Teo,
You knowledge of modern engineering especially research w.r.t engineering is rather "limited". Using Queen’s as an example of the rest of the world is rather "limited". Many universities specifically have Engineering Physics disciplines in fact (my undergrad). Research at the bleeding edge of things w.r.t. engineering disciplines, whether semiconductors, AI and information theory, even materials, etc. are not anything like basic mechanical engineering, civil engineering, and even electrical engineering, and your attempts to paint all engineering as such only shows lack of experience on your part. There is a big difference between day to day implementation engineering, engineering R&D, and pure research in engineering fields.
I actually talk to professors at universities fairly often. I also talk to engineering professors often. It not rare at all for cross-disciplinary research either as the lines between the two disciplines often blur except when you get into theoretical physics, which very few, even at the university level are involved in (most experimental physics is very engineering like by the way).
And no, they would not take exception with "how" you say it, they just would not agree. You are conflating all engineering with simple implementation engineering which is absolutely not true, and you are conflating all physics (and science) as one of pure theoretical research, which again is very much not true.
You knowledge of modern engineering especially research w.r.t engineering is rather "limited". Using Queen’s as an example of the rest of the world is rather "limited". Many universities specifically have Engineering Physics disciplines in fact (my undergrad). Research at the bleeding edge of things w.r.t. engineering disciplines, whether semiconductors, AI and information theory, even materials, etc. are not anything like basic mechanical engineering, civil engineering, and even electrical engineering, and your attempts to paint all engineering as such only shows lack of experience on your part. There is a big difference between day to day implementation engineering, engineering R&D, and pure research in engineering fields.
I actually talk to professors at universities fairly often. I also talk to engineering professors often. It not rare at all for cross-disciplinary research either as the lines between the two disciplines often blur except when you get into theoretical physics, which very few, even at the university level are involved in (most experimental physics is very engineering like by the way).
And no, they would not take exception with "how" you say it, they just would not agree. You are conflating all engineering with simple implementation engineering which is absolutely not true, and you are conflating all physics (and science) as one of pure theoretical research, which again is very much not true.
Go to any university and ask any professor of physics if they think what I say is true or not. They may take exception with how I’m presenting it or wording it, but..conceptually, re the idea of reality itself...they will agree.
But the full nature of the loadine as seen by science, is one of all theory, as.... with no anchor point, it can’t be anything else. The science and physics....recognizes and attempts to deal with the box and the turtle, or tries to deal with the misty obscured ends of the loadline.