There is a physicist who says …

From time to time we meet, arguing, with the usual guy who "is a physicist from the university of X and says Y". The very interesting thing about these "physicists who publish books on newsstands" is that they are read as if the physicists or scientists were priests.

This is also due to an attitude of the press. For example, it continues to be said that 97% of scientists agree on climate change, and that is why we think it is true. In practice, it is as if climate change, as a theory, is the product of a referendum between physicists.

This is not the case, in the sense that the problem is the data. Not 97% of scientists agree. When IPCC first started studying this phenomenon, data was sparse and disorganized, and computers weren't powerful enough to produce decent simulations. The mathematical models were primitive. For this reason, the initial skepticism was not entirely unfounded.

Then, with artificial satellites, better data began to arrive, and several supercomputers started running climate models. There were many, few were saved. I still use the plural because there are many. But less and less than before.

All the models considered today "explain" 97% of the DATA collected. Not 97% of scientists. 97% of the data. However, the models are many, some extreme and pessimistic, others less extreme and more optimistic. Usually the press provides the most impressive to the masses, because more copies are sold. I am not saying that the most optimistic ones are fresh water or that the phenomenon is worth ignoring. I say there are more terrifying and less terrifying.

That said, the concept is simple: "science" is not a referendum between scientists, that is, physics is not the opinion of a physicist, and especially the opinion of a physicist is not always physical.

There are therefore procedures. If a physicist produces a paper for a specialized journal and the paper receives peer reviews, and what he says matches the data collected, then we are talking about physics.

If a physicist thinks Kim Kardashian is better than Elettra Lamborghini, and he writes a very successful book on newsstands, what he says is NOT physics. Even if it's the opinion of a physicist.

Good. This process of “distillation of facts from data” has pros and cons. The pro is that for a while there are many theories to compare. The downside is that at some point there is only one left. Why do I seem to trade pros and cons?

Because when there are many theories, there are many scientists involved. When there is a winner, only one group is involved, or almost. In short, there is the Higgs boson, not "the boson of [list of all the scientists who had provided alternative solutions including Higgs]."

So, how do you understand the idea that "97% of scientists think so" is just plain nonsense invented by the press. Which is also true of the COVID virus and "virologists": being a new matter, COVID-19 is still in the phase in which there may be MANY theories on its future behavior.

So yes, ALL scientists right now can publish apparently conflicting things, be scientists all the same, and only at the end of the pandemic could we have consensus on the theory that it coincides with the data collected in the pandemic.

Having said that, I would like to talk about a Spanish physicist who is abandoning the web with “thermodynamic” considerations on the future of the economy, the planet and the pussy (the pussy has not yet arrived). I wouldn't mention the name because it's not worth it.

First, none of his books are scientific publications. They have not been peer reviewed because they are not scientific publications. They are not scientific publications because they do not have any characteristics. Nor do his writings. Good. So, anyone can logically contest it. Academic authority has little to do with it. For example, Zichichi says he believes in God, an entity that would violate almost all the principles of thermodynamics as we know them. But not being physics books or publications, but commercial books, you can challenge Zichichi's arguments even if you are not physicists.

Having said that, let's get to the point.

Using classical thermodynamics and Carnot to discuss economics and ecology is dangerous. For one thing, thermodynamics is an ugly beast. What do I mean?

I mean that if we talk about thermodynamics, we should not talk about "recycling": in thermodynamics, inside an adiabatic system you cannot take things back in time, that is to say in a previous state. It takes energy to do that, but you can't let it in if it's adiabatic. Why do we know thermodynamics but talk about recycling as a green strategy? Because all the other alternatives are worse. But not in a thermodynamic sense: in an economic, ecological, logistic sense, and others. But in a thermodynamic sense, recycling is bad.

This example serves to understand one thing: thermodynamics is a whore matter. Applied on large systems you can make them say what you want, you just have to pay. To claim that the economy cannot grow indefinitely because thermodynamics prohibits it is, for example, completely idiotic.

Thermodynamics, like all physics, is affected by a whole series of intellectual structures that are necessary. For example, the dimensional theorem Pi. The pi dimensional theorem would be what in elementary school was "you can't add apples and pears", and then it becomes "you can't add meters and seconds".

The economy is not affected by this. You can pay fifty euros for electricity and fifty euros for a kilo of something, and then say that you have paid a total of one hundred euros. In physics, adding grams and joules is misunderstood.

If you make a theory that adds meters and joules, joules and grams, meters and grams, and so on, the other theories do not accept them. They pull aside and begin to say "but these theories are not like us", "let's help them at home", "they must be repatriated immediately", and so on.

But the problem is also that the economy is not so much affected by experimental tests, and it doesn't have to be consistent: if I compare Kim KArdashan with a cow, I immediately notice experimentally that the cow has bigger boobs and produces more milk. Strictly by scientific experiments, a cow's boobs are worth much more than Kim Kardashan's: but if you ask her insurance company, you discover that this is not the case in economics. Same thing if we talk about Elettra Lamborghini and compare it to a pig: in experimental terms, with a pig you will make much more ham. However, Elettra Lamborghini's buttocks are considered more precious than those of a pig. Bizarre.

What does this mean? It means that coming up with thermodynamics, or physics, to make economic predictions is useless. Not so much because economics is "complex", it is simply because it does NOT exist as an experimental science. Economics is a form of narrative that does not necessarily correspond to reality. Sure, it uses math to proceed, but the fact that I can calculate Santa's specific gravity doesn't mean Santa exists. The economy doesn't exist either: as in the case of Santa Claus, sometimes we act as if it did.

So taking an experimental science and using it to make economic predictions makes no sense.

The second thing that puzzles me about this physicist's way of thinking is the gigantic amount of arbitrary assumptions and borderline cases he uses to argue. One of his favorite topics is the effort we have to make to capture ALL of the solar energy. True, it would be a huge effort. But we don't need it all, we only need a small fraction. Perhaps using "hot" nuclear fusion energy, if successful, would involve less effort?

And this is the point of my speech: those books are not "physics". They are the views on the universe, life and cunt, of a physicist. (She hasn't published any books on pussy yet, so I'll assume she hasn't studied the subject yet). The fact that he is a physicist does not mean anything: I observe that he uses the typical terms of physics, but on the other hand I observe that these things he says in books he has never published in physics journals.

So, I can simply waste time disproving them as "physics", or understand that they are books … of opinions.

So do me a favor: if you want to tell me that “a physicist thinks it”, or “a virologist thinks it”, don't send me the link to his interview or his book. Send me the link to the publication where it says this.

Because Shy Love, the porn star, also has two degrees in economics, two masters, and is certified as a tax accountant. Tj-Hart, another porn star, has THREE degrees, including sociology, psychology and art, plus a certification as a pedagogist. Annie Sprinkler, another porn star, has a Phd, and you can find the dissertation (sociology of art) here: https://anniesprinkle.org/media/dissertation.pdf Selena Silver has a degree in marine biology, Gen Padova in Biochemistry, AJ Bailey in anthropology, Mika Tan in biochemistry (yes, she too), Tera Patrick – BS in Biology, Anikka Albrite has a PHD in Molecular Chemistry.

If we start by saying "one industry expert said", we could have some surprises, and I could pull out some industry experts that you can't imagine.