Actually since it is published scientific evidence.(Whether you want to believe it or not), it would be up to you to look at the data and disprove it. That is why science has peer review. It means if someone disputes it the disputer needs to provide scientific evidence that in turn can be peer reviewed.
No matter what evidence you are given you will claim it is not enough. It is the same with transitional fossils. If there are 10 steps in the transition and we have step 3,5,8 and 9. You will claim that we have no transitional fossils because there is no step 2,4,6 and 7. Then when we have all the steps you will demand step 3.5.
Sorry OT stuff here
Kondratieff waves are not a hard and fast thing. It is a theory about economy ups and downs and is not a set # of years. A Kondratieff wave can last 45-60 years according to the theory. That is a pretty large fluctuation. How the hell can you synchronize to anything to the large of a potential spread
(I assume you interpreted them anyway you wanted to)?
Also this theory is far from widely accepted.
See hereLet us then look more closely at the long contraction, or "long depression," phases of the Kondratieff cycle. To make any sense, they should in some way look and feel like depressions, like grim periods of decline in business activity. The first Kondratieff long depression was supposed to be the period 1814-1849. But these thirty-five years were by and large a period of great expansion, prosperity and economic growth for the United States, England and France, the three countries Kondratieff used for his statistical analysis. And what of the second Kondratieff depression, the period 1866—96? Was that in any sense a depression? For the United States, and to a large extent for Western Europe as well, this was the period of the most dazzling spurt of production and economic growth in the history of the world. Production and living standards skyrocketed. How in the world could three such glorious decades be called a period of secular decline?
Obviously, it is absurd to call these periods long-wave depressions. The point is that in real terms — production, activity, growth, employment — these "Kondratieff depressions" were all periods of gigantic growth and prosperity. The only sense in which the two nineteenth-century "Kondratieff contractions" were contractions at all is that prices, by and large, fell during those decades. And that is that.
But if only prices fell, while all real or physical units increased, this means that the Kondratieff contractions could only be considered depressions if we define periods of falling prices as depressions or declines in economic well-being. And here we have one of the many fundamental fallacies of the Kondratieff doctrine.
You are just a troll that thinks he has found an ingenious way to spam us with his website. I don't feed trolls and hope others here will stop feeding you too.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts