The Cardioid: the basis for all tornado outbreaks???

[Dave Van Grun]

I am not as adept as many on this web at accessing a visual display that may aid and abet further understanding of what I am attempting to convey but I do believe that progress is being made!

 

[Dave Van Grun]

Let's talk about the Greensburg, Kansas, event. I looked at this and I thought that if the predominant activity started in northwest Oklahoma, the Greensburg, Kansas tornado fits what I call the Mnth position in the J,K,L,M sequencing WHICH IS THE STRONGEST(in my opinion). Correct me if I am wrong but due to an impulse coming out of Colorado, this whole series/sequencing starting with events in Oklahoma start out with very minor F force storms near Buffalo, Oklahoma, and accelerating in value until Greensburg occurs. In effect, the J,K, and L storms are minor in relationship to that of Greensburg because the displacement or pressure field pulse was smaller only accelerating prior to the Greensburg event. Kind of like swatting the air faster in motion toward the end of that motion, resulting in a most severe storm!

 

[Greg Campbell]

(Yesterday) I do not know that this might belong on a different thread but in association of the cardioid matter, I bring up the mesocyclone. That unique cloud structure has caught my attention from a point of mathematical mimicking what might be called a hyperboloid of one sheet variation. My point concerns the volume of the mesocyclone cloud in a hyperboloid of one sheet nature because that volume is

piabH[1+1/3(H^2/c^2)]

...

and solve! Any takers?

No takers. This Mesocyclone diversion is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

As the person proposing this general idea, it is incumbent on YOU to provide specific data. To make any sort of case, you'll need to plot tornado distribution (spacial (and/or temporal?)) on some sort of map/plot, and then show how your magic curves fit the data.

(Today) I am not as adept as many on this web at accessing a visual display that may aid and abet further understanding of what I am attempting to convey but I do believe that progress is being made!

Oh, come on!
You must have SOME satellite pictures, damage plots, SPC reports... something showing spacial distribution of storms. Post the images, or links to them, and then describe or illustrate how a proposed curve fits the data.

Without making even a minimal effort to show correlation between data and theory, you're not going to win many converts.

As I indicated, I live in a state which isn't up on tornadoes, so I must confess that I am not up on current events, only past outbreaks. But I got a feeling that the Memphis events seem to be likened to what I would call a series/sequence of a -sin which is short for x=-(2sin x-sin2x) and y=(2cosx-cos2x) from a cursory point of view!

Please demonstrate how you reached this conclusion.

 

[Jacob Ferden]

Looking back through the radar loop from that evening, you actually may have something with regards to the storm motion as the storm reached its peak intensity. A comparison can be drawn fairly quickly between the motion of the EF5 tornado as it moved through Greensburg and then gradually curved to the left and dissipated and the motion to the left (moving in a counter-clockwise direction) into the cusp of the cardioid.

But is this consistent with what occurred with other major events? I know the May 3 tornado also made a curve to the left after it was past Moore and nearing Tinker, but could you apply it to other major events? For example: 1991 Andover, KS tornado, 1997 Jarrell, TX tornado, etc. Is this something that could actually have a practical use at some point in the future?

 

[Jeff Duda]

Proposal - rejected.

I am frustrated and tired of being told to "try it myself" and being shown equations that make little sense to me, especially given the experience with math that I have. It seems that Mr. van Grun certainly knows what he's talking about to himself, but he is failing to convey the idea to (most) others, including myself. He is providing no images or further/down to earth explanations of the theory. In the image that Jacob showed of the paths of the Greensburg supercell tornadoes (thanks for a real image finally), I see no parts of any cardioid. If anything, I see a coiled-head comma shape. That is all I see.

 

[Dave Van Grun]

In the case of the Greensburg,Kansas, event, the cusp would have been associated with the locations of storms in the panhandle of Oklahoma as this appears to be a sequence of -cos configuration. The Greensburg, Kansas, tornado occurs at the pi location on the curve, again, if I have correctly configured the nature of previous storms in this appropriate series/sequencing!

 

[Jason Boggs]

In the case of the Greensburg,Kansas, event, the cusp would have been associated with the locations of storms in the panhandle of Oklahoma as this appears to be a sequence of -cos configuration. The Greensburg, Kansas, tornado occurs at the pi location on the curve, again, if I have correctly configured the nature of previous storms in this appropriate series/sequencing!

Like others have said, if you can't submit images or some kind of graphics to go along with this, I think your wasting your time. Slow down and take a deep breath...Now, think of some kind of graphic representation to go along with what you're talking about. Trust me, you'll get a whole lot further this way. If you can't use graphics to help us, I think your pissing in the wind.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Like others have said, if you can't submit images or some kind of graphics to go along with this, I think your wasting your time. Slow down and take a deep breath...Now, think of some kind of graphic representation to go along with what you're talking about. Trust me, you'll get a whole lot further this way. If you can't use graphics to help us, I think your pissing in the wind.

I agree. I read the previous thread that was locked and have been following this one as well.

I think some graphics would help everybody explain themselves and their perspectives - on both sides of this issue. If nothing else, this debate has helped the learning process - imo.

 

[Robert Edmonds]

Proposal - rejected.

I am frustrated and tired of being told to "try it myself" and being shown equations that make little sense to me, especially given the experience with math that I have. It seems that Mr. van Grun certainly knows what he's talking about to himself, but he is failing to convey the idea to (most) others, including myself. He is providing no images or further/down to earth explanations of the theory. In the image that Jacob showed of the paths of the Greensburg supercell tornadoes (thanks for a real image finally), I see no parts of any cardioid. If anything, I see a coiled-head comma shape. That is all I see.

To understand why some of us are annoyed, I provide these links I found when someone was reviewing null physics.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...alternative-science-respectability-checklist/

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

This stuff isn't new to physics or astronomy, perhaps for meteorology?

 

[Wes Carter]

Dave, maybe you could take some time and write a paper on the subject? I don't think anyone is wanting to dismiss you. There is a lot of genuine interest in what you have to say but we are having great difficulty in understanding your train of thought.

I don't want to insult you in any way nor do I claim to be a psychologist. But from what I have seen in this thread I can't help but in this thread I think you have exhibited some savant traits. It's not a bad thing, but it might help if we know so that we can maybe cut you some slack in the communication area where we seem to be having a bit of trouble.

We don't want to dismiss you, but we might have to if you are just unwilling to take the time to provide some sort of documentation, methods used, illustrations, and explanation. However, some of us will be willing to work with you if you have trouble communicating these ideas for some legitimate reason.

 

[Jeff Duda]

Don't get me wrong. I am intrigued by this idea and wish to know more about whether or not the theory holds any water, but I feel I had no choice but to dismiss it since multiple attempts by many people to get Mr. van Grun to further explain his position failed to exude any reaction from him. I saw many examples in the links Robert provided of failures on Dave's part.

 

[Dave Van Grun]

Well, Jeff,

I am at a loss to be able to demonstrate visual examples but I can encourage anyone to look at web pages of say the Super outbreak of '74 and note the storms that occurred on that date. I am strictly speaking of the families of those 148 separate and distinct tornadoes. I can point out that it is extremely interesting that what I refer to as series/sequencing might be seen in the manner of new families occurring there. I have noted for example that the Depauw, Orleans, Fountaintown, and Xenia seem to constitute a series/sequence while again the Depauw, Brandenberg, Caneyville, and Franklin storms constitute another. Interestingly enough, the next series includes the Nashville family of again four storms ending with the Ostella storm. Hasn't anybody else noted the nature of families in multiples of three and four storms(families) per unit area? The J,K,L,M sequencing!

 

[Jeff Duda]

I am at a loss to be able to demonstrate visual examples

Oh, okay, Dave. Thanks for clarifying: you can't give any visual samples to demonstrate the theory. Then let me reiterate my earlier post:

Proposal - rejected.

 

[Bob Hartig]

I am at a loss to be able to demonstrate visual examples but I can encourage anyone to look at web pages of say the Super outbreak of '74 and note the storms that occurred on that date.

Dave, if you truly care about getting the folks on this forum to understand your idea--as opposed to merely talking about it on and on in terms no one is grasping--then you're going to have to step back from your concept long enough to figure out how to communicate it effectively. The way you've been going about it isn't working.

Folks here are genuinely interested in your idea. But you've already been told any number of times, in plain language, that you need to pull together some graphics so you can illustrate your ideas visually. This has been stated to you in straightforward, unmistakable terms. Yet you've consistently evaded that request by either ignoring it or else saying you lack the ability to comply with it, and then you redouble your efforts to explain by words, equations, and citing historical outbreaks. That approach has become a broken record.

If you lack the skill to provide graphics, Dave, then find someone who can help you with that. Maybe someone here would be willing to work with you. There's nothing wrong with recruiting assistance with something you're not skilled at; I'm technically challenged myself, and I'd be in the same boat.

I concur with Wes: you seem to have a brilliant mind, but you've been demonstrating a sort of monomania that keeps you on a fruitless treadmill. It's not working--not for you, and not for anyone here. You've got to shift your focus from your idea to how you can communicate it on this forum in the terms any number of us have been requesting--i.e. actual graphic examples. Drawings. Charts. Something like what Lanny provided. If you can't do that, I'm afraid you're going to lose your audience--not because your idea might not have merit, but because, for whatever reason, you're failing to change your approach to something that has meaning for your audience.

 

[Joey Ketcham]

Well, Jeff,

I am at a loss to be able to demonstrate visual examples but I can encourage anyone to look at web pages of say the Super outbreak of '74 and note the storms that occurred on that date.

Here is my problem, Dave. You come onto this forum with this theory of yours which - to many of us - is just gibberish and way over our heads and then when we attempt to get further explanation from you or get some sort of graphical representation of what you're speaking of, we get told that you can't and for us to go look for ourselves.

Whether it is on a forum such as this or in person, when you come to propose a theory you need to do so with your guns fully loaded. You need to have a full presentation prepared which includes, but not limited to all the data, facts, statistics and anything else that would support your theory and this also includes any graphical representations of what you speak of that helps in demonstrating your theory.

Dave, it is not in your favor when you tell us to go look for ourselves. This is your theory, not mine. You need to have everything prepared to convince me, and others, that your theory might have some weight behind it. Telling us to do what you should have already done is not going to win me nor anyone else over. It is your job to do the homework, not ours. That is the problem I'm having with all of this.

Whatever excuse you might have for not being able to provide us with what we ask for, the fact is this is your theory and it is your responsibility to have all of this on hand prior to presenting your theories so that you can provide us with all the facts, data and graphics needed to help support your theory. Telling us to go look for ourselves is not going to win us over. Would you go before a panel of some of the most respected scientists in the field of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science and say to them "go look for yourself"? Do that and chances are they would quickly lose interest in you and your theories.

You should really just take a step back and take a deep breath and put something together that is more formal, with better information, data and statistics as well as diagrams that would help us understand what you're talking about and then come back and propose your theory to us. But please, stop telling us to go look for ourselves. No, I will not go look for myself as it is your job to present to me everything needed to support your theory. Telling me to go look for myself does not support your theory nor does it convince me of anything. This is your theory, gather up all the data, statistics, facts and put together diagrams that helps with explaining and supporting your theory then come back.