Posted:

**Jan 05, 2019 8:41 pm**Thanks I can usually visualize processes without having the underlying math.

Had a good discussion on another forum about the important of visuals in explaining concepts - he was absolutely fixed on "you must have the math" and the visuals were immaterial and several of us disagreed.

After all it was thought experiments that led Einstein and THEN he did the math to prove it. I figure you need the math to use a concept but necessarily to understand one.

ie images or even animated illustrations of processes in a nuclear plant are very useful and understandable but the math exceedingly complex.

So I can visualize what's going on in balloon or star without being to quantitize it....if that makes sense.

I find some of the animated explanations of physical principles fascinating and in particular complex systems like AGW/Atomosphere processes benefit understanding more than

Net Radiation = Q* = total in - total out

versus

Had a good discussion on another forum about the important of visuals in explaining concepts - he was absolutely fixed on "you must have the math" and the visuals were immaterial and several of us disagreed.

After all it was thought experiments that led Einstein and THEN he did the math to prove it. I figure you need the math to use a concept but necessarily to understand one.

ie images or even animated illustrations of processes in a nuclear plant are very useful and understandable but the math exceedingly complex.

So I can visualize what's going on in balloon or star without being to quantitize it....if that makes sense.

I find some of the animated explanations of physical principles fascinating and in particular complex systems like AGW/Atomosphere processes benefit understanding more than

Net Radiation = Q* = total in - total out

versus