> I'm a mechanical engineering by schooling (what am I doing writing code?!) and it still routinely shocks me the sort of intriguing misconceptions I hear coming out of the mouths of very smart, very technical people.
That's true, and I've had similar experiences, but it doesn't argue against my saying that these engineering disciplines have many basics in common.
My only reason for posting was to argue against the idea that different engineering fields have no common base. They either do, or they're not based in science, which is the common base for all engineering fields.
As to a new project that has little in common with existing projects or established engineering fields, the obvious solution is to depend on basic science rather than nonexistent engineering projects, which would be the best approach to a project like this one.
All new engineering projects teach us one thing -- no matter how many advance expectations and predictions, by the time the project is operational, all of us will be educated in new principles that no one anticipated.
For me the various engineering streams are just as different from each other as from every other non-engineering discipline. There is no way a mechanical engineer could work in the electronics, IT or biochemical engineering fields.
If you are going to label the common base as "science" then you could equally say engineering is common with psychology since they both involve "words". That makes equally as much sense.
> For me the various engineering streams are just as different from each other as from every other non-engineering discipline.
False, and that cannot be used to argue that they're not all directly derived from physics. Look at cosmology and particle physics. It's hard to imagine two fields that are less alike -- one studies nature at the largest scales, the other at the smallest. But not only are they both physical fields and share the same theories, but they attend each other's conferences and work together on common issues.
Remember that engineering is applied science. This is true for all engineering fields in which people place their trust.
> There is no way a mechanical engineer could work in the electronics, IT or biochemical engineering fields.
Same reply -- it's not relevant to the issue of their scientific underpinnings.
> If you are going to label the common base as "science" then you could equally say engineering is common with psychology since they both involve "words".
When you think of a coherent argument, post again. Psychology isn't scientific, engineering is, and the topic is science. When a psychologist uses the word "gravity", he means seriousness. When an engineer uses the word, he means spacetime curvature.
That's true, and I've had similar experiences, but it doesn't argue against my saying that these engineering disciplines have many basics in common.
My only reason for posting was to argue against the idea that different engineering fields have no common base. They either do, or they're not based in science, which is the common base for all engineering fields.
As to a new project that has little in common with existing projects or established engineering fields, the obvious solution is to depend on basic science rather than nonexistent engineering projects, which would be the best approach to a project like this one.
All new engineering projects teach us one thing -- no matter how many advance expectations and predictions, by the time the project is operational, all of us will be educated in new principles that no one anticipated.