Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #511014 > unrolled thread

Living in a world of uncertainty

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Living in a world of uncertainty Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 13:20 -0500
    Re: Living in a world of uncertainty Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-03 18:45 +0000
    Re: Living in a world of uncertainty "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 12:00 -0700
      Re: Living in a world of uncertainty benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 02:29 -0400
      Re: Living in a world of uncertainty HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 06:24 -0400
      Re: Living in a world of uncertainty "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 15:27 -0700
        Re: Living in a world of uncertainty Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 18:00 -0500
        Re: Living in a world of uncertainty Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-08-04 17:29 -0700
        Re: Living in a world of uncertainty "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-08-04 18:51 -0700
        Re: Living in a world of uncertainty HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 06:43 -0400
    Re: Living in a world of uncertainty jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-03 19:08 +0000
    Re: Living in a world of uncertainty gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-03 14:21 -0500
      OOps noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 14:22 -0700

#511014 — Living in a world of uncertainty

Living in a world of uncertainty
> http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.4015

> Have you ever experienced a small turn of events that resulted in a
> completely unexpected, unplanned outcome? Unexpected events happen in
> science too—more frequently than you might imagine.

> Such was the case for mathematician and meteorologist Edward Lorenz
> of MIT. In the early 1960s he accidentally stumbled on one of the
> most significant findings in atmospheric science. Lorenz was using a
> simple computer model, which integrated a set of equations forward in
> time to make a prediction based on the initial state of the
> atmosphere. Curious about his model solutions, Lorenz decided to
> change the mathematical precision of the initial state. To his
> surprise, his minuscule changes resulted in a completely different
> forecast—almost as if he had used a different model! The finding led
> Lorenz to conclude that the atmosphere is a chaotic system, and that
> even the smallest errors in the initial estimate of the atmospheric
> conditions can limit our ability to predict weather phenomena.

> Lorenz's discovery half a century ago has greatly influenced the way
> meteorologists predict and study weather today. Given that the
> atmosphere is a chaotic system, numerical forecasts will inevitably
> contain errors, due to instabilities of the atmospheric flow. To
> reduce the chances of large forecast errors, initial conditions must
> be known precisely and model uncertainties must be minimized.
> Unfortunately, direct observations are not available in much of the
> world, including most of the oceans, as well as remote locations
> where it is impossible to install and maintain weather instruments.
> Even with the existing observation networks, which include hundreds
> of weather balloons launched every day around the world, atmospheric
> measurements still include systematic instrumental errors.





-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#511026

On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 13:20:19 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> 
>> Such was the case for mathematician and meteorologist Edward Lorenz
>> of MIT. In the early 1960s he accidentally stumbled on one of the
>> most significant findings in atmospheric science.
>>

Lorenz is often confused in the minds of uninformed idiots of being
the originator of the idea of mathematical "chaos."

It was Poincare who discovered the mathematical properties of what
we now call "chaos" or the sensitivity to initial conditions.  In fact,
if it had not been for the original work of Poincare then Lorenz would
not have had a ready-made theoretical framework to easily exploit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511033

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 11:20:23 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Living in a world of uncertainty
> > http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.4015
> 
> > Have you ever experienced a small turn of events that resulted in a
> > completely unexpected, unplanned outcome? Unexpected events happen in
> > science too--more frequently than you might imagine.
> 
> > Such was the case for mathematician and meteorologist Edward Lorenz
> > of MIT. In the early 1960s he accidentally stumbled on one of the
> > most significant findings in atmospheric science. Lorenz was using a
> > simple computer model, which integrated a set of equations forward in
> > time to make a prediction based on the initial state of the
> > atmosphere. Curious about his model solutions, Lorenz decided to
> > change the mathematical precision of the initial state. To his
> > surprise, his minuscule changes resulted in a completely different
> > forecast--almost as if he had used a different model! The finding led
> > Lorenz to conclude that the atmosphere is a chaotic system, and that
> > even the smallest errors in the initial estimate of the atmospheric
> > conditions can limit our ability to predict weather phenomena.
> 
> > Lorenz's discovery half a century ago has greatly influenced the way
> > meteorologists predict and study weather today. Given that the
> > atmosphere is a chaotic system, numerical forecasts will inevitably
> > contain errors, due to instabilities of the atmospheric flow. To
> > reduce the chances of large forecast errors, initial conditions must
> > be known precisely and model uncertainties must be minimized.
> > Unfortunately, direct observations are not available in much of the
> > world, including most of the oceans, as well as remote locations
> > where it is impossible to install and maintain weather instruments.
> > Even with the existing observation networks, which include hundreds
> > of weather balloons launched every day around the world, atmospheric
> > measurements still include systematic instrumental errors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

Sam Probability can be used for predicting winning horse race.Tri-fectors I play well using it.Good science gives you a hedge. Also Treb helps,but not often. I got to love gambling I blame Treb. TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511110

On 08/03/2015 03:00 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 11:20:23 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Living in a world of uncertainty
>>> http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.4015
>>
>>> Have you ever experienced a small turn of events that resulted in a
>>> completely unexpected, unplanned outcome? Unexpected events happen in
>>> science too--more frequently than you might imagine.
>>
>>> Such was the case for mathematician and meteorologist Edward Lorenz
>>> of MIT. In the early 1960s he accidentally stumbled on one of the
>>> most significant findings in atmospheric science. Lorenz was using a
>>> simple computer model, which integrated a set of equations forward in
>>> time to make a prediction based on the initial state of the
>>> atmosphere. Curious about his model solutions, Lorenz decided to
>>> change the mathematical precision of the initial state. To his
>>> surprise, his minuscule changes resulted in a completely different
>>> forecast--almost as if he had used a different model! The finding led
>>> Lorenz to conclude that the atmosphere is a chaotic system, and that
>>> even the smallest errors in the initial estimate of the atmospheric
>>> conditions can limit our ability to predict weather phenomena.
>>
>>> Lorenz's discovery half a century ago has greatly influenced the way
>>> meteorologists predict and study weather today. Given that the
>>> atmosphere is a chaotic system, numerical forecasts will inevitably
>>> contain errors, due to instabilities of the atmospheric flow. To
>>> reduce the chances of large forecast errors, initial conditions must
>>> be known precisely and model uncertainties must be minimized.
>>> Unfortunately, direct observations are not available in much of the
>>> world, including most of the oceans, as well as remote locations
>>> where it is impossible to install and maintain weather instruments.
>>> Even with the existing observation networks, which include hundreds
>>> of weather balloons launched every day around the world, atmospheric
>>> measurements still include systematic instrumental errors.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
>> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
>> community, and physics-related social issues.
>
> Sam Probability can be used for predicting winning horse race.Tri-fectors I play well using it.Good science gives you a hedge. Also Treb helps,but not often. I got to love gambling I blame Treb. TreBert
>
Sam, probability predicts winners in horse races and also is what 
determines outcomes in Quantum Mechanics. You probably never thought of 
this but imperial thinkers know that just as the Wavefunctions of QM 
create reality, the equations of statistical mechanics operate on the 
horses and create the outcome of the races. This is Modern Physics. Get 
the picture?

-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511139

On 8/3/2015 3:00 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
>
>
> Sam Probability can be used for predicting winning horse
> race.Tri-fectors I play well using it.Good science gives you a hedge.
> Also Treb helps,but not often. I got to love gambling I blame Treb.


Since Bert isn't quite sure which horse will win the race, it falls 
under the Uncertainty Principle. Obviously



-- 
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511267

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 12:00:36 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 11:20:23 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Living in a world of uncertainty
> > > http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.4015
> > 
> > > Have you ever experienced a small turn of events that resulted in a
> > > completely unexpected, unplanned outcome? Unexpected events happen in
> > > science too--more frequently than you might imagine.
> > 
> > > Such was the case for mathematician and meteorologist Edward Lorenz
> > > of MIT. In the early 1960s he accidentally stumbled on one of the
> > > most significant findings in atmospheric science. Lorenz was using a
> > > simple computer model, which integrated a set of equations forward in
> > > time to make a prediction based on the initial state of the
> > > atmosphere. Curious about his model solutions, Lorenz decided to
> > > change the mathematical precision of the initial state. To his
> > > surprise, his minuscule changes resulted in a completely different
> > > forecast--almost as if he had used a different model! The finding led
> > > Lorenz to conclude that the atmosphere is a chaotic system, and that
> > > even the smallest errors in the initial estimate of the atmospheric
> > > conditions can limit our ability to predict weather phenomena.
> > 
> > > Lorenz's discovery half a century ago has greatly influenced the way
> > > meteorologists predict and study weather today. Given that the
> > > atmosphere is a chaotic system, numerical forecasts will inevitably
> > > contain errors, due to instabilities of the atmospheric flow. To
> > > reduce the chances of large forecast errors, initial conditions must
> > > be known precisely and model uncertainties must be minimized.
> > > Unfortunately, direct observations are not available in much of the
> > > world, including most of the oceans, as well as remote locations
> > > where it is impossible to install and maintain weather instruments.
> > > Even with the existing observation networks, which include hundreds
> > > of weather balloons launched every day around the world, atmospheric
> > > measurements still include systematic instrumental errors.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> > community, and physics-related social issues.
> 
> Sam Probability can be used for predicting winning horse race.Tri-fectors I play well using it.Good science gives you a hedge. Also Treb helps,but not often. I got to love gambling I blame Treb. TreBert

Here is what helps in picking horses.#1 Speed rating #2 Jokey #3 age #4 Weight #5 male or female #6 looks.Add these up for three horses,and parley a tri-fectors.You probably will win,put not always. TreBert 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511276

On 8/4/15 5:27 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> Here is what helps in picking horses.#1 Speed rating #2 Jokey #3 age
> #4 Weight #5 male or female #6 looks.Add these up for three
> horses,and parley a tri-fectors. You probably will win,put not always.
> TreBert
>


   I'm glad you are making more money on the horses than you are losing
   on the horses, reber. You know how to pick the winners. That's a given



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511293

On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 3:27:11 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 12:00:36 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 11:20:23 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > Living in a world of uncertainty
> > > > http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.4015
> > > 
> > > > Have you ever experienced a small turn of events that resulted in a
> > > > completely unexpected, unplanned outcome? Unexpected events happen in
> > > > science too--more frequently than you might imagine.
> > > 
> > > > Such was the case for mathematician and meteorologist Edward Lorenz
> > > > of MIT. In the early 1960s he accidentally stumbled on one of the
> > > > most significant findings in atmospheric science. Lorenz was using a
> > > > simple computer model, which integrated a set of equations forward in
> > > > time to make a prediction based on the initial state of the
> > > > atmosphere. Curious about his model solutions, Lorenz decided to
> > > > change the mathematical precision of the initial state. To his
> > > > surprise, his minuscule changes resulted in a completely different
> > > > forecast--almost as if he had used a different model! The finding led
> > > > Lorenz to conclude that the atmosphere is a chaotic system, and that
> > > > even the smallest errors in the initial estimate of the atmospheric
> > > > conditions can limit our ability to predict weather phenomena.
> > > 
> > > > Lorenz's discovery half a century ago has greatly influenced the way
> > > > meteorologists predict and study weather today. Given that the
> > > > atmosphere is a chaotic system, numerical forecasts will inevitably
> > > > contain errors, due to instabilities of the atmospheric flow. To
> > > > reduce the chances of large forecast errors, initial conditions must
> > > > be known precisely and model uncertainties must be minimized.
> > > > Unfortunately, direct observations are not available in much of the
> > > > world, including most of the oceans, as well as remote locations
> > > > where it is impossible to install and maintain weather instruments.
> > > > Even with the existing observation networks, which include hundreds
> > > > of weather balloons launched every day around the world, atmospheric
> > > > measurements still include systematic instrumental errors.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > 
> > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> > > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> > > community, and physics-related social issues.
> > 
> > Sam Probability can be used for predicting winning horse race.Tri-fectors I play well using it.Good science gives you a hedge. Also Treb helps,but not often. I got to love gambling I blame Treb. TreBert
> 
> Here is what helps in picking horses.#1 Speed rating #2 Jokey #3 age #4 Weight #5 male or female #6 looks.Add these up for three horses,and parley a tri-fectors.You probably will win,put not always. TreBert


Did you ever find it useful to see which horse took a shit right before the race?

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511300

.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA....
>
<herbertglazier0@gmail.com> Glazier, the Swine reber g=emc^2wrote:
>
12:00  Sam Probability can be used for predicting winning horse 
race.Tri-fectors I play well using it.Good science gives you a hedge. Also 
Treb helps,but not often. I got to love gambling I blame Treb. TreBert
>
12:30 Here is what helps in picking horses.#1 Speed rating #2 Jokey #3 age 
#4 Weight #5 male or female #6 looks.Add these up for three horses,and 
parley a tri-fectors.You probably will win,put not always. TreBert
>
12:42 SAm I'm working on the :Holy Grail" Gravity comes out of "quantum 
Gravity" (its source) into our realm to fit with GR.One relationship it 
comes out of the core of partices,and the core of all macro matter, but my 
task is to reason why its so tricky.My thoughts go with infinity as I try to 
go with the smallest quantum building block.Smaller than the quark.Smaller 
than a neutrino.TreBert PS Treb told me he can not help

15:13 Sam What size is "tiny" Does a tiny particle have any force of gravity 
to attract a photon? Can their mutual gravity put them into rotation? Does 
any thing rotate like a solar system in QM? Bohr was shot down for saying an 
electron rotates around the nuclei It now is "smeared" TreBert

15:27 Sam We must put LA in the shaded.It can be done easily. TreBert
>
hanson wrote:
Glazier, "your posts only show how mentally sick you are.
When Bush gave our treasury to the bankers the mental
hospitals had to close.Its a pity for people like you needed
these hospitals. Find a Jewish doctor and be on medicare."
>
Glazier, if the above 4 lines, which are you own words, are
not familiar to you, don't worry because you your demented,
senile condition becomes already apparent  as soon as  ...
>>
<herbertglazier0@gmail.com> :B::ert Glazier, the Swine,
Hate monger, Jewish Jailbird, Faceshitter & Graveyard
vandal, Racist and Bigot "reber g=emc^2" has introduced
himself as/with
>
:B:: "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex &
:B:: an IQ of 122", & "I do know how everything works,.."
:B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert.
:B:: "I'm a non-bible(torra) Jew I'm the only Jew that
:B:: got 2 letters from two Popes. Bert
:B:: "I gave G=EMC^2 (wrong & stolen) to the world"
:B:: ***** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert *****
:B:: "Even the FBI has me as a trouble maker and
:B:: the FBI blocks my phone from calling them. "....
:B:: cuz "I was mixing sulfur,carbon & iron together
:B:: to make gun powder" ... which happened after....
>
(3)
On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015:
when <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>, the Jewish Swine wrote:
Harlow HVAC, Saul Levy & Benj, I'll be sitting on your face
to take a shit & say: "Open wide". ... after.
>
(2)
On 06Dec2014, you, Hebe Herbie, said to
"benj" <nobody@gmail.com>: Reality is you always post under
me for you are an ass kisser. For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser.
Benj, you can thank me in advance. - TreBert. ... after
>
(1)
On 25Mar2008 Swine Glazier wrote in:
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J
Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have agood laugh
when it seeps down on your face. -- Bert.
>
(above template to be used to snip Bert's Glazierola and
to administer loving "Recall Therapy" for Swine Glazier
until Glazier acknowledges that Glazier is a Swine.
>
and Moderator General "HVAC" <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com>
Harlow Campbell succinctly added & wrote:
>
"Bert, your opinion doesn't count"
"Bert you are an idiot."
"TreBert, you are one stupid cocksucker".
"Bert, Seriously. You are the stupidest cocksucking
moron who ever came down the Mass Pike.
"Bert, does your stupidity know no bounds?"
"Bert, you really are a pathetic excuse for a human
fucking being". "Bert is a racist. (And he's stupid too)"
"Bert, are the stupidest cocksucker on the planet."
"Spin THIS, Glazier, you fucking idiot." "Bert get
some spelling lessons, you feeble-minded fuck".
"Bert, you are a clueless cocksucker .... and "Bert
you are senile, dazed & confused. Fucked in the head.
"a trained cockroach is smarter than Bert"
"Bert, you should be arrested"
"Bert, I will call the police and tell them that your
van seems to be a center for drug activity in the
Wal-Mart parking lot".
>
--
>
<http://tinyurl.com/G-EMC2-Recall-Therapy>
<http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier>.
>>> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511330

On 8/4/2015 6:27 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
>
>> Sam Probability can be used for predicting winning horse
>> race.Tri-fectors I play well using it.Good science gives you a
>> hedge. Also Treb helps,but not often. I got to love gambling I
>> blame Treb. TreBert
>
> Here is what helps in picking horses.#1 Speed rating #2 Jokey #3 age
> #4 Weight #5 male or female #6 looks.Add these up for three
> horses,and parley a tri-fectors.You probably will win,put not always.
> TreBert


See? And you people all thought that Bert didn't know physics.

But by using the Uncertainty Principle and assigning probabilities based 
on data including the horse's sex and looks, you can (probably)
win at the track.

Hint: If you ever see a horse named Pauli, bet it.



"Horse was in a race. He could win, show or place. He came in first, 
from out of thirst to go".

(Prize goes to the one who can name this song without looking it up)


-- 
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511036

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Living in a world of uncertainty

I am quite certain that you are a spamming ass hole.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511037

On 8/3/2015 1:20 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Living in a world of uncertainty

>
>> Have you ever experienced a small turn of events that resulted in a
>> completely unexpected, unplanned outcome? Unexpected events happen in
>> science too—more frequently than you might imagine.
>
>> Such was the case for mathematician and meteorologist Edward Lorenz
>> of MIT. In the early 1960s he accidentally stumbled on one of the
>> most significant findings in atmospheric science. Lorenz was using a
>> simple computer model, which integrated a set of equations forward in
>> time to make a prediction based on the initial state of the
>> atmosphere. Curious about his model solutions, Lorenz decided to
>> change the mathematical precision of the initial state. To his
>> surprise, his minuscule changes resulted in a completely different
>> forecast—almost as if he had used a different model! The finding led
>> Lorenz to conclude that the atmosphere is a chaotic system, and that
>> even the smallest errors in the initial estimate of the atmospheric
>> conditions can limit our ability to predict weather phenomena.

which is why there is so much concern over the political use/mis-use of 
"global worming" computer models, which fail repeatedly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511054 — OOps

this is a misnomer from 1896's "glassal housing ... I mean,
it is the kind of misnomer, called a nonsequiter (or, blOOper

> "global worming" computer models, which fail repeatedly

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web