I hope, you will see the light. Look: infinite past life is not possible. Because infinities do not exist in nature, so there is very first Living Being with great name "God" (God is not idol, because an idol -satan- is what has stolen His Holy Name). He must be source of all Life, because He is first.
Because Science has run out the monasteries, because the only final goal of Science was God-study, the Science now is the Church schism with atheism as basis of methodology, justifying and praising ignorance, doubt, bullying, trolling and uncertainty - which is non-knowledge, non-truth.
``Debate: Hovind vs Ra'' Debate: Hovind vs Ra - pt1
"Ignorance -- the critical driver for science. Stuart Firestein''
Ignorance -- the critical driver for science | Stuart Firestein | TEDxColumbiaEngineering
They even ignore own Life and Existence, just to ignore the God of Existence:
``The Universe Shouldn't Exist, Physicists Questioning Reality''
The Universe Shouldn't Exist | Physicists Questioning Reality
We don't debate with sick people, but here it is, recognition of Flat Earth Society scientific rights: "SCIENTISTS DISCOVER Flat Earthers Know REAL SCIENCE!''
and recognition of atheists' "scientific rights'': "Epic Debate Over God's Existence''
Debates with sick people is the first move of "Overton Window''
Why? The only enemy of God of truth is the idol of deception -- satan. That is why the crazy methodology of science will be changed only after the Second Coming. Also the separation of Church and State with its ``freedom of religions'' is the Church schism (which lead to accepting the false "church of satan" in USA), because the original form of rulership is God's blessed theocracy.
The Burden of Proof should not become the Presumption of Guilt: "if something has not been proven, it does not exist''. Instead the presumption of innocence must be used: ``as long as something is not refuted, it exists.'' As you have noticed such principles allow Theology to rank with Technical Science.
Presumption of Existence is not Factual Existence and not the Assumption of Existence. But my God is proven to exist. The trolls use Presumption of Non-existence: ``if the thing is not proven, it is like if it does not exist'', it is the ``Burden of Proof''. But I use Presumption of Existence and Presumption of Innocence and Presumption of Righteousness: ``until one would become disproven, he is treated as if he is in right''.
If somebody called John tells you, that a demon is in your room, and is going to murder you, would you believe that this demon in the room exists? DISPROOF number 1: the demons do not exist, because do not come from Source of Existence (the God of Existence). DISPROOF number 2: demons exist only as problem. They have no right to exist. But John is God-less atheist, so he is not God, so John can not see, that enemy is in my room. Thus, John have lied. So, John is not trustworthy. Moreover, you and John can come to the common ground, by agreeing, that demonic problem could be in the room, but could be not.
The degradation has reached the groundless assertion of "what can be asserted without evidence, then it can be rejected without evidence'' (ATHEIST Hitchens Razor).
Such a razor deals with the author in such a cruel way: firstly, the editor of the journal posts doubt, that there is no proof in the article. The author responds that there is proof, since the author thinks so, and asks not to be rude, but rather check the proof for correctness. But the editor was "brought up'' by god-less Hitchens, which means the author's last sentence is not in itself a strict refutation of the editor's statement, so the article is not accepted for consideration as having no proof. Hitchens Razor justifies any tyranny and outrage.
A typical editorial office etazhi-lit.ru/edition/ reports that their journal:
- does not take payment and does not pay the honorarium for the publication of texts;
- does not enter into correspondence with the authors, does not notify the author of rejection, and also does not explain the reasons for refusal, does not review, does not give advice on the texts of the manuscript;
- can not share the opinion of the author.
The honorariums cancellation in the end of XX century does not mean anything good for ``plebs'' -- independent researches. The independent and free-thinking science has lost any of the support and financing. It is the Love dying.
OneRepublic - Love Runs Out
If a journal may not share the opinion of own journal article, then all articles in the journal are the authors self-justification, so they are not objective despite the peer-review. By saying "journal does not trust own papers'', the peer-review system becomes nihilated. What is the point then in the journal?
If the editors of scientific journals are not making reviews of submitted material, then they can be self-justification tyrants. And if all such journals are tyrants, then they do not respect Truth. "The Truth is Born in Argument'' (popular aphorism), but editors deny disputes. And if so, then their journal is rubbish.
And the degradation of the meaning of the printed word was boosted from the Fermat Last Theorem: they said in plain language that letters from plebs go to the trash unopened. This is really mean. Quote: Proving the Fermat theorem among mathematics lovers was so popular that in 1972 the Kvant magazine, publishing an article about the Fermat theorem, accompanied it with the following postscript [Gastev Y., Smolyansky M. A few words about the Great Fermat Theorem, Kvant. 1972. T. 8. P. 23-25]: ``The editors of Quant, for its part, consider it necessary (!!!) to inform readers that letters with draft evidences of the Fermat theorem will not be considered (and returned).''
-- You can publish science papers on arXiv.org e-Print archive, I think.
-- No. I can not. Just like with Nobel Prize nomination (a bot looks for most cited scientist) they have blocks to prevent a pleb from publishing: 1. endorsment, 2. moderation.
-- What would you do if you were sent manure in tons, promising that there is a gold nugget in each heap, but after having shoveled a few heaps you never found it? Would you continue to dig? You have never read the bead ``manuscripts are not reviewed and are not returned'' and the ``editorial opinion may not coincide with the opinion of the author'', it is worth respecting the disclaimers. You have received the answer and meanness is not seen.
-- That way you ``can'' justify Adolf Hitler.
-- But it is not about him now.
-- You can justify any idiot, if you really want. Therefore, it is necessary to change the methodology.
-- And immediately after this, the idiots and the false scientists will flood the science. The present methodology is correct because it works.
-- New Methodology makes the journals use brains to screen out articles.
-- They just do not have the opportunity to do it.
-- Why wouldn't they say honestly: ``pleb, do not write to us.'' Here a very popular physicist Dr. Michio Kaku on YouTube insincerely says: ``If you find out what Dark Matter is, let me know first'', ``The Nobel Prize is waiting for someone who understands why there is so little antimatter in the Universe''; because the ``plebs'' do not have a direct channel of communication with the elite.
Click the link:
Science is in crisis. The Popper was wrong?
Because Science has run out the monasteries, because the only final goal of Science was God-study, the Science now is the Church schism with atheism as basis of methodology, justifying and praising ignorance, doubt, bullying, trolling and uncertainty - which is non-knowledge, non-truth.
``Debate: Hovind vs Ra'' Debate: Hovind vs Ra - pt1
"Ignorance -- the critical driver for science. Stuart Firestein''
Ignorance -- the critical driver for science | Stuart Firestein | TEDxColumbiaEngineering
They even ignore own Life and Existence, just to ignore the God of Existence:
``The Universe Shouldn't Exist, Physicists Questioning Reality''
The Universe Shouldn't Exist | Physicists Questioning Reality
We don't debate with sick people, but here it is, recognition of Flat Earth Society scientific rights: "SCIENTISTS DISCOVER Flat Earthers Know REAL SCIENCE!''
and recognition of atheists' "scientific rights'': "Epic Debate Over God's Existence''
Debates with sick people is the first move of "Overton Window''
Why? The only enemy of God of truth is the idol of deception -- satan. That is why the crazy methodology of science will be changed only after the Second Coming. Also the separation of Church and State with its ``freedom of religions'' is the Church schism (which lead to accepting the false "church of satan" in USA), because the original form of rulership is God's blessed theocracy.
The Burden of Proof should not become the Presumption of Guilt: "if something has not been proven, it does not exist''. Instead the presumption of innocence must be used: ``as long as something is not refuted, it exists.'' As you have noticed such principles allow Theology to rank with Technical Science.
Presumption of Existence is not Factual Existence and not the Assumption of Existence. But my God is proven to exist. The trolls use Presumption of Non-existence: ``if the thing is not proven, it is like if it does not exist'', it is the ``Burden of Proof''. But I use Presumption of Existence and Presumption of Innocence and Presumption of Righteousness: ``until one would become disproven, he is treated as if he is in right''.
If somebody called John tells you, that a demon is in your room, and is going to murder you, would you believe that this demon in the room exists? DISPROOF number 1: the demons do not exist, because do not come from Source of Existence (the God of Existence). DISPROOF number 2: demons exist only as problem. They have no right to exist. But John is God-less atheist, so he is not God, so John can not see, that enemy is in my room. Thus, John have lied. So, John is not trustworthy. Moreover, you and John can come to the common ground, by agreeing, that demonic problem could be in the room, but could be not.
The degradation has reached the groundless assertion of "what can be asserted without evidence, then it can be rejected without evidence'' (ATHEIST Hitchens Razor).
Such a razor deals with the author in such a cruel way: firstly, the editor of the journal posts doubt, that there is no proof in the article. The author responds that there is proof, since the author thinks so, and asks not to be rude, but rather check the proof for correctness. But the editor was "brought up'' by god-less Hitchens, which means the author's last sentence is not in itself a strict refutation of the editor's statement, so the article is not accepted for consideration as having no proof. Hitchens Razor justifies any tyranny and outrage.
A typical editorial office etazhi-lit.ru/edition/ reports that their journal:
- does not take payment and does not pay the honorarium for the publication of texts;
- does not enter into correspondence with the authors, does not notify the author of rejection, and also does not explain the reasons for refusal, does not review, does not give advice on the texts of the manuscript;
- can not share the opinion of the author.
The honorariums cancellation in the end of XX century does not mean anything good for ``plebs'' -- independent researches. The independent and free-thinking science has lost any of the support and financing. It is the Love dying.
OneRepublic - Love Runs Out
If a journal may not share the opinion of own journal article, then all articles in the journal are the authors self-justification, so they are not objective despite the peer-review. By saying "journal does not trust own papers'', the peer-review system becomes nihilated. What is the point then in the journal?
If the editors of scientific journals are not making reviews of submitted material, then they can be self-justification tyrants. And if all such journals are tyrants, then they do not respect Truth. "The Truth is Born in Argument'' (popular aphorism), but editors deny disputes. And if so, then their journal is rubbish.
And the degradation of the meaning of the printed word was boosted from the Fermat Last Theorem: they said in plain language that letters from plebs go to the trash unopened. This is really mean. Quote: Proving the Fermat theorem among mathematics lovers was so popular that in 1972 the Kvant magazine, publishing an article about the Fermat theorem, accompanied it with the following postscript [Gastev Y., Smolyansky M. A few words about the Great Fermat Theorem, Kvant. 1972. T. 8. P. 23-25]: ``The editors of Quant, for its part, consider it necessary (!!!) to inform readers that letters with draft evidences of the Fermat theorem will not be considered (and returned).''
-- You can publish science papers on arXiv.org e-Print archive, I think.
-- No. I can not. Just like with Nobel Prize nomination (a bot looks for most cited scientist) they have blocks to prevent a pleb from publishing: 1. endorsment, 2. moderation.
-- What would you do if you were sent manure in tons, promising that there is a gold nugget in each heap, but after having shoveled a few heaps you never found it? Would you continue to dig? You have never read the bead ``manuscripts are not reviewed and are not returned'' and the ``editorial opinion may not coincide with the opinion of the author'', it is worth respecting the disclaimers. You have received the answer and meanness is not seen.
-- That way you ``can'' justify Adolf Hitler.
-- But it is not about him now.
-- You can justify any idiot, if you really want. Therefore, it is necessary to change the methodology.
-- And immediately after this, the idiots and the false scientists will flood the science. The present methodology is correct because it works.
-- New Methodology makes the journals use brains to screen out articles.
-- They just do not have the opportunity to do it.
-- Why wouldn't they say honestly: ``pleb, do not write to us.'' Here a very popular physicist Dr. Michio Kaku on YouTube insincerely says: ``If you find out what Dark Matter is, let me know first'', ``The Nobel Prize is waiting for someone who understands why there is so little antimatter in the Universe''; because the ``plebs'' do not have a direct channel of communication with the elite.
Click the link:
Science is in crisis. The Popper was wrong?
Last edited:
