Climate Change

[joeblast]

3 hours ago, Patrick Brown said:

Yep the climate schism has been outed as just more clown politics. I would suspect there's a money trail which leads back to the left! 

 

The loonies know that time is running out and people are waking up so we should expect even greater absurdities to be propagated. 

Really what has been happening is that they are trying to take the CIA's corporate model and stretch it as far as they can.  All of these green corps are money funnels, and you can see all the leftist executives out there who have sold tens of billions in stocks in the last 3 years or so.  We all know Algore was able to skim like a hundred million for himself from the initiative - that's what its all about - one world global fascism, where yes men for the banks and corporations are promoted hugely and protected from the law just for being yes men for the usurpers.

 

Yachts with children on them for the most loyal

 

But if anyone thinks the banks took over corporate land and government land but somehow didnt think academia was important enough to take over and reprogram...*chuckles*...better study your history a little better and look at rockefeller & carnegie's efforts with a little more scrutiny

 

This malfeasance did to climate science what Disney did to Star Wars movies

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by joeblast

[voidisyinyang]

3 hours ago, joeblast said:

Really what has been happening is that they are trying to take the CIA's corporate model and stretch it as far as they can.  All of these green corps are money funnels, and you can see all the leftist executives out there who have sold tens of billions in stocks in the last 3 years or so.  We all know Algore was able to skim like a hundred million for himself from the initiative - that's what its all about - one world global fascism, where yes men for the banks and corporations are promoted hugely and protected from the law just for being yes men for the usurpers.

 

Yachts with children on them for the most loyal

 

But if anyone thinks the banks took over corporate land and government land but somehow didnt think academia was important enough to take over and reprogram...*chuckles*...better study your history a little better and look at rockefeller & carnegie's efforts with a little more scrutiny

 

This malfeasance did to climate science what Disney did to Star Wars movies

 

 

the corporate model is not from the CIA - it's from the US constitution.

That's what the Commerce Clause is for in the US constitution and why corporations were declared "legal persons."

 

So the "left" as you so call it - is really just Platonic philosophy at the origin of Western civilization, based on logarithmic math (and its inverse exponential function) as a hierarchical "natural law" that controls science.

 

For example at University of Minnesota - I personally researched the corporate control of the University. So there are about 300 corporations that do "research" at the University. This was set up by the great leftist...Ronald Reagan... who made corporation "donations" to the University as a 100% tax deductible welfare for the rich program - like military contracts.

 

So I exposed the details of this research, as a graduate student. You can imagine the results - the President of the University personally emailed me to say, patronizingly, that I had done enough and please don't go on Unlimited Hunger Strike. haha. That's because I was going to use my newly acquired qigong powers to throw a wrench in their fake Corporate Junk science system.

 

This is all well documented public record. And I did not make "millions" by exposing the right-wing corporate control of the University - or do you think Cargill and Monsanto are left-wing organizations? haha. Cargill is the world's largest private corporation but you probably know next to nothing about how it operates. Hardly anyone does. Yes it just works with the CIA directly or the Rockefellers, or the Freemasons, etc.

 

 

 

 

[joeblast]

37 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

the corporate model is not from the CIA - it's from the US constitution

That's what the Commerce Clause is for in the US constitution and why corporations were declared "legal persons."

 

So the "left" as you so call it - is really just Platonic philosophy at the origin of Western civilization, based on logarithmic math (and its inverse exponential function) as a hierarchical "natural law" that controls science.  Lol that mumbo jumbo again - look, its men fucking over other men.  Happening long before Plato.  Men conspiring to fuck over other men, in perpetuity - central banksterism - pretty sure that's going to predate Plato too.  Men have been trying to conquer the world forever, and eventually they figured out it was easier to do in title and deed vs overtly via occupation.

 

 

This is all well documented public record. And I did not make "millions" by exposing the right-wing corporate control of the University - or do you think Cargill and Monsanto are left-wing organizations? haha. Cargill is the world's largest private corporation but you probably know next to nothing about how it operates. Hardly anyone does. Yes it just works with the CIA directly or the Rockefellers, or the Freemasons, etc.  Do you really think the global fascists care if they are employing "right wing" tactics or "left wing" tactics or which side they are using as a tool at this point in time?  you're not paying attention if you dont know they have wielded both sides against each other o'plenty.

 

its from the constitution   its really too bad you cant properly separate the good things you learned in academia vs the shite propaganda.  the corporate model is from the internationalists, you're brainwashed if you really believe this shit originated with "the US constitution."  the bankers owned the king of england in the early 1600s, do you think the merchants and bankers just popped up all of a sudden? 

 

legal persons here yadda yadda was established when The Constitution For These United States of America was discarded in 1871 and the entirety of the citizenry enslaved vis a vis the 14th amendment made to a corporatized forged facsimile of the constitution - which didnt quite free slaves so much as make nickas of all of us.  the City of London won the american civil war - the banksters both prompted as well as won that war.  

 

but oh wait, the Rockefellers told us otherwise

Edited May 8, 2019 by joeblast

[voidisyinyang]

29 minutes ago, joeblast said:

 

its from the constitution   its really too bad you cant properly separate the good things you learned in academia vs the shite propaganda.  the corporate model is from the internationalists, you're brainwashed if you really believe this shit originated with "the US constitution."  the bankers owned the king of england in the early 1600s, do you think the merchants and bankers just popped up all of a sudden? 

 

legal persons here yadda yadda was established when The Constitution For These United States of America was discarded in 1871 and the entirety of the citizenry enslaved vis a vis the 14th amendment made to a corporatized forged facsimile of the constitution - which didnt quite free slaves so much as make nickas of all of us.  the City of London won the american civil war - the banksters both prompted as well as won that war.  

 

but oh wait, the Rockefellers told us otherwise

 

the lecture I just posted answers your claim in great detail. The first business corporation was actually Dutch, as an arm of the imperial war machine.

 

So there's different types of corporations. For the US constitution, the corporation is considered "private" - as in a pre-sovereign legal person, while the government is considered public. So that was to contrast the US corporation to the royal chartered corporations that created the colonies (or later towns).

 

So this is why in the US, the corporation was declared a legal person - well by a court clerk who worked for the Railroad Robber barons - as http://poclad.org has so well exposed in great detail.

 

Yes the 14th amendment has been applied more to corporate "freedom" as personhood "due process" than to the freeing of personal slaves.

 

I don't discount international commerce banking - and the role of the FED created from the previously failed central governments. So obviously if the government is not even issuing its own currency, in terms of our treasury notes being inherently bought by a cartel of private bankers, receiving a 6% rate of profit, against the tax payers - then yes our currency debt financing is the greatest financial scam in world history, as Nomi Prins details (she worked for Goldman Sachs).

 

So the central banks of the industrialized countries have created, out of nothing, $200 trillion, in the past 10 years. But also in that same time, the US military has "lost" (overspent) another $200 trillion - that was taken, off the books.

 

So the true "left" is the US military imperial socialist contract system - private contractors that bilk the US government. This has been going on since the Civil War - as Abraham Lincoln warned that corporations would take over. The reason the Union won the war was due to standardized production of parts that are interchangeable - as mass produced scientific war planning.

 

So then the Union set up Tariffs against England - and this blocked the slave states from trading their slave goods to England. That was the real reason for the civil war. And then the US Empire expanded against Spain - and took over Venezuela from Great Britain - in the early 1900s. And then after World War II - the US took over the British imperial holdings. So for example the British wanted the US to stage the coup against Iran in 1953 - only the CIA just made sure to take control of the oil for the Rockefellers.

 

So consider why the US military killed 200,000 in the Philippines -  this was in the late 1800s and early 1900s - and so if you study the history - it was for corporate investment profits. And if the US didn't do it - then we feared Germany would do it first.

If you don't want to watch the vid - there is this academic pdf

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1017/S0003055417000041

by the same author - professor.

 

Is the U.S. Government a Corporation? The Corporate Origins of Modern Constitutionalism DAVID CIEPLEY (a1)

 

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[Old Student]

On 5/7/2019 at 7:56 AM, voidisyinyang said:

Math professor of quantum chaos - Steve Strogatz - he has stated that science now is inherently "authoritarian" because of our dependence on the supercomputer iterations to make our predictions. I have corresponded with Professor Strogatz.

 

Not surprised that Steve Strogatz said that, but it doesn't make supercomputer predictions necessarily the wrong thing to do, they are the only way to incorporate the data in a viable model to make it possible to do the prediction work that actually does incorporate the math.

 

On 5/7/2019 at 7:56 AM, voidisyinyang said:

OK let's go back to our asteroid/Comet analogy. It's happened before right - but science can not predict exactly when - due to the inherent quantum chaos dynamics involved. It's nonlinear resonance and so only the "iterations" can make the prediction. Small changes in initial conditions can have great resonance changes in the outcome.

 

Both in this and the previous that I quoted, you refer to "quantum chaos".  On the first quote, you call Strogatz a "Math professor of quantum chaos".  He has no published work on quantum chaos, just on chaos.  In this quote you talk about "quantum chaos" as part of the inherent dynamics for changes in resonances for planetary motion.  What is "quantum" with respect to these n-body resonances?

 

Nonlinear resonance does not imply sensitivity to initial conditions, necessarily.  Nonlinearity is a precondition for chaos, but it isn't in and of itself chaos.  It is chaos -- sensitivity to initial conditions across all points in a compact region or on an attractor -- that causes the unpredictability.  The system is still deterministic, it is still predictable given precise enough information, but the precision required goes up exponentially with time.  That is deterministic chaos, like planetary motion (e.g. moons versus rings on Saturn). Quantum chaos would be chaos that was inherently governed by quantum mechanics, which are not deterministic.

 

Chaos in climate systems related to global heating is best observed by looking at tipping points.  I'm using global heating because it is more accurate than global warming, and I've been noticing people are skeptical about it here (which is sad).

Here's a special issue of PNAS that collects articles about them.

 

Sorry to jump in, but I see this and numerous other references to chaos and sensitivity to initial conditions, and I have some formal background in these things.

[voidisyinyang]

5 hours ago, Old Student said:

 

Not surprised that Steve Strogatz said that, but it doesn't make supercomputer predictions necessarily the wrong thing to do, they are the only way to incorporate the data in a viable model to make it possible to do the prediction work that actually does incorporate the math.

 

 

Both in this and the previous that I quoted, you refer to "quantum chaos".  On the first quote, you call Strogatz a "Math professor of quantum chaos".  He has no published work on quantum chaos, just on chaos.  In this quote you talk about "quantum chaos" as part of the inherent dynamics for changes in resonances for planetary motion.  What is "quantum" with respect to these n-body resonances?

 

Nonlinear resonance does not imply sensitivity to initial conditions, necessarily.  Nonlinearity is a precondition for chaos, but it isn't in and of itself chaos.  It is chaos -- sensitivity to initial conditions across all points in a compact region or on an attractor -- that causes the unpredictability.  The system is still deterministic, it is still predictable given precise enough information, but the precision required goes up exponentially with time.  That is deterministic chaos, like planetary motion (e.g. moons versus rings on Saturn). Quantum chaos would be chaos that was inherently governed by quantum mechanics, which are not deterministic.

 

Chaos in climate systems related to global heating is best observed by looking at tipping points.  I'm using global heating because it is more accurate than global warming, and I've been noticing people are skeptical about it here (which is sad).

Here's a special issue of PNAS that collects articles about them.

 

Sorry to jump in, but I see this and numerous other references to chaos and sensitivity to initial conditions, and I have some formal background in these things.

 

yes Ian Stewart is a quantum chaos mathematician. I call Strogatz a quantum chaos math professor, by default, since quantum physics has been the foundation of science since the early 1900s.

 

So Strogatz emphasizes, for example, that a fractal broccoli is actually not a real fractal and therefore not really chaotic. A chaotic system depends on logistic symmetric math logic whereas quantum physics is inherently asymmetric or noncommutative. I have corresponded with quantum physics professor Basil J. Hiley about this, also Dr. Ruth E. Kastner and also Nobel physicist Brian Josephson.

 

So you state that supercomputers are the "best" means - using chaos math - yes I recommend the book by Professor, coauthor with quantum physicist Menfas Kafatos, Professor Robert Nadeau, called "Environmental Endgame." If you read back in the thread - I discuss this book. But you'll note that the Economist review of the book refused to even acknowledge that the subject of the book was chaos math of the supercomputers modeling global "heating" as you want to call it.

 

So in terms of the quantum chaos aspect - the key feature is that as the CO2 increases then the quantum phase boundaries overlap creating a larger "frequency" range for photon absorption by the CO2 molecules - I noted this above already. My point being that quantum biology is a new field - and was considered "woo woo" even by biology professor PZ Myers - just back in 2006 - when I was promoting Professor JohnJoe McFadden on the "top" science blog by Myers. So yes "supercomputer iterations" are the "best" that science can do, but as Number Theory points out (Schroeder)  - chaos math is simply the irrational decimals being shifted from the right to the left as the initial conditions are changed.

 

So yes as you point out - chaos is about time while fractals are about space - but quantum physics as the foundation of reality inherently has time NOT as an outside parameter, but instead as a "linear operator" thereby creating the inherent limit of science as "time-frequency uncertainty" or Fourier Uncertainty, bound by Planck's Constant. So science studies this boundary in quantum chaos - with the assumption that the inherent quantum indeterminacy thereby does not allow the inherent uncertainty to resonant to macro-quantum levels.

 

That, of course, depends on the inherent dependency of scientists using external measurements - and so some scientists believe that quantum chaos will enable AI to be the next level of evolution, via synthetic biology or synthetic ecology or "digital biology" using quantum computing and nanobiomotors, for example. But this ignores the entropy inherent to the symmetric math relied on thus far in science - whereby any external measurement has to be converted from the noncommutative phase into a closed Pauli Exclusion Principle (using 720 degree phase as spin via the Poisson Bracket).

 

So whether something is nonlinear or linear is not the real issue. Reality is noncommutative phase, as math professor Alain Connes has pointed out - this goes against all the symmetric math thus far, that even most quantum physics relies on. I don't agree with Connes' quantum computing AI future - or as math professor Luigi Borzacchini calls it the "deep pre-established disharmony"  that is the "guiding evolutive principle" of science. In other words - Borzacchini calls it "Plato's Computer" - I have corresponded with Borzacchini also but he's retired now and his book remains in Italian. But the point being that the "authoritarian" math that Strogatz warned about in 2006 - from chaos supercomputers is not a new thing at all. Philosophy of science professor Oliver L. Reiser called it "the music logarithmic spiral." There is a structural deterministic drive to science, inherent in the symmetric mathematical logic. This is expounded by Ian Stewart for example in his book "Why Beauty is Truth: A History of Symmetry."

 

So if you think Western science can "save" ecology from abrupt global warming - and that the supercomputers really "care" about the future of life on Earth - I do not agree. The US military has issued a big study on Nanobiomotors - as the final dialectic of Man vs Nature vs Machine. Now what I think is left out is the 5th dimension as the foundation of reality - this is what noncommutative phase refers to or what the relativistic quantum physicists also discovered as the corroboration of Daoist Neigong alchemy - Eddie Oshins at Standford Linear Accelerator Center.

 

Chaos science is based on a Platonic ideal that does not exist in Nature.

 

Quote

 

The shahtoosh used to be a valued dowry item in India, and now it’s a luxury item for people in the West who pay up to $20,000 for a single scarf despite the fact that shahtoosh wool is a banned item because the Tibetan antelope is a protected endangered species under Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Even with this ban, Swiss customs officers say they’ve seized the equivalent of more than 800 Tibetan antelopes from passengers.

Unfortunately, when an animal is rare and endangered, that is when people wish to have it as a trophy even more as is the case with the endangered national animal of Pakistan, the Astore Markhor.

 

https://focusingonwildlife.com/news/rare-tibetan-antelopes-are-killed-to-make-expensive-luxury-scarves/

 

Quote

 

Just the news you’ve been waiting for: The amount of carbon dioxide in our planet’s atmosphere has reached a new high. April’s average was 413.52 parts per million, a new record, according to a spokesperson at Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

The last time there was this much CO2 in our atmosphere, there were trees growing at the South Pole. Humans weren’t yet a thing. In other words, we’re living in uncharted territory.

Scientists predict that we could pass the 415 ppm threshold this month.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[Old Student]

34 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

yes Ian Stewart is a quantum chaos mathematician. I call Strogatz a quantum chaos math professor, by default, since quantum physics has been the foundation of science since the early 1900s.

I usually think of Strogatz as a wavelets guy, with an incredible ability to teach.

Ian Stewart writes in his book on God playing dice,

Quote

There is some interest among physicists in what they call 'quantum chaos', but quantum chaos is about the relation between non-chaotic quantum systems and chaotic classical approximations -- not chaos as a mechanism for quantum indeterminacy. Quantum chaos is not what this chapter is about: the central thrust of this chapter is the possibility of changing the theoretical framework of quantum mechanics althogether, replacing quantum uncertainty by deterministic chaos, as Einstein would have liked.

 

He sounds like he wants to replace quantum randomness with little chaotic random number generators.

The other reference I found of his to quantum and chaos is his picture on his site of the "quantum chaos butterfly", by which he means a joking reference to Ed Lorenz's butterfly effect, and he goes on to assert that chaos is just shifting irrational numbers, and that it's really only good for making pretty tee shirts.  Do I have the right guy?

 

43 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

So Strogatz emphasizes, for example, that a fractal broccoli is actually not a real fractal and therefore not really chaotic. A chaotic system depends on logistic symmetric math logic whereas quantum physics is inherently asymmetric or noncommutative.

 

Fractal broccoli is not a real fractal because its self-similar pattern doesn't continue to arbitrarily small length scales.  As someone once pointed out, we model fluids with continuous mathematics, but if you subdivide a cup of coffee far enough you divide a coffee molecule and the two parts aren't coffee anymore.  Fact of life.

AFAIK, there is nothing that prohibits chaos in noncommutative systems, not sure what you mean by "inherently" asymmetric. That AB never equals BA for all A and B?

1 hour ago, voidisyinyang said:

So whether something is nonlinear or linear is not the real issue. Reality is noncommutative phase, as math professor Alain Connes has pointed out - this goes against all the symmetric math thus far, that even most quantum physics relies on.

 

Connes defines his noncommutative geometry as a superset of Riemannian geometry not as a substitute.  He also says that Riemannian geometry is completely suitable for large scales, e.g. planetary motion, etc.  I haven't read his stuff, but thanks for the reference.  It seems like something that grew out of C*-algebras, which I vaguely remember from school.

1 hour ago, voidisyinyang said:

chaos is about time while fractals are about space

 

I suppose, in a manner of speaking. The fractals in chaos are in state space, so they are behaviors in time.

 

1 hour ago, voidisyinyang said:

There is a structural deterministic drive to science, inherent in the symmetric mathematical logic.

 

No, the deterministic drive is inherent in the application of logical steps to prove things, and the difficulty humans have with believing their world has a random substrate when they can rarely see the evidence of it.

 

1 hour ago, voidisyinyang said:

So if you think Western science can "save" ecology from abrupt global warming - and that the supercomputers really "care" about the future of life on Earth - I do not agree.

 

I'm not certain anything can save ecology from global warming, it's already being affected, and we have done very little to reverse the actions which are causing global warming.  There will be massive damage done to the current ecology whether or not the human species reforms itself, that part is already baked in (no pun intended). Supercomputers are just big computers, they can crunch billions of data points and render them in a display.  It's the person observing the display with intuition and training that cares about the future of life on Earth.

 

1 hour ago, voidisyinyang said:

Chaos science is based on a Platonic ideal that does not exist in Nature.

 

Chaos science is based on the existence and ubiquity of chaotic dynamical systems, coupled with the fact that the equations we believe are good models for physics display that behavior for some values of the parameters.  The models need not continue to fit reality at all length scales and at all times, prediction in the presence of chaos is, as you pointed out, not possible when the the time frame you wish to predict exceeds your ability to measure or model the system.  Ed Lorenz gave the example of the butterfly flapping its wings over the Philippines and causing a hurricane in the Caribbean because he as trying to make the concept of sensitive dependence accessible.  One of his later papers actually said we should be able to predict the weather about twice as far out on the data collected, but predicted we'd never be able to predict it a month out.

 

Chaos theory also pretty much predicts that a conflict with too many players in it can only be ended by playing whack-a-mole with a goal, too.  It isn't totally impractical.

 

OldDog quoted Lin Yutang contrasting mathematical and intuitive thinking in a beautiful post Monday.  I don't think there is such a contrast, with all due respect to both OldDog and Lin Yutang. Mathematical thinking can rival the most complex tantric visualizations, and sits "in the silence of one's own mind" waiting for the insights which allow them to turn and reveal their meaning.

 

I first heard about global warming from the NASA Goddard people in the 1980s.  There have always been debates over what it will cause.  There have never been debates over whether it is happening, not since the first analysis of the insurance data by NASA and the NSF people.  All the data collected since solidifies that. But odds on probability plus some basic ecological theory says that what it causes will on balance not be good for this or many other species.

[voidisyinyang]

2 hours ago, Old Student said:

I usually think of Strogatz as a wavelets guy, with an incredible ability to teach.

Ian Stewart writes in his book on God playing dice,

 

He sounds like he wants to replace quantum randomness with little chaotic random number generators.

The other reference I found of his to quantum and chaos is his picture on his site of the "quantum chaos butterfly", by which he means a joking reference to Ed Lorenz's butterfly effect, and he goes on to assert that chaos is just shifting irrational numbers, and that it's really only good for making pretty tee shirts.  Do I have the right guy?

 

 

Fractal broccoli is not a real fractal because its self-similar pattern doesn't continue to arbitrarily small length scales.  As someone once pointed out, we model fluids with continuous mathematics, but if you subdivide a cup of coffee far enough you divide a coffee molecule and the two parts aren't coffee anymore.  Fact of life.

AFAIK, there is nothing that prohibits chaos in noncommutative systems, not sure what you mean by "inherently" asymmetric. That AB never equals BA for all A and B?

 

Connes defines his noncommutative geometry as a superset of Riemannian geometry not as a substitute.  He also says that Riemannian geometry is completely suitable for large scales, e.g. planetary motion, etc.  I haven't read his stuff, but thanks for the reference.  It seems like something that grew out of C*-algebras, which I vaguely remember from school.

 

I suppose, in a manner of speaking. The fractals in chaos are in state space, so they are behaviors in time.

 

 

No, the deterministic drive is inherent in the application of logical steps to prove things, and the difficulty humans have with believing their world has a random substrate when they can rarely see the evidence of it.

 

 

I'm not certain anything can save ecology from global warming, it's already being affected, and we have done very little to reverse the actions which are causing global warming.  There will be massive damage done to the current ecology whether or not the human species reforms itself, that part is already baked in (no pun intended). Supercomputers are just big computers, they can crunch billions of data points and render them in a display.  It's the person observing the display with intuition and training that cares about the future of life on Earth.

 

 

Chaos science is based on the existence and ubiquity of chaotic dynamical systems, coupled with the fact that the equations we believe are good models for physics display that behavior for some values of the parameters.  The models need not continue to fit reality at all length scales and at all times, prediction in the presence of chaos is, as you pointed out, not possible when the the time frame you wish to predict exceeds your ability to measure or model the system.  Ed Lorenz gave the example of the butterfly flapping its wings over the Philippines and causing a hurricane in the Caribbean because he as trying to make the concept of sensitive dependence accessible.  One of his later papers actually said we should be able to predict the weather about twice as far out on the data collected, but predicted we'd never be able to predict it a month out.

 

Chaos theory also pretty much predicts that a conflict with too many players in it can only be ended by playing whack-a-mole with a goal, too.  It isn't totally impractical.

 

OldDog quoted Lin Yutang contrasting mathematical and intuitive thinking in a beautiful post Monday.  I don't think there is such a contrast, with all due respect to both OldDog and Lin Yutang. Mathematical thinking can rival the most complex tantric visualizations, and sits "in the silence of one's own mind" waiting for the insights which allow them to turn and reveal their meaning.

 

I first heard about global warming from the NASA Goddard people in the 1980s.  There have always been debates over what it will cause.  There have never been debates over whether it is happening, not since the first analysis of the insurance data by NASA and the NSF people.  All the data collected since solidifies that. But odds on probability plus some basic ecological theory says that what it causes will on balance not be good for this or many other species.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Ian Stewart. He's cranked out a ton of books and papers in his day. I did correspond with him and then he had a parody piece published as a letter to Nature - a parody of my correspondence with him about psychic paranormal abilities in Daoism. haha.

 

But also your question about noncommutative phase - and it, the noncommutative geometry, being a "superset" - I would also not be so quick on that. I have a long quote from Connes - what he says about Riemann is quite fascinating.

 

Quote

“On the other hand the stretching of geometric thinking imposed by passing to noncommutative spaces forces one to rethink about most of our familiar notions. ...And it could be formalized by music….I think we might succeed in this way to educate the human mind to deal with polyphonic situations in which several voices coexist, in which several states coexist, whereas our ordinary logical allows room for only one. Finally, we come back to the problem of adaptation, which has to be resolved in order for us to understand quantum correlation and interrelation which we discussed earlier, and which are fundamentally schizoid in nature. It is clear that logic will evolve in parallel with the development of quantum computers, just as it evolved with computer science. That will no doubt enable us to cross new borders and to better integrate the mathematical formalism of the quantum world into our metaphysical system.... When Riemann wrote his essay on the foundations of geometry, he was incredibly careful. He said his ideas might not apply in the very small. Why? He said that the notion of a solid body of a ray of light doesn't make sense in the very small. So he was incredibly smart. His idea, I have never been able to understand his intuition...But however he wrote down explicitly that the geometry of space, of spacetime, should be encapsulated, should be given by the forces which hold the space together. Now it turns out this is exactly what we give here...One day I understood the following: That we are born in quantum mechanics. We can not deny that... Quantum mechanics has been verified. The superposition principle has been verified. The spin system is really a sphere. This has been verified. This has been checked so many times. That we can not say that Nature is classical. No. Nature is quantum. Nature is very quantum. From this quantum stuff, we have to understand our vision, our very classical, because of natural selection way of seeing things can emerge. It's very very difficult of course.  ...Why should Nature require some noncommutativity for the algebra? This is very strange. For most people noncommutativity is a nuisance. You see because all of algebraic geometry is done with commutative variables. Let me try to convince you again, that this is a misgiving. OK?....Our view of the spacetime is only an approximation, not the finite points, it's not good for inflation. But the inverse space of spinors is finite dimensional. Their spectrum is SO DENSE that it appears continuous but it is not continuous....  It is only because one drops commutativity that variables with a continuous range can coexist with variables with a countable range....What is a parameter?

 

The parameter is time...If you stay in the classical world, you can not have a good set up for variables. Because variables with a continuous range can not coexist with variables of discrete range. When you think more, you find out there is a perfect answer. And this answer is coming from quantum mechanics....The real variability in the world is exactly is where are you in the spectrum [frequency] of this variable or operator. And what is quite amazing is that in this work that I did at the very beginning of my mathematical studies, the amazing fact is that exactly time is emerging from the noncommutivity. You think that these variables do not commute, first of all it is that they don't commute so you can have the discrete variable that coexists with the continuous variable. What you find out after awhile is that the origin of time is probably quantum mechanical and its coming from the fact that thanks to noncommutativity ONLY that one can write the time evolution of a system, in temperature, in heat bath, the time evolution is really coming from the noncommutativity of the variables....You really are in a different world, then the world of geometry, which we all like because we all like to draw pictures and think in a geometric manner. So what I am going to explain is a very strange way to think about geometry, from this point of view, which is quite different from drawing on the blackboard...I will start by asking an extremely simple question, which of course has a geometrical origin. I don't think there can be a simpler question. Where are we?....The mathematical question, what we want, to say where we are and this has two parts: What is our universe? What is the geometric space in which we are? And in which point in this universe we are. We can not answer the 2nd question without answering the first question, of course....You have to be able to tell the geometric space in an invariant manner....These invariants are refinements of the idea of the diameter. The inverse of the diameter of the space is related to the first Eigenoperator, capturing the vibrations of the space; the way you can hear the music of shapes...which would be its scale in the musical sense; this shape will have a certain number of notes, these notes will be given by the frequency and form the basic scale, at which the geometric object is vibrating....The scale of a geometric shape is actually not enough.... However what emerges, if you know not only the various frequencies but also the chords, and the point will correspond to the chords. Then you know the complete thing....It's a rather delicate thing....There is a very strange mathematical fact...If you take manifolds of the same dimension, which are extremely different...the inverse space of the spinor doesn't distinguish between two manifolds. The Dirac Operator itself has a scale, so it's a spectrum [frequency]. And the only thing you need to know...is the relative position of the algebra...the Eigenfunctions of the Dirac Operator....a "universal scaling system," manifests itself in acoustic systems....

 

 

There is something even simpler which is what happens with a single string. If we take the most elementary shape, which is the interval, what will happen when we make it vibrate, of course with the end points fixed, it will vibrate in a very extremely simple manner. Each of these will produce a sound...When you look at the eigenfunctions of the disk, at first you don't see a shape but when you look at very higher frequencies you see a parabola. If you want the dimension of the shape you are looking at, it is by the growth of these eigenvariables. When talking about a string it's a straight line. When looking at a two dimensional object you can tell that because the eigenspectrum is a parabola.... They are isospectral [frequency with the same area], even though they are geometrically different....when you take the square root of these numbers, they are the same [frequency] spectrum but they don't have the same chords. There are three types of notes which are different....What do I mean by possible chords? I mean now that you have eigenfunctions, coming from the drawing of the disk or square [triangle, etc.]. If you look at a point and you look at the eigenfunction, you can look at the value of the eigenfunction at this point.... The point [zero in space] makes a chord between two notes. When the value of the two eigenfunctions [2, 3, infinity] will be non-zero. ...The corresponding eigenfunctions only leave you one of the two pieces; so if there is is one in the piece, it is zero on the other piece and if it is non-zero in the piece it is zero there...You understand the finite invariant which is behind the scenes which is allowing you to recover the geometry from the spectrum....

 

Our notion of point will emerge, a correlation of different frequencies...The space will be given by the scale. The music of the space will be done by the various chords. It's not enough to give the scale. You also have to give which chords are possible....The only thing that matters when you have these sequences are the ratios, the ear is only sensitive to the ratio, not to the additivity...multiplication by 2 of the frequency and transposition, normally the simplest way is multiplication by 3...2 to the power of 19 is almost 3 to the power of 12....You see what we are after....it should be a shape, it's spectrum looks like that...We can draw this spectrum...what do you get? It doesn't look at all like a parabola! It doesn't look at all like a parabola! It doesn't look at all like a straight line. It goes up exponentially fast...What is the dimension of this space?...It's much much smaller. It's zero...It's smaller than any positive.... Musical shape has geometric dimension zero... You think you are in bad shape because all the shapes we know ...but this is ignoring the noncommutative work. This is ignoring quantum groups. There is a beautiful answer to that, which is the quantum sphere... .There is a quantum sphere with a geometric dimension of zero...I have made a keyboard [from the quantum sphere]....This would be a musical instrument that would never get out of tune....It's purely spectral....The spectrum of the Dirac Operator...space is not simply a manifold but multiplied by a noncommutative finite space......It is precisely the irrationality of log(3)/ log(2) which is responsible for the noncommutative [complementary opposites as yin/yang] nature of the quotient corresponding to the three places {2, 3,∞}.  The formula is in sub-space....Geometry would no longer be dependent on coordinates, it would be spectral...The thing which is very unpleasant in this formula is the square root...especially for space with a meter....So there is a solution to this problem of the square root, which was found by Paul Dirac....It's not really Paul Dirac, it is Hamilton who found it first...the quaternions is the Dirac Operator....Replace the geometric space, by the algebra and the line element...for physicists this thing has a meaning, a propagator for the Dirac Operator. So it's the inverse of the Dirac Operator.... You don't lose anything. You can recover the distance from two points, in a different manner....but by sending a wave from point A to point B with a constraint on the vibration of the wave, can not vibrate faster than 1; because what I ask is the commutator of the Dirac Operator is less than 1...It no longer requires that the space is connected, it works for discrete space. It no longer requires that the space is commutative, because it works for noncommutative space....the algebra of coordinates depends very little on the actual structure and the line element is very important. What's really important is there interaction [the noncommutative chord]. When you let them interact in the same space then everything happens...

 

.You should never think of this finite space as being a commutative space. You have matrices which are given by a noncommutative space...To have a geometry you need to have an inverse space and a Dirac Operator...The inverse space of the finite space is 5 dimensional....What emerges is finite space...it's related to mathematics and related to the fact that there is behind the scene, when I talk about the Dirac Operator, there is a square root, and this square root, when you take a square root there is an ambiguity. And the ambiguity that is there is coming from the spin structure.... We get this formula by counting the number of the variables of the line element that are bigger than the Planck Length. We just count and get an integer....  There is a fine structure in spacetime, exactly as there is a fine structure in spectrals [frequencies]....Geometry is born in quantum space; it is invariant because it is observer dependent....Our brain is an incredible ...perceives things in momentum space of the photons we receive and manufactures a mental picture. Which is geometric. But what I am telling you is that I think ...that the fundamental thing is spectral [frequency]....And somehow in order to think we have to do this enormous Fourier Transform...not for functions but a Fourier Transform on geometry. By talking about the "music of shapes" is really a fourier transform of shape and the fact that we have to do it in reverse. This is a function that the brain does amazingly well, because we think geometrically....

 

The quantum observables do no commute; the phase space of a microscopic system is actually a noncommutative space and that is what is behind the scenes all the time. The way I understand it is that some physical laws are so robust, is that if I understand it correctly, there is a marvelous mathematical structure that is underneath the law, not a value of a number, but a mathematical structure....A fascinating aspect of music...is that it allows one to develop further one's perception of the passing of time. This needs to be understood much better. Why is time passing? Or better: Why do we have the impression that time is passes? Because we are immersed in the heat bath of the 3K radiation from the Big Bang?...time emerges from noncommutativity....What about the relation with music? One finds quickly that music is best based on the scale (spectrum) which consists of all positive integer powers qn for the real number q=2 to the 12th∼3 to the 19th. Due to the exponential growth of this spectrum, it cannot correspond to a familiar shape but to an object of dimension less than any strictly positive number. As explained in the talk, there is a beautiful space which has the correct spectrum: the quantum sphere of Poddles, Dabrowski, Sitarz, Brain, Landi et all. ...  We experiment in the talk with this spectrum and show how well suited it is for playing music. The new geometry  which encodes such new spaces, is then introduced in its spectral form, it is noncommutative geometry, which is then confronted with physics....Algebra and Music...music is linked to time exactly as algebra is....So for me, there is an incredible collusion between music, perceived in this way, and algebra

.   Fields Medal math professor Alain Connes,

Edited May 9, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[Old Student]

Thanks for the lecture quote.  Question:  Did you insert the bracketed words -- "[frequency]" next to the word "spectrum"?  Alain Connes seems to be talking about the spectra of operators, not of waves.  Because such spectra are capable of being discrete and continuous.

45 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

But also your question about noncommutative phase - and it, the noncommutative geometry, being a "superset" - I would also not be so quick on that. I have a long quote from Connes - what he says about Riemann is quite fascinating.

 

I was taking that from the following (Connes, A. Noncommutative geometry and reality. J. Math Phys, 34(3) 1995, pp. 6194-6231.):

 

Quote

In this paper we shall propose a new paradigm of geometric space which allows us to incorporate
completely different small scale structures. It will be clear from the start that our framework
is general enough. It will of course include ordinary Riemannian spaces but it will treat the
discrete spaces on the same footing as the continuum, thus allowing for a mixture of the two. It
also will allow for the possibility of noncommuting coordinates. Finally it is quite different from
the geometry arising in string theory but is not incompatible with the latter since supersymmetric
conformal field theory gives a geometric structure in our sense whose low energy part can be
defined in our framework and compared to the target space geometry.

 

I haven't read the paper, it isn't what I'm working on right now, and would require a lot of digging for me.  But it doesn't appear to displace or call untrue the use of Riemannian geometry where the length scales are appropriate, it includes Riemannian geometry (if I had to guess, not having read more than the intro, Riemannian geometry emerges as the model for the continuous part of the spectra of non-commuting operators).

 

[Jonesboy]

US Drought At Historic Low

Posted on May 7, 2019 by tonyheller

None of the US is currently experiencing severe drought. CO2 is at 410 PPM.

pdi20190504-pg.gif (650×534)

Compare with May, 1934 – when half of the US was experiencing severe or extreme drought. CO2 was 310 PPM.

psi-193405.gif (690×488)

The drought was worldwide.

22 Jun 1934, Page 3 – Hartford Courant at Newspapers.com

But since 1988, scientists have been 99% certain droughts are caused by CO2 levels above 350 PPM.

24 Jun 1988, Page 4 – The Courier-Journal at Newspapers.com

And since then, the US has been having the wettest years on record.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Experts also say that global warming and the ozone hole killed us decades ago.

Eugene Register-Guard – Google News Archive Search

[Jonesboy]

Coldest October-April On Record In Over A Century

Posted on May 2, 2019 by tonyheller

[This post has been corrected. There was a calculation error in the original version. I wrote some new code this morning to allow date ranges across annual boundaries.  The problem was that the code uses 0-11 as month numbers, and the NOAA data uses 1-12, so there was a month shift which affected the last year (2019) differently than the other years.]

Since the beginning of the water year (October-September) most of the US has been cold.

WaterTDeptUS.png (688×531)

Afternoon temperatures since October 1st have been the coldest in the last century.

Nighttime temperatures were also well below average, for the second year in a row.

Spreadsheet   Data

It was most likely the wettest October-April on record, but I won’t have statistics for that for a couple of weeks.

WaterPNormUS.png (688×531)

This destroys the argument that record rainfall is associated with warm air. And NOAA had the forecast exactly backwards, predicting warmth and drought.

Winter Outlook favors warmer temperatures for much of U.S. | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Jonesboy]

The Methane Bomb... and why you shouldn't be scared...

 

Declining North Pole Summer Temperatures

Posted on April 30, 2019 by tonyheller

Summer temperatures near the North Pole have been declining for 60 years, and have been consistently below normal since the year 2000.

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

There are less than 70 days per year when temperatures near the pole can be above the freezing mark – blue line below – and temperatures have been running consistently below normal during the short melt season.

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Climate alarmists say the Arctic is warming, because winter temperatures have been increasing for the past twenty years. Winter temperatures in recent years have been averaging about -25C, compared to about -30C in the past.  This warming has been due to deep dips in the jet stream, which bring the Polar Vortex south, and have been causing record cold in the US, Canada and Russia in recent. years.

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

This past winter was much colder in the Arctic than the previous few were, though still above the 1958-2002 mean.

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Ice has been getting thicker in the Arctic and currently averages about two meters thick.  The Northwest Passage has been blocked with very thick ice for the past two years, and is now impassable.

DMI Modelled ice thickness

Sixty years ago, Arctic ice was also about two meters thick, and experts were predicting an ice-free Arctic within a generation.

The Changing Face of the Arctic; The Changing Face of the Arctic – The New York Times

Meanwhile, climate alarmists continue to bombard propaganda about an ice-free Arctic – which obviously is not going to happen.

There has been no trend in Arctic sea ice extent for the past 13 years.

Masie Sea Ice Extent

Our top experts predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by 2008, and almost every year since.

Expert: Arctic polar cap may disappear this summer_English_Xinhua

North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer

BBC NEWS | UK | Swimmer aims to kayak to N Pole

Star-News – Google News Archive Search

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’

Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014

Wayback Machine

The Argus-Press – Google News Archive Search

Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013 | Sierra Club Canada

Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist | Environment | The Guardian

The End of the Arctic? Ocean Could be Ice Free by 2015 – The Daily Beast

A farewell to ice | Review | Chemistry World

And ten years ago, President Obama’s science adviser predicted ice-free winters.

…if you lose the summer sea ice, there are phenomena that could lead you not so very long thereafter to lose the winter sea ice as well. And if you lose that sea ice year round, it’s going to mean drastic climatic change all over the hemisphere.

– John Holdren, 2009

With declining summer temperatures, there is zero chance of the Arctic becoming ice-free any time in the foreseeable future.

[voidisyinyang]

10 hours ago, Old Student said:

Thanks for the lecture quote.  Question:  Did you insert the bracketed words -- "[frequency]" next to the word "spectrum"?  Alain Connes seems to be talking about the spectra of operators, not of waves.  Because such spectra are capable of being discrete and continuous.

 

I was taking that from the following (Connes, A. Noncommutative geometry and reality. J. Math Phys, 34(3) 1995, pp. 6194-6231.):

 

 

I haven't read the paper, it isn't what I'm working on right now, and would require a lot of digging for me.  But it doesn't appear to displace or call untrue the use of Riemannian geometry where the length scales are appropriate, it includes Riemannian geometry (if I had to guess, not having read more than the intro, Riemannian geometry emerges as the model for the continuous part of the spectra of non-commuting operators).

 

 

OK maybe you should read the quote from Connes again? It's mainly from his "music of the quantum spheres" lecture - but also a few other sources where he discusses music. His latest publication is actually a music composition!

 

So let me quote what you said:

 

Quote

Because such spectra are capable of being 1)  discrete and 2) continuous.

Now let's go back to Connes:

Quote

, the amazing fact is that exactly time is emerging from the noncommutivity. You think that these variables do not commute, first of all it is that they don't commute so you can have the 1) discrete variable that coexists with the 2) continuous variable. What you find out after awhile is that the origin of time is probably quantum mechanical and its coming from the fact that thanks to noncommutativity ONLY that one can write the time evolution of a system

 

So the operators are actually two different frequencies at the same time that have noncommutative phase.

 

My background is actually music studies - and I started out doing University level music training while I was in high school - doing private studies with a former University professor. This was after I had also done intensive piano training starting at age 5.

 

So I realized this secret of the noncommutative phase - but I did not have the mathematical concepts to explain it. I was calling it "complementary opposite ratios."

 

Now let's go back to Connes again on music theory. Here's what you are stating:

Quote

Riemannian geometry emerges as the model for the continuous part of the spectra

Here is Connes:

Quote

Their spectrum is SO DENSE that it appears continuous but it is not continuous....  It is only because one drops commutativity that variables with a continuous range can coexist with variables with a countable range

 

So you say you'd have to do a lot of digging - actually there is a short overview of the implications of noncommutative geometry for science - here:

 

Now you say - it's not what you're working on.

Yes hardly anyone is "working" on noncommutative geometry.

But does anyone really have a choice?

Let's see what Connes states again:

Quote

passing to noncommutative spaces forces one to rethink about most of our familiar notions

 

OK so I realize it may not be what you're working on now but we're just talking about the truth of reality - no big deal.

.

Quote

It's a rather delicate thing....There is a very strange mathematical fact.

So you ask me whether the Dirac spectrum refers to frequency or not.

Quote

You really are in a different world, then the world of geometry, which we all like because we all like to draw pictures and think in a geometric manner. So what I am going to explain is a very strange way to think about geometry, from this point of view, which is quite different from drawing on the blackboard

Connes repeatedly also uses frequency - stating the Dirac Operator has a scale that is modeled by acoustic systems, with music theory providing the formal language for the model.

Why? Because music theory is actually noncommutative!!

 

Now notice - you may not have noticed this - but he reverses his logarithmic math - between 2 to the 12th and 3 to the 19th and then 2 to the 19th and 3 to the 12th!

Quote

the scale (spectrum) which consists of all positive integer powers qn for the real number q=2 to the 12th∼3 to the 19th.

So when I inserted frequency I used brackets - but that is from Connes - using parenthesis for spectrum as the frequency scale.

,

Quote

the ear is only sensitive to the ratio, not to the additivity...multiplication by 2 of the frequency and transposition, normally the simplest way is multiplication by 3...2 to the power of 19 is almost 3 to the power of 12

So how he REVERSED the frequency ratios - why? Because the PHASE is noncommutative. In other words the EAR perceives the same Perfect Fifth Pitch while the frequency is reversed. So that 2/3 is the Perfect Fifth as C to F subharmonic frequency while 3/2 is also the Perfect Fifth as C to G overtone harmonic.

 

This basic empirical truth was COVERED UP in order to CREATE the commutative symmetry math system of normal Western math-science!!

 

 

Edited May 9, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[Old Student]

6 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

So let me quote what you said:

No, that wasn't really quoting what I said because I meant, and said, "discrete and continuous".

Spectra of (closed) operators on a Hilbert space have 3 parts: The resolvent, the discrete spectrum, and the continuous spectrum. So I really did mean "discrete and continous" as in a spectrum that includes both.  In particular, if you have a self-adjoint operator, it's spectrum is real, and if it is not commutative, the commutation operator gives an uncertainty like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.  These spectra don't have to have anything to do with frequencies, it is when they are Fourier spectra that they correspond to such, which is where the name came from -- why they are called spectra.  In this case, they are the eigenfunctions of the operator, and the best analogy is to the eigenvalues of a matrix (If a matrix has determinant not zero, you can find a coordinate system in which it is a diagonal matrix and the eigenvalues are the elements on the diagonal).

 

6 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

My background is actually music studies - and I started out doing University level music training while I was in high school - doing private studies with a former University professor. This was after I had also done intensive piano training starting at age 5.

Good to know, I do find your stuff inspiring for mental images.  My background, with respect to this stuff is mathematics, spec. dynamical systems and chaos, and I have undergrad and a little grad physics.

6 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

Now you say - it's not what you're working on.

Yes hardly anyone is "working" on noncommutative geometry.

But does anyone really have a choice?

I suppose that's true, but not what I meant.  I have an erstwhile professional now retired interest in some differential geometry topics, the Ricci equation and anisotropic diffusion.  There's some overlap with Connes' subject matter, but only some. I do sometimes read stuff about string theory, but not in any mathematical depth.  And I do have my own use for discretization in my topic, which is why I thanked you for the references.

6 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

So you ask me whether the Dirac spectrum refers to frequency or not.

It actually refers to the spectrum of the Dirac operator. The Dirac operator is the formal square root of the Laplace-Beltrami operator (so that actually is something I get to use from time to time).  But like I said, because some operators have spectra that are related to frequency, they are all called spectra as an analogy to light spectra.  That one, because it's related to the Laplace operator, whose spectrum is Fourier eigenfunctions which really are frequencies as in frequency domain, is easier to picture as frequencies than most operators in general.

 

Connes' point in relating everything to music is to try to make everyone intuit the notion of noncommutative geometry as easily as they can intuit other geometries.  Because he wants to end the dichotomous thinking about classical v. quantum physics and think of the whole as one physics.

[voidisyinyang]

1 hour ago, Old Student said:

No, that wasn't really quoting what I said because I meant, and said, "discrete and continuous".

Spectra of (closed) operators on a Hilbert space have 3 parts: The resolvent, the discrete spectrum, and the continuous spectrum. So I really did mean "discrete and continous" as in a spectrum that includes both.  In particular, if you have a self-adjoint operator, it's spectrum is real, and if it is not commutative, the commutation operator gives an uncertainty like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.  These spectra don't have to have anything to do with frequencies, it is when they are Fourier spectra that they correspond to such, which is where the name came from -- why they are called spectra.  In this case, they are the eigenfunctions of the operator, and the best analogy is to the eigenvalues of a matrix (If a matrix has determinant not zero, you can find a coordinate system in which it is a diagonal matrix and the eigenvalues are the elements on the diagonal).

 

Good to know, I do find your stuff inspiring for mental images.  My background, with respect to this stuff is mathematics, spec. dynamical systems and chaos, and I have undergrad and a little grad physics.

I suppose that's true, but not what I meant.  I have an erstwhile professional now retired interest in some differential geometry topics, the Ricci equation and anisotropic diffusion.  There's some overlap with Connes' subject matter, but only some. I do sometimes read stuff about string theory, but not in any mathematical depth.  And I do have my own use for discretization in my topic, which is why I thanked you for the references.

It actually refers to the spectrum of the Dirac operator. The Dirac operator is the formal square root of the Laplace-Beltrami operator (so that actually is something I get to use from time to time).  But like I said, because some operators have spectra that are related to frequency, they are all called spectra as an analogy to light spectra.  That one, because it's related to the Laplace operator, whose spectrum is Fourier eigenfunctions which really are frequencies as in frequency domain, is easier to picture as frequencies than most operators in general.

 

Connes' point in relating everything to music is to try to make everyone intuit the notion of noncommutative geometry as easily as they can intuit other geometries.  Because he wants to end the dichotomous thinking about classical v. quantum physics and think of the whole as one physics.

 

Let me review your teaching me - which I appreciate.

 

You state:

Quote

eigenfunctions of the operator

then you state:

Quote

the eigenvalues of a matrix

then you state:

Quote

Fourier eigenfunctions which really are frequencies

OK now let's go back to noncommutative geometry.

Now as I mentioned - Connes' most recent publication is an actual music composition. So perhaps that would be the most enlightening.

So first we go back to the Connes' quote I posted. YOu are claiming he is using music as an analogy. I am claiming that the music theory is directly the model of the Dirac Operator.

Here is what Connes states:

Quote

And it could be formalized by music

and

Quote

Due to the exponential growth of this [music frequency] spectrum, it cannot correspond to a familiar shape but to an object of dimension less than any strictly positive number. As explained in the talk, there is a beautiful space which has the correct spectrum: the quantum sphere of Poddles, Dabrowski, Sitarz, Brain, Landi et all. ...  We experiment in the talk with this spectrum and show how well suited it is for playing music.

So if you watch the lecture - Connes actually composes music that is the quantum spectrum and vice versa.

Quote

Geometry would no longer be dependent on coordinates, it would be spectral

and

Quote

Musical shape has geometric dimension zero... You think you are in bad shape because all the shapes we know ...but this is ignoring the noncommutative work. This is ignoring quantum groups. There is a beautiful answer to that, which is the quantum sphere... .There is a quantum sphere with a geometric dimension of zero

OK so the way he is talking about music is very different than it is normally understood. Sir James Jeans came close to this understanding in his book "Science and Music" - but otherwise you do not find this definition of music ANYWAY in Western science.

Quote

The Dirac Operator itself has a scale, so it's a spectrum....a "universal scaling system," manifests itself in acoustic systems....

So Connes is interchanging the word "spectrum" with acoustic "scale."

OK so now let's go back to the terms you used:

Eigenfunction and Eigenvalue.

But a term you did not use is?

Quote

giving the eigen-frequencies of the spinors that can live on that spacetime.

So this is what Connes is talking about.

Quote

The Dirac operator is a 'square-root' of the Laplacian, so that its spectrum ..

OK so that's what you're referring to. But what does Connes state about the "square-root"?

Quote

when I talk about the Dirac Operator, there is a square root, and this square root, when you take a square root there is an ambiguity. And the ambiguity that is there is coming from the spin structure

So there is a difference between the square root and the spin structure.

The spin structure is the eigen-frequencies that are noncommutative phase.

Quote

You have matrices which are given by a noncommutative space.....time emerges from noncommutativity...To have a geometry you need to have an inverse space and a Dirac Operator...The inverse space of the finite space is 5 dimensional... the phase space of a microscopic system is actually a noncommutative space and that is what is behind the scenes all the time.

OK so do you see that this is the level "below" the Dirac Operator?

Quote

Thus, the general idea is to describe spacetime geometry by giving the eigen-frequencies.

So you did not use the term eigen-frequencies because these are noncommutative phase frequencies - not the same as Fourier frequency (which does not use time and frequency at the same noncommutative phase as the 5th dimension).

Quote

a given frequency traverses the path between two points which takes the least time.

So these are also called the Spectral Triplets by Connes - meaning 3 frequencies that are noncommutative.

To quote Connes again:

Quote

spectroscopy forced Heisenberg to replace the classical frequency group of the.

So Connes whole work is just building on Heisenberg - replacing what most scientists consider to be frequency with in fact the empirically true definition of frequency that is ALSO found in Daoist Harmonics and Orthodox Pythagorean harmonics - it is noncommutative phase as the 5th dimension that is non-local at "zero" time.

Yes this was also first discovered by Louis de Broglie - the truth "father" of relativistic quantum physics:

 

The noncommutative geometry of Zitterbewegung

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.10083

by M Eckstein - ‎2016 - ‎Cited by 8 - ‎Related articles

Quote

Oct 31, 2016 - over, it lies at the heart of Connes' theory of noncommutative geometry [3, 4], which ... frequency of the 'trembling motion' of a single Dirac fermion

Edited May 10, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[voidisyinyang]

2 hours ago, Old Student said:

 In this case, they are the eigenfunctions of the operator, and the best analogy is to the eigenvalues of a matrix (If a matrix has determinant not zero, you can find a coordinate system in which it is a diagonal matrix and the eigenvalues are the elements on the diagonal).

 

 

So then http://www.waltervansuijlekom.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/leiden2014.pdf

as I quoted before:

 

Quote

 

Inner perturbations in noncommutative geometry - Walter van Suijlekom

 

 

www.waltervansuijlekom.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/leiden2014.pdf

 

by WD van Suijlekom - ‎2014 - ‎Related articles

(joint with Ali Chamseddine and Alain Connes). May 15, 2014 ... A. Chamseddine, Alain Connes, WvS. ... Wave numbers on the disc: high frequencies. 50. 100. 150 ... The Dirac operator is a 'square-root' of the Laplacian, so that its spectrum ..

 

 

So if you open that pdf - it is explained:

Quote

it is a diagonal matrix

This is what you state above, but the link explains:

Quote

Instead of diagonal matrices, we consider block diagonal matrices...

emphasis in the original.

So then the noncommutative block matrice is explained by a 3 block form or 3 x 3 matrix.

So what you describe is then "perturbed" by the block diagonal noncommutative algebra.

So then at each "zero" point of space there is an "inner" or "sub space" that is noncommutative phase.

That subspace or the 5th dimension is then ADDED to the Riemannian space - and THEN you can do the Dirac Operator on it.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[Old Student]

10 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

None of the US is currently experiencing severe drought. CO2 is at 410 PPM.

You do know we have an El Nino this winter/spring?  It causes rain in the U.S. West over the Sierras and Rockies. Elsewhere in the world except for Southeastern Africa, it causes drought.  Also, there is a balance: CO2 dissolves better in warmer water than colder, so CO2 increases measured in the atmosphere should slow down during El Nino years.

 

As for "coldest winters" in the U.S., haven't had any recently.  We've had record lows, caused, as you say, by wobbles in the Arctic winds which shed into our airspace.  But those are actually caused by the melting in the Arctic which destabilizes those winds.  When the ice is thick up there, those circumferential winds are very stable, and we don't get polar vortex as much.

[voidisyinyang]

4 hours ago, Old Student said:

 There's some overlap with Connes' subject matter, but only some.

http://www.alainconnes.org/docs/shapes.pdf

So then if you actually read Connes' "Music of the Spheres" lecture - as a pdf doc - he explains then how the "twisted" Spectral triplet in the subspace at the zero geometric point, then explains the hidden 6 dimensions of string theory.

And Connes' inspiration for this was directly the analysis of whether you can HEAR the SHAPE of a DRUM - and the answer is no because the drum can be "isospectral" - the same frequency - but NOT "isomorphic" - the same geometric shape. So that, again, is the same concept applied to the twisted spectral triplet as a bounded diagonal matrice (containing both the Future and the Past overlapping as the chirality of 1/2 spin).

So again this is frequency BEFORE the Fourier Transform frequency that you refer to - or BEFORE the Poisson Bracket that I referred to a few posts above.

 

http://www.noncommutativegeometry.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ConnesLeiden.pdf

 

This gives more details - the pdf is called "The Spectral Model" - by Connes

So that shows the Isospectral by NOT isomorphic (noncommutative phase) of the drum shape that can not be heard.

So I'll just quote Connes:

Quote

a point of the geometric space "X" can be thought of as a correlation ...which encodes the scalar product at the point between the eigenfunctions of the Dirac operator associated to various frequencies, i.e. eigenvalues of the Dirac operator.

 

Edited May 10, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[Old Student]

3 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

So then the noncommutative block matrice is explained by a 3 block form or 3 x 3 matrix.

So what you describe is then "perturbed" by the block diagonal noncommutative algebra.

So then at each "zero" point of space there is an "inner" or "sub space" that is noncommutative phase.

That subspace or the 5th dimension is then ADDED to the Riemannian space - and THEN you can do the Dirac Operator on it.

So the analysis is that you choose a group of operators, then you create what Connes calls it's perturbation semi-group, by taking its tensor product with itself with his operations for creating the semi-group, which involve operations of multiplication using the resolvent of another operator previously specified, and moving to a subset of that product that fits his normalization and adjoint conditions.  Spec. if f(x,y) is an operator in the tensor product, we require f(x,x)=I the identity matrix, and f(x,y) = conjugate transpose = f(y,x) conjugate.

On the new set, you get extra structure, and the specific operators he's interested in are the eigenfunctions of the Laplacian, and the eigenfunctions of the Dirac operator, it's formal square root.

 

What it has to do directly with music has to do with Milnor's theorem that the spectrum of the Laplacian does not in general determine the shape of a manifold (in this case think surface with boundary), answering Mark Kac's query in his Math Monthly article in the negative (presumably that was what Kac was writing about.)  If that's the case, then in the specific case of a drum, where the eigenfunctions are the waves across the drum head that resonate, this means that you can't necessarily tell what shape the drum head is by listening to it always (you famously can tell a square one from a round one because a round one can be tuned -- like a tympani and a square one doesn't have a "tone").

 

As for whether you are talking block diagonal or diagonal matrices, nothing prevents using block diagonal matrices, what I was telling you was what the eigenvalues of a matrix are, and it is a fact (called the Jordan canonical form) that all matrices with non-zero determinant can be diagonalized over the complex numbers -- at which point the diagonal entries are the eigenvalues.

 

The paper you pointed to does indeed say that the normal geometry embeds (i.e. the original Laplacian and its eigenfunctions are part of the noncommutative structure constructed from them).  It embeds because it is tensored with itself to give the space from which the perturbation semigroup is constructed.

 

One can construct a Dirac operator on any space for which the Laplacian for that space has been constructed.  Constructing such a Laplacian, IRRC, requires that the space be a symmetric space.  On such spaces, the Laplacian has eigenfunctions which function as the Fourier series components for the space.  What I was telling you is that those spaces need not look at all like the spaces in which you are familiar with the Fourier components and in which they represent frequencies.  You could still call them frequencies, but, for instance, the frequencies you make your music from are related to the Laplacian on a 2-sphere (sine and cosine waves), and what they are on an infinite dimensional sphere is probably a bit different. 

 

And some of the exponents, for instance, in the paper you were reading on music, you know, e^D where D is an operator, are different, they are defined in terms of infinite series and in the non-commutative (usual) case, the exponents don't add like they do when they are numbers.  So it all looks like it's the same finite mundane world of functions and addition and multiplication and stuff, but it's frequently infinite dimensional and not quite the same.

 

I tried not to use to much jargon, and this isn't a place to write formulas (there's no MathJax), but I hope this helps.

[Jonesboy]

11 hours ago, Old Student said:

You do know we have an El Nino this winter/spring?  It causes rain in the U.S. West over the Sierras and Rockies. Elsewhere in the world except for Southeastern Africa, it causes drought.  Also, there is a balance: CO2 dissolves better in warmer water than colder, so CO2 increases measured in the atmosphere should slow down during El Nino years.

 

 

 

That has nothing to do with the Expert Scientist saying that the U.S. would have a warmer winter and drought conditions because of higher CO2 levels.

 

The exact opposite happened. El Nino is a natural weather phenomenon, not something caused by man made global warming.

 

Quote

As for "coldest winters" in the U.S., haven't had any recently.  We've had record lows, caused, as you say, by wobbles in the Arctic winds which shed into our airspace.  But those are actually caused by the melting in the Arctic which destabilizes those winds.  When the ice is thick up there, those circumferential winds are very stable, and we don't get polar vortex as much.

 

Again, we have had record cold winters which is the opposite of what the experts predicted.

 

Also, there is no melting of the Arctic. The thickness of the ice is the same, 2 meters thick and the Arctic is expanding!

 

Arctic Sea Ice Continues To Grow

Posted on April 4, 2019 by tonyheller

The volume of Arctic sea ice is very close to the median over the past 12 years, and continues to grow.

There has been no trend in Arctic sea ice extent or volume over the past twelve years.

Spreadsheet

The Northwest Passage is blocked with the thickest ice in years.

DMI Modelled ice thickness

Last year, Arctic ambulance chasers were focused on the “ice hole in the Barents Sea.”  But there is lots of ice in the Barents Sea, so they have moved their clown show to the Bering Sea.

Science News asks “what happens when the Bering Sea becomes ice-free?”

The Bering Sea loses its ice every spring. Perhaps they can use the last few hundred thousand years for reference? There was no ice (or water) in the Bering Sea when the first humans moved to America 25,000 years ago – during the last ice age.

How did the first americans get here

Alaska was largely ice-free during the last ice age, for the same reason Bering Sea ice is low this year.  During ice ages, the jet stream brings mild air to Alaska, and cold air to Canada and much of the US.

Ice Age Maps, Ice Age Maps, London

The last thing I would ever expect climate researchers to do, is engage in actual scientific research. It just doesn’t seem to happen.

 

 

The Arctic melting was so last year... this year it is the Bearing Sea....

Edited May 10, 2019 by Jonesboy

[joeblast]

12 hours ago, Old Student said:

You do know we have an El Nino this winter/spring?  It causes rain in the U.S. West over the Sierras and Rockies. Elsewhere in the world except for Southeastern Africa, it causes drought.  Also, there is a balance: CO2 dissolves better in warmer water than colder, so CO2 increases measured in the atmosphere should slow down during El Nino years.

 

As for "coldest winters" in the U.S., haven't had any recently.  We've had record lows, caused, as you say, by wobbles in the Arctic winds which shed into our airspace.  But those are actually caused by the melting in the Arctic which destabilizes those winds.  When the ice is thick up there, those circumferential winds are very stable, and we don't get polar vortex as much.

With all the advanced things you talk about, you get it backwards that gasses dissolve more easily into liquids at colder temperatures?  

 

And the changes in the polar vortex are correlated with solar cycle phenomena, not polar ice melt.  This is simple physics, man.  The increases in the troposphere at solar peak have been measured, and the drops during the lulls have also been measured.  When the atmosphere shrinks back down, the polar vortex is enhanced, and as the momentum is lost, it wobbles and then breaks into chunks as the vortex enhancement returns to normal.  This can be noted most prominently as the highs measured in 2004 fell apart in the sunspot funk of 2008-2009, and the jetstream was affected for years afterward because of that.  We've been in a sunspot funk recently and who'da thunk, we were treated to the same polar vortex phenomena this past winter.

 

Consider the physics of what I just described vs the physics of what you just asserted was responsible for the phenomenon for a few.

Edited May 10, 2019 by joeblast

[voidisyinyang]

8 hours ago, Old Student said:

So the analysis is that you choose a group of operators, then you create what Connes calls it's perturbation semi-group, by taking its tensor product with itself with his operations for creating the semi-group, which involve operations of multiplication using the resolvent of another operator previously specified, and moving to a subset of that product that fits his normalization and adjoint conditions.  Spec. if f(x,y) is an operator in the tensor product, we require f(x,x)=I the identity matrix, and f(x,y) = conjugate transpose = f(y,x) conjugate.

On the new set, you get extra structure, and the specific operators he's interested in are the eigenfunctions of the Laplacian, and the eigenfunctions of the Dirac operator, it's formal square root.

 

What it has to do directly with music has to do with Milnor's theorem that the spectrum of the Laplacian does not in general determine the shape of a manifold (in this case think surface with boundary), answering Mark Kac's query in his Math Monthly article in the negative (presumably that was what Kac was writing about.)  If that's the case, then in the specific case of a drum, where the eigenfunctions are the waves across the drum head that resonate, this means that you can't necessarily tell what shape the drum head is by listening to it always (you famously can tell a square one from a round one because a round one can be tuned -- like a tympani and a square one doesn't have a "tone").

 

As for whether you are talking block diagonal or diagonal matrices, nothing prevents using block diagonal matrices, what I was telling you was what the eigenvalues of a matrix are, and it is a fact (called the Jordan canonical form) that all matrices with non-zero determinant can be diagonalized over the complex numbers -- at which point the diagonal entries are the eigenvalues.

 

The paper you pointed to does indeed say that the normal geometry embeds (i.e. the original Laplacian and its eigenfunctions are part of the noncommutative structure constructed from them).  It embeds because it is tensored with itself to give the space from which the perturbation semigroup is constructed.

 

One can construct a Dirac operator on any space for which the Laplacian for that space has been constructed.  Constructing such a Laplacian, IRRC, requires that the space be a symmetric space.  On such spaces, the Laplacian has eigenfunctions which function as the Fourier series components for the space.  What I was telling you is that those spaces need not look at all like the spaces in which you are familiar with the Fourier components and in which they represent frequencies.  You could still call them frequencies, but, for instance, the frequencies you make your music from are related to the Laplacian on a 2-sphere (sine and cosine waves), and what they are on an infinite dimensional sphere is probably a bit different. 

 

And some of the exponents, for instance, in the paper you were reading on music, you know, e^D where D is an operator, are different, they are defined in terms of infinite series and in the non-commutative (usual) case, the exponents don't add like they do when they are numbers.  So it all looks like it's the same finite mundane world of functions and addition and multiplication and stuff, but it's frequently infinite dimensional and not quite the same.

 

I tried not to use to much jargon, and this isn't a place to write formulas (there's no MathJax), but I hope this helps.

 

Connes calls it a "twisted" Dirac Operator. So the Spectral Triplet from music theory is what he calls (2, 3, infinity). So no - I'm not at all talking about music as per the usual symmetric Fourier analysis, nor is Connes.

So when I was studying music theory in high school - privately - I just wondered something very simple - why does the Perfect Fifth have to be 3/2 and not 2/3 - or in terms of geometry in music it is C to G and not F to C (subharmonic).

So this was actually the noncommutative phase origin as the 5th dimension that was covered up when the Greek Miracle (the "deep pre-established disharmony") was created.

And so Connes' latest paper is on entropy. The thing is this - we define global warming as entropy based on the solar photon light being of a higher frequency that is absorbed by plants and algae - but then it gets emitted back from the Earth as longer infrared light considered to be entropy. But our science then considers civilization via technology to be Order that is against entropy.

Schroedinger proved that this is wrong, in his book, "What is Life?" And the recent book "Life on the Edge" on quantum biology (2016) goes into this further.

Quote

As proved by Hawking, had the Universe's entropy increased been reversed, this reversal would be impossible to observe. This is because time orientation of all biological processes (as we show elsewhere in detail) relies solely on entropy's increase.

Avshalom C. Elitzur, Shahar Dolev
Black-Hole Uncertainty Entails An Intrinsic Time Arrow, Dec. 2000

 

So this claim is incorrect since it assumes that Western left brain /right hand technology perception is the only means to observe reality. But Nonwestern music harmonics that Connes has revealed as the truth of reality - the noncommutative phase as the 5th dimension - can be logically inferred and LISTENED to and this is the secret of Daoist Neigong training, as Eddie Oshins at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center also realized.

 

Quote

What it has to do directly with music has to do with Milnor's theorem that the spectrum of the Laplacian does not in general determine the shape of a manifold (in this case think surface with boundary),

 

So yes Connes points out that just as in music theory - which is actually noncommutative phase (and so the inability to hear the shape of a drum is just a specific example that proves this point)....

 

So to quote Connes on what I just quoted you:

 

Quote

One reason for the difficulty of this task is that, as it is well known since the examples of J. Milnor, non-isometric Riemannian spaces exist which have the same spectra (for the Dirac or Laplace Operators).

 

So yes that it precisely why music provides the "formal logic" to solve the foundation of reality.

Now you are claiming that this foundation that is noncommutative can then just be "embedded" back into commutative symmetric math via the Poisson Bracket. What Connes emphasizes is that renormalization has been wrong because of missing this noncommutative truth as logic. And as the overview video I posted states - noncommutative geometry has to rely on each force of physics having a different noncommutative spacetime.

 

So basically Western science has been very precise up till now but NOT accurate. Personally I would go for accuracy over precision. And so we've created great entropy AGAINST relativistic quantum biology - the 5th dimension as negenetropy that life relies on. This is what qigong master Yan Xin calls the "virtual information field" that does the qigong healing. Qigong master Zhong, Hongbao calls this secret the "golden key" of superluminal "yin matter."

 

So in WEstern science we Assume that the foundation of reality is random. Ian Stewart states that in quantum physics this is not necessarily true. Here is how quantum physics professor (previously of Hampshire College where I took quantum mechanics) describes our true perception of reality:

 

.

Quote

..superconductivity within one neuron could become phase coherent with that in an adjoining cell by virtue of quantum tunnelling, and this could be stimulated by the macroscopic analog of stimulated emission (alluded to before in connection with the mantra), that is an AC Josephson effect. ...At a more interesting level, the quantum vacuum state may be said to be empty (of excitation) and yet full in the sense of pure potentiality; it contains "virtual" (unphysical) representatives of all possible modes of matter and excitation in the form of vacuum fluctuations or "virtual particles" (zero-point excitations of each field mode, assigned one-half quanta of energy, due directly to the non-commutative property of the field operators).

 

Edited May 10, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[Old Student]

2 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

That has nothing to do with the Expert Scientist saying that the U.S. would have a warmer winter and drought conditions because of higher CO2 levels.

 

The exact opposite happened. El Nino is a natural weather phenomenon, not something caused by man made global warming.

Um, yes it does. Higher CO2 levels do produce warmer winters, the past winter was one of the warmest on record. Notwithstanding that there were any record cold temperatures measured.  The warmth of the winter is an average, the record cold temperatures were events.  And my point about El Nino is that during years when there is an El Nino, the Pacific Ocean is warmer, so it absorbs more CO2 which decreases the amount of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere temporarily.

 

El Nino is a natural phenomenon (actually ocean not weather), but its timing and intensity and cycle are affected by global warming.

2 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

Again, we have had record cold winters which is the opposite of what the experts predicted.

 

Also, there is no melting of the Arctic. The thickness of the ice is the same, 2 meters thick and the Arctic is expanding!

We have not had record cold winters, we've set cold records in winters.  There's a difference.  If you cannot understand that difference, then forget talking about the climate, which is usually studied on a decadal or even millennial timespan.  The difference between a cold winter and a winter during which there were record colds, is that a cold winter is cold over the timespan of the whole winter, and we haven't had any of those lately, the past winter was IRRC third warmest on record.  What we have had is some records set for cold, i.e. days when the temperature was colder than for that day any time on record.  That's due to the instabilities in the winds that circle around the Arctic, which cause what is reported in the weather as polar vortex.  And the fact that that happens more frequently than it used to is due to the warming of the Arctic -- i.e. due to loss of permanent Arctic ice.

 

This stuff is done by science, not by shouting.  Warm an ocean, gases dissolve better, cool an Arctic, produce winds corresponding to the permanent downdraft because cold air sinks.  NASA has a great video of Rossby waves if you want to see how the Arctic causes weather. And this site is a continuously running blog on the Arctic Oscillation.  Read up if you want to know more about how weather and climate interact.

 

[Jonesboy]

6 minutes ago, Old Student said:

Um, yes it does. Higher CO2 levels do produce warmer winters, the past winter was one of the warmest on record. Notwithstanding that there were any record cold temperatures measured.  The warmth of the winter is an average, the record cold temperatures were events.  And my point about El Nino is that during years when there is an El Nino, the Pacific Ocean is warmer, so it absorbs more CO2 which decreases the amount of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere temporarily.

 

El Nino is a natural phenomenon (actually ocean not weather), but its timing and intensity and cycle are affected by global warming.

We have not had record cold winters, we've set cold records in winters.  There's a difference.  If you cannot understand that difference, then forget talking about the climate, which is usually studied on a decadal or even millennial timespan.  The difference between a cold winter and a winter during which there were record colds, is that a cold winter is cold over the timespan of the whole winter, and we haven't had any of those lately, the past winter was IRRC third warmest on record.  What we have had is some records set for cold, i.e. days when the temperature was colder than for that day any time on record.  That's due to the instabilities in the winds that circle around the Arctic, which cause what is reported in the weather as polar vortex.  And the fact that that happens more frequently than it used to is due to the warming of the Arctic -- i.e. due to loss of permanent Arctic ice.

 

This stuff is done by science, not by shouting.  Warm an ocean, gases dissolve better, cool an Arctic, produce winds corresponding to the permanent downdraft because cold air sinks.  NASA has a great video of Rossby waves if you want to see how the Arctic causes weather. And this site is a continuously running blog on the Arctic Oscillation.  Read up if you want to know more about how weather and climate interact.

 

 

Nobody is shouting. Again, just look at the science and you will see. The Winter has been wet not dry, cold not warm. The Arctic is not melting it is growing.

 

 The predictions by the experts have been wrong... again.

 

Afternoon temperatures since October 1st have been the coldest in the last century.

Nighttime temperatures were also well below average, for the second year in a row.

Edited May 10, 2019 by Jonesboy

[Old Student]

2 hours ago, joeblast said:

With all the advanced things you talk about, you get it backwards that gasses dissolve more easily into liquids at colder temperatures?  

Thanks for the correction.

 

2 hours ago, joeblast said:

And the changes in the polar vortex are correlated with solar cycle phenomena, not polar ice melt. 

My turn to correct. It's simple physics, man.  The Arctic Oscillation is complex, but largely its contractions and expansions are a result of the condition of the permafrost and monsoon cycles in Siberia and the underlying Arctic vortex is caused by the cold air sinking due to the ice in the polar ice cap.  Cold air sinks.  Sinking air is a high.  Winds spin around a high. Got it? No cold air, no high, winds aren't as predictable.  There are two other places where that happens on the earth, the Antarctic, and the Tibetan plateau, although that used to do that much more than it does today (say 11,000 years ago).

 

I really need to ask, being kind of new to this site. Why all the climate denial?  Is that a Daoist thing now?