Re: STUPID SIMULATIONS

• To: "'Tesla List'" <tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com>
• Subject: Re: STUPID SIMULATIONS
• From: Tesla List <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>
• Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:15:03 -0500
• Approved: tesla-at-stic-dot-net

From: 	richard hull[SMTP:rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net]
Sent: 	Thursday, September 18, 1997 6:21 PM
To: 	Tesla List
Subject: 	Re: STUPID SIMULATIONS

At 04:07 PM 9/18/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>From: 	Thomas McGahee[SMTP:tom_mcgahee-at-sigmais-dot-com]
>Sent: 	Thursday, September 18, 1997 11:48 AM
>To: 	Tesla List
>Subject: 	STUPID SIMULATIONS
>
>
>> 
snip.....
>> 
>> Well spoken Greg!  Kim Goins and I are really hacked at this drift
>away
>> from hands-on in physics and the sciences.  Still, it seems the
>wave of the
>> future to simulate instelf of stimulate.
>> 
>> Richard Hull, TCBOR
>> >
>> >
>
>Let's see if Richard Hull finds the subject header on this post
>interesting enough to get him to read it! My major problem with many
>so-called simulations is that they DON'T simululate at all. If
>someone with a half-baked understanding of something whips up a
>so-called simulation and then runs this on the computer, it may make
>him feel good because it gives him the answers he wants, but what
>else was it supposed to do, GIVEN THE DATA IT WAS FED???
>>
>Fr. Tom McGahee

The title a good one and hooked me.  You are correct in your thoughts on
this one, as usual, Fr. Tom

Richard Hull, TCBOR

>
>
>
>

• Prev: RE- Varistors (was Info and requests for book)
• Next: Re: Glass/poly and more...
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread