[TexasGunLover]

I won't say that all computer simulations are worthless, but I think most of them are.

We find that almost all are perfect representations of real work physics. We run thousands a year, and run dozens of physical tests to confirm their results.

[samtheman]

We run thousands a year, and run dozens of physical tests to confirm their results.
—
Interesting.

Is there a website that shows such confirmations?

[null and void]

How good a job do your simulations do on turbulence in a teacup?

Next weeks’s weather? Will I have 0.2” of rain on my house a week from Thursday?

That being said, they do work very well on some things, I couldn’t have gotten anywhere near as good a design on my microhotplates without them...

[ClearCase_guy]

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.