God & Science Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora Predicting "Solar Flares"? (To Aurino Continued) Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread TopicsPosted by Alan on November 2, 2003 04:23:17 UTC

Hi,

It's because I started on evolution which you had questioned and all this physics got involved I posted these three topics to you but would appreciate anyone trying to make sense of/ challenge the ideas or whatever...

Solar flares:

recently a news report said that for two "closely spaced" major solar flare events to send material to Earth on the scale that happened recently; was so rare as to be a statistical anomaly.

Why would they say it was a statistical anomaly?

On what basis do physicists predict the future?

What if they say "one in a million chances of 2 close-spaced major Earth-directed solar flares"?

Probability seems to involve a definition of an object: 1 in 6 is describing a dice as having 6 faces in one dice? You are not predicting anything but the premises you already stated (a dice is one item with 6 faces) when say "1 chance in 6 of getting a particular face?"

So can physicists predict anything?

Is there a web of counting and of defining by counting?

Defining by number meets number?

E.g. "two of these, meet: 10 of these"?

Number allocation?

Involving meetings of numbers?

Mutual division?

If something is defined as a number in a number (as a fraction) like a dice (1 in 6):

what if there is a looseness in that definition as it compares to another such definition.

Example: a dice (1 in 6) meets a Rubik's cube (9 cubes in 6 faces).

A (1 in 6) meets a (9 in 6).

To count something you need to distinguish it from a background.

But if the background to (1 in 6) is just another number in a number (say: 9 in 6); how do you decide on what is "6" and what is "1" and what is "9"?

If two fractions are relative each other and not assumed to be in the same base or numbering system but have to be defined against each other as backgrounds: you end out with swapping roles for "number" and "base" and perhaps the idea of "square root of probability" involves the idea that the background against which you count something IS ITSELF not specified except relatively as possibly already divided.

Now it seems crazy to suggest that the chair you are sitting on could be 100 chairs if you looked at it against a different background....does it?

If you define something as (1 in 6) and something else as say (4 in 25) maybe what you can "predict" is that if you see your (1 in 6) AGAIN WITH your (4 in 25): then there is only so many ways you could have got them muddled?

Seeing them AGAIN means "something happened":

their meeting had a new configuration: their space had space: so a unit of space-time.

You could calculate every way your mutualy muddling definitions COULD have got mixed up in this "happen". Then you could have a generalised concept of "base" as "number"; and "number" as "base": that allows you to define the happening still.

But you have not predicted anything: just restated your starting definitions by mapping out all logical possible confusions in definition to come up with an apparent say "all bases covered" scenario? The final square root of a fraction (of dividing) squared might give not a probability of the event happening other than as a blurred definition of the event, of number, and of base?

Not sure....?

After we see two close-spaced solar flares; do we change the definition of "solar flare"?

If you cannot predict the sun's future, can you predict the non-clash of your definitions?

If you see a web of stuff related to a definition UNCHANGED AGAIN (so "massive and biased" that is conserved and charged (self-referent)...)

That is if "space-time" associated with your definition...

Maybe can predict will see a solar event definition + or - the looseness in the web that supports that definition? (to a probability?)

From squaring final arrow (probability square root)(mass + charge)(conservation + direction)(?"repeat" + non-repeat) makes "repeat" have square, so alternative way, so can be a unit "non-repeat" (Charging)(Lie group?)

And can make "non-repeat" so can repeat (by squaring final arrow) giving "coupling".

Add arrows (square roots of probabilities; that is fractions; that is "base-number pairs"; that is "background and divider"s mixed roles; that is mutual dividers?????????????????????? not sure???????????????) in a web of definitions (each way views of conserve/ bias); get final arrow (mixing mass (conserve minimum mutual space) and bias (freedom of direction) to get a charged couple?

Gives number in number where either can be base for the other!??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

When adding arrows in a web of definitions (each way views of conserve/bias): "conserve" as "contributions to direction". Get initial and final shell description of definition (like event horizon of black hole?)

How find looseness in a web of definitions?

3 of these and 2 of those and 5 of those etc.?

Each arrow has "unchanged" or "mass" (sq. rt -1) and charge (self reference)(a direction possibility locally "nil".......)

If complex number (arrow) (sqr. rt. probability)(sq. rt. a fraction) (sqr. rt. a locally defined multiple and a locally defined divisor) can be thought of as a charged couple (a "null" direction: a direction that could be anywhere of any size; to be compared with another such charged couple; to give a new local expansion of charge couple space?) then QED may look like physics is operating a CCD camera and generating a "T.V" picture of reality???????????????????

Crossing the road: look left, look right, look left again....

Above is bit muddly ...........

Regards,

Alan