“… if you have an incorrect model for explaining a natural process, countless discrepancies will emerge between what your model predicts and what is actually observed. When this happens, the scientific response should be to question the underlying model, but instead, the response is almost always to double down on the existing model and invent elaborate explanations (the “paradoxes”) for each contradictory piece of data that emerges.”
Forgotten Side of Water - the Fourth Phase
Very interesting, but I’ll need to devote more time to it. It is a bit long.
But I think the quote above is telling. For instance, in a study of people with FH (familial hypercholesterolemia, people with high LDL), quite a few of them have coronary arterial calcification (CAC) scores of zero, indicating low or no atherosclerosis. If LDL CAUSED atherosclerosis, they should all have atherosclerosis of similar degree (perhaps modulated by levels of LDL, as even with FH, not all of them will develop the same LDL levels). But they don’t.
I was listening to Peter Attia and so-called Dr. Lipid discussing cholesterol. Attia said he had a woman with an extremely high LDL but with a CAC score of zero. A minute later, they both said, “but we know LDL causes atherosclerosis”. Ah, what? Cognitive dissonance, much?
Old myths die hard. As Upton Sinclair once wrote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Many researchers have been told, apparently, that there would be no further funding, if they didn’t stop challenging the standard beliefs.
This is just a blog, and it’s intentionally misleading.
𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑥 𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑛 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑠, 𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒ℎ𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑎 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘.
Not true in this case.
𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟, 𝑟𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦, 𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑣𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠.
That’s silly. Nothing in science necessarily says that water will travel linearly. Water is not a solid, so of course unequal forces can “mix things up,” so to speak. There is the frequent inverse nature of pressure and velocity (as with Bernoulli’s Principle), there is friction between water and objects in contact with it - as with a pipe or human blood vessels, etc.
Friction between the pipe and the water nearest it will slow that water down, relative to the water in the center of the pipe. Any fluid is going to act this way. “Laminar flow” is this phenomenon. In a long enough pipe, after a while (commonly 50 to 150 pipe diameters) laminar flow gives way to turbulent flow. This is determined by the fluid’s velocity and viscosity, by the geometry of the flow system, and by imperfections in the flow system - at some degree, the ‘pipe’ won’t be absolutely straight and absolutely smooth on the inside, etc.
In fluid mechanics, there is a specific equation to predict the behavior of a fluid, and the result is the ‘Reynolds number.’ This is definitely part of accepted ‘science.’ The blog article makes it sound like the observed behavior of water is somehow against ‘science,’ and that is nonsense.
As @OldDoug rightly notes, water is complex.
During my checkered past, studying hydrology in college, I found the behaviors and related math of water to be one of the more challenging fields of study.
That was over 45 years ago - and none of these fascinating aspects of H2O were “forgotten” then.
During my checkered past, I took a class in Fluid Dynamics. The thing that stuck with me the most is that the behavior of fluids is inherently unsolvable; the equations that describe it have more variables than equations. It has been a long time, but I think it was 21 equations in 23 unknowns. Lots of conditions can be solved for by setting conditions for some of the unknown variables, but not everything can be solved for.
The result is something like this from NASA JPL and Goddard.
Some reporter once asked J.B.S. Haldane, a famous British geneticist/biologist what a lifetime of studying biology had taught him about God, should there be one. He answered, “He has an inordinate fondness for beetles”. Looking at this (and so much more of the world around us) I would make that “an inordinate fondness for partial differential equations”
Pretty cool. Took me a while to note the dates at the top.
Worked at a place that made helicopters, and they said basically the same thing. The models for airflow over a wing don’t adequately describe what’s happening, particularly if that wing is part of a rotor system. They still find the models useful, but always verify in real life.
I think we could say that about the human body, too. It’s unsolvable.