Avraham: Computer models are only as good as the assumptions they are built on which are often wrong, and often leave out external factors which are more important, and they depend on expansions which miss infinities.
For example see this lecture by Arthur Mattuck concerning y'=y^2. What ever the computer does it will not find the singularity.
{I should mention that all I really know about computer modeling is based on a few books, one was Numerical analysis that dealt in detail with the Runge Kutta method that I read through about four times I think.But the books that deal with how to program computers do not usually deal with the above mentioned problem by Arthur Mattuck that the computer can be mislead when trying to graph a ODE.]
In fact come to think of it, I do not think I ever saw any book on computer modeling that mentions this problem.
Reference Frame:
But they are also often - and maybe predominantly - demonstrably right, accurate, if not downright ingenious, and - especially - more accurate than predictions made without any models. This is an essential point that you, like O'Neill, try to obscure.
I didn't understand what this topic has to do with "infinities".
Avraham:
I meant the Taylor expansions or Numerical method. The computer will miss infinities as you go from point to close point unless by accident the computer happens to land on the infinity itself. So all I am saying is that when the computer shows a nice smooth line the reality might be that between those two points the graph goes to infinity. That is is all I meant.
In relation to this I think Catastrophe theory might be able to dig up those infinities, but I am not sure about that.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Computer models are used everywhere and are used to defend crazy stuff. Sometimes 9/11 conspiracies sometimes global warming the list is unlimited. Here is another comment I wrote:The Reference Frame mentioned this and also Steven Dutch. My own feeling about this I wrote in a comment on the Reference Frame. My comment was to the effect that after the first few floors of a building people depend on Finite Element Theory which is great approximation but not exact. To really understand what is going on after the first few floors you need Catastrophe Theory.
How can I put this? A lot of what goes on is dependent on computer modeling which is complete depends on the assumptions you start with which often is complete absurdity. So many papers start out with “We have found…” when in fact they found out nothing at all. They mean their computer model found ….
And even if their model somehow represents reality in some way which it usually does not anyway they always depends on expansions–which can miss infinities unless you expand at the exact point where the infinity is found.
Let me try to find the links I mentioned:
Last thought. BYU is the same place that thought they came up with cold fusion with an amazingly sloppy chemistry set. I see no reason to pay attention to them.
