Is my model unclear?

Inquisitive, LEARN TO FUCKING READ
Woody, STOP IGNORING EVERY FUCKING RESPONSE I MAKE TO YOUR POSTS

It's just a waste of time trying to engage with you round earthers isn't it?
And for fuck's sake, Turing patterns have been proven for decades. It's a mathematical proof demonstration diffusion doesn't lead to equilibrium, as I said. And look at that, still trying to drag the thread off topic when you should be welcoming the subject as you constantly insist the model's unclear.

I am not ignoring your post.  I ask the same questions brecause you do not clarify are address anything in them.  You just say learn the model, call me a liar and say I am ignoring you. 

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0001053

" Nevertheless, the occurrence of Turing patterns has not been unequivocally proven"

https://tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4682-8-24

No need to go past the title on this one.  Hypothesis is in it.

hy·poth·e·sis
hīˈpäTHəsəs/
noun
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0953-8984/19/6/065115/meta

"our studies provide further evidence that Turing linear instability analysis is an excellent predictor of both the onset of and the nature of pattern formation in fractional nonlinear reaction–diffusion equations."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022519374901283

"Although this theory has been much discussed, little has been learnt about the range and type of pattern it can generate."

 "The results show that stable repeating peaks of chemical concentration of periodicity 2–20 cells can be obtained in embryos in periods of time of less than an hour. We do find however that these patterns are not reliable: small variations in initial conditions give small but significant changes in the number and positions of observed peaks. Similar results are observed in two-dimensional assemblies of cells. On rectangles, random blotches are observed whose position cannot be reliably predicted."

http://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.84.011112

"Models of diffusion-driven pattern formation that rely on the Turing mechanism are utilized in many areas of science. However, many such models suffer from the defect of requiring fine tuning of parameters or an unrealistic separation of scales in the diffusivities of the constituents of the system in order to predict the formation of spatial patterns."


http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2011/Files/tsang.pdf

"The validity of the equation itself introduced considerable experimental difficulties,"

"However, to study dynamics away from uniform states, such as pattern dynamics and
pattern selections, tools beyond stability analysis have to be used. They are particularly
crucial to settle disputes in applying RD system to explain pattern formation in nature.
Also, recent theoretical progress allowed more complex patterns by considering additional
terms or interactions between instabilities."

https://phylogenous.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/alan-turings-reaction-diffusion-model-simplification-of-the-complex/

"Reaction-diffusion models provide a predictable mechanism for pattern formation. Such models have limited applicability, however, and scientists are still not even completely sure if the proposed models are truly reaction-diffusion systems."


It is unproven it is not proven. It does not mean it is wrong or fails in every situation.  It means there is not enough evidence to call it proven.  The scientific community in general require stronger evidence then it sometimes making predictions in certain situations.  My guess it will be eventually refined and/or  its appropriate application will be well defined.

Has anyone asked for more clarification on Turing patterns?

And what effect they have on equilibrium when diffusion is involved?

Has anyone asked for more clarification on Turing patterns?

And what effect they have on equilibrium when diffusion is involved?

ha. Read the first page. That is literally all I asked for, and he never responded.

Ooh, Turing stability, I can do this!
Well, partially. Worst exam I've ever done, but still.

Theoretically, they are proven. The basic gist, which JRowe seems to be using, in that diffusion can lead to patterns rather than straight to equilibrium, is right. The maths is all there, and checks out, and is used in applications from woodgrain to leopard spots, to my knowledge. So, in theory, Turing patterns are a perfectly sound entity.
Where the main stopping point seems to be is the gauge of what situations they can be applied to. Can see that with Woody's links; none of them talk about the abstract concepts of Turing stability, just about specific instances. Would they arise in this environment, or that environment? The evidence brought up in that context is just evidence of whether or not they arise in specific cases, and as I sincerely doubt there have been any scientific papers done on aether, that doesn't seem relevant here.
Though, JRowe, if you can provide the PDEs governing aether, I'll see if I can run a check to see whether they're Turing stable.

Generally the question on Turing patterns seems to be whether Turing's hypothesis of chemicals filling the required roles is accurate. That's what's unproven. Unless JRowe's aether has dramatically changed from the last time I checked though (which is definitely possible), those chemicals aren't needed, and you just need the maths.

If the model is unclear, here's your chance to fix it.

The entire description of aether flow is unclear.

1. You should make much clearer pictures. Would be nice if they were somehow projections of 3D on a piece of paper.

2. You need to answer the following: is there a single flow for the entire system or separate flows for each objects?
If yes, then how does it make everything working? If no, then how it is possible each flow works independently of the other?

3. You need do provide a clearer description of the flow inside of dual disc.

4. You need to explain what happens with the flow on the equator.

5. You need to explain, how it is possible the flow is basically the same for hundrets of years. Given there are so many things going on inside of dual disc, so many objects etc you need to provide something that holds everything in place.

6. You need to explain what happens to those trajectiories of the flow that never come back to the dual disc.

7. You need to answer what happens with the equillibrium point inside your dual disc. Not only that, what happens to the flow that is being attracted to that point. Not only that, there has to be a trajectory of some point that never leaves your dual disc.

Ooh, Turing stability, I can do this!
Well, partially. Worst exam I've ever done, but still.

Theoretically, they are proven. The basic gist, which JRowe seems to be using, in that diffusion can lead to patterns rather than straight to equilibrium, is right. The maths is all there, and checks out, and is used in applications from woodgrain to leopard spots, to my knowledge. So, in theory, Turing patterns are a perfectly sound entity.
Where the main stopping point seems to be is the gauge of what situations they can be applied to. Can see that with Woody's links; none of them talk about the abstract concepts of Turing stability, just about specific instances. Would they arise in this environment, or that environment? The evidence brought up in that context is just evidence of whether or not they arise in specific cases, and as I sincerely doubt there have been any scientific papers done on aether, that doesn't seem relevant here.
Though, JRowe, if you can provide the PDEs governing aether, I'll see if I can run a check to see whether they're Turing stable.

Generally the question on Turing patterns seems to be whether Turing's hypothesis of chemicals filling the required roles is accurate. That's what's unproven. Unless JRowe's aether has dramatically changed from the last time I checked though (which is definitely possible), those chemicals aren't needed, and you just need the maths.

My searches so far has not given me a good answer.

How accurate and reliable is it when applied to fluid dynamics? 

Are analogs needed in these situations?

I am just curious.  I find the topic interesting.

I should have made it clear it is proven to work just not in every situation in my previous post.  That is why I included one example saying it provided further evidence Turing analysis is a excellent predictor.  Then forgot to comment on it.

My searches so far has not given me a good answer.
How accurate and reliable is it when applied to fluid dynamics? 
Are analogs needed in these situations?
I am just curious.  I find the topic interesting.
I should have made it clear it is proven to work just not in every situation in my previous post.  That is why I included one example saying it provided further evidence Turing analysis is a excellent predictor.  Then forgot to comment on it.

Technically Turing patterns are just the results of the reactions between morphogens. At least that's all Turing applied the maths to; the hypothesis is that these chemicals exist in the animals/plants in question (and the evidence is pretty overwhelming, to be fair). That being said, the term can be used slightly differently to refer to a wider variety of things, and if memory serves Turing patterns have been observed in fluids, whether a chemical reaction in said fluid, or weather systems as a whole.
Ultimately all they are, are a result of certain results relating to eigenvalues of the system of differential equations that describe an event. Which is a mouthful, but it could apply to any such system, no matter what the system's modelling. The same kinds of equations pop up in all fields.
Like a lot of JRowe's model, it is hypothetically possible, but would need more background material and evidence before anyone could say firmly one way or the other.

Quote from: Woody on August 07, 2016, 12:50:48 PM

My searches so far has not given me a good answer.
How accurate and reliable is it when applied to fluid dynamics? 
Are analogs needed in these situations?
I am just curious.  I find the topic interesting.
I should have made it clear it is proven to work just not in every situation in my previous post.  That is why I included one example saying it provided further evidence Turing analysis is a excellent predictor.  Then forgot to comment on it.

Technically Turing patterns are just the results of the reactions between morphogens. At least that's all Turing applied the maths to; the hypothesis is that these chemicals exist in the animals/plants in question (and the evidence is pretty overwhelming, to be fair). That being said, the term can be used slightly differently to refer to a wider variety of things, and if memory serves Turing patterns have been observed in fluids, whether a chemical reaction in said fluid, or weather systems as a whole.
Ultimately all they are, are a result of certain results relating to eigenvalues of the system of differential equations that describe an event. Which is a mouthful, but it could apply to any such system, no matter what the system's modelling. The same kinds of equations pop up in all fields.
Like a lot of JRowe's model, it is hypothetically possible, but would need more background material and evidence before anyone could say firmly one way or the other.

Thanks for the reply.  I knew for biology it could make reliable predictions.  I just did not realize how successful when applied it was predicting things in other fields.  Maybe because when I think fluids, I mainly consider equilibrium when it moves. So doing stuff like moving from high density to low.  Probably the result of being a sailor and interested in when, where, strength and direction the wind will blow.

Thanks for the reply.  I knew for biology it could make reliable predictions.  I just did not realize how successful when applied it was predicting things in other fields.  Maybe because when I think fluids, I mainly consider equilibrium when it moves. So doing stuff like moving from high density to low.  Probably the result of being a sailor and interested in when, where, strength and direction the wind will blow.

You'd be surprised how much overlap there is in all areas of modelling. One of the systems used to model weather is the exact same as a system used to gauge the behaviour of shallow water, something very similar to the heat equation is used to model the behaviour of animals... So long as the basic rules are the same (in the latter case, spreading outwards from a source) a lot of the maths will be similar too.

So, may I assume that the model is indeed clear now?

After all, you're the ones that constantly complain it's unclear, so I'd assume you would be more than happy to provide examples. Instead you go off on irrelevant tangents that even a member of your own side corrects you on.

As such, you now have no excuses for not learning DET.

Brouwer:

1. I only have limited artistic ability. My hope is that at some point DET will come to the attention of someone with better skills.

2. I don't understand this question: you seemed to have a similar misunderstanding elsewhere if I recall. Objects don't require independent flows to exist, the only flow is an overall set-up. I don't know where you got the idea flows are the only way for light to move, so I cannot clarify.

3, 4: But what parts of this are unclear? "Make it clearer," doesn't help unless I know what's lacking.

5, 6, 7. Thank you, though I will point out there are no such examples in the case of 6. The flows are towards lower concentrations.

So, may I assume that the model is indeed clear now?

After all, you're the ones that constantly complain it's unclear, so I'd assume you would be more than happy to provide examples. Instead you go off on irrelevant tangents that even a member of your own side corrects you on.

As such, you now have no excuses for not learning DET.

No your model is not clear. No matter how much you polish a turd, it will never be a diamond.

Then put your money where your mouth is and do as I have been asking REers to do from the start.

If you don't want to go through the entire thing, then fine. but if it is unclear, you should at least be able to give me a point where it is unclear, and why. You know, like I have been asking for this entire thread.

If not, you're just making excuses, and wasting time, in which case just leave the forum as you're plainly not contributing anything.

Then put your money where your mouth is and do as I have been asking REers to do from the start.

If you don't want to go through the entire thing, then fine. but if it is unclear, you should at least be able to give me a point where it is unclear, and why. You know, like I have been asking for this entire thread.

If not, you're just making excuses, and wasting time, in which case just leave the forum as you're plainly not contributing anything.

I read it and none of it makes any sense whatsoever.  Its all unclear.  How about making a short bullet point list of the main points we are supposed to take from it - because all I got from it was "Gibberish"

Stop wasting time. If it's unclear, there will be a first point you don't understand. How about you actually consider reading it, rather than skimming and complaining on principle?

Thank you, however, for the idea of bullet point summaries.

How does the sun appear to move around? You say Turing Patterns are constant, yet they must change constantly throughout the day to get the sun to appear to rotate.

Why are you so obsessed with Turing patterns? As I have said multiple times already, i brought them up ONLY as an illustration that diffusion does not necessarily lead to equilibrium, Given we've already established you don't understand them, I fail to see why you insist on bringing them in, especially considering you have already been told several times that they are irrelevant.

The Sun rotates, thanks to the whirlpool it's in. The cycle of aether, the pattern of the flow, remains constant.