Re: In an RDBMS, what does "Data" mean?

In message <c0e3f26e.0405160530.257134c8_at_posting.google.com>, Tony <andrewst_at_onetel.net.uk> writes
>> I just find it fascinating that, while we know that Newtonian Mechanics
>> doesn't belong in the set Accurately_Matches_The_Real_World, so many
>> people here (on the grounds of it's mathematical correctness) seem to
>> believe that relational theory does. That argument just doesn't make
>> sense to me.
>
>You keep saying that (on and on, tediously...) but it just doesn't
>work, does it? After all, didn't NASA put a man on the moon using
>Newtonian Mechanics? Expensive and complex successful experiments
>have been done to observe the effects of relativity, but it hardly
>impacts on the real world as lived in by us humans does it? If your
>analogy holds any water at all (to give you the benefit of very large
>doubt), it suggests that relational theory will do just fine for
>pretty much anything we ever want to do "in the real world".

I think you need to read up - and fast!

If NASA had used Newtonian Mechanics, from what I know, the astronauts would never have come back.

Even under such "near earth" conditions as that, the discrepancy between Newtonian Mechanics and Relativity would have been enough to ensure the rockets ran out of fuel, stranding the astronauts in space.

We're talking velocities of 7 miles a second here, more than fast enough for relativity to make itself felt. That's roughly c*10^-5 - not small beer. Actually - it looks like we probably need relativity even with the Shuttle!

Cheers,
Wol

-- 
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a
good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports
as Lies-to-People.
The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999