Omicron --
- "Identified" by a computer program, NOT by observation of any fluid from any person
- There is NO test to identify it
- There are NO scientific papers for research of it
It does not exist outside of a computer program.
Comments (23)
sorted by:
It's a marketing campaign.
Got some of that Cova Cola Classic? Just asking.
Replace the word ‘Omicron’ with ‘Pepsi’ and everyone would be drinking one. Nothing more than a common multimedia advertising blitz marketed on a global scale.
Here's an even better (and shorter) explanation:
https://odysee.com/@Robert-Self:a0/Dr.-Thomas-Cowan-explains-the-concoction-of-Omicron-Variant:a
Quantum Physics is ALL made up too... The more you realize!
Well...
Quantum physics is a model that fits experiment. I personally have done many experiments that are explained very well by the mathematical model that is quantum physics. It's an excellent theory, that fits measurements.
What it isn't is a statement of Truth, but it doesn't claim to be.
All of physics are mathematical models that fit experiments. These models can then be used to help us make things. They are sufficiently accurate that they can be applied in a predictive manner, and these "predictions" can be used to engineer useful devices.
Don't confuse Theory with Truth. Science doesn't, even if scientists sometimes do in their naivety and their belief in scientific dogma.
That has been one of the BIG revelations of the past two years: A large percentage of "scientists" do not follow (or even know about or acknowledge) the Scientific Method, which means they are not engaged in science at all.
This is predictable and has been predicted for decades by libertarians. Everything government controls becomes corrupted. Since government controls today's science and medicine, both fields have become corrupt and they follow political whim, not science.
Quantum physics includes data from over a century of experiments and observations; the mathematical model fits the observations very well. That doesn't mean a better model won't come along -- Newton's model fits the world closely enough that it's still used quite a lot because at human-scale speeds, masses, etc Newton's equations give essentially the same values as quantum equations do, and Newton's equations are a bunch easier to calculate.
But observations from quantum experiments describe a world that makes no sense to us -- and THAT's what makes it interesting, to me at least. There are probably 25 or more theories about quantum fundamentals -- about what sort of world is actually being described by the math and the observations.
The Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness by Rosenblum and Kuttner describes a dozen or so different theories describing possible answers to that question, and quite a few more are out there. The Idea of the World by Kastrup is another that'll give you a sense of how very different these approaches can be.
Can you give me a quick run down on that? I haven't looked into it.
Anything Quantum is "Theory", based on "theory", based on "theory", etc... other posters here have said "over a century of experiments and observations"... Its all models that they are referencing for "experiments and observations".
What else should it be? Do you know what "theory" means? It means that it has massive amounts of experimental verification as a reasonable model.
Science NEVER makes statements of Truth. It never pretends to make statements of Truth. People make statements of Truth, and they are always wrong, no matter which language they use, even math.
In the framework of the languages we know, mathematical theories (like QM) are the closest to Truth (how the universe works) that we have gotten.
But everyone knows the theories are incomplete. How incomplete? We have no idea. Probably very incomplete. As long as you don't expect science to ever make statements of Truth, you and science will always be copacetic.
I read that a few times and it still didn't bolster your argument. Science is only what has been observed and what is likely... Quantum Physics is an entire field of research based of unverifiable assumptions that is completely devoid of any factual basis. And it pays good too... What a combo!
On what basis do you make this statement? From your responses it doesn't appear that you understand what QM is, so I will explain it.
QM is a bunch of math. That it all it is. It is a mathematical model that fits experiment. It isn't just verified as a good model to describe the universe at a certain scale, it is the most verified model in all of science. I myself have done countless experiments that verify it. Hell, if you look at how your room gets full of light when the sun is out and yet not shining into your room (the fact that light doesn't travel in a straight line), that verifies the model.
Interpretations of QM are all over the place; a bunch of whacked out shit. Everyone knows that their interpretation of QM is wrong. These completely wrong interpretations are nothing more than people trying to make sense of the verified model, because that model doesn't fit with the type of observations that we call "normal"; i.e. what we experience in our day to day world.
Science is really the art of model building. In biology we build causal connection models, chemical connection models, mathematical connection models, statistical conclusions, etc. Its not what is "likely" its just a model that tries to fit in all the experimental data. The difference between "what we know" and "what it is" (reality) is huge in biology at every scale.
That doesn't mean we can't glean any useful information from our experiments, but it is never a statement of Truth, it is just an educated guess on a tiny piece of it.
Physics on the other hand is almost purely mathematical models. We take measurements of things, and we work out, with a bajillion data points, the path they took to get from point A to point B and the time it took to make the journey. That's pretty much all of physics in a nutshell. QM is our best model for those paths. Pretty much every experiment on a scale smaller than a planet fits really well into that model. We don't use QM for objects larger than a molecule because in aggregate, the physics of Newton, Maxwell, Boltzmann et al are easier to use, but you can use QM for all of those things and it works out really well.
Where the confusion comes in, is people interpret these mathematical models and try to say "this is reality".
It's not reality. Its a model of reality. It works for predictions, which means its sufficiently reliable that we can make things using the math (engineering).
We make all kinds of things that we couldn't make without using the mathematical models of QM: computers, phones, GPS, DVD players, etc., etc., pretty much everything we have that we call "modern society" is based on QM and could never have been built without those mathematical models of QM.
Every single time you type on your computer, it is a verification of the mathematical model of QM.
excellent
just like global warming, in-silica.
Good point.
Why am I not surprised?
So why aren't we having our computers get the jab then?
LOL!
Everything they say and use to control the masses is based on their exclusive technology discovering these things, which none of us has access to. Everything they create super fear panic about is known to us by their word alone
That’s what I have been asking. You can’t test for Covid, so you can’t test for Omicron.
Mind made
I just had a customer discover doctor Peter McCullough on Joe Rogan. It's funny because now he thinks he's an expert on all this information and he's telling me, & I'm just like yeah, yeah, I know. I've known that for a year. I wanted to add, "I tried to tell you last year".... but I didn't.
And then when I said I'm still not even sure covid really exists besides on a computer screen, he said "Well, Dr. McCullough...." I just smiled. Something is making people sick, I get that. But it's been 2 years, how do they not have a single test for something specific yet?