Re: "Testing Einstein in Space: The Gravity Probe B Mission"

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
On Sat, 20 May 2006 16:11:58 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:


The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

On Fri, 19 May 2006 21:33:14 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:



Jan Panteltje wrote:


On a sunny day (Fri, 19 May 2006 21:15:06 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
<swormley1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in <uzqbg.156286$oL.16619@attbi_s71>:>

Models are mathematical


Need not be.

There are many models possible.
Start thinking.

Can you give us an example of a model in physics that is
not mathematical, Jan Panteltje?


Math is a communications method. Of course, it's far more elegant to
state

(x,y) = (x_0 + v_x*t, -1/2gt^2 + v_y*t + y_0)

than to try to describe the motion of a ball using verbiage, unless one
uses shorthands such as "parabola".

However, a child catches a ball by modeling, at least implicitly, the
flight of the ball as it nears his hand, glove, or the traditional
jai-alai wicker basket. No math required there, though everything
improves with practice. :-)


Granted a child catches a ball by some neurological processes involving
learned "algorithms" in the brain, but in the context of this thread on
"Testing Einstein in Space: The Gravity Probe B Mission", "model" refers
to mathematical expressions relating to the physical world that have
predictive power and hopefully are in agreement with previous observations.


Ah, well, in that case, a child's intuitive model would not quite be
accurate enough; my apologies. In any event, I for one am given to
understand that the data for GPB has yet to be analyzed.

I doubt, however, that the data will disprove GR to such an extent that
Newton will hold sway; that verges on the ridiculous. :-)


It's my understanding that the analysis has been underway for the better
part of a year and that the results will be published and heralded this
fall.

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast