Is there any scientific evidence to support the theory of The

>>8396778
>it's impossible to predict what caused a typhoon
>blame the butterflies
>dindu nuffin

>>8396778
Yes and no.

The "Butterfly Effect" in and of itself, is intended to be an exaggeration describing the general idea of chaotic systems (better referred to as "nonlinear systems"). The idea is that infinitely small changes in input can cause huge changes in output. This doesn't happen in linear systems. A little change in input, a little change in output, y = mx + b and all that fun stuff. But in nonlinear systems, and impossibly small change can give you a completely different result.

As an example actually dealing with the weather, let's suppose that meteorologists have a grid of probes spaced one meter apart, covering the entire surface of the earth, from the ground up to 100km high, and have probes also regularly spaced through the ocean, providing them any kind of data they could want about that point. Let's also be generous, and give them infinitely precise data. At a given moment, all of the probes take their measurements simultaneously, and the information is fed into an infinitely powerful supercomputer used to simulate future weather.

Within one month, the simulation will be completely out of touch with reality. Even with this impossible amount of data and computing power, the small variations in temperature, pressure, wind, sunlight in between the probes is enough to completely change the outcome of the system.

If you're curious, also look into bifurication of functions. Part of the idea is that certain functions are particularly prone to this around certain values, and so an extremely small push can push an otherwise normal-seeming function to completely change results.

Another example would be a metal pendulum, in the center of a triangle with a strong magnet at each point, spaced equally far away. The borders of the regions of attraction between the magnets regress into infinitely deep fractals, so that if you place the pendulum directly between two magnets, in real life you'll never really be able to predict which one it falls into.

I think this shit should just fall under chaos theory, if a typhoon could be caused by a negligible puff of air then it should follow that a typhoon could be caused by a lot of things

>>8396977
Just cause its possible doesn't mean its likely

>>8396977
It can't; if you view it as a sequence of collisions eventually the collisions stop or are basically overruled by background kinematics before the spread out appreciably far from the source.

In reality the butterfly analogy is pretty stupid.

But >>8396848 fully answers OP's question though. The butterfly effect is just a metaphor for chaos theory and not a description of an actual process. A more apt analogy would be that a butterfly flapping its wings twenty meters away can influence a double rigid pendulum's trajectory.

>>8396778
Under chaos theory if I fart can I cause a blackhole to appear in another galaxy from a number of factors that lead to the impact of other factors from my fart gas?

>>8398995
Probably not. Think of all the chaos that would happen given the number of farts every second.

>>8396778
Maybe the scientists know whose farts caused a hurricane and that hurricane is named after them, maybe a man named Matthew had a long wet fart after some anal sex and the gas from his ass led to other variables being impacted leading to the hurricane.

And maybe Hurricane Katrina was caused by a woman named Katrina after having vaginal sex and queefing?

>>8396778
>could cause a typhoon in Japan
or prevent it, which is usually not mentioned.

>>8399486
Why not?