NortonH

Nitrogen is not going to erode the tire as high pressure oxygen will (slowly). That is the only reason it is used.

My previous thread was closed because i dared to stray from one subject and mention the other. So this thread is specifically created for the purpose of discussing the comparison and contrast between climate models and the models you might use to calculate lotto numbers. Numbers of variables. The lottery model contains 36 identical pingpong balls. A climate model requires hundreds of parameters. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/30/earths-climate-system-is-ridiculously-complex-with-draft-link-tutorial/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/21/the-ridiculousness-continues-climate-complexity-compiled/#comment-872002 Starting positions The initial positions of the 36 balls can be determined very accurately. Less than 0.1mm precision. The hundreds of climate parameters are less easy to measure. Models The ping pong balls can be described by models which require few laws of physics. Newtonian laws of motion, conservation of mass, momentum and angular momentum pretty much covers it. The climate models are harder with the hundreds of variables all interacting in different ways Results We are trying to use the current state of the ensemble to predict the future trajectory of the system. That means that in ten seconds time when we select a ball we want to know which one it will be. In climate we want to know in ten years time the state of the parameters, paticularly temperature. Many people get confused at this stage and start talking about taking averages of thousands of different possble scenarions. A Monte Carlo simulation for example. But that is not what we are trying to do. This problem is about determining the next single trajectory, not the average of all possible trajectories and that is a major difference. Conclusion. Given that we can model the climate very accurately and made loads of useful predictions why has nobody bothered to model the lottery?

As an independent observer on this thread that does seem to be the standard response when they are in a bit of a fix, Reg. I get the impression that they are just trying to keep batting you away and hope you leave rather than just admit you have a point.

I kNEW computers could model this stuff!

Well I have been through the video and although I know it is the right channel I am not now 100% sure that it is the correct video. Basically the summary is that they show that the lottery machine of 36 balls is easy to define and the laws whcih govern it are very simple. The initial conditions are easy to determined to a high degree of accuracy and so with a suitable model it should be no probelm. Actually I think I may have reacted to quickly. I apologize. I have spent a couple of days thinking about the point you made and i think it has some merit. The scenario I mentioned used 36 identical balls bouncing around in space with gravity applied and contained in a confined space. The climate consists of hundreds of different variables such as these listed here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/30/earths-climate-system-is-ridiculously-complex-with-draft-link-tutorial/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/21/the-ridiculousness-continues-climate-complexity-compiled/#comment-872002 These cannot be measured as precisely as the balls, of course so the starting position will not be as well understood. But I see the point you are making. If we can predict the climate so accurately way in advance despite the fact that there are many more variables and they are not as easily measured then surely it must be possible to predict next week lottery numbers. When I find the video I am lookng for you will see that the methodolgy they propose is pretty much as i described it.

Right so I have tracked down the original quote: On 31/10/2018 at 11:40 AM, Carrock said: Euston station is six stops away from Kings Cross station" That was it. One single line which you most definitely DID write. How do we know? Two reasons. Reason 1. The board provides an automatic mechanism to describe the time the original quote was made. Reason 2. It is still on the board. I just wonder why you crammed FOUR (4) lines in there and claimed INCORRECTLY that I had attributed them to you when it is clear that they were NOT all from you.

Not sure whether I can post links but I will try.

Don't do what again? You seem to be the one making up quotes.

I think that is the key to this problem.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

That sort of comment seems a bit unnecessary.

Your best bet would be to get hold of Abramowitz and Stegun and read it cover to cover. That should not take you more than half a day if you are paying attention and do not allow yourself to be distracted. eg Do not play music or have the TV on while you are doing it. It seems odd that I have to say this but the fact is that these days that is exactly what millennials do when they are supposed to be studying. Once you have done that I and are reasonably confident that you grasped it then the above problem will be pretty easy. I hope this helps.

OK. Well I would contend that there are other ways to observe. Hearing for example. Smell perhaps. Some people dismiss ouija boards but I am preparing a short essay on that subject which I hope to post in the next few days.

I have to say that I am not comfortable with the desecration and burning of The Holy Koran. I dare you to post this anywhere with your name to it!

Well said!

So are you saying that 'observable' means that 'it sends photons to your eye'? That seems to be a very narrow definition. It depends under which rule set you are playing. In any case under, Trivetts Amendment, you cannot claim Mornington Crescent from a second line on the diagonal.

Well said.

! I saw a guy on youtube who was making predictions. He said they were accurate and there were loads of comments which agreed. an answer has been given. i will find the channel

So now you are roping in year old threads to carry one some sort of vendetta whilst you hijack this one?? OK. I will report it then.

I never mentioned climate models. You are now trying to hijack the thread. I will not report you but I will not be party to this.

No. I am simply stating a fact. The reasons you have for believing something are what determine the nature of your belief. If your belief is because of faith then that is religious belief. If your reason is because you have seen a scientific case presented that abides by the Scientific Method then that is scientific belief. I don't think that what I have said here is controversial in anyway. It is just a dry statement of fact. Really? What straws? What is it I am claiming to believe? ANY scientist is able to judge whether a prediction has been falsified by the criteria laid down by the proponent of a theory. eg. If Einstein says the speed limit is c and then someone produced a tachyon then anyone can see that the falsification criteria have been satisfied.

I think you are right! So if we make loads of predictions and only every discuss the ones which appeared to be roughly right and bury all the dud ones we can pretend to have a credible model. It is so obvious when you think about it. I allowed myself to be conned by a sleight of hand about 'averages' being obtained from a large number of independent trajectories and expectation values obtained by taking an arithmetic mean of many possible outcomes. Of course there is only one future trajectory for a set of balls in a lotto machine and the expected average is useless. This is really coming clear now. Thanks Sensei!

Hmm. Interesting observation. I now suspect that the people who say that they can make these predictions 100 years out might be talking rubbish. In fact the more I think about the more concerned I am with the fact that their predictions are so far into the future that they know that they can never be held accountable for them if they fail. Thanks Sensei!

Sure If they could do it for next week. I am not claiming that. I am talking about models that can predict fifty to a hundred years out.

Well I don't see how you can say it is impossible when people are actually predicting lottery numbers fifty to a hundred years in advance.