Rupert Sheldrake? SMDH. May as well talk about the deep physics of Uri Geller.
Indeed. He should've had a fair amount of chlorine left over, since chlorine gas is diatomic.This may be a little OT, but I remember my father who was PhD Organic Chemist mentioning a colleague of his who attempted to take 1 mole of Sodium and combine it with 1 mole of Chlorine to get 1 mole of Sodium Chloride, i.e. Salt and could never get it to come out exactly.
Obviously the Law of Chemistry and Physics were changing every time he did his experiment.
By the way, we are being asked to change our lives and economy based on the predictions of certain other models unrelated to COVID-19, if you get my drift. Perhaps those are garbage too.
Indeed. He should've had a fair amount of chlorine left over, since chlorine gas is diatomic.
Na + 1/2Cl2 → NaCl
Pro tip -- way easier to make NaCl from NaOH and HCl
View attachment 66314
I don't "get your drift." What the hell do you mean?
@Putter all models suck. The issue as I see it is the local expert picked one which was an outlier to make some kind of a point or sensationalize the issue. By the way, we are being asked to change our lives and economy based on the predictions of certain other models unrelated to COVID-19, if you get my drift. Perhaps those are garbage too.
I totally get your drift. The world is increasingly being taken over by "experts" who bring the scariest models, and gain power, despite having lousy forecasting records. I see it in my field and others. I'd rather see the world governed by durable principles than by technocratic experts given great power.You really have it in for me. If you don't get it, you flunked the test.
Science can also be affected by personalities and internal politics. A few decades of "Fat makes you fat!" seem to have been pretty much wrong, and the sugar that replaced it a literal killer. I was reading where one scientist was blaming sugar back in the IIRC late 70s, but another fellow who had championed "fat makes you fat" was louder and more savvy with the politics of science (=how hypotheses are regarded and how funding is allocated).
The reality is that both fat and sugar will make one fat, we've known this for hundreds of years anecdotally and scientifically for around a century. The relative amount of each that will make one fat or contribute to making one fat depends on the quantity ingested, understanding of the biological mechanisms involved with their metabolism, and individual factors based on the subject's biology, which again is largely quantifiable and predictable to a certain degree. People are generally obsessed with looking at or implicating one thing as a culprit, when in reality most problems and solutions in the natural world are multivariate.
As a tiny example, the last paper I wrote before leaving the field used observations of the abundance of elements produced in first hour or so after the big bang ... We were definitely not dogmatic
I totally get your drift. The world is increasingly being taken over by "experts" who bring the scariest models, and gain power, despite having lousy forecasting records. I see it in my field and others. I'd rather see the world governed by durable principles than by technocratic experts given great power.
Ron, @jhaider doesn't have it in for you. The issue is that you're making self-serving and contradictory claims. You say "all models suck," but you're clearly and evidently only interested in criticizing a model that says the pandemic will be quite bad. You are conspicuously silent on the fact that the IHME model, which has provably and repeatedly understated the scope and seriousness of the pandemic, also "sucks."
I'm not familiar with Rupert Sheldrake's theories, yet I consider unsatisfactory the current state of scientific affairs, which requires postulating the Big Bang.
You expended a lot of effort to say nothing, and flunked the test too.
What test is that? Please don't consider this question to be a personal attack.
I'm not familiar with Rupert Sheldrake's theories, yet I consider unsatisfactory the current state of scientific affairs, which requires postulating the Big Bang. It resembles ancient dogmas describing creation of then-known universes.
The universe we can perceive today is so much wider than the ones people imagined 10000, 1000, or even 100 years ago. What will it be 100, 1000, and 10000 years in the future?
So, what really was the Big Bang? Some kind of matter/energy/space/time transition from a higher-dimensional membrane? Start of a simulation "program" running on a "computer" built by some higher-dimensional species?
No, the world is being taken over by propaganda. Those with the means see to it that it gets into print or on the internet and make sure that their message gets out. Many who claim to be experts are not. But the messages that get out are produced by those who have the means, the will and the desire to get their message across. Science has nothing to do with the case. Science is about something else entirely.I totally get your drift. The world is increasingly being taken over by "experts" who bring the scariest models, and gain power, despite having lousy forecasting records. I see it in my field and others. I'd rather see the world governed by durable principles than by technocratic experts given great power.