This discussion involves more like designing the story problem. Pincho wanted a discussion about the convergence and increase in energy using the vortex as the model.
No, Pincho wanted an excuse to delude himself with self importance. He doesn't want to talk about
models because he has insufficient knowledge/ability/brain power to actually develop or understand working models of anything. His entire approach is "I'll throw out some buzzwords, draw a picture and declare myself a genius". Have you seen some of the claims he has made?
He
honestly believed he was doing viable enough 'physics' to be worth receiving funding from a funding council, ie he thought EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council here in the UK) would want to give him tens of thousands of pounds to do what he thinks is physics. Speaking as someone who has experienced the wonderful world of trying to get funding in a recession ridden Britain and who knows plenty of excellent researchers who haven't got funding it was extremely insulting to see him think he deserved funding for his nonsense.
If you think Pincho was doing anything other than deluding himself then he was deluding you too and unfortunately it means you have a very very poor grasp of what actually physics involves. And no, I don't mean "What the mainstream expects you to do" but rather "What the scientific method is and how it addressed open questions".
I supplied him with my take on it being the basic 2 plane vortex model.
Can this 'model' actually
model anything. People in this subforum keep using 'model' to describe what is obviously not a model. Models
model. A few buzzwords knitted together into semi-incoherent sentences does not a model make. Drawing some pictures of bubbles and saying "This model explains cosmology!" is not science.
IMaybe imagine this as a plane at the surface near the drain and a plane deep in the drain. There will be an incline in energy proportional to the depth between the planes.
You have just used the terms 'energy' and 'proportional'. Therefore it is reasonable for me to assume you have an equation you're working with, else how would you be able to say something quantitative like that? Can you please provide the mathematics which justifies what you just said. I would like to see this equation which relates 'incline in energy' (define that too) to the depth of vortex planes.
Or do you just have this superficial idea and you think that in this imaginary world in your head that some quantity you're going to call energy is related to some configuration property of the system and you're just assuming it is proportional because you don't know any other relation? Why is it proportional to the depth and not proportional to the depth squared? What is your definition of energy? How can you model it? Where is
anything other than "Inside my head I think this"?
And I'd be saying exactly the same to you.
Given what you've been saying I don't see any reason to think you're knowledgeable in science, never mind work with it day to day. While I don't talk about the details of my work here I at least have shown plenty of working understanding of physics and maths during my time here. My request you give some details is your opportunity to step up and show how my evaluation of you is wrong. Every time I ask a hack to give more details because I don't believe them it is their opportunity to prove me wrong, to step up and justify their claims. Pincho couldn't do it, Farsight can't do it, QWC can't do it, Sylwester can't do it, Reiku couldn't do it. Compare that with people like pryzk or Rpenner or Guest, they can dial up the detail when asked to, just as I can. It's why they're not considered hacks, when they talk about advanced science they can
really do it, rather than just pretend.
So the ball is in your court. Can you provide some detail or not?
