As I explained, a heuristic has a different meaning in physics than it does in CompSci and engineering. Feynman was clearly explaining the role of heuristics in the topic of game theory, not for physics.
Please hold off on playing stump the chump with me.
> "Here is a more correct parsimonious version of your statement: "Sunspots have a roughly 11‐year cycle, making them (quasi-periodic). We do not fully understand the mechanism.""
What I wrote is :
> "Sunspots appear to have an 11‐year cycle, making them somewhat deterministic, yet we do not fully understand the mechanism. Thus, a heuristic is applied to the sunspot cycle describing an 11‐year cycle."
Please don't change what I wrote. Leave it as is, and then just call it a crap heuristic, because most heuristics in physics are just that -- crap.
In contrast, the model I have for the Chandler wobble is NOT a heuristic. It's a precise formulation based on the physics of forcing, and not based on what is observed (as the sunspot cycle is) but on what the forced response wobble due to the nodal lunar + nodal annual cycle will be. You are free to debunk this model by demonstrating how it doesn't match the observations, but you can't call it a heuristic any more than you can call the time it takes the earth to orbit the sun a heuristic.
So why don't you send Dr. Konopliv a request to see what he thinks about the mechanism behind the Earth's Chandler wobble?
Please hold off on playing stump the chump with me.
> "Here is a more correct parsimonious version of your statement: "Sunspots have a roughly 11‐year cycle, making them (quasi-periodic). We do not fully understand the mechanism.""
What I wrote is :
> "Sunspots appear to have an 11‐year cycle, making them somewhat deterministic, yet we do not fully understand the mechanism. Thus, a heuristic is applied to the sunspot cycle describing an 11‐year cycle."
Please don't change what I wrote. Leave it as is, and then just call it a crap heuristic, because most heuristics in physics are just that -- crap.
In contrast, the model I have for the Chandler wobble is NOT a heuristic. It's a precise formulation based on the physics of forcing, and not based on what is observed (as the sunspot cycle is) but on what the forced response wobble due to the nodal lunar + nodal annual cycle will be. You are free to debunk this model by demonstrating how it doesn't match the observations, but you can't call it a heuristic any more than you can call the time it takes the earth to orbit the sun a heuristic.
So why don't you send Dr. Konopliv a request to see what he thinks about the mechanism behind the Earth's Chandler wobble?
Version 2.1.8p2
