>tfw doing my graduate research on theoretical fluid mechanicsSo... have I just been outmoded?
>>17051163Yes.
>>17051163by the time the slop is peer reviewed you're already a graduate
>>17051163Just create a better model, like the General Relativity of fluid mechanics.
>>17051169>>17051173>>17051203Should have taken gender studies desu
>>17051163AI hasn't "solved" Navier-Stokes, it just answered the Millennium Problem. Very different things and you'd know that if you were actually doing graduate research.
>>17051219Even doe existence and smoothness of NS is one of the most active research areas in that field, stupid midwit engineering nigger
>>17051231In the end that's just some mathematical wankfest. NS is after all just an approximation, fluids are not infinitesimally divisible so cannot be perfectly describe by those differential equations. They are made of finite particles which is why in physical reality no such singularities exist.
MechE bros we failed...
>>17051163Yes
>>17051163You can always pivot to practical fluid mechanics. As in, become a plumber
Youve just been boymoded, hop on whoremoans IMMEDIATELY
>>17051208Unironically
>>17051219AI will solve every problem in fluid dynamics ten times over by the end of next year.
>>17051163Yeah
>>17051163Bad luck>>17051231>physicist making fun of the intelligence of engineersOh boy
No. Fluid dynmaics will never be peoperly solved.
>>17051163Time to pick up manual labor, /sci/.
I got hired today, i see no reason my new job cant be done by an AI agent. With an endless supply of third world labor i am facing certain death
>>17051163Scientists are pretty much eating their own at this point
>>17051163You will make an GREAT barista
>>17051219There is no "solving Navier-Stokes". That expression doesn't make any sense, you dumb undergrad.
yeah but they probably still have to graduate youBut lets be real if your graduate reserach was doing some gay ass DNS in some hyper niche fluid mechanics it was boring and pointless research to begin with.
>>17051163should have pivoted to lattice boltzmann instead of NS as soon as NS was solved.
>>17068862it's a shorthand, no one is going to explain the semantics every time. the continuum assumption makes NS fail even if you aren't zooming in to small scales. it means continuum equations derived from first principles (like NS) won't be good approximations of reality. move on to mesoscopic models.
>>17068943>mesoscopic models.tl;dr?
>>17051163outmodeled you mean
>>17069356NS is derived from three things 1) conversations laws 2) continuum assumption 3) newton's law for viscosity to get the laplacian 3) isn't relevant because the laplacian smoothes out the solution so it's not responsible for the singularity in NS 1) has to be true, otherwise every equation in physics is very wrong 2) is the issue, you take a volume of fluid and take the limit as the number of fluid particles goes to infinity, then you can get a concentration of fluid. 2) is what causes the failure of NS. in reality, a fluid is made up of a finite number of molecules, so instead of taking that limit, you simulate a discrete set of molecules, or a discrete set of points in space, then you make sure your conversation laws make sense. molecular dynamics is the smallest scale where you literally simulate molecules bumping into each other, the problem is the timescale is femtoseconds. a level up is lattice boltzmann where you track a density function on a discrete set of points and ensure the conversation laws are obeyed. ultimately to solve the NS in practice, you need to discretize the equations anyway when you use a numerical method, so the continuum model start with reality (discrete), makes an approximation (continuum), then you use a numerical method (discrete) to solve it, where a lot of effort is made to prove the numerical method actually corresponds to the continuum equation, which if you'll remember, doesn't even reflect reality. it's all a bit convoluted, so people had the idea of starting with a grid (lattice boltzmann) and just tried to make something that looked like a fluid, and they got very close. speaking of numerical methods, no one seems to be asking whether singularities in simulations were actually the result of the underlying NS and not numerical errors, which is probably what everyone assumed because NS just HAD to be right.
>>17051163Yes, time to pick up a hammer and doing real work instead.
>>17051163Your only legitimate line of enquiry is checking theory against reality.
>>17052571heh
>>17051163Consider doing real manual labor.
>>17051163heres a freebie for your new thesis:e=mc2+si
>>17051208Yeah, and then you could have stolen white men money legally.
>>17071910what
bump
>>17051163It's over, dang!
>>17051163You could go work for the NNSA doing stuff with nuclear weapons
>>17051163Yes indeed. Pick a sickle and start working!
>>17051163No. You can still make bank in the private sector modeling fluid mechanics in ero games. You do know how to program properly right?
>>17051163Obviously
