climateprediction.net home page
Weather Question
Weather Question
log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Cafe CPDN : Weather Question

Author Message
solaris
Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 16
Posts: 8
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 55173 - Posted: 22 Nov 2016, 13:13:30 UTC
Last modified: 22 Nov 2016, 13:13:54 UTC

Hi!

A silly question I have for you.

I happen to know that tornadoes and hurricanes are about the weather.

It could be raining, blowing, or even lightning in at least at tornado.

Is it possible to set or define any given rules for such weather?

I have in fact heard about The Standard Model as a way of thinking when it comes to possible result, but still there could be more to that than lightning when it comes to such thing, including rain and wind.

Should we only take those things for granted, or could these thing except lightning be explained by Electromagnetism alone?

I also read about a story that a couple of things when it comes to natural phenomena, including stars and galaxies belonging to space could be explained in another way, but when I next do look in between, I do not find anything being mentioned.

Any possible help welcome.

Thanks!

Profile geophi
Volunteer moderator
Send message
Joined: 7 Aug 04
Posts: 1670
Credit: 32,083,245
RAC: 31,083
Message 55174 - Posted: 22 Nov 2016, 13:54:02 UTC

Place holder topic for moving a post.

solaris
Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 16
Posts: 8
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 55179 - Posted: 23 Nov 2016, 4:20:19 UTC
Last modified: 23 Nov 2016, 4:30:15 UTC

Hi!

It was in the middle of the day when first posting, so I was not able to get to the point.

My sense or understanding here is that electricity is part of Electromagnetism as being a Fundamental Law based on the equations which are making up this Law.

Next, if this is supposed to be about Forces making up nature, you next would have to define what is being meant with such a force.

But lightning is still not the same as wind and rain, or even pressure when it comes to the lows of weather systems being present on Earth and sometimes creating hurricanes and possible tornadoes which also could be part of such weather phenomena.

Tornadoes could bring with it amounts of dust being torned from the ground and next whipped through the air.

Also light conditions, as well as possibly even a lack of senses, or at least that of perception when it comes to your surroundings could sometimes happen if you fall victim to a tornado.

My original question was perhaps that of looking at electricity, or the main force of Electromagnetism as being behind at least one of the forces related to that of the weather here on Earth, namely lightning.

Therefore it should be a difference between weather phenomena being found here on Earth and those which could be happening in space and at times only be explained by means of the Strong Nuclear Force when it comes to our main theories.

Put all such things like turbulence, viscocity (at least in the Sun), as well as other related phenomena and they could next be explained by means of the equations given for each of them, respectively.

If I next was of the given fact that a couple of things could be explained not only by means of electricity, or Electromagnetism, or even the Strong Nuclear Force, which is typical of phenomena occurring in space, we could perhaps be back at the Weak Nuclear Force instead for a couple of things.

But looking this up in the Wikipedia, I do not find a general reference or mentioning of this here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction

Also keying in Weak Nuclear Force should give the same article.

The fun or interesting thing, or at least typical when it goes with the subject of the weather, it definitely blows in the wind when it also rains, but not necessarily always.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbulence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity

Here two different explanations for two different subjects and also the corresponding equations for each of the given subjects.

There should be a fact that such a thing as the weather could be related with at least three different things, namely those of wind, rain and also pressure.

If I happened to be a nuclear physicist (which I am not) and dealing with the subject of elementary particles, I could next be able to tell, or perhaps give an explanation for the properties of objects belonging to space, because it could be likely that these objects could be explained by given equations as being known or defined by the Strong Nuclear Force.

But not necessarily the same for similar weather patterns, or phenomena here on Earth.

Definitely lightning or thunder may not always happen during a hurricane, but are we next supposed to believe that lightning only might occur because of either static electricity coming from dust in the air, or could we still be back at the elementary particles (if any) which could be responsible for creating such weather?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_electricity

Perhaps a bit interesting, I also looked up the above article.

My guess from looking up these articles is that even though such things like wind, rain and pressure may not be the same as electricity, or Electromagnetism, the general Laws or Equations which could be able to explain these things could next be a part of the Standard Model, but not necessarily that of Electromagnetism for everything.

Are these equations still separate for each given subject and if not so, could they next relate or be part of one of the Fundamental Laws of Physics?

Rather than such words as Law, or Laws, as well as even Physics, rather interaction or interaction, as well as the word nature itself, is rather being used in such a context.

For now I only leave it there, because I originally was having a question about this only, but there could of course be even more given answers or approaches when it comes to a couple of these things.

Thanks!

solaris
Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 16
Posts: 8
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 55187 - Posted: 24 Nov 2016, 16:50:09 UTC
Last modified: 24 Nov 2016, 17:24:21 UTC

Perhaps a little more could be added, even before the start of the weekend.

I do have a quite good computer at my disposal, but choose to run a couple of other things instead.

Still my interest around when it comes to a couple of things.

I was able to read that a volcanic eruption could end off killing tens of thousands of people if the worst case scenario should ever happen.

Once such is that of Krakatoa, which is a volcanic island.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa

My guess is that we should not fear such a thing like the red hot from the red lava, but perhaps slightly more when it comes to the pumice, or pumice stone which could be thrown into the air.

I made the slight confusion of perhaps relating the Mandelbrot set to that of Chaos theory, without perhaps giving a look at the theory itself.

My guess is that such a thing as Electromagnetism could be explained by means of its own context, or rather the specific elements or phenomena which makes up this thing.

If being complete on its own, it next could relate to such a thing as the Weak Nuclear Force, as well as also the Strong Nuclear Force, in that all these Forces have now been combined into one single Force.

Is it next possible that you could be having a couple of other things, including those of Chaos Theory, the Uncertainty Principle, as well as a couple of other things, including the previously mentioned Turbulence and Viscocity being part of, or included into one or more of these Three Forces by means of interpreting each of them from a possibly different point of view, or perhaps thinking that at least one thing could be Mathematics, another could be that of Physics and so on?

My best guess is that both Chaos Theory as a whole, as well as the Uncertainty Principle could be based on non-deterministic principles, while for a couple of other things, more or less those related with the three Fundamental Forces, the equations being given could perhaps be more deterministic in nature.

Next, I am being reminded that we do have both the Special and General Theories of Relativity, as well as Quantum Theory, or Quantum Mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Because of that, are we perhaps seeing two different things here, regardless of which Theory we could be looking at?

Or possibly even three different things, when thinking about it.

Assumedly a given Probability or Predictability also should mean the similar when it comes to a given thing be either deterministic, or non-deterministic when it comes to its behavior, but if so, the same thing should next be adhering to one of these Laws in order to be true or given.

Edit: I mentioned that of deterministic versus non-deterministic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Possibly back to this link suggestion, but right now I do not know whether or not it could mean the same.

Any suggestions welcome.

Thanks!

solaris
Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 16
Posts: 8
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 55957 - Posted: 25 Mar 2017, 7:43:05 UTC
Last modified: 25 Mar 2017, 7:47:46 UTC

Yes, one such and not once such.

In the middle of the night.

Speaking about the weather, most likely neither Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, or Niels Bohr, for that matter, always bothered about the weather.

Could you make that of a given Prediction that of a possible Probability?

If so, is or could that be because a given Probability could be about a set of rules, or possible equations, while that of a given Prediction perhaps or maybe be not?

Should tell that I had a bit of a problem with this name, but the full name apparently is Arthur Eddington.

It should be no secret that knowing our history could be an important factor of possibly telling about the future, by means of a given Prediction for such a thing.

But next the fact that both when it comes to that of Prediction or Predictability, as well as that of Probability, we also know that while nature offers possibilities by means of its Laws and Equations,
it also sets or places limits, or constraints, on a couple of things.

A given notion of God, if you will, as a possible Creator of the Universe, could perhaps be given by means of that of Religion and Faith and next you have to know what this is all about.

If for some reason I am being told that one thing is possible, while another perhaps is not, is this perhaps because of such limits or constraints, or should we perhaps look at given Laws and Equations
for such a thing in order for a possible understanding?

Is such a thing as a given Logic perhaps a "prerequisite" in order to explain or perhaps even reject such a thing as a possible God?

Or are we still supposed to be looking at such things as Laws and Equations for this, because at times we could think or believe that a couple of things could be possible?

More later.

solaris
Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 16
Posts: 8
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 56268 - Posted: 20 May 2017, 6:44:45 UTC
Last modified: 20 May 2017, 7:30:06 UTC

Thanks for keeping it for me.

Running two BOINC projects at the moment, I suspended the tasks for now, for that of the Friday beer, because I dot not want to be Archie Bunker and next eat the sand.

You probably know from words around that I was in a funeral during the day, this time again for my father, who passed away March 21.

Next it became a funeral by means of an urn being placed in the soil, together with a gravestone marking the place, or perhaps event for such.

Again, both the Calendar for such a thing and next we are supposed to "believe".

That of death itself should be the result of ageing, but next, any process for such a thing when next happening, or should it be that, or considered that of a possible event?

Should tell that I was into that of the ice ages earlier on as well and that the development, or perhaps evolution of that of civilization, may not always be directly related.

One example is that of the Egyptian civilization, which is not supposed to relate to that of any agriculture, harvesting, or fishing, part of the Scandinavian, or Nordic cultures.

Except for perhaps the possible better science and do you perhaps know?

Ding, ding, or perhaps not the correct word or words either, but at least still working on this, including possible precice wording.

This next only giving me the idea, or perhaps thought, that the

So why at all speaking about possible evolution at all, except of or for perhaps thinking that

Except for that, the nets or yarns are being spun is for the sake of our civilization, at least when it comes to possible development.

If I am not wrong, the human brain was as intelligent, or perhaps intellectual, a half million years ago, as it is today.

Make it perhaps Cro Magnon in the meantime, except for perhaps a couple of others, but what next separates us from the lizard?

And not necessarily the Lemur either, because it probably could be a fact that shades of white, gray/grey, or black, should still make one of these things.

Making an equation of something, next makes that one or a single condition perhaps exists.

The recent passing of my father is that not necessarily everything is supposed to be Epoch 1950.0. or 2000.0 either.

Oh, so is not the Big Bang as the moment of Creation supposed to be the exact or precise moment where such a thing as that of matter came into existence?

Speaking about a possible Creator for such a thing and next you could get blue in your face, or at least stuck, because here apparently is no answer.

If you are happening to be doing science, it could be about a couple of ugly words at times.

Really, I do not need to recite each or everything such word either.

So, what about possible prejudice, or preconceivment, rather than a given bias, because at least the better words should mean a better understanding?

In fact I next, or actually happen to agree.

The story about Nostradamus as a possible Prophet and next a story, or perhaps tell-tale story about the future, rather than the past,
is not supposed to tell anything about the weather at all, despite such a thing being possible prediction.

So here only from the sleeves for now and not necessarily anything else.

The previous post, or at least one of these, did not make it any better.

What if I rather fell in love, or perhaps was saying that I fell in love with that of science, because a given prediction, including that of the weather,
perhaps could tell about the future?

The fact is despite, or regardless of the Janus face, any science could be perhaps with a smile, or even a joke as a result.

Also it could be a chilly reminder about something else.

Perhaps missed out a little bit, but that of "Heaven and Hell" could possibly be missing out.

So, what if I rather thought I was a Theologist, rather than perhaps a scientists and next started thinking in such a way?

Is that of perhaps "Heaven and Hell" such an option, or perhaps choice at all?

The recent passing of my father is supposed to tell that a couple of things could perhaps be about science and not necessarily about any Religion and next being told so.

If such things as "forbid", rather than "allow", or maybe even "deny" could be words among scientists, we probably could have a reason to believe.

Rather the answer could still be no.

My guess is that you could believe in "Heaven", but not necessarily any "Hell".

Oh, if for the sake of such a thing as above, where is Creation supposed to be in all of this?

What if I happened to be either Charles Darwin, or even Albert Einstein and next chose to be rolling the dice, only because it is supposed to be about such a thing as Probability?

You probably would next agree and the answer would be that this would not work.

The reason for this may be the Church itself and the fact that my father as adhering to that of the "Free Church", next being the Evangelican church, did not deserve the priest for his funeral.

Why so, when it next happens, or could perhaps happen?

Is it perhaps my lack of compentence when it comes to any writing, or should it rather be the fine word or words in the text itself?

Probably you are or could be left to decide, but at least this for now.

Yes, bonkers.

solaris
Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 16
Posts: 8
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 57271 - Posted: 31 Oct 2017, 4:50:15 UTC
Last modified: 31 Oct 2017, 4:57:32 UTC

Or perhaps "Calm chaos" below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qRGUtJ73yE

Should rather be with the previous, but for some reason it fell out or slipped away.

Ugly perhaps, except for returning a quite big climate model in the past, always the story which could be told, which could be about either Prediction (as a subject),
or even that of the Revelation (Religion).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

So easy eh, if perhaps not difficult, because this is perhaps still supposed to be science.

Noticing the word "tribulation" here in the middle of the night, except for that of "Amen".

So the Pope is supposed to be having two rooms at his disposal, namely the Sacristy and next also the Tabernacle.

Except for that of Physics of course, err Chemistry, for explaining such a thing as the sun.

Roll the dice and always Harrison Ford telling "Don't tell me the odds".

Or perhaps the Method of Proof for the similar, where rather that of "odds" could be telling or making a difference between the idiot versus the possible genius.

Always that of science, of course and next we should also know what science is all about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqd3NR2KqD8

"Apocalytic" eh and what is the possible explanation for such a thing?

I better continue where I am supposed to be walking around.

Thanks for reading.

solaris
Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 16
Posts: 8
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 57294 - Posted: 2 Nov 2017, 17:08:16 UTC
Last modified: 2 Nov 2017, 17:34:28 UTC

Sorry, I did not want to look or appear unfair, but both running two other project under BOINC, together with a resource share of 50/50,
as well as a couple of problems in my home, at least I returned that climate model in the past, which I think was a pretty large one.

Therefore it should perhaps go together with the registered credit here, including such things as both username and computers being attached.

No problem with that, except for perhaps some portals, or entry points for this project, which I need to get back once again.

In which way, or perhaps on what basis, meaning perhaps assumption, are you able or ready to perhaps predict the future?

Perhaps the weather of today, which could be looked at in detail by going to, or accessing http://earth.nullsoft.net/ .

Is it perhaps science of today, versus possible science of tomorrow, or is it perhaps rather the boring versus the sometimes exciting day?

This is really what I had in mind for the other things I am doing as well, namely that science could sometimes be in a context of bad versus good,
except not for any published results.

Einstein was the one coming up with the Special Theory of Relativity and not even Newton for such a thing, because in fact it was something else, or perhaps different.

If Prediction should still be science, also both that of the climate, meaning weather, for such a thing, as well as perhaps the notion of time itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction

Only to have the subject itself being mentioned, but if it rather became a story about USB Flash Stick nightmares being experienced by some people,
if perhaps not a story about Archeology being carried out on the Discovery of Ancient Real Giants, it perhaps could sometimes be science, if not any boring.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/new-wormhole-could-resolve-the-black-hole-information-paradox/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold

Catching the moment of breath when perhaps running and I perhaps mentioned that of "Tempus Fuight" a couple of places.

The fact is that modern science of today could be using such words like "Instantiation", if perhaps not only the Butterfly effect, or perhaps that of Chaos itself as a subject.

But if I rather should be running than perhaps catching my breath, it could next be that sometimes both events are happening,
while other times it could be the more usual or regular day.

The Standard Model is supposedly about elementary particles and their properties and the Scientific Method next is our tool for proving certain facts.

And next it perhaps could be coming up hard, if perhaps not easy, because next you also should perhaps believe in Einstein, rather than Newton, for a couple of things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7MfYzdlkJY

Only one of perhaps many suggestions, of course.

Perhaps a different subject, but by listening in, that of a couple of new words for that of a terminology which could be used, should be noticed.

If such a thing as evolution is telling that something in existence, or present, always changes for something else or different over time,
both such things as time periods for that of certain epochs of the Earth, could next also mean the difference between the seasons of the year,
except that for the latter, it could be a repeating occurrence.

Speaking about both things and also events of the past, it also perhaps could be the words we are used to be dealing with, or speaking, as well.

For some reason that of Religion as a subject, could be dealing with both that of good versus bad.

Add to it that of Faith as well and next we also could be dealing with a notion of God as well, including that of possible belief.

If it still could be a science almost as hard to believe, if perhaps not comprehend, it next could be a science where a possible prophecy could be an alternative or option to
that of a Prediction, depending on possible approach, or perhaps a way of given thinking.

Einstein, if perhaps not someone else, are able to define the "Event Horizon" for that of a property of a Black Hole being found in space.

If I personally could be living on an address, possibly objects in space could be having such an address as well, by making up a branch of a tree.

Make it perhaps easy and next be able to tell about life on Earth a hundred years ago, if you do not know the same for perhaps a thousand years ago,
if perhaps not the opposite, at least for this.

We could perhaps make it the Butterfly effect, as mentioned, for a couple of things, if not perhaps that of Chaos, or even "Calm chaos", of sorts.

If it should be possible to choose, we perhaps could still be back at such a thing as "Instatiation" for a couple of things, by interpreting that it could mean possible change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instantiation

If you rather could think or believe that it should be a way of science by keeping up to a certain standard, or rather a given Method, perhaps that of elementary particles are not
always the relevant subject for a couple of things.

Therefore you rather could be left at believing it could sometimes be something else.

For that of the Fundamental Forces of nature, which should be a total of four in all, including that of gravity, we are supposed to make that of Forces, as mentioned,
except for perhaps not the notion of time at all, or taking it into consideration.

Again, perhaps of the wording possibly needed, if not perhaps making it one way or kind of science versus another, always the difficulty which could be around when it comes to this.

Either it could be waking up in the morning and next forget a couple of words, or it could perhaps be the Pyramids of Giza, where a couple of stories could be around for
such a thing as both Reincarnation and also time travel.

Why not absolutely the oceans or polar caps, if not the glaciers of the Earth, if it rather could be the perfect sandstorm, rather than the perfect ice world?

Or perhaps even the sunny day, for that matter, but next are you perhaps able to predict such a thing in advance?

Always the model for such a thing, of course, but is not a model supposed to be something else that a Method when possibly being used and next also that of a possible wording as well?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle

Any better explanation here perhaps, for a couple of things?

Should it again be the possible standstill, or should I rather again be starting running?

Whether or not perhaps the place where nothing is happening at all, or perhaps even at blinding speed, for that of plasma, for example,
it should always be possible to define it in one way or another, next as that of an object having certain properties.

Make it that of Eternity perhaps, for that of Religion and still we could be left to believe that time always flies, except for possible other explanations which could be around.

There are some people, including scientists, who are questioning a possible Creator for that of the birth or creation of the Universe.

Next we are looking at such things as Laws and Equations, in order to explain the properties which could be making up the Universe.

The same could perhaps go with a given notion or assumption of possible extraterrestrials in space as well, because you sometimes could be questioning possible technology
which could be used, while other times be questioning such things as gods, or the like.

As mentioned above, possible Wormholes could be equally similar to that of Black Holes, if perhaps not the totally opposite.

Continuing with this, it perhaps should be that of science of today, if perhaps not tomorrow, so therefore always another day.

Message boards : Cafe CPDN : Weather Question


Main page · Your account · Message boards


Copyright © 2017 climateprediction.net