|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
01-16-2010, 02:58 PM
chaos theory is very real,
it is infact simply a term used to describe a certain kind of system, one that is found in many places including nature. so to say it does not exist is a bit like saying the colour yellow does not exist. the word "yellow" is simply a term we use. chaos theory is amazing though. from order comes chaos - and yet, within that chaos there is always order and from that order there comes chaos etc. etc. and so on. once you get your head around it, its amazing! to give an example of chaos. imagine a perfect hypothetical experiment in a perfect vacuum. [input] there is a an upright tube with one end open (think pringles) at the bottom of the tube there are 200,000 grains of sand. when the experiment begins a mass is driven into the bottom of the tube, at an exact force. say 100N. driving the sand perfectly straight up into the air. we are interested in where the sand lands. this is our output now Newton tells us that as we know the mass of each grain of sand, the force applied to it, the friction force between the grains of sand etc. etc. that we should be able to predict exactly where the sand will land. after all the Newtonian equations are all pretty simple and any highschool/secondary school student could do them. but as you can imagine. there is no way to predict where the sand will land. and all 200,000 grains will never fall in the exact same place again. even if the initial conditions were identical. this is chaos. we have a complex system that contains absolutely no random variables, yet the results are random. and here is where it gets even deeper!! obviously the sand will always fall within a certain radius of the tube. only everytime it falls in a different place. now if you were to plot where the sand fell, and then repeat the experiment. the sand would keep falling in completely random places (chaos from order) but after enough repeats of this experiment a pattern would begin to form in the sand, perhaps waves, or a spiral or whatever. but a pattern will eventually emerge (order from chaos) however this pattern will be unique. when you repeat the whole experiment the next day. you will get a pattern, but a completely different one (chaos from order) and it gets deeper still!!! have lets say 200,000 of these experiments all happening side by side in a big square, and eventually (and were talking a long eventually here) a pattern will form within that square!!! here are some vids that show order in chaos YouTube - Order in the Chaos - Synchronicity through Fractals ささやくの庭の YouTube - Strange Attractors by Whisper of the Garden 奇妙な アトラクタ some say the whole universe is nothing more than one giant fractal!! and if you think about it, the galaxy is a series of bodies in orbit around a large mass (super black hole) our solar system is a series of bodies in orbit around a large mass (the sun) those bodies have smaller bodies that orbit them (moons) these bodies are made of matter, which is made of atoms, which are made of electrons orbiting a large mass (protons - neutrons) which in turn are made out of bodies of mass (quarks) and gluons.............................etc? and what happens when we go the other way? why is it that trees and the veins in our body have such similar shapes/patterns? like i said. it goes deep. this is why newtonian physics and past events (ie mini ice age) cannot be used to predict the climate or weather. example: if it has rained berlin on the 19th of january every year for the last 1000 years, you would not be able to use that information to say that it will rain on the 19th of jan this year. 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
01-16-2010, 03:43 PM
So you're saying Chaos theory isn't a theory which means that you totally disagree with Determinism? It's funny how people that aren't on the front line of modern research and physics seem to talk about theories with more certainty than people that have several PHD's in them... It's ridiculous! stop making out that the whole scientific community has come to the conclusion that Chaos Theory over comes other theories!
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
01-16-2010, 05:07 PM
Quote:
what does the fact that a dynamic system with no random variables can have random outcomes, have to do with cause and effect? also in extreme scales determinism fails to answer any real questions. it falls down when dealing with the subatomic and quantum level, and on the opposite end of the spectrum, you cannot have a hypothetical machine that measures eveything in the universe because in order to do so it would have to measure itself, and the data stored within itself, resulting in feedback, which gives us a fractal, and ironically chaos. the end result being an unsolvable equation. thus one would never be able to predict what the universe is going to do by knowing everything within the universe. yea its great for dealing with the macroscopic, but then so is newton. Quote:
since when are the two mutually exclusive? well done! you have failed to grasp even the basics of chaos theory.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
01-16-2010, 05:46 PM
Quote:
Rather than trying to complicate things, just look at the "notion" of Determinism; with sufficient knowledge future events can be precisely predicted. So... if you look at a chaotic system like the double pendulum, Chaos theory says that it's impossible to trace the path; This is true... Determinism says with sufficient data (change in pressure, initial velocity, precise measurements of length, mass etc to the most minute degree), you would be able to predict the path!... this is also true!!! So, genius, maybe you can explain how two opposing THEORIES can be correct at the same time... **hint; Classical Physics vs Quantum Physics... OR even better and easier... LET THERE BE LIGHT!!!!!*** Quote:
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
01-16-2010, 08:01 PM
Quote:
please alow me to bow down to your amazing knowledge. you have in no way failed to understand the principals at work, and are running with the most basic of scientific concepts. you know so much. you say chaos does not exist, and you know what i believe you over Professor J.M.T. Thompson, FRS after all he's only: Honorary Fellow, Dept Applied Maths & Theoretical Physics, Cambridge University. Emeritus Professor, Nonlinear Dynamics, UCL. Editor, Series A: Mathematical, Physical & Engineering Sciences. Elected to the Council of the Royal Society, 2002. and your a teenager who is still in skool. others are: Scientists James Clerk Maxwell "Matter and motion" (1877) There is a maxim which if often quoted, that "The same causes will always produce the same effects." (…) There is another maxim (…), which asserts "That like causes produce like effects." (…) In a great many physical phenomena this condition is satisfied; but there are other cases in which a small initial variation may produce a very great change in the final state of the system, (…) Henri Poincaré "The science and the hypothesis" (1902) Are there anything that are more complex than the orbit of planets? Henri Poincaré "The value of the science" (1905) The trajectory of planets is so complex that no one have derived its equation. Henri Poincaré "Science and methods" (1908) An initial small error will result in enormous difference. So no prediction is efficient and statistical phenomena appear. van der Pol "Frequency demultiplication" (1927) Often an irregular noise is heard in the telephone receivers before the frequency jumps to the next lower values.(…) The shaded parts correspond to those settings of the condenser where an irregular noise is heard. Li and York (1975) Period three implies chaos. Hajime MORI "Dissipative structure and chaos" (1994) With small perturbation, chaos is unstable and not reproducible. But a long-time mean on the path is stable and reproducible. Masaya YAMAGUCHI "An introduction to chaos" (1996) To explain the Oriental philosophy in European language is needed. Chaos is one of these languages. The symmetry causes only periodic motions (like duality), but non-symmetry (a property of Oriental philosophy) causes chaos. Chaos is a source of creation. It is a tradition of the human race before the Greek era. Philosophers or Literary Men Lao Tzu "The Tao Te Ching" (B.C. the 6th Century) The Tao produced One; One produced Two; Two produced Three; Three produced All things. Lucretius "On the Nature of Things" (About 100 B.C.) While moving in some direction, at unpredictable times and at unpredictable positions, it (atom) changes the direction of motion so slightly that the movement can be altered. Unless the atom often changes the direction of motion obliquely, (…) the nature could not generate anything. Gaius Petronius Arbiter "Satyricon" (A.D. the 1st Century) Chance has its reasons. (Suam habet fortuna rationem.) Blaise Pascal "Pensées" (The 17th Century) 162 (…) Cleopatra's nose: had it been shorter, the whole aspect of the world would have been altered. Gottfried Leibniz "Monadologie" (1714) By the way, every detail contains accidental elements which are finer than the previous ones or itself, and, to show the reason of each accidental element, similar analyses would be required; therefore, we cannot proceed by such analyses. Edgar Allan Poe, "The Gold-Bug" (1843) of course the error, however trivial in the beginning, increased as we proceeded with the line, and by the time we had gone fifty feet threw us quite off the scent. Jules Verne "From the Earth to the Moon" (1869) "I cannot show you the actual trajectory of the rocket between the moon and the earth. (…)" "Why?" "Because this problem is called the three body problem, and the theory of integration has not been developed enough to solve it. Jules Verne "Floating Island" (1895) Surely, even the marvels of science cannot reproduce the beauty of nature. Friedrich Nietzsche "Thus Spake Zarathustra" (1883-85) I tell you: Man must have Chaos in themselves to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: You have Chaos in yourself. Ray Bradbury "A Sound of Thunder" (1952) "If you bruise some kinds of plants, the effects will be piled up little by little like differential. Here, a small error would be expanded, and it causes terrible results after 60 million years." (…) "Such a tiny thing! A mere butterfly!" Isaac Asimov "Spell my Name with an S" (1959) (in "Nine Tomorrows") "Your case is very interesting. I recommend you to change your name into Sebatinsky." (…) "That is, you say I should change my initial? From Z to S? Is that all? (…) How will this change give effect to what?" (…) "I don't know. It might affect you although I don't know why." Alfred Bester, "The Dark Side of the Earth" (1964) "In Pleistocene, I happened to step on a small insect and killed it." (…) "(…) I saw a phantom that the world has completely changed because of its death. " Gilles Deleuze & Félix Guattari "Anti-Œdipus - Capitalism and schizophrenia" (1972) In sum, all the confrontations between absorbing force and repulsing force generate the affirmative and open sequence of various elements of intensity. These elements never represent the final state of equilibrium of a system, but represent the quasi-stable stationary state, and a subject undergoes and goes through these states one after another. (…) Various disjunction points on the body without organs form some converging circles around the desiring-machine. In this way, the subject is produced as a remaining vestige by the side of the desiring-machine, and, as an appendage or as a part, it goes through all the states of circles and moves from circles to circles one after another. William Gibson & Bruce Sterling "The Difference Engine" (1990) "They might have known this would happen, if they'd properly studied Catastrophist theory. It is a concatenation of synergistic interactions; the whole system is on the period-doubling route to Chaos!" "What does that mean, pray?" (…) "in layman's terms, it means that everything gets twice as bad, twice as fast, until everything falls completely apart!" Michael Crichton "Jurassic Park" (1991) "The chaos theory implies two essential points. First, complex systems like weather have latent order structures. Second one tells its opposite --- even simple systems can yield complex dynamics."
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
01-16-2010, 08:32 PM
Quote:
 Where the heck did I say Chaos doesn't exist????!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!EDIT: btw, Thank you for the Poincare quotes... I'm actually doing a paper on him right now
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
01-16-2010, 09:16 PM
[quote=MMM;795325]Weather vs. Climate: Cold Winter Snap Does Not Mean No Global Warming - ABC News
Oh what a fool I have been getting weather confused with climate. But now I understand - two record breaking cold winters either side of an exceptionally cool summer covering most of the Northern hemisphere is just weather and no indication of a climate trend. Whereas a hurricane in the bay of Mexico, a bush fire in Australia or a picture of a polar bear on an iceberg are all corroboration catastrophic global warming. So the way it works is hot weather is climate but cold weather is just weather.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
01-16-2010, 09:44 PM
Quote:
On the other side you can see the north pole melting, every year, as well as the glaciers. THATS a difference. Generally global warming and cold winters are no opposites, at least for Europe. If the north pole melts the Gulf Stream most probably become weaker due to the lack of ice and the bunch of freshwater. So Europe's 'Heating' will become weaker and that can cause cold winters. 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
01-17-2010, 12:12 AM
Quote:
The only true records we have of polar ice levels are satellite imagery which dates back only to 1979, and 30 years is too short a time period to judge a trend. You might be interested to know that about 50,000 square miles of sea ice has returned to the arctic region, and that ice levels in the interior of the antarctic are now at the highest levels ever recorded. These two facts argue against any global warming. Added to this once again is that the current cold weather is exactly the opposite of what all of the IPCC climate models have predicted. According to the UN's IPCC, the last 10 years should have been progressively warmer, when in fact they have been progressively cooler. 2010 is supposed to be the hottest year in history. What do you think?
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
