Bordeaux

originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
originally posted by Pavel Tchichikov:
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
What’s the point again? Oh yeah. Oregon Pinot ain’t Burgundy.
Click to expand...

Isn't it mostly on granite? (I may be mistaken.) Not a fair comparison then.
Click to expand...

Here's the scoop on Oregon soils: http://willamettewines.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Soil-into-Wine-2014.pdf

One odd thing about soil and terroir discussions is how it always seems to focus on the underlying geology and soil derived from it. But soil isn't just crushed rock, there's a lot of organic matter involved; which might have as much or more influence on the wine.
Click to expand...

Our late comrade SFJoe has posited that mycorrhizal ecosystems might account for gout de terroir more than soils themsrlves though obviously soils could affect mycorrhizal ecosystems.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by MLipton:
Oregon Pinot Oregon Pinot Noirs have their own distinct character to me, as do Pinot Nero from Italy, Spätburgunder from Germany and Pinot Noir from the Jura. It's one of the things that makes Pinot Noir such a fascinating grape to me.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

Sure. But while I don't know much about Oregon pinot noir, I'm pretty comfortable saying that the pinot nero, spätburgunder and Jura expressions of pinot noir do not rise to the heights of the more complex Burgundy.
 
originally posted by Cole Kendall:
This is interesting and relevant to the perception of blue issue:

Loading…

www.sciencealert.com

"...one of the most compelling [studies] was conducted by Jules Davidoff, a psychologist from Goldsmiths University of London, who worked with the Himba tribe from Namibia. In their language, there is no word for blue and no real distinction between green and blue.

To test whether that meant they couldn't actually see blue, he showed them a circle with 11 green squares and one painfully obvious blue square. Well, obvious to us, at least, as you can see below. But the Himba tribe struggled to tell Davidoff which of the squares was a different colour to the others. Those who did hazard a guess at which square was different took a long time to get the right answer, and there were a lot of mistakes."
Click to expand...
Ridiculous. Just because they have no word for it does not mean that their retina has no pigment that responds to that wavelength. The article even says as much, "Or, more accurately, they probably saw it as we do now, but they never really noticed it."

It is exactly and entirely analogous to the later part of that article in which they show a dozen very, very similar greens -- very, very similar to me -- but one of them is quite distinctive to the Himba.

Did oxygen exist before Lavoisier? Did radiation exist before Curie? Honestly.
 
originally posted by Jay Miller:
With regards to Oregon pinot while it is certainly rarer for me to find what I would define as complexity there as opposed to Burgundy I have certainly experienced it. More commonly in less ripe vintages such as 2011 and of course vintage dependent.

FWIW I put a 2011 Brooks Janus in a blind flight and everyone guessed Burgundy. And I noticed that it had vanished from Wine Searcher the next day.
Click to expand...

You said the same of Richard's Cuvee, as well.

Oregon is a young region. It is more important to be selective now.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
What do you want to know about quantum theory?

I imagine this is the farthest ranging Bordeaux thread in the history of wine boreds.

I have a serious question about objectivity. Let’s assume Jonathan opens some Southern Rhône Grenache-y hoo-hah for me next time he’s in NY that doesn’t have Rayas somewhere on the label, as he has told me is likely to happen. Is there a state of the universe in which alleged objectivity plays any role in my appreciation or lack thereof of said wine? If so, ‘xplain.
Click to expand...

RE: QT, more than I do, especially the underlying mathematics. Would like to be conformable with Poisson brackets, converting back and forth from Lagrangian to Hamiltonian mechanics, applying matrix algebra. Would also like to understand the individual terms of the Schroedinger equation better than I do.
Click to expand...

You don’t need Poisson brackets in QM. The equivalent is roughly commutation relations of quantum mechanical operators.

Likewise for starters nonrelativistic QM uses Hamiltonian mechanics. I.e., Schrodingers equation generally is i hbar dpsi/dt = H psi, where psi is the wavefunction describing the state of your particle/system, the derivative is a partial, and the Hamiltonian H is the energy operator that causes system dynamics but also determines the eigenstructure. You don’t need to consider the Lagrangian. Basic quantum mechanics seeks to understand the various eigenstates of this equation and its dynamical solutions for different forms of H and different initial condotions for psi. Generally H has kinetic energy (momentum) terms, spatial potential terms, etc.

You can ping me if you want more, given how many people are NOT interested, but I quite liked Feynman’s book QED when I read it a couple decades ago as a grad student. It’s a lay text but with Feynman’s deep insight.
 
originally posted by MLipton:

Our late comrade SFJoe has posited that mycorrhizal ecosystems might account for gout de terroir more than soils themsrlves though obviously soils could affect mycorrhizal ecosystems.
Click to expand...

Affecting aromas and flavors for sure, but the rock defines the shape of the wine in the mouth to a large extent.

Christian, the link is great.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
originally posted by Cole Kendall:
This is interesting and relevant to the perception of blue issue:

Loading…

www.sciencealert.com

"...one of the most compelling [studies] was conducted by Jules Davidoff, a psychologist from Goldsmiths University of London, who worked with the Himba tribe from Namibia. In their language, there is no word for blue and no real distinction between green and blue.

To test whether that meant they couldn't actually see blue, he showed them a circle with 11 green squares and one painfully obvious blue square. Well, obvious to us, at least, as you can see below. But the Himba tribe struggled to tell Davidoff which of the squares was a different colour to the others. Those who did hazard a guess at which square was different took a long time to get the right answer, and there were a lot of mistakes."
Click to expand...
Ridiculous. Just because they have no word for it does not mean that their retina has no pigment that responds to that wavelength. The article even says as much, "Or, more accurately, they probably saw it as we do now, but they never really noticed it."

It is exactly and entirely analogous to the later part of that article in which they show a dozen very, very similar greens -- very, very similar to me -- but one of them is quite distinctive to the Himba.

Did oxygen exist before Lavoisier? Did radiation exist before Curie? Honestly.
Click to expand...

These experiments have been around since Sapir and Whorf. I think their extreme version of claiming that one language isn't translatable into another has been fairly well-disproved just along the lines Jeff described. People with different color spectrum labels have difficulty making the distinctions we do and vice versa. But we see the same things and can learn the different distinctions.

On the other hand, I also don't think Jeff's total dismissal of the claim is warranted either. Prior to being taught, people do make distinctions differently that do amount to differences in how we organize our sense perceptions. Greeks no doubt knew what color the sky was. But they may not have seen it as looking very much different from grass, which doesn't mean they perceived differently but would have made some pointed differences in what they did with what they perceived.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top