PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest

[JayUtah]

I suspect the "did not know the answer" response was actually phrased more along the lines of...

It might well have been. However, the story continues to describe how PartSkeptic's colleague went on to elaborate the solution, requiring many equations. This is not really what physicists mean by the phrase "thought experiment," though. Usually a thought experiment is meant to require no pen and paper -- indeed, probably not any mathematics at all. It outlines concepts by talking through them rather than computing them. The answer to a question posed in a thought experiment is usually just another thought.

I gotta admit, I'm also a little curious to know what the "thought experiment" was.

I hope he tells us. Stories of the form, "I did an amazing thing that stumped the experts," are unconvincing when the allegedly amazing thing is left to the imagination. Making him tell us will require him to come up with something that actual physicists can evaluate and come to an independent conclusion regarding its ability to shatter the Earth as thoroughly as PartSkeptic claims he was able to do.

Where does this fit? Instead of explaining how his dismissal of quantum mechanics is apt -- by going into detail about its various concepts, deriving relationships, etc -- he has opted instead to say his dismissal must be correct because he was such a good student back in the day. Anyone who is telling him he's mistaken in his understanding must be himself wrong. And the evidence of his good scholarship is not a degree or a transcript or any other credential of academic success. It is, in turn, merely an anecdote wherein he describes how easily these concepts allegedly came to him once upon a time, and how the experts were stymied by his erudition. In other words, just more unevidenced claims piled atop one another.

He's trying to make an argument from authority, his own. But it's tremendously weak when the truth of his claim is not a matter of expert judgment, but simply of reading the theory without making a mistake. His explanation of causality has the cart before the horse in a most egregious way. And we pointed this out to him from the very beginning. It's an egregious, obvious error.

But since it's the only argument he's given us, it's the argument we have to address. And to address it we have to test the veracity of the anecdote insofar as it can be. That will require him to recreate here, for us, the great triumph of his college years. Then we can judge whether he really is the kind of genius who can claim that his interpretation is the only one that's right and literally everyone else who masters this subject has wrong. And that one of the most profound discoveries regarding the natural world in the past 150 years has been erroneously written about by many authors.

 

[abaddon]

It might well have been. However, the story continues to describe how PartSkeptic's colleague went on to elaborate the solution, requiring many equations. This is not really what physicists mean by the phrase "thought experiment," though. Usually a thought experiment is meant to require no pen and paper -- indeed, probably not any mathematics at all. It outlines concepts by talking through them rather than computing them. The answer to a question posed in a thought experiment is usually just another thought.

Mmm. there are many steps involved that PS ignores. Can't be elucidating them. but PS is stuck on step one and determined to stay there. That is not your problem, nor mine. It's his. And there is no way we can rescue that.

I hope he tells us. Stories of the form, "I did an amazing thing that stumped the experts," are unconvincing when the allegedly amazing thing is left to the imagination. Making him tell us will require him to come up with something that actual physicists can evaluate and come to an independent conclusion regarding its ability to shatter the Earth as thoroughly as PartSkeptic claims he was able to do.

That is an odd part of the fantasy. Somehow, he bamboozled all physicists, but he cant say how or why.
Why should anyone accept that at face value absent evidence?

Where does this fit? Instead of explaining how his dismissal of quantum mechanics is apt -- by going into detail about its various concepts, deriving relationships, etc -- he has opted instead to say his dismissal must be correct because he was such a good student back in the day. Anyone who is telling him he's mistaken in his understanding must be himself wrong. And the evidence of his good scholarship is not a degree or a transcript or any other credential of academic success. It is, in turn, merely an anecdote wherein he describes how easily these concepts allegedly came to him once upon a time, and how the experts were stymied by his erudition. In other words, just more unevidenced claims piled atop one another.

No idea. He seems to have no understanding of any of it.

He's trying to make an argument from authority, his own. But it's tremendously weak when the truth of his claim is not a matter of expert judgment, but simply of reading the theory without making a mistake. His explanation of causality has the cart before the horse in a most egregious way. And we pointed this out to him from the very beginning. It's an egregious, obvious error.

But since it's the only argument he's given us, it's the argument we have to address. And to address it we have to test the veracity of the anecdote insofar as it can be. That will require him to recreate here, for us, the great triumph of his college years. Then we can judge whether he really is the kind of genius who can claim that his interpretation is the only one that's right and literally everyone else who masters this subject has wrong. And that one of the most profound discoveries regarding the natural world in the past 150 years has been erroneously written about by many authors.

Sure. I know from the real world of academia that PS is totally of base on this. So do most here.

What I want to hear about is why subverting exams makes PS somehow moral.

 

[p0lka]

Mmm. there are many steps involved that PS ignores. Can't be elucidating them. but PS is stuck on step one and determined to stay there. That is not your problem, nor mine. It's his. And there is no way we can rescue that.



That is an odd part of the fantasy. Somehow, he bamboozled all physicists, but he cant say how or why.
Why should anyone accept that at face value absent evidence?

No idea. He seems to have no understanding of any of it.

He's trying to make an argument from authority, his own. But it's tremendously weak when the truth of his claim is not a matter of expert judgment, but simply of reading the theory without making a mistake. His explanation of causality has the cart before the horse in a most egregious way. And we pointed this out to him from the very beginning. It's an egregious, obvious error.

Sure. I know from the real world of academia that PS is totally of base on this. So do most here.

What I want to hear about is why subverting exams makes PS somehow moral.

I'm interested in how wiki begets superiority and the subsequent crumbling that follows..

 

[Pixel42]

Then we can judge whether he really is the kind of genius who can claim that his interpretation is the only one that's right and literally everyone else who masters this subject has wrong. And that one of the most profound discoveries regarding the natural world in the past 150 years has been erroneously written about by many authors.

He declared the existence of the Law of Cause and Effect like it was something no one ever has or could dispute, and is now claiming to have total understanding of the great discoveries which everyone who actually understands them knows proved him wrong nearly a century ago. You have to admire the chutzpah.

His bragging about how his miraculous knowledge and understanding impresses everyone he encounters is reminding me more and more of a certain POTUS.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I too was impressed during one of the few lectures I attended. ...... Dual particle and wave was fascinating. Relativity was also interesting. .....

So your "university course" included both quantum mechanics and relativity in the same course and a single lecture? What was the actual course called?

I spent one night learning the textbook

...and the entire course only had one textbook? What was it called?

In contrast, to study half-life decay and its statistical application in organic chemistry, to acquire carbon dating capability for my degree in Anthropological pre-history took numerous text books, tutorials and lectures.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I posed a "thought experiment" to the lecturer. He told me after a few days he did not know the answer.

The whole point of "Fooling the expert" is to show us your actual magic trick...that fooled the expert.

What was your "thought experiment"?

 

[PartSkeptic]

You quoted another one yourself in a wiki extract, though you didn't even realise it.


The highlighted is a complete misrepresentation, and ample proof that you have no understanding whatsoever.

But I'm doing what I said I wouldn't, which is following one or your derails.

So how's the evidence gathering going? Found any to support your hypothesis that poorer areas will have lower levels of Covid-19 than more affluent areas because of their lower levels of cell coverage yet?

No understanding whatsoever? Enough to debate you.

Give me some links to "uncaused effects" that are not opinions.

Quantum mechanics does not provide an escape for cause and effect. There is another way to describe "cause and effect" and that is that EVERYTHING that happens occurs because of the status of the physical universe that precedes the new event. That status MUST include the underlying quantum vacuum energy which is like a bottled gas with molecules hitting the side. It is random and hence statistical methods need often be used.

Particles and wave duality provides some interesting physics partly because waves are such complex entities in their own right.

Regrettably I am getting too old and with too many other commitments to really study the science. For the time being, I will say that when things happen on a quantum scale, one cannot escape the interaction of the underlying vacuum energy (which Feynman uses in his diagrams).

And regrettably I am struggling to find easy explanation that is accurate but on level an engineer can understand.


What about the part where a universe existing for an infinite period would become one infinite intelligence because of the emergent property inherent in the physics?


I told you that the emf link will only be found years from now. That does not mean I am wrong. I am entitled to extrapolate my experience and the experience of others and the underlying science to form an opinion.

What confirmed (for me) that this Covid was the pandemic (as told to me) was that I looked up 5G and Wuhan and found that they had just energized their 5G network in a big way. I do not claim that 5G caused the virus although it might have played a part. To me it was "a sign". But you don't believe in "signs and omens".

The fact that it happened as I was in the final phase of my cell phone fight and in the house sale phase was appropriate timing.

The lessons learned in the years after the "message" was that the pandemic would bring about social upheaval and change. That part looks like it is right on track. Just enough fear and slow spread to shut the systems down and to get people agitated and to maximize social unrest. I have also been saying this is only the beginning.

Thanks for participating.

 

[PartSkeptic]

So your "university course" included both quantum mechanics and relativity in the same course and a single lecture? What was the actual course called?

...and the entire course only had one textbook? What was it called?

In contrast, to study half-life decay and its statistical application in organic chemistry, to acquire carbon dating capability for my degree in Anthropological pre-history took numerous text books, tutorials and lectures.

The difference in our ages is showing. In the 1960s and 70s text books (in South Africa) were expensive. They were well written and lasted a few years. They gave the theory in very good concise form. Then added examples and comment. Then gave exercises to do. They were intended to cover all aspects of a university course. Expensive and thick.

All I had to do was memorize and understand the theory part. One book covered third year physics for engineering students. In my fourth year I did not buy some books but arranged to borrow them from a friend who wanted to rest just before the exam. I would start at 5pm and finish at 3am and write the exam at 10am.

I tried doing a business University course in 2006 - mainly so I could get low cost good accommodation. I could never do today what I did then because the text books are so badly written. The theory is the theory, but they gave BS examples that had multiple answers. If one did not do (and learn) the examples one could not know the thinking (bias) in the exam. They also forced me to do online tests. I quickly worked out that one could do a quick pass, and then re-do the test after checking what they wanted. All they did was change the order of the questions.

Unfortunately it is an example of what I think is "dumbing down" of society.

 

[RedStapler]

The difference in our ages is showing. In the 1960s and 70s text books (in South Africa) were expensive. They were well written and lasted a few years. They gave the theory in very good concise form. Then added examples and comment. Then gave exercises to do. They were intended to cover all aspects of a university course. Expensive and thick.

All I had to do was memorize and understand the theory part. One book covered third year physics for engineering students. In my fourth year I did not buy some books but arranged to borrow them from a friend who wanted to rest just before the exam. I would start at 5pm and finish at 3am and write the exam at 10am.

I tried doing a business University course in 2006 - mainly so I could get low cost good accommodation. I could never do today what I did then because the text books are so badly written. The theory is the theory, but they gave BS examples that had multiple answers. If one did not do (and learn) the examples one could not know the thinking (bias) in the exam. They also forced me to do online tests. I quickly worked out that one could do a quick pass, and then re-do the test after checking what they wanted. All they did was change the order of the questions.

Unfortunately it is an example of what I think is "dumbing down" of society.

So all your 'info" on QM is 50 years old. Explains a lot.

 

[abaddon]

The difference in our ages is showing. In the 1960s and 70s text books (in South Africa) were expensive. They were well written and lasted a few years. They gave the theory in very good concise form. Then added examples and comment. Then gave exercises to do. They were intended to cover all aspects of a university course. Expensive and thick.

All I had to do was memorize and understand the theory part. One book covered third year physics for engineering students. In my fourth year I did not buy some books but arranged to borrow them from a friend who wanted to rest just before the exam. I would start at 5pm and finish at 3am and write the exam at 10am.

I tried doing a business University course in 2006 - mainly so I could get low cost good accommodation. I could never do today what I did then because the text books are so badly written. The theory is the theory, but they gave BS examples that had multiple answers. If one did not do (and learn) the examples one could not know the thinking (bias) in the exam. They also forced me to do online tests. I quickly worked out that one could do a quick pass, and then re-do the test after checking what they wanted. All they did was change the order of the questions.

Unfortunately it is an example of what I think is "dumbing down" of society.

What is your view of Stroud?

 

[Pixel42]

What is your view of Stroud?

My home town.

So how is the evidence gathering going, PartSkeptic? Ready to do a dry run to test your hypothesis that your headaches are correlated with the output of your wifi? Any findings yet from your research to find out whether your hypothesis that poorer areas will have lower levels of Covid-19 than more affluent areas because of their lower levels of cell coverage is correct?

 

[abaddon]

My home town.

Good for you, but not that to which I referred. And I had good reason to use said reference. He should know what it is, but it is not easily googled. Thanks to your home town. And Johnathan, of course.

So how is the evidence gathering going, PartSkeptic? Ready to do a dry run to test your hypothesis that your headaches are correlated with the output of your wifi? Any findings yet from your research to find out whether your hypothesis that poorer areas will have lower levels of Covid-19 than more affluent areas because of their lower levels of cell coverage is correct?

Apparently, we are all morons pretending to knowledge we do not have so PS is thereby free to hurl insults. Or something.

 

[Pixel42]

What a gigantic waffle. You know what would be more impressive than a prophecy that gets adjusted to suit actual events? How about one that unambiguously predicts them? I mean, seriously- you began with a prediction that there would be a giant die-off caused by the virus that would accelerate a trend toward a more spiritual world (whatever that even means); and you've ended up with the pompously portentous announcement that neither the virus nor the die-off is actually necessary for the prophecy's fulfillment as long as there is some unspecified change in society.

I'm currently re-reading Terry Pratchett's novel Interesting Times and just came across this:

In the words of the great philosopher Ly Tin Wheedle, "When many expect a mighty stallion they will find hooves on an ant."

For some reason I immediately thought of this thread.

 

[JayUtah]

No understanding whatsoever? Enough to debate you.

You're not debating; you're desperately trying to avoid a debate. You're repeatedly begging people to accept that you're some sort of expert, and thus that your handwaving dismissal of your critics' rebuttals somehow has a suitable foundation. But you can provide no foundation for your purported expertise. Nor can you address the rebuttal on its merit. Your argument consists entirely of a series of decreasingly credible assertions, none of which you feel like you need to prove. That's not a debate. That's just browbeating.

Give me some links to "uncaused effects" that are not opinions.

Quantum mechanics is not an opinion. It's probably the most empirically verified model in science. We're not going to move on just because the topic at hand is something you don't wish to talk about for fear of exposing your ignorance. You don't get to keep fishing until your critics give you an easier rebuttal.

That status MUST include the underlying quantum vacuum energy which is like a bottled gas with molecules hitting the side.

No. Once again you're mistaking the observed effect for the purported cause. There is no way you could have passed a course on theoretical physics with this egregious misunderstanding in place. And no, vacuum energy is nothing like the kinetic model of gases.

Regrettably I am getting too old and with too many other commitments to really study the science.

No. You assured us you had already prepared adequately. Your original claim was, "I'm a genius at this, and you guys aren't." You don't get to retreat to, "Gee, guys, I'm just too old and busy to demonstrate the skill I'm claiming I have." You might as well just admit you were bluffing all along.

You've been challenged on your knowledge of the science. And the challenge is in order, because that's what you predicated your argument on. You don't get to whine about being persecuted, or that your critics are resorting to personal attacks. Out of all the ways you chose to defend against that challenge, you chose to tell us an anecdote of how you were so very good at this topic back in your college days -- so good that you could pose theoretical riddles that could stump your teachers. This -- out of all possible things -- was what you remembered and what you thought will be convincing.

Put up or shut up. Tell us the riddle. What was the thought experiment that so thoroughly baffled all the experts?

...one cannot escape the interaction of the underlying vacuum energy (which Feynman uses in his diagrams).

You keep invoking Feynman as if he somehow vindicates you. Vague name-dropping is not going to help you be the expert you're trying to convince us you are. You have the role of vacuum energy exactly backwards from how every other physicist in the world views it. Therefore you're on the hook to tell us why you're right and all these other household names you keep referring to are wrong.

And regrettably I am struggling to find easy explanation that is accurate but on level an engineer can understand.

No. Don't pretend you have to dumb it down for your audience. I used to work for the U.S. Department of Energy, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, home to some of the most brilliant physicists on the planet. Assume we're all experts in theoretical physics and give us the explanation in all its tedious glory.

I'm calling your bluff. Put up or shut up.

What about the part where a universe existing for an infinite period would become one infinite intelligence because of the emergent property inherent in the physics?

Gibberish.

I told you that the emf link will only be found years from now.

No. You claim others have found it now. You said the science was essentially incontrovertible, and you asked your audience why they had such a hard time believing it.

See, the people you cribbed your "science" from trot it out every time a new "G" comes out. The same sort of pseudo-science being deployed against 5G was thrown against 4G, 3G, and all the previous G's. And because this is what they do, they posture it as settled science. And until now, you postured it as settled science. Only now that it's been revealed that you don't know the first thing about this supposedly settled science are you trying to kick the can down the road.

And of course kicking the can down the road is what all con men do who are pretending to be prophets. You tried to tell us you had been proven in part by science as a prophet, but now you're retreating to the claim that time will tell.

That does not mean I am wrong.

But we can start the process now of proving if you're right. There's an experiment on the table that you seem reluctant to do.

I am entitled to extrapolate my experience and the experience of others and the underlying science to form an opinion.

You didn't form an opinion. You just copied other people's opinions. Then you presented their arguments to skeptics and are somehow shocked that skeptics examined them critically. Then when you were unable to defend against a critical analysis by bluffing yourself to be some know-it-all, you got angry.

Seriously, if you don't want your shenanigans to be exposed by skeptics doing what skeptics do best, don't keep asking for it.

To me it was "a sign". But you don't believe in "signs and omens".

We don't believe in any claim for which there is no evidence. And you need to understand that trying to shame skeptics into abandoning this approach is never going to work. Not falling for fake prophets proclaiming signs and wonders is what we're proud of. In the experience of history, those people tend to lull others into believing their claims for purposes of the fake prophet's own aggrandizement and benefit. It's predation. And in the marketplace of ideas, where some of those ideas are the product of fake claims to prophecy, we are the consumer advocates whose duty it is to test those ideas rigorously.

You postured COVID-19 as the herd-culling catastrophe you predicted. And you postured electro-smog from 5G towers as the aggravating pathogen you say you predicted. Except that I showed how none of the actual emerging facts fit your prophecy, no matter how imaginatively you try to reword it. As hard as you're trying to vilify me and say that I don't address your mistakes in detail, you somehow missed that very detailed post.

This thread is ostensibly an exercise in collecting the evidence for the claim you're making, but you keep dragging your feet in that exercise. Do you want to prove you're a prophet? Or do you just want to keep believing you are, regardless of evidence?

 

[JayUtah]

All I had to do was memorize and understand the theory part. One book covered third year physics for engineering students.

I collect old textbooks. I have about 300. What was the name of yours?

You didn't give the name of the course, but from this post I glean it was a sort of physics-for-engineers survey course. As much as you want to claim society is being dumbed down, the trend is that engineers today have to know more theoretical physics than engineers who were educated decades ago. Huntsman and Slack (1935), for example, don't even mention quantum mechanics or relativity. I have physics texts from a decade or so later that have one chapter on relativity, but nothing about statistical mechanics in their treatment of electrodynamics. These would have been the introductory text for people who later became such people as the Los Alamos engineers.

Engineering physics is taught in the first year. Which is to say, the physics that engineers need to know in order to be engineers is taught then. And that's because you can't really plunge into the core engineering curriculum without first laying that foundation. Trying to teach it in the third year is pointless. And the first-year course is the survey course you allude to. And it concentrates on classical mechanics, in keeping with the syllabi in the books I've cited. In contrast you can elect to take additional physical science courses in later years, such as the third year. And those can include a deeper dive into theoretical physics, as opposed to the practical aspects of classical mechanics. But you're claiming the course was a survey course, not a deeper dive. Just more of your story that would probably convince some people, but not those who really are engineers.

No survey-for-engineers text is going to delve deeply enough into quantum mechanics to make its reader an expert, or even especially competent if your peers are physics majors. You were trying to tell us that you were an accomplished enough expert in the field that you could proclaim your critics to be relative novices. Not just your critics, but also your professors. And on the basis of that (and only that) you're trying to tell us that quantum mechanics doesn't refute your cobbled-together religion. Because you -- the master of theoretical physics -- just say so.

There is, of course, the glaring fact that you got one of the most famous findings of quantum mechanics obviously backwards. That's just wrong on its face. But you doubled down, and are now tripling down. You're trying to tell us that you're really still the expert here, and that your interpretation is the only one that's right, and that we need to just accept your word for it and move on. To make the story even more hard to swallow, now we find out that your coursework wasn't the intensive, detailed exploration that everyone else requires in order to comprehend such an esoteric subject thoroughly. It was instead merely the fly-by, bare-minimum course. And you didn't even take that seriously: you crammed just enough to pass one exam.

Do you see now why people rightly don't take your claims seriously?

 

[EvilBiker]

Good for you, but not that to which I referred. And I had good reason to use said reference.

I won't reveal more, but I know what you're talking about.

You didn't give the name of the course, but from this post I glean it was a sort of physics-for-engineers survey course.

...

Engineering physics is taught in the first year. Which is to say, the physics that engineers need to know in order to be engineers is taught then. And that's because you can't really plunge into the core engineering curriculum without first laying that foundation. Trying to teach it in the third year is pointless. And the first-year course is the survey course you allude to. And it concentrates on classical mechanics, in keeping with the syllabi in the books I've cited. In contrast you can elect to take additional physical science courses in later years, such as the third year. And those can include a deeper dive into theoretical physics, as opposed to the practical aspects of classical mechanics. But you're claiming the course was a survey course, not a deeper dive. Just more of your story that would probably convince some people, but not those who really are engineers.

No survey-for-engineers text is going to delve deeply enough into quantum mechanics to make its reader an expert, or even especially competent if your peers are physics majors.

First year physics is a requirement, and is for everybody who will pursue physics later, engineers and physicists alike. Yes, you are right in that it is mainly concentrated on classical mechanics. If I remember correctly, second year physics is optional for engineers - in my time there was the option to gain credits from other full year courses like Economics or other similar cross-departmental courses. For my sins, I took second year Physics, which was a bastard of a course, but gave me the required pre-requisites to do Astronomy.

What I find laughable is that PS says he attended a few lectures, then read the textbook and wrote the exam. Physics has always been one of the most rigorously policed courses due to its complexity. The amount of lab work is extreme, and in my day we had to do weekly problems sets covering not only the previous week's coursework but also the next week (pre-emptive). The lab work and problem sets had to be completed (with passing grades) to obtain a DP or "duly performed" certificate, which would allow you to sit the exam. Besides this, in first year there was also usually an attendance register which also counted towards the DP.

We could get away with skipping the majority of lectures in later years, but not in first year. Hell, I think I attended maybe 4 lectures for Comp Sci 1 in second year, but I did all the class tests, etc - happily I was well versed in Comp Sci from previous experience.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I just now downloaded the episode of Al Jazeera's "Bottom Line" which interviews Nouriel Roubini (the man who predicted the 2008 crash three years before it happened). It mentions this document.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...for-covid19-crisis-by-nouriel-roubini-2020-06

The precariat is the contemporary version of Karl Marx’s proletariat: a new class of alienated, insecure workers who are ripe for radicalization and mobilization against the plutocracy (or what Marx called the bourgeoisie). This class is growing once again, now that highly leveraged corporations are responding to the COVID-19 crisis as they did after 2008: taking bailouts and hitting their earnings targets by slashing labor costs.

The Bottom Line interview ends with these words from the interviewer
"So what's the bottom line. There were already bad trends piling up against folks trying to hold their lives together before the global pandemic hit and destabilize them even more. Some things are never going to change. The middle class - they're always going to be squeezed. The rich – they will get richer. And the poor, even when they do everything they're supposed to do to get ahead, they just can't catch a break. Inequality is going to remain with us. Pugnacious nationalism is gonna keep rising. Our quality of life is gonna fall, as isolationism takes over. And oh yeah, Antarctica is melting. My guest is right that it would take a massive systemic correction to turn around the ship and the chances of that happening right now are highly unlikely. We're going to have rough waters - buckle up, and that's sadly, the bottom line."

So what is required is a massive systemic correction! You guys are getting "insider information" at the moment. It is coming. Are you prepared? Your answer is probably "No" because I do not know what one can do to prepare for such a storm.

 

[abaddon]

I won't reveal more, but I know what you're talking about.

 

[Pixel42]

You guys are getting "insider information" at the moment.

We're getting endless BS from someone who refuses to do the minimum work necessary to convince anyone (including himself) that his claims of having "insider information" should be given any serious consideration whatsoever.

So how is the evidence gathering going? Ready to do a dry run to test your hypothesis that your headaches are correlated with the output of your wifi? Found any support yet for your hypothesis that poorer areas will have lower levels of Covid-19 than more affluent areas because of their lower levels of cell coverage?

 

[EvilBiker]

My guest is right that it would take a massive systemic correction to turn around the ship and the chances of that happening right now are highly unlikely. We're going to have rough waters - buckle up, and that's sadly, the bottom line."

So what is required is a massive systemic correction! You guys are getting "insider information" at the moment. It is coming. Are you prepared? Your answer is probably "No" because I do not know what one can do to prepare for such a storm.

What part of “highly unlikely” points you to “it is coming”?

Rough waters, yup. What is going to make those waters rougher is this growing trend of science and fact denialism that is manifesting itself among laymen across social media. I really hope that it doesn’t infiltrate th...oh, wait.