Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
Even if those problems were solved, meteorology would still be hard - neglecting butterfly flaps would mean we'd get good previsions for quite some longer time, but still wouldn't be precise enough on the long term for making sure next year's wedding would be sunny.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sun Sep 27th, 2009 at 09:29:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I'm not denying unpredictability, I'm only denying that an insect is part of and relevant to the cause of unpredictability. The phenomena that matter are orders of magnitude bigger than a butterfly.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
by martingale on Sun Sep 27th, 2009 at 10:19:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But those phenomena can be influenced by phenomena an order of magnitude lower, etc...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sun Sep 27th, 2009 at 10:25:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're still talking in generalities rather than using physics.

Catch a butterfly, put it in a room, where there are no appreciable air currents. Sit two metres away from the butterfly, and tell me if you feel its wings batting. Do you even hear the wings batting? Now do the same experiment outside, where there is some wind. Do you feel the air pressure from the flapping wings?

There are no circumstances under which the flap will travel out into the sea or up into the atmosphere and generate a change in air flow, which would not have occurred without the flap. The statistics are as ludicrous as repealing the second law of thermodynamics. Long before any qualitative effect will be felt, other circumstances will have caused the pressure front to dissipate into noise.

Chaos does not mean every romantic notion makes sense, there are still physical and statistical constraints.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

by martingale on Sun Sep 27th, 2009 at 10:38:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, statistically, an earth old enough would at one point get all its air one only one side of it...

Saying that an effect is negligible is useful to actually do physics ; but when effects practically emerge out of noise - which is what most of the weather is, when it comes to numbers of hurricanes - the noise that emerge out of a butterfly flapping its wing and the noise that comes from the butterfly not flapping its wings are statistically undistinguishable, and thermodynamically too ; but it doesn't prevent them from having different effects.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Mon Sep 28th, 2009 at 04:04:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Statistically, the solar system will never get old enough that the earth could have all its atmosphere on a single side. When the earth is gone, it won't happen either, obviously. Thus, statistically, this scenario cannot happen. Ever.



--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

by martingale on Mon Sep 28th, 2009 at 06:51:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series