Physical insights in Classical Times
In Classical Greek times, scientific insight took a wrong turn which took nearly fifteen hundred years to correct. Aristotle concluded insights were achieved by watching and thinking. And it was his thinking that led to such notions as reality was composed of Fire, Earth, Air, and Water.
Aristotle’s approach lacked the key pillars of scientific thought: experimentation and theoretical modeling. The first required actual confirmation of “thoughtful” insights while the second provided a means of mathematically modeling a physical scenario incorporating these verified insights.
In retrospect, nothing was there to challenge Aristotle’s notions and what he called science was therefore isolated to the theoretical realm only.
Modern Physical Insights
We have talked earlier about experience versus insight. Here we see that these are the two key elements of any scientific analysis, and that each informs, confirms, and challenges the other within a framework that insures insights are confirmed by experience.
Physical Modeling is the domain of the theoretical scientist. Their models are built from the validated physical insights produced by the experimental scientist. In constructing the models, they take on a fundamental structure enabling predictions which in turn the experimentalist to test. If verified, the model stands and if not, the model must be rebuilt.
Physical Modeling and Cycling
Physical Cycling and physical models are fundamentally connected. Nearly all of the key cycling insights are derived from cycling models including cycle, cyclist, cycling, and scenario.
In this section, we discuss cycling models and their central role in gaining an understanding of Physical Cycling.