Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: TexasGunLover

Well, not my field, so I may be totally off base. But if someone simulated a car engine (for example), there is solid science that allows reasonable prediction. And you can run physical tests to confirm the results predicted by the model. I consider this legitimate science.

But Global Warming and Asteroid Strikes involves a lot of guesswork and cannot be verified by physical tests. I don’t see much value in such sims.


13 posted on 05/07/2019 10:36:53 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (If White Privilege is real, why did Elizabeth Warren lie about being an Indian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: ClearCase_guy

Seems to me the amount of unknown variations and just plain lack of complete knowledge of how our planets weather system works and our short term knowledge of the suns cycles and such would make any computer model useless.


26 posted on 05/07/2019 11:29:42 AM PDT by spudville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: ClearCase_guy

For large scale, there are the prehistory impact events that present some evidence which can be processed. On a small scale, impact events created in a lab setting have established a separate body of information. The study of contact nuclear detonation blasts finds parallels with effects generated by collision / impact of meteorites. All of this contributes to a physics model adapted from the national lab’s prior nuclear weapons model.


31 posted on 05/07/2019 5:22:10 PM PDT by Ozark Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson