How a Landmark Physics Paper from the 1970s Uncannily Describes the COVID-19 Pandemic
Phil Anderson’s article “More Is Different” describes how different levels of complexity require new ways of thinking. And as the virus multiplies and spreads, that’s just what the human race desperately needs
By Clifford Brangwynne on April 29, 2020
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
1 comment
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.If we take out the magic-implying term “Uncannily Describes the COVID-19” we can read a supportable statement: ‘...from the 1970s describes a Pandemic”. But, unless a title grabs eyes, it fails.
Decades ago I read SciAm regularly. Did I imagine a concern with evidence? Its editors are now a speculative lot. For more than a year they’ve been a “vanity press” for the untested and untestable Big Bang story.
yvilletom
Level 8
May 1, 2020
0
I haven't been a regular follower of Scientific American for awhile. So I defer to you regarding your criticisms. But take exception regarding your criticism of their coverage of the Big Bang.
It appears your criticism is couched in a personal agenda. It would appear from your wording that you are opposed to the theoretical tenacity of the Big Bang event. Furthermore, it seems your criticism revolves around the fact that most of the principles surrounding the Big Bang theory cannot be demonstrated or measured with a conventional physical experiment.
If this is the case, your criticism is partially specious. It is true that the majority of the theories are based upon mathematical modeling that is based on real measurable data. The calculations are formulated using solid scientific methodology. The data and calculations appear to be consistent and the best explanation for the observations made. Yes, some aspects are truly theoretical, but you have to start somewhere, then develop your hypothesis and design an experiment to test.
Anyway, that's the impression I got from the way you worded the end of your post
@t1nick The mathematicians who gave us the Big Bang story, not required to develop and test a hypothesis, merely added terms to their gravity-only equations.
They have begun agreeing that magnetic fields and electricity exist in space. When they stop insisting that electricity “does nothing” they will no longer need those equations and their added terms. They will agree with Edwin Hubble’s hypothesis of a “universe extended indefinitely in both space and time”
I disagree with that. I have encoutered experiments that were developed by astrophysicists that were built faithfully along the scientific methodology.
Physicists and astrophysicists are essentially mathematicians that use real life applications. I think you are over generalizing the role of theoretical physics. Technology has built around hypothesize that was built to collect data. Data was collected, it was inserted in the mathematics and the results were consistent. Its bern replicated with similar results.
There are some very extreme hypotheses and proclamations of course. But by and large the astrophysicists work I've encountered used solid scientific methodology.
@t1nick Identify those “experiments”. You’ve heard the same lies I’ve heard, lies intended to continue the funding.
I learned politics from people who lied, and once ordered the murder of an investigative reporter, to continue their funding. See “Don Bolles” in Wikipedia. I contributed to that article.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.