[Bored chemist]

Who exactly is the idiot here?

The one who thinks this looks like a butterfly

notafly.JPG (16.27 kB . 254x276 - viewed 143 times)

[Bored chemist]

But the butterfly reflects the idea of small disturbances of initial conditions too well for its convergence with the Lorentz attractor to be just a coincidence.

There is no convergence.

[Kryptid]

But the butterfly reflects the idea of small disturbances of initial conditions too well for its convergence with the Lorentz attractor to be just a coincidence.

Not any better than any other small, flying animal does. If Lorentz had called it the "sparrow effect", we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. I don't see what your thread has to do with science.

[cpu68 (OP)]

I don't see what your thread has to do with science.

The problem of the convergence of a butterfly and a Lorentz attractor is a science. They can even be considered fundamental to chaos theory, just as the butterfly effect is a fundamental concept to this theory. However, explaining this convergence based on typical methods may fail, I propose using a different class of explanation methods.

[Origin]

The problem of the convergence of a butterfly and a Lorentz attractor is a science

No, that is nonsense.

They can even be considered fundamental to chaos theory, just as the butterfly effect is a fundamental concept to this theory.

No, if the analogy of the butterfly was never introduced it would make no difference at all to chaos theory.

I don't see what your thread has to do with science.

The problem of the convergence of a butterfly and a Lorentz attractor is a science. They can even be considered fundamental to chaos theory, just as the butterfly effect is a fundamental concept to this theory. However, explaining this convergence based on typical methods may fail, I propose using a different class of explanation methods.

There is nothing to explain.
This will freak you out, "how come the Lorentz attractor looks like the face of a barred owl??" How can we explain the convergence of owls and the Lorentz attractor?

[Bored chemist]

The problem of the convergence of a butterfly and a Lorentz attractor is a science.

They are not convergent.

[Bored chemist]

However, explaining this convergence based on typical methods may fail,

The explanation is simple; it's not real- the fact that it looks a bit like a butterfly from one angle is a coincidence.
No need to dream up

a different class of explanation methods.

[Kryptid]

The problem of the convergence of a butterfly and a Lorentz attractor is a science.

No, it isn't. Lorentz could have named it after quite literally any small disturbance. He didn't have to use a butterfly. That means it's a coincidence. Plain and simple.

If you claim that what you are doing is science, then tell us how to test your claims in a falsifiable manner.

[cpu68 (OP)]

I know from my own research experience that the most important concept for the entire theory of science is the process of scientific discovery. The physical model of the psychological process of discovery is the strike of lightning. Discovery is a mental flash, the manifestation of a higher intellectual process. Larger discoveries are usually a manifestation of a scientist's genius. Certain competences in the form of the knowledge accumulated by the scientist are required to be discovered.
A mystery can move from the level above reason to the area of discovery and the level of reason. What hides in darkness and mystery can sometimes come to light and discovery. This darkness can be illuminated by a flash of discovery.

[Kryptid]

If you claim that what you are doing is science, then tell us how to test your claims in a falsifiable manner.

[paul cotter]

This may be nitpicking but i'll persevere, in the hope some good may arise from this thread, however small. The man's name is LORENZ and not LORENTZ. BC seems to be the only one who got it correct.

[cpu68 (OP)]

The man's name is LORENZ and not LORENTZ

You are of course right. Thank you for drawing attention to this circumstance.

[Kryptid]

This may be nitpicking but i'll persevere, in the hope some good may arise from this thread, however small. The man's name is LORENZ and not LORENTZ. BC seems to be the only one who got it correct.

Well, I guess that answers my question as to whether or not this was the same Lorentz that Lorentz contraction was named after...

[alancalverd]

If the circumstances are right, one tiny sperm can cause a 200 pound idiot with his finger on a nuclear button. No need for  lepidoptera, but the mystery is why anyone would vote for him.

[Bored chemist]

If the circumstances are right, one tiny sperm can cause a 200 pound idiot with his finger on a nuclear button. No need for  lepidoptera, but the mystery is why anyone would vote for him.

One possibility is that he wrote absurd lies on the side of a bus, and people believed it.

[alancalverd]

Wrong target. BJ was selected by the Parliamentary Conservative Party, not the electorate in general, and isn't an idiot. DT, on the other hand, was democratically elected and meets both criteria.

[Bored chemist]

Johnson was effectively elected in 2019 in a general election.
I don't think Trump is an idiot. Maybe not very bright, but clever enough to manipulate people.

I haven'y bothered to weigh either of them

[Origin]

Typically, if someone drags politics into a science discussion I find that very annoying.  Unfortunately, this thread is not really about science and it isn't very interesting.  The sad truth is the discussion about British politics is more interesting than this pseudoscientific thread....

Edit:  On further reflection I did find the idea that the 'butterfly effect' was actually about butterflies and not about small perturbations to be quite entertaining.

[alancalverd]

Johnson was effectively elected in 2019 in a general election.

Thus setting aside 400 years of constitutional democracy.