Do the planets affect radio propagation? [Archive]

W9JEF

01-13-2014, 02:21 PM

Tidal surges on the Sun? Doubtful, as the forces would have to be massive. Perhaps if the planets accumulative gravity can mess with the shape of the Van Allen belt, and cause those intersting clapping waves there that can (and do) energise the upper atmosphere. Particularly, the backside from Sol.

If that's possible, can we keep our pants on? :mrgreen:

But who knows, science can be stranger than fiction.

http://davidbrin.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/sundiver.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01653/solar_sun_1653022c.jpg

"In 1946, John Nelson was employed by RCA Communications to study sunspots,
and make propagation forecasts in order to improve reliability. His 30 year study
offers strong evidence that planets in certain arrangements indeed affect solar radiation.

( . . . )

"One prominent astronomer...was quite skeptical [arguing]
that the planets were too small and too far from the sun...

"Nelson agreed that the planets could have little effect on the main solar body,
but could have considerable effect in the atmosphere of the sun,
where the sunspots existed. Here, in the very unstable electrified area
of the sun's surface, a very small force from the planets could produce
an avalanche effect and create turbulence in the solar atmosphere
which result in solar storms and sunspots."

WØTKX

01-13-2014, 02:38 PM

Was Nelson a scientist or an astrologer?

W9JEF

01-13-2014, 02:50 PM

Was Nelson a scientist or an astrologer?

Nelson bills himself as "neither an accredited astronomer nor an astrologer,"
describing his profession as "that of shortwave radio propagation analyst."

Not surprisingly, his book is published by the American Federation of Astrologers.

kb2vxa

01-13-2014, 03:01 PM

Why sure, the moon affects propagation and we've been using EME for years, but have you heard of planet bounce? Normally one of the uses for the Arecibo, PR radio telescope is planetary mapping using the powerful 440MHz radar, but a few years ago a couple of Amateurs working there decided to put it to a novel use in their off hours. They arranged skeds with a few other hams and published information of when they'd try a little planet bounce with it. When the time came they throttled the 70cM transmitter back to the legal 1500W and with the antenna gain resulting in ERP still in the gigawatt range were heard back on Earth. That long projection is the 70cM antenna, microwave antennas are housed within the dome.

Perhaps that wasn't such a big achievement after all, hams have been bouncing signals off Uranus for years.

W9JEF

01-13-2014, 03:10 PM

. . . . . . . . . . . . ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Nice porno ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

5.0 out of 5 stars

A must-read for skeptics, scientists, and astrologers! (http://www.amazon.com/review/R176A2XBFDDRRF/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0866901337&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books)

October 23, 2012

By Ron4Sure (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A18F8WL8CASPVN/ref=cm_cr_dp_pdp)

Format:Paperback

Here, from the book itself, striking evidence that planetary aspects
cause changes in solar radiations that control our ionosphere.

"[In 1946] John Nelson was employed to study sunspots by RCA Communications,
the largest shortwave radio communication organization in the world,
because sunspots were believed to be the cause of magnetic storms
which from time to time would disrupt shortwave radio communications.

The shortwave radio industry needed a reliable magnetic storm forecasting service
so that advance preparations could be made for these periodic disruptions.
(There were steps that could be taken by communications engineers
to alleviate the effects of the magnetic storms on the shortwave radio circuits
and for this reason a reliable forecasting service for the industry was needed.)

[Nelson's conclusions:] In summation, after more than 25 years of research
in this field of solar system science, I can say without equivocation that there is
very strong evidence that the planets when in certain predictable arrangements
[heliocentrically] do cause changes to take place in those solar radiations that
control our ionosphere. A chain reaction of planets to sun, sun to ionosphere
and ionosphere to shortwave signals is very evident."

http://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Patterns-John-H-Nelson/dp/0866901337

WØTKX

01-13-2014, 03:52 PM

Ah. As a Leo (Leo Rising) I presume I can cause sunspots at whim with a ROWR!

W3WN

01-13-2014, 08:27 PM

Do the planets affect radio propagation?

Possibly.

Is the affect significant?

Probably not.

N8YX

01-13-2014, 09:14 PM

Jupiter is brighter in the HF radio emission spectrum than the sun.

Check out Radiojove and similar radio astronomy sites for information on how to listen to the synchrotron emissions which result from the Jovian/Io flux tube. They're around 6dB above the noise floor, even with a decent gain antenna...and the source power is estimated to be on the order of a trillion watts.

That being said, the effects of even the biggest planet in the solar system on terrestrial transmissions whose energies are a minuscule fraction of the Jovian decametric emission power level will be infinitesimal at best.

NQ6U

01-13-2014, 09:27 PM

n2ize

01-14-2014, 04:31 AM

kb2vxa

01-14-2014, 11:32 AM

Here in New Jersey we have someone whose exceptionally large mass may not pull the Earth out of orbit but it does cause the tide to rise. Thank goodness his office is away from the shore, but he does create a tidal bore in the Delaware River. Use the Farce Warren, use the Farce.

W9JEF

01-14-2014, 11:45 AM

I searched around a bit and I can't find anything that the author published besides his book. Particularly, nothing published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, which makes me a bit skeptical. Have you read the guy's book, Jim? If so, what kind of observational data does he supply to back up his hypothesis?

Appreciate your interest, Carl.

The guy made his living on propagation predictions,

so he must have been doing something right.

It's a 76 page book, profusely illustrated with planetary charts.

According to the book, he has published 6 other formal papers.

This is what I could find from Google:

The John Nelson RCA Paper - The Enterprise Mission (http://www.enterprisemission.com/jnelson1.html)

https://forums.hamisland.net/image/jpeg;base64,/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wCEAAMCAgMCAgMDAwMEAwMEBQgFBQQEBQoHBwYIDAoMDAsKCw sNDhIQDQ4RDgsLEBYQERMUFRUVDA8XGBYUGBIVFRQBAwQEBgUG CgYGChANDA4QDxAUEA8PDw8PDxAQDw8PDRAPDg8NDA8PEA8NDB APDQ0PDQwNDQwPDRAPDAwMDg0NDP/AABEIACwALAMBEQACEQEDEQH/xAAbAAEBAQACAwAAAAAAAAAAAAAIBwYFCQACBP/EADEQAAEDAgUCAwcEAwAAAAAAAAECAwQFEQAGBxIhMUEIE1EUI kJhcYGRFSMysQkWUv/EABoBAAMBAQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEBQIGAQD/xAAuEQABBAECAwYFBQAAAAAAAAABAAIDESEEEjFBUWFxobHB8A UikdHxExVSgeH/2gAMAwEAAhEDEQA/AFRTdXzmqFGaL7NSjxgUNuN7QtAsBtUBzxYdRf1xCOpe7Dsrq2 aVjCSzHYvHdSMr05hXt1VXTFpVtuuMXBb1BCvr2xVjgZQL/okpZpLIY3 1KNT/ABj6W6YQ3URay/map2vsiMqG0/PeEoH2vh4OhaMNCnPM542O/CgOW/8AIc29mphcxuQ5THHQlyI wkOJR6oWk/yHorg4XfFFLwFFaZPLEcm /wB2nbQalCrtKhVKmvtyqZNYRJYfR/FxtaQpKh9QRiRsLSQVca8PaHN5r3cPlrISpQGPESrWEptBhUPM 9NqxZYmzErShl5xkB0qtwFKHCgOe3YYN8PaHOLuiFr5HBgYOfv 1Wnq1MyZFjvVPNaKahpNy89USlDQPW1le739L4qONk2iRvEMbc gd9eqieuGf8AQKj0FMitwstogL/bjtopiVhzsNm1s3 I8c8HGbs4TLtaY2bpHEj6 C66dUqjkCrZ4ck5LdRFpq0hbYZbcQlK7/8AKwCB9BbBm1zUDUzRzG2eVLsK8BOfpGadEJVGlrLkzL8xcdCl KvuZc/cR FFxIHYJThHWCnX1RNFdFvT1/wBSLMhbgBWgJI4sFYlF6qhtKe6nmfRaTHk05tciUl4JbZaHJUo G39Ya0HyucOxLa0bg09qFvip8Pmqmp bYk1oSq4zIQFoS4pJiw222Ww4EkKV5aQsrNyAVfyJF aVlEdoxK0FpAOLJ8uz3xOVwmsGj2U8v H3SLLztfosettyHpE6RImJKmvOT5h3Hdw0gEJ2ixVYWG47T5Y4 rckEQiELnYB4 f4voj5mPS93IdULE2VGnrda3Rn4TiXGloPN7hRI7WvgjCCps2k ZCbDtwIS58BdcqOVMsZukOQZyqYuayhM2Owp5DakoUVJUE3VwF J5CSB3I4xM1z6LQO30TeigNE107 aYtK1FTVYSJEV FPZPAeZWFDjqDbofliUZK4hPbR/Ku9aOsUf/YIEiIpRZdIu28ngoV2UMHikLH7ll7NzaKmeqMCbVsnT8vUuS5E TJjBl5bHLiBtAcbT6KNiATwN1 R1tv8AmFjgViCXaSDxHsI060eESoZrgx5z36LliXGiAiPS4Dkh S7ISAHn1LbDiuACoN3/rGWgnKPMxhbUjiTyNY81CanpM5kDTWmT81RjDrBkSY7I3m8hoK SUHbc22 /8Abb9m2NrJUVxofpnNc 9PvRLT BlzSPKjEB16G 5AaluyWLo8xx1IcWSk9RdZA3DoBjlZ3l0hvqrcQGwY5LQz8jQ6 jKW9UKJQavJPBlTIgDqh2v7qr/W/2wHcj7nciqQZJDlgDxwVW4GD2lis3nmiSJFMXUqWlP6tFV5zae ztvhP44PqBh3TTFp28kCSIPHQqFag IV lNFup0YNy2LFcdTiQlJF735uPh4IHQ4ov1AZySojncK3ICa0aw 1nP1a3zJZfZjlSWWgoqS3e2437k2H4GCskLsqZNUVgHKpHhy8d 2Y9Mm00bOMeRmvLSEobjltaBLgoQgJShBVZLiLJA2qII67uxVn 0YkyMHzWNNrnxYOR74fZMZfilym Q6zErDjTiUrQoNNIuCARwpwHCY FTdR4/ZVv3NnJp8FfoSvOL4X7wCiLYnhUl9rCARtIukkAj5YK1DJR3zp pJlzVPVSLTK3He9lRRVzl zPqQp5Zc2BKjc 6OotY36kjjDrzeV82Uth3ADjSG/i/wBAMt6L0GPPoEioOOvVVEIomOoWlLZadXxtQk3ugDk9Pzh3TvL jlQtdG1rQ4c1GNIcr07MlRlv1Fn2lMUNlLCj 2sqKgSod7bRx09QcVo2A3ajhW5x4hVglKUgBKUpSAEpAsAB2AA AthsC0Vf/Z (https://www.google.com/search?q=J.+H.+Nelson+formal+papers&biw=1024&bih=663&tbs=ppl_ids:--114571669944885003943-,ppl_nps:Richard+C.+Hoagland,ppl_aut:1)

www.enterprisemission.com/jnelson1.html‎

Cached (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mobbR0ShNsoJ:www.enterprisemission. com/jnelson1.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
Similar (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1024&bih=663&q=related:www.enterprisemission.com/jnelson1.html+J.+H.+Nelson+formal+papers&tbo=1&sa=X&ei=gGbVUsfqA6vksATVtoAI&ved=0CC4QHzAA)

by Richard C. Hoagland (https://www.google.com/search?q=J.+H.+Nelson+formal+papers&biw=1024&bih=663&tbs=ppl_ids:--114571669944885003943-,ppl_nps:Richard+C.+Hoagland,ppl_aut:1) - in 147 Google+ circles (https://plus.google.com/114571669944885003943)

Optics InfoBase: Journal of the Optical Society of America - The ... (http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-534)

www.opticsinfobase.org › JOSA (http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/) › Volume 42 (http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/browse.cfm?journal=8&strVol=42) › Issue 8 (http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/issue.cfm?volume=42&issue=8)
by IGH ISHAK - ‎1952 - ‎Cited by 13 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.59378465,d.b2I,pv.xjs.s.en_US.ToAWTlrCm4c.O&biw=1024&bih=663&dpr=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=7386534801782787166) - ‎Related articles (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.59378465,d.b2I,pv.xjs.s.en_US.ToAWTlrCm4c.O&biw=1024&bih=663&dpr=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&q=related:XsxSRUQ-gmbL0M:scholar.google.com/)
C. Maxwell, Scientific Papers 1, 410 (1860). Nelson, J. H.. J. H.Nelson

NQ6U

01-14-2014, 11:55 AM

Looks interesting. I'm not qualified to judge whether or not there really is a correlation but he did appear at least to do some actual observation.

W9JEF

01-14-2014, 11:59 AM

Gravity is what we call a "weak force". Every mass exerts gravitational pull on every other mass. When you jump into the air or from an airplane you are exerting a gravitational pull on the eath just as it is exerting a force on you. But, due to your exceedingly small mass you are not gong to pull the earth out of orbit or even cause the tides to rise.

Does the gravitational pull of the planets affect solar activity. No. At least not in any way that is statistically significant.

http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=966&Itemid=277

Just keep in mind, that although the mass of sun as a whole

is orders of magnitude greater than that of the planets,

the sun's atmosphere is quite volatile, and gravity works both ways.

And let's not forget the butterfly effect (a property of chaotic systems,

by which small changes in initial conditions can lead to large scale variation

in the future state of the system).

W9JEF

01-14-2014, 02:11 PM

Sir:

You are just as superstitious and blind as the priests who would not
look into Galileo's telescope!

As you are obviously prejudiced against this entire field of SCIENCE,
you have neglected to access the proper documentation, much of which has
been available for YEARS!

The QUARTERLY JOURNAL of ECONOMICS, November, 1934 has a report
connecting "SOLAR AND ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS" by Dr. Carlos Garcia-Mata
found phenomenal correlations among smoothed Sunspot Ares and Solar
Faculae with activity in Crops, Manufacturing and Minerals. He gave me
the report in 1982 along with a market prediction for that year which
was better than mine!

J H Nelson was a Radio Prpagation specialist for the RCA Corp in the
1940's & '50's. He discovered he could predict Radio quality by noting
the PLANETARY ALIGNMENTS around the SUN (Heliocentric Astrology). He was
able to report to RCA, and later in a private newsletter, the radio
quality for every 6-hour period A MONTH IN ADVANCE! He had no interest
in astrology per se until an astrologer told him the exact day he would
sell his house. After that, he didn't deride them anymore. He was
consulted every few hours by NASA during the unexpectedly early fall of
the "SPACELAB" satellite due to greater than normal solar radiation.

His book, COSMIC PATTERNS explains how your average asshole can do this!
His formal papers include:

PLANETARY POSITION EFFECTS ON SHORTWAVE SIGNAL QUALITIES in "Electrical
Engineering" May 1952,

RADIO WEATHER FORECASTING TECHNIQUES Transactions of the IRE vol.CS-2
January 1954

THE EFFECT OF DISTURBANCES OF SOLAR ORIGIN ON COMMUNICATIONS, Pergamon
Press NY 1963 and

DO THE PLANETS CAUSE SUN STORMS? A SCIENCE MYSTERY, in the Saturday
Review, Oct 6, 1962

Dr Leonard Ravitz writing in the ANNALS OF THE NY ACADEMY OF SCIENCE vol
98, Art.4 pp 1145-1201 in article titled "PERIODIC CHANGES IN (persons)
ELECTROMAGNET FIELD IN HEALTH AND DISEASE" confirms that "The greatest
excursions from norm occur at the New and Full MOONS +/-3 days."
Nelson and I found that the GREATEST DISTURBANCES TAKE PLACE AT NEW &
FULL MOON (TIDAL FORCE MAXIMA) WHEN THERE ARE COINCIDENT SOLAR
ERUPTIONS! That goes double, no exponential, when the Tidal Force Maxima
is an ECLIPSE at MOON's PERIGEE during a solar storm.

Arch Crawford

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.culture.brazil/xO0Rpz5zyq8

NQ6U

01-14-2014, 02:35 PM

n2ize

01-14-2014, 03:21 PM

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.culture.brazil/xO0Rpz5zyq8

That's very fine but, what peer reviewed scientific journals were his findings published and were the reproduceable ? Just because someone develops a hypothesis that sounds like it could be true does not mean that it is. Before this can be accepted as a valid theory it needs to be thoroughly peer reviewed and tested. Doing a quick calculation it seems that even if we were to combine the mass of the planets and compute the gravitational force between the planetary mass and the sun the gravitational force would be far too weak to exert a "tidal effect" upon the surface of the sun resulting in a solar eruption. Additionally we have to consider the mechanism as to what actually causes solar activity which is primarily the strong magnetic forces within te sun itself as opposed to weak gravitational force from within the solar system. A preliminary search provided me with no scientific conclusion that gravitational forces between the planetary bodies upon one another and on the sun can either initiate or cause solar activity. In fact anything I could find in which connections between the planets and solar activity was actually studied seemed to show no correlation between the two. In fact I linked to one such study which could find no statistically significant correlation. Until I see some sort of peer reviewed studies that show a reproducible correlation I would have to conclude that Nelson's hypothesis is most likely unfounded. This seems to be fortified by the fact that the mechanism that brings forth solar activity has more to do with strong magnetic forces within the sun itself as opposed to gravitational forces. As far as astrology being an influence in Nelson's hypothesis simply leads me to even further doubt that there is any validity to Nelson's hypothesis.

kb2vxa

01-14-2014, 04:28 PM

W3WN

01-15-2014, 11:56 AM

Just keep in mind, that although the mass of sun as a whole is orders of magnitude greater than that of the planets, the sun's atmosphere is quite volatile, and gravity works both ways.

And let's not forget the butterfly effect (a property of chaotic systems, by which small changes in initial conditions can lead to large scale variation in the future state of the system).Which is why I said that there MAY be an effect. But not a statistically significant one.

n2ize

01-15-2014, 12:05 PM

We've come a long way baby (to steal the catch phrase from an old Vagina Slimes cigarette commercial) since the RCA paper was published, I'm sure those of you interested in DX know all about today's technology. Back when I still had antennas I used what's available on the internet for up to the minute conditions and forecasts. I get a chuckle out of the print info on the worldwide packet radio network posted by the internet robots, always about a day late due to forwarding delays.

From JEF:
"...small changes in initial conditions can lead to large scale variation in the future state of the system)."
More chuckles here, reminds me of the BS from the climate change mob cherry picking data and making far off predictions when the weatherman can't even tell tomorrow's weather accurately.

Actually these days they do a pretty damned good job of getting the weather predictions right. Climate is much easier to "predict" as it is far less random and based on long term averages. In fact you don't even "predict" climate you observe it. Global climate is primarily an observation of temperature change over time . Global climate change is indeed a fact But, like more things factual, it is a fact that "real men" must deny at all cost else they come off looking like some kind of communist greenie.

WØTKX

01-15-2014, 12:07 PM

The butterfly effect opened a propagation duct from the grassy knoll. :mrgreen:

W9JEF

01-15-2014, 12:08 PM

From JEF:
"...small changes in initial conditions can lead to large scale variation in the future state of the system)."
More chuckles here, reminds me of the BS from the climate change mob cherry picking data and making far off predictions when the weatherman can't even tell tomorrow's weather accurately.

Weather men are not climate scientists, any more than power plant workers are nuclear physicists.

But, at least around these parts, their predictions are close enough for government work.

And, to get clued in on the latest, you should really Google the science of chaos.

W9JEF

01-15-2014, 12:30 PM

There doesn't seem to be a scientific (as opposed to pseudo-scientific astrology) consensus supporting Nelson's hypothesis. On the other hand, there's not much opposing it either. After a little more research, the best I can come up with is that it appears the general consensus among scientists is that planetary alignments are not correlated with sunspots.

That's very fine but, what peer reviewed scientific journals were his findings published and were the reproduceable ? Just because someone develops a hypothesis that sounds like it could be true does not mean that it is. Before this can be accepted as a valid theory it needs to be thoroughly peer reviewed and tested. Doing a quick calculation it seems that even if we were to combine the mass of the planets and compute the gravitational force between the planetary mass and the sun the gravitational force would be far too weak to exert a "tidal effect" upon the surface of the sun resulting in a solar eruption. Additionally we have to consider the mechanism as to what actually causes solar activity which is primarily the strong magnetic forces within te sun itself as opposed to weak gravitational force from within the solar system. A preliminary search provided me with no scientific conclusion that gravitational forces between the planetary bodies upon one another and on the sun can either initiate or cause solar activity. In fact anything I could find in which connections between the planets and solar activity was actually studied seemed to show no correlation between the two. In fact I linked to one such study which could find no statistically significant correlation. Until I see some sort of peer reviewed studies that show a reproducible correlation I would have to conclude that Nelson's hypothesis is most likely unfounded. This seems to be fortified by the fact that the mechanism that brings forth solar activity has more to do with strong magnetic forces within the sun itself as opposed to gravitational forces. As far as astrology being an influence in Nelson's hypothesis simply leads me to even further doubt that there is any validity to Nelson's hypothesis.

It's certainly valid to hold out for "peer review" of scientific hypotheses.

But how many "peers"--experts in both radio propagation and astronomy--did Mr. Nelson have?

Are the molecules of hydrogen in the solar atmosphere attracted by magnetic fields?

Does every molecule of a planet not feel the gravitational tug of the sun?

Does reciprocity not suggest that every molecule of the solar corona

will feel (however slight) the gravity of the planets held in orbit?

With most long-distance communication now being done via satellite,

there is very little monetary incentive for formal scientific study.

For 25 years, Nelson earned his living making radio propagation predictions

based on planetary conjunctions, with an exemplary 85% accuracy.

W9JEF

01-15-2014, 01:41 PM

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512IwJxiz%2BL._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

5.0 out of 5 stars
Science Meets Nature (http://www.amazon.com/review/R1P7WYVFTT6WLC/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B004LQ5E82&nodeID=283155&store=audible)
August 1, 2004
By Jason Enochs (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A9QT2VJ48SJG4/ref=cm_cr_dp_pdp)

Format: Paperback

Have you ever wondered why a leaf or tree is shaped the way it is?
Can science explain the seemingly randomness of nature?
This book will make your imagination run wild.

Pure science meets Mother Nature. I would read from this book
each night before I went to bed and then just dream about the possibilities.
This is one of the most thought provoking books I have ever read.
I grab this book off the shelf at least once a month
and just thumb through it again to revisit some of the ideas.
His explanation and discussions about nonlinear dynamics
were very eye opening for me. The author also did a great job
of providing a brief background of each scientific breakthrough along the way.
This provided allot of additional and interesting facts
that directly contributed to ones understanding.

You don't have to be a genius to comprehend and enjoy this book.
Some of the reviews for this book complain about there
not being enough math to support the theory.
The lack of advanced math made this book even more enjoyable for me.

The average person will appreciate this book just as much as anyone else.

This book also has some very nice full color illustrations.
Nothing was spared for this book. You won't be disappointed.

Learn more (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004LQ5E82)

http://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Making-Science-James-Gleick/dp/0143113453

NQ6U

01-15-2014, 01:55 PM

Checked that out of the library a while back and was hugely disappointed. The author spent far too much time on the personal histories of the people involved and too little on actual science. Here's a better, if more difficult read. (http://www.amazon.com/Nonlinear-Dynamics-And-Chaos-Applications/product-reviews/0738204536/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0) It's priced ridiculously high, so check it out your local library instead of rewarding the greedy publisher.

W9JEF

01-15-2014, 02:12 PM

But the illustrations are so neat: :)

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1327941595l/64582.jpg

http://www.sewanee.edu/physics/PHYSICS101/image48.gifhttp://www.sewanee.edu/physics/bridge/examples/sierpinski.png

NQ6U

01-15-2014, 02:19 PM

If you like those kinds of pictures, you'd be better off just getting yourself a book on fractals.

W9JEF

01-15-2014, 02:26 PM

If you like those kinds of pictures, you'd be better off just getting yourself a book on fractals.

I found the book to be fascinating on numerous levels. :)

I respect mathematics, but some books wallow in the odious equations.

NQ6U

01-15-2014, 02:30 PM

I found the book to be fascinating on numerous levels. :)

I respect mathematics, but some books wallow in the odious equations.

Alas, you cannot understand chaos theory without wallowing into the mathematics. It was hard going for someone like me who has a hard time balancing his checkbook every month but I still managed to get through it, mostly.

K7SGJ

01-15-2014, 04:53 PM

WØTKX

01-15-2014, 05:18 PM

Hmmm. Ever read any Douglas Hofstadter? Two very cherished books of mine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamagical_Themas

“It turns out that an eerie type of chaos can lurk just behind a facade of order - and yet, deep inside the chaos lurks an even eerier type of order.” ― Douglas R. Hofstadter (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3034502.Douglas_R_Hofstadter), Metamagical Themas: Questing For The Essence Of Mind And Pattern (http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/175126)

NQ6U

01-15-2014, 05:46 PM

I never have trouble with the checkbook, but then how hard is it to keep track of $27.35?

I'd come up with $27.34 or $27.36 every time.

K7SGJ

01-15-2014, 06:48 PM

I'd come up with $27.34 or $27.36 every time.

Well within tolerance.

NA4BH

01-15-2014, 07:44 PM

But are you well within tolerance?

kb2vxa

01-16-2014, 09:41 AM

You guys are a trip. Every time I think I've gotten over you I have another flashback!

Oh never mind about my checkbook, when I call the bank telephone robot to double check my balance I find I've overlooked an entry. Never mind my not looking for my mistake, that's what &CB is for, corrected balance. I've told you I'm the laziest grumpy old bastid on the planet, now do you believe me?

TKX:
"Ever read any Douglas Hofstadter?"
No, but I've read Douglas Adams and seen Col. Hofstadter on TV. Come to think of it I've seen Douglas Adams on TV too.

When the moon is in the seventh house
And Mercury aligns with Mars
Then our beams will guide the planets
And DX will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the Age of DXing
The Age of DXing
DXing!
DXing!

BH:
"But are you well within tolerance?"
Look at his 4th color band. No band 20%, silver 10%, gold 5%. If he's deposited metal (not sure what he deposits) forget about it, NO Islander is THAT tolerable. When in doubt put a Leeds-Northrup resistance bridge with Kelvin clips on him, if he resists a good jolt from a hipot tester will fix that.

WØTKX

01-16-2014, 10:29 AM

http://markarayner.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/50_no_mere_coincidence.png
http://www.intoon.com/toons/2005/KeefeM20050904.jpg

http://www.savagechickens.com/images/chickent2.jpg
http://www.toonpool.com/user/20546/files/the_butterfly_effect_1888275.jpg

http://claesjohnsonmathscience.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/lars0896.gif

W9JEF

01-16-2014, 10:37 AM

Alas, you cannot understand chaos theory without wallowing into the mathematics. It was hard going for someone like me who has a hard time balancing his checkbook every month but I still managed to get through it, mostly.

Without mathematics, can one not understand

how a butterfly flapping its wings can cause a tornado?

Or how air turbulence accounts for the lift that makes "human flight" possible?

Calculating the function of pi starts with a hexagon,

and keeps doubling the number of sides.

Visualizing the process in our heads--maximizing a volume,

resonating a circuit--just another form of mathematics?

My calculus teacher (who flunked me) filled a blackboard of equations

to prove what intuition tells us: like, based on ohms law,

equal source and load impedances maximizes power transfer?

For want of a better word, cyber-analog--

"for those who are too lazy to work it out with a pencil." :)

Don't get me wrong... math is a great TOOL.

Civilization as we know it could not exist without it.

But without laying down figures and symbols,

one can still understand the principles.

Sometimes E=Mc^2 is just an effing big mushroom cloud, and

understanding 32 feet/sec/sec means, you'd better wear a safety belt. :yes:

W9JEF

01-16-2014, 10:50 AM

Imagine, if Lee Harvey Oswald's father
had seen a butterfly flap its wings,
and gone out into the garden for a while,
before jumping into the sack on a certain night?
An infinite possibility of intervening events
(distractions),
and history is profoundly mutated.

W3WN

01-16-2014, 01:42 PM

If you like those kinds of pictures, you'd be better off just getting yourself a book on fractals.Nooooooooo! Don't mention the F word! Or Dr. Chippy will return!

kb2vxa

01-16-2014, 02:32 PM

A butterfly flutters by, so why not call it a flutterby? Then there's the CBC classic about a crepitation contest with a fart named for a butterfly with gas, listen for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FyD95Hv7C

Then there's JEF explaining something we all know and understand. (;->) He knows me SO well, since I can't do math worth a poop he knows how I cope with my shortcoming.
"Visualizing the process in our heads--maximizing a volume, resonating a circuit--just another form of mathematics?"
I just wish he wouldn't hit the CR key too soon and hit it twice, are you reading this Jim?

I'm reminded of my last job before I became disabled, often in my capacity as QC test technician I'd be called upon as an engineering aid taking readings on prototypes and often spoke with the head of the department and the design engineer. The first would rattle on and on with equation after equation, I tried to tell him I don't speak Greek to no avail so I gave up and gave him the yeah uh huh treatment until the pest went away. The second spoke in plain English and as I conceptualize, pictured the form in my head schematics and all, so I understand perfectly.

Both he and a long time friend, a ham and radio tech for the New Jersey Turnpike Authority shatter the myth that Poles are stupid. On the other hand the ham/tech friend sooner or later complains about another stupid thing his mother and/or sister did. In his words; they're the ones who put the dumb in dumb Pollack. (;->)

W9JEF

01-16-2014, 02:56 PM

A butterfly flutters by, so why not call it a flutterby? Then there's the CBC classic about a crepitation contest with a fart named for a butterfly with gas, listen for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FyD95Hv7C

Then there's JEF explaining something we all know and understand. (;->) He knows me SO well, since I can't do math worth a poop he knows how I cope with my shortcoming.
"Visualizing the process in our heads--maximizing a volume, resonating a circuit--just another form of mathematics?"
I just wish he wouldn't hit the CR key too soon and hit it twice, are you reading this Jim?

I apologize for the inconvenience. ;)

These superannuated eyes have trouble following
the typing across the full width of the screen.
The short lines are an attempt to make the reading easier,
like newspaper column.

The sometime use of double spacing is for the same reason. :)

I'm reminded of my last job before I became disabled, often in my capacity as QC test technician I'd be called upon as an engineering aid taking readings on prototypes and often spoke with the head of the department and the design engineer. The first would rattle on and on with equation after equation, I tried to tell him I don't speak Greek to no avail so I gave up and gave him the yeah uh huh treatment until the pest went away. The second spoke in plain English and as I conceptualize, pictured the form in my head schematics and all, so I understand perfectly.

http://sas.guidespot.com/bundles/guides_92/assets/widget_aQABZSNd5cyQL9BzShRj7A.jpg

kb2vxa

01-16-2014, 04:26 PM

OK Jim, understanding is like a spoonful of sugar that helps apology medicine go down. Sometimes I'm a little slow on the uptake, here's a quote from your previous post twisted in my inimitable style because nobody wants to imitate it.

Imagine, if Lee Harvey Oswald's father
had seen a butterfly flap its wings,
and gone out into the garden for a while,
before jumping into the sack on a certain night?
An infinite possibility of intervening events
(distractions),
and history is profoundly masturbated.

W9JEF

01-17-2014, 01:10 PM

Re: Do the planets affect radio propagation?‏

Tad Cook

1/16/14
https://bay179.mail.live.com/mail/clear.gifhttps://bay179.mail.live.com/mail/clear.gif
https://bay179.mail.live.com/mail/clear.gif

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-prn1/49864_1622985697_1696_q.jpg

(https://bay179.mail.live.com/mail/#)

Tad Cook
k7ra@arrl.net

From:
k7ra.tad@gmail.com on behalf of Tad Cook (k7ra@arrl.net)

Thu 1/16/14 3:19 AM

No, planetary position does not affect propagation. The original holder of my callsign, Home Spence, introduced me to Nelson's work about 40 years ago. I thought it sounded pretty good, but then years later I found out that his work was non-replicable. The replication was published in the late 1970s (I think) by the forerunner of Skeptical Inquirer, which was titled The Zetetic. What they found was that his method was no better than chance at predicting anything.

Significant is his 3-day rule (I noticed this same rule applied to moon effects on behavior, in the thread you sent me). That is, the disturbance could be on the predicted date, the day before or the day after. It is possible that when testing out his hypothesis that he saw it didn't quite work, so when testing again using that 3-day window, he thought he saw a good correlation. But the authors who did the follow up study showed how if you assume the same number of dates in a year in which he found correlation, and then just do a random distribution of the same number of dates, the score is just as good.

To Nelson's credit, I understand that when he saw the follow-up he thought their work was good and that maybe he'd been wrong all along.

You wouldn't believe the amount of email I get from people trying to correlate sunspot numbers with all kinds of things. Markets, social disorder, etc. Also, I have received some extremely complex theories about how planetary position correlates to solar activity, much more complex than Nelson's analysis, and probably with my very limited education I am not qualified to evaluate.

I've known some really intelligent people over the years who became fascinated by astrology. But I gradually came to believe that having higher intelligence does not necessarily make one immune to nonsense. This was driven home to me on numerous occasions when I attended Skeptic's Toolbox over the years at the University of Oregon, organized by Dr. Ray Hyman, and especially in the lectures given by Dr. James Alcock (google their names. Hyman is perhaps the most amazing person I've ever met). One theory holds that the smarter you are, the more likely you are to perceive significance in false correlation.

LOVED this, by the way:

http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=966&Itemid=277 (http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=966&Itemid=277)

Thanks for pointing me to that most interesting thread. Feel free to post anything I wrote here on that thread. I've got to get busy on today's bulletin preview!

73,

Tad

Of course the butterfly effect is by definition, unpredictable.
And as far as replication goes, with the sun and the 9 planets,
there are 3,628,000 relationships.

It would take a supercomputer and tons of data
to establish a correlation with propagation.
Nonetheless, for 25 years, Nelson made a living
forecasting conditions based on planetary positions.

n2ize

01-17-2014, 03:44 PM

Of course the butterfly effect is by definition, unpredictable.
And as far as replication goes, with the sun and the 9 planets,
there are 3,628,000 relationships.

By "replication" I assume that you are referring to reproducable observations. How did you reach that value ? Actually we would not have to test every single possibility (of which there are far more than between 3 and 4 million) we would have to make an observation that can be tested by others. You would have to show that there is a significant relationship which stands out above random noise correlating planetary positions with subsequent solar activity.

It would take a supercomputer and tons of data
to establish a correlation with propagation.
Nonetheless, for 25 years, Nelson made a living
forecasting conditions based on planetary positions.

Which would imply that we can't conclude that any of his forecasts had anything to do with planetary positions. Even if some of his predictions stood out over random noise it is possible that what he obtained were due to something other than the positions of the planets. But even is we don't understand the underlying mechansim we would still have to observe that a correlation appears to exist between te 2. Thus far that has yet to be established.

W9JEF

01-17-2014, 04:09 PM

By "replication" I assume that you are referring to reproducable observations. How did you reach that value ? Actually we would not have to test every single possibility (of which there are far more than between 3 and 4 million) we would have to make an observation that can be tested by others. You would have to show that there is a significant relationship which stands out above random noise correlating planetary positions with subsequent solar activity.

Considering 10 solar bodies, to find the number of combinations of any two:

10 x 9 x 8 ...etc. That's just the number of relationships.

You're right, there could be far more than 4 million actual conjunctions.

Which would imply that we can't conclude that any of his forecasts had anything to do with planetary positions. Even if some of his predictions stood out over random noise it is possible that what he obtained were due to something other than the positions of the planets. But even is we don't understand the underlying mechansim we would still have to observe that a correlation appears to exist between the 2. Thus far that has yet to be established.

In Mr. Nelson's own words:

"It is of major importance to solar system science
to establish on a definite yes or no basis that the planets
do or do not cause changes inn solar radiations.
My research throughout these many years
has convinced me that they do cause changes
when they are in certain harmonic arrangements.
These harmonic arrangements are predictable far into the future.
I could not have survived as a worldwide forecaster for 25 years
if the methods I was using had no scientific foundation."

NQ6U

01-17-2014, 04:25 PM

Considering 10 solar bodies, to find the number of combinations of any two:

10 x 9 x 8 ...etc. That's just the number of relationships.

You're right, there could be far more than 4 million actual conjunctions.

In Mr. Nelson's own words:

"It is of major importance to solar system science
to establish on a definite yes or no basis that the planets
do or do not cause changes inn solar radiations.
My research throughout these many years
has convinced me that they do cause changes
when they are in certain harmonic arrangements.
These harmonic arrangements are predictable far into the future.
I could not have survived as a worldwide forecaster for 25 years
if the methods I was using had no scientific foundation."

And yet, no one else can reproduce his results. What does this suggest to you? Check out the latest science on this topic (http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2013/09/aa21713-13/aa21713-13.html).

WØTKX

01-17-2014, 07:47 PM

And yet, no one else can reproduce his results. What does this suggest to you?

Fapping.

NQ6U

01-17-2014, 07:55 PM

Fapping.

Fuckin' A

WØTKX

01-17-2014, 08:48 PM

FYI, 'effin' B has two holes, and 'effin' Q has a tail. ;)

n2ize

01-17-2014, 09:15 PM

Considering 10 solar bodies, to find the number of combinations of any two:

10 x 9 x 8 ...etc. That's just the number of relationships.

Uh... No... Combinatorics doesn't work that way. Multiplying the number of planets by the remaining number of planets tells us NOTHING !! The product rule only works with regards to possible outcomes of an event. It has nothing to do with the number of planets. It only relates the probability , or conditional probability, of a planet producing an defined outcome. Since we, Nelson included, don't know if a planet can produce a solar event, we cannot assign a probability to such an event thus 10x9x8...1 means absolutely nothing in this case. Eithr you have misinterpreted something or else you have been misguided by pseudoscience/pseudo mathematics.

P.S. I think you are trying to say that since there are 9 planets + the sun, researchers would have to test first the effect of each single planet on the sun which would be 9 possibilities. Then they would have to test the effect of all possible pairs of , then all triplets, then all possible tuplets, etc. on up to all 9 planets simultaneously. The total number, while large, is actually feasible and do-able.. But why even bother. Since gravity would be the primary force involved why not then consider all planets simultaneously and consider those positions when they exert both a maximum and minimum gravitational force upon the sun and determine if there is any detectable difference in solar activity. This basically is what has been done, albeit not as simplistically as I implied. And the result thus far is no discernible difference which leads me to suspect that Nelson's predictions were primarily random noise and whatever solar forecasts were around then.

In any event the only thing we can do is take Nelson's claims on faith since he neither established a correlation between planetary positions and solar activity, nor did he publish his work in any peer reviewed publication(s) where it could be tested for reproducibility, errors, etc. All we can say is with regards to Nelson's hypothesis is that it has never been established as a valid scientific theory as it lacks testable, credible, reproducible evidence thus it remains an idea that may or may not be. .. and probably isn't, or at the very least probably miniscule. Then again that could change with a new discovery but thus far it's come up blank.

WØTKX

01-17-2014, 09:42 PM

Mr. Nelson seems a bit trite to me, I'd rather trip out with Terrance McKenna. ;)

http://youtu.be/F-blKKLgljY

http://youtu.be/F-blKKLgljY

W9JEF

01-18-2014, 10:17 AM

Uh... No... Combinatorics doesn't work that way. Multiplying the number of planets by the remaining number of planets tells us NOTHING !! The product rule only works with regards to possible outcomes of an event. It has nothing to do with the number of planets. It only relates the probability , or conditional probability, of a planet producing an defined outcome. Since we, Nelson included, don't know if a planet can produce a solar event, we cannot assign a probability to such an event thus 10x9x8...1 means absolutely nothing in this case. Eithr you have misinterpreted something or else you have been misguided by pseudoscience/pseudo mathematics.

The position of just a single planet is what tells us nothing.
Heliocentric planetary angular relationships involve the position of,
say, Venus and Mars, and the angle they form with the sun as apex.
Including the angle in reference to a fixed point on the sun's surface,
we must consider 10 objects, and how any two planets can form
conjunctions (same angular position) to opposition (180 degrees).
Moreover, there are infinite angular possibilities in between.

P.S. I think you are trying to say that since there are 9 planets + the sun, researchers would have to test first the effect of each single planet on the sun which would be 9 possibilities. Then they would have to test the effect of all possible pairs of , then all triplets, then all possible tuplets, etc. on up to all 9 planets simultaneously. The total number, while large, is actually feasible and do-able.. But why even bother. Since gravity would be the primary force involved why not then consider all planets simultaneously and consider those positions when they exert both a maximum and minimum gravitational force upon the sun and determine if there is any detectable difference in solar activity. This basically is what has been done, albeit not as simplistically as I implied. And the result thus far is no discernible difference which leads me to suspect that Nelson's predictions were primarily random noise and whatever solar forecasts were around then.

Again, it's the angular relationship between any two planets, and the position in the Zodiac.
According to Nelson (and astrologers) only certain angles are significant.
Juxtaposed, as well as 30, 45, 90, and 180 degree angles and their harmonics (60, 120, etc.).

In any event the only thing we can do is take Nelson's claims on faith since he neither established a correlation between planetary positions and solar activity, nor did he publish his work in any peer reviewed publication(s) where it could be tested for reproducibility, errors, etc. All we can say is with regards to Nelson's hypothesis is that it has never been established as a valid scientific theory as it lacks testable, credible, reproducible evidence thus it remains an idea that may or may not be. .. and probably isn't, or at the very least probably miniscule. Then again that could change with a new discovery but thus far it's come up blank.

Problem is, that Nelson has no peers--experts in both
radio propagation and astronomy--to review his work.
Since the 9 planets are moving at different rates,
they will never return the same relative positions,
negating any possibility of replication.
With most commercial communication now done by satellite,
any future research is more or less up to us hams.

N2NH

01-18-2014, 11:25 AM

Yes, Jupiter can affect HF transmissions but it's not significant except in weak signal work as in QRPp. Most other planetary RF emissions tend to take place in the ULF and LF bands and are also fairly weak. Paper in link.

Plasma Interactions Revealed by Jupiter Low Frequency Emission (http://www.astro.ufl.edu/events/frontiers/presentations11/reyes_frontiers11.pdf)

NQ6U

01-18-2014, 11:37 AM

Since the 9 planets are moving at different rates,
they will never return the same relative positions,
negating any possibility of replication.

Sorry, but that doesn't wash. Ask any scientist and he/she will tell you that any experimental results which can't be replicated have to be considered invalid.

W9JEF

01-18-2014, 11:55 AM

Sorry, but that doesn't wash. Ask any scientist and he/she will tell you that any experimental results which can't be replicated have to be considered invalid.

Which is the same argument used by the AGW denialists.

But in either case, does the lack of replicative evidence

necessarily invalidate the theory?

NQ6U

01-18-2014, 12:09 PM

Which is the same argument used by the AGW denialists.

But in either case, does the lack of replicative evidence

necessarily invalidate the theory?

First of all, it's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. There's a big difference. And if that hypothesis is based on experimental evidence that can't be replicated by anyone else, then, yes, it is invalidated.

W9JEF

01-18-2014, 12:40 PM

First of all, it's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. There's a big difference. And if that hypothesis is based on experimental evidence that can't be replicated by anyone else, then, yes, it is invalidated.

"THEORY" implies a greater range of evidence, and greater likelihood of truth that "hypothesis."

My point is, that the denialists, likewise, dismiss AGW theory as "hypothesis."

Like planetary positions, isn't weather a one-of-a-kind condition, that cannot be replicated?

NQ6U

01-18-2014, 01:44 PM

"THEORY" implies a greater range of evidence, and greater likelihood of truth that "hypothesis."

It's a hypothesis. You need to go look up the definition of the two terms as used in science.

My point is, that the denialists, likewise, dismiss AGW theory as "hypothesis."

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. You've set up a sort of straw man argument here, not to mention a borderline ad hominem attack by suggesting that I'm similar to those who deny that anthropogenic climate change is a real thing even in the face of evidence to the contrary. This is not true. I started out with an open mind, then I did a fair amount of online research and finally came to the conclusion that the evidence in favor of the hypothesis is flawed because the results of the experiment were not reproducible.

Like planetary positions, isn't weather a one-of-a-kind condition, that cannot be replicated?

Perhaps, but that's irrelevant. If planetary position had any effect on solar conditions, it would still be having an effect now.

You've been pointed to a bunch of evidence that refutes the hypothesis, yet you insist on arguing in favor of it. You're either hopelessly wed to the concept to the point it's become a belief system for you or you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. Whatever the case, it's no longer worth the effort to continue. You believe what you want to believe; myself, I'll go with what the science says.

n2ize

01-18-2014, 02:31 PM

The position of just a single planet is what tells us nothing.
Heliocentric planetary angular relationships involve the position of,
say, Venus and Mars, and the angle they form with the sun as apex.
Including the angle in reference to a fixed point on the sun's surface,
we must consider 10 objects, and how any two planets can form
conjunctions (same angular position) to opposition (180 degrees).
Moreover, there are infinite angular possibilities in between.

No, that isn't true at all. Since the hypothesis is that planetary positions affect the sun then the gravitational effect then it is possible that a single planet close to the sun or a single planet of very large mass would affect the sun to some degree (perhaps to a greater degree relative to the other planets) as both bodies are exerting a gravitational force upon one another. If such a detectable effect exists at all, and there is no evidence that it does, then studying the effect of a single planet is relevant. And since no such effect has ever been observed why would you conclude that it would have to involved all 9 planets and some magical combination of the orbital positions at any given time. Secondly the approach to such a problem would not be to select different orbital positions and test to see if each one produces an effect but instead to look at past data, that has been collected day after day for many decades and analyze that data for significant correlations between solar activity and planetary positions. This is essentially what has been done and nothing indicates any significant correlations whatsoever.

Again, it's the angular relationship between any two planets, and the position in the Zodiac.
According to Nelson (and astrologers) only certain angles are significant.
Juxtaposed, as well as 30, 45, 90, and 180 degree angles and their harmonics (60, 120, etc.).

I don;t care what astrologers say as astrology is folklore/pseudoscience. I am talking about doing real science here in which things can be tested such they provide valid tangible evidence that than be tested, reproduced, etc.

Problem is, that Nelson has no peers--experts in both
radio propagation and astronomy--to review his work.
Since the 9 planets are moving at different rates,
they will never return the same relative positions,
negating any possibility of replication.
With most commercial communication now done by satellite,
any future research is more or less up to us hams.

There are numerous peer reviewed journals and different standards for per review.. If Nelson clearly stated his hypothesis and clearly cited his evidence he very likely may have been able to get it published in some journal. Once published others review the ideas and the evidence and see if they can reproduce, validate, and/or falsify the hypothesis. From what I have read it appears that researchers did look at his ideas and evidence and found it un-reproduceable. Can we say with 100% absolute certainty that Nelson's proposition is false ? No. But in the absence of reproducible evidence all we can say is that the hypothesis is most likely flawed.

n2ize

01-18-2014, 02:43 PM

Which is the same argument used by the AGW denialists.

But in either case, does the lack of replicative evidence

necessarily invalidate the theory?

No. It doesn't work like that. AGW is considered a valid theory because there are huge volumes of reproducible evidence to support it. All attempts to falsify it have failed and have in fact even unearthed further evidence that supports it thus thus strengthening the position of the theory. A denialist is one who denies a valid theory despite lrge amounts of tangible and reproducible evidence.

The exact opposite is the case with nelson;s hypothesis. No valid reproducible evidence has been found to support it. In fact the effect being described has not even been detected Those who are skeptical are not deniers. They are simply basing their skepticism on the lack of evidence

WØTKX

01-18-2014, 03:00 PM

I know I'm just a thorn in the side of this discussion, as mocking an errant hypothesis is considered rude. Peace, out.

Going on and ON about an errant hypothesis is rude as hell to the true meaning of the scientific method. :fail:

By the Great Ghosts of Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman, it hurts my brain cells, and it's an insult to the baloney detection kit.

http://youtu.be/hDYO7MJcnWs

http://youtu.be/hDYO7MJcnWs

NQ6U

01-18-2014, 03:29 PM

I found this eHam post from Nick N3AIU, the Island's own resident astronomer, dated from almost ten years ago:

I read Nelson's book about 15 years ago. Correlations between data sets (in this case, ionoshpheric reflectivity and planetary astrometry) are only the first step. Next, someone actually has to come up with a theory of why the correlation occurs and test the theory. Nelson didn't do it, and to my knowledge no one else has done it either.

I'm a professional astronomer by training, and I know some things about ionized plasmas, gravitation, and electromagnetic propagation. I just can't think of any reason why this effect should occur. Don't get me wrong. I don't know everything, but I certainly would not bet the house and the dog on Nelson being right.

What makes me most suspicious: In the book, Nelson starts with four Jupiter position angles -- 0, 90, 180, 270 degrees. He sees some correlations, but sometimes the correlations don't work. He then adds more and more angles (including 22.5 and 15 degree angles) and more and more planets (including Pluto), and as you would expect, the correlations continue to improve. THIS IS A REALLY BAD WAY TO DO SCIENCE!!!

All Nelson is doing is applying a large number of random model parameters (planet positions) to a large number of data sets (propagation results). The more model parameters, the better the fit. I CAN DO THIS FOR ANY TYPE OF DATA AND ANY TYPE OF MODEL PARAMETERS, AND EVENTUALLY GET GOOD CORRELATIONS WHEN THE NUMBER OF MODEL PARAMETERS BECOMES VERY LARGE!!!

Personally, I would not waste any more time on this...

73, Nick N3AIU

NQ6U

01-18-2014, 03:42 PM

And more from Nick:

The photometric sunspot cycle (the one hams care about)lasts about 11.7 years (different from the magnetic sunspot cycle, which is about twice that length). Jupiter orbits the sun approximately once every 12 years. If I plot Jupiter's orbit versus solar activity, I will get a very high correlation, perhaps even better than 80-85%, over many sunspot cycles.

Does this correlation mean that there is a real physical relationship between solar activity and Jupiter? Absolutely not! It's just one heck of a coincidence. I can make this statement because

1) our Sun has been studied to death by numerous different techniques, including very precise solar seismology (which tells us what's inside the Sun, just like seismology of the earth tells us about its structure). As unbelievable as it sounds, these observations have confirmed that the theory of how our Sun works (developed almost 50 years ago!) needed only minor tweaks. That still amazes me. We know that the Sun can make a sunspot cycle all on its own without the help of Jupiter.
2) Astronomers (including me) have studied other solar-type stars at all stages of their evolution. They all have spot cycles, with younger stars have shorter an much more active starspot cycles than our Sun. With these statistics, we get further proof that we understand how our Sun works and evolves. Again, Jupiter is not required.
3) Astronomers (including me again) have studied young solar type stars, and we have good evidence that the planets in our solar system formed from collapsing dust clouds. The part of the dust cloud that formed Jupiter in our solar system happened to form where it will orbit the Sun every twelve years.
4) The gravitational tide exerted by Jupiter on the Sun is negligible compared to the other processes going on inside the Sun. I've studied binary star systems where the two stars are so massive and so close to each other (sometimes they are almost touching) that they distort each other to the point where they look like eggs instead of spheres. For these types of binary systems, the stars definitely affect one another. They are in a completely different league compared to Jupiter and the Sun.

Having said all of this, let's assume that Dave (K9WQ) still wants to investigate a possible relationship between the solar cycle and planets. If he just continues to study Nelson's correlations and if the correlations still hold at the 80% level, he still hasn't proven any relationship. Given physics as we understand it, it will just be a coincidence (just like the coincidence between Jupiter's orbit and the solar cycle). Is the coincidence useful for hams? If you're happy with 80%, I guess that the answer is yes. I'm not happy with it (I want 100%), which I guess makes me a hard-nosed SOB. I think that I can do better than 80% by just studying solar weather reports from WWV, etc.

If you want to prove theoretically that Nelson's theory is valid, the only way to do it is to sit down and say: "OK, if Nelson's theory is valid, what other ramifications would we expect to see?" That's where my head begins to hurt. To make Nelson's theory work, the only things that I can think of are bizarre and not necessary to explain the rest of the universe as we understand it right now (faster than light travel, tangled quantum states from complicated objects over 500 million miles of space, etc.). If these bizarre things were correct, our universe would be even more interesting than we already think it is (grin).

The entire eHam thread is here (http://www.eham.net/articles/8828), BTW

n2ize

01-18-2014, 05:44 PM

I found this eHam post from Nick N3AIU, the Island's own resident astronomer, dated from almost ten years ago:

What Nick is describing here sounds like the same pseudoscience that Richard Hoaxland did to "prove" that stuff on Mars had to be placed there by intelligent beings. he simply took a map of a region on Mars and then started drawing angles and connecting lines between objects that he deemed as 'significant". He kept on adding in angles and lines and applying trigonometric functions to them until he got a collection of numbers writing the range he was looking for and offered this as "mathematical proof" that intelligent life constructed artifacts on Mars. Problem is that his "proof" was wrong as it showed nothing any more significant than random noise. In fact a Math Professor as a certain university (the man's name and school escape me for the moment) showed this to be true by reproducing Hoaxland's "proof". Except instead of cherrypicking angles as Hoaxland did he used random data and guess what ?? He got the same and/or even better correlations than Hoaxland did. What Nick is saying applies to Nelson's project as well. If you select a large enough random sample you can establish what appear to be correlations. And if you cherrypick elements of that random sample you can perhaps estabish some pretty convincing correlations. But at the same time proving absolutely nothing as you have not shown anything significant beyond random noise.

P.S. I am not trying to say that Nelson was necessarily trying to hoax anyone. He may have sincerely believed that he discovered a correlation. Numbers can be deceiving particularly when you seem to pull some kind of pattern out of randomness. Much the same way some people who thought they have developed perpetual energy were sincere and really believed they found something that breaks the laws of thermodynamic. . But in every case it was found that these devices didn''t produce perpetual energy and the laws of thermodynamics won. It is usually a misinterpretation or error oversight on the part of the inventor. Then of course there are some who are simply scammers,.

I think Nick summed it up very well.

NQ6U

01-18-2014, 06:06 PM

I am not trying to say that Nelson was necessarily trying to hoax anyone. He may have sincerely believed that he discovered a correlation.

Agreed, I don't think he was a charlatan, only that he did some bad science. Perhaps a case of confirmation bias? He wanted to see a correlation so he kept at it until he found a way to make the data fit his hypothesis.

W9JEF

01-19-2014, 11:33 AM

Say a person who weighs 100 kg takes a ball bearing weighing one gram,
attaches it to a string, and "orbits" it. Is the pull developed by the centrifugal force
along the string not felt in his or her fingers? Miniscule, to be sure, but none-the-less,
a force equal to that which keeps the bearing (or planet) in orbit?
Would this not be another example of the butterfly effect
(from a relatively new, but valid science of chaos)?

Here's an interesting discussion:

Tides raised by the Planets on the Sun

Posted: January 11, 2010 by tallbloke in Uncategorized (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/)
16 (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/tides-raised-by-the-planets-on-the-sun/#comments)
Leif Svalgaard came up with this link in a discussion on wattsupwiththat.com (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/08/science-black-hole-is-eating-our-galaxy-slower-than-previously-thought/#comment-287300)
which I found very interesting.

Some of my colleagues at Berkeley [Martin Fivian and Hugh Hudson]
has analyzed the shape of the Sun using the RHESSI satellite date:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/02oct_oblatesun.htm

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/solar-oblateness.jpg?w=614 (http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/solar-oblateness.jpg)
Leif comments that:
When corrected for the effect of magnetic solar activity,
the solar oblateness is just what is expected from current solar models
and solar rotation.

Here’s my reply:

Thanks for the link Leif. One of the things I find interesting from that press release
is the rapidity with which the 6km high lumps around sunspots smooth out again
to the average oblateness. The Sun’s outer layers are obviously very fluid and mobile,
so it would be expected that any internal lumpiness raised by tidal or gravitational forces
from orbiting bodies would be compensated for quite quickly at the surface
in flows from the low mid latitudes to the equator, which might explain
the shifting of sunspots towards the equator throughout the solar cycle.

The vertical tide on the Surface raised by the biggest of the orbiting bodies
is only in the order of mm as you have pointed out before. However
the horizontal tides are much bigger, in the order of hundreds of km.
Much the same as the Moon’s tidal action on the Earth,
it is the horizontal tides which will cause most of
the rising and falling of the surface. Further analysis is showing that
at perihelion, Mercury causes a much bigger horizontal tide on the sun
than Jupiter does. So does the synodic variation of Earth and Venus.
Work on quantifying these and looking at their periodicities and phasing is ongoing.

Leif further claimed that:
Any shifting around of the interior would introduce
a quadrupolar moment which is not observed.

My reply was:
The constraint on the quadrupole moment (2+-0.4)10^-7
isn’t so tight as to be able to be definite about that.
Quite small movements in the dense solar interior would set up
much larger flows on the much less dense solar surface.

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/tides2.jpg?w=614 (http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/tides2.jpg)

This diagram is for the Earth Moon system and the situation on the sun may be different

Tidal effects have been dismissed as too small to have any effect on the Sun in the past,
but new research by Semi and others may change that view. I’m posting this thread
to provide a place for discussion, however speculative at this stage, concerning
the possible effects of tides raised by planets on the surface of the Sun.

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/tides-raised-by-the-planets-on-the-sun/

WØTKX

01-19-2014, 01:14 PM

Hmmm. I'll take observations from SOHO's GOLF project, and raise ya.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2007_04_23/

The so-called gravity modes, or g modes, are driven by gravity and provide information about the deep interior of the Sun. They are thought to occur when churning gas below the solar surface plunges even deeper into our star and collides with denser material, sending ripples propagating through the Sun's interior and up to the surface. It is the equivalent of dropping a stone in a pond.

Unfortunately for observers, these waves are badly degraded by their passage to the solar surface. By the time g modes reach the exterior, they are little more than ripples a few metres high. To make matters more difficult, the g modes take between two and seven hours to oscillate just once. So astronomers are faced with having to detect a swell on the surface that rises a metre or two over several hours.

http://www.ias.u-psud.fr/golf/

n2ize

01-19-2014, 07:27 PM

WØTKX

01-19-2014, 10:02 PM

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs50/f/2009/288/c/3/The_Monarch_by_Supajoe.jpg

kb2vxa

01-20-2014, 03:42 AM

You keep talking about the Butterfly Effect, but have you forgotten the Moth Effect?

Stop wondering if planets have an effect on radio propagation and ask the man who has all the answers. He's been the consultant of the AGW mob for years.

W9JEF

01-20-2014, 10:37 AM

No.

Why not?

"Tidal effects have been dismissed as too small to have any effect on the Sun in the past,
but new research by Semi and others may change that view. I’m posting this thread
to provide a place for discussion, however speculative at this stage, concerning
the possible effects of tides raised by planets on the surface of the Sun."

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/...ts-on-the-sun/

KC2UGV

01-20-2014, 11:13 AM

I found the book to be fascinating on numerous levels. :)

I respect mathematics, but some books wallow in the odious equations.

Um, mathematics IS equations and expressions. You can't grasp the theory behind it until you see the equations.

And, if they are "odious" to you, I'm going to bet you're not willing to put in the work to understand the theory properly.

W9JEF

01-20-2014, 12:10 PM

Um, mathematics IS equations and expressions. You can't grasp the theory behind it until you see the equations.

And, if they are "odious" to you, I'm going to bet you're not willing to put in the work to understand the theory properly.

You say "WORK" :homer:--any need to explain why I'm turned off here? ;)

It's the same old digital versus analog dialogue. :)

Although I did use formulae as the need arose, all my "working" life
I got away with representing myself as a broadcast engineer,
without knowing a whit about these Maxwell equations
I hear some speak of.

Math, when necessary, is a valuable tool; very precise,
but is visualization (the analog computer of the brain)
not another way to basically understand a theory?

Do race car drivers, ball players, and others who deal with kinetics
need to study written equations, or just "fly by the seat of their pants?"

KC2UGV

01-20-2014, 01:40 PM

You say "WORK" :homer:--any need to explain why I'm turned off here? ;)

It's the same old digital versus analog dialogue. :)

It's nothing like the digital v analog discussion.

Although I did use formulae as the need arose, all my "working" life
I got away with representing myself as a broadcast engineer,
without knowing a whit about these Maxwell equations
I hear some speak of.

Right there. You said you don't understand any of it. You use the formula's, but don't understand what makes them. So, you don't understand them, you merely know how to do to rote.

Math, when necessary, is a valuable tool; very precise,
but is visualization (the analog computer of the brain)
not another way to basically understand a theory?

No. There is only one way to understand a mathematical theory: By understanding math.

Do race car drivers, ball players, and others who deal with kinetics
need to study written equations, or just "fly by the seat of their pants?"

And, none of them, I'm sure, will claim to understand ballistic trajectory planning, and dV.

Bottom line, if you don't understand math behind a mathematical theory; you can't claim to understand it by some other means, and then discuss the merits of said theory.

W9JEF

01-20-2014, 02:01 PM

It's nothing like the digital v analog discussion.

Right there. You said you don't understand any of it. You use the formula's, but don't understand what makes them. So, you don't understand them, you merely know how to do to rote.

No. There is only one way to understand a mathematical theory: By understanding math.

And, none of them, I'm sure, will claim to understand ballistic trajectory planning, and dV.

Bottom line, if you don't understand math behind a mathematical theory; you can't claim to understand it by some other means, and then discuss the merits of said theory.

The only difference in what's commonly called digital
and expressing mathematical equations is that
the former is binary, and the latter, mostly to the base 10.

As for ballistic trajectory, the old Navy Mk-1A computers I worked with used
not numbers, but 3-D cams that figured trajectory based initial velocity, and time of flight.

Call me lazy, but I do understand all I need to about the physical world,
without seeing it all writ down (but there's nothing wrong with that). ;)

I understand math like I understand ditch digging...
sometimes it's necessary, but nothing to be obsessed with
and best left for others to do the drudgery.
My ARRL L/C calculator is just about my favorite tool.
Tells me how much capacity and inductance I need,
and how to wind the coil, all the understanding I want or need. :)

n2ize

01-20-2014, 06:01 PM

The only difference in what's commonly called digital
and expressing mathematical equations is that
the former is binary, and the latter, mostly to the base 10.

No. A mathematical expression (or equation, formula, etc.) and a number system base are two separate things. There is no comparison here. A mathamatical expression makes a statement about a mathematical idea. If that expression happens to be a formula to compute something, or the eeuation of a line, curve, ssurface, solid body, etc. or something relating to numbers the expression standfs alone as a mathematical statement regardless of the base I decide to use to perform a calculation..

For example the simple expression P = Sin(x) + yz - 2x is what it is regardless of whether x, y, and z are in base 2, base 5, base 8 or base 10 (decimal).

How do you think computers do stuff ?? They do mathematics. Some very complex mathematics. If it weren't for mathematics we wuldn't be having this conversation via this or probably any other means except face to face verbal

As for ballistic trajectory, the old Navy Mk-1A computers I worked with used
not numbers, but 3-D cams that figured trajectory based initial velocity, and time of flight.

Belive me, it as using numbers and equations. Maybe it's not apparent but computers only work with numbers and there was a heck of a lot of math numbers and mathematical expressions going on inside that computer to give you that trajectory.

I understand math like I understand ditch digging...
sometimes it's necessary, but nothing to be obsessed with
and best left for others to do the drudgery.
My ARRL L/C calculator is just about my favorite tool.
Tells me how much capacity and inductance I need,
and how to wind the coil, all the understanding I want or need. :)
[/quote]

It might be all you personally need. But someone had to sit down and figure out how do make it work and what math was needed to do it. Doing math is not simply number crunching.. Computers and bookeepters do that stuff. mathematicians either work on the abstract level to develope and prove new (and old) theorems, or apply their knowledge to find a feasibly and efficent way to solve something. Computers are there to do the redundant stuff, like lengthy complicated calculations and approximations, etc that a normal person couldn;t do in a dozen lifetimes.

Incidentally, in higher advanded level math we rarely use numbers or perform calculations. We work with symbols and ideas. In most of my advanced math courses I never needed a calculator and having one would have done me no good.

n2ize

01-20-2014, 06:07 PM

Math, when necessary, is a valuable tool; very precise,
but is visualization (the analog computer of the brain)
not another way to basically understand a theory?

No. If you are talking about "theory" with respect to math you should really be saying "theorem", "proposition", etc.. There is no way to understand or prove a mathematical theorem unless you use math... Period. You have to use the logical constructs derived from the axioms on which its based.

Scientific theories also require math because it is the very means by which we can make accurate correlations, recognize patterns, and define principles when we do science. It's basically the language of science. Without it you can;t do science. The primary difference between the two disciplines is that Mathematics has what we call "absolute proof" where as science has theory supported by evidence.

n2ize

01-20-2014, 06:08 PM

Why not?

"Tidal effects have been dismissed as too small to have any effect on the Sun in the past,
but new research by Semi and others may change that view. I’m posting this thread
to provide a place for discussion, however speculative at this stage, concerning
the possible effects of tides raised by planets on the surface of the Sun."

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/...ts-on-the-sun/

No, the example you gave dones not demonstrate the Butterfly Effect.

K7SGJ

01-20-2014, 10:08 PM

No, the example you gave dones not demonstrate the Butterfly Effect.

I thought it was chrysalis clear.

W9JEF

01-20-2014, 11:06 PM

No. A mathematical expression (or equation, formula, etc.) and a number system base are two separate things. There is no comparison here. A mathamatical expression makes a statement about a mathematical idea. If that expression happens to be a formula to compute something, or the eeuation of a line, curve, ssurface, solid body, etc. or something relating to numbers the expression standfs alone as a mathematical statement regardless of the base I decide to use to perform a calculation..

For example the simple expression P = Sin(x) + yz - 2x is what it is regardless of whether x, y, and z are in base 2, base 5, base 8 or base 10 (decimal).

How do you think computers do stuff ?? They do mathematics. Some very complex mathematics. If it weren't for mathematics we wuldn't be having this conversation via this or probably any other means except face to face verbal

Belive me, it as using numbers and equations. Maybe it's not apparent but computers only work with numbers and there was a heck of a lot of math numbers and mathematical expressions going on inside that computer to give you that trajectory.

Obviously math was used to design the 3-dimensional cams, linkages, etc.
in the analog gunfire control computers used in WWII through the 60's.
But while numbers appear on the dials, what is going on inside is strictly analog.
The same as a marksman calculating a lead angle to hit a moving target.
No math, no formulae, no equations; just analog visualization.

It might be all you personally need. But someone had to sit down and figure out how do make it work and what math was needed to do it. Doing math is not simply number crunching.. Computers and bookeepters do that stuff. mathematicians either work on the abstract level to develope and prove new (and old) theorems, or apply their knowledge to find a feasibly and efficent way to solve something. Computers are there to do the redundant stuff, like lengthy complicated calculations and approximations, etc that a normal person couldn;t do in a dozen lifetimes.

Incidentally, in higher advanded level math we rarely use numbers or perform calculations. We work with symbols and ideas. In most of my advanced math courses I never needed a calculator and having one would have done me no good.

Make no mistake: I respect, and consider mathematics to be
the most significant invention to affect civilization as we know it.
My philosophy has always been to understand what's going on,
but to let others do the actual math. :)

NA4BH

01-20-2014, 11:09 PM

Make no mistake, I consider mathematics to be
the most significant invention to affect civilization as we know it.
My philosophy has always been to understand what's going on,
but to let others do the actual math.

That's if it adds up.

NQ6U

01-20-2014, 11:35 PM

That's if it adds up.

It figures you'd say that.

NA4BH

01-20-2014, 11:44 PM

It figures you'd say that.

Exponentially !! Divide that amongst yourselves, bitch.

n2ize

01-21-2014, 09:52 AM

Obviously math was used to design the 3-dimensional cams, linkages, etc.
in the analog gunfire control computers used in WWII through the 60's.
But while numbers appear on the dials, what is going on inside is strictly analog.
The same as a marksman calculating a lead angle to hit a moving target.
No math, no formulae, no equations; just analog visualization.

I would have to see exactly how the device works but you can be sure it's built and designed around a mathematical idea and is indeed computing an "equation" but not in the same sense as an electronic computer which is using binary circuits to crunch numbers. That is sort of how a planimeter works. It is designed such that when it is used it is applying "Greens Theorem" which relates a line integral about a closed and directed loop to the area enclosed by the curve. In case you are not familiar with a planimeter here is a description of the device itself, what it u is used for and the underlying theorem.

Make no mistake: I respect, and consider mathematics to be
the most significant invention to affect civilization as we know it.
My philosophy has always been to understand what's going on,
but to let others do the actual math. :)

Often the only way to understand what is going on it to understand the actual math. For example you cant be an Astronomer or a Physicist without first learning to do advanced math. Without the math you can get a watered down and very simplified idea of a concept or astronomy or physics without the math. But to be able to understand the concepts well enough to work with them and conduct experiments and derive theories and explainations knowing the underlying math is imperative. I remember Richard Feynman discussing his early days when his interest in Physics was developing and the first thing he realized was that in order to be able to understand it and work with it he was first going to have to study and learn an awful lot of math.

On a different level if a person is a clerk, technician, or even some enginners can get along with simply applying formulas and cranking out information without having to understand the derivation of the equation or the proof.

Then you have the abstract (or theoretical) mathematician who studies math just for it's own sake. He/she isn't interested so much in formulas or applications but concepts, ideas, patterns, etc.. so that he/she can advance the field of mathematics itself.

K7SGJ

01-21-2014, 10:10 AM

You guys need to stop all the negative comments, find the root of your problem, and be more positive. Just remember, you're a small fraction of the inhabitants here, so get off your axis, find another area (like down at the symmetry) and smoke a number, or do a line plot.

WØTKX

01-21-2014, 10:44 AM

Fap, fap, fap. Do marching ants discern infinity without the clarity of equations?

http://www.lcps.org/cms/lib4/VA01000195/Centricity/Domain/2592/escher_mobius_2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/6/f/d6fb72cd7c67a857d18c22bbf739b4c1.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/b/f/3bfebe3dc719f1849047374c75af4a52.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/6/2/062ee287619154e91701dbdfc0fdd616.png

W9JEF

01-21-2014, 10:46 AM

I would have to see exactly how the device works but you can be sure it's built and designed around a mathematical idea and is indeed computing an "equation" but not in the same sense as an electronic computer which is using binary circuits to crunch numbers. That is sort of how a planimeter works. It is designed such that when it is used it is applying "Greens Theorem" which relates a line integral about a closed and directed loop to the area enclosed by the curve. In case you are not familiar with a planimeter here is a description of the device itself, what it u is used for and the underlying theorem.

From what I'm able to gather, the 3-dimensional initial velocity/time-of-flight cams
were made by laminating a progressive series of designs based on the results
of numerous test firings (the analog way of "doing the math"). :)

http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USN-GUNS-AND-RANGE-TABLES/FLOW-SCHEMATIC-COMPUTER-MK-1-2.jpg

http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USN-GUNS-AND-RANGE-TABLES/FLOW-SCHEMATIC-COMPUTER-MK-1-1.jpg

THESE IMAGES ARE FURNISHED BY MR. FRANKLYN KIRK.

I WILL ADD THAT THE INTERIOR OF THESE COMPUTERS IS LIKE A FINE WATCH AND JUST AS COMPACT. THE PARTS ARE ONLY A LITTLE LARGER THAN INSIDE A WATCH.

MORE INFORMATION ON THE MARK 1A COMPUTER (http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-25-C.html) AND THE MARK 8 RANGEKEEPER (http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-19-F.html).

FLOW DIAGRAM RANGE KEEPER MARK 10 (http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USN-GUNS-AND-RANGE-TABLES/FLOW-SCHEMATIC-COMPUTER-MK-10.html)

BASIC FORD INSTRUMENT COMPUTER MECHANISMS AND HOW THEY WORK (http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-19-E.html)

http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USN-GUNS-AND-RANGE-TABLES/FLOW-SCHEMATIC-COMPUTER-MK-1MOD-7.html

Often the only way to understand what is going on it to understand the actual math. For example you cant be an Astronomer or a Physicist without first learning to do advanced math. Without the math you can get a watered down and very simplified idea of a concept or astronomy or physics without the math. But to be able to understand the concepts well enough to work with them and conduct experiments and derive theories and explainations knowing the underlying math is imperative. I remember Richard Feynman discussing his early days when his interest in Physics was developing and the first thing he realized was that in order to be able to understand it and work with it he was first going to have to study and learn an awful lot of math.

On a different level if a person is a clerk, technician, or even some enginners can get along with simply applying formulas and cranking out information without having to understand the derivation of the equation or the proof.

Then you have the abstract (or theoretical) mathematician who studies math just for it's own sake. He/she isn't interested so much in formulas or applications but concepts, ideas, patterns, etc.. so that he/she can advance the field of mathematics itself.

My uncle (now retired) was a mathematics professor at UT in Knoxville.
He specialized in statistics, did many lectures and was listed in Who's Who.

A pitcher hurling a baseball, a QB "threading the needle," a hockey player scoring--
examples of what I call visualized calculation (no understanding of math needed). :)

WØTKX

01-21-2014, 11:11 AM

Meh.

dBi vs dBd?

n2ize

01-21-2014, 11:48 AM

From what I'm able to gather, the 3-dimensional initial velocity/time-of-flight cams
were made by laminating a progressive series of designs based on the results
of numerous test firings (the analog way of "doing the math"). :)

http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USN-GUNS-AND-RANGE-TABLES/FLOW-SCHEMATIC-COMPUTER-MK-1-2.jpg

http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USN-GUNS-AND-RANGE-TABLES/FLOW-SCHEMATIC-COMPUTER-MK-1-1.jpg

THESE IMAGES ARE FURNISHED BY MR. FRANKLYN KIRK.

I WILL ADD THAT THE INTERIOR OF THESE COMPUTERS IS LIKE A FINE WATCH AND JUST AS COMPACT. THE PARTS ARE ONLY A LITTLE LARGER THAN INSIDE A WATCH.

MORE INFORMATION ON THE MARK 1A COMPUTER (http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-25-C.html) AND THE MARK 8 RANGEKEEPER (http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-19-F.html).

FLOW DIAGRAM RANGE KEEPER MARK 10 (http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USN-GUNS-AND-RANGE-TABLES/FLOW-SCHEMATIC-COMPUTER-MK-10.html)

BASIC FORD INSTRUMENT COMPUTER MECHANISMS AND HOW THEY WORK (http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-19-E.html)

http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USN-GUNS-AND-RANGE-TABLES/FLOW-SCHEMATIC-COMPUTER-MK-1MOD-7.html

My uncle (now retired) was a mathematics professor at UT in Knoxville.
He specialized in statistics, did many lectures and was listed in Who's Who.

Interesting device.

A pitcher hurling a baseball, a QB "threading the needle," a hockey player scoring--
examples of what I call visualized calculation (no understanding of math needed). :)

Nor do I need math to walk and run. The point was that to do science and engineering, economics, insurance (actuarial) etc. you need to do a lot of math. Some of it is applied math, someone already developed the principles and the person applies them to a problem. he/she doesn't always have to be able to prove them or understand their derivation. In the case of some science, etc. astrophysics, physics, you not only need to use applied formulas but you also need to be able to understand how they were derived and you might even need to derive your own equations. Case and point. A ham radio operator doesn't need to understand the derivation of Ohms Law or Kirchoff's rules in order to apply them. But a physicist , or perhaps an Engineer must understand how they were derived because it is the crux of understanding the ideas. it all depends on what you need to do and how much you need, or want, to know.

N8OBM

01-21-2014, 02:09 PM

Obviously math was used to design the 3-dimensional cams, linkages, etc.
in the analog gunfire control computers used in WWII through the 60's.
But while numbers appear on the dials, what is going on inside is strictly analog.
The same as a marksman calculating a lead angle to hit a moving target.
No math, no formulae, no equations; just analog visualization.

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that all computers are digital. This isn't true. The gunfire control is an analog computer. It is the physical manifestation of a mathematical formula. The same is true of an abacus and a slide ruler. There is a long history of analog computers that continues to today. They can be both mechanical or electrical. In fact the SAAB 9000 turbo I drove in the 90's used an analog computer to govern the turbo system and the timing advance.

Make no mistake: I respect, and consider mathematics to be
the most significant invention to affect civilization as we know it.
My philosophy has always been to understand what's going on,
but to let others do the actual math. :)

This argument is the same as saying that because you can more or less figure out the road signs and the like in Spain because you studied French, that you don't really need to learn Spanish. I think you would find living in Spain rather hard if you only speak French. There is nothing wrong with just getting the overview for how something works but, it is not the same as understanding the fullness of the something. It is one thing to know that if the voltage stays the same in a circuit but, the resistance is lowered, that you should see an increase in current. You might learn to be able to guess the increase but, with out the math you will not be able to predict or know what the increase in current is with out taking a measurement. The more variables you add the harder it is to be able "guess".

You do yourself a disservice if you do not do learn the math. I personally have a love/hate relationship with math. I love trig and geometry. I really like the things that calculus shows me but, I hate doing the algebra you need to do to do the calculus. The simple truth is this. Math allows you to see the details. In a debate or in practice some one who sees the overview and the details will always come out ahead. It is also the case that some people do get lost in the math. It's the combination of The overview and the detail that is most powerful. The theoretical blended with the practical. Ignore either and you lose out.

Just my 2 cents.

Archie N8OBM

W9JEF

01-21-2014, 02:39 PM

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that all computers are digital. This isn't true. The gunfire control is an analog computer. It is the physical manifestation of a mathematical formula. The same is true of an abacus and a slide ruler. There is a long history of analog computers that continues to today. They can be both mechanical or electrical. In fact the SAAB 9000 turbo I drove in the 90's used an analog computer to govern the turbo system and the timing advance.

I agree, in fact I pointed out that the difference was analog.
similar to how we, without using mathematical equations,
compute by visualizing in our heads the throwing of a ball
the swing of a hammer, or hitting a moving target.

This argument is the same as saying that because you can more or less figure out the road signs and the like in Spain because you studied French, that you don't really need to learn Spanish. I think you would find living in Spain rather hard if you only speak French. There is nothing wrong with just getting the overview for how something works but, it is not the same as understanding the fullness of the something. It is one thing to know that if the voltage stays the same in a circuit but, the resistance is lowered, that you should see an increase in current. You might learn to be able to guess the increase but, with out the math you will not be able to predict or know what the increase in current is with out taking a measurement. The more variables you add the harder it is to be able "guess".

Like I've said, is I do use math when I need it, and am very successful at it. :)
Using an analog computer like the ARRL L/C/f calculator, I get a very clear understanding
of the various relationships of the parameters.

Yes, I know the formulas, but for my alleged mind, it says more to look at
how the logarithmic values line up on a slide rule or other analog device.

You do yourself a disservice if you do not do learn the math. I personally have a love/hate relationship with math. I love trig and geometry. I really like the things that calculus shows me but, I hate doing the algebra you need to do to do the calculus. The simple truth is this. Math allows you to see the details. In a debate or in practice some one who sees the overview and the details will always come out ahead. It is also the case that some people do get lost in the math. It's the combination of The overview and the detail that is most powerful. The theoretical blended with the practical. Ignore either and you lose out.

I could have written the above paragraph myself. :)
Except for the "doing myself a disservice" part. :wtf:
Like I said, I use math or any other tool as often as needed.
Let's just agree that some minds achieve better understanding
by looking at and digesting mathematical equations,
while less abstract thinking can understand accurately enough
to do the analog computing, often by visualization alone.

n2ize

01-21-2014, 05:03 PM

I could have written the above paragraph myself. :)
Except for the "doing myself a disservice" part. :wtf:
Like I said, I use math or any other tool as often as needed.
Let's just agree that some minds achieve better understanding
by looking at and digesting mathematical equations,
while less abstract thinking can understand accurately enough
to do the analog computing, often by visualization alone.

And as was pointed out you do not understand it as well if you don't learn the math behind it. Yes a pitcher can throw a ball without having to understand the underlying physics. Yes a technician can crank out a number by plugging things into a formula and cranking out a number and get the job at hand done but, unless he understands the math, all he knows is that it works, but he doesn't know how or why. I don't need to know math to drive a car but I do need to know some math if I am going to plan a trip. Or if I am going to fly a plane and plot a course, navigate, etc. Knowing the underlying math enhanced understanding that you cannot gain by visualization alone. I don;t need to know assembly or machine language to program a computer these days. But when I did learn assemble and about machine code it enhanced my understanding of programming and I was better not just at programming but at debugging because it gave me a clearer understanding of what was happening at the machine level. Likewise knowing a lot of math makes it possible to design more efficient programs and algorithms that run faster, require less system resources, etc. I could in many cases get by without it but it enhances my understanding. That is why I gave the most pronounced example of a Physics. You can gain a superficial knowledge of Physics via observation but, you will never understand physics without the math. Same for other things like economics, engineering, etc. Visualization alone will get you a superficial understanding but will never bring you close to really understanding it as someone who learned the underlying math.

NQ6U

01-21-2014, 06:34 PM

Visualization alone will get you a superficial understanding but will never bring you close to really understanding it as someone who learned the underlying math.

Which is exactly why Jim has had such a hard time understanding why Nelson's hypothesis is incorrect. He doesn't understand math well enough to see the error that Nelson made while he was analyzing the data.

W9JEF

01-22-2014, 01:03 AM

Which is exactly why Jim has had such a hard time understanding why Nelson's hypothesis is incorrect. He doesn't understand math well enough to see the error that Nelson made while he was analyzing the data.

Even if Nelson fails to make the case for planetary influence of sunspots,

that doesn't necessarily disprove the hypothesis.

If planets feel the sun's gravity, then it stands to reason,

that the planet's gravity, however slight, must be felt on then sun,

whose surface (atmosphere, if you will) is extremely fluid and mobile.

It doesn't take a mathematician to understand the butterfly effect.

NQ6U

01-22-2014, 01:19 AM

W9JEF

01-22-2014, 02:01 AM

You keep saying that but repeating something that has no basis in fact does not make it any more true. Chaos theory, the butterfly effect etc. all have no relevance here because not only has no one has been able to demonstrate that there is any correlation between planets and propagation, scientists have made a scientific study to test for such a correlation (scientists who do understand the math) and have stated categorically that there is none.

Your continued insistence in the face of evidence to the contrary is, to put it bluntly, nothing more than jerking off.

I'll allow that "da Pope" would be considered

more of an expert than I--on the subject of jerking off.

;)

The butterfly effect by definition is unpredictable,

but that doesn't disprove it's influence.

As for understanding without doing the math...

my 80 meter turnstile is fed with 4-wire open line.

I have not calculated, and don't really care what its surge impedance is.

Through "cut and try"--no math needed--

I designed the two antenna tuners

to feed the two crossed dipoles in quadrature.

I did math only to calculate the length of 75 ohm coax

which serves as a transformer as well as a delay line.

It works, and I have quite enough understanding of it,

thank you, so, "to hell with working out the math." :)

n2ize

01-22-2014, 07:51 PM

I'll allow that "da Pope" would be considered

more of an expert than I--on the subject of jerking off.

;)

The butterfly effect by definition is unpredictable,

but that doesn't disprove it's influence.

As for understanding without doing the math...

my 80 meter turnstile is fed with 4-wire open line.

I have not calculated, and don't really care what its surge impedance is.

Through "cut and try"--no math needed--

I designed the two antenna tuners

to feed the two crossed dipoles in quadrature.

I did math only to calculate the length of 75 ohm coax

which serves as a transformer as well as a delay line.

It works, and I have quite enough understanding of it,

thank you, so, "to hell with working out the math." :)

Okay, I don;t quite get your point. So then you are satisfied with that which is fine. Someone else has already worked out the math and you plug in some numbers and come up with the right length for an antenna. That is fine.if all you are interested in is making the antenna wiork. But if you want to understand it on a deeper and more comprehensive level as to why these relationships are valid then you have got to learn the math. Let's use music as an analogy. If I am happy with just listening to music I can get away with listening and enjoying without having to be able to read music, or knowing anything about musical instruments or how to play them. However if I want to be a violinist in a symphony orchestra then I had better learn how to read music quite well and I had better know how to play the violin and understand its intricacies. BTW, in addition to being a math/computer guy, I am also a violinist in a symphony orchestra. How many times do we have to repeat the same thing over and over again ? How deep your knowledge has to go is dependent on how deep you want to delve into something. It is not really a difficult concept. You keep proudly stating "I don't need math'. Well that is fine. But, if you want to do science it is imperative that you learn a lot of math. it all depends on how far you want to go with something. There is nothing that incredible about that.

WØTKX

01-22-2014, 09:22 PM

http://www.macroeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/calvin-and-hobbes-math-atheist.gif

n2ize

01-22-2014, 09:39 PM

http://www.macroeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/calvin-and-hobbes-math-atheist.gif

^^^^^^^^ :lol:But, why do I ave to know this shit ?? :-D

NQ6U

01-22-2014, 10:01 PM

http://www.thefunnyblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/math-fuck-this-shit-i-will-be-a-stripper.jpg

WØTKX

01-22-2014, 11:01 PM

Like Archie, I preferred and did better with geometry and trig than calculus. But I enjoyed calculus when I worked at it.

Had a "thing" or "feel" for topology and matrix math, but the equations are nuts!

So I ask again... dBi vs dBd. ;)

NQ6U

01-23-2014, 01:46 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO0cvqT1tAE

W9JEF

01-23-2014, 11:08 AM

Okay, I don;t quite get your point. So then you are satisfied with that which is fine. Someone else has already worked out the math and you plug in some numbers and come up with the right length for an antenna. That is fine.if all you are interested in is making the antenna wiork. But if you want to understand it on a deeper and more comprehensive level as to why these relationships are valid then you have got to learn the math. Let's use music as an analogy. If I am happy with just listening to music I can get away with listening and enjoying without having to be able to read music, or knowing anything about musical instruments or how to play them. However if I want to be a violinist in a symphony orchestra then I had better learn how to read music quite well and I had better know how to play the violin and understand its intricacies. BTW, in addition to being a math/computer guy, I am also a violinist in a symphony orchestra. How many times do we have to repeat the same thing over and over again ? How deep your knowledge has to go is dependent on how deep you want to delve into something. It is not really a difficult concept. You keep proudly stating "I don't need math'. Well that is fine. But, if you want to do science it is imperative that you learn a lot of math. it all depends on how far you want to go with something. There is nothing that incredible about that.

You bring up music, which to me, is an example of why NOT knowing the math
is no detriment to understanding, nor is the inability to read notes.
I've known musicians whose entire bands play by ear, and believe me,
they're totally ignorant of the equations. I myself, play mostly by ear.
My son has what's commonly called "perfect pitch" and plays quite well by ear.
I did buy the piano sheet music for Theme from Exodus, learning it note by note,
in order to play it by rote. But do I need to know the math of the tempered scale?
Without doing the math, I understand perfectly, the reason an instrument
perfectly tuned in C, played in F# will sound like shit.
Being ignorant of the actual equations involved,
I can bend the notes of my blues harp.
Is your violin vibrato made richer by knowing the math? ;)

As for antennas, yes, I do the math to get the length into the ballpark,
but owing to nearby conductors (the ground below, etc.) some trimming is necessary.
Yes, to design a directional array for an AM station, I'd need lots of math.
But no math needed to understand enough to successfully work with them, as I have done.
My hat is off to those whose love of math helps them better understand a concept.
I'm happy to leave the work to them, and employ the fruits of their labors.
No need to "reinvent the wheel." :)

kb2vxa

01-23-2014, 01:12 PM

Poking IZE with a sharp stick:
"I am also a violinist in a symphony orchestra."
I am also a violinist in a sympathetic orchestra. There, they have to be sympathetic to carry you rather than fire you.

Yeah, fark the math, if I had a body I'd be working for Chippendales.

n2ize

01-23-2014, 01:37 PM

You bring up music, which to me, is an example of why NOT knowing the math
is no detriment to understanding, nor is the inability to read notes.
I've known musicians whose entire bands play by ear, and believe me,
they're totally ignorant of the equations. I myself, play mostly by ear.
My son has what's commonly called "perfect pitch" and plays quite well by ear.
I did buy the piano sheet music for Theme from Exodus, learning it note by note,
in order to play it by rote. But do I need to know the math of the tempered scale?
Without doing the math, I understand perfectly, the reason an instrument
perfectly tuned in C, played in F# will sound like shit.
Being ignorant of the actual equations involved,
I can bend the notes of my blues harp.
Is your violin vibrato made richer by knowing the math? ;)

That is not the point. It was an analogy. I brought up music because it is something that more people can identify with. The point is that if I didn't learn to read music and understand key signatures, dynamics, etc. it would be next to impossible (or rather difficult) for me to play in an orchestra. I might be able to learn to play some or even a lot of stuff by ear but taking it a step further and learning to read an understand music is essential for some things. How much you need to know depends on what you want to do. You don't have to be able to read music to play music but knowing how to read music does help an awful lot

As for antennas, yes, I do the math to get the length into the ballpark,
but owing to nearby conductors (the ground below, etc.) some trimming is necessary.
Yes, to design a directional array for an AM station, I'd need lots of math.
But no math needed to understand enough to successfully work with them, as I have done.
My hat is off to those whose love of math helps them better understand a concept.
I'm happy to leave the work to them, and employ the fruits of their labors.
No need to "reinvent the wheel." :)

How many time are we going to rehash this same point ? If I am going to operate a modern day computer I don't need to know how to program, I don;t need to know binary arithmetic, octal, hexadecimal, assembly, C, C++,debugging, how to develop and test algorithms, or any of that jazz. But, if I wan't to understand computer science, program them, design them ,etc then I start having to know that jazz + some or even a lot of math. But if I am contented just using a computer I don't have to bother with any of that.. If I just want to view websites or interact with them I don;t need to know about html, php, Mysql, cgi, apache, web programming, etc. If I am just content with a superficial understanding of science, physics, astronomy I don't have to bother with any math. But if I want to have a good understanding or enough to work in those fields then I have no choice, I must learn a tremendous amount of math.

I guess it can be summed up like this. The more knowledge you have about a subject the greater the depth into which you can delve.

Point made and understood. Time to move on to something new here. This is getting lame.

W9JEF

01-24-2014, 09:42 AM

That is not the point. It was an analogy. I brought up music because it is something that more people can identify with. The point is that if I didn't learn to read music and understand key signatures, dynamics, etc. it would be next to impossible (or rather difficult) for me to play in an orchestra. I might be able to learn to play some or even a lot of stuff by ear but taking it a step further and learning to read an understand music is essential for some things. How much you need to know depends on what you want to do. You don't have to be able to read music to play music but knowing how to read music does help an awful lot

It's nice to be able to, but one doesn't need to read music
in order to adequately understand it.
Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder are two examples.
I've read that Frank Sinatra didn't read music.

How many time are we going to rehash this same point ? If I am going to operate a modern day computer I don't need to know how to program, I don;t need to know binary arithmetic, octal, hexadecimal, assembly, C, C++,debugging, how to develop and test algorithms, or any of that jazz. But, if I wan't to understand computer science, program them, design them ,etc then I start having to know that jazz + some or even a lot of math. But if I am contented just using a computer I don't have to bother with any of that.. If I just want to view websites or interact with them I don;t need to know about html, php, Mysql, cgi, apache, web programming, etc. If I am just content with a superficial understanding of science, physics, astronomy I don't have to bother with any math. But if I want to have a good understanding or enough to work in those fields then I have no choice, I must learn a tremendous amount of math.

I guess it can be summed up like this. The more knowledge you have about a subject the greater the depth into which you can delve.

Point made and understood. Time to move on to something new here. This is getting lame.

IOW, you want to have the last word here. :)

I do agree that, for the way some minds work,
written equations are the best path toward understanding.
Other minds are more like the analog gunfire computer,
which fully understands the process without working with numbers
--by "visualizing," instead: Mechanical analogies "do the math."
Inputs and outputs are not numbers, but shaft positions and voltages.

n2ize

01-24-2014, 08:08 PM

It's nice to be able to, but one doesn't need to read music
in order to adequately understand it.
Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder are two examples.
I've read that Frank Sinatra didn't read music.

I acknowledged that you don;t have to be able to read music in order to play it. I can play a lot of tunes without looking at any music. However, if I could not read music UI would be rather limited in what I could play and in what situations. Since I play in an orchestra it is mandatory that I know how to read music. If I am going to play a complex piece by Tcaikovsky, Beethoven, Brahms, etc... and play it along with an orchestra I have to be able to read the music so I can fully understand exactly what the composer wants played and how he wants me to play it. Does he want me to use the bow or does he want me to play pizzicato ? If you at what point does he want my to play it pizzicato ? T0he music tells me what the key signatures are and at what points in the music they change. It tells me what the precise dynamics are, i.e. fortissimo followed by piano, followed by pianissimo followed by forte' etc. And when I am sitting in a rehearsal and the conductor asks me to play specific measures of the piece with more or less emphasis, make the notes more stacatto or does he want me to draw them out. etc. it is imperative that I have the music in front of me so I can look at the exact measures, see how the composer wrote it and see what slight changes (if any) my conductor wants/. Should i add grace notes ?? It's written in the music. Does a certain part of the music require I play it detache' or legato ? What tempo does he want ? and where does he want me to change the tempo ? Are there certain measures where only the flutes play and the violins remain silent ? If you for how many measures ? Does the composer call for half notes, quarter notes, eighth notes, sixteenth notes, 1/32 notes ? And how does he want them played ? Slow, fast, slurred ? .Am I getting through to you ? All this comes via the ability to read the music. If I could not read music it would be impossible. Now, If I am playing "Star of the County Down" or some folk tune at the local pub or auld lang syne at New years Eve I don't need to look at any music. i can just belt it out without reading a single note. But, if I am going to play a classical/orchestral piece such as Beethoven's 5th, and if I am going to be sitting in an ochestral chair playing with other people and other instruments then I MUST be able to read music. There is no way you are going to play that kind of stuff properly without being able to read the music. In other words , being able to read music expands your horizons and enhances your ability. If I could not read music I would be more limited in the types of music I could play. Ditto for most musicians. The extra work it takes to learn to read music is worth the benefits that you gain as a musician. Comprende ?

IOW, you want to have the last word here. :)

I do agree that, for the way some minds work,
written equations are the best path toward understanding.
Other minds are more like the analog gunfire computer,
which fully understands the process without working with numbers
--by "visualizing," instead: Mechanical analogies "do the math."
Inputs and outputs are not numbers, but shaft positions and voltages.

And I don;t care what you can visualize. There are certain subject that you are not going to be able to understand unless you can do math and understand equations and how to derive them. Once again, do you really think you could become a physicist without ever looking at an equation or learning math ? You are aware that physics is entirely described in mathematics ? If you try and learn it without the math then you will not succeed. Mathematics is the language through which physics is described. The same is true for most of the sciences. A person who learns the math is going to have far superior understanding of what is going on than a person who doesn't. Even the analog mechanical devices yiou keep referring to only work only because someone who understood the math and the equations, etc.designed and built it.Analog computing devices still require someone knows the math in order for them to work. In many respects the math involved is more difficult because they have to describe an analog system. With digital systems we can often make the problem discrete and apply matrices of numbers and the principles of linear algebra to make them work. When designing analog systems we often cannot do this and often end up having to solve systems of differential equations using calculus. Like it or not that is how things work in the real world. You don;t need to know much , if any, math to drive a car. But, they guys who designed and built the car sure as hell had to use a lot of math. You are not going to do astronomy, climatology, chemistry, engineering, computer science, etc. just on observations, hunches, etc. alone. You are going to have to do some pretty heavy math at some point and you are going to have to use it.regardless. . There is good reason why colleges require those studying the sciences, engineering, economics, etc. to take a lot of math courses. Because you are not going to understand these subjects in any depth without it. That's how it is, like it or not... end of story.

W9JEF

01-25-2014, 01:05 PM

I acknowledged that you don;t have to be able to read music in order to play it. I can play a lot of tunes without looking at any music. However, if I could not read music UI would be rather limited in what I could play and in what situations. Since I play in an orchestra it is mandatory that I know how to read music. If I am going to play a complex piece by Tcaikovsky, Beethoven, Brahms, etc... and play it along with an orchestra I have to be able to read the music so I can fully understand exactly what the composer wants played and how he wants me to play it. Does he want me to use the bow or does he want me to play pizzicato ? If you at what point does he want my to play it pizzicato ? T0he music tells me what the key signatures are and at what points in the music they change. It tells me what the precise dynamics are, i.e. fortissimo followed by piano, followed by pianissimo followed by forte' etc. And when I am sitting in a rehearsal and the conductor asks me to play specific measures of the piece with more or less emphasis, make the notes more stacatto or does he want me to draw them out. etc. it is imperative that I have the music in front of me so I can look at the exact measures, see how the composer wrote it and see what slight changes (if any) my conductor wants/. Should i add grace notes ?? It's written in the music. Does a certain part of the music require I play it detache' or legato ? What tempo does he want ? and where does he want me to change the tempo ? Are there certain measures where only the flutes play and the violins remain silent ? If you for how many measures ? Does the composer call for half notes, quarter notes, eighth notes, sixteenth notes, 1/32 notes ? And how does he want them played ? Slow, fast, slurred ? .Am I getting through to you ? All this comes via the ability to read the music. If I could not read music it would be impossible. Now, If I am playing "Star of the County Down" or some folk tune at the local pub or auld lang syne at New years Eve I don't need to look at any music. i can just belt it out without reading a single note. But, if I am going to play a classical/orchestral piece such as Beethoven's 5th, and if I am going to be sitting in an ochestral chair playing with other people and other instruments then I MUST be able to read music. There is no way you are going to play that kind of stuff properly without being able to read the music. In other words , being able to read music expands your horizons and enhances your ability. If I could not read music I would be more limited in the types of music I could play. Ditto for most musicians. The extra work it takes to learn to read music is worth the benefits that you gain as a musician. Comprende ?

But what makes a musician great is the feeling he or she imparts into the performance.
How do you put that on the sheet music? "It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing."
For instance, I've heard Bach's Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring played every note perfect,
yet sounding sterile, owing to the lack of emotion conveyed in the otherwise perfect rendition.

And I don;t care what you can visualize. There are certain subject that you are not going to be able to understand unless you can do math and understand equations and how to derive them. Once again, do you really think you could become a physicist without ever looking at an equation or learning math ? You are aware that physics is entirely described in mathematics ? If you try and learn it without the math then you will not succeed. Mathematics is the language through which physics is described. The same is true for most of the sciences. A person who learns the math is going to have far superior understanding of what is going on than a person who doesn't.

I have no doubt that proficiency in math is crucial for a physicist.
As I've made clear, math is a very useful tool, probably
the all-time greatest invention known to mankind.
But for the purpose of practical everyday use of scientific principles,
my analog mind can "do the math" sans the drudgery.
For example, in high school driving class we were taught "exponential braking"
(by gradually releasing pressure on the pedal to smoothly come to a stop).
I know there's math involved, but, for everyday life, who needs it? :)

Even the analog mechanical devices yiou keep referring to only work only because someone who understood the math and the equations, etc.designed and built it.Analog computing devices still require someone knows the math in order for them to work.

The 3-dimensional cams used in the Navy's analog gunfire control computer
were designed, based on the test-firing projectiles of various initial velocities
and at targets at different ranges. No formulae, no equations. :)

In many respects the math involved is more difficult because they have to describe an analog system. With digital systems we can often make the problem discrete and apply matrices of numbers and the principles of linear algebra to make them work. When designing analog systems we often cannot do this and often end up having to solve systems of differential equations using calculus. Like it or not that is how things work in the real world. You don;t need to know much , if any, math to drive a car. But, they guys who designed and built the car sure as hell had to use a lot of math. You are not going to do astronomy, climatology, chemistry, engineering, computer science, etc. just on observations, hunches, etc. alone. You are going to have to do some pretty heavy math at some point and you are going to have to use it.regardless. . There is good reason why colleges require those studying the sciences, engineering, economics, etc. to take a lot of math courses. Because you are not going to understand these subjects in any depth without it. That's how it is, like it or not... end of story.

Let's just say that, without going very deep into the math,
I have enough understanding to have had a successful career
as a broadcast engineer. As a ham, I design, build, and
sufficiently understand radio circuits and my antennas
are very well matched to the radios, and they get out. :)

WØTKX

01-26-2014, 03:57 PM

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_14J2dEsfIG0/TAVqbeKBj8I/AAAAAAAAEEA/zg5E_ARtElw/s1600/Dilbert%2B6-1-10.gif

n2ize

01-27-2014, 07:23 PM

But what makes a musician great is the feeling he or she imparts into the performance.
How do you put that on the sheet music? "It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that swing."
For instance, I've heard Bach's Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring played every note perfect,
yet sounding sterile, owing to the lack of emotion conveyed in the otherwise perfect rendition.

Are you being deliberately obtuse ? Or are you an idiot ? or maybe I talk funny or something ? How are you going to play Bach if you can't read the sheet music and understand what the composer wants you to play ? How are you going to learn the notes, the tempm the dynamics. I guarantee you every musician playing Bach has read through the sheet music at some point.. Even if they can now play it by ear with all the feeling and emotion in the world there was a point where they had to read the sheet music and understand the notes, the tempo, the dynamics, etc. Sheet music is the means by which the composer conveys how the music is supposed to sound, feel, etc. . That is why in addition to notes there is a lot more to sheet music. Like dynamics, changing key signatures, etc. The point being that being able to read sheet music enhances your abilities as a musician. Being able to read sheet music isn't everything and it not the sign of a great musician. But it is an enhancement to the abilities of a musician.

I have no doubt that proficiency in math is crucial for a physicist.
As I've made clear, math is a very useful tool, probably
the all-time greatest invention known to mankind.
But for the purpose of practical everyday use of scientific principles,
my analog mind can "do the math" sans the drudgery.

Right, but you only learn the science on a superficial level f you want to understand it on a more advanced level you have to do the math..

For example, in high school driving class we were taught "exponential braking"
(by gradually releasing pressure on the pedal to smoothly come to a stop).
I know there's math involved, but, for everyday life, who needs it? :)

My friend can stop a subway train on the dime. No he doesn;t need math forthat. But then again, he's operating a subway. Not designing a braking system.

The 3-dimensional cams used in the Navy's analog gunfire control computer
were designed, based on the test-firing projectiles of various initial velocities
and at targets at different ranges. No formulae, no equations. :)

Believe me, behind the scenes there were lots of math & formulas.

Let's just say that, without going very deep into the math,
I have enough understanding to have had a successful career
as a broadcast engineer. As a ham, I design, build, and
sufficiently understand radio circuits and my antennas
are very well matched to the radios, and they get out. :)

yea, so what ?? I never said it takes much knowledge to get through everyday life. But if you want to get in depth on many topics and go beyond the basics you have to do the math. There ain't no way round that.

WØTKX

01-27-2014, 07:26 PM

http://marccortez.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Dilberts-Opinions-634x284.gif

n2ize

01-27-2014, 08:29 PM

http://marccortez.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Dilberts-Opinions-634x284.gif

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ +1000000000000

n2ize

01-27-2014, 08:32 PM

O I don't need ta no no vokbaleri or gramma. I kn kumunikate ok witowt it.

WØTKX

01-27-2014, 09:40 PM

Dilbert, Calvin & Hobbes, and Bloom County cover all the bases.

All your bases are now us! :mrgreen:

W9JEF

01-28-2014, 10:35 AM

Are you being deliberately obtuse ? Or are you an idiot ? or maybe I talk funny or something ? How are you going to play Bach if you can't read the sheet music and understand what the composer wants you to play ? How are you going to learn the notes, the tempm the dynamics. I guarantee you every musician playing Bach has read through the sheet music at some point.. Even if they can now play it by ear with all the feeling and emotion in the world there was a point where they had to read the sheet music and understand the notes, the tempo, the dynamics, etc. Sheet music is the means by which the composer conveys how the music is supposed to sound, feel, etc. . That is why in addition to notes there is a lot more to sheet music. Like dynamics, changing key signatures, etc. The point being that being able to read sheet music enhances your abilities as a musician. Being able to read sheet music isn't everything and it not the sign of a great musician. But it is an enhancement to the abilities of a musician.

Without stooping to more name-calling or personal insult,
can you tell me these great musicians needed to be able to read sheet music? :)

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/columns/artists_discussions/15_iconic_axemen_who_cant_read_music.html

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=572127

Right, but you only learn the science on a superficial level f you want to understand it on a more advanced level you have to do the math..

I suppose you could show mathematically why a volume
enclosed by minimum surface area has to be a sphere.
I understand the reason perfectly, no formulae, no equations. :)

My friend can stop a subway train on the dime. No he doesn;t need math forthat. But then again, he's operating a subway. Not designing a braking system.

Math may be needed to DESIGN a braking system,
but not to UNDERSTAND it, which is what you
originally claimed the math was needed for.

Believe me, behind the scenes there were lots of math & formulas.

How do you suppose the formulae were developed,
if not by first observing the effect of initial velocity
and range on the trajectory of a missile?

yea, so what ?? I never said it takes much knowledge to get through everyday life. But if you want to get in depth on many topics and go beyond the basics you have to do the math. There ain't no way round that.

As I said, math is a great tool, but many scientific principles
can be fully understood by those whose minds are so inclined.

NQ6U

01-28-2014, 10:42 AM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v611/Squiggly_P/Thread_That_Wouldn_t_Die.jpg

W9JEF

01-28-2014, 11:35 AM

http://www.snorgtees.com/media/catalog/product/p/i/piberational_fullpic_artwork.jpg

K7SGJ

01-28-2014, 11:39 AM

So, what is the prime directive

2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, 127, 131, 137, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163, 167, 173, 179, 181, 191, 193, 197, 199, 211, 223, 227, 229, 233, 239, 241, 251, 257, 263, 269, 271, 277, 281, 283, 293, 307, 311, 313, 317, 331, 337, 347, 349, 353, 359, 367, 373, 379, 383, 389, 397, 401, 409, 419, 421, 431, 433, 439, 443, 449, 457, 461, 463, 467, 479, 487, 491, 499, 503, 509, 521, 523, 541, 547, 557, 563, 569, 571, 577, 587, 593, 599, 601, 607, 613, 617, 619, 631, 641, 643, 647, 653, 659, 661, 673, 677, 683, 691, 701, 709, 719, 727, 733, 739, 743, 751, 757, 761, 769, 773, 787, 797, 809, 811, 821, 823, 827, 829, 839, 853, 857, 859, 863, 877, 881, 883, 887, 907, 911, 919, 929, 937, 941, 947, 953, 967, 971, 977, 983, 991, 997

n2ize

01-28-2014, 11:45 AM

Without stooping to more name-calling or personal insult,
can you tell me these great musicians needed to be able to read sheet music? :)

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/columns/artists_discussions/15_iconic_axemen_who_cant_read_music.html

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=572127

For the hundredth time, I never said that every musician has to be able to read music. However in certain genres of music it is pretty much a necessity. If you want to be a classical musician and particularly if you want to be a classical musician that plays in or accompanies an orchestra you absolutely must be able to read music. Perhaps there are some rare cases of extremely gifted musician who, for example, can listen to Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto in D Major (solo + orchestra) or some other long classical piece and then step right up and play it flawlessly the very first time without ever glancing at music. However that would be pretty rare. And besides, what is so difficult about learning to read music anyway ? It didn't take me long to learn it. And by knowing how to read it there are fewer limitations on what I (and others) can play. I can look at the sheet music for a piece of music I never heard ever played before or ever saw before and just start playing it by reading through the music.

I suppose you could show mathematically why a volume
enclosed by minimum surface area has to be a sphere.
I understand the reason perfectly, no formulae, no equations. :)

Prove it ? ;)

How do you suppose the formulae were developed,
if not by first observing the effect of initial velocity
and range on the trajectory of a missile?

So you are saying they tested every possible trajectory, every possible initial velocity, every possible launch angle under every possible set of conditions to do what a high school student can do with a little bit of math ?

As I said, math is a great tool, but many scientific principles
can be fully understood by those whose minds are so inclined.

Nope, in the majority of cases not fully understood. You are still going to be limited in your understanding/ If you are satisfied with a general understanding of some principles then you don't need the math. For instance, I can get a very general understanding of string theory without using any math. But without learning and doing the math I will never fully understand it. If you are satisfied with a basic or general understanding of a scientific principle then you can get away with out the math. But if you want a full understanding you are in almost all cases going to have to learn the math. That is why virtually all science students are required to take a lot of math classes.

W9JEF

01-28-2014, 12:17 PM

For the hundredth time, I never said that every musician has to be able to read music. However in certain genres of music it is pretty much a necessity. If you want to be a classical musician and particularly if you want to be a classical musician that plays in or accompanies an orchestra you absolutely must be able to read music. Perhaps there are some rare cases of extremely gifted musician who, for example, can listen to Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto in D Major (solo + orchestra) or some other long classical piece and then step right up and play it flawlessly the very first time without ever glancing at music. However that would be pretty rare. And besides, what is so difficult about learning to read music anyway ? It didn't take me long to learn it. And by knowing how to read it there are fewer limitations on what I (and others) can play. I can look at the sheet music for a piece of music I never heard ever played before or ever saw before and just start playing it by reading through the music.

Good for you, that you can sight-read music. My point is,
that there are other musicians whose talent enables them
to hear a tune, and play it by ear, without reading music.
Practice makes perfect. Who says it has to be flawless the first time?

:)

I suppose you could show mathematically why a volume
enclosed by minimum surface area has to be a sphere.
I understand the reason perfectly, no formulae, no equations.

Prove it ? ;)

Can you say "intuitive"--the word mathematicians use when no proof is required?

So you are saying they tested every possible trajectory, every possible initial velocity, every possible launch angle under every possible set of conditions to do what a high school student can do with a little bit of math ?

How do you think these formulas were derived? Was it not first from observation?
The results of various elevations and initial velocities were plotted
and interpolated to form a smooth curve for each segment of the 3-d cam.

Nope, in the majority of cases not fully understood. You are still going to be limited in your understanding/ If you are satisfied with a general understanding of some principles then you don't need the math. For instance, I can get a very general understanding of string theory without using any math. But without learning and doing the math I will never fully understand it. If you are satisfied with a basic or general understanding of a scientific principle then you can get away with out the math. But if you want a full understanding you are in almost all cases going to have to learn the math. That is why virtually all science students are required to take a lot of math classes.

Speak for yourself. Some minds can understand without using math as a crutch. ;)

http://claesjohnsonmathscience.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/albert-einstein1.jpg?w=321&h=420 (http://claesjohnsonmathscience.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/albert-einstein1.jpg)

WØTKX

01-28-2014, 04:11 PM

Harry Seldon did the math, according to Isaac. :mrgreen:

While it's entirely too silly, carry on with "The Argument Sketch".

Or is that "carry the one"? :mrgreen:

NQ6U

01-28-2014, 04:15 PM

While it's entirely too silly, carry on with "The Argument Sketch".

"Oh, I'm sorry. This is abuse. You stupid git."

n2ize

01-28-2014, 05:02 PM

Good for you, that you can sight-read music. My point is,
that there are other musicians whose talent enables them
to hear a tune, and play it by ear, without reading music.
Practice makes perfect. Who says it has to be flawless the first time?

I already acknowledged this. And if you have never heard the tune ? Or if you are playing in an orchestra and the conductor tells you to play from measure 253 to one measure before the grand pause or to pick up right after the third key change ? How do you think orchestras learn to perform complex arrangmenents ? You have t be able to read music. Furthermore, if you are a musician (I don;t know if you are or not) why do you have such an aversion to reading music ? Wouldn't learning to read be an added enhancement ? It's not all that hard to learn to read music. In fact it's pretty easy. Why strive for the least amount of knowledge ?

Can you say "intuitive"--the word mathematicians use when no proof is required?

Everything has to be proved via a logical mathematical argument before any proposition is taken as true.. So if you are claiming that a sphere maximized volume and minimized surface area you have to be able to provide proof. Intuition or hunches are simply not good enough. There was no such thing as an"intuitive proof" or intuition as a substitute for an unneeded proof. There are some propositions that we have yet to have proved and they seem to make sense but, we cannot accept them as truths without proof. mathematics is built upon axioms and logical arguments, not intuition.

KC2UGV

01-29-2014, 07:33 AM

Everything has to be proved via a logical mathematical argument before any proposition is taken as true.. So if you are claiming that a sphere maximized volume and minimized surface area you have to be able to provide proof. Intuition or hunches are simply not good enough. There was no such thing as an"intuitive proof" or intuition as a substitute for an unneeded proof. There are some propositions that we have yet to have proved and they seem to make sense but, we cannot accept them as truths without proof. mathematics is built upon axioms and logical arguments, not intuition.

I have a hunch that that every term in the sequence https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/0/c/90ca65829b41375150c873875d541233.png for positive https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/c/e/8ce4b16b22b58894aa86c421e8759df3.png is 1 is true, where https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/c/9/4c94e0f917fe9354f5135a37e4b79fce.png, so it must be. GIVE ME MY FIELD'S MEDAL!

K7SGJ

01-29-2014, 08:47 AM

I have a hunch that that every term in the sequence https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/0/c/90ca65829b41375150c873875d541233.png for positive https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/c/e/8ce4b16b22b58894aa86c421e8759df3.png is 1 is true, where https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/c/9/4c94e0f917fe9354f5135a37e4b79fce.png, so it must be. GIVE ME MY FIELD'S MEDAL!

Ya gotsta get out into the field, first.

NQ6U

01-29-2014, 10:43 AM

Ya gotsta get out into the field, first.

He's out standing in his field.

http://www.ccerensselaer.org/Libraries/Ag/dairy-cows-in-field.sflb

W9JEF

01-29-2014, 11:06 AM

I already acknowledged this. And if you have never heard the tune ? Or if you are playing in an orchestra and the conductor tells you to play from measure 253 to one measure before the grand pause or to pick up right after the third key change ? How do you think orchestras learn to perform complex arrangmenents ? You have t be able to read music. Furthermore, if you are a musician (I don;t know if you are or not) why do you have such an aversion to reading music ? Wouldn't learning to read be an added enhancement ? It's not all that hard to learn to read music. In fact it's pretty easy. Why strive for the least amount of knowledge ?

I will allow, if I were a professional musician in an orchestra, I'd need to sight read.
Like I said, I bought the sheet music for Exodus, and picked it out on the piano, chord by chord.
While I may harbor some degree of envy of those who can sight read,
I can hear a tune once, and play it by ear, later working out my own chords,
and maybe jazzing up the rhythm and harmony, add some syncopation--do it my way.
(Apologies to Frank Sinatra) :)

Everything has to be proved via a logical mathematical argument before any proposition is taken as true.. So if you are claiming that a sphere maximized volume and minimized surface area you have to be able to provide proof. Intuition or hunches are simply not good enough. There was no such thing as an"intuitive proof" or intuition as a substitute for an unneeded proof. There are some propositions that we have yet to have proved and they seem to make sense but, we cannot accept them as truths without proof. mathematics is built upon axioms and logical arguments, not intuition.

I recall from algebra, trig, geometry class that certain obvious truths are accepted without proof. ;)

KC2UGV

01-29-2014, 02:03 PM

I recall from algebra, trig, geometry class that certain obvious truths are accepted without proof. ;)

Then, you remember incorrectly.

n2ize

01-29-2014, 03:13 PM

I recall from algebra, trig, geometry class that certain obvious truths are accepted without proof. ;)

You might be thinking of the fundamental, well defined, axioms which are taken as absolutes and do not require proof. They form the foundation upon which all mathematical propositions are constructed. That is why there is such a thing as absolute proof in mathematics as opposed to science which does not have absolute proof. Mathematicians have the luxury of axiomatizing the "universe" in which they perform mathematics, scientists unfortunately cannot axiomatize the natural universe, i.e. at least not yet. :)

At present modern day mathematics is built upon what are called the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms which are the basis of what we call "set theory". Ultimately all mathematical propositions that can be proved true can be reduced to the fundamental ZFC axioms. See link below for the axioms themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo–Fraenkel_set_theory#The_axioms

Homotopy Type Theory is another area being researched and can provide a similar foundation for mathematical propositions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homotopy_type_theory

So there you have it. I think you were confusing theorems (which must be proved) with axioms (which are fundamental absolutes and do not require proof) At the most fundamental level of mathematics you have the axioms, a set of well defined statements that are taken as absolute truths.. However, every other mathematical proposition (i.e. theorem) above the fundamental axioms must be proved via a logically sound mathematical proof. Mathematical propositions are never taken to be true based on intuition. They require proof. Sometimes the proofs are rather straightforward. Sometimes they are quite difficult. Some propositions have yet to be proved. mathematicians in many cases are pretty sure they are true as they seem to work in virtually every test case but, until they are formally proved they cannot be taken as true statements. One example of such a problem is Goldberg's prime number conjecture which simply states that "Every Integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two prime numbers". Although this conjecture sounds extremely simplistic and it has works for every number tested and our intuition might tell us that it is true it is still considered as an unsolved/unproven conjecture and cannot be considered to be true until someone comes up with a formal valid mathematical proof. See link below for more details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach's_conjecture

In summary...

1) If you state an axiom you do not have to require proof.
2) if you state a mathematical proposition it must be proved or else it cannot be taken as being true.

So, if you say that a "the determinant of all singular matrices always equals zero" you have to prove it before it can be taken as true.... which fortunately is relatively easy to do. If you state a sphere encompasses maximum volume and minimal surface area you must prove it

Not that it matters or makes any difference but this is my field in which I did my undergrad and graduate work. However, I do hope this clears things up a bit.

WØTKX

01-29-2014, 04:29 PM

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/91oaWk-WJUL._SL1500_.jpg

kb2vxa

01-29-2014, 05:12 PM

I beg to differ, frozen zombies don't rot.

WØTKX

01-29-2014, 06:04 PM

This thread is problematic, with the lack of the axiomatic.

W9JEF

01-30-2014, 11:00 AM

You might be thinking of the fundamental, well defined, axioms which are taken as absolutes and do not require proof. They form the foundation upon which all mathematical propositions are constructed. That is why there is such a thing as absolute proof in mathematics as opposed to science which does not have absolute proof. Mathematicians have the luxury of axiomatizing the "universe" in which they perform mathematics, scientists unfortunately cannot axiomatize the natural universe, i.e. at least not yet. :)

At present modern day mathematics is built upon what are called the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms which are the basis of what we call "set theory". Ultimately all mathematical propositions that can be proved true can be reduced to the fundamental ZFC axioms. See link below for the axioms themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo–Fraenkel_set_theory#The_axioms

Homotopy Type Theory is another area being researched and can provide a similar foundation for mathematical propositions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homotopy_type_theory

So there you have it. I think you were confusing theorems (which must be proved) with axioms (which are fundamental absolutes and do not require proof) At the most fundamental level of mathematics you have the axioms, a set of well defined statements that are taken as absolute truths.. However, every other mathematical proposition (i.e. theorem) above the fundamental axioms must be proved via a logically sound mathematical proof. Mathematical propositions are never taken to be true based on intuition. They require proof. Sometimes the proofs are rather straightforward. Sometimes they are quite difficult. Some propositions have yet to be proved. mathematicians in many cases are pretty sure they are true as they seem to work in virtually every test case but, until they are formally proved they cannot be taken as true statements. One example of such a problem is Goldberg's prime number conjecture which simply states that "Every Integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two prime numbers". Although this conjecture sounds extremely simplistic and it has works for every number tested and our intuition might tell us that it is true it is still considered as an unsolved/unproven conjecture and cannot be considered to be true until someone comes up with a formal valid mathematical proof. See link below for more details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach's_conjecture

In summary...

1) If you state an axiom you do not have to require proof.
2) if you state a mathematical proposition it must be proved or else it cannot be taken as being true.

So, if you say that a "the determinant of all singular matrices always equals zero" you have to prove it before it can be taken as true.... which fortunately is relatively easy to do. If you state a sphere encompasses maximum volume and minimal surface area you must prove it

Not that it matters or makes any difference but this is my field in which I did my undergrad and graduate work. However, I do hope this clears things up a bit.

Using symbols and numbers to prove that to enclose maximum volume
with minimal surface area requires a sphere may be how mathematicians do it.

I can look at a bubble or a star; to me that's enough proof.
Observing this whole universe or matrix, or whatever it is all the math I need. :)

n2ize

01-30-2014, 03:18 PM

Using symbols and numbers to prove that to enclose maximum volume
with minimal surface area requires a sphere may be how mathematicians do it.

I can look at a bubble or a star; to me that's enough proof.
Observing this whole universe or matrix, or whatever it is all the math I need. :)

Good for you.

WØTKX

01-30-2014, 04:52 PM

http://www.toonpool.com/user/997/files/eye_third_guru_just_zit_1431585.jpg

NQ6U

01-30-2014, 06:21 PM

“A fanatic is someone who can’t change
his mind and won’t change the subject.”

—Winston Churchill[/td]
http://nicholaskuechler.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/winston-churchill-karsh-portrait-cropped.jpg

kb2vxa

01-31-2014, 07:40 AM

"This thread is problematic, with the lack of the axiomatic." OH YEAH?

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to post imagined facts which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the solar system, the separate and equal ham station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle planets, a decent respect to the opinions of dreamers requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the forum postings.

We hold these imaginings to be self-evident, that all hams are created equal, that the planets are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable laws of physics, that among these are alignments, reflectivity and useful in hams' pursuit of DX. That to secure these DX imaginings, the FCC was instituted among hams, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed with a little help from the planets.

So THERE! <razz>

W9JEF

02-01-2014, 10:45 AM

FROM THE DECEMBER 2013 ISSUE (http://discovermagazine.com/2013/dec)
Everything in the Universe Is Made of Math – Including You

In this excerpt from his new book, Max Tegmark proposes that
our reality isn't just described by mathematics, it is mathematics.

In Discovery Magazine By Max Tegmark (http://discovermagazine.com/authors/max-tegmark)|Monday, November 04, 2013

http://discovermagazine.com/~/media/Images/Issues/2013/December/math-made-flesh.jpg?mw=900 (http://discovermagazine.com/~/media/Images/Issues/2013/December/math-made-flesh.jpg)
Rick Johnson/Discover; Akihiro Sugimoto/Getty Images

Math, Math Everywhere!

What’s the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything?
In Douglas Adams’ science fiction spoof The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,
the answer was 42; the hardest part turned out to be finding the real question.
I find it very appropriate that Adams joked about 42 because mathematics
has played a striking role in our growing understanding of the universe.

The idea that everything is, in some sense, mathematical
goes back at least to the Pythagoreans of ancient Greece
and has spawned centuries of discussion among physicists
and philosophers. In the 17th century, Galileo famously stated
that our universe is a “grand book” written in the language of mathematics.

More recently, the Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner argued in the 1960s
that “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences”
demanded an explanation.

Soon, we’ll explore a really extreme explanation.
However, first we need to clear up exactly what we’re trying to explain.
Please stop reading for a few moments and look around you.
Where’s all this math that we’re going on about?
Isn’t math all about numbers?
You can probably spot a few numbers here and there
— for example the page numbers of this magazine —
but these are just symbols invented and printed by people,
so they can hardly be said to reflect our universe
being mathematical in any deep way.
When you look around you, do you see any geometric patterns or shapes?
Here again, human-made designs like the rectangular shape of this magazine
don’t count. But try throwing a pebble, and watch the beautiful shape
that nature makes for its trajectory!

The trajectories of anything you throw have the same shape,
called an upside-down parabola. When we observe how things
move around in orbits in space, we discover another recurring shape:
the ellipse. Moreover, these two shapes are related:
The tip of a very elongated ellipse is shaped almost exactly like a parabola.
So, in fact, all of these trajectories are simply parts of ellipses.

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/dec/13-math-made-flesh

kb2vxa

02-01-2014, 11:33 AM

Doesn't that belong in the everything is made of math thread... or didn't you... ahem... figure that?

KC2UGV

02-01-2014, 12:36 PM

Doesn't that belong in the everything is made of math thread... or didn't you... ahem... figure that?

He's still trying to convince everyone you don't need to know math to know math.

W9JEF

02-01-2014, 04:55 PM

He's still trying to convince everyone you don't need to know math to know math.

You're trying to convince everyone that you
don't need to comprehend what you think you read.

There are other ways to understand the physical universe
besides the spouting of figures and symbols. :)

kb2vxa

02-01-2014, 05:42 PM

I don't understand math so I can't do math, I'm not a teapot so I can't spout figures and I don't understand the physical universe either. Now what?

W9JEF

02-01-2014, 05:53 PM

I don't understand math so I can't do math, I'm not a teapot so I can't spout figures and I don't understand the physical universe either. Now what?

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/stick-fork-4246645.jpg

n2ize

02-01-2014, 07:01 PM

You're trying to convince everyone that you
don't need to comprehend what you think you read.

There are other ways to understand the physical universe
besides the spouting of figures and symbols. :)

So then you shouldn't waste your tme here. You should be explaining to astronomers how to understand the universe without all those complex formulas and annoying symbols. Rap with Steven hawkings about it. Perhaps if he dumps the math he will really understand the universe. Perhaps engineers could build better airplanes with intuition and without math. But, I'll let you test ride em first.

n2ize

02-01-2014, 07:16 PM

Where’s all this math that we’re going on about?
Isn’t math all about numbers?

No, math is not all about numbers. Math is a way of thinking unto itself and math is the way we describe the universe and the world around us. You can make the same argument about language. Does the word "tree" really describe a tree ? Does the word "mountain" really describe a mountain and does it do justice to its magnificence.. Does, art, music, poetry really and truly convey the emotions of mankind ? For the most part math is far better at describing the universe than verbal language. Furthermore your article assumes that math only defines specific geometric shapes. One example they gave was the tossing of a pebble into water. Do you see any math in that ?? Hell yeah !! That is extremely mathematical. The waveforms and their behavior is quite predictable.

And no, astronomers who describe the physical universe don't just "spout figures and number". They spend a great deal of their time making very detailed observations and spend a great deal of time collecting data and trying to assimilate it into recognizable patterns. Often they are quite successful. If it were not for math we would understand very little about the physical universe in which we live. In fact, if it were not for math we would not be having this conversation.

WØTKX

02-01-2014, 07:50 PM

Mountains? Trees? Studebaker Hawk will save us from Billy the Mountain! :mrgreen:

http://youtu.be/X-0b0_SqyM0

http://youtu.be/X-0b0_SqyM0

KC2UGV

02-01-2014, 07:53 PM

You're trying to convince everyone that you
don't need to comprehend what you think you read.

There are other ways to understand the physical universe
besides the spouting of figures and symbols. :)

You should write a paper about it. Sure to be a Nobel-award winning paperwork. You could simplify all science out there, and totes shorten every Ph.D's educational path (Hell, I could shrink my degree by about 30 credit hours).

W9JEF

02-02-2014, 11:49 AM

So then you shouldn't waste your tme here. You should be explaining to astronomers how to understand the universe without all those complex formulas and annoying symbols. Rap with Steven hawkings about it. Perhaps if he dumps the math he will really understand the universe. Perhaps engineers could build better airplanes with intuition and without math. But, I'll let you test ride em first.

Since you brought up Stephen Hawking you should at least spell his name right. ;)

I've a whole book by Dr. Hawking from which I've gained
much understanding of the universe, sans the figures and symbols.

In it he describes black holes, of which,
"...anyone who goes through the event horizon
must eventually hit the singularity, with disastrous results."

This just in: Dr. Hawking recants, admitting that
his black hole theory has hit the singularity fan.
I'm sure he used plenty of math in propping
as well as eventually consigning the black holes
to disastrous singularity. :)

That aside, IMHO, Hawking, Carl Sagan, as well as other authors
of "good read" science books are expert translators from the language
mathematicians use, to words which allow us mathematically illiterate
to understand the concepts by analog visualization in our minds.

W9JEF

02-02-2014, 12:16 PM

https://forums.hamisland.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by W9JEF https://forums.hamisland.net/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://forums.hamisland.net/showthread.php?p=576468#post576468)
Where’s all this math that we’re going on about?
Isn’t math all about numbers?

No, math is not all about numbers. Math is a way of thinking unto itself and math is the way we describe the universe and the world around us. You can make the same argument about language. Does the word "tree" really describe a tree ? Does the word "mountain" really describe a mountain and does it do justice to its magnificence.. Does, art, music, poetry really and truly convey the emotions of mankind ? For the most part math is far better at describing the universe than verbal language. Furthermore your article assumes that math only defines specific geometric shapes. One example they gave was the tossing of a pebble into water. Do you see any math in that ?? Hell yeah !! That is extremely mathematical. The waveforms and their behavior is quite predictable.

The questions (from a link I posted) are rhetorical. :)
Yes, I see math in everything, sans the figs & symbols.
Any mathematician who can translate that language
into what we non-mathematicians can understand
can (and in some cases have) become a best-selling author. :)

And no, astronomers who describe the physical universe don't just "spout figures and number". They spend a great deal of their time making very detailed observations and spend a great deal of time collecting data and trying to assimilate it into recognizable patterns. Often they are quite successful. If it were not for math we would understand very little about the physical universe in which we live. In fact, if it were not for math we would not be having this conversation.

I think we can both agree that math is more than just the figures and symbols.
Like work in general, I am fascinated with MATH--I could watch it for hours. :)
And yes, I do some formulae and equations in ham radio work,
as well as having used them quite regularly in my professional career.
But, as far as delving into the mysteries of the cosmos,
I'm content to let those who speak the language translate for me. :)

n2ize

02-02-2014, 03:09 PM

But, as far as delving into the mysteries of the cosmos,
I'm content to let those who speak the language translate for me. :)

Which is fine. I agree with you 100% here. None of us have the time to delve into everything in great depth. I am not a Quantum Physicist or a Microbiologist and I don't have the time to become one so I am content to let those who delve into it in-depth translate it for me such that I can understand it. My understanding is not going to be as good as those who understand it in depth but I can get a general idea.

W9JEF

02-03-2014, 10:49 AM

Back to the original topic. :)

Since it takes the gravity of the sun to keep the planets in orbit,
is it not reasonable to consider the effect, however small,
of the planets' gravity on the fluid solar atmosphere?

Just as the small rounding errors put into a weather computer
can, over time, make for large differences between predicted
and actual results, why can't the gravitational pull of the planets
produce tiny tides in the solar atmosphere, and over time,
affect solar weather, e.g., sunspots?

From CHAOS Making a New Science

by James Gleick

Chapter 1: The butterfly Effect

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_nYaSUjmD6fo/Sg26kBGNhwI/AAAAAAAAADc/RI_0JpTucyg/s200/butterflyeeee.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_nYaSUjmD6fo/Sg26kBGNhwI/AAAAAAAAADc/RI_0JpTucyg/s1600-h/butterflyeeee.jpg)
The discovery of the new science, Chaos,
brought on much skepticism from established scientists.

This new notion, Chaos, can be defined as
the existence of unpredictable or random behaviour.
The study of chaos was the beginning of analyzing disorder
in the atmosphere, in turbulent seas, in fluctuations\
of wildlife populations, and in oscillations
of the heart and the brain.

In the first chapter of Chaos, by James Gleick,
the reader learns about Lorenz, a meteorologist
who built a weather simulation program on his computer.
This program mirrored real world weather trends,
until one day Lorenz made a small rounding error
while entering his data, and skewed all his results.
From his small miscalculation, Lorenz discovered
that the weather cannot be predicted long term
because small disturbances, such as rounding to a wrong decimal
or the disturbance of the air by a butterfly,
was enough to change weather patterns.

From this, he went on with his extensive research
and discovered the phenomenon known as
“sensitive dependence on initial condition,”
which is referred to as the butterfly effect.
The term butterfly effect refers to the idea
that a butterfly flapping its wings
can create small changes in the atmosphere,
which may alter the path of a tornado.
The butterfly flapping its wings represents
a small change in the initial state of a system,
which causes a chain of events
leading to larger chaotic events.
While the butterfly itself doesn’t case the tornado,
the flapping of its wings is part of the initial condition of the system

I find this very interesting because
it shows how small actions,
such as a butterfly flapping its wings,
or a person making a decision
to tie his shoe, can have larger results
that influence the lives of many people.
How is it possible that such a small animal
and such small movements in the air
can drastically change events on our planet?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nYaSUjmD6fo/Sg2DvrWQwnI/AAAAAAAAABE/0nI7g--0v9A/s200/LOrenzatracor.png
Figure 1: Lorenz Attractor:
Example of butterfly effect representation

http://chaos-makinganewscience.blogspot.com/2009/05/chapter-1-butterfly-effect.html

kb2vxa

02-03-2014, 12:34 PM

W9JEF

02-03-2014, 01:15 PM

"...why can't the gravitational pull of the planets produce tiny tides in the solar atmosphere, and over time, affect solar weather, e.g., sunspot?"

They probably do, TINY tides showing up as lumps and bumps since the inner planets are all pulling in different directions. Being so tiny they get lost in all the lumps and bumps, flares and holes (sunspots) caused by the nature of the sun itself. Even during a rare full scale planetary alignment no observable bump occurred.

Does just because "Even during a rare full scale planetary alignment
no observable bump "was observed mean that none occurred?
Over how great a time span were what (of many) values observed?
Would it not take lots of computer power, monitoring many parameters,
over a huge period of time to discover the actual effect of the planets.

Ordinarily rational thought such as this would lay the question to rest, but judging from posts on this and several other threads with everybody trying to out science everybody else rational thought is as rare on the Island as farts in a furnace.

Defining "rational thought" seems to bring out the worst in terms of ad hominem attacks.
Dr. Hawking, in arguments with other scientists, is said to have run the wheels of his chair
over the feet of those peers whose opinions pissed him off.

"The discovery of the new science, Chaos, brought on much skepticism from established scientists."
What the hell is new about chaos? It's been around for a LONG time that matter breaking down from order into chaos is the source of all energy. It's plainly observable on Earth and has been so since Man was created, every time some order or other is established it quickly descends into chaos producing much energy expended by war. If it weren't for KAOS, Maxwell and 99 would have nothing to do... bad joke... sorry 'bout that Chief.

Gleick is boring! Maxwell was an interesting physicist turned secret agent but he wasn't so Smart, when he met Circe she turned him into a pig. Then he got so damn annoying I just HAD to turn him off!

Was Agent 99's moniker the result
of rounding "body temperature"
to the nearest hole (sic) number? ;)

All seriousness aside, yes chaos has been around ever since the Big Bang "happened."
It's the science of chaos--trying to predict the previously unpredictable--that's new.
Hence, the butterfly effect--a property of chaotic systems (as the solar atmosphere)
by which very small changes in initial conditions can--over time--lead to large-scale,
hard to predict variation in the future state of the system.

n2ize

02-03-2014, 01:43 PM

Does just because "Even during a rare full scale planetary alignment
no observable bump "was observed mean that none occurred?
Over how great a time span were what (of many) values observed?
Would it not take lots of computer power, monitoring many parameters,
over a huge period of time to discover the actual effect of the planets.

It may, it may not. The point is based upon out knowledge of gravitational attractions and the law and theory of gravity the impact of the planets upon the sun would be nominal. Much as when you jumop a foot up into the air you are exerting a gravitational pull on the earth eqaul in magnitude to the force that the earth is exerting on you. However, since your overall mass is incidental compared to the mass of the eatyh you don't shift it's orbit. Rather you fal to the earth. But for that one instant both you and the earth are exerting an equal force upon one another. If you dive off a cliff towards the ocean you are exerting a gravitational pull upon the fluid surface of the earth, which in this case is the ocean. But what effect do you have... ? Do you cause the tides to rise ? No, because you are of insignificant mass. On the other hand the gravitational force exerted by the moon will cause the tides to rise as the moon is of far greater mass. Now, could the Butterfly effect fall into the equation so that even though your gravitational pull on the ocean is undetectble ultimately cause a tidal wave in the Bahamas ? Maybe, but since it's undetectable we probably wouldn't be able to discern anything above and beyond random noise. If I drop a tiny grain of sand upon the ground can it's impact create an major earthquake ? It's highly unlikely and even if it could or does it would be possible to discern and any future earthquakes occuring after I dropped that grain of sand will probably not show anything significant above and beyond that of random noise. Now, if every time I drop that grain of sand there is a measurable differents in the frequency or intensity of future earthquakes then such that we can establish something significant then we may be able to draw a correlation between the two events. So, do the planets cause solar storms ? All we can say is that it's unlikely, indeed no such correlation has been detected. But we cannot say it is absolutely impossible either.

W9JEF

02-03-2014, 01:59 PM

KC2UGV

02-03-2014, 02:06 PM

...
There may be an answer, but to know for sure,
it would take lots of information fed into a computer
over a great period of time.

And, an understanding of math.

n2ize

02-03-2014, 02:12 PM

"So, do the planets cause solar storms ?
All we can say is that it's unlikely, indeed
no such correlation has been detected.
But we cannot say it is absolutely impossible either."

"Does anthropological activity cause global warming?"
The question is a bit misleading, and should really be,
"Does our burning of fossil fuel contribute to climate change?"

And likewise,
"Do the planets affect the position and duration
of solar storms, i.e., sunspots?"

There may be an answer, but to know for sure,
it would take lots of information fed into a computer
over a great period of time.

Not necessarily. First and foremost nothing is absolute in science, so if we are going to wait for an absolute scientific proof we'll have to wait forever. In the case of AGW theory we have huge amounts of evidence correlating climate change and rate of global temperature rise with CO2 and human activity. However, even AGW theory is not absolutely proved and never will be. In the case of planetary influence with regard to solar storms we have no evidence of correlation. However we cannot say with absolute certainty that there is absolutely no effect. Indeed there could be, however we haven't detected any such effect. In the meantime the idea of magnetic influence and magnetic lines of force within the sun itself is the most scientifically plausible effect that we have at present. It's sort of like the "do ghosts exist" argument. Some people say definitely. However, they havent shown me any evidence of such phenomenon so i remain doubtful. Yet, I cannot say with absolute certainty that there are no such things as ghosts. All I can say is I am skeptical due to a lack of evidence.

W9JEF

02-03-2014, 02:27 PM

Not necessarily. First and foremost nothing is absolute in science, so if we are going to wait for an absolute scientific proof we'll have to wait forever. In the case of AGW theory we have huge amounts of evidence correlating climate change and rate of global temperature rise with CO2 and human activity. However, even AGW theory is not absolutely proved and never will be. In the case of planetary influence with regard to solar storms we have no evidence of correlation. However we cannot say with absolute certainty that there is absolutely no effect. Indeed there could be, however we haven't detected any such effect. In the meantime the idea of magnetic influence and magnetic lines of force within the sun itself is the most scientifically plausible effect that we have at present. It's sort of like the "do ghosts exist" argument. Some people say definitely. However, they havent shown me any evidence of such phenomenon so i remain doubtful. Yet, I cannot say with absolute certainty that there are no such things as ghosts. All I can say is I am skeptical due to a lack of evidence.

The butterfly effect is a scientific principle that applies to
the effect of a planet's gravity on the solar atmosphere.

But how could the butterfly effect affect whether ghosts exist?

KC2UGV

02-03-2014, 02:32 PM

The butterfly effect is a scientific principle that applies to
the effect of a planet's gravity on the solar atmosphere.

But how could the butterfly effect affect whether ghosts exist?

How are you even able to discuss the butterfly effect, when you don't even understand the math behind it?

PS Yes, there is math behind it. And, it's important enough that you need to understand the math, in order to understand the butterfly effect. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory Then, keep reading. Eventually, you'll get to the topic that discusses the butterfly effect, and the requisite maths behind it. Then, you'll understand why you are foolish for continuing to insist there is some correlation when you aren't even able to absolutely determine the conditions right now.

PPS Here's a good book to get you started, if you don't like Wikipedia: http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/physics/statistical-physics/complexity-hierarchical-structures-and-scaling-physics

W9JEF

02-03-2014, 02:44 PM

n2ize

02-03-2014, 04:03 PM

The butterfly effect is a scientific principle that applies to
the effect of a planet's gravity on the solar atmosphere.

No, you cannot make that statement. You don't know for a fact that the "butterfly effect" necessarily has such an effect. And even if it did, without delving into chaos theory which is a rather esoteric mathematical concept. You are claiming a direct connection and claiming an abstract concept definitely applies where it may not.

NQ6U

02-03-2014, 04:17 PM

From various Wikipedia pages:

The Lyapunov exponent characterises the extent of the sensitivity to initial conditions [i.e., "The Butterfly Effect."]

http://i815.photobucket.com/albums/zz79/gyrogeerloose/lyapunov.png

The math gets progressively more complex from there and if you don't understand it, you can't really understand chaos theory.

ON EDIT: No, I don't understand it. But I'm not claiming to grasp chaos theory in more than a rudimentary manner either, certainly not well enough to claim that the negligible force of gravity exerted on the sun from it's orbiting planets might have an effect on it's atmosphere.

KC2UGV

02-03-2014, 05:19 PM

butterfly effect n (1984) : a property of chaotic systems
(as the solar atmosphere) by which very small changes in initial conditions
can--over time--lead to large-scale (hard to predict) variation
in the future state of the system.

UGV: What you can do with this chauvinistic insistence on
familiarity with the math would not be very comfortable. ;)

And, as the math behind it would tell you, it's impossible to be able to claim such an affect with certainty, because if you understand the math behind quantum theory, we can not tell all of the properties of the initial state, because they change once we observe them.

n2ize

02-03-2014, 07:07 PM

From various Wikipedia pages:

The Lyapunov exponent characterises the extent of the sensitivity to initial conditions [i.e., "The Butterfly Effect.]

http://i815.photobucket.com/albums/zz79/gyrogeerloose/lyapunov.png

The math gets progressively more complex from there and if you don't understand it, you can't really understand chaos theory.

ON EDIT: No, I don't understand it. But I'm not claiming to grasp chaos theory in more than a rudimentary manner either, certainly not well enough to claim that the negligible force of gravity exerted on the sun from it's orbiting planets might have an effect on it's atmosphere.

I understand the statements above (for the most part) but I would have to spend some time putting them into context. Having limited exposure to chaos theory I would have to head on to OCW MIT and take a review course to get myself into step and up to speed.. But the OP understands it fully on his own intuition.

KC2UGV

02-03-2014, 07:10 PM

I understand the statements above (for the most part) but I would have to spend some time putting them into context. Having limited exposure to chaos theory I would have to head on to OCW MIT and take a review course to get myself into step and up to speed.. But the OP understands it fully on his own intuition.

It's just like pictures and recordings of music allow one to completely understand both techniques used in art and stylistic methods in musical composition.

WØTKX

02-03-2014, 07:19 PM

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SM7tflUE-bg/TOWswI05EwI/AAAAAAAAAAk/C6fP0lYkKjs/s400/calvin-hobbes.gif

kb2vxa

02-03-2014, 07:29 PM

I take a nap and in the meantime the busy bees were humming! Anyway, at least JEF wasn't bogged down in math so a few comments...

"Does just because "Even during a rare full scale planetary alignment
no observable bump "was observed mean that none occurred?"
If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody's there to hear it, does it still make a sound? The question has finally been answered, the talking tree is now a TV celebrity.

"Dr. Hawking, in arguments with other scientists, is said to have run the wheels of his chair
over the feet of those peers whose opinions pissed him off."
Somebody doesn't like Dr. Hawking. Somebody does, he too has become a TV celebrity, on those adult cartoon shows like Family Guy.

"Was Agent 99's moniker the result
of rounding "body temperature"
to the nearest hole (sic) number?"
That depends on which hole they stuck the thermometer in. It really doesn't matter, the reading was impossibly low considering she was HAWT!

"All seriousness aside, yes chaos has been around ever since the Big Bang "happened."
It's the science of chaos--trying to predict the previously unpredictable--that's new."
That depends on how you measure "new". I heard about it many years ago so to me it's old, but in the course of geologic time Man was born yesterday.

"Hence, the butterfly effect--a property of chaotic systems...
Aptly named, when a butterfly fluttered by a poet it inspired a poem. When a butterfly fluttered by a scientist he observed its flight pattern and it inspired a science. When I observed a butterfly pattern on an oscilloscope I was inspired to further examine odd phase relationships in the circuit. Butterflies are a great inspiration to many.

Thanks, at least SOMEBODY'S not trying to out science me. I'm a technician, not a magician.

W9JEF

02-04-2014, 11:06 AM

https://forums.hamisland.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by KJ6BSO https://forums.hamisland.net/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://forums.hamisland.net/showthread.php?p=576739#post576739) From various Wikipedia pages:
The Lyapunov exponent characterises the extent of the sensitivity to initial conditions [i.e., "The Butterfly Effect.]

http://i815.photobucket.com/albums/zz79/gyrogeerloose/lyapunov.png

The math gets progressively more complex from there and if you don't understand it, you can't really understand chaos theory.

ON EDIT: No, I don't understand it. But I'm not claiming to grasp chaos theory in more than a rudimentary manner either, certainly not well enough to claim that the negligible force of gravity exerted on the sun from it's orbiting planets might have an effect on it's atmosphere.

I understand the statements above (for the most part) but I would have to spend some time putting them into context. Having limited exposure to chaos theory I would have to head on to OCW MIT and take a review course to get myself into step and up to speed.. But the OP understands it fully on his own intuition.

I never claimed to fully understand all of those alien symbols paraded by His Wholeiness. ;)
But once explained, most of us Earthlings can adequately understand the butterfly effect.

So can anyone explain in English, why the butterfly effect would not apply?
Why the equal and opposite force of gravity exerted on the sun by it's orbiting planets
could definitely NOT have any effect whatsoever on the fluid and mobile solar atmosphere?

W9JEF

02-04-2014, 11:29 AM

https://forums.hamisland.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by W9JEF https://forums.hamisland.net/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://forums.hamisland.net/showthread.php?p=576731#post576731) butterfly effect n (1984) : a property of chaotic systems
(as the solar atmosphere) by which very small changes in initial conditions
can--over time--lead to large-scale (hard to predict) variation
in the future state of the system.

UGV: What you can do with this chauvinistic insistence on
familiarity with the math would not be very comfortable. ;)

And, as the math behind it would tell you, it's impossible to be able to claim such an affect with certainty, because if you understand the math behind quantum theory, we can not tell all of the properties of the initial state, because they change once we observe them.

I'm not claiming any effect with certainty.
Your use of affect as a noun indicates that you should be
as picayune about grammar as you are about math. ;)

No one has adequately explained in everyday English
why the butterfly effect from an orbiting planet's gravity
could not affect the properties of the volatile solar atmosphere.

WØTKX

02-04-2014, 11:29 AM

http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/debunked-theory-on-our-suns-solar-cycle/

This is science for you; hypotheses come and go. It was a good correlation, the 11 year solar cycle with Jupiter’s 10.86 year orbital period, it was worth the look but ultimately, it was proven to be a fruitless endeavor. So, we’re back to having no clue as to how we can forecast solar activity beyond the very predictable 11 year solar cycle.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130905101908.htm

Before the magnetic nature of sunspots and other phenomena were discovered, a popular theory associated the activity cycle with the planetary orbital periods, primarily motivated by the similarity between the approximately 11-yr solar cycle and the 11.87 orbital period of Jupiter. In principle, the planets can affect the Sun by exerting tides (similar to terrestrial ocean tides caused by the moon), but these effects are extremely tiny (tide heights of a few millimeters, at most) in comparison to all other dynamical forces. Furthermore, detailed statistical analyses have time and again shown that apparent similarities between some planetary periods and solar activity variations were consistent with chance and were statistically insignificant.

With a new reconstructed record of solar activity, inferred from the radioactive isotopes of beryllium and carbon in ice cores covering the past 9400 years, Abreu et al. (2012, A&A, 548, A88) have recently revisited this issue. They compared the quasi-periods found in this data set between 40 and 600 years with periods in the tidal torque exerted on a thin shell in the solar interior, which they assumed to be ellipsoidally deformed. Abreu et al. found seemingly striking similarities between the solar and the planetary periods in 5 period bands. Their statistical analysis appeared to show that these coincidences are not due to chance, which would mean that the planets affect solar activity after all.

In a new paper published in A&A, R. Cameron and M. Schüssler, however, identify subtle technical errors in the statistical tests performed by Abreu et al. Correcting these errors reduces the statistical significance by many orders of magnitude to values consistent with a pure chance coincidence. The quasi-periods in the isotope data therefore provide no evidence that there is any planetary effect on solar activity.

http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060317210243/candh/images/7/78/Scientific_Progress_Goes_Boink.gif

W9JEF

02-04-2014, 11:40 AM

http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/debunked-theory-on-our-suns-solar-cycle/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130905101908.htm

http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060317210243/candh/images/7/78/Scientific_Progress_Goes_Boink.gif

The cartoon is cute, but all that c&p does not disprove the butterfly effect
as to how the gravity of the orbiting planets affects the solar atmosphere.
All the naysaying verbage one can c&p only indicates that no correlation
has YET been established between the orbiting planets and sunspots . :)

NQ6U

02-04-2014, 12:01 PM

I'm not claiming any effect with certainty.
Your use of affect as a noun indicates that you should be
as picayune about grammar as you are about math. ;)

No one has adequately explained in everyday English
why the butterfly effect from an orbiting planet's gravity
could not affect the properties of the volatile solar atmosphere.

It might, even though evidence seems to say otherwise. But, even if it does, it's irrelevant because sunspots, flares, CMEs etc. are the things that affect radio propagation and all those things have nothing to do with conditions in the solar atmosphere. They are caused by the sun's magnetic field, which is entirely unaffected by anything outside old Sol.

KC2UGV

02-04-2014, 12:11 PM

I'm not claiming any effect with certainty.
Your use of affect as a noun indicates that you should be
as picayune about grammar as you are about math. ;)

Thank you for pointing out my error. Generally, I avoid those, but I am not infallible. And, I am just as particular when it comes to grammar as I am math. Now, if only you were able to finally admit you were wrong about being able to understand the cosmos without understand the basic math behind it's workings?

No one has adequately explained in everyday English
why the butterfly effect from an orbiting planet's gravity
could not affect the properties of the volatile solar atmosphere.

Sigh... I could explain it to do. However, you would need to understand the math, in order to understand the following:
* It could, but it's never going to be provable (Or, disprovable) due to the uncertainty principle.
* If it does, it's effect is so tiny, as to be to minuscule to measure. The equivalent of a fart in a tornado.

But, since you don't need the math, just paint us the picture that explains it, the universe, and all things for us.

W9JEF

02-04-2014, 12:16 PM

It might, even though evidence seems to say otherwise. But, even if it does, it's irrelevant because sunspots, flares etc. are the things that affect radio propagation and all those things have nothing to do with conditions in the solar atmosphere. They are caused by the sun's magnetic field, which is entirely unaffected by anything outside old Sol.

Please reread what I have posted. Did I ever claim
that the orbiting planets could be the CAUSE of sunspots?
Sunspots DO occur in the solar atmosphere--as seen by human observers.
Is there a valid reason to believe that the equal and opposite gravity of a planet
could not have any effect whatsoever on the fluid and mobile solar atmosphere?

NQ6U

02-04-2014, 12:22 PM

Please reread what I have posted. Did I ever claim
that the orbiting planets could be the CAUSE of sunspots?
Sunspots DO occur in the solar atmosphere--as seen by human observers.
Is there a valid reason to believe that the equal and opposite gravity of a planet
could not have any effect whatsoever on the fluid and mobile solar atmosphere?

First of all, nothing in my post suggested that you ever did say that orbiting planets caused sunspots. Secondly, the fact that you say that sunspots occur in the solar atmosphere demonstrates that your understanding of that phenomenon is faulty.

W9JEF

02-04-2014, 12:48 PM

First of all, nothing in my post suggested that you ever did say that orbiting planets caused sunspots.

https://forums.hamisland.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by KJ6BSO https://forums.hamisland.net/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://forums.hamisland.net/showthread.php?p=576811#post576811) It might, even though evidence seems to say otherwise. But, even if it does, it's irrelevant because sunspots, flares etc. are the things that affect radio propagation and all those things have nothing to do with conditions in the solar atmosphere. They are caused by the sun's magnetic field, which is entirely unaffected by anything outside old Sol.

Secondly, the fact that you say that sunspots occur in the solar atmosphere demonstrates that your understanding of that phenomenon is faulty.

We can see the sunspots' effect on the solar atmosphere, so why can they not be affected by it?

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/sun-part.gif
Figure 1. Basic overview of the parts of the sun.
The flare, sunspots and the prominence are all clipped from actual SOHO images.
Photo courtesy SOHO (http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/) consortium.

NQ6U

02-04-2014, 12:50 PM

We can see the sunspots' effect on the solar atmosphere, so why can they not be affected by it?

You've got it totally backwards.

W9JEF

02-04-2014, 12:53 PM

You've got it totally backwards.

Action / reaction (equal and opposite).

Can someone translate this?

DXCC equation? ;)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-spHjVlntJro/Ubt7eBfHvvI/AAAAAAAAQ2E/f20HRMJSFME/s1600/L1190509.JPG

WØTKX

02-04-2014, 01:07 PM

I retract any and all of my statements, links, and cartoons in this thread.

Please count it as a "win" 'JeF. Toodles, noodles. WØTKX, QSY.

NQ6U

02-04-2014, 01:47 PM

I retract any and all of my statements, links, and cartoons in this thread.

Please count it as a "win" 'JeF. Toodles, noodles. WØTKX, QSY.

I might as well go as well. He couches the same argument without evidence to back it up while ignoring the science with which he's been smacked in the face repeatedly.

KC2UGV

02-04-2014, 02:27 PM

You've got it totally backwards.

It's like music man, did Hendrix know how to read sheet music in order to compose man?

NQ6U

02-04-2014, 02:35 PM

It's like music man, did Hendrix know how to read sheet music in order to compose man?

Have you ever looked at your hand, man? I mean, like, really looked at your hand?

W9JEF

02-04-2014, 02:53 PM

I might as well go as well. He couches the same argument without evidence to back it up while ignoring the science with which he's been smacked in the face repeatedly.

Science as a weapon with which I've been smacked in the face with repeatedly?

That says more about you than me--and your perverted idea of what "science" should be all about.

n2ize

02-04-2014, 03:27 PM

I never claimed to fully understand all of those alien symbols paraded by His Wholeiness. ;)
But once explained, most of us Earthlings can adequately understand the butterfly effect.

You already have a plain English understanding of it. In a nonlinear system small changes in an state of a system may cause large changes in a future state. That is about as good an understanding of it as you are going to get without getting involved in chaos theory which is basically all math. You can't learn chaos theory without math because it is math. Just like you can't learn calculus by reading a couple of short verbal paragraphs. The only way you can learn calculus is by doing calculus which means doing math.

So can anyone explain in English, why the butterfly effect would not apply?
Why the equal and opposite force of gravity exerted on the sun by it's orbiting planets
could definitely NOT have any effect whatsoever on the fluid and mobile solar atmosphere?

Several people have already answered your question as best as it can be answered without any math,.. You can't say the "butterfly effect' would not apply but you can't say it did apply. You would have to know the initial state of the system and what, if any, minuscule changes occurred which would be impossible to measure, of which there will always be uncertainty. In nthe meantime sunspots are caused by strong magnetic forces from within the sun as opposed to weak gravitational forces of the planets upon the solar surface.

Beyond that I can't understand what you are looking for here. If you know of a way to explain chaios theory in depth without the need for any math then you should be publishing a paper. Scientists would probably be very interested as it would make their jobs a lot simpler.

n2ize

02-04-2014, 03:35 PM

Science as a weapon with which I've been smacked in the face with repeatedly?

That says more about you than me--and your perverted idea of what "science" should be all about.

Actually it is not HIS idea of what science is all about it is what it IS all about. It's not a perversion it is reality. If you want to understand science and ideas like the butterfly effect beyond a simplistic and superficial level then you have to delve into a lot of math. Particularly if you want to understand chaos theory which is a branch of mathematics. If you want to learn a branch of mathematics (i.e. chaos theory) then you have to learn the math or be satisfied with a basic simplified layman's understanding. I don;t see what is so difficult for you to grasp about that. If you don't like it then tough, that is how it is.. If I want to be a doctor I have to study medicine. Are you being deliberately obtuse just for the sake of being so ?

KC2UGV

02-04-2014, 08:07 PM

Action / reaction (equal and opposite).

Can someone translate this?

DXCC equation? ;)

You mean you can't smell the sound of the colors in that expression? It's like music combined with bacon, man...

kb2vxa

02-05-2014, 03:58 AM

No, more like music combined with LSD which is what this thread is on, and the butterfly's gravitational effect on the sun like The Son Of Monster Magnet.

Suzy?
Yes?
Suzy Creamcheese?
Yes?
This is the voice of your conscience baby ... uh, I just want to check one thing out with you ... you don't mind, do ya?
What?
Suzy Creamcheese, honey, what's got into ya?

n2ize

02-05-2014, 07:35 AM

It's like music man, did Hendrix know how to read sheet music in order to compose man?

Explain to me chaos theory but leave out the chaos theory.

KC2UGV

02-05-2014, 07:41 AM

Explain to me chaos theory but leave out the chaos theory.

You just gotta feel it, man... Once you feel it in your soul, then you'll be able to understand it, hear it, feel it, and taste it. You don't need the math, that's just the way the man is trying to keep us enslaved man...

W9JEF

02-05-2014, 07:45 AM

Several people have already answered your question
as best as it can be answered without any math,..
You can't say the "butterfly effect' would not apply
but you can't say it did apply.

Are you saying the gravitational pull felt on the sun by the orbiting planets will be ZERO?

W9JEF

02-05-2014, 07:54 AM

It's like music man, did Hendrix know how to read sheet music in order to compose man?

Many jazz greats (as well as other musicians) don't use (don't need) sheet music.

Hendrix was left-handed, and so the strings of his ax were in reverse order.

Now here I am, being accused of having my axioms in reverse order. ;)

KC2UGV

02-05-2014, 07:59 AM

Are you saying the gravitational pull felt on the sun by the orbiting planets will be ZERO?

Man, it only affects it as much as you feel it affects it... Just feel the color of the sun, and that's all you need man.

Many jazz greats (as well as other musicians) don't use (don't need) sheet music.

Hendrix was left-handed, and so the strings of his ax were in reverse order.

Now here I am, being accused of having my axioms in reverse order. ;)

Axioms don't tell me how an A note sounds... Don't hammer me with rules man, you're just part of the system.

kb2vxa

02-05-2014, 12:41 PM

Yes they do!

Axiom, verb:
Tuning your ax with the perfect pitch, the perfect word, the primal sound; om, om, om....................

Once accomplished you don't have to record a number one hit with a bullet, just do a money hum and all that you need will appear in your bank account; om money padme om, om money padme om............

n2ize

02-05-2014, 01:47 PM

Many jazz greats (as well as other musicians) don't use (don't need) sheet music.

Hendrix was left-handed, and so the strings of his ax were in reverse order.

Now here I am, being accused of having my axioms in reverse order. ;)

Dind't we go over this already. It is very true many great musicians didn't read music or didn;t need to. The ability to read or write music is only 1 small part of being a musician. There are many non-musicians that can read music but they cannot sing or play a musican insttrument. Some people can read sheet music but they cannot play very well. This is true of many beginners. many musicians cannot read music but sound great. However, this does not mean that the ability to read music is not important or is always unessesary. the ability to read music is an asset, an extra tool in the musicians toolbox. He may never use it. It also depends on other factors such as the type of music you play and where/how you play it. In some cases the ability to read music is almost a total necesity and in other cases it is not necessary. In the type of music that I perform, which is predominantly classical music in an orchestra setting the ability to read music is pretty much mandatory because it is how we coordinate between one another, between different ssections and between us and our conductor. So when I am sitting in the 2nd violin chair at orchestra rehearsal or at a concert you will always see a stand with sheet music in front of me. But when i am strumming some folk tunes in a local pub, or at home, or with some friends I very often will not have any music in front of me because I don't need it. I can play the tune by ear and my fingers know where they belong on the strings at any given moment. If I am sitting at home learning a new piece of music for the first time I will always have the sheet music in front of me. But when I am playing a piece that I have played many times over and that I know very well I may not have any sheet music in front of me. Or, I may have it in front of me but only refer to it occaisionaly or in difficult passages. So, while the ability to read sheet music is not always nessesary it is still a good skill to have. Also, depending on what you are playing and the setting in which you are playing sheet music can range from being completely unessesary to pretty much mandatory.

n2ize

02-05-2014, 01:50 PM

Are you saying the gravitational pull felt on the sun by the orbiting planets will be ZERO?

Hey man, ask the sun cause I don't know how much the sun digs it man.

n2ize

02-05-2014, 06:13 PM

Man, it only affects it as much as you feel it affects it... Just feel the color of the sun, and that's all you need man.
.

Hey brother. let me lay it on ya man. ya don;t need none of that spaced out alien axiom symbol shit man. You just groove with the vibes of the sun and the planets and you can feel the vibes... like the sun is sayin somethin and you can grove with it man. All you need is to feel the vibes, the energy. Thats all ya need man. later bro.

kb2vxa

02-05-2014, 06:28 PM

"There are many non-musicians that can read music but they cannot sing or play a musican insttrument."
There are all kinds of insttruments but what's a musican? I don't know if he can read music, or if he can read at all, but Brian Johnson (AC/DC) sure as hell can't sing, he screeches because the crabs in his pants pinch his balls. That look on his face tells the story.

"Dind't we go over this already."
A Jazz musician plays sheet music whether or not it's on paper. Jazz is sheet music. Golly.

n2ize

02-05-2014, 08:55 PM

I speak jazz... I mean...Jive.

W9JEF

02-06-2014, 12:00 PM

Dind't we go over this already. It is very true many great musicians didn't read music or didn;t need to. The ability to read or write music is only 1 small part of being a musician. There are many non-musicians that can read music but they cannot sing or play a musican insttrument. Some people can read sheet music but they cannot play very well. This is true of many beginners. many musicians cannot read music but sound great. However, this does not mean that the ability to read music is not important or is always unessesary. the ability to read music is an asset, an extra tool in the musicians toolbox. He may never use it. It also depends on other factors such as the type of music you play and where/how you play it. In some cases the ability to read music is almost a total necesity and in other cases it is not necessary. In the type of music that I perform, which is predominantly classical music in an orchestra setting the ability to read music is pretty much mandatory because it is how we coordinate between one another, between different ssections and between us and our conductor. So when I am sitting in the 2nd violin chair at orchestra rehearsal or at a concert you will always see a stand with sheet music in front of me. But when i am strumming some folk tunes in a local pub, or at home, or with some friends I very often will not have any music in front of me because I don't need it. I can play the tune by ear and my fingers know where they belong on the strings at any given moment. If I am sitting at home learning a new piece of music for the first time I will always have the sheet music in front of me. But when I am playing a piece that I have played many times over and that I know very well I may not have any sheet music in front of me. Or, I may have it in front of me but only refer to it occaisionaly or in difficult passages. So, while the ability to read sheet music is not always nessesary it is still a good skill to have. Also, depending on what you are playing and the setting in which you are playing sheet music can range from being completely unessesary to pretty much mandatory.

I like your 'reading of sheet music' analogy.
Yes, doing the math is pretty much of a requisite
when physicists discuss phenomena amongst themselves,
or corporate engineers design product to maximize profit.

We agree, there are many successful professional musicians
out there, who understand the music, but don't read the notes.
And highly-paid performers knowing damned little about the math involved,
shoot baskets from across the court, and TD's from their 40 yard line.
While others, equally ignorant of the written equations,
understand the actual physics well enough to
make a fairly good living applying this knowledge
in order to hurl and hit baseballs for some big money. :)

I'll have been a licensed ham for 60 years this August.
Maybe the FCC should let me use W609JEF. ?? ;)
Yes, during those years, I enjoyed using formulae, graphs, and
simple analog computers (slide rule, ARRL L/C/f Calculator).
But though I'm admittedly ignorant of Maxwell's equations,
I designed my 80 meter turnstile, fed with 4-wire open line,
whose whatever impedance is matched to 53 ohms by 2 tuners
(whose coils and links were eyeballed & trimmed).
I could go on about how, through various configurations,
it's actually 10 antennas in one (11 if you count the wire hung from one end);
but I already have sufficient braggadocio to apologize for. ;)
The point is, that one doesn't need to know higher math
to understand the physical principles involved, and use them.

Now I am in awe of math, the universal scientific language.
I consider math to be the most important scientific invention of all time.
I'm fascinated by the concept of primes, imaginaries, and irrationals.
my hat is off to those who do, but I'm not about to wade into the odius parade
of symbols necessary to prove what we can all observe.
It's a chicken or egg thing. Which came first--observation or formula?
Written equations are a good shorthand to explain what others intuit by observation.
Some of us can visualize the beauty of math in mental images rather than than symbols.

Yes, I suppose there are equations involved...
in eating, sleeping, working, playing...
making radios, making babies.
Who needs math to understand the important things?
Even Hawking (whose own black hole theory he now contradicts)
doesn't understand women any better than we mortals do. ;)

http://www.humornaciencia.com.br/fisica/stephenhawking.jpg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/stephen-hawking/8993228/Stephen-Hawking-Women-are-a-complete-mystery.html

W9JEF

02-07-2014, 09:27 AM

4. CONCLUSIONS

Five new correlations between the orbiting position of the Jovian planets and solar activity is

reported. These additional correlations between planetary positions and sunspot maximum are

convincingly demonstrates that the planetary effects on solar activity are real and not an artifact.

Impact generated shock wave is proposed for the formation of sunspots to explain the affect

of the Jovian planets on solar activity. It is also suggested that the objects are originates from the

Kuiper Belt. This model is able to explain the length of the cycle, the latitude distribution of the

sunspots, and the long term stability of the cycles. The impact mechanism is also consistent with

the non-random nature of the sunspot distribution, with the missing radiated energy, with the two

components cooling of the sunspots and with the relationship between mean star activity, age

and rotational period.

The detected correlations allow calculating the maximum sunspot number from planetary

positions. The calculated values reproduce the observed sunspot’s activity reasonably well for

the investigated 300 years. The presented correlation is the first one which is able to give

reasonable prediction for longer term solar activity.

I

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4371.pdfhttp://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4371.pdf

KC2UGV

02-07-2014, 12:32 PM

Do you even understand the paper you cited?

NQ6U

02-07-2014, 12:37 PM

Do you even understand the paper you cited?

Do you even have to ask? :mrgreen:

W9JEF

02-07-2014, 12:41 PM

Do you even understand the paper you cited?

What part do you question my understanding of?

KC2UGV

02-07-2014, 12:43 PM

Do you even have to ask? :mrgreen:

Good point...

W9JEF

02-07-2014, 12:47 PM

A New Theory for the Solar Cycle by P.A.H. Seymour and M.J. Willimott

Institute Of Marine Studies, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA U.K.Abstract - We present here a new theory of the solar cycle which is able to explain all relevant observations connected with quasi-periodic behavior of sunspots and other associated phenomena. It is based on the interaction between planetary movements and alignments and the evolving magnetic field of the Sun. The theory provides a very natural explanation for the roughly eleven-year change in polarity of the solar magnetic field and for the Maunder Butterfly Diagram. It overcomes all objections raised against other theories in this field, including those based entirely on magneto-hydrodynamics.

READ MORE:

http://tmgnow.com/repository/solar/percyseymour2.html

KC2UGV

02-07-2014, 12:58 PM

How do you know it's evidence supporting your view? You said you don't understand science...

W9JEF

02-07-2014, 01:19 PM

How do you know it's evidence supporting your view? You said you don't understand science...

. . . . . . . . . . . . :lies:

When did I say I don't understand science?

KC2UGV

02-07-2014, 01:39 PM

. . . . . . . . . . . . :lies:

When did I say I don't understand science?

You don't understand math, so it's obvious you don't understand science (Which is all built on math).

n2ize

02-07-2014, 03:32 PM

NQ6U

02-07-2014, 04:07 PM

Not only is this latter article over twenty years old, it was not published in a peer-reviewed journal and it's only instance on the Web is on a site (run by something called the Millennium Group) that's chock-full of a whole lot of pseudo-scientific nonsense.

W9JEF

02-08-2014, 10:03 AM

You don't understand math, so it's obvious you don't understand science (Which is all built on math).

I sufficiently understand the math. But you've got it bass-ackwards.
Are equations not based on, and derived from scientific observation?
Math is simply the shorthand used to describe a sometimes complex relationship.
Anyone who really knows math is able to translate these equations to English.
When I ask y'all to do this, all I get is snide and chauvinistic vitriol.

W9JEF

02-08-2014, 10:14 AM

The problem is in that the time elapsed since these papers were written a considerable amount of research has been done and thus far no significant correlations have been detected. Bear in mind that the publication of a paper does not necessarily mean that the mechanisms described in the paper are accurate or necessarily valid. The paper merely refers to and proposes a possible mechanism for cyclic solar activity and encourages further research. This does not mean the papers are invalid. It just means that for various reasons a consensus has not been reached in support of the proposed mechanisms described.

" This does not mean the papers are invalid.
It just means that for various reasons a consensus has not been
reached in support of the proposed mechanisms described."

Ah, were making progress here. :)
So you're no longer claiming that the gravity of the orbiting planets definitely
can have ne effect whatsoever on the fluid and mobile surface of the sun?

n2ize

02-08-2014, 03:33 PM

I sufficiently understand the math. But you've got it bass-ackwards.
Are equations not based on, and derived from scientific observation?
Math is simply the shorthand used to describe a sometimes complex relationship.
Anyone who really knows math is able to translate these equations to English.
When I ask y'all to do this, all I get is snide and chauvinistic vitriol.

Actually that is not true. Mathematics is not like steno or shorthand. the science itself is mathematical even at the purely observational level. Math is the language in which most (virtually all) scientific principles are understood. And in the case of many advanced scientific principles it would be extremely difficult , if not impossible, to translate the math to plain English and still retain an understanding of the principles at stake. If math was merely shorthand and it were possible to gain as good a working knowledge of science via plain English instead of math do you think scientists would even bother with math ? Why waste time learning all that when you could just as well use plain English ? Colleges wouldn't have to require a load of math courses for science majors because it would be unnecessary. Why bother learning math when you can accomplish the same with the verbal skills you already have from childhood. The reason we have to learn math along with studying science is because the bulk of what we call science is mathematical from the get go. If we can't understand the math we can't understand the science.

I understand math quite well, in fact I earned my graduate degree in the subject, I have taught it, researched it, and applied it. If you are going to learn science and leave out the math and just go about it verbatim you will never understand it. You may get a basic idea or simplified grasp of the topics at hand but you won't fully understand it. Its not that people here are being snide, chauvinistic and spewing vitriol. They are being intellectually honest with you and you are refusing to listen to them. Simply repeating that "math is great but you don't need it to understand science" is not going to change anyones mind who is knowledgeable or change reality.

n2ize

02-08-2014, 03:40 PM

" This does not mean the papers are invalid.
It just means that for various reasons a consensus has not been
reached in support of the proposed mechanisms described."

Ah, were making progress here. :)
So you're no longer claiming that the gravity of the orbiting planets definitely
can have ne effect whatsoever on the fluid and mobile surface of the sun?

No, NO NO!!!! I never stated that the gravitational force between the orbiting planets and the sun definitely has no effect whatsoever on the sun. Of course it has an effect, there is a force between them. Just as you exert a gravitational pull on the earth when you jump into the air. What I did say was that thus far there is no measurable or detectable EVIDENCE supporting the argument that the gravitational attraction between the sun and the planets is affecting solar weather.

Lastly, the reason there isn't a consensus supporting the idea that the planets affect solar weather as described in the paper is that after conducting considerable research since the papers were written no discernible evidence that rises above random noise has been found to indicate an impact upon solar weather.

KC2UGV

02-08-2014, 06:42 PM

W9JEF

02-09-2014, 12:48 PM

No, NO NO!!!! I never stated that the gravitational force between the orbiting planets and the sun definitely has no effect whatsoever on the sun. Of course it has an effect, there is a force between them. Just as you exert a gravitational pull on the earth when you jump into the air. What I did say was that thus far there is no measurable or detectable EVIDENCE supporting the argument that the gravitational attraction between the sun and the planets is affecting solar weather.

In the book Chaos: Making a New Science [James Gleick]
the butterfly effect is adequately explained (for most of us)
usuing what you would likely call "simple" math
(good enough for us mortals). :)

Computer modeling of weather was drastically affected,
over time, due to rounding errors. Owing to the butterfly effect,
the more decimal places in the original information,
the longer the predictions will stay on track.

If these very tiny changes can affect weather here on Earth,
why would the butterfly effect not come into play on the sun?
We don't need math to tell us that the solar surface,
like the entire sun, is composed of fluid and mobile gas.

Lastly, the reason there isn't a consensus supporting the idea that the planets affect solar weather as described in the paper is that after conducting considerable research since the papers were written no discernible evidence that rises above random noise has been found to indicate an impact upon solar weather.

Does the fact that no discernible evidence of
planetary influence on solar weather has yet been found,
mean that the butterfly effect is null and void on the sun?
Or does it indicate that more studies would be needed?
But research costs money, and with satellites now
dominating how the world communicates,
the OP question, for now, remains unanswered.

KC2UGV

02-09-2014, 03:01 PM

In the book Chaos: Making a New Science [James Gleick]
the butterfly effect is adequately explained (for most of us)
usuing what you would likely call "simple" math
(good enough for us mortals). :)

Computer modeling of weather was drastically affected,
over time, due to rounding errors. Owing to the butterfly effect,
the more decimal places in the original information,
the longer the predictions will stay on track.

If these very tiny changes can affect weather here on Earth,
why would the butterfly effect not come into play on the sun?
We don't need math to tell us that the solar surface,
like the entire sun, is composed of fluid and mobile gas.

Does the fact that no discernible evidence of
planetary influence on solar weather has yet been found,
mean that the butterfly effect is null and void on the sun?
Or does it indicate that more studies would be needed?
But research costs money, and with satellites now
dominating how the world communicates,
the OP question, for now, remains unanswered.

Bro, we can't explain this any better to you, since you don't understand science.

n2ize

02-09-2014, 11:27 PM

In the book Chaos: Making a New Science [James Gleick]
the butterfly effect is adequately explained (for most of us)
usuing what you would likely call "simple" math
(good enough for us mortals). :)

The butterfly effect is part of what is known as "chaos theory". Do you know what "chaos theory is" ? it's not a branch of science. It's a branch of mathematics. And it's not exactly simple. So without math you are not going to understand a branch of mathematics without mathematics. It's like saying to are going to understand algebra without algebra. Or, I am going to undrstand biology without biology.

Computer modeling of weather was drastically affected,
over time, due to rounding errors. Owing to the butterfly effect,
the more decimal places in the original information,
the longer the predictions will stay on track.

Actually rounding errors and the butterfly effect are not exclusively related. In fact whether the butterfly effect affects a system over time depends on an intial state within the system and it is uncertain to what degree weather systems are affected over time due to an initial state or even what is considered to be the "initial state". In other words its not as simple as you are trying to make it sound and we are not even sure is weather systems are always as sentitive to an initial state or fluctiations of an initial state as we may ometimes belive a system to be. In the case of the butterfly effect we are applying an abstract mathematical concept to a real world system which can be quite difficult unless we can determine a well defined initial state of a system. In mathematics we can chose an initial state. In a real world system it is much more difficult.

If these very tiny changes can affect weather here on Earth,
why would the butterfly effect not come into play on the sun?
We don't need math to tell us that the solar surface,
like the entire sun, is composed of fluid and mobile gas.

Which has nothing to do with the butterfly effect per se.

Does the fact that no discernible evidence of
planetary influence on solar weather has yet been found,
mean that the butterfly effect is null and void on the sun?

It depends on the system you are describing and if you can even determine an intial state of the system in which we can apply chaos theory. The difficulty lies not in gathering more data but in trying to marry a mathematical concept to a system that is not necessarily well defined. Said differently you are trying to fit the "system" to the mathematics as opposed to the mathematics to the "system". Right now I can;t think of a better analogy but that can sometimes be more difficult to do with a simple system than a complex system but basically it's more of a purely mathematical problem which can onyl be answered if the problem is ultimately not intractable.

W9JEF

02-09-2014, 11:35 PM

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1198517343p2/9810.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein) “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”
― Albert Einstein (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein)

. . . . . . . . .:)

W9JEF

02-10-2014, 12:04 AM

n2ize

02-10-2014, 06:25 AM

The OP question is "Do the planets affect radio propagation;
not "Can we gather enough data about conditions on the sun
with available technology to make predictions?"

The sun was a chaotic system long before mathematics was invented. ;)
As was the butterfly effect, "a property of chaotic systems(such as the sun)
by which small changes in initial conditions can lead to a large scale and
unpredictable variation in the future state of the system."

If you disagree with the above definition of butterfly effect
you should take it up with Merriam-Webster, not me. :)

Which is a very superficial definition and which does not even delve into the question of whether chaos theory can explain r enable us to predict solar weather.

Can you explain the butterfly effect any better?
And in a way that a six-year-old can understand? ;)

Probably not any better than I would have been able to comprehend it at 6 years old. In other words little more than a superficial understanding since the butterfly effect is a part of chaos theory which is an advanced branch of mathematics and since most 6 year olds don't yet have the background to understand an advanced topic it is unlikely you are going to explain it in much depth other than telling him that small changes in the initial state of a system may affect larger changes in a later state. If he's a smart 6 year old he may get a basic conceptual idea of what you are talking about. Much like explaining to a 6 year old that Integral calculus is the process of reducing something into and infinite number of infinitesimally small pieces and then summing all those infinite pieces. If he is a smart kid he might get the geneal concept. But without understanding the underlying math he's not going to fully understand it or be able to do it. In case you never noticed most grammar schools don't teach college level courses in first grade. That is because learning things is a progressive and gradual process. Before you can teach complex and advanced topics you must first teach basic fundamentals and then gradually build on those fundamentals. if understanding were as simple as you think then all that would be required would be first grade and we wouldn't even have to bother teaching math since everything can be understood in first grade at age six verbatim or via pure intuition.

Furthermore, this has little to do with your proposition that the butterfly effect is the driving force behind plantetary gravitational effect upon solar weather. Understanding chaos theory and then fitting it to a complex and seemingly random system is not a simple problem, may even be intractable depending on the system and what you can determine about its different states over time, and may not even apply to every seemingly random system. Even the degree to which the butterfly effect affects earth based weather systems is uncertain.

People here, including myself, have given you as intellectually honest answers to your question as is possible. In fact a mathematician has already given you as intellectually honest an answer to your inquiry as possible yet you refuse to acknowledge what he has told you may have some validity At this state of the game perhaps you should take your arguments and queries to an astrophycisist, phycisits, meteoroloist, etc. Since you cannot accept the responses you have recveived here (on a ham radio forum) I would recommend you take your question up at the following forum

http://www.physicsforums.com/

Various scientists and graduate students frequent that forum and perhaps you can discuss it with an astrophycisist and get an answer better suited to what you are looking for.

KC2UGV

02-10-2014, 07:19 AM

W9JEF

02-10-2014, 09:46 AM

So, riddle me this:

How can you definitely declare that the planets affect solar weather; when you cannot ascertain what the initial state of the system is, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

Why do we need to "ascertain the initial state of the system" to know whether or not
the small tides on the fluid solar surface caused by the gravity of the orbiting planets
affect radio propagation? We do know the planetary positions, so with lots of beacons
on different frequencies in diverse locations, why could a correlation not emerge?

AGAIN Re: the butterfly effect, your quarrel is not only with Merriam-Webster's...

"a property of chaotic systems(such as the sun)
by which small changes in initial conditions can lead to a large scale and
unpredictable variation in the future state of the system."

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1198517343p2/9810.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein) “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein)

. . . . . .:rofl:

KC2UGV

02-10-2014, 10:04 AM

Why do we need to "ascertain the initial state of the system" to know whether or not
the small tides on the fluid solar surface caused by the gravity of the orbiting planets
affect radio propagation? We do know the planetary positions, so with lots of beacons
on different frequencies in diverse locations, why could a correlation not emerge?

AGAIN Re: the butterfly effect, your quarrel is not only with Merriam-Webster's...

"a property of chaotic systems(such as the sun)
by which small changes in initial conditions can lead to a large scale and
unpredictable variation in the future state of the system."

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1198517343p2/9810.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein) “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein)

. . . . . .:rofl:

Sigh... because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I know, I know... It's a science thing, so you don't understand it.

W9JEF

02-10-2014, 10:15 AM

Sigh... because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I know, I know... It's a science thing, so you don't understand it.

Heisenberg, Schmeisenberg.

"a property of chaotic systems(such as the sun)
by which small changes in initial conditions can lead to a large scale and
unpredictable variation in the future state of the system."
--Merriam-Webster's

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1198517343p2/9810.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein) “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein)

. . . . . . . . . :yes:

NQ6U

02-10-2014, 10:58 AM

W9JEF

02-10-2014, 11:18 AM

You're still ignoring the fact that it's the sun's magnetic field that causes the phenomena that affect radio propagation and that its magnetic field is generated deep within the star itself, not its atmosphere. Sunspots are said magnetic field affecting the atmosphere, not the other way around. So, in other words, even if the gravity of Sol's planets is affecting its atmosphere, which is doubtful, that has nothing to do with radio propagation.

I have, in fact, agreed that it's the sun's magnetic field that causes the phenomena
that affect radio propagation and that its magnetic field is generated deep within the star itself."

You are ignoring the fact that once caused by the sun's magnetic field,
sunspots exist in the volatile, fluid, and mobile gas on the sun's surface,
and are subject to the gravitational influence of the orbiting planets.

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1198517343p2/9810.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein) “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein)

. . . . . . . . . https://forums.hamisland.net/images/smilies/yes.gif

NQ6U

02-10-2014, 11:25 AM

I have, in fact, agreed that it's the sun's magnetic field that causes the phenomena
that affect radio propagation and that its magnetic field is generated deep within the star itself."

You are ignoring the fact that once caused by the sun's magnetic field,
sunspots exist in the volatile, fluid, and mobile gas on the sun's surface,
and are subject to the gravitational influence of the orbiting planets.

No, that's incorrect. For one thing, the sun is a big ball of gas that doesn't even have a surface. When you observe sunspots, what you're seeing is a relatively cool spot in the convective zone.

W9JEF

02-10-2014, 11:30 AM

No, that's incorrect. For one thing, the sun is a big ball of gas that doesn't even have a surface. When you observe sunspots, what you're seeing is a relatively cool spot in the convective zone.

I have, in fact, agreed that it's the sun's magnetic field that causes the phenomena
that affect radio propagation and that its magnetic field is generated deep within the star itself."

You are ignoring the fact that once caused by the sun's magnetic field,
sunspots exist in the volatile, fluid, and mobile gas in the sun's photosphere,
and are subject to the gravitational influence of the orbiting planets.

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1198517343p2/9810.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein) “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein)

. . . . . . . . . :yes:

NQ6U

02-10-2014, 11:31 AM

I have, in fact, agreed that it's the sun's magnetic field that causes the phenomena
that affect radio propagation and that its magnetic field is generated deep within the star itself."

You are ignoring the fact that once caused by the sun's magnetic field,
sunspots exist in the volatile, fluid, and mobile gas in the sun's photosphere,
and are subject to the gravitational influence of the orbiting planets.

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1198517343p2/9810.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein) “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein)

. . . . . . . . . :yes:

Wrong again. We see them in the photosphere because that's all we can see with our naked eye but that's not where they exist.

W9JEF

02-10-2014, 11:35 AM

Wrong again. We see them in the photosphere because that's all we can see with our naked eye but that's not where [sunspots] exist.

So what blocks the gravity of the planets from reaching
the volatile, fluid, and mobile region where the sunspots exist?

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1198517343p2/9810.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein) “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein)

. . . . . . . . . :yes:

NQ6U

02-10-2014, 11:51 AM

So what blocks the gravity of the planets from reaching
the volatile, fluid, and mobile region where the sunspots exist?

You demonstrate a lack of any grasp of physics with this question. Nothing blocks gravity. What's happening is that the feeble effect of the planet's gravity is overwhelmed by that of the sun, which makes up over 99% of the mass of the Solar System.

W9JEF

02-10-2014, 12:03 PM

You demonstrate a lack of any grasp of physics with this question. Nothing blocks gravity. What's happening is that the feeble effect of the planet's gravity is overwhelmed by that of the sun, which makes up over 99% of the mass of the Solar System.

If nothing blocks the gravity of the planets,
then won't their pull, however weak,
be felt in all regions of the sun?

AGAIN, you are ignoring the butterfly effect (see Merriam-Webster's definition)
and the fact that once caused by the sun's magnetic field,
sunspots exist in the volatile, fluid, and mobile gas in the sun's photosphere,
and are subject to the gravitational influence of the orbiting planets.

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1198517343p2/9810.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein) “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein)

. . . . . . . . . :yes: :rofl:

NQ6U

02-10-2014, 01:04 PM

If nothing blocks the gravity of the planets,
then won't their pull, however weak,
be felt in all regions of the sun?

Let me state once again that the sun comprises over 99% of the mass of the Solar System. The effect of the gravitation of the planets on the sun is infinitesimal, completely insignificant and probably not even measurable.

W9JEF

02-10-2014, 01:12 PM

Let me state once again that the sun comprises over 99% of the mass of the Solar System. The effect of the gravitation of the planets on the sun is infinitesimal, completely insignificant and probably not even measurable.

So, can you explain the butterfly effect
and why it would not apply on the sun,
in the case of the influence of the gravity
of the orbiting planets?

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1198517343p2/9810.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein) “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein)

. . . . . . . . . :yes: :rofl:

NQ6U

02-10-2014, 01:19 PM

So, can you explain the butterfly effect
and why it would not apply on the sun,
in the case of the influence of the gravity
of the orbiting planets?

The Butterfly Effect, which is a dumbed-down term coined for the layman, refers to a phenomenon which is highly sensitive to initial conditions. This would not apply to sunspots because they are a product of the sun's magnetic field which originate from deep within its core. See the numerous entries above for why the influence of the planets has no effect on the magnetic field of sun.

KC2UGV

02-10-2014, 01:31 PM

Heisenberg, Schmeisenberg.

"a property of chaotic systems(such as the sun)
by which small changes in initial conditions can lead to a large scale and
unpredictable variation in the future state of the system."
--Merriam-Webster's

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein)

e
. . . . . . . . . :yes:

The problem is you are lacking the requisite logical thinking inherent in a 6 year old. I've explained the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to my son when he was about that age, and he got it, and understood why we can't really apply the Butterfly Effect (aka, System of Chaotic Math) to physical systems: Because we can not observe all properties of a system simultaneously in it's initial state.

I have, in fact, agreed that it's the sun's magnetic field that causes the phenomena
that affect radio propagation and that its magnetic field is generated deep within the star itself."

You are ignoring the fact that once caused by the sun's magnetic field,
sunspots exist in the volatile, fluid, and mobile gas in the sun's photosphere,
and are subject to the gravitational influence of the orbiting planets.

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1198517343p2/9810.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein) “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein)

. . . . . . . . . :yes:

Sunspots are the visible effect of a phenomena that occurs deep within the star.

If nothing blocks the gravity of the planets,
then won't their pull, however weak,
be felt in all regions of the sun?

All of the mass in the solar system outside of the sun only accounts for less than 1% of the gravity in our solar system. Over 99% of the gravity inherent in our physical system is emanating from the sun. All of the planets have a net negative gravitational effect on the system.

AGAIN, you are ignoring the butterfly effect (see Merriam-Webster's definition)
and the fact that once caused by the sun's magnetic field,
sunspots exist in the volatile, fluid, and mobile gas in the sun's photosphere,
and are subject to the gravitational influence of the orbiting planets.

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1198517343p2/9810.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein) “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein)

. . . . . . . . . :yes: :rofl:

You are ignoring that you cannot make a declarative statement the Butterfly effect is at work, because in order to do so, you need to know all properties of the initial state of the system. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states we cannot do this.

W9JEF

02-10-2014, 01:50 PM

The problem is you are lacking the requisite logical thinking inherent in a 6 year old. I've explained the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to my son when he was about that age, and he got it, and understood why we can't really apply the Butterfly Effect (aka, System of Chaotic Math) to physical systems: Because we can not observe all properties of a system simultaneously in it's initial state.

Why does the fact that you cannot YET see how the butterfly effect
affects the sunspots, mean that the butterfly effect is not in effect?

Sunspots are the visible effect of a phenomena that occurs deep within the star.

Again, what blocks the effect of the albeit tiny gravitation of the planets
on the sunspots as seen on the photosphere?

All of the mass in the solar system outside of the sun only accounts for less than 1% of the gravity in our solar system. Over 99% of the gravity inherent in our physical system is emanating from the sun. All of the planets have a net negative gravitational effect on the system.

You are ignoring that you cannot make a declarative statement the Butterfly effect is at work, because in order to do so, you need to know all properties of the initial state of the system. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states we cannot do this.

And citing the same reason, how can you say that the butterfly effect is definitely not in effect? :)

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1198517343p2/9810.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein) “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein)

. . . . . . . . . :yes: :rofl:

W9JEF

02-10-2014, 01:52 PM

The Butterfly Effect, which is a dumbed-down term coined for the layman, refers to a phenomenon which is highly sensitive to initial conditions. This would not apply to sunspots because they are a product of the sun's magnetic field which originate from deep within its core. See the numerous entries above for why the influence of the planets has no effect on the magnetic field of sun.

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1198517343p2/9810.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein) “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein)

. . . . . . . . . :yes: :rofl:

KC2UGV

02-10-2014, 01:59 PM

Why does the fact that you cannot YET see how the butterfly effect
affects the sunspots, mean that the butterfly effect is not in effect?

The onus is not on my to disprove your claim, but rather on you to prove your claim.

Again, what blocks the effect of the albeit tiny gravitation of the planets
on the sunspots as seen on the photosphere?

Because gravity =/= magnetism.

And citing the same reason, how can you say that the butterfly effect is definitely not in effect? :)

Those who make extraordinary claims must provide extraordinary evidence.

W9JEF

02-10-2014, 02:44 PM

KC2UGV

02-10-2014, 02:51 PM

Yeah, right. Your six-year-old son understood your explanation
of Heisenberg [u]ncertainty, and why the butterfly effect
cannot affect the chaotic system known as the sun.
And how old was he when he turned water into wine?

. . . . . . . . . :rofl: :lol:

I never said it cannot affect it. And yes, he understood the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: We cannot know for certain all of the information of a system at any given point in time, because the act of observing it causes it to change.

As I said, the problem is either you lack the ability to rationally think, on par with at least a young child; or you refuse to accept rational thought, purposefully.

W9JEF

02-10-2014, 03:07 PM

I never said it cannot affect it. And yes, he understood the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: We cannot know for certain all of the information of a system at any given point in time, because the act of observing it causes it to change.

As I said, the problem is either you lack the ability to rationally think, on par with at least a young child; or you refuse to accept rational thought, purposefully.

What you continue to ignore is, that I agree that
how the butterfly effect affects sunspots is unpredictable.
Read the OP: It's a legitimate question, not a statement.
You cannot with any certainty assert that the planets do not affect radio propagation.
All I'm saying, is, that it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1198517343p2/9810.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein) “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein)

. . . . . . . . . https://forums.hamisland.net/images/smilies/yes.gif https://forums.hamisland.net/images/smilies/rotflol.gif

The butterfly effect is a deceptively simple insight extracted from a complex modern field. As a low-profile assistant professor in MIT's department of meteorology in 1961, Lorenz created an early computer program to simulate weather. One day he changed one of a dozen numbers representing atmospheric conditions, from .506127 to .506. That tiny alteration utterly transformed his long-term forecast, a point Lorenz amplified in his 1972 paper, "Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas?"

In the paper, Lorenz claimed the large effects of tiny atmospheric events pose both a practical problem, by limiting long-term weather forecasts, and a philosophical one, by preventing us from isolating specific causes of later conditions. The "innumerable" interconnections of nature, Lorenz noted, mean a butterfly's flap could cause a tornado - or, for all we know, could prevent one. Similarly, should we make even a tiny alteration to nature, "we shall never know what would have happened if we had not disturbed it," since subsequent changes are too complex and entangled to restore a previous state.

So a principal lesson of the butterfly effect is the opposite of Redford's line: It is extremely hard to calculate such things with certainty. There are many butterflies out there. A tornado in Texas could be caused by a butterfly in Brazil, Bali, or Budapest. Realistically, we can't know. "It's impossible for humans to measure everything infinitely accurately," says Robert Devaney, a mathematics professor at Boston University. "And if you're off at all, the behavior of the solution could be completely off." When small imprecisions matter greatly, the world is radically unpredictable.

Moreover, Lorenz also discovered stricter limits on our knowledge, proving that even models of physical systems with a few precisely known variables, like a heated gas swirling in a box, can produce endlessly unpredictable and nonrepeating effects. This is a founding idea of chaos theory, whose advocates sometimes say Lorenz helped dispel the Newtonian idea of a wholly predictable universe.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/06/08/the_meaning_of_the_butterfly/?page=full

n2ize

02-10-2014, 03:45 PM

Why do we need to "ascertain the initial state of the system" to know whether or not
the small tides on the fluid solar surface caused by the gravity of the orbiting planets
affect radio propagation?

Because it is required if you are going to apply chaos theory to a system. Perhaps as an analogy someone asks you to determine the exact position on the earth of a boat traversing northwest at 17 knots but you are never told the initial condition (initial state) of the boat... from where is it's origin ? That is a sort of vague analogy.

We do know the planetary positions, so with lots of beacons
on different frequencies in diverse locations, why could a correlation not emerge?

Because that is not how chaos theory and the butterfly effect work.

AGAIN Re: the butterfly effect, your quarrel is not only with Merriam-Webster's...

"a property of chaotic systems(such as the sun)
by which small changes in initial conditions can lead to a large scale and
unpredictable variation in the future state of the system."

So even the Miriam Websters definition emphasizes the importance of being able to ascertain the initial state of your system.

n2ize

02-10-2014, 03:56 PM

What you continue to ignore is, that I agree that
how the butterfly effect affects sunspots is unpredictable.
Read the OP: It's a legitimate question, not a statement.
You cannot with any certainty assert that the planets do not affect radio propagation.
All I'm saying, is, that it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

Where did anyone here assert that the planets absolutely do not affect propagation ? I not anyone else I read here made that assertion.

Essentially you have gone all over the place and I don;t think anyone can understand what point you are trying to make. If you are saying simply that it may be possible that the planets affect solar weather which ultimately affects radio propagation then I doub't anyone here is disagreeing with you. Yes, it MAY be possible and we cannot say with absolute certainty that they do not.

If you are trying to say that planets absolutely affect solar weather hence radio propagation then we are probably at a disagreement as no evidence has arisen that shows any significant cause and effect.

If I claim that I am God you cannot prove that I am not. Thus you cannot say with absolute certainty that I am not God as I very well may be. However, you can say that you strongly doubt that I am God and you would most likely be correct as I have no evidence to back up my claim.

W9JEF

02-11-2014, 10:16 AM

.

. . . "Equations are necessary if you are doing accountancy,
but they are the boring part of mathematics. Most of the
interesting ideas can be conveyed by words or pictures."

--Stephen Hawking

n2ize

02-11-2014, 02:02 PM

.

. . . "Equations are necessary if you are doing accountancy,
but they are the boring part of mathematics. Most of the
interesting ideas can be conveyed by words or pictures."

--Stephen Hawking

Hawking is an cosmologist, he is not a mathematician. Furthermore you are taking his statement out of context. There is a difference between conveying a basic idea versus understanding it in greater depth.. That is why if you read Hawkings papers you will find that he uses a ton of math to convey his ideas. You continue to argue that the butterfly effect is the cause of sunspots while ignoring the fact that you have to be able to determine the initial state of the system before you can say anything about the sensitive dependency related to the initial state. The butterfly effect is a mathematical principle and is a branch of mathematics. So ultimately its impossible to apply it to a system without thoroughly understanding the math that defines the butterfly effect. It would be like trying to use differential equations to describe the behavior of a system without understanding anything about differential equations. or adding without knowing how to add. People here have tried to explain this to you repeatedly. Since you don't believe what people are trying to tell you here you should really head on over to http://www.physicsforums.com and speak directly to one or more cosmologists Perhaps they can provide a better answer to your question.Perhaps they can figure out what your question is to begin with.

K7SGJ

02-11-2014, 07:38 PM

Hawking is an cosmologist, he is not a mathematician. Furthermore you are taking his statement out of context. There is a difference between conveying a basic idea versus understanding it in greater depth.. That is why if you read Hawkings papers you will find that he uses a ton of math to convey his ideas. You continue to argue that the butterfly effect is the cause of sunspots while ignoring the fact that you have to be able to determine the initial state of the system before you can say anything about the sensitive dependency related to the initial state. The butterfly effect is a mathematical principle and is a branch of mathematics. So ultimately its impossible to apply it to a system without thoroughly understanding the math that defines the butterfly effect. It would be like trying to use differential equations to describe the behavior of a system without understanding anything about differential equations. or adding without knowing how to add. People here have tried to explain this to you repeatedly. Since you don't believe what people are trying to tell you here you should really head on over to http://www.physicsforums.com and speak directly to one or more cosmologists Perhaps they can provide a better answer to your question.Perhaps they can figure out what your question is to begin with.

I never realized Hawking did hair and makeup. Who Gnu?