J
John Larkin
Guest
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 03:22:54 -0500, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com>
wrote:
F=MA is usually accurate to parts per billion, for any sorts of materials. At
relativistic speeds, it needs to be tweaked. Monday, the forcast here was for
dry weather; Tuesday, we had pounding rain and hail.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
Precision electronic instrumentation
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:48:52 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10738343/Forecasters-find-new-formula-for-long-range-weather.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Thing is, it's easy to build a model that "simulates" past data. That can be
done with extreme accuracy... by polynomial curve fitting, for example. Heck,
Excel can do that. The more challenging thing to do is create a model that
predicts the unknown future.
---
As opposed to the known future?
---
Thing is, it will be some time before this model is proven wrong. And when it's
proven wrong, somebody will announce an improved version.
---
So what's your point?
It happens all the time in the real world; just take a look at how
Einstein's work overshadows Newton's where Newton couldn't go.
F=MA is usually accurate to parts per billion, for any sorts of materials. At
relativistic speeds, it needs to be tweaked. Monday, the forcast here was for
dry weather; Tuesday, we had pounding rain and hail.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
Precision electronic instrumentation