss of a reductio ad absurdum is wrong. Over and over again. How can you think to try and bring up the same stupid defeated argument again, you fucking retrograde circular clown. Wtf ??

>> No.14742857

>>14742853
I've never made any such claim, liar.

>> No.14742859

>>14742840
Yes, real life does work like that but science is supposed to be held to higher standards, yes?

>> No.14742863

>>14742857
Saying that equation 1 is wrong is directly claiming that the premiss of my reductio ad absurdum is wrong. Which is irrational.

>> No.14742919

>>14742863
No, im saying that your example for which you attempted to show via formulas that COAM is false is not represented by the formuals.
I've not said that equation 1 is wrong itself, it is a perfectly valid equation.
Ive said that the equations are all valid equations, multiple times .
You simple use them incorrectly in the context of your given example.

>> No.14742937

>>14742919
Since the example is referenced along with my equations, you are literally claiming that my proof that physics is wrong, is wrong because physics is wrong.

>> No.14742956

>>14742937
No, your paper is wrong because you don't know when to use the formulas, simple as.
There is nothing in that statement implicating any falsehood in physics, the error is with you and your inability to recognize that the ideal prepresented by the equations doesnt match the nonideal of the example.

>> No.14743024

>>14742956
That is called argumentum ad hominem. You are clearly in denial and being unreasonable.

>> No.14743144

>>14743024
Nope, it is not. Kindly check your definitions before posting.

>> No.14744416

>>14743144
It absolutely is and you being delusional is not evidence of anything other than your personal incredulity driven insanity.