Right, but the NS equations are probably “wrong” enough to disqualify them as the “name of the wind”. That is, they’re continuum approximations to what are, at tiny scales, actually quantized substances governed by probabilistic laws. (MWI-QM fans, make the appropriate substitution for “probabilistic”; the point stands.) And it’s pretty easy to get chaotic turbulence in air flowing over a tree.
NS is very accurate. The point at which it might break down is on extremely tiny scales that don’t actually matter.
It also breaks down at sonic shockwakes, but not in a fatal way. NS divides by zero at sonic shockwaves and real air has a very short (but present) gradient. The macro predictions are identical beyond the precision of most measurements.
Also, NS is newtonian, so relativistic stuff breaks it.
I would not disqualify the NS based on a few innacuracies at extremes. It is the name of the wind for all practical purposes. You will not encounter the problems with it.
True. If we disregard the fact that humans take time to do computations, and disregard the information contained in restricting our solutions to e.g. fluid flow—reasonable since those things don’t seem much like “names”—our best “name of the X” is the standard model and general relativity, where X is pretty much anything.
Right, but the NS equations are probably “wrong” enough to disqualify them as the “name of the wind”. That is, they’re continuum approximations to what are, at tiny scales, actually quantized substances governed by probabilistic laws. (MWI-QM fans, make the appropriate substitution for “probabilistic”; the point stands.) And it’s pretty easy to get chaotic turbulence in air flowing over a tree.
NS is very accurate. The point at which it might break down is on extremely tiny scales that don’t actually matter.
It also breaks down at sonic shockwakes, but not in a fatal way. NS divides by zero at sonic shockwaves and real air has a very short (but present) gradient. The macro predictions are identical beyond the precision of most measurements.
Also, NS is newtonian, so relativistic stuff breaks it.
I would not disqualify the NS based on a few innacuracies at extremes. It is the name of the wind for all practical purposes. You will not encounter the problems with it.
True. If we disregard the fact that humans take time to do computations, and disregard the information contained in restricting our solutions to e.g. fluid flow—reasonable since those things don’t seem much like “names”—our best “name of the X” is the standard model and general relativity, where X is pretty much anything.