> jbartlo@ouchem.chem.oakland.edu (Joseph Bartlo) wrote: > : Island@sundial.net (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 problem. 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