Right wing science still has more evidence - Kotaku In Action 2

Right wing science still has more evidence (media.kotakuinaction2.win)

posted 10 months ago by ger111 10 months ago by ger111 +95 / -10

26 comments download

26 comments share download save hide report block hide replies

You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.

Comments (26)

sorted by:

▲ 29 ▼

– ApparentlyImAHeretic 29 points 10 months ago +29 / -0

I've been through the academia bullshit am friends with several people who got phds. when it comes to academic research, the entire system is poisoned with professors who withhold grades until the results align with their thesis.

your data doesn't match my thesis from 20 years ago, I won't let you graduate until you run it again and it aligns with my brilliance!

it's not just left wing bias. academia is rotten to the core with circle jerking.

permalink save report block reply

▲ 12 ▼

– zyxzevn 12 points 10 months ago +13 / -1

I noticed that especially with astronomy. They make up invisible things whenever they need to. Just to keep the ancient hypotheses alive.

There is also a bias towards hype-subjects. As long they are in line with the beliefs of the peers. When someone discovers "something new" with hardly any evidence, it gets so much hype that they promote it as "the best thing ever". Like: AI and Crisper (DNA manipulation).

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 3 ▼

– Adamrises 3 points 10 months ago +3 / -0

Just to keep the ancient hypotheses alive.

The hard part about deifying scientists like Einstein or Hawking is that you make everyone too scared to take a swing at them, because even if you are right everyone will rally against you for daring.

So all new things must be within the handful of frameworks that always existed, even if it doesn't make sense.

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 3 ▼

– zyxzevn 3 points 10 months ago +3 / -0

I have written articles that debunk:
1- the "photo electric effect" , for which Einstein got the Nobel prize.
2- black holes . For which Hawking got the Nobel prize.

I am still looking for honest replies that can show even a doubt in my debunking. But just based on observations and basic physics and logic, both Einstein and Hawking are now in the Bullshit category.

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 3 ▼

– PointlessPseudoanon 3 points 10 months ago +3 / -0

I have written articles that debunk:
1- the "photo electric effect" , for which Einstein got the Nobel prize.

This explanation doesn't make sense:

Atoms are all like spheres. The electron-shells form a sphere around the nucleus. These shells themselves all react to light. If the shells receive a certain frequency of light, they will start to resonate. If they resonate for some time the shell can reach the next state, or even release an electron.

Like a glass resonates at a certain tune. If the resonating takes long enough, the tune can even break the glass. Different glasses react to different frequencies of sound. Just like different atomic shells react to different frequencies of light.

Wineglasses only break at the specific frequency (well, a range of frequencies), and if you raise the frequency too much, it'll stop resonating and won't break anymore.

So if we saw that metals emitted photons only when light was at a specific frequency, resonance would make sense. But what we actually see is that metals emit photons only when light is at or above a certain frequency, without an upper bound on the frequency that will cause photoemission. That simply isn't resonance, not for wine glasses or mercury or any of the other examples you give.

permalink parent save report block reply

... continue reading thread?