Ray Wrote:
"I have roughly graphed these relationships, but I must leave it to legitimate mathematicians to actually put the discipline to it.
By "legitimate", I mean: Design Engineers, not Theoretical Physicists."

Reply:
Certainly you do have SOME point there,
but we cannot do without the math of
SOME Theoretical Physicists. Design Engineers ARE Theoretical Physicists when designing new generations of technology.

Design Engineers sometimes revise their math
after trial and error designs. Giant bridges
have, on occasion, collapsed soon after completion.
Until a Design Engineer builds the device you
think they can build, and it actually works
as intended, it is impossible to give THEIR
math any blanket endorsement over that of
Thoretical Physicists.

Anyway, it is a chain. Design Engineers
surely benefit from criticizing and drawing
upon the work of Theoretical Physicists.
Else, why did you take the time to refute it?

98.6

• Good reply Mike... - rayredbourne - November 5, 2002 - 12:27 UTC
  • All ideas - yaniru - November 5, 2002 - 17:48 UTC
  • Thank you Ray....a note about Ruquist - quiet - November 5, 2002 - 22:25 UTC
    • Thank you for being quiet - yaniru - November 6, 2002 - 13:08 UTC
      • Troll alert on the Black Holes forum. - something - November 6, 2002 - 15:33 UTC
  • A problem - cosmotiger - November 6, 2002 - 23:50 UTC
    • Excellent question -- up to a point - obviouslymike - November 7, 2002 - 04:56 UTC
      • This one is incomplete and can be ignored - obviouslymike - November 7, 2002 - 05:03 UTC
    • Excellent question -- up to a point - obviouslymike - November 7, 2002 - 05:02 UTC
      • That is a Brilliant point. Are you Mike Pearson? - plausible - November 7, 2002 - 18:09 UTC