Serious mistakes found in recent paper by Connolly et al.

Benestad

I am a bit alian to this. I have it very hard to fo0llow that statistics decides and commands- rules on A being the cause of B or vice versa or they being “co- related”.

Is the moon co- related to the earth and vice versa? Yes, tradeitionally but that is by gravitation and traditional orbits however wiggeling, and not by statistics.

I had my car towed off by a roap, That is a physical connection and cause different from gravitation and different from statisticsw also. And there should allways be a “fender” in that rope or chain, that will damp the sudden bumps and shocks. If you have notyhing else, then allways tie a used car tire up in between. A and B. Then there must also be cunning and experiensed , conscious controllers and drivers in both cars., to stear and to carefrully operate the motor, the clutch, the gears, and the brakes. Then you have good co- relation all the way between the masses A and B.at the variable velocity V on the road S.

What rather rules there is f = m. a , and its derivative f t = m V, simply by a for acceleration is dV/dt, giving the sledegehammer law. If m and V are real enough and theta gets short enough near to zero, the f for force may become enormeous and break both metals, chains, and ropes. however strong. So stretch out theta a bit by a proper damper or fender.

This is not statistics. It is sheere newtonian physics, that must be taken serious first.

Statistics does not cause and secure and keep that in approximate order. Statistics is a matematical methgod, and no physical force or chemical potencial / acidity pr9oton activity or similars, no combustible or gasoline,. and no overwhelming mushrom or virus in the system. It does not even cause or reduce friction in the system.

What heats up and what cools down?

Why does the moon cycle around the earth when there is no rope and no chain and no rod in between and why Charon anround Pluto and vice versa, but not the Earth around the Moon?

Statistics can never tell. From anxient on they believed Gode in his thoughts that were pure cyclic, until they found that itb is rather elliptic and oval. Hardly square or linear.

Newton had to tell and Einstein had further to tell and to explain that.

I have Keppler Harmonices mundi book 5 on it. He wrot that Gode is in the sun in the center of the universe and rules it all, and that unluckily he had failed to explain all this. But on that point Keppler really got extatic.

What keeps the rods and chains and rubbers and roaps together is not newtronian gravitation but van der Waals forces of electromagnetic nature in the square of space., But however strong, they are still limited and may suddenly break if you ignore Newtons hammer- law d/o and forget a fender in between when you thow B by means of A. in space or on the roads.

This is very deep, about REALIA, ande about GOD in space, in the air, in the universe, in matter and everywhere, not least present in the climate.

I just found ande recalled Goethe, Ernst Haeckel, and B. de Spinoza. They were all pan- theists, by the idea that religion and the church were misconsceived and that they knew better.

GOD is equal to those laws of Nature, the very REALIA and reality of things, also apparently dead and mineral things.

Neither of theese great GURUs and philosophers and grand demagogs committed statistics.

They believed in REALIA and in the things as they are and look and smell and taste and feel and sound to the enlighted mind, and seem to co- relate and co- exist

( Edward & Nina Grieg were also such unitatians and pan- theists. Even Fridtjof Nansen. And Thambs Lyche, the terrible man in our old math books Who was better on mountain flora)