Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Is Newton right?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FromTheAshes" data-source="post: 9382916"><p>You laugh, but it's true. Engineers quit math after computers hit the shelves. Too much time. The debate at this point is modeling. For instance apparently there's a flaw in one of the spring-coupling models of expansion stress on a material that will have some interesting implications. The model's usage needs to be a little more limited then it is now...</p><p> </p><p> Nicola Tesla did everything better then anyone, so us engineers have our hero (ok, maybe that's not true, but Tesla kicked Edison's ass). </p><p> Meh, kinda cool, no flashy stuff. Give me a way to manipulate gravity and you guys will have done your job. </p><p> </p><p> Practically it does have VERY large import in the situations I outlined. The key to engineering is simplifying until you get something you can work with. The key to theoretical physics is exactness. Which is why string theory annoys me (when you're talking approximations of approximations for the equations you should be talking engineering - only it has no evidence and no practical value). </p><p> </p><p> Otherwise known as "The universe is a lazy SOB" </p><p> </p><p> So true! Especially the 200 years for biologists.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FromTheAshes, post: 9382916"] You laugh, but it's true. Engineers quit math after computers hit the shelves. Too much time. The debate at this point is modeling. For instance apparently there's a flaw in one of the spring-coupling models of expansion stress on a material that will have some interesting implications. The model's usage needs to be a little more limited then it is now... Nicola Tesla did everything better then anyone, so us engineers have our hero (ok, maybe that's not true, but Tesla kicked Edison's ass). Meh, kinda cool, no flashy stuff. Give me a way to manipulate gravity and you guys will have done your job. Practically it does have VERY large import in the situations I outlined. The key to engineering is simplifying until you get something you can work with. The key to theoretical physics is exactness. Which is why string theory annoys me (when you're talking approximations of approximations for the equations you should be talking engineering - only it has no evidence and no practical value). Otherwise known as "The universe is a lazy SOB" So true! Especially the 200 years for biologists. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Is Newton right?
Top
Bottom