Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1522893)	2/15/2025 8:24:50 AM
From: Maple MAGA	4 Recommendations Recommended By FJB longz maceng2 Mick Mørmøny Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 1570492

Did someone mention Ayn Rand? "The dinosaur and its fellow-creatures vanished from this earth long before there were any industrialists or any men . . . . But this did not end life on earth. Contrary to the ecologists, nature does not stand still and does not maintain the kind of “equilibrium” that guarantees the survival of any particular species—least of all the survival of her greatest and most fragile product: man." Ayn Rand

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1522893)	2/15/2025 8:44:55 AM
From: Eric	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570492

Excellent post. Why do all universities and colleges around the world that have Atmospheric Science depts agree that AGW is happening. Peer Reviewed Science The gold standard. If the deniers have a disputing theory. Just put it up for review.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1522893)	2/15/2025 10:02:24 AM
From: maceng2	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570492

Looks like Zharkova has refuted the 2019 refute. So, anyway enough of the literature, it is a matter to figuring a few things out. Like a study of the three bodied problem as opposed to the two bodied problem with it's simple barycentre. Once the three bodied problem is understood, it can be generally applied to the solar system. Frankly I am a bit surprised modern researchers are even arguing about it. As koan would say... It's "settled science" or at least should be -g- So I am a bit unsettled the science is not yet settled, if you get my drift. In undergraduate physics, it's rare to go outside the two bodied problems as it's complicated and just a "perturbation". a small change. That all got a big shake up when Chaos Theory arrived with the strange thinking of Mitchell Feigenbaum in 1974, and elsewhere. Then came the new fangled computers and a more intense study of non linear equations... equations that kept coming up with different answers. Things indeed got perturbed, and in a lot of cases went chaotic. If I have read Zharkova correctly, she independently came up with an extra 2200 year cycle that needed explaining away. Then she found the Hallstatt's cycle and that is why she is sticking to her guns on that particular approach. That is my current understanding, but watch this space. Back to the literature.. lots of references to the Hallstatt Cycle. <<*We therefore concluded that this so-called Hallstatt periodicity most likely reflects some periodicity in the solar activity*.>> Solar activity during the Holocene: the Hallstatt cycle and its consequence for grand minima and maxima \| Astronomy & Astrophysics (A&A) Lots of cycles mentioned here, Hallstatt is somewhere near the bottom. Solar cycle - Wikipedia So worthy of a look over the next month or two, for me anyway.