![]() 37 years old, he walked into L'Académie Royale des Sciences de L'Institut de Franceon to present something that should change the world. His validation efforts are what it took to give credibility to Navier's visonary work and truly establish the equation. I think if Stokes is in, Saint-Vernant would have deserved equally. He seriously tried to apply the equation and came up with the concept of Boussineque-approximation long before it got its name. He did major work to get the equation out the theoretic corner and bring it forward for the practical engineering world (before Stokes). I have to admit, I had never heard of him until I did my research. He should be honored for his elasticity theory in the first place. But Cauchy was a little later than Navier. ❌ Cauchy brought some elegance to the table. ❌ Poisson may clearly have been more rigorous in execution, but still -despite his attempt to dismiss Navier - he followed Navier in many ways. So for me Navier should be in without a doubt. But also objectively, even if he was not 100% rigorous, he was a visionary. Of the five gentleman below, who deserves to be in and who does not? Here is my opinion: Is it fair to call it "Navier-Stokes" equation?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |