Quote:
Mark Murray wrote:
I disagree. Far as I know, most physicists disagree, too. If you doubt that, then post the physics explaining how a human goes from a walk to a run cycle. I've asked Erick numerous times to do this and so far he has not produced the required answer, instead opting to just gloss over this major failure in his physics models.
|
On the assumption that this is civil discourse, I think the word you want is "requested", not "required". The latter implies that he is somehow subject to your commands, and I'm sure that is not what you meant.
Quote:
Mark Murray wrote:
And if you can't describe with physics how such a simple, human function as going from walking to running, then how can you describe complex physical actions?
|
But the description is not the thing. For most of human history, there were no descriptions and no explanations of various phenomena in physics terms -- yet bumblebees still flew, and they didn't do so by magic. The fact that a comprehensive explanation isn't available (or, perhaps, just not accessible to a given audience, due to that audience's lack of prior/supporting knowledge) doesn't mean that things happen by magic, or "ki", or some other mystical "it's not physics" force.