cholesterol

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 3:21:19 AM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:

On 04/11/2019 12:13, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 10:51:26 PM UTC+11,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:qposer$62c$1@gioia.aioe.org:

On 02/11/2019 18:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 5:26:43 PM UTC-7, John Larkin
wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:22:36 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 5:01:02 PM UTC-7, Neon
John wrote:

The lesson we can draw from this is that consensus
science (sic) is almost always wrong.

Not true at all. Science means 'knowledge and
understanding'. So, consensus knowledge and
understanding, while always limited, is rarely wrong.

It's usually wrong, until whacked sufficiently hard by
experiment.

Still untrue, and because you clipped it out, my requirement
of supporting data needs to be restated: find a way to
quantify 'wrong' and 'right' and compute a ratio, THEN map
that ratio for a century or two.

No analysis possible before the Reformation (no published
work then was 'consensus', it all had princes or priests'
sign-off).

But some fields of study aren't subject to experimant. So
they stay
wrong.

Mathematics is not subject to experiment. You choose your axioms
and work from there by logical methods. It is arguably more
correct than any scientific experiment (although still subject
to human error). Science experiments are always subject to
measurement error. Mathematics is not.

The algebra package that turned the output of the REDUCE
symbolic algebra package into FORTRAN had a subtle bug which
meant that when the number of continuation cards exceeded 9
things went wrong. This wasn't spotted for a long time since the
error term was very small.

However, when the double pulsar was found and it by chance
happened to be close to Jupiter a systematic unexpected timing
deviation from relativity was observed. This had the
experimenters scratching their heads for a while. Sadly it wasn't
new physics it was an obscure bug in some very old code that had
worked flawlessly for decades.

Ridiculous! That eliminates arithmetic, algebra and
calculus, none of which are subject to any findings by
experiment. Unreasonable premise, unbelievable conclusion.
No one can be so simple as to believe that.

Google science wrong

Science is ultimately self correcting since the way that nature
behaves in reality trumps any claim by authority. Astronomy is
an observational science. We can never realistically do
experiments on a star but we can measure a hell of a lot about it
by studying it at various wavelengths and resolutions and infer a
great deal from spectroscopy.

Observational sciences are still *sciences* even if we cannot
control the experiments and merely look at what is actually
there using ever more powerful observational techniques. Gravity
waves being the latest.

Yes and simple observations of our own local space and solar
system allows us to prove the newtonian stuff. I liked the Hubble
capture and the shuttle experiments with rotating cylinders.

We can do relativistic experiments in storage rings and using the Sun or
Jupiter as handy test masses too.

But the Cosmic level stuff... yeah, we can only observe, and bash
atoms together and observe, and about the time we start figuring
things out and get quantum computers going, and think we are
getting a grasp on things, the aliens will return and render all of
our top minds' 'knowledge' moot with a mind meld.

Sometimes we get lucky and find something unexpected when a new
instrument comes onstream. Serendipitous discoveries include Nobel prize
winning stuff like pulsars, double pulsar and the microwave background.

And we will *then* step into the next evolution of man.

It's more likely the that human race will split. We are a social
mammal, and the society that we have at the moment can do a lot more
than any other living organism that we know of can manage.

Once an organism has mastered a new trick, it diversifies to exploit
the new trick in different ways in different environments.

It is quite likely that the next big shift will be as humans are
augmented by cyborg like interfaces to something like Google or even to
powered exoskeletons. Both are now possible but with limitations.

If this creates reproductive isolation you tend to get new species.

Although it seems that homo sapiens and erectus and Denisovans were
inter breeding for quite a while when they occupied the same areas. We
have hybrid vigor from having a mixture of their genes. Species
boundaries are not as cleanly defined as biologists used to think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovan#Interbreeding

Science fiction has us moving into space, which would do it, but this
isn't the only way it could happen, and granting how bad science
fiction is at prophecy it's unlikely to happen that way at all.

Society seems to be stratifying again based on wealth and education.

The US seems to making education expensive enough to be stratifying on wealth and education.

Universities are great places for assortive mating. If you have a genome that lets you do well in formal education, you will get to meet lots of people who have also done well at a time when you are all thinking about finding somebody to mate with and create a few new genomes.

Robert Plomin's results suggest that there lots of different ways the genome can prime you to do well in formal education, so assortive mating isn't likely to churn out any particular single way of being clever.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 5/11/19 12:14 pm, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 3:28:51 PM UTC-8, Clifford Heath wrote:

You still need measurements to establish the correlation between theory
and actuality, and confidence in that correlation is thus still limited
by measurement error.

But, there's a pretty good indication when you get parts-per-billion
correspondence with a measurement and a bit of math, like the "g" calculation

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1989/press-release/

Mostly, with electronic parts, we are satisfied with one percent accuracies.

True, but we can measure predictions of both quantum mechanics and
general relativity extremely accurately. QED in particular is the most
accurately verified scientific theory ever - verified to 14 significant
figures.

Nevertheless, they cannot both be right.

Clifford Heath.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 12:14:39 PM UTC+11, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 3:28:51 PM UTC-8, Clifford Heath wrote:

You still need measurements to establish the correlation between theory
and actuality, and confidence in that correlation is thus still limited
by measurement error.

But, there's a pretty good indication when you get parts-per-billion
correspondence with a measurement and a bit of math, like the "g" calculation

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1989/press-release/

Mostly, with electronic parts, we are satisfied with one percent accuracies.

Speak for yourself.

The proposition that parts-per-billion correspondence between observation and a mathematical means that the physics is likely to be correct is a bit dubious.

The mathematical model is clearly good for the situation we can observe, but there can be other situations where the model might be less satisfactory.

Part's per billion is good, but the universe covers a rather larger range of magnitudes.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Martin Brown]

On 04/11/2019 23:28, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 4/11/19 8:53 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
On 02/11/2019 18:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 5:26:43 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:22:36 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 5:01:02 PM UTC-7, Neon John wrote:

The lesson we can draw from this is that consensus science (sic) is
almost always wrong.

Not true at all.   Science means 'knowledge and understanding'.   So,
consensus knowledge and understanding, while always limited, is
rarely wrong.

It's usually wrong, until whacked sufficiently hard by experiment.

Still untrue, and because you clipped it out, my requirement of
supporting data  needs to be restated: find a way to quantify
'wrong' and 'right' and compute a ratio, THEN map that
ratio for a century or two.

No analysis possible  before the Reformation (no published work then
was 'consensus', it all  had princes or priests' sign-off).

But some fields of study aren't subject to experimant. So they stay
wrong.

Mathematics is not subject to experiment. You choose your axioms and
work from there by logical methods. It is arguably more correct than
any scientific experiment (although still subject to human error).
Science experiments are always subject to measurement error.
Mathematics is not.

Unfortunately, this ability to discover mathematical truth still says
nothing about the physical world. You can produce the best mathematical
theory, and have no idea whether it applies to or explains anything.

It is an interesting quirk that mathematics is quite often inspired by
physicists trying to solve particularly awkward problems. Sometimes the
mathematics precedes its application to physics and other times it
follows. Newtons fluxions (aka calculus) being among the latter and the
non-Euclidean geometries being among the former. I can't imagine any
pure mathematician ever coming up with renormalisation theory to make
otherwise divergent integrals give sensible answers (but subtracting
infinity didn't bother physicists so long as it gave the right answer).

It still remains to be seen whether any present day cutting edge
advanced mathematics like for example string theory truly describes
reality any better than what we already have. The jury is still out.

You still need measurements to establish the correlation between theory
and actuality, and confidence in that correlation is thus still limited
by measurement error.

But the mathematics still has internal self consistency within the
domain of things that can be proved from the chosen starting axioms. It
might or might not have any useful applications in the real world.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Peter]

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote

This is arguably off-topic here, except that it once again illustrates
the repeated collective wrongness of experts who operate by
professional concensus.

https://medium.com/the-mission/higher-cholesterol-is-associated-with-longer-life-b4090f28d96e

No doubt this is true in itself, but you get a much lower quality of
life in your last few decades.

The "health systems" which collect these stats don't measure quality
of life.

I don't know where you live but anywhere in the West, look around you
and look at the obesity epidemic, the *young* people with amputations,
etc. They will live a fair few years, at a huge cost to the taxpayer
and to themselves.

I happen to know quite a bit about this... unfortunately. Well, only 1
stent, and very proactive on making sure there are no more

The medical profession is frequently useless, for the individual, for
many reasons. The establishment is of necessity focused on population
benefit.

High cholesterol does bung up your circulatory system. And statins do
work. But they do have frequent side effects (muscle pains mainly).
You have to have regular blood tests and work out the minimum dose to
achieve the right result, and generally that should eliminate the side
effects. Just like thyroxine; something else I know quite a bit about.
And low thyroid leads directly to high cholesterol which leads to...
you've guessed it.

You have to be pro-active on the medical front. Nobody else will look
out for you.