Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:58:39 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi Jerry (and others),
> I was deliberately vague about what was meant by
> diffusion theory, as I suspect was our mathematician.
Well that explains a bit. I had a feeling we were being "baited", the
question seemed too open ended and ill-defined for a science guy of your
reputation. The answer seemed to me, "obviously bees' forage can't be
defined by difusion theory, as there is an impacting force, a direction and
purpose to bee forage that negates simple difusion models".
The point Blane made, that an extended time frame would make forage patterns
more closely approximate a difusion patter was something I had not
considered. However, I think that point boils down to a statement like,
"Over time plant bloom may approximate a difusion pattern." Bee forage
however remains a directed activity with a directed purpose.
I think your math buddy is improperly applying a model to a phenominon where
it can't be applied.
Signals from radar, cell phones, etc. are electromagnetic waves, difusion
theories apply. Bee forage is directed and purposful. Even if a lengthy
time parameter is a factor, difusion models seem inappropriate.
Aaron Morris - IMHO stating the obvious. Still thinking math (when properly
applied) rules!
|
|
|