<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>CarneyWeb.com &#187; Physics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.carneyweb.com/tag/physics/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.carneyweb.com</link>
	<description>You can never really know... anything.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:44:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>A Review of Taubes&#8217; &quot;Good Calories, Bad Calories&quot;</title>
		<link>http://www.carneyweb.com/2009/09/24/a-review-of-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories</link>
		<comments>http://www.carneyweb.com/2009/09/24/a-review-of-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:28:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Carney</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Physics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thoughts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">urn:uuid:{a.guid}</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
From Entropy Production:


Entropy Production: All Medical Science is Wrong within a 95% Confidence Intervalor: A Review of Taubes&#8217; &#8220;Good Calories, Bad Calories&#8221;: Recently I read a very impressive book by Gary Taubes, previously a reporter for the journal Science. The work in question is, &#8220;Good Calories, Bad Calories.&#8221;&#8216; In the book, Taubes collects research to [...]
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From <a href="http://entropyproduction.blogspot.com">Entropy Production</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
<a href="http://entropyproduction.blogspot.com/2009/02/all-medical-science-is-wrong-within-95.html">Entropy Production: All Medical Science is Wrong within a 95% Confidence Interval<br />or: A Review of Taubes&#8217; &#8220;Good Calories, Bad Calories&#8221;</a>: Recently I read a very impressive book by Gary Taubes, previously a reporter for the journal Science. The work in question is, &#8220;Good Calories, Bad Calories.&#8221;&#8216; In the book, Taubes collects research to challenge the common knowledge of nutrition: that fat is bad for you, that we should eat polyunsaturated vegetable oils, that we should exercise for sixty minutes a day, etc.
</p>
<p>&#8230;</p>
<p>One cannot help but wonder how a number of the weak hypotheses that Taubes explores came to become common knowledge in the field of nutrition? Taubes paints a picture of a few egotistical researchers who were able to effect what was essentially scientific fraud, by fitting their bias to the data rather than examining it critically. In Taubes words (p. 451), &#8220;it is difficult to use the term &#8220;scientist&#8221; to describe those individuals who work in these disciples [ed: nutrition, chronic disease, and obesity], and, indeed, I have activity avoided doing so in this book.&#8221;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This article is a fantastic summary and commentary on Gary Taubes enlightening <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&#038;s=books&#038;qid=1253806248&#038;sr=8-1">book</a>. I highly recommend purchasing and reading the book. It changed my life for the better (starting with <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html">article</a> that Taubes wrote for the New York Times Magazine). Since reading the article  / book and following (for the most part) it&#8217;s tennets, the following has happened to me personally:</p>
<ul>
<li>I&#8217;ve lost 50 pounds
<li>My blood cholesterol has dropped from 220 to 160
<li>My trigycerides have dropped
<li>My blood pressure has dropped
</ul>
<p>If you are overweight or borderline diabetic, you NEED to read this book.</p>
<p style='text-align:left'>&copy; 2009, <a href='http://www.carneyweb.com'>Michael Carney</a>. All rights reserved. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carneyweb.com/2009/09/24/a-review-of-taubes-good-calories-bad-calories/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can Fractals Make Sense of the Quantum World?</title>
		<link>http://www.carneyweb.com/2009/04/01/can-fractals-make-sense-of-the-quantum-world</link>
		<comments>http://www.carneyweb.com/2009/04/01/can-fractals-make-sense-of-the-quantum-world#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:38:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Carney</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cool]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fractals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Physics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">urn:uuid:{a.guid}</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
From Slashdot:

Can Fractals Make Sense of the Quantum World?: Keith found a New Scientist story about fractals and quantum theory. The article says &#8220;Take the mathematics of fractals into account, says Palmer, and the long-standing puzzles of quantum theory may be much easier to understand. They might even dissolve away.&#8221;

This is the coolest article I&#8217;ve [...]
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From <a href="http://slashdot.org/">Slashdot</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>
<a href="http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/iehdCyokZHU/article.pl">Can Fractals Make Sense of the Quantum World?</a>: Keith found a New Scientist story about fractals and quantum theory. The article says &#8220;Take the mathematics of fractals into account, says Palmer, and the long-standing puzzles of quantum theory may be much easier to understand. They might even dissolve away.&#8221;
</p></blockquote>
<p>This is the coolest article I&#8217;ve read in a long time. I&#8217;ve  had a hobby for many years of trying to understand (at a very coarse, layman&#8217;s level) the nature of various theories in physics today. </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve read books by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman">Feynman</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_hawking">Hawking</a>, and always wondered if there&#8217;d ever be a connection between quantum theory and relativity theory. I&#8217;ve also read several books on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal">fractals</a> and thought that the nature of our universe had to be fractal in some way. Well, it looks as though it is, and there might be a connection between quantum theory and relativity theory after all.</p>
<p style='text-align:left'>&copy; 2009, <a href='http://www.carneyweb.com'>Michael Carney</a>. All rights reserved. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carneyweb.com/2009/04/01/can-fractals-make-sense-of-the-quantum-world/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
