Science

[BugI02]

Ok, I will give you the transistor, and I am encouraged that we've done quantum testing.

I would be more encouraged if all of this quantum science yielded something useful. Where's my light speed engine and communications systems?

Uhhh, you've had 'light speed' communications ever since Marconi. Light speed engine, see: Miguel Alcubierre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

Mathematics in my experience is 20 to 50 years ahead of any real world use for it. For example Calabi-Yau manifolds, which may have an application in superstring theory. The first conjecture was made by Eugenio Calabi in about 1953-4 based on some earlier work by Erich Kähler in the 30s (and his work based on an esoteric portion of Einstein's work). Shing-Tung Yau completed the proof in the 80s and the math found a use in attempts to formalize string theory in the late 90s early 2000s

 

[T.Lex]

A key assumption about cosmological redshift might be wrong, which calls into question whether "dark energy" is even a thing.

https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/s...ught-we-knew-about-dark-energy-might-be-wrong

Not so fast.

New Hubble observational technique seems to confirm a variant of Cold Dark Matter.

https://hubblesite.org/contents/news-releases/2020/news-2020-05

Using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and a new observing technique, astronomers have found that dark matter forms much smaller clumps than previously known. This result confirms one of the fundamental predictions of the widely accepted "cold dark matter" theory.

 

[HoughMade]

Not so fast.

New Hubble observational technique seems to confirm a variant of Cold Dark Matter.

https://hubblesite.org/contents/news-releases/2020/news-2020-05

I feel like the term "confirms" gets thrown around a little loosely when it come to evidence that has a tendency to support what we already think. If only there were a term for that.

 

[jamil]

I feel like the term "confirms" gets thrown around a little loosely when it come to evidence that has a tendency to support what we already think. If only there were a term for that.

I think when used in that context it’s more like it means doesn’t not unconfirmed. Scientific consensus doesn’t necessarily mean they all got in a room and said their yea’s/nay’s, and now that’s it forever.

Scientists do experiments and studies and publish their findings, they write articles, cite each others’ work, go to conferences, argue, maybe embellish a little or a lot. Consensus means the thing most agreed upon.

The problem with science as I see it is the same problem with all sense-making schemes. People are self interested. People are Tribal. People tend to form cliques. People gravitate towards orthodoxy. If you’re in the clique and try to publish work against the orthodoxy, you’ll be punished.

 

[Mgderf]

Neil deGrasse Tyson is the Pope of Pomposity.

He's a legend in his own mind.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I think I have determined where my bias against math comes from.

We rely HEAVILY on computer models for aero, thermal, and structural analysis. If these models are not validated, and corrected, with actual part or engine testing, they are about as accurate as a coin flip.

We STRUGGLE to provide accurate values for things like Enthalpy, and Low Cycle Fatigue, but I'm supposed to believe that the same mathematicians have unraveled the riddles of the universe.

Then there is the issue that scientific facts are constantly changing. I learned just the other day that prior to the 1960s geologists didn't think that tectonic plates existed.

My experiences make me heavily skeptical of all things academic. I would just appreciate some honesty. I want someone to release a paper that says, "Well, we really have no idea what is actually going on, but if we were forced to take a guess we would say that it's XXXXXXXX"

 

[T.Lex]

I think I have determined where my bias against math comes from.

We rely HEAVILY on computer models for aero, thermal, and structural analysis. If these models are not validated, and corrected, with actual part or engine testing, they are about as accurate as a coin flip.

We STRUGGLE to provide accurate values for things like Enthalpy, and Low Cycle Fatigue, but I'm supposed to believe that the same mathematicians have unraveled the riddles of the universe.

Then there is the issue that scientific facts are constantly changing. I learned just the other day that prior to the 1960s geologists didn't think that tectonic plates existed.

My experiences make me heavily skeptical of all things academic. I would just appreciate some honesty. I want someone to release a paper that says, "Well, we really have no idea what is actually going on, but if we were forced to take a guess we would say that it's XXXXXXXX"

I'm a natural skeptic, and come at it from a slightly different perspective.

Math is really cool because, while I'm not particularly good at it, it helps us figure stuff out that we don't know.

But, knowing something and doing it or using it aren't necessarily related.

There's alot of math that describes electricity. None if it was necessary for Edison to light up the night.

The Wright brothers were able to achieve powered, heavier than air flight without mathematical modeling of airfoils and the Bernoulli effect.

Alot can be achieved by comprehensive testing and observation without a complete mathematical model.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Case in point! The Bernoulli effect is actually misapplied when talking about generating lift, and even using Bernoulli as the basis for lift, your airfoil would need to be enormously thick.

The Coanda effect, inertia of the air, shape of the airfoil, and angle of attack all play very vital and very complicated roles in creating lift.

Once again, the answer for "why do airplanes fly?" is, it's complicated and we really don't know everything, but here's some of our best guesses. The only thing we know for certain is that there is force generated by fluid flow over and around a solid surface.

Why can you do pretty much whatever you want with the bottom of the wing to disrupt airflow (engines, fuel tanks, bombs, hard points, etc), but thou shalt not mount anything to the top of a wing?

Bernoulli did great research to mathematically quantify pressure in venturi tubes, but even those require a series of Kelevens and assumptions to get to the math to work properly.

 

[ditcherman]

I feel like the term "confirms" gets thrown around a little loosely when it come to evidence that has a tendency to support what we already think. If only there were a term for that.

Conformation Bias?
Sorry if I didn't see your purple.

 

[jamil]

I think I have determined where my bias against math comes from.

We rely HEAVILY on computer models for aero, thermal, and structural analysis. If these models are not validated, and corrected, with actual part or engine testing, they are about as accurate as a coin flip.

We STRUGGLE to provide accurate values for things like Enthalpy, and Low Cycle Fatigue, but I'm supposed to believe that the same mathematicians have unraveled the riddles of the universe.

Then there is the issue that scientific facts are constantly changing. I learned just the other day that prior to the 1960s geologists didn't think that tectonic plates existed.

My experiences make me heavily skeptical of all things academic. I would just appreciate some honesty. I want someone to release a paper that says, "Well, we really have no idea what is actually going on, but if we were forced to take a guess we would say that it's XXXXXXXX"

Are they the same mathematicians?

 

[BugI02]

Case in point! The Bernoulli effect is actually misapplied when talking about generating lift, and even using Bernoulli as the basis for lift, your airfoil would need to be enormously thick.

The Coanda effect, inertia of the air, shape of the airfoil, and angle of attack all play very vital and very complicated roles in creating lift.

Once again, the answer for "why do airplanes fly?" is, it's complicated and we really don't know everything, but here's some of our best guesses. The only thing we know for certain is that there is force generated by fluid flow over and around a solid surface.

Why can you do pretty much whatever you want with the bottom of the wing to disrupt airflow (engines, fuel tanks, bombs, hard points, etc), but thou shalt not mount anything to the top of a wing?

Bernoulli did great research to mathematically quantify pressure in venturi tubes, but even those require a series of Kelevens and assumptions to get to the math to work properly.

The mathemeticians didn't apply Bernoulli's principle in inappropriate ways. They just provided others the necessary tools to do so

 

[2A_Tom]

 

[jamil]

If all the ice melted... Eh. D.C.? Florida? It’s a trade off.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

If all the ice melted... Eh. D.C.? Florida? It’s a trade off.

Well, of course the downside would be that all those coastal wackos would migrate inward. Unless the ice melted very suddenly. Hmmm... I need to think on this. Maybe fighting climate change isn't such a bad thing after all... Just not for the reasons the envirowackos think.

 

[actaeon277]

I don't think the OSHA limits are even close to correct.
OSHA limits are 50 ppm averaged over 8 hours.

 

[printcraft]

If all the ice melted... Eh. D.C.? Florida? It’s a trade off.

I'd call that a good start.

 

[chipbennett]

I don't think the OSHA limits are even close to correct.
OSHA limits are 50 ppm averaged over 8 hours.

OSHA PEL for CO2 is 5,000 ppm TWA

 

[actaeon277]

I just realized, I mixed up CO, and CO2.

The limit I showed was CO.
The limit in the meme, was CO2

 

[Dead Duck]

I just realized, I mixed up CO, and CO2.

The limit I showed was CO.
The limit in the meme, was CO2

Ya....
Because one outranks you and the other one's a fart.


Oh. Then they are the same.

 

[actaeon277]

I've spent a LOT of time keeping these old beasts running.
Someone finally realized we should upgrade.
Other areas in the mill pointed out that we're spending more money keeping these things alive, than just buying a new one.
Probably has something to do with MSA phasing them out something like 20 years ago.
Parts are scarce.