New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

rshow55 - 10:25am Jun 14, 2003 EST (# 12523 of 12537)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

On "dealt with before" Search math and equation for a number of postings I'm proud of - starting with

rshow55 - 04:07pm Apr 20, 2002 EST (# 1566 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.rL3rbgbgfnm.603575@.f28e622/1970.

Since undergraduate days, I've been concerned with the mathematics of coupled physical systems -- actually - working on building bridges from the measurable world to abstract math. For about the last ten years, it has been clear that that task is the task of getting modelling arithmetic that works in all cases. After working for a long time, much of it alongside Steve Kline of Stanford http://www.mrshowalter.net/klinerec I found an error in the arithmetic of coupled physical models. The result (and paradigm conflict issue) I've devoted much of my life to, is described in S.J. Kline's letter http://www.mrshowalter.net/klinerec and can be summarized as follows:

. The interaction together over space of simpler physical effects produces emergent effects. These emergent effects are often measured directly by an experiment, without any need to understand how they occur. But emergent effects can also be calculated from models. For this calculation to be possible, emergent effects have to be represented in a numerical form that can be set out in an equation. The representation must satisfy all conditions of physical, dimensional, and logical consistency that apply to the case. Representations of emergent effects that occur over space must be set out in an algebraically reduced and dimensionally consistent form, defined over space - at unit scale for the measurement system used. Emergent effects, represented in this dimensionally consistent way, are real effects that act like other effects in modeling equations.

Here's an experimental fact:

. A thin walled plastic tube, filled with a conductive ionic solution and immersed in an ionic solution, is a simple model of a neural line, with channels closed. Such a neural line model has an “effective inductance” (the ratio of di/dt to dv/dx) more than a thousand-billion times greater than electromagnetic inductance now thought to be the only link between di/dt and dv/dx in nerve. This effective inductance is due to an emergent property, due to the combination or line resistance and capacitance over space. A summary of that, from an analytical point of view, is in http://xxx.lanl.gov/html/math-ph/9807015

But the result can also be modelled on a computer -- and when it is, using SPICE - the standard electrial circuit modelling program the existence of the new terms is shown -- and a basic error in a standard computer algorithm is also shown.

A REDERIVATION OF THE ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE EQUATIONS USING NETWORK THEORY SHOWS NEW TERMS THAT MATTER IN NEURAL TRANSMISSION. http://www.mrshowalter.net/kirch1 The SPICE program uses the standard finite integration algorithms people are now assuming -- and in the "neuron" case in http://www.mrshowalter.net/kirch1 that algorithm produces "crosseffects" that are incorrectly modelled -- very often numerically too small to matter, but effects that cannot be physically right (wholes don't equal sums of parts) and that must involve explosive errors - dangerous errors -- grossly misleading errors -- in cases not now being checked for.

(14 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense