Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Whomi Is Amazing And Other Comments

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on June 2, 2003 13:00:34 UTC

When I opened Discussions today, I was told that there are 43 new posts today in G&S. Yet when I opened G&S (with whomi hidden), I can only count 23 new posts.

Is whomi really still responsible for half the posts on this forum? That is amazing.

The posts I do see, particularly the debate between Harv and Dick, are such an interesting read that even though my name is used I do not want to interfere with the flow of that debate.

But I am perplexed that Dick says I postulate that he is modeling the pipeline, when actually, in his words and in his very next breath, he says that he is designing the pipeline.

Can someone other than whomi or Dick explain the difference between a model and a design? In mech engr I learned that a model is what you build small-scale based on a design. Math physics does not seem to use the word design.

In Dick's analysis the pipeline is then based on scale, shift and cylindrical symmetry by design. [but not mirror, spherical, periodic or other symmetries (which are not included in the design or model of Dick's pipeline). Some symmetries are mutually exclusive]. Sobeit, but the resulting derived equations reflect the design of the pipeline and not anything else.

What I say is that Dick postulates a series of sets of numbers, assumes each set has scale, shift and cylinderical symmetry and then based on some elegant (I think) math derives most of the equations of linear, wavelike behavior in physics.

People are at liberty to attach whatever meaning they wish to the symbols in the mathematical derivation. Dick claims they are the known symbols of classical, quantum and relativistic physics because certain physical laws result from approximations of his master equation.

That's an acceptable "interpretation" of the derivation. But what he has not done, which would be the most important aspect of his work as a contribution to physics, is to attach physical meaning to his master equation and make verifiable predictions on the basis of it.

I think Harv has said much the same thing. But since Dick is putting words into my mouth, I felt it was necessary to spell out my position in detail.

I was in aerodynamics as an undergrad (my Bachelors is in mech engr at Union College. I switched to physics at Harvard)and I can attest that the most interesting aspects of classical mechanics are its nonlinearities like shock waves, etc. Such nonlinearities are excluded from Dick's analysis. But they were developed in the first half of the 20th century.

Thanks to anyone who bothered to read this.

Even extra thanks to responders.

yanniru

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins