I support Pat Mahon

[SlipperFan]

I suppose college experience is like anything else: It depends on three things: the courses you take, the college you go to, and your attitude. The latter is probably the most important.

 

[PHRAG]

Lance,

I wasn't sure how to respond to your comments implying I was somehow responsible for bullying Mahon in a previous thread. What I had attempted to do, was ask Pat to wait until his theories were more fully developed before launching them on people who are familiar with the works of the people he was quoting. He read my advice, and continued to do what he wanted. Simple as that. I don't believe I played any sort of role in bullying him. If he feels differently, I will apologize and that will be the end of it.

I have been making an honest attempt to be as non-confrontational as possible, since it seems a few of you believe that the free speech aspect of this forum only applies to someone not wearing an admin badge. I will continue to do so if I am not baited. It seems that I don't need to discuss what I think of you, as you do a fine job of showing forum members exactly who you are.

 

[PHRAG]

By the way, I am on vacation, so any delay in responding to future thread posts is based solely on my lack of a decent internet connection.

 

[the jive turkey]

Thomas,
Typing this sounds rude but it is not my intention.
If you read about Chaos theory and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle you should better understand what I'm saying.

What tha &@#$ did I step in?!
those were a lot of ideas in your post. Let me try to organize by showing some, um, neat things I found on the web (I'm just not smart enough to use my own words)

Chaos theory

WHAT IS CHAOS THEORY? Chaos theory is one of a set of approaches to study nonlinear phenomena. Specifically, chaos is a particular nonlinear dynamic wherein seemingly random events are actually predictable from simple deterministic equations. Thus, a phenomenon that appears locally unpredictable may indeed be globally stable, exhibit clear boundaries and display sensitivity to initial conditions. Small differences in initial states eventually compound to produce markedly different end states later on in time. The latter property is also known as The Butterfly Effect. Chaos has a close relationship to other dynamics, however, such as attractors, bifurcations, fractals, and self-organization.

In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle or the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle — the latter name given to it by Niels Bohr — states that one cannot measure values (with arbitrary precision) of certain conjugate quantities, which are pairs of observables of a single elementary particle. The most familiar of these pairs is the position and momentum.

Scientific Determinism

There is no scientific determinism period. Until the uncertainty principle is dissproven that is the truth.

here are some different views

Physicists have sometimes used the term "determinism" in a special way that people such as Karl Popper and Stephen Hawking have called scientific determinism.

Popper insisted that the term "scientific" can only be applied to statements that are falsifiable. Popper's book The Open Universe: An Argument For Indeterminism defines scientific determinism as the claim that ...any event can be rationally predicted, with any desired degree of precision, if we are given a sufficiently precise description of past events, together with all the laws of nature, a notion that Popper asserted was both falsifiable and adequately falsified by modern scientific knowledge.

"These quantum theories are deterministic in the sense that they give laws for the evolution of the wave with time. Thus if one knows the wave at one time, one can calculate it at any other time. The unpredictable, random element comes in only when we try to interpret the wave in terms of the positions and velocities of particles. But maybe this is our mistake: maybe there are no positions and velocities, but only waves. It is just that we try to fit the waves to our preconceived ideas of positions and velocities. The resulting mismatch is the cause of the apparent unpredictability." (conclusions section of A Brief History Of Time)

global warming part (I added punctuation and parenthesis):

. . . You can break down aspects of the environment, but, you can't add them together and figure out causally how they interact. So (while) you can say in a small system that co2 raises the temperature to a certain degree in a vacuum with a certain percentage of certainty, there is usually a very small percentage of uncertainty (built in).

well . . .

Limits of Meteorology and study of the weather (I added punctuation):

At best deterministic meteorlogy is an art/science, like medicine. Actually, it is much more comlicated than medicine. Physics tries to use knowledge to predict how complicated systems act, and, then predict the future, (an art.) If you threw quantum mechanics into the measurements, you are in for a world or uncertainty do to the probalistic nature of how small particles interact.

. . . then that's probably why quantum mechanics isn't used to forcast weather. There are apparently differently methods of meteorology other than deterministic. Try this link:
http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/wefor/staff/eee/verif/verif_web_page.html#Introduction

Describes methods for forecast verification, including their characteristics, pros and cons. The methods range from simple traditional statistics and scores, to methods for more detailed diagnostic and scientific verification.
...
What is "truth" when verifying a forecast?
The "truth" data that we use to verify a forecasts generally comes from observational data. These could be rain gauge measurements, temperature observations, satellite-derived cloud cover, geopotential height analyses, and so on.

In many cases it is difficult to know the exact truth because there are errors in the observations. Sources of uncertainty include random and bias errors in the measurements themselves, sampling error and other errors of representativeness, and analysis error when the observational data are analyzed or otherwise altered to match the scale of the forecast.

Rightly or wrongly, most of the time we ignore the errors in the observational data. We can get away with this if the errors in the observations are much smaller than the expected error in the forecast (high signal to noise ratio). Even skewed or under-sampled verification data can give us a good idea of which forecast products are better than others when intercomparing different forecast methods. Methods to account for errors in the verification data currently being researched.

i lifted some of your coments so they make sense to me:

Just because you can measure these things there is huge error when you add all the measurements up . . . If you start making the system larger and more complicated, requiring trillions of measurements, the error is astounding. . .There is still error in our measurements but they are usually insignificant for what we need them for.

 

[Marco]

lol @ jive its keeping you active here so its cool oke:

 

[paphioland]

What tha &@#$ did I step in?!
those were a lot of ideas in your post. Let me try to organize by showing some, um, neat things I found on the web (I'm just not smart enough to use my own words)

Chaos theory





Scientific Determinism

here are some different views


global warming part (I added punctuation and parenthesis):

well . . .

Limits of Meteorology and study of the weather (I added punctuation):

. . . then that's probably why quantum mechanics isn't used to forcast weather. There are apparently differently methods of meteorology other than deterministic. Try this link:
http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/wefor/staff/eee/verif/verif_web_page.html#Introduction

i lifted some of your coments so they make sense to me:

Don't know the points of these quotes. some of them actually support what I am saying.

If scientific determinism is defined as using science to predict the future based on passed events until the Uncertainty principle is dissproven it is not possible based on modern scientic knowledge. This is not to say that the universe is or isn't deterministic we just can't predict the future based on the past even if there is determinism. Einstien didn't believe in the uncertainty principle by instinct but after the overwhelming logic of the idea and his inability to dissprove it he later agreed with it.


Read the whole description of chaos theory in Wilkipedia. It doesn't dissprove anything I say. It actually supports what I am saying.

Weather forcasting is really accurate. Try to predict the weather a month from now.

The basis of everything is physics.

I can't even argue with the rest of you quotes would take too long. You will just have to believe I know what I am talking about or not.

 

[paphioland]

If it is not possible to predict the weather one month from now how can you tell me the exact causes of global warming and the proportions, how they interact, and predict its course

 

[paphioland]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paphioland
Just because you can measure these things there is huge error when you add all the measurements up . . . If you start making the system larger and more complicated, requiring trillions of measurements, the error is astounding. . .There is still error in our measurements but they are usually insignificant for what we need them for.


I am saying that in simple closed systems there is still error in our measurements but they are usually insignificant for what we need them for. Like how we use physics to manipulate our world. I am not talking about chaotic systems, which after reading Wiki you should know what those are.

 

[paphioland]

Did you read the thing on determinism and scientific determinism. I am not debating determinism I am just saying there is no scientific determinism. Your quote does not dissprove or even disagree with what I said. read the whole thing in wiki.
Also stephen Hawkings random thought with no proof about there possibly being no position or velocity is crap. The uncertainty principle till this day has stood, until disproven there is no Absolute scientific determinism period.

"Hawking admits that even the uncertainty principle does not absolutely rule-out a kind of determinism "in principle"."

Hawkings does not believe in scientific determinsim he is just trying to sound smart in his pop physics book and offer a totally nonsupported idea

 

[paphioland]

You will not find one reputable physicist who will tell you that with the current scientific knowledge that scientific determinism is accepted. Also you will not find one who says that we have the ability to use scientific determinism to accurately predict all aspects of a choatic system like weather.

 

[Heather]

I will also support Rush Limbaugh, who I heard quote a passage from my Paphiopedilum book last week. Rush speaks continuously about moral and traditional values. I have never heard him speak anything but truth. He, also, is highly intelligent and is undeservedly criticized by people who neither know him nor listen to him.

Oh yes, and Michael J. Fox is just acting out his Parkinson's. Honestly...do the right thing on the 7th, people. Please.

 

[Jon in SW Ohio]

I listen to Rush all the time, it's one of the more humerous things on the air. I especially love when someone makes a good point and he hangs up on them or else talks over them trying to keep them from making him look like the morose jackass he is.

As per the 7th, I've got some constitutional ammendments to knock down trying to further take away smoker's rights.

Jon
________
YAMAHA PSR-248 SPECIFICATIONS

 

[Mahon]

...yet again, political opinions...