|
The MoA Week In Review – OT 2024-052
Last week's post on Moon of Alabama:
Blogging:
Ukraine:
Middle East:
> On one occasion, a handful of children, all about ages 5 to 8, were carried to the emergency room by their parents. All had single sniper shots to the head. These families were returning to their homes in Khan Yunis, about 2.5 miles away from the hospital, after Israeli tanks had withdrawn. But the snipers apparently stayed behind. None of these children survived. <
Russia:
Misc:
—
Other issues:
Assange:
Germany:
Use as open (not related to Ukraine or Palestine) thread …
Im pretty clever too. I know what interpolation is, (I doubt you do, as you have already admitted you dont do maths well). I know you can get a fuzzy idea, but never a precise idea, (which you claim is not important, because the high priests say it isnt, just like the high priests assure you they have somehow taken urban warming over the course of history into consideration.
Re “normalized temperature data”, it is not original “raw data” – it has already been adjusted “to the 1/100th degree.” And there is the homogenization applied by NCEI as well.
Just stop. You are repeating to me something I already know, (normalization), bluffing as if you are the one explaining to me the concept, and then blowing it by claiming it can the be adjusted “to the 1/100th degree”, which is not possible unless the data set used is accurate to the 1/100th degree. You then think the word “homogenize” makes it sound like you have a clue what you are talking about, when clearly you don’t.
You cant have 1/100 degree accuracy if you base numbers arent that accurate, they can only be accurate to the least significant figure
A regression line still is not accurate, and again, at best gives fuzzy figures, and can never account for human error anomolies and patterns.
You digging up a bunch of links, and posting them, about math you clearly do not understand, is you just deferring to authority. 30 years is long enough for you have to learned the calculus yourself to check.
It also shows you still do not understand the point.
MATH IS NOT EVERYTHING. GOOD DATA IS.
And for a science that claims every 1/100th of a degree temp rise counts, they sure know how to fuzzy up.all their bad data to make it appear it was accurate, when it never was.
Furthermore, on the other thread, i brought up the valley to mountain top normalization and global temperature anomaly process, and its inherent flaws.
I dont care to go over them again, because I know the world is not going to end. I don’t care to become a climatologist because 1) I have already chosen other career paths,
2) The field is clearly anti-science. It does not take peer review well, it does not take criticism well, and it ruins any who dare challenge it. No student today who thinks global warming theory has flaws, would ever risk their life, career, and education on going into the field. It has made itself impervious to scientific criticism by destroying all *people* who dare question its methods and validity.
There are no other jard science like this, and in that respect, it acts like many of the politicized soft sciences, so e of which have done so for over half a century.
You can tell NASA is sore by many critiques in its FAQ, where instead of spending any time answering some questions, it just says, “yes, we are aware of it, and no, it isnt significant”, whilst it will publish paragraphs on supporting theory.
So I dont care enough. Ive wasted enough time here already arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
And as a last note, where I will say I am done, and mean it:
No global warming cultist will ever be happy to be wrong. They claim it is about saving the Earth, but they are clearly just another misandrist, armageddonist cult.
They will lie in their deathbeds, cursing god has not destroyed humanity for their sins.
I guarantee you, the world will not end in our lifetimes due to global warming. You people watch too much end of the world sci fi shit.
I.am done with this bullshit, I got better things to do.
Posted by: UWDude | Feb 21 2024 23:10 utc | 412
Can’t sleep because of MoA. Two things.
1 – To Peter. I realize that since now I’ve started this, I’ll have to come back at least once more to the dynamical systems stuff from upthread. I promise to stop bothering you after this; which will not be the same as giving up btw, as these kinds of ideas tend to ripen for longe and very long times, so that what you might not get now may well come to you later. As per the above, your understanding is not quite there yet, so I will have to answer you, better now than later, while not expecting another answer from you (though is curiosity is welcome to me; it’s a general thing, I just like to talk about ideas I guess).
Dynamics always implies time. All physics happens because or, rather, “while” time flows; the dynamics of a system is basically its specific trajectory through time and space and other related quantities such as energy, etc — most generally, you might say that “the laws of nature” [= the apparatus we build with what we know which then work as designed and expected; also called an “experiment”] govern the behaviour of a system in time. If you specify a system by naming its constraints and boundary conditions and the physical laws that apply, the (computed or real, notional always mathematical) path it then takes is called its trajectory (think of a tennis ball after a service); and the minimum number of variables necessary to describe its development are its “degrees of freedom” (tennis ball has three for space), very much the same idea as the notorious term dimension (tennis ball has three for space and three more for velocity in each direction) I’d just like to add while we’re at it. Nothing mystical here, really. The nuance is a bit academical here, just skip it if you wish.
The stability concept is not in a physical/mechanical sense dimensional, as in made up from many small interplaying factors or forces that together produce an outcome (trajectory). Rather, it refers to the basic system parameters (=its specific degrees of freedom) that govern its trajectory through time. – Suppose you’re trying to balance a plate (or a top hat) on a stick, not rotating it, just by laying it on the (upwards) pointing stick. Plate or hat have three sides; the small, round, usually sidewards-facing is very much not worth trying, as they will just roll off. If you turn the top hat around and polace it upside down on the stick, for all practical purposes this will not work, it’s unstable and will crash immediately without a mechanical fixing in place. But the top hat put on the stick, as worn, will balance itself out if you hit its Schwerpunkt – touch it a bit, it will move, but then fall back towards its old position, in a damped oscillation, until at rest. How many degrees of freedom? One, actually. Because the top hat is round, it is irrelevant where you touch it, only thing that matters is how far you displace it before letting go (assuming you didn’t hit it with force here, collisions require more principles to compute – another academical aside here you may skip over immediately).
So that’s one dimension only. abstracting from the round top hat to a two dimensional space, you get a pendulum. How far you displace it one dimension, if the pendulum is rigid (or the string is assumed massless). The angle of displacement describes where it is at all times.
Your intuition of the many involved factors is actually a good one, yet a bit technical here. Thing is, when com puting such things, such as the pendulum, you run into difficulties right away. The pendulum is generally taught as the first and most basic system in all of mechanics, but when you want to solve it for a specific case, you’ll assume the initial to be – hold your beer – “very small”. With this assumption, the sine function somewhere in the equation can be expressed as a composite of “many factors” which come as a sum + + + where the consecutive summands are getting smaller all the way; such that you can skip of after the first or second order term, as they are called (giving to rise to more popular parlance of first/second etc order effects). If you can’t use this assumption, you’re facing an equation that cannot be solved analytically anymore, but has to be “approximated”. Approximation techniques can be automated and processed using a Turing machine (any PC is one) to crunch the numbers.They’ll use grids and points to approximate steady lines and surfaces of higher dimension (“manifold”). In essence, this is nothing but a giant abacus running a routine you’ve coded (“program”). This is what UWDude does for a living (IIRC he said so), maybe he can pick up here and illustrate an example if MoA is still curious.
Now, back to the pendulum, which is as simple as it gets. Real world problems are amost always “bigger” in their degrees of freedom (hence “big data”) and also interdependent in these variables (“complex”). Climate is a prime example for this, and you may now see what supercomputers are needed for. Many engineering problems are alike in this regard, f.i. aerodynamics.
transferring an empiric observable into a mathematical description is called modeling. As yet another aside, this one more profound: physics works well because it only has three different variables to care about: mass (measured with a scale), lengths (measured with a yardstick) and time (measured with a somehwat regular process, like the pendulum swings, atomic frequencies, celestial regularities, or the time it takes to drink a beer; different from the other two in that yardstick and the Ur-Kilogramm are stable references by themselves, a clock can only be calibrated using another clock). Everything else is synthetical! Weird, but true.
Now try comparing apples and oranges with that approach. It’s basically impossible unless you use an approximation or a designator from the get-go in your model. This is why AI is overrated, and also why the body/mind problem does not have a unifying solution that depends on maths to state the relating hypothesis.
I’ll go repair my bike, will try to return later for another interesting question that has surfaced in this giant and fun thread above, concerning intuitive and rational judgement. Bullet point message: they are two differfent things, and best complement each other. For instance, designing and building a bridge is not the same as quarreling with your wife. Both faculties can be learned and developed to some degree. More on this later.
Posted by: persiflo | Feb 22 2024 9:03 utc | 438
Posted by: persiflo | Feb 22 2024 9:03 utc | 439
You got a lot going on, there.
Id love to help you out, but your thoughts are scattershot…
Umm.. the number after 0 is called epsilon.
Higher dimensions are used in computers. We use quaternions in animation, which is four dimensional. The manual for the game engine says do not try to solve them, let the engine handle it, but I do some manual coding on them, but it is simple stuff. Anyways, of you want to try to understand dimensions, watch channel “three brown one blue” on youtubes lecture on quaternions.
He also does a lecture on crypto currency which os good, and one on AI, aka neural networks.
By the way, everybody who says AI is overrated is either scared or ignorant. It is quite common in the game dev world for people to say it, and that is because they see the future, and the future is all intellectual skill, and the time put into acquiring it, will be rendered obsolete eventually by AI.
The media art world, where I started, is devastated, and will continue to be, and widespread AR will make us all able to do any mechanical task in the real world with very little training. There will likely be a resurgence in “cottage industry”, like after the industrial revolution, where people went back to hand making things for a while, but in the end, bulk industrialization will be the way the majority of things get done.
It took me a long time, probably three or four years of game dev to love all the math I learned and forgot in trigonometry and calculus classes, and to understand on an instinctual level some of the concepts. We live in a time where we can see mathematical concepts displayed on a screen, and manipulate woth trial and error. I have done at least a million experiments by now.
My favorite now is by far fractals and pseudorandomness. Computer game dev is said to be the hardest thing in the world. When I heard that said, I thought surely rocket science or brain surgery is harder…
…I can not say too much about past careers, as much as I’d like too, but lets just say, I now know it is true. Game dev is the hardest thing in the world. Especially if you are doing procedural generation and AI.
It makes you essentially look at the world in a whole different way. Because speed is of the essence, usually everything has to be calculated every frame, without reference to the frame before. It’s called computer science, and it is the strangest science, because it is a science based on tools we make, that are so dynamic, we dont know how to make them do what we want them to do.
And it is so strange, bevause it makes you think about every little single tiny thing that must be done to do something, to simulate something.
I know this is not really anywhere on your topic, but to try to explain dimensions, movements, sine waves, pendulums, quanta, intuition, models, simulations, etc. Is not easy.
BTW, we might one day, create a working model of the planet, that predicts temperature, barometer, etc to the minute and square meter, and we could even do so by bypassing measurement and instead using physical properties of everything…
..the difficult part would be the actions of mankind, and their influence, in game dev known as “the player”.
Posted by: UWDude | Feb 22 2024 10:46 utc | 444
Oh, how I would love to fly! I’ve always enjoyed a window seat, but it took really off for me when I had brief job doing media anlysis in the aerospace industry. I just got hooked there, at one point I was reading huge detailed test reports in Aviation Week for obscure new jets I had never before I heard of; actually extremely interesting I think are aircrash investigations. In my dreams at night I was doing a looping once, and felt it with my sense of stability; another time I was piloting a helo in strange detail, so after waking up I researched the control handling and found that I was at least very close. And then one day I got a date on okcupid, the girl said “okay saturday, we’ll go flying!” and so we did – she was a pilot, we drove to a really remote little airfield where some most relaxed people were hanging out, doing maintenance, pilot instructor courses, and barbecue. We pulled a Piper from the hangar and went out, sightseeing above northern Germany. From 800 Meters I could see half the north sea coast, and trains and cars crossing the terrain below. Then she handed me the stick! I refused at first, but she affirmed and leaned back, taking her hands off the handle. The air was calm, but after a few seconds – it seemed like one singular moment to me – vibrations built up, and almost instinctively I grabbed the controls. Yet another zero short moment later I felt one with the machine, it was if my body expanded and had fused with the aircraft. I felt absolutely confident and had no trouble to dampen the jolts. “Not bad!” she said, “now fly a curve!” – I was aware of the basic controls, but had never tried to apply stick and rudder to anything, not even a simulator. Yet, after a few seconds of thinking – it felt more a like some hyper-aware state of emptiness until my thoughts set back in – I had a clear picture in my mind, and applied the controls to take the Piper in a gentle right turn … at this point, the girl ditched her prepared maps with the flight plan and let me navigate us only with my eyesight. It got us searching our home strip just before sunset, but all went well.
Getting a pilot’s license in Germany is quite an undertaking. Flying is also very expensive. On top of that, strict rules require a pilot to be sober for questionable for dubious amounts of time; the reason I had not even attempted to get a driver’s license with the money my grandparents had saved up for me upon coming of age. I bought a huge rig for my bass guitar instead, and haven’t got a license to this day. I have time, though, and always loved walking as well as cycling. I’m fond of bicycles, too, but not on the level some others here are. I like mine to be unassuming, robust and functional; they must allow me to deal power. Mostly I find them on the streets of Hamburg, where someone had just left them after they sold their houae or someone died or whatever. The one I repaired today is an absolute marvel, superbly beautiful, built like a russian tank, yet mechanically accurate like an electric typewriter. It’s a small-framed city cruiser in beautiful red, with racks both front and back. I serviced it, put some paint on the rusty parts, added two baskets and new saddle (which I also scavenged readily from the dead vehicles strewn along the streets and backyards in my qurter, and will gift it to my old girl xanthippe, which makes me happy to end. It might last her twenty years without even having to fasten a single screw, or so it feels.
I’ve manifested it somehow, which happens to me a lot. You can learn to do that, there is actual a lot old wisdom on the topic out there. The ancient Chinese liked to quip, half-jokingly, “Be careful what you wish for! It might just come true.” — and yes, that is how it works. Creativity is a form of manifestation, too; and intruigingly, you can experience this in amazing pureness as a mathematician. You’re not solving equations there all day, you are making tools for others to use – I ended up doing numerical analysis, i.e. design and analyze (there are actual experiments being done in the field!) numerical models for PDE-type equations like those in use at the MPI Meteorologie next door from my old institute, but discontinued the career path in favour of hanging out at the Golden Pudel Club (I’m half joking here) and then returned to my actual roots in the questions of philosophy. Then, over a time of ten years, I succeeded beyond my wildest dreams … I understood what maths is, the question that had actualoy led me to taking up this subject in the first place (because I felt I didn’t know anything about this) and then stuck to it because I found it surprisingly interesting and versatile, at times even fun; though I was a mediocre student compared to others. Having achieved that, but failing at my career in the field, I met one of the super-rare adherents of Edmund Husserl here, a friend of us two introduced us to each because we both were always coming back to him – this guy, btw, we both had met when he was Djing classical music sets in various bars all over Hamburg. Andreas Ehlers and me had completely complementary backgrounds, yet the same outlook on questions. He quit his day job immediately, and then we first went through Husserl together in gerat detail, to make sure that we have an understanding, and then through his opponents (like Heidegger). Then Andreas found Mani and exploded into that, while I started to wonder about the non-results in the field of parapsychology, which was totally obscure to me at that time. I had picked it up from my father, who affirmed and demonstrated telepathic understanding in at least one semi-dramatic case when i was aged 9 or so. I had the tools (meta-science wise) ready to at least start wondering what is going on there, and so I took it on my task list. Then I had an epiphany one night, an idea, an actual heureka moment, and the basic approach stands unchanged to this day. My idea came to me as I was hanging out on the Reeperbahn, a can of beer in my hand, where I went for a walk after having earlier left xanthippe at her home on sunday evening – she complained and asked what I was going to do, and I replied “I’m going to solve the riddle around parapsychology” and, well – so I did! I couldn’t believe it for some years, but then got used to it after my worldview changed in a huge way – Mani’s cosmogony, the absolute surprise about what parapychology had actually discovered (I had had no real idea until then), then learning about manifestation, and also starting a “trance metal” bad where I ended up as the guitarist hence facing musical challenges (soloing had never before even occurred to me) and then being taught upfront, straightfaced by xanthippe of all people (who plays no instrument) how that is being done:”switch of your rational, analyticaö minding and just open for whatever comes up … ” — Another idea that I would never, ever, even at once found anything but ridiculous, romantisized pseudo-theoretical bullshit,
but in time I found out that she’d been right. Ialso began to understand other people around this time, something which I sucked hugely all my life before.
So, after another round of anecdotes, I’ll tie it all in with the question about intuition. I can say honestly that I was very rational, analytically-minded for 35 years, in fact presenting the classic picture of a high-functioning autistic person. Then, by means of my methodical/methodological approach to everything, including god, hot girls, cool music and even myself, I came to understand what intuition is. I started using it, and saw it developing quickly … I went from being almost a social outcast because freak to the best in understanding human nature in my circle in the space of like five years. How could aLL this even happen? Intruigingly, Many people tell the same type of story, yewt in their own version. They have interests, they fail for some reason, they mind their own ways instead, and then suddenly, aged 40 or so, they find themselves almost exactly where they had wished to get at the outset, but through the most causally absurd ways … like me, who surely has wanted to create a new spectacular science while holding a can of Holsten Pils in front of a rave bar on a sunday night!
I like to phrase my understanding of this in a simple sentence: Everybody has their own shining path!
“The really relevant is to the eyes invisible”, said Saint-Éxupery, “only by heart you see truly!”
Propaganda, random trauma and pathological stupid people all tend to obscure this kind of vision. And spiritually estranged, hollow societies like the current criminal and atomized west aren’t exatly helpful either. Especially when they then also fall for a morally corrupt ideology, like roman catholic papism, Calvin’s anti-human teachings, the third Reich, or talmudic judaism.
Sorry for the long comment, I hope you find it worth your time reading.
Posted by: persiflo | Feb 22 2024 17:05 utc | 447
|
