|
Tuesday, 13 June 2017
quote [ Local stations KOTI 2 and KOBI 5 helping me get the word out :) ]
|
donnie said @ 8:56pm GMT on 15th June
And I'm sorry I don't know the maths, but honestly .. with something like this .. that's just a different way to argue, something like this HAS to be physically proven.
It's the nature of the beast :/
No. You're wrong. If you can't do the maths then you have no idea what you have built or what you are observing. If you don't quantify everything then you have no idea what effects you expect to observe and, therefore, no way to observe that what actually happened is different from what you calculated would happen.
To have any proof at all you absolutely, without any exception, need to do the maths. There is no getting around it. The math will tell you which points of your experiment are sensitive to unknowns, to friction, to uncontrollable and minor deviations from ideal conditions. It will tell you exactly how sensitive you experiment will be those deviations from ideality and will allow you to compensate in your models to predict what physics, as we now know it, expects your machine will do. If you can't say with extreme precision what the current model of physics says your machine will do then you have absolutely no way to know whether or not it is doing anything different (ie: if physics as we know it missed something).
There is no other way forward - you need to build the mathematical model using our current understanding of physics. You need to account for all of the variables in the model quantitatively. You need to be sure you haven't missed anything in your model (and you need the mathematical model to know what you might be missing). You then need to test your experiment against the mathematical model and measure everything. You need to understand what you need to measure, and how accurately you need to measure it. You have to know how to make accurate measurements (this is an entire branch of science unto itself - metrology is extremely tricky).
Then, and only then, can you start making incredible claims.
donnie said @ 8:56pm GMT on 15th June
And I'm sorry I don't know the maths, but honestly .. with something like this .. that's just a different way to argue, something like this HAS to be physically proven.
It's the nature of the beast :/
No. You're wrong. If you can't do the maths then you have no idea what you have built or what you are observing. If you don't quantify everything then you have no idea what effects you expect to observe and, therefore, no way to observe that what actually happened is different from what you calculated would happen. Math is the only way to argue in physics - the only way that matters.
To have any proof at all you absolutely, without any exception, need to do the maths. There is no getting around it. The math will tell you which points of your experiment are sensitive to unknowns, to friction, to uncontrollable and minor deviations from ideal conditions. It will tell you exactly how sensitive you experiment will be those deviations from ideality and will allow you to compensate in your models to predict what physics, as we now know it, expects your machine will do. If you can't say with extreme precision what the current model of physics says your machine will do then you have absolutely no way to know whether or not it is doing anything different (ie: if physics as we know it missed something).
There is no other way forward - you need to build the mathematical model using our current understanding of physics. You need to account for all of the variables in the model quantitatively. You need to be sure you haven't missed anything in your model (and you need the mathematical model to know what you might be missing). You then need to test your experiment against the mathematical model and measure everything. You need to understand what you need to measure, and how accurately you need to measure it. You have to know how to make accurate measurements (this is an entire branch of science unto itself - metrology is extremely tricky).
Then, and only then, can you start making incredible claims.
donnie said @ 8:57pm GMT on 15th June
And I'm sorry I don't know the maths, but honestly .. with something like this .. that's just a different way to argue, something like this HAS to be physically proven.
It's the nature of the beast :/
No. You're wrong. If you can't do the maths then you have no idea what you have built or what you are observing. If you don't quantify everything then you have no idea what effects you expect to observe and, therefore, no way to observe that what actually happened is different from what you calculated would happen. Math is the only way to argue in physics - the only way that matters.
To have any proof at all you absolutely, without any exception, need to do the maths. There is no getting around it. The math will tell you which points of your experiment are sensitive to unknowns, to friction, to uncontrollable and minor deviations from ideal conditions. It will tell you exactly how sensitive your experiment will be to those deviations from ideality and will allow you to compensate in your models to predict what physics, as we now know it, expects your machine will do. If you can't say with extreme precision what the current model of physics says your machine will do then you have absolutely no way to know whether or not it is doing anything different (ie: if physics as we know it missed something).
There is no other way forward - you need to build the mathematical model using our current understanding of physics. You need to account for all of the variables in the model quantitatively. You need to be sure you haven't missed anything in your model (and you need the mathematical model to know what you might be missing). You then need to test your experiment against the mathematical model and measure everything. You need to understand what you need to measure, and how accurately you need to measure it. You have to know how to make accurate measurements (this is an entire branch of science unto itself - metrology is extremely tricky).
Then, and only then, can you start making incredible claims.
donnie said @ 9:00pm GMT on 15th June
And I'm sorry I don't know the maths, but honestly .. with something like this .. that's just a different way to argue, something like this HAS to be physically proven.
It's the nature of the beast :/
No. You're wrong. If you can't do the maths then you have no idea what you have built or what you are observing. If you don't quantify everything then you have no idea what effects you expect to observe and, therefore, no way to observe that what actually happened is different from what you calculated would happen. Math is the only way to argue in physics - the only way that matters.
To have any proof at all you absolutely, without any exception, need to do the maths. There is no getting around it. The math will tell you which points of your experiment are sensitive to unknowns, to friction, to uncontrollable and minor deviations from ideal conditions. It will tell you exactly how sensitive your experiment will be to those deviations from ideality and will allow you to compensate in your models to predict what physics, as we now know it, expects your machine will do. If you can't say with extreme precision what the current model of physics says your machine will do then you have absolutely no way to know whether or not it is doing anything different (ie: if physics as we know it missed something).
There is no other way forward - you need to build the mathematical model using our current understanding of physics. You need to account for all of the variables in the model quantitatively. You need to be sure you haven't missed anything in your model (and you need the mathematical model to know what you might be missing). You then need to test your experiment against the mathematical model and measure everything. You need to understand what you need to measure, and how accurately you need to measure it. You have to know how to make accurate measurements (this is an entire branch of science unto itself - metrology is extremely tricky). You need to account for the propagation of uncertainty in your measurements to make sure your result lies outside of the expectation.
Then, and only then, can you start making incredible claims.
donnie said @ 9:02pm GMT on 15th June
And I'm sorry I don't know the maths, but honestly .. with something like this .. that's just a different way to argue, something like this HAS to be physically proven.
It's the nature of the beast :/
No. You're wrong. If you can't do the maths then you have no idea what you have built or what you are observing. If you don't quantify everything then you have no idea what effects you expect to observe and, therefore, no way to observe that what actually happened is different from what you calculated would happen. Math is the only way to argue in physics - the only way that matters.
To have any proof at all you absolutely, without any exception, need to do the maths. There is no getting around it. The math will tell you which points of your experiment are sensitive to unknowns, to friction, to uncontrollable and minor deviations from ideal conditions. It will tell you exactly how sensitive your experiment will be to those deviations from ideality and will allow you to compensate in your models to predict what physics, as we now know it, expects your machine will do. If you can't say with extreme precision what the current model of physics says your machine will do then you have absolutely no way to know whether or not it is doing anything different (ie: if physics as we know it missed something).
There is no other way forward - you need to build the mathematical model using our current understanding of physics. You need to account for all of the variables in the model quantitatively. You need to be sure you haven't missed anything in your model (and you need the mathematical model to know what you might be missing). You then need to test your experiment against the mathematical model and measure everything. You need to understand what you need to measure, and how accurately you need to measure it. You have to know how to make accurate measurements (this is an entire branch of science unto itself - metrology is extremely tricky). You need to understand experimental uncertainty analysis. You need to account for the propagation of uncertainty in your measurements to make sure your result lies outside of the expectation.
Then, and only then, can you start making incredible claims.
donnie said @ 9:02pm GMT on 15th June
And I'm sorry I don't know the maths, but honestly .. with something like this .. that's just a different way to argue, something like this HAS to be physically proven.
It's the nature of the beast :/
No. You're wrong. If you can't do the maths then you have no idea what you have built or what you are observing. If you don't quantify everything then you have no idea what effects you expect to observe and, therefore, no way to observe that what actually happened is different from what you calculated would happen. Math is the only way to argue in physics - the only way that matters.
To have any proof at all you absolutely, without any exception, need to do the maths. There is no getting around it. The math will tell you which points of your experiment are sensitive to unknowns, to friction, to uncontrollable and minor deviations from ideal conditions. It will tell you exactly how sensitive your experiment will be to those deviations from ideality and will allow you to compensate in your models to predict what physics, as we now know it, expects your machine will do. If you can't say with extreme precision what the current model of physics says your machine will do then you have absolutely no way to know whether or not it is doing anything different (ie: if physics as we know it missed something).
There is no other way forward - you need to build the mathematical model using our current understanding of physics. You need to account for all of the variables in the model quantitatively. You need to be sure you haven't missed anything in your model (and you need the mathematical model to know what you might be missing). You then need to test your experiment against the mathematical model and measure everything. You need to understand what you need to measure, and how accurately you need to measure it. You have to know how to make accurate measurements (this is an entire branch of science unto itself - metrology is extremely tricky). You need to understand experimental uncertainty analysis. You need to account for the propagation of uncertainty in your measurements to make sure your result lies outside of the expectation.
Then, and only then, can you start making incredible claims.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
donnie said @ 8:56pm GMT on 15th June [Score:1 Informative]
And I'm sorry I don't know the maths, but honestly .. with something like this .. that's just a different way to argue, something like this HAS to be physically proven.
It's the nature of the beast :/
No. You're wrong. If you can't do the maths then you have no idea what you have built or what you are observing. If you don't quantify everything then you have no idea what effects you expect to observe and, therefore, no way to observe that what actually happened is different from what you calculated would happen. Math is the only way to argue in physics - the only way that matters.
To have any proof at all you absolutely, without any exception, need to do the maths. There is no getting around it. The math will tell you which points of your experiment are sensitive to unknowns, to friction, to uncontrollable and minor deviations from ideal conditions. It will tell you exactly how sensitive your experiment will be to those deviations from ideality and will allow you to compensate in your models to predict what physics, as we now know it, expects your machine will do. If you can't say with extreme precision what the current model of physics says your machine will do then you have absolutely no way to know whether or not it is doing anything different (ie: if physics as we know it missed something).
There is no other way forward - you need to build the mathematical model using our current understanding of physics. You need to account for all of the variables in the model quantitatively. You need to be sure you haven't missed anything in your model (and you need the mathematical model to know what you might be missing). You then need to test your experiment against the mathematical model and measure everything. You need to understand what you need to measure, and how accurately you need to measure it. You have to know how to make accurate measurements (this is an entire branch of science unto itself - metrology is extremely tricky). You need to understand experimental uncertainty analysis. You need to account for the propagation of uncertainty in your measurements to make sure your result lies outside of the expectation.
Then, and only then, can you start making incredible claims.
Either way .. now the story is getting some forward momentum itself ;)