| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"boson boss" |
| Date: |
06 May 2007 12:29:22 PM |
| Object: |
butterfly physics |
"Motion Mountain" book looks different. Thats nice! How come it says
that in nature butterfly effect has never been found?
.
|
|
| User: "boson boss" |
|
| Title: Re: butterfly physics |
06 May 2007 05:57:37 PM |
|
|
"Motion Mountain" book looks different. Thats nice! How come it says
that in nature butterfly effect has never been found?
(added sci.fractals)
http://www.motionmountain.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Bailey" |
|
| Title: Re: butterfly physics |
07 May 2007 10:27:23 AM |
|
|
On 6 May 2007 15:57:37 -0700, boson boss <junkerade@gmail.com> wrote:
"Motion Mountain" book looks different. Thats nice! How come it says
that in nature butterfly effect has never been found?
(added sci.fractals)
http://www.motionmountain.net
(quoting Appendix C:)
"Challenge 549, page 268: There are many more butterflies than
tornadoes. In addition, the belief in the butterfly effect completely
neglects an aspect of nature that is essential for selforganization:
friction and dissipation. The butterfly effect, assuming it did
exist, requires that dissipation is neglected. There is no
experimental basis for the effect, it has never been observed."
That is a curious statement. Called the strawman fallacy, it attacks
a weak and uncommon interpretation of the butterfly effect, claiming
to thus demolish the concept.
The butterfly effect is about how perturbations propagate in space
over a period of time. It applies to systems which qualify as
chaotic, meaning that small deviations result in significant future
changes. Neglecting "friction and dissipation" is not a hallmark of a
system which exhibits chaotic features. The effect was really stated
as a conjecture:
"Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in
Texas? " made in a lecture by Lorenz.
Since a cause-effect relationship between Brazillian butterflies and
Texas tornados is hardly possible to verify experimentally, you can't
disagree with the Motion Mountain point--theirs is just an inverted
and misleading way of saying that the Butterfly effect is impractical
to verify experimentally. It is possible to verify by computation.
Why do you think our weathermen are wrong so often?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Hansen greg" |
|
| Title: Re: butterfly physics |
08 May 2007 08:37:13 AM |
|
|
John Bailey wrote:
Since a cause-effect relationship between Brazillian butterflies and
Texas tornados is hardly possible to verify experimentally, you can't
disagree with the Motion Mountain point--theirs is just an inverted
and misleading way of saying that the Butterfly effect is impractical
to verify experimentally. It is possible to verify by computation.
Can you cite a computation that verified it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "boson boss" |
|
| Title: Re: butterfly physics |
08 May 2007 09:00:24 AM |
|
|
On May 8, 3:37 pm, Greg Hansen <greg> wrote:
John Bailey wrote:
Since a cause-effect relationship between Brazillian butterflies and
Texas tornados is hardly possible to verify experimentally, you can't
disagree with the Motion Mountain point--theirs is just an inverted
and misleading way of saying that the Butterfly effect is impractical
to verify experimentally. It is possible to verify by computation.
Can you cite a computation that verified it?
All universe has no center but the model of a center verified by
computation.
:-))
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Bailey" |
|
| Title: Re: butterfly physics |
08 May 2007 01:35:30 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 May 2007 08:37:13 -0500, Greg Hansen <greg> wrote:
John Bailey wrote:
Since a cause-effect relationship between Brazillian butterflies and
Texas tornados is hardly possible to verify experimentally, you can't
disagree with the Motion Mountain point--theirs is just an inverted
and misleading way of saying that the Butterfly effect is impractical
to verify experimentally. It is possible to verify by computation.
Can you cite a computation that verified it?
Shnirelman, A., 1997: On the nonuniqueness of weak solutions to the
Euler equations. Commun. Pure Appl. Math., 50, 1260-1286.
http://www.numdam.org/item?id=JEDP_1996____A18_0
"For the inviscid (yet deterministic) Euler equations of fluid
mechanics, there are clear examples of such non-uniqueness
(Shnirelman, 1997), but no generic proof exists. Oddly, no
counterproof exists for the viscous Navier-Stokes equations. If you
can prove or disprove the existence or otherwise of a finite-time
predictability horizon for the latter equations, submit your solution
to the Clay Mathematics Institute Millenium Prize committee, and win
yourself a million dollars"
Quoted from:Quantum Reality, Complex Numbers and the Meteorological
Butterfly Effect by T.N.Palmer
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0404041
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: butterfly physics |
07 May 2007 11:25:10 AM |
|
|
On May 7, 11:27 am, John Bailey <john_bai...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
That is a curious statement. Called the strawman fallacy, it attacks
a weak and uncommon interpretation of the butterfly effect, claiming
to thus demolish the concept.
The MotionMountain book also uses a "strawman" approach in rejecting a
fundamental, global fractal organization for nature. See Chapter I,
Section 3, the "chocolate bar analogy" (or go to the index and find
references to fractals in Chapter 1).
This book contains a lot of useful and interesting information on
physics. Uncharacteristically for a physics book, it includes a
welcome emphasis on concepts and empirical knowledge (and
curiosities). I highly recommend it for those qualities.
However, it has a strict agenda (high-energy, string theory paradigm)
that tolerates no alternative paradigms, and resorts to "strawman"
methods and speculation treated as virtual fact in order to pursue its
agenda.
Rob
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: butterfly physics |
07 May 2007 12:33:01 PM |
|
|
On May 7, 11:27 am, John Bailey <john_bai...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
[snip]
Since a cause-effect relationship between Brazillian butterflies and
Texas tornados is hardly possible to verify experimentally, you can't
disagree with the Motion Mountain point--theirs is just an inverted
and misleading way of saying that the Butterfly effect is impractical
to verify experimentally. It is possible to verify by computation.
Why do you think our weathermen are wrong so often?
Um. Lessee here. The claim you *seem* to be making is that
weather forecasting suffers from an inability to accurately
predict the weather, and that this inability somehow demonstrates
that we understand the physics well enough to replace a
measurement with calculations.
There would appear to be some steps missing here.
Socks
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "boson boss" |
|
| Title: Re: butterfly physics |
07 May 2007 04:17:51 PM |
|
|
On May 7, 5:27 pm, John Bailey <john_bai...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
On 6 May 2007 15:57:37 -0700, boson boss <junker...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Motion Mountain" book looks different. Thats nice! How come it says
that in nature butterfly effect has never been found?
(added sci.fractals)
http://www.motionmountain.net
(quoting Appendix C:)
"Challenge 549, page 268: There are many more butterflies than
tornadoes. In addition, the belief in the butterfly effect completely
neglects an aspect of nature that is essential for selforganization:
friction and dissipation. The butterfly effect, assuming it did
exist, requires that dissipation is neglected. There is no
experimental basis for the effect, it has never been observed."
That is a curious statement. Called the strawman fallacy, it attacks
a weak and uncommon interpretation of the butterfly effect, claiming
to thus demolish the concept.
The butterfly effect is about how perturbations propagate in space
over a period of time. It applies to systems which qualify as
chaotic, meaning that small deviations result in significant future
changes. Neglecting "friction and dissipation" is not a hallmark of a
system which exhibits chaotic features. The effect was really stated
as a conjecture:
"Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in
Texas? " made in a lecture by Lorenz.
Since a cause-effect relationship between Brazillian butterflies and
Texas tornados is hardly possible to verify experimentally, you can't
disagree with the Motion Mountain point--theirs is just an inverted
and misleading way of saying that the Butterfly effect is impractical
to verify experimentally. It is possible to verify by computation.
Why do you think our weathermen are wrong so often?
What a calm and enigmatic response!
When I first read the statement in the Motion book I got impression
that important information was delivered to us. But then, how strange
that is: it is as if the author never really observed anything.
The information delivery to our instruments is unfolding a wide
variety just like a computational butterfly effect. Small change in
the initial condition can result in reexamination of a different part
of elephant all together. The argument is still too wide though.
Fractal organization of universe is real.
It seems to me that its easier to create weather all together. What a
perfect artistic mismatch - its the child twin. ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: butterfly physics |
06 May 2007 06:47:17 PM |
|
|
boson boss wrote:
"Motion Mountain" book looks different. Thats nice! How come it says
that in nature butterfly effect has never been found?
In a useful universe fluctuations average rather than add. Same for
chains of resistors (until the bad luck day arrives).
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
