On Friday, 1 August 2008 02:26:36 UTC+1, jonathan wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" <Weatherlawyer@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e54df3f9-0277-4aea-a945-4ee0d7f0bd49@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 31, 2:03 am, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" <Weatherlaw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e7c5e63-7e68-4a58-8969-f2a8aa629609@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
.... whatever the cause of weather is and thus by extension, the earthquakes [are] related in some way to the weather. Earthquakes and weather have the same cause.
I think I need to cover that next. The next spell is a difficult one to
predict and the reason has a lot to do with the fact the planet is a >> > fluid and goes critical at certain stages of its [harmonics]
economics and more.How life, geology and everything are related...power law dynamics.
Once self organized and behaving critically that is. The relationships >> are only seen on the ....output side...through behavioral properties.
Not in part property relationships. Holism not reductionism.
Power law
...examples of power laws are the Gutenberg-Richter law for earthquake sizes,
Pareto's law of income distribution,
structural self-similarity of fractals, and scaling laws in biological systems.
Research on the origins of power-law relations, and efforts to observe and validate them in the real world, is an active topic of research in many fields of science, including physics, computer science, linguistics, geophysics, sociology,
Power-law relations characterize a staggering number of naturally occurring
phenomena, and this is one of the principal reasons why they have attracted
interest. For instance, inverse-square laws, such as gravitation and the
Coulomb force, are power laws, as are many common mathematical formulae such as the quadratic law of area of the circle.
Extreme value theory considers the frequency of extremely rare events like stock market crashes and large natural disasters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law
We are about to hit another peak.
That's the first time I have ever come across somebody willing to consider what I am saying. Fancy that, after all these years. There is
a million dollars waiting in prize money for the people who can crack
the code of fluid dynamics too. You'd think there would be more
interest.
My hobby is the new field called complexity science. It's was originally called chaos theory (using a cloud as the 'integral' so to speak).
Then evolved into the science of self organizing systems, when many
were also calling it the 'Fourth' Law of Thermodynamics.
Now it's all grown into the broader field called complexity science.
But at heart it's thermodynamics. Only placed in entirely abstract
form so it can be applied across /all/ the disciplines....all of them.
A truly interdiscplinary science.
It applies to any system which is typically considered evolving.
From physical systems to life, if the system is self organized
and it's componensts are critically interacting, as in a cloud, then
the outward behavior often becomes simple and universal.
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
A much more detailed intro, and in essay form. http://www.calresco.org/themes.htm
Dynamics of Complex Systems. (the math in detail) http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/
do as the planets apparent dictatorship ends.The more complex, using the new meaning of the term, the
simpler and more universal the behavior. What this means
is that universal laws are best seen in the most complex
the universe has to offer, such as life. Not in the simplest the
universe has to offer as particle physics and most of objective
science has assumed from day one. Universal law is now to be
found from the output of the whole, not the small scale
details of it's particles.
Funny thing is, once the science began to mature, it became
clear that thermodynamics serves as the source for the
abstract properties of Darwinian evolution. The 'Fourth Law'
of self organization that balances the disordering tendency of
the Second Law.
I think I would have stopped reading before now as maths is a poison to me but I would certainly have not gone past this silliness about Darwin.
There is an elegance to the universe that reductionist or objective
methods can't see.
Actually before you can be considered a reductionist or anythingist
you have to be able to see and the first things you see are the simply elegant ones.
Since they begin with the components first emergent system behaviors are lost as soon as the system is stopped long enough to detail.
Something consistent like that would be the first place anyone seeking knoledge would look (and unable to resolve it: give up.)
Like a market force vanishing the minute you decide to quantify every component and relationship that exists in a market. The self tuning tendencies
only exist when the whole is intact and operating.
Or you anlysing things had an effect that you can't understand.
Things finish for unknown reasons.
Weather (if controlled by planets would behave exactly like stock markets, if controlled by astrologers) -except the weather will continue to do what the planets determine, whereas the investors will second guess what the other investors are going to
This means that proof in the usual sense can't be found.
Since large complex systems cannot be quantified very
well, only simulated.
Until someone comes up with the answer. Then of course it all becomes a lot clearer.
But when you translate a particular system into the abstract, suddenly you start seeing the same patterns emerging everywhere.
The most complex systems that exist display the simplest most predictable behaviour of all.
I was trying to recap what I have gathered over the years just before reading your reply. It wasn't written with anyone in mind. Just as a rough guide to the principle that if you tell someone a truth they
can't admit to they will get irritated:
Any old axiom
You are probably familiar with Jim Birks who has raised the ire of his peers in California over the idea that earthquakes are tidal. You may
not be so familiar with a fellow from Coimbatore India who was
claiming how he could forecast them from the sundial he had set up in
his garden.
These men may have the wrong explanation for the results they have
found but it [is] unreasonable to expect them to adhere diligently with the claims they maintain if they can not see some grain of truth in
their discoveries.
Both men have jobs or had jobs of some responsibility and seem to be competent [respectable] citizens. And they exhibit classic scholarly traits too as well as being less anxious to go to war with anyone that wants a fight than I am.
That their discoveries do or do not hold water I can not say. I don't try to claim the impossibly narrow windows that the science of seismology has set itself. I can see that that degree of accuracy is a design fault
...dreamt up by adherents of a quasi autonomous religious sect that don't know what they are talking about. If I am to be judged by such ideas by you; stop reading now.
I won't stop writing what I find and you will only get more and more upset over it.
As it happens, I too claim that the cause of the weather is lunar -if
not tidal in the conventional concept of tides. I might be inveigled
to digress on that subject if someone asks me nicely. I will not be dropped on by a mob.
This is what I know. I don't claim to have done the research and
whatever in the conventional sense. I can't PROVE anything.
There is too much to learn all at once ..... doing only the portions of it that appeal to me.
The recompense I get is in being able to post with the temerity I have been posting, knowing that in the little I have done I have
accomplished a lot compared to what is at present being done.
Well there is that. I feel better now.
The state of the art in geology at the moment seems to consist of:
Which tropical paradise can we afford to destroy at the moment, in the demand for oil. And:
Which theory is the correct one that will tell us how old the earth is.
Right, predicting the future is what's important.
... that ability is limited by the non-linear character of the real world.
...like an earthquake, with countless small changes and the rare big one.
A power law distribution of events. The pattern is easily recognizable, but predicting the big one is impossible.
Chaos with order.
That was the state of '08. The American Empire was just about to be run into the ground unrecoverably if the United State of weight is any yardstick.
All organized systems are a balance, a partnership, of behavior
that is simple, orderly and easy to predict. And behavior
that is chaotic and impossible to predict. but when this
balance is persistant, the system spontaneously begins organizing
or evolving. A cloud shows this critical relationship that exists universally. A cloud is when condensation (simplicity) and
evaporation (chaos) are entractably entangled, so that neither
force wins. The whole (a cloud) stands persistantly poised at the transition between subcritical and supercritical behavior.
When that happens emergent properties appear which require
new definitions. Like thunder and tornadoes and such.
With a society, the subcritical or simple behavior would be
the rule of law, and the supercritical or chaotic behavior would
be freedom. When in balance and interacting in a complex
way, the whole begins self tuning and organizing....evolving.
Same as with Darwinian evolution, when the realm of fixed
rules, genetics, is balanced with the realm that randomizes
such as mutation. Natural selection emerges from this
relationship and the system begins hill climbing and
evolving.
Or a market force! Product vs consumer.
Or light....matter and energy entractably entagled
so that one can't tell which-is-which at any given
time. Stop it to measure and it becomes...everytime...
one-or-the-other. When in motion it behaves as a
wave and a particle at the same time.
All self organized or critically interacting components
have this same behavioral duality. When in motion
the system can't be precisely quantified. When broken
apart to measure, the emergent self tuning properties
vanish. And like with a market system, it's the emergent
self tuning problem solving abilities that define the....future
of the system more than any other variable.
So there's a catch-22 with reality. Only the least important
aspects of reality can be accurately detailed or proven in
the classical sense. The most important variables can
only be seen in the outward behavior of the most complex
systems. And only in subjective ways.
For the life of me I can't see why I should be abused for my work when
we have the merits of those two to debate.
Be that as it may here is what I "know" to the limits of my endurance.
If you demand proof, you will have to supply it yourself.
Proof only exists for that which is unimportant to understanding
reality. Subjective methods are for universal law. Complexity
science has also managed to solve the problem of having
subjective methods agree with different observers.
For instance, a cloud. Just about any rational observer can
tell the difference between a vapor and a puddle ~
It's when it's both and neither, a cloud, when the interesting
properties emerge. You can't see these emergent properties
when it's a puddle or vapor, only when it's at criticality.
So the idea becomes to learn how to recognize critical behavior
in the abstract, so you can see it in any system. As that
is when the system at hand shows it's true character
and simplicity.
1.The Moon and its effect.
To be continued.
I don't care what anyone says, the biggest scientific truths
are yet to be discovered. We still live in the Dark Ages.
Jonathan
On Thursday, 31 July 2008 03:50:15 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jul 31, 2:03 am, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" <Weatherlaw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e7c5e63-7e68-4a58-8969-f2a8aa629609@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Some Axioms.
Read the stuff about tornadoes forst if you know what I believe about earthquakes. It is the newest stuff I have come up with.
Earthquakes.
Some quakes appear to overlap. The ones that overlap appear on th NEIC list as consecutive quakes. They forecast that a major storm is about to decline. I am not trying to prove it, just stating the facts.
It would appear that the intensity of the quakes is inversly proportional to the knots at which the storm is rated.
Say there is a Hurricane Cat 2 running and the next day it drops 10 or twenty knots to a Cat 1, that will have appeared on the NEIC list as a time difference between the overlapping quakes.
There is a way of gagueing the intensities of the storm. It follows there must be a way of gauging the intensity of n earthquake.
It needs a litle work on it yet though. Or I can't remember what I found without looking it up. Whatever. It is still on the front page online.at sge.
Tornadoes.
There seems to be a relationship with Chinese earthquakes and US tornadoes.
There are seldom many tornadoes during a spell when there is a
tropical storm running
The foregoing suggests that the presence of tornadoes indicates the intensities of the storms in the immediate future.
I know this list should be a lot longer but I forget what the rest of the stuff I noticed was. I'll bookmark this thread and come back to it as I remember them / remember to post them on here.
A note of caution, don't be put off by the notes of others. They can't do it and sek to prevent others doing it.
I remember a post about Newton's Cradles on a thread asking for help
in understanding them. The most frequent poster for that sort of thing was always belittling such basic posters' questions. But it was
evident he had little grasp of how the chain worked himself.
Perhaps you might consider the physics of half a dozen or so metal spheres suspended next to each other on a mutual swing. A ball is lifted off the others and dropped onto them. The ball in the line
which is aty the other end shoots off the stack.
Why and how?
There is a law that states energy (or force, I forget which) must be shed as quickly as possible in any physics. I can't remember the proof or the inventor of that idea. But it points to the reason that the other balls find their own level and only one ball jumps for each one that is dropped.
And so it must be for whatever the cause of weather is and thus by extension, the earthquakes related in some way to the weather. QED, earthqauakes and weather have the same cause.
I think I need to cover that next. The next spell is a difficult on to predict and the reason has a lot to do with the fact the planet is a fluid and goes critical at certain stages of its fluid dynamic.
How life, geology and everything are related...power law dynamics.
Once self organized and behaving critically that is. The relationships are only seen on the ....output side...through behavioral properties.
Not in part property relationships. Holism not reductionism.
Power law
A few notable examples of power laws are the Gutenberg-Richter law for earthquake sizes, Pareto's law of income distribution, structural self-similarity of fractals, and scaling laws in biological systems. Research on
the origins of power-law relations, and efforts to observe and validate them in
the real world, is an active topic of research in many fields of science, including physics, computer science, linguistics, geophysics, sociology, economics and more.
Power-law relations characterize a staggering number of naturally occurring
phenomena, and this is one of the principal reasons why they have attracted
interest. For instance, inverse-square laws, such as gravitation and the Coulomb
force, are power laws, as are many common mathematical formulae such as the
quadratic law of area of the circle. However it is mainly in the the study of
probability distributions that power laws have attracted recent interest. A wide
variety of observed probability distributions appear, at least approximately, to
have tails asymptotically following power-law forms, an observation connected
closely with the study of theory of large deviations (also called extreme value
theory), which considers the frequency of extremely rare events like stock
market crashes and large natural disasters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law
We are about to hit another peak.
That's the first time I have ever come across somebody willing to
consider what I am saying. Fancy that, after all these years. There is
a million dollars waiting in prize money for the people who can crack
the code of fluid dynamics too. You'd think there would be more
interest.
I was trying to recap what I have gathered over the years just before reading your reply. I wasn't written with anyone in mind. Just as a
rough guide to the principle that if you tell someone a truth they
can't admit to they will get irritated:
Any old axiom
You are probably familiar with Jim Birks who has raised the ire of his peers in California over the idea that earthquakes are tidal. You may
not be so familiar with a fellow from Coimbatore India who was
claiming how he could forecast them from the sundial he had set up in
his garden.
These men may have the wrong explanation for the results they have
found but it unreasonable to expect them to adhere dilligently with
the claims they maintain if they can not see some grain of truth in
their discoveries.
Both men have jobs or had jobs of some responsibility. And seem to be competent citizens. And they exhibit classic scholarly traits too as
well as being less anxious to go to war with anyone that wants a fight
than I am.
That their discoveries do or do not hold water I can not say. I don't
try to claim the impossibly narrow windows that the science of
seismology has set itself. I can see that that degree of accuracy is a design fault ...dreamt up by adherents of a quasi autonomous
religious sect that don't know what they are talking about. If I am to
be judged by such ideas by you; stop reading now.
I won't stop writing what I find and you will only get more and more
upset over it.
As it happens, I too claim that the cause of the weather is lunar -if
not tidal in the conventional concept of tides. I might be inveigled
to digress on that subject if someone asks me nicely. I will not be
dropped on by a mob of shayt-hawks who don't have the insight of lice.
So be warned.
This is what I know. I don't claim to have done the research and
whatever in the conventional sense. I can't PROVE anything. And I
won't be ordred to neither.
There is too much to learn all at once for a man to spend a lifetime collating tables he will not have the character to consult. I am not
paid for my work and thus excuse myself in doing only the portions of
it that appeal to me.
The recompence I get is in being able to post with the temerity I have
been posting, knowning that in the little I have done I have
accomplished a lot compared to what is at present being done.
The state of the art in geology at the moment seems to consist of:
Which tropical paradise can we afford to destroy at the moment, in the demand for oil. And:
Which theory is the correct one that will tell us how old the earth
is. As if that particular endeavour will be useful for anything.
For the life of me I can't see why I should be abused for my work when
we have the merits of those two to debate.
Be that as it may here is what I "know" to the limits of my endurance.
If you demand proof, you will have to supply it yourself or its
refute. Please yourself -but don't pester me with either. Thank you
very much in advance.
1.The Moon and its effect.
To be continued.
I wonder how the posts I sent from this thread managed to get placed at the top when they are not presented.
And where then managed to end up in the farrago.
Google faking the Usenews?
We are in for two more poweful eruptions on Wednesday and maybe Friday or a day or so later: http://weatherlawyer.altervista.org/the-north-atlantic-and-pacific/
Try again
On Jul 31, 2:03 am, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" <Weatherlaw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e7c5e63-7e68-4a58-8969-f2a8aa629609@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Some Axioms.
Read the stuff about tornadoes forst if you know what I believe about earthquakes. It is the newest stuff I have come up with.
Earthquakes.
Some quakes appear to overlap. The ones that overlap appear on th NEIC list as consecutive quakes. They forecast that a major storm is about
to decline. I am not trying to prove it, just stating the facts.
It would appear that the intensity of the quakes is inversly
proportional to the knots at which the storm is rated.
Say there is a Hurricane Cat 2 running and the next day it drops 10 or twenty knots to a Cat 1, that will have appeared on the NEIC list as a time difference between the overlapping quakes.
There is a way of gagueing the intensities of the storm. It follows
there must be a way of gauging the intensity of n earthquake.
It needs a litle work on it yet though. Or I can't remember what I
found without looking it up. Whatever. It is still on the front page online.at sge.
Tornadoes.
There seems to be a relationship with Chinese earthquakes and US tornadoes.
There are seldom many tornadoes during a spell when there is a
tropical storm running
The foregoing suggests that the presence of tornadoes indicates the intensities of the storms in the immediate future.
I know this list should be a lot longer but I forget what the rest of
the stuff I noticed was. I'll bookmark this thread and come back to it
as I remember them / remember to post them on here.
A note of caution, don't be put off by the notes of others. They can't
do it and sek to prevent others doing it.
I remember a post about Newton's Cradles on a thread asking for help
in understanding them. The most frequent poster for that sort of thing was always belittling such basic posters' questions. But it was
evident he had little grasp of how the chain worked himself.
Perhaps you might consider the physics of half a dozen or so metal spheres suspended next to each other on a mutual swing. A ball is
lifted off the others and dropped onto them. The ball in the line
which is aty the other end shoots off the stack.
Why and how?
There is a law that states energy (or force, I forget which) must be
shed as quickly as possible in any physics. I can't remember the proof
or the inventor of that idea. But it points to the reason that the
other balls find their own level and only one ball jumps for each one that is dropped.
And so it must be for whatever the cause of weather is and thus by extension, the earthquakes related in some way to the weather. QED, earthqauakes and weather have the same cause.
I think I need to cover that next. The next spell is a difficult on to predict and the reason has a lot to do with the fact the planet is a fluid and goes critical at certain stages of its fluid dynamic.
How life, geology and everything are related...power law dynamics.
Once self organized and behaving critically that is. The relationships
are only seen on the ....output side...through behavioral properties.
Not in part property relationships. Holism not reductionism.
Power law
A few notable examples of power laws are the Gutenberg-Richter law for earthquake sizes, Pareto's law of income distribution, structural self-similarity of fractals, and scaling laws in biological systems. Research on
the origins of power-law relations, and efforts to observe and validate them in
the real world, is an active topic of research in many fields of science, including physics, computer science, linguistics, geophysics, sociology, economics and more.
Power-law relations characterize a staggering number of naturally occurring phenomena, and this is one of the principal reasons why they have attracted interest. For instance, inverse-square laws, such as gravitation and the Coulomb
force, are power laws, as are many common mathematical formulae such as the quadratic law of area of the circle. However it is mainly in the the study of
probability distributions that power laws have attracted recent interest. A wide
variety of observed probability distributions appear, at least approximately, to
have tails asymptotically following power-law forms, an observation connected
closely with the study of theory of large deviations (also called extreme value
theory), which considers the frequency of extremely rare events like stock market crashes and large natural disasters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law
We are about to hit another peak.
That's the first time I have ever come across somebody willing to
consider what I am saying. Fancy that, after all these years. There is
a million dollars waiting in prize money for the people who can crack
the code of fluid dynamics too. You'd think there would be more
interest.
I was trying to recap what I have gathered over the years just before
reading your reply. I wasn't written with anyone in mind. Just as a
rough guide to the principle that if you tell someone a truth they
can't admit to they will get irritated:
Any old axiom
You are probably familiar with Jim Birks who has raised the ire of his
peers in California over the idea that earthquakes are tidal. You may
not be so familiar with a fellow from Coimbatore India who was
claiming how he could forecast them from the sundial he had set up in
his garden.
These men may have the wrong explanation for the results they have
found but it unreasonable to expect them to adhere dilligently with
the claims they maintain if they can not see some grain of truth in
their discoveries.
Both men have jobs or had jobs of some responsibility. And seem to be competent citizens. And they exhibit classic scholarly traits too as
well as being less anxious to go to war with anyone that wants a fight
than I am.
That their discoveries do or do not hold water I can not say. I don't
try to claim the impossibly narrow windows that the science of
seismology has set itself. I can see that that degree of accuracy is a
design fault ...dreamt up by adherents of a quasi autonomous
religious sect that don't know what they are talking about. If I am to
be judged by such ideas by you; stop reading now.
I won't stop writing what I find and you will only get more and more
upset over it.
As it happens, I too claim that the cause of the weather is lunar -if
not tidal in the conventional concept of tides. I might be inveigled
to digress on that subject if someone asks me nicely. I will not be
dropped on by a mob of shayt-hawks who don't have the insight of lice.
So be warned.
This is what I know. I don't claim to have done the research and
whatever in the conventional sense. I can't PROVE anything. And I
won't be ordred to neither.
There is too much to learn all at once for a man to spend a lifetime collating tables he will not have the character to consult. I am not
paid for my work and thus excuse myself in doing only the portions of
it that appeal to me.
The recompence I get is in being able to post with the temerity I have
been posting, knowning that in the little I have done I have
accomplished a lot compared to what is at present being done.
The state of the art in geology at the moment seems to consist of:
Which tropical paradise can we afford to destroy at the moment, in the
demand for oil. And:
Which theory is the correct one that will tell us how old the earth
is. As if that particular endeavour will be useful for anything.
For the life of me I can't see why I should be abused for my work when
we have the merits of those two to debate.
Be that as it may here is what I "know" to the limits of my endurance.
If you demand proof, you will have to supply it yourself or its
refute. Please yourself -but don't pester me with either. Thank you
very much in advance.
1.The Moon and its effect.
To be continued.
Weatherlawyer <Weatherlawyer@gmail.com> wrote in news:89a3818d-f683-43d6- a27f-787379f48ad5@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
5.4 2008/07/29 18:42 34.0 -117.8 Los Angeles, California
You can say what you like and I can say what I like.
But I'll drop on the answer afore ye.
Should aye a my true love ever meet again
The Low road and the high road are for me.
Nothing overmuch in a 5.5-ish though. It's just at the top end of the
fluid scale before criticality enters the system.
It ain't over yet!
I think that would have made more sense in Yiddish.
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 209:50:55 |
| Calls: | 6,619 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,168 |
| Messages: | 5,317,184 |