Bignose

Nope. You sure don't. I am just trying to suggest to you a way in which to make a far more meaningful prediction. Feel free to ignore this advice all you want. The risk is that the probe jigs just a little, and you're like "0.5% movement! That's huge!" whereas to someone else a half a percent is tiny. That's the risk of just using fungible words like that. Again, feel free to ignore this advice. And vice versa, without more specific instructions, other scientists are going to feel more freedom to ignore these supposed predictions because they are so general as to be very low in value.

I don't think I am. Probability and statistics fall under "math" don't they? And when you "tweak the code"... you do realize that in the end you're changing how things are calculated. i.e. math, right? I don't see how one can call 'simulation modelling' (discrete event modeling) "not math".

Humblemunn, this is almost useless. "The lateral deviation left will be proportional to this velocity increase.".... um, yeah. ANY deviation left will be proportional to ANY acceleration. If it goes 5 degrees left and speeds up 10 m/s^2, then it is 5/10 proportionality. If it goes 50 degrees left and speeds up 17 m/s^2, then it is a 50/17 proportionality. Just saying "proportional" is meaningless. Like I wrote above, take some time, and please post some actual estimates. "left" and "large" is not good enough in a scientific setting. You have time -- Oct 9th is more than 30 days away. Take the time to do your math correctly and post an estimate.

that may be true, but that does not mean in any way that it isn't still highly mathematical. I don't have any problem claiming better ways of presenting mathematical models, but I'd strongly advise attempting to call the model "not math".

Humblemunn. I pulled up a random few of his papers. There is a ton of math in his models. He's just created a nice way of obscuring it behind tools. What I see falls under a broad umbrella known as discrete event simulation. It is used in a lot of industrial settings, job control, etc. And there is a great deal of mathematics behind it. Check out Banks et al Discrete Event Simulation 5th Edition 2009. At it's heart is a large Monte Carlo simulation. This is how a fair amount of obscuring can occur, because usually if you just put in a mean and deviation, it is usually decent enough to assume the probability distribution of an event is Gaussian/normal. That is, meaningful results can still be gathered even if the distribution really isn't normal. And with the speed of computers today, Monte Carlo sims can be done really, really fast. Edited to add: Actually, to a certain extent, it is my opinion that some of these tools have gotten too easy to use. That it is a little too easy to just insert some parameters and then take what the computer spits out as gospel truth. CFD and FEA is also becoming guilty of this. Specifically, the people who use these software need to be trained on the mathematics behind them so that they can recognize when anomalies come up. That is, when the basic assumptions behind the model aren't holding. I.e. an event that really isn't Gaussian/normal, or a fluid that ins't Newtonian. Far too often, people just assume that because the computer said something, it must be right.

You thank me for the comments, but then you didn't actually address them. How much to the left? How much acceleration? I'll admit I am in some small way trying to make sure that you don't come back on 10 Oct and be like "See! See that 0.00249% deviation in the path! That's what I predicted!" when that small of a deviation could really just be noise in the system. So, you don't need to have exact figures. You should be able to estimate it. Assume that the mass of the spacecraft is some % fluid and then use that -- just state that assumption up front. I would accept something like "it will deviate between 5 and 8 degrees" and "it will accelerate somewhere between 10 m/s^2 and 20 m/s^2". But saying "it will deviate and accelerate" alone really isn't a meaningful prediction. You obviously already have some broad estimate, you keep calling the acceleration "large". Just state it more precisely so that what you call "large" will be known up front.

I think that this is a decent start. Actually making a prediction gets you ahead of most speculators who arrive here. Now, that said, qualitative predictions in physics are usually somewhat sketchy. Because words alone rarely are as clear and precise as mathematical statements. Compare "it will deflect to the left" with "it will deflect 2.5 degrees" and "it will deflect 75 degrees". Both the latter statements are deflections to the left, but one is significantly more impactful than the other. To put this another way, without quantifying your predictions, how can anyone know whether it is correct or not? If you predict 2.5 degrees and it deflects 75 degrees, then your prediction clearly has significant error. So, can I ask that you try to make more of a quantitative prediction? This will really help build your case after it is observed if your prediction matches what is observed.

If you can type text, you can type equations using this forum's LaTeX capabilities. See http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/3751-quick-latex-tutorial/

Explain how this is different than the concept of a luminiferous aether, and why despite many experiments (starting with Michelson-Morley) this fluid (or aether) hasn't been found? This is why I wrote that electromagnetism does not require a medium -- the equations don't require it and experiments haven't found it. So, if you are going to use fluid mechanics equations -- equations that depend on there being a medium -- you need to explain why that medium hasn't been found yet. Experiments as recent as 2009 found no effect from an aether possibly larger than 1 part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 (10^17). That's a pretty small error bar to try to wiggle around in.

Please tell me what the hogwash parts of http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ are? I would really, really like to know. Because, as outlined in that paper, it is has been supremely successful at making predictions that agree with measured reality. I've said before many times, if you don't agree with it, just put out a new theory that makes more and even better predictions than the theory we have now -- and your new theory will be taken up with much, much aplomb and celebration of your genius. Oddly enough, I have yet to see a single "relativity is wrong" thread actually post even a single prediction that is better than the current theory, but there is always a first time.

I always loved this one. It is amazing how often people miss that.

Oh look, newts is back calling science a religion again. Hey, remember this post: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/65943-science-is-all-about-religion/?p=677397 Back in May 2012 I asked you to provide evidence of science being treated as a religion. Is there any chance that today, 15 months later, you actually can do it? You've certainly had enough time, and you certainly didn't provide evidence then. If not, please quit trolling our forums with your totally unsubstantiated and tired claims about science being a religion.

What does any of this have to do with the N-S equations?

You need to demonstrate that the granulations have a density many million orders of magnitude higher than the average. I can see the density being different because the granulation appear to be fluid convected from other areas. But many million orders of magnitude difference? You need to demonstrate that. Also, if that is what you wanted to restrict the discussion to, you probably should have stated that in the first place. And speaking of the first place, you also need to demonstrate how the surface tension of these granulations are holding the photosphere together. You really should be able to compare the surface tension forces to the gravitational forces. You don't even have to do an in-depth study. A back-of-the-envelope level/order of magnitude calculation would demonstrate how the surface tension forces compare to the gravitational forces. I didn't do any in-depth research at all, but the first Google result for 'surface tension of plasmas' comes up with a link to a paper by Hora et al., IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol 17, 1989 entitled 'On the surface tension of plasmas'... that sounds promising. Seems like with some work on your part you can begin to answer this question.

stop adding letters where they don't belong" "it's wrong. Fix it and apologize" nice, have a +1

The commonality between fluid flow and electrodynamics has been known for some time. I have seen circuits taught to mechanical engineers with the 'resistors are just like smaller and smaller pipes' method; I have seen fluids taught to electrical engineers with the 'small pipes are like resistors with more ohms' method. If you look at microfluids, really low Reynolds number flows, the analogy is even stronger. Kim & Karrila's book Microhydrodynamics: Principles and Selected Applications develops a significant number of solutions to fluids problem via concepts in electrostatics and dynamics. But, ultimately, while they have a great deal of similarity, fluids and electrodynamics are not the same. Fluids have turbulence, as just one very, very large difference. Another is that fluids require a medium (namely the fluid) whereas electromagnetism does not. Ultimately, these similarities can lead to some good cross-communication between people. And helps one group understand concepts from another via analogy. But, the differences between them are very significant. And, those differences are what lead to the interesting problems. And the really interesting problems are when you have both... e.g. magnetohydrodynamics (a fluid that is also magnetic. Could be as simple as water with iron filings in it to the plasma in a tokamok or the sun).

Unity, this is why you have to be very careful with your terminology. I don't think I had ever heard anyone call the total number of elements in a matrix the 'area' before. It is especially confusing since there are matrix operations that can calculate areas, e.g. usually via a determinant. And, yes, if there are no restrictions on the ordering of the elements (i.e. no symmetry requirements or similar), then it would be the factorial of the product of rows x columns

Where do you get any of that from?!? I tried to tell you above that I wasn't going to play games like this, where you take things out of context or try a gotcha. Total stress is just the sum of the grad p and the grad T terms.

How does this jive with an analysis of the optical spectrum of the sun which suggests that it is almost completely hydrogen & helium?

The 'pressure differential' is the grad p term. And the shear stresses are in the grad T term. Mathematically, you can add the two terms together, and call it something like a 'total stress'. But the equation shows how the two are related to one another. Example #1: a cylindrical pipe with high pressure at one end and low pressure at the other. The shear stresses form because of the pressure drop. Example #2: two infinite parallel planes have a fluid between them. The 1st plane is held steady, but the second moves at a constant velocity. In this case, the moving surface forms the shear stress, and a pressure differential forms because of the shear. So, neither is really a 'function' of the either. They are just related by the N-S equations. And the state of the matter depends on what constitutive equations you use for the shear stress. A Newtonian fluid has different constitutive equations than a non-Newtonian pseudo-plastic. And a solid doesn't obey the N-S eqns. They have a similar conservation of momentum equation, but it isn't the same.

If we aren't to attempt to understand, why are you bothering to try to present it, then?

Damn right this is my assumption. I'm not just taking someone's word on the issue. I also don't take medicine not proven to be effective; I don't make it a habit of planning my life around wishing wells and shooting stars, and I don't default to accepting someone's semi-scientific ideas unless there is evidence to back them up. I think you'll find that the vast, vast majority of science is performed the same way. Science doesn't just someone's word that an idea works. It actually requires objective evidence be presented. Pretty much exactly what you refuse to provide... which means, again, this isn't much of a scientific discussion here.

If you're not there yet, then how can you make these claims about transportation systems? Isn't that grossly premature? It is fine if your idea isn't fully developed yet. But then let's tone down the extraordinary claims until you have the extraordinary evidence to support them, ok?

So, seriously, why should anyone believe claims about being able to use your ideas for cheap transportation if you can't even demonstrate how it solves known physics problems? And there is no amount of money that you could give me to get on an amusement ride designed based on your unproven ideas. Are you going to give us any reason to actually entertain the notion of believing in your idea? Or are you just going to keep telling us how great they are and we're supposed to take it on your word. (Word of advice, if you continue to do the second, you'll probably not welcome for much longer on this forum. When you post your ideas, you are required to answer questions about them.)

Do you really think that this reply above coincides with what you've stated before: If you know your idea is good to be not easily understood, then quit telling us to ask you questions. Or maybe try to give better answers to your questions. Yes, the answer to the question is found in 1st year physics texts, that was the whole point. You claim to have a different (better?) system of solving these problems. Please present, in excruciating explicit detail, how your system solves this same problem. We want to be able to compare and contrast solution methods. Presenting this will help us better understand your model. In other words, we are asking you to show us how good your model is. Why the continued diffidence in doing so?