He's a scientist; I'm in computer support.
Let's talk about Avi Loeb and his theory about alien
He's a scientist; I'm in computer support.
The interview above is worth a read, and a lot of serious thought, because there's an idea there that's really critical to science, and it isn't whether or not aliens have visited (exactly).
In particular he compares his theory on alien visitation with the multiverse theory.
Which of these is more deserving of ridicule?
So bizarre that there's no really good theory for what it might be. Except maybe for Dr. Loeb's theory.
The hypotheses we form can and should help guide us in how we look.
And because "Aliens!" is based on observable phenomena: us.
The competing theories are all about phenomena with NO prior observations.
Why is it unsafe to talk about "Aliens!" but safe to talk about the "multiverse"?
Yet the notion has always (to me) been utterly absurd.
But this isn't the scientific theory of the multiverse at all.
But under this theory, there'd be an infinite number of "adjacent" universes spinning off of that one single particle at the tip of my pinky toe.
In such a multiverse system, the "nearest" (by measure of similarity) million, trillion... heck the nearest googol of alternate universes would be utterly identical to ours.
And really, an utterly pointless one.
https://t.co/XiHA9cRwjR
So THAT'S why we never saw Oumuamua leaving the solar system. https://t.co/pSlwmRMctU
— Thomas A. Fine \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 (@thomasafine) February 27, 2020
https://t.co/hj1ytCbFDH
But the thought that's been running around in the back of my mind for the last two years is... if all of a sudden something shows up in orbit around the Earth, I'd be very suspicious of that something.
— Thomas A. Fine \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 (@thomasafine) February 27, 2020
More from Science
If this is true raises the question of why certain (fringe & unethical) views got access to No.10 while others were ignored... https://t.co/A75HrSEqo4
— Prof. Devi Sridhar (@devisridhar) December 13, 2020
I want to talk about 3 things:
тА╝я╕ПTheir fringe views are inhumane, unethical junk science that promotes harm
тА╝я╕ПThey complain that they've been marginalized but this is simply untrue
тА╝я╕ПI am sick of people telling me we have to "listen to both sides." There aren't 2 sides here 2/n
These 'dissident' scientists have consistently downplayed COVID-19, urging policymakers not to take aggressive control measures. They claim it is not a serious threat. Gupta even went on TV saying people under 65 shouldn't worry about it!
RECEIPTS
They have consistently argued that policymakers should just let the virus rip, in an attempt to reach herd immunity by natural infection. Kuldorff *continues* to argue for this even now that we have many highly effective, safe vaccines.
Focused Protection: The Middle Ground between Lockdowns and "Let-it-rip". An essay by Jay Bhattacharya (@Stanford), @SunetraGupta (@UniofOxford) and @MartinKulldorff (@Harvard). https://t.co/T8uLxSFwgh
— Martin Kulldorff (@MartinKulldorff) December 11, 2020
We've never controlled a deadly, contagious pandemic before by just letting the virus spread, as this approach kills & disables too many people. In Manaus, Brazil, 66% of the city was infected & an astonishing *1 in 500* people died of COVID-19
Variants always emerge, & are not good or bad, but expected. The challenge is figuring out which variants are bad, and that can't be done with sequence alone.
Feels like the next thing we're going to need is a ranking system for how concerning "variants of concern\u201d actually are.
— Kai Kupferschmidt (@kakape) January 15, 2021
A lot of constellations of mutations are concerning, but people are lumping together variants with vastly different levels of evidence that we need to worry.
You can't just look at a sequence and say, "Aha! A mutation in spike. This must be more transmissible or can evade antibody neutralization." Sure, we can use computational models to try and predict the functional consequence of a given mutation, but models are often wrong.
The virus acquires mutations randomly every time it replicates. Many mutations don't change the virus at all. Others may change it in a way that have no consequences for human transmission or disease. But you can't tell just looking at sequence alone.
In order to determine the functional impact of a mutation, you need to actually do experiments. You can look at some effects in cell culture, but to address questions relating to transmission or disease, you have to use animal models.
The reason people were concerned initially about B.1.1.7 is because of epidemiological evidence showing that it rapidly became dominant in one area. More rapidly that could be explained unless it had some kind of advantage that allowed it to outcompete other circulating variants.
1.
https://t.co/d5NKtNlxxa
Sounds as if its connected to Bill Gates "LUCIFERASE" Vaccine?
2.
https://t.co/k0w1mjaPg0
"HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON SCHOOL OF LAW"
- AT SWANSEA UNIVERSITY!!!

3.
https://t.co/jifuWq6cGq
Remember all those FIRES, over the Summer!!!
4.
https://t.co/H3lstFyYx8
WUHAN PARTNERSHIP
"Links between Swansea & Wuhan date back to 1855 when Swansea missionary Griffith John founded the Wuhan Union Hospital.
This relationship was strengthened when representatives of the two cities signed an agreement".

5.
https://t.co/5b1JqiEQzi
Swansea University Strengthens Links with China
