Forget _Once upon a time._ It reads like it should start _Hello, my name is __-Kent Hovind-__ __-Jorj-__ __-Greog-__ Jeorge __-Cave-in-__ Kevin Po lol like the cartoon bear lol_
Unironically I have seen more rigorous terminology and precision in articles about differences between various forms of supersayians and proper powerscalling of DBZ... I am not kidding, those guys can go into precise energy calculations on planet busting plasma beams... if we spent half of this energy on inventing better electric batteries we would...well we would be in the excatly the same situation as today but with much much more bickering online.
I am reminded of the review by Dorothy Parker about Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged". “This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.”
And now I'm reminded of Folding Ideas' joke of throwing one of the Fifty Shades of Grey books into a river. And then using that book in his video about NFTs to demonstrate what it means to be "strictly unique", because it is the only specific copy in existence that was glued completely shut and water-damaged... before he tosses it into the river again.
But its not the same , dark matter /dark energy are physical theoretical concepts of a theory , magic ...dont exist , its a fantasy and its not real anyway
Here in the Philippines, English is pretty much everyone's second (or third) language and is also the language used in academia and business. We don't publish academic papers in any of our native languages. That said, people here have varying levels of English proficiency despite having English classes from preschool to college, leading to things like... "cause".
Thanks for letting me know. I still stand by what I said: if you're going to publish an academic paper, you make sure you learn the relevant language at the appropriate level. Otherwise, get a co-author who knows it.
That "abstract" reads like he thought the purpose of an abstract was to post a bunch of abstract...let's call them "thoughts." Going to be honest, I forgot this was supposed to be about "the grand architecture of life."
I'd love to talk to you about the problem of natural language - is it even possible to make an artificial language where each word only means one thing?
@@DeconvertedMan I'm not an expert but I do have some familiarity with Steven Pinker's work and I recall him explaining why Esperanto failed as an "artificial language", even without the added difficulty of unique meanings per word. Namely that fabricated languages like it can't catch on because no-one is ever a native speaker of it. You can learn it, but it will never be exclusively spoken in a family household as a default language. That's how languages die out. I can also speculate about the impossibility of achieving _monomeaning_ in words due to everyone constructing their vocabulary imperfectly from immersion at a young age; since we don't exactly learn a language by reading the dictionary and strictly adhering to definitions, even a language where words have only a single meaning by design would collapse as people form slightly different definitions and reach for the "wrong" word in different contexts, which would then seep into general use. But that's speculation. And a damn interesting question, if you ask me. Which you didn't.
@@EdwardHowton It is interesting! I think that such a monomeaning language would be of great use in debate as then we would all know what the bleep the other person is saying :D Oddly enough I did know someone who learned english via memorising a dictionary and thus he was confused about metaphores to some extent although he did sort of grasp them. What I do know is that in informal logic its seen as anunresolved (and perhaps unresovable) problem. The darn fallacy of equivocation seems to be a staple of apologists. I did a video explaining to one person that claims are not evidence - and he then made a second video to "explain" the first one - and he doubled down! Because of course he did. If you would be as kind to email me I would love to talk to you about language more. :)
Not only do they effect the brain, we have some evidence of them actually damaging/altering it. We know that astronauts will actually see tiny flashes of light if I recall correctly.
I miss our dear friend spirit science, he was a total beast and a source for endless inspiration behind my d&d campaigns, my players think I am so creative with my setting... I almost feel bad, this is basically plagiarism
@@HanMasho He also said "Not intended for plagiarism.", which is certainly one of the sentences, ever. I don't think I'm ever going to get the hang of this witnessing thing.
I found the pdf! "The Brain is truly a mystery, but when you only look at it with a complicated outlook." "Just how can one ever explain what happens inside the Kola Borehole?" "An example of dark matter would be bee hives: for every reality is represented with a section of the honeycomb, without the honey to make each section stick, each section would only fall apart towards the floor and spoiling both the honey and everything in it." SEEMS LEGIT.
Sorry, but my paper seems to have some things lacking.. but u can always go to the link below.. 😁😁 drive.google.com/file/d/1bA3qkm4jugL4bA0M5qBRmJm9BpDOoO_M/view?usp=drivesdk
I paused your video, downloaded the "paper", and laughed my tits off. This wouldn't even pass as a middle school report on anything. If this were posted on arXiv, it would be removed as spam. Now I'm just going to sit back and listen to your fun comments.
I am not a physicist. But i think i could write something better than this without looking anything up. This feels like somebody wanting to be "published" all too much, without worrying how.
Funnily enough I knew a guy in comp sci, he did get his degree as far as I know, who I would absolutely belive could have written something like that. He was really nutty, into all sorts of alternative medicine. He even did a course in reiki. People like that absolutely exist.
It’s odd how some people with (only) a comp sci degree imagine that they are really scientists and are qualified to confidently pontificate on real science.
@@rogercroft3218 He didn't think of himself as a scientist. He was much worse, he honestly believed that his "intuition " was unerring and that, in my opinion, if something made sense to him then it should be true.
@@rogercroft3218 comp sci people have the tendency to assume that because they understand one complicated thing, programming, then they must also understand all other complicated things. Hence why everyone with a degree in programming thinks they can solve world hunger. This is not helped by media's blind worship of Silicon Valley, which in fact does make it seem like programming can somehow solve every problem. Also because comp sci has basically no empiricism, since it is solely about systems built by humans, comp sci people have a much easier time imagining that they're geniuses because they don't have the formative experiences of doing a lab experiment that doesn't work for no reason even though the theory says it should. A lot of this is why mathematicians tend to follow behind in number of nutters followed in turn by theoretical physics. You don't see a lot of quantum mysticist chemists and biologists because they generally make the correct assumption that they aren't smart enough to understand the entire world.
This sounds like someone who has heard about certain theories and hypothesis like atoms, dark matter, space time, etc without understanding anything of it and then he made up a story how he interprets all that. He simply declares certain things as given, like dark matter and just philosophise about highlevel abstract things like "life" and "brain"
@@Martymer81 imagine the horror of spending weeks to precisly explain why this is bulshit...with citations and definitions! One could even write a scientific paper using this one as a case study on how not to write scientific papers! Possibilities are endless! Neither of which are good ones but still!
@@Vidar33 Precisely. Just like if someone tells you "I know how to fix a car, better than mechanics! Step one: Open the glove compartment which houses the piezoelectrical compressor engine (...)", they may ramble on for 15 hours: It matters not. Such obvious errors disqualify them from the getgo, just as with the ... essay (?) presented here.
(From the "paper"): "Einstein Rozen Bridge" Yeah that does not sound like a term used in physics. That sounds like a crude way to describe a nose. ("Rotz" is the german word for snot. Which is being pronounced like "Roz". So "Rozenbrücke" would sound like: Snot bridge) As Martymer correctly pointed out: It is "Rosen" not "Rozen". Rosenbrücke is Rose-Bridge.
It's Rosen and those are simply the names of the physicists that brought up the concept first. No deeper meaning or pun hidden in either name. Like Schwarzschild first conceptualized the black hole's event horizon and that things that fell past it would not be capable of coming back...
I teach courses on Academic Research and Writing at a UK university. One of the things we have to teach students to is how to recognise the red flags of a 'predatory' (or 'pay-to-publish') journal; the International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology is precisely the kind of thing we warn students not to use. Thank you for this - I might actually use the abstract of this particular article as part of a 'Does this look like a reliable source?' discussion class.
This is what happens when religtards try to shoehorn science into their beliefs. 99 and 44/100th percent word salad. (The 56/100th is for the conjuctions that create sentence structure; if, and, but, my theory, etc.)
24:10 - Multiverse vs. MWT - these are completely different things! MWT is a valid interpretation of QM, together with others like CI or superdeterminism; this requires that same QM, dimensions and fundamental constants apply to every world within the MWT. Multiverse on the other hand means that any kind of universe could be within - with different sets of dimensions, constants, physics and so on.
This article is just an essay. Is there even a single citation? Even letters to the editor have citations. The article should just be rejected as not giving a single citation of anything. I see it have Citations section at the bottom but inside the text there are no citation references. It says [1] but in the text there is no [1]. And the sources are from popular science, a dictionary and Wikipedia. wow... he botches like everything. As such it's just a free style essay and not anything resembles a scientific article.
thats a typical person that has no clue and has heared all these...things and just creates wordsalad assuming the words themselves carry the knowledge. like flat earthers but worse. and also people like that hear a scientist talk and dont understand how one logical step follows from another using similar language...so they see their own wordsalad as equivalent and just assume the logic comes by on its own
Not only did he not get to any biology, he didn't even reach the literally most basic idea of chemistry, that chemicals are made up of multiple atoms bonded together. This isn't even high school chemistry this is literally the first thing you'll be told in your first chemistry class in elementary school.
You would be very wrong, just because you are good at one thing does not mean you excel in others. I have met in my life biologists who believed in ancient aliens theory, historians who believed in time travelers and physicists who believed in telepathy. For a lot of people science is not a way of thinking but a learned skill and regurgitating existing knowledge can take you quite far.
@@JM-mh1pp in my experience pepole with higher education. use a bit of the academic reasoning. even when they. try to explaine some realy far of idea. this is more or less wordsallad.
Damn, Mary Mer posted a new video, but I missed it? Shame on me. Anyways, welcome back Marty, and thanks for another content addressing lots of stupid. Always a pleasure watching you dismantle these 😀
after arriving at 45:00 i assume someone just typed a prompt into chatGPT to create this document. and they explicitly told it to be incoherent nonsense.
this is on the journal's website We help our authors in advance engineering research in different branches like Computer Science, Electronics & Communication, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Information Technology etc. and in science fields by providing world-class information and innovative tools that help them make critical decisions, enhance productivity and improve outcomes. So it is a "peer review" journal for engineering, business & management, and Medical been around since April 2016 so nothing to do with abiogenesis or evolution
Ugh, this is painful to read. Sure there's the occasional hilarious bit, but it mostly made me feel like I was having a stroke. It's like "Everywhere At The End Of Time" by The Caretaker, but reinterpreted as a "scientific" paper.
Always a pleasure see you back. It's 10 years I follow your content, you introduced me to the skeptic side of YT :D I think if I ever see you around my first reaction would be just giving you a hug xD and you there looking like "What the hell is this guy doing", karate WACK! ... ok I'll stop being awkard now. Thank you. Cheers from italy!
Oh dear. As far as I can tell, for the author, Dark Energy has intentionality, purpose, and guided the universe towards its current state. Shorter author: Dark Energy is God.
I'm no credentialist, but....putting your credentials as "irrelevant to the topic" seems like a bad idea. Also the way this is written feels like elementary school.
I love the idea of LOS mind control, obviously mind control follows the laws of radar. Tinfoil is just the mind control version of radar absorbant coatings. If someone is saying such dumb shit that you aren't even sure they're a human that's the mind control version of signal jamming. Jordan is the Growler of mind control.
Quantum mysticists remind me of AI language models in their ability to generate long strings of grammatically correct and coherrent text, which is still completely devoid of meaning. They also seem to generate their beliefs in similar ways, by skimming through a bunch of content without absorbing any knowledge.
It is a bit unfair to say that the paper contains no citations. For instance there is "In the bible, in the book of genesis, man was made on the 7th day ..." 🙂
It's great to hear from you again, Martymer. In the first couple of minutes, I discerned that the author comes from a religious background, and if a college degree was obtained it was from a college or university like Bob Jones U, where biology is Bible, and real science is anathema. They try to use sciency sounding statements to lure people away from science and towards God. The notions of how things work are not based on the real world but on how religiously indoctrinated people think they MUST work, because God. I don't understand these people, I was a skeptic in junior high school and an agnostic before graduating from high school, The only reason I'm not an atheist is because one can't prove a negative [I am aware of the counter to that, bit am unpersuaded]. The problem many people have when learning science in schools is that they integrate that knowledge with the religious indoctrination or related cultural assumptions. The author might not be explicitly religious, but the statements show religious rather than scientific thought.This is particularly problematic in some parts of the US and other places where critical thinking is anathema because, as was stated in a Texas political document, "Such things must not be taught in public schools because it might cause students to question the strongly held views of their elders." Thanks for your ongoing work promoting science education and critical thinking.
Apparently he studied and graduated with a bachelor from Misamis University in the Philippines which is specifically designated as "non-sectarian". I can't find any information on the actual courses from what I've gleaned from the school's website, they don't teach anything (for the Computer Science BS) related to anything of the thing he said. Also the journal is on Beall's list.
Nonsectarian does not mean secular, in the US it just means generic Protestant. The essay reads like religious ideas adjusted to appear scientific. So the author may not belong to a specific faith, or may be trying to appeal to generic Christians, or may be trying to justify accepting science [but on religious terms].@@renthearchangel9479
Even I could have come up with something better than this word salad, even though English is not my first language either. And what do gravity and dark energy have to do with life, apart from the fact that without gravity the elements required for life would not exist?
So.... another "published" woo physicist???? How much does it cost to get your paper published???? I want a place to publish my "Theory" on Bassett Hounds Using Quantum Frequencies To Control the Plasma Phasing of the Self Illuminating Moon. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
As I listen to you talk, I am realizing how deficient my high school physics was. I took AP physics senior year, and I don't remember learning about any of the things that you keep saying were covered in high school physics. This is especially frustrating to me because through 9th grade, I was homeschooled on Young Earth Creationist material. Then in high school, most of my teachers were Christians even though it was a public school, and my physics teacher was a fan of Dr. Hugh Ross, the Old Earth Creationist. I feel so cheated by my education because I was taught so many incorrect things and not taught so many correct things. It's no wonder that I hated school by the time I got to college and am on a career path that I hate now at 33.
Not so much a waste of time as a direct threat to our survival. A... _manifesto_ this bad is clearly intended to make us facepalm so hard we shatter cervical vertebrae and die.
Similar to when Prof. Tokieda used "Wooooooom~~~~~" and "Heehawheehawheehaw" noises to describe harmonic motions in different periods in a numberphile video lol
If I was writing a "scientific paper", I would really hesitant to use expressions like "I theorize" and "I think" in every paragraph. This entire "paper" is just one assumption after another.
@25:02 No... Just no. He's saying that you can't have a present without a past and then equating that to Karma (everything has a reason). He's just making random claims with out even offering a hint of an explanation. This is really no better than the spirit science you're always going on about. But it may even be worse because it is neatly formatted in a way so as to appear scientific and credible. This so reminds me of my favorite youtuber "Dr. Claudia Albers, Planet X Researcher" who (at best) knew how to format a scientific paper. Every day or so, she would write a new essay about how the earth was about to end, but she would format it like this, to look all "sciency". As a matter of fact, her English was MUCH better than this.
I really like this show format, feels a bit deeper and much easier to follow than the RUclips standard "three second clip jumps", even though it's just a readthrough of regular pseudoscience nonsense. I don't know if you take requests but it'd be fun with a "review" of italian-swedish nutcase Simon Shacks Tychos model (some weird geocentric model with the earth moving at slow rate between the twin stars sun and mars ...).
The number of question marks in the abstract was quite foreboding. Oh my... the introduction continues as if the abstract was the first paragraph of that introduction. He may have a Batchelor's but has no idea what the function of an abstract is, or what the structure of a scientific publication is supposed to be. I wouldn't be surprised if the web site of that 'journal' has a submission form with 'abstract', 'introduction' etc. fields where he just randomly dumped his ramblings in.
This paper is something that I would have absolutely _loved_ when I was a teenager. That's probably the harshest insult I can throw at something, because I was an idiot.
32:51 I guess if we're being super charitable he is saying that the laws of physics as expressed in math are not always absolute and all encompassing and have holes. Even then that obviously doesn't mean you can just ignore the math because like we call them laws of physica because they are correct in the vast majority of cases when applied correctly. Because like math is very much absolute, that's like a quite fundamental part of math, really it is the defining idea behind math. Basically you can assert axioms and the derive statements from those axioms that must necessarily and always be true, like how the Pythagorean theorem is always true in Euclidean geometry. That is the foundational idea behind math which differentiates it from both science and philosophy.
Reads more like the word salad I would expect from something like ChatGPT when let loose on a more philosophical topic. Just a load of "facts" mashed together into an incoherent whole. The fact that it got published at all is of course beyond belief. We are so doomed!
I feel bad for that guy. This paper feels like a child that's trying his best to do science but hasn't been taught how to do it. It's as if all they know is how papers roughly look like, and they couldn't check actual papers for reference so they did it from memory.
Part of me wants to say this is a troll on all the so called scientists that want to use things like dark energy, dark matter and quantum as a God of the gaps to explain away everything. But of course, this could just be generic dumb.
The way it's written i was expecting it to start "Once upon a time".
it probably should 😄
Forget _Once upon a time._ It reads like it should start _Hello, my name is __-Kent Hovind-__ __-Jorj-__ __-Greog-__ Jeorge __-Cave-in-__ Kevin Po lol like the cartoon bear lol_
@@EdwardHowton lol agreed.
Unironically I have seen more rigorous terminology and precision in articles about differences between various forms of supersayians and proper powerscalling of DBZ...
I am not kidding, those guys can go into precise energy calculations on planet busting plasma beams... if we spent half of this energy on inventing better electric batteries we would...well we would be in the excatly the same situation as today but with much much more bickering online.
@@JM-mh1ppSame with Star Trek stuff.
I am reminded of the review by Dorothy Parker about Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged".
“This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.”
And now I'm reminded of Folding Ideas' joke of throwing one of the Fifty Shades of Grey books into a river. And then using that book in his video about NFTs to demonstrate what it means to be "strictly unique", because it is the only specific copy in existence that was glued completely shut and water-damaged... before he tosses it into the river again.
"An example of dark matter would be beehives."
Lmao
Yeah, that was my favourite part as well. He clearly is onto something here! 🐝
You could replace "dark energy" with "magic" in this paper since that's what the writer seems to think it is.
But its not the same , dark matter /dark energy are physical theoretical concepts of a theory , magic ...dont exist , its a fantasy and its not real anyway
It's going to be really weird when it comes to black magic...
"There are animals that don't have brains"
Apparently, they sometimes publish papers about dark energy and the quantum realm.
You know its gonna be good when the abstract already mentions Facebook posts and documentaries
don't forget the "science forums" with active members on them (7:35) ;-)
10:20 lmfao
Edit: Dude, hilarious. Thanks for this. Bee hives are dark energy! Skål!
Here in the Philippines, English is pretty much everyone's second (or third) language and is also the language used in academia and business. We don't publish academic papers in any of our native languages. That said, people here have varying levels of English proficiency despite having English classes from preschool to college, leading to things like... "cause".
Thanks for letting me know. I still stand by what I said: if you're going to publish an academic paper, you make sure you learn the relevant language at the appropriate level. Otherwise, get a co-author who knows it.
@@Martymer81 Yep. That dude probably hasn't got any good proofreaders.
That "abstract" reads like he thought the purpose of an abstract was to post a bunch of abstract...let's call them "thoughts." Going to be honest, I forgot this was supposed to be about "the grand architecture of life."
It takes most of a year for my Linguistics stuff to go through peer review- imagine doing "innovative" science in 2-3 days! ⛳
I'd love to talk to you about the problem of natural language - is it even possible to make an artificial language where each word only means one thing?
I second the question of the guy before me, suddenly I need to know this.
I can't believe you skipped the whole "dark energy made species spread out" part! 😆
BEEHIVES, baby! Beehives are the universe! Because quantum!
@@DeconvertedMan I'm not an expert but I do have some familiarity with Steven Pinker's work and I recall him explaining why Esperanto failed as an "artificial language", even without the added difficulty of unique meanings per word. Namely that fabricated languages like it can't catch on because no-one is ever a native speaker of it. You can learn it, but it will never be exclusively spoken in a family household as a default language. That's how languages die out.
I can also speculate about the impossibility of achieving _monomeaning_ in words due to everyone constructing their vocabulary imperfectly from immersion at a young age; since we don't exactly learn a language by reading the dictionary and strictly adhering to definitions, even a language where words have only a single meaning by design would collapse as people form slightly different definitions and reach for the "wrong" word in different contexts, which would then seep into general use. But that's speculation. And a damn interesting question, if you ask me. Which you didn't.
@@EdwardHowton It is interesting! I think that such a monomeaning language would be of great use in debate as then we would all know what the bleep the other person is saying :D
Oddly enough I did know someone who learned english via memorising a dictionary and thus he was confused about metaphores to some extent although he did sort of grasp them.
What I do know is that in informal logic its seen as anunresolved (and perhaps unresovable) problem.
The darn fallacy of equivocation seems to be a staple of apologists. I did a video explaining to one person that claims are not evidence - and he then made a second video to "explain" the first one - and he doubled down! Because of course he did.
If you would be as kind to email me I would love to talk to you about language more. :)
As an old timer I was always approve of the use of that Desertphile clip :)
The author has an excellent chance of becoming incredibly rich as the next L. Ron Hubbard!
for someone so obsessed with "visualization" it seems odd he's so surprised that photons effect the brain
Not only do they effect the brain, we have some evidence of them actually damaging/altering it. We know that astronauts will actually see tiny flashes of light if I recall correctly.
I miss our dear friend spirit science, he was a total beast and a source for endless inspiration behind my d&d campaigns, my players think I am so creative with my setting... I almost feel bad, this is basically plagiarism
Don't feel bad: Because he also plagarises his stuff from other woo paddlers.
"I almost feel bad, this is basically plagiarism"
Almondo Calvo : "Hold my calzone."
@@jonathanj8303 But Almondo put the copyright symbol on the cover of his book. That proves that his book isn't plagiarism - at least according to him!
@@HanMasho He also said "Not intended for plagiarism.", which is certainly one of the sentences, ever.
I don't think I'm ever going to get the hang of this witnessing thing.
Are there Space Jews in your setting?
I found the pdf!
"The Brain is truly a mystery, but when you only look at it with a complicated outlook."
"Just how can one ever explain what happens inside the Kola Borehole?"
"An example of dark matter would be bee hives: for every reality is represented with a section of the honeycomb, without the honey to make each section stick, each section would only fall apart towards the floor and spoiling both the honey and everything
in it."
SEEMS LEGIT.
Can you tell me where you found the file (no links, youtube deletes commens with them)?
@@manfredrichtoften8848facebook :D but I put it on my community tab as well
Sorry, but my paper seems to have some things lacking.. but u can always go to the link below.. 😁😁
drive.google.com/file/d/1bA3qkm4jugL4bA0M5qBRmJm9BpDOoO_M/view?usp=drivesdk
Am still editing the paper after watching his critic about it.. specially the citations and grammar.. 😅
@@jeorgekevinpo8554 I was going to have him on but it was super early in the morning he wanted to talk to me so I missed it. Nuts!
I paused your video, downloaded the "paper", and laughed my tits off. This wouldn't even pass as a middle school report on anything. If this were posted on arXiv, it would be removed as spam. Now I'm just going to sit back and listen to your fun comments.
well done marty, I haven't laughed as much for ages. this has to be on par with the Logicked versus Almondo debacle. more please.
I am not a physicist. But i think i could write something better than this without looking anything up. This feels like somebody wanting to be "published" all too much, without worrying how.
Funnily enough I knew a guy in comp sci, he did get his degree as far as I know, who I would absolutely belive could have written something like that.
He was really nutty, into all sorts of alternative medicine. He even did a course in reiki.
People like that absolutely exist.
Don't let them reproduce!
It’s odd how some people with (only) a comp sci degree imagine that they are really scientists and are qualified to confidently pontificate on real science.
@@rogercroft3218 He didn't think of himself as a scientist. He was much worse, he honestly believed that his "intuition " was unerring and that, in my opinion, if something made sense to him then it should be true.
@@rogercroft3218 comp sci people have the tendency to assume that because they understand one complicated thing, programming, then they must also understand all other complicated things. Hence why everyone with a degree in programming thinks they can solve world hunger. This is not helped by media's blind worship of Silicon Valley, which in fact does make it seem like programming can somehow solve every problem. Also because comp sci has basically no empiricism, since it is solely about systems built by humans, comp sci people have a much easier time imagining that they're geniuses because they don't have the formative experiences of doing a lab experiment that doesn't work for no reason even though the theory says it should.
A lot of this is why mathematicians tend to follow behind in number of nutters followed in turn by theoretical physics. You don't see a lot of quantum mysticist chemists and biologists because they generally make the correct assumption that they aren't smart enough to understand the entire world.
Yep. General intelligence doesn't necessarily imply critical thinking skills.
47:06 I love that dark energy can now have a charge, not dark matter where it would make a tiny bit of sense, no dark energy.
10 minutes in, and this is gibberish that Jordan would be proud of. Not sure how much more i can take...how long is the video again...oh my god.......
This didn't even reach as passing grade as a high school term paper.
This sounds like someone who has heard about certain theories and hypothesis like atoms, dark matter, space time, etc without understanding anything of it and then he made up a story how he interprets all that. He simply declares certain things as given, like dark matter and just philosophise about highlevel abstract things like "life" and "brain"
Yeah he does sound like that 😂
Martymer: It takes months to peer review
Also Martymer: Rewiews it in an hour
Sometimes something you review is so obviously bullshit, that it doesn't take months to figure out that is is, in fact, bullshit.
This is not academic peer review. That would be much more rigorous.
@@Martymer81 imagine the horror of spending weeks to precisly explain why this is bulshit...with citations and definitions!
One could even write a scientific paper using this one as a case study on how not to write scientific papers!
Possibilities are endless!
Neither of which are good ones but still!
@@Vidar33 Precisely.
Just like if someone tells you "I know how to fix a car, better than mechanics! Step one: Open the glove compartment which houses the piezoelectrical compressor engine (...)", they may ramble on for 15 hours: It matters not. Such obvious errors disqualify them from the getgo, just as with the ... essay (?) presented here.
@@JM-mh1pp Better to have that kind of peer review than Sokal's affairs bullshit
(From the "paper"): "Einstein Rozen Bridge"
Yeah that does not sound like a term used in physics. That sounds like a crude way to describe a nose.
("Rotz" is the german word for snot. Which is being pronounced like "Roz". So "Rozenbrücke" would sound like: Snot bridge)
As Martymer correctly pointed out: It is "Rosen" not "Rozen". Rosenbrücke is Rose-Bridge.
The term "Einstein Rozen Bridge" is heavily used in the show Sliders, seems he watches far too much fiction.
It's Rosen and those are simply the names of the physicists that brought up the concept first. No deeper meaning or pun hidden in either name.
Like Schwarzschild first conceptualized the black hole's event horizon and that things that fell past it would not be capable of coming back...
@@Ugly_German_Truths True, but it's the way they say it and the context which they get wrong here and there.
I teach courses on Academic Research and Writing at a UK university. One of the things we have to teach students to is how to recognise the red flags of a 'predatory' (or 'pay-to-publish') journal; the International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology is precisely the kind of thing we warn students not to use. Thank you for this - I might actually use the abstract of this particular article as part of a 'Does this look like a reliable source?' discussion class.
This is what happens when religtards try to shoehorn science into their beliefs. 99 and 44/100th percent word salad. (The 56/100th is for the conjuctions that create sentence structure; if, and, but, my theory, etc.)
24:10 - Multiverse vs. MWT - these are completely different things! MWT is a valid interpretation of QM, together with others like CI or superdeterminism; this requires that same QM, dimensions and fundamental constants apply to every world within the MWT.
Multiverse on the other hand means that any kind of universe could be within - with different sets of dimensions, constants, physics and so on.
This article is just an essay. Is there even a single citation? Even letters to the editor have citations. The article should just be rejected as not giving a single citation of anything. I see it have Citations section at the bottom but inside the text there are no citation references. It says [1] but in the text there is no [1]. And the sources are from popular science, a dictionary and Wikipedia. wow... he botches like everything. As such it's just a free style essay and not anything resembles a scientific article.
Thank you for subjecting yourself to this toss that we did not have to. Your sacrifice in the name of science is appreciated.
Imagine if the brain did somehow create dark energy, that would possibly be the most horrific XKCD What If? Yet.
thats a typical person that has no clue and has heared all these...things and just creates wordsalad assuming the words themselves carry the knowledge. like flat earthers but worse.
and also people like that hear a scientist talk and dont understand how one logical step follows from another using similar language...so they see their own wordsalad as equivalent and just assume the logic comes by on its own
Not only did he not get to any biology, he didn't even reach the literally most basic idea of chemistry, that chemicals are made up of multiple atoms bonded together. This isn't even high school chemistry this is literally the first thing you'll be told in your first chemistry class in elementary school.
Oh, and thanks for the cameo from "Desertphile"!
For what it's worth, I think this one worked much better than the last "live reaction" video. Editing helps - a lot.
6 minutes in, and I'm finding the author's claimed possession of any scientific/engineering degree increasingly implausible.
Are you doubting his credentials from both Trump and Prager U.?
You would be very wrong, just because you are good at one thing does not mean you excel in others.
I have met in my life biologists who believed in ancient aliens theory, historians who believed in time travelers and physicists who believed in telepathy.
For a lot of people science is not a way of thinking but a learned skill and regurgitating existing knowledge can take you quite far.
@@JM-mh1pp in my experience pepole with higher education. use a bit of the academic reasoning. even when they. try to explaine some realy far of idea. this is more or less wordsallad.
Damn, Mary Mer posted a new video, but I missed it? Shame on me.
Anyways, welcome back Marty, and thanks for another content addressing lots of stupid. Always a pleasure watching you dismantle these 😀
after arriving at 45:00 i assume someone just typed a prompt into chatGPT to create this document. and they explicitly told it to be incoherent nonsense.
The real Turing test is whether a Quantum mysticist can be distinguished from an AI language model.
What's that? He's a computer engineer? He knows fuck all about physics?
But he wrote a paper all about physics?
Well, I'm shocked.
hey everyone is allowed to have hobbies.
@@JM-mh1pp 😅
Don't forget the title implicitly claims it's about biology.
this is on the journal's website
We help our authors in advance engineering research in different branches like Computer Science, Electronics & Communication, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Information Technology etc. and in science fields by providing world-class information and innovative tools that help them make critical decisions, enhance productivity and improve outcomes.
So it is a "peer review" journal for engineering, business & management, and Medical
been around since April 2016
so nothing to do with abiogenesis or evolution
It's still not an legitimate journal as pointed out at the start of this video, it just trapzises around in the guize of one.
@@guytheincognito4186 martymer did say it was predatory
They hit every pseudoscience keyword in this paper
Ugh, this is painful to read. Sure there's the occasional hilarious bit, but it mostly made me feel like I was having a stroke. It's like "Everywhere At The End Of Time" by The Caretaker, but reinterpreted as a "scientific" paper.
Always a pleasure see you back. It's 10 years I follow your content, you introduced me to the skeptic side of YT :D I think if I ever see you around my first reaction would be just giving you a hug xD and you there looking like "What the hell is this guy doing", karate WACK! ... ok I'll stop being awkard now.
Thank you. Cheers from italy!
Oh dear. As far as I can tell, for the author, Dark Energy has intentionality, purpose, and guided the universe towards its current state.
Shorter author: Dark Energy is God.
I'm no credentialist, but....putting your credentials as "irrelevant to the topic" seems like a bad idea. Also the way this is written feels like elementary school.
J/K Po? I think I'll call shenanigans.
I certainly hope you're right.
I got the Po but, bit I missed the J/K...🤦
I love the idea of LOS mind control, obviously mind control follows the laws of radar. Tinfoil is just the mind control version of radar absorbant coatings. If someone is saying such dumb shit that you aren't even sure they're a human that's the mind control version of signal jamming. Jordan is the Growler of mind control.
"In God we trust. All others, show data." W. Edwards Deming
Thank you for this video. I didnt know fake science journals were a thing.
Quantum mysticists remind me of AI language models in their ability to generate long strings of grammatically correct and coherrent text, which is still completely devoid of meaning. They also seem to generate their beliefs in similar ways, by skimming through a bunch of content without absorbing any knowledge.
I like to think I'm pretty up to date on stupid pseudoscientific garbage, but the idea that memory is literal time travel is new even to me.
Jordan has a dump truck of content for you to laugh at. You're gonna need a fluffy pillow this time instead of an oven mitt.
If one gets their information for science on Facebook... One knows or learns nothing about Science!
It is a bit unfair to say that the paper contains no citations. For instance there is "In the bible, in the book of genesis, man was made on the 7th day ..." 🙂
"jump start a brain"
he literally thinks this has never been tried...
"The brain is a Dark Energy generator"
This only applies during severe depressive episodes. My brain, fir example, is a Deep Silly generator. 😅
I'm at minute 14 and it's already a dumpster fire 😅
The abstract was totally loco already but it gets worse. Like Jordan on steroids!
I'm only asking for beer review
THE BRAIN IS A DARK ENGERY GENERATOR LOLLOLLOL1!!!11 DARK MATTER IS BEE HIVES?!?!!??!!?!?! hahahhaha
LOL YOU can send your mind though time!!!1 lolzlzzozllol :D HAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaahaa
My boy is back!
*Our* boy is back!
It's great to hear from you again, Martymer. In the first couple of minutes, I discerned that the author comes from a religious background, and if a college degree was obtained it was from a college or university like Bob Jones U, where biology is Bible, and real science is anathema. They try to use sciency sounding statements to lure people away from science and towards God. The notions of how things work are not based on the real world but on how religiously indoctrinated people think they MUST work, because God. I don't understand these people, I was a skeptic in junior high school and an agnostic before graduating from high school, The only reason I'm not an atheist is because one can't prove a negative [I am aware of the counter to that, bit am unpersuaded].
The problem many people have when learning science in schools is that they integrate that knowledge with the religious indoctrination or related cultural assumptions. The author might not be explicitly religious, but the statements show religious rather than scientific thought.This is particularly problematic in some parts of the US and other places where critical thinking is anathema because, as was stated in a Texas political document, "Such things must not be taught in public schools because it might cause students to question the strongly held views of their elders."
Thanks for your ongoing work promoting science education and critical thinking.
Apparently he studied and graduated with a bachelor from Misamis University in the Philippines which is specifically designated as "non-sectarian". I can't find any information on the actual courses from what I've gleaned from the school's website, they don't teach anything (for the Computer Science BS) related to anything of the thing he said. Also the journal is on Beall's list.
Nonsectarian does not mean secular, in the US it just means generic Protestant. The essay reads like religious ideas adjusted to appear scientific. So the author may not belong to a specific faith, or may be trying to appeal to generic Christians, or may be trying to justify accepting science [but on religious terms].@@renthearchangel9479
From the start, the journal name is a bit suspicious.
Herregud, hur kan du leva utan adblock
Even I could have come up with something better than this word salad, even though English is not my first language either. And what do gravity and dark energy have to do with life, apart from the fact that without gravity the elements required for life would not exist?
So.... another "published" woo physicist????
How much does it cost to get your paper published???? I want a place to publish my "Theory" on Bassett Hounds Using Quantum Frequencies To Control the Plasma Phasing of the Self Illuminating Moon. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Correction: I meant "Quantum Barking."
My apologies! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
This shit journal will publish it for like 50 bucks.
This reads like it's authored by chatgpt
No. It writes in acceptable English.
As I listen to you talk, I am realizing how deficient my high school physics was. I took AP physics senior year, and I don't remember learning about any of the things that you keep saying were covered in high school physics. This is especially frustrating to me because through 9th grade, I was homeschooled on Young Earth Creationist material. Then in high school, most of my teachers were Christians even though it was a public school, and my physics teacher was a fan of Dr. Hugh Ross, the Old Earth Creationist. I feel so cheated by my education because I was taught so many incorrect things and not taught so many correct things. It's no wonder that I hated school by the time I got to college and am on a career path that I hate now at 33.
Well it's never too late to learn even if physics and math is difficult.
You wasted your time reviewing this. The level of hubris on this guy tells me that he will take none of this criticism as constructive.
Indeed. But people can laugh at him this way.
Not so much a waste of time as a direct threat to our survival. A... _manifesto_ this bad is clearly intended to make us facepalm so hard we shatter cervical vertebrae and die.
It's not a total waste. With all the YT revenue, he can afford at least an extra pack of ramen.
@@denverarnold6210LOL! Yeah, something like that.
But it is really funny, it's like the scientific version of smurfing.
25:48 There is no way he put quantum and organic that close to each other, he is asking to be debunked.
12:06 It's nice to hear Desertphile again.
39:49 _Particle goes boyoyoing_
Well that's one way to put it XD
Idk why I found this so funny
Because you are subconsciously remembering Beavis and Butthead.
Similar to when Prof. Tokieda used "Wooooooom~~~~~" and "Heehawheehawheehaw" noises to describe harmonic motions in different periods in a numberphile video lol
Another dead give away of the paper's "legitimacy" is how "eloquently" the English language is used in writing it.
awww it stopped before "reference 3. Wikipedia: Quantum Realm"
I forgot how much I love hearing "GRAVITY" lol
If I was writing a "scientific paper", I would really hesitant to use expressions like "I theorize" and "I think" in every paragraph. This entire "paper" is just one assumption after another.
I just now realized why creationists use evidence countably. It's because they're lawyers.
@25:02 No... Just no. He's saying that you can't have a present without a past and then equating that to Karma (everything has a reason). He's just making random claims with out even offering a hint of an explanation. This is really no better than the spirit science you're always going on about. But it may even be worse because it is neatly formatted in a way so as to appear scientific and credible. This so reminds me of my favorite youtuber "Dr. Claudia Albers, Planet X Researcher" who (at best) knew how to format a scientific paper. Every day or so, she would write a new essay about how the earth was about to end, but she would format it like this, to look all "sciency". As a matter of fact, her English was MUCH better than this.
37:16 Jordan jumpscare
Also I know I'm spamming, I wont stop this shit is so fucking funny. I'll just say it's for the algorithm.
I really like this show format, feels a bit deeper and much easier to follow than the RUclips standard "three second clip jumps", even though it's just a readthrough of regular pseudoscience nonsense.
I don't know if you take requests but it'd be fun with a "review" of italian-swedish nutcase Simon Shacks Tychos model (some weird geocentric model with the earth moving at slow rate between the twin stars sun and mars ...).
This guy even a computer scientist? It’s wierd for a computer scientist to deny math.
The number of question marks in the abstract was quite foreboding.
Oh my... the introduction continues as if the abstract was the first paragraph of that introduction. He may have a Batchelor's but has no idea what the function of an abstract is, or what the structure of a scientific publication is supposed to be. I wouldn't be surprised if the web site of that 'journal' has a submission form with 'abstract', 'introduction' etc. fields where he just randomly dumped his ramblings in.
This paper is something that I would have absolutely _loved_ when I was a teenager. That's probably the harshest insult I can throw at something, because I was an idiot.
LOL, "The brain is a dark energy generator." WTF!!! The person that did this paper is really ignorant.
As I cannot hear light, it does not exist. Then, as light does not exist nor does energy. Therefore I am not. QED (also, I cannot se atoms).
Lol this is like watching unusual punishment or torture by making educated people read the bullshit found online.
32:51 I guess if we're being super charitable he is saying that the laws of physics as expressed in math are not always absolute and all encompassing and have holes. Even then that obviously doesn't mean you can just ignore the math because like we call them laws of physica because they are correct in the vast majority of cases when applied correctly.
Because like math is very much absolute, that's like a quite fundamental part of math, really it is the defining idea behind math. Basically you can assert axioms and the derive statements from those axioms that must necessarily and always be true, like how the Pythagorean theorem is always true in Euclidean geometry. That is the foundational idea behind math which differentiates it from both science and philosophy.
No, I think you're wrong. He does mean visual. Remember he talked about the blind person not being able to exist in reality or something?
Reads more like the word salad I would expect from something like ChatGPT when let loose on a more philosophical topic. Just a load of "facts" mashed together into an incoherent whole. The fact that it got published at all is of course beyond belief. We are so doomed!
Oooooh boy, this is gonna hurt
It did, at first. But it got funny-stupid after a while.
Oh man I loved your videos, I hope you return some day.
Wow, this is bad. I never would have thought this possible, but I honestly feel like Winston Wu has a better understanding of science than this guy.
I feel bad for that guy. This paper feels like a child that's trying his best to do science but hasn't been taught how to do it. It's as if all they know is how papers roughly look like, and they couldn't check actual papers for reference so they did it from memory.
Part of me wants to say this is a troll on all the so called scientists that want to use things like dark energy, dark matter and quantum as a God of the gaps to explain away everything.
But of course, this could just be generic dumb.
Better than I usually do in post-midnight science review sessions.
I think this illustrates quite clearly the epidemic of fraudulent or just plain false peer review that plagues our higher scholarship.
47:37 fwiw, no i don't think he meant "its soul", but "it's" (as in that sould is/will be). He seems to dislike apostrophes for some reason.
44:24 Programs are made of the energy obtained from coffee, white monster and slowly descending into insanity with a rubber duck.
So if the souls fuel a planet's core, what fuels the core of geologically active lifeless planets?
Dark energy. Probably.
Also this sounds like an awesome premise for cosmic horror.
When you said "it's woo", I thought you meant the person.
1: all earthlings and aliens are cursed with blindness
2: the universe stops exerting because no one is observing it
💀💀💀
In the abstract "objects can't move." Has he never seen a cloud move or snow fall?