Perhaps it's your background as a manager that's in evidence here. I was
one of the people that "concept" people like you "let" provide the
equations. I have an apropos Doonesbury cartoon on my office wall:

Pointy-haired boss, pointing to simple graph labeled "Sales": "Sales are
dropping like a rock."

Pointy-haired boss, pointing to a graph labeled "Future", with single
upward line: "Our plan is to invent some sort of doohickey that everyone
wants to buy."

Pointy-haired boss, to Dilbert: "The visionary leadership work is done.
How long will your part take?"

At review time, the boss judged me on whether the "doohickey" worked
according to specifications that he and some marketing people came up
with in "concept" meetings. All I had to do was to understand the
science, come up with the equations, develop new technology as required,
create the device, and make it work -- all on a schedule and within a
budget which were also dictated by the "visionaries". Just grunt work,
not worthy of the visionary people who were doing more important things.

I don't believe for a minute that the boss really understood how the
device worked. And for the same reason, I don't believe that you really
understand the "concepts" you're promoting. Real science and engineering
are done by understanding the basic concepts, developing mathematical
models of them based on those understandings, then using those models to
test the theory. Without the understanding and models, the theories
can't be tested. Then all you have are smoke, mirrors, and hand waving.
Instead of solid, testable evidence, you just about have to resort to
diversion, evasion, misinterpretation, and the other tools of the
politician and upper level manager. As important and richly rewarded as
those skills are, it isn't science and it isn't engineering, and it
doesn't constitute evidence of any knowledge or understanding.

You seem to have convinced a few readers of the group that you know what
you're talking about. Since you're apparently not able to express your
ideas in concrete form, perhaps one of them will volunteer to do the
mundane work of developing a coherent theory to explain it in scientific
and mathematical terms. My only question to them is:

How long will your part take?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

I feel strongly that if you really understand what you're talking
about, you should be able to express it mathematically as an equation
or equations. I haven't seen any evidence of this.


Well, You're right. I should be able to express it as an equation. Truth
is, personality wise, I tend to deal in concepts, not equations. That's
why the field of digital electronics was so appealing to me. "If it's
not a zero or a one, it's broke!" I seem to have been born with a Boolean
Algebra processor built in. (It's similar to the fact that I can read
Spanish but I can't speak it.)

I have been satisfied all my life to let someone else provide the equations
and so far, I have been able to stand on the shoulders of giants. But in
this
case, if anyone has ever provided the equations, I am not aware of it. If
one is so inclined, one might get to be famous by generating those
equations.
. . .