Previous Next Index Thread

Re: Odd Weather I've Seen: Was Tornado Question

 > (Joseph Bartlo) wrote:
 > : (R.Ryals) wrote:
 > : My problem with science has always been the incorporeal and unrealistic
 > : non-causal, telekinisis, Santa-Clause forces that science contains, 
 > : including the complexity that this non-concept spawns.  My attempt was 
 > : to put it all into a more realistic or tangible light.  I was not very
 > : effective and I botched it but that is the extent of it.
 > : Maybe people didn't understand me but personally, I don't understand how 
 > : you people can accept and live with these paranormal forces as factual 
 > : aspects of your profession???
 > I am unaware of the unrealistic things you refer to.  I may
 > regret this, but please explain :)
 Yep, you've gone and done it now for sure! :)
 I am glad that you asked though, as it gives me a chance to clarify 
 the fact that I wasn't talking directly in reference to meteorology, 
 rather the more indirect applications of the whole philosophy.  You 
 have eluded to these unrealistic conceptual intangibilities throughout 
 your response to me though, so stubbornly I will argue that it is both
 relative and relevant to meteorology. 
 My thing is repetitive patterns in nature and their relationship to 
 the greater whole.  My conclusion, as you probably already know, is 
 that layers, (at whatever level), are indicative of a single 
 repetitive function that is prevalent and basic to all of nature.
 It is, however, a waste of time explaining it if you won't accept 
 distantly related repetition.  You said that my Loch Ness example
 was practically irrelevant, and you refused to address it.  My 
 contention is that it is totally relevant, if not directly.  It is my 
 example of nature's pattern as it is similarly repeated at different 
 levels throughout nature.  It is one level of nature's most basic model, 
 but it spans all branches and, therefore, cannot be strictly taken or 
 locked into any specific field of study.
 The value is in the fact that you can look to the most visual or focused
 level of nature as it happens to relate to your need, to get an idea of 
 what is really going on within the less apparent layers.  Kind of like
 the more distinguishable layers within layers in the atmosphere, my Loch 
 Ness example more clearly shows the actual physical interaction between
 opposing hot and cold layers.  By comparison, meteorology is much like  
 trying to see what is going on within these less defined layers, and so
 it is easier to move to the more tangible level to get an idea, at least,
 of what is ultimately going on.  The exact occurrences are, of course, 
 as differnt as the matter is, but the similarities are what tell you the 
 universal relationship within nature.  You can use this to simplify the
 My layers concept is total and corporeal in that all things are related
 through matter.  By that common link there are no intangible forces and 
 all things then work through the simple cause and effect relationships
 between matter.  All of the forces are thereby unified or related.  I 
 have, (in the past here), attempted to use Ohm's original laws and 
 simple formulae to try to express this concept in terms of pressure 
 and resistance but Ohm's simple and linier laws are what lead me to 
 the unrealistic symbolic equations that people find to be both 
 mathematically and metaphysically offensive.     
 I have, therefore, bailed on the math for now but not the material 
 link, nor the cause and effect terms of pressure and resistance.  I 
 can *usually* successfully argue its case in terms of pressure and 
 and resistance.
 For example:
 It can realistically be argued that Mr. Einstein's famous equation links