kallend 2,027 #76 November 22, 2011 Quote Would you please do some research on my bank account? It sure could use a novel idea that would lead it to increase itself. Send me the account name, number and password and I'll see what I can do.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #77 November 22, 2011 Quote The thing about pure research is not that it has "no useful ends", but that the useful ends are not obvious at the time the research is being done. Nicely put! Let me lay it down for you as I understand it. Note – these are my thoughts through libertarian leanings. There are three basic types of science: (1) basic (pure) science; (2) applied science; and (3) technology. The CERN seeks to work on basic science. Basic science is that sort of thing which seeks to learn how the universe works. The big point is that basic science does not work in purely capitalistic societies because there’s no money in it. I’ll use the Apollo program as an example. Pure science involved in it was most relevant in the devoted lunar geology missions of Apollo 15, 16 and 17. Those missions were there to determine how the moon was formed. What would the rocks tell us about the origins and formation of the moon? There’s not much financial reward for the investment in that. Basic science is peer reviewed and there is no ownership right to the laws of nature. Then there is applied science. Applied science asks the question of “how can the pure science be applied?” A few hundred years ago, Newton and Kepler described orbits. There wasn’t any money in it then. Just seeking to answer or explain the movement of bodies in space. The application of that science was useful in Apollo. Newton and Kepler were used to calculate the trajectories and speeds that would allow the moonshots to get to the moon, orbit it, make a precision landing, rendezvous with the orbiting command module, and then return to earth. The applications are also non-proprietary and peer reviewed. For example, Buzz Aldrin did a thesis in university on techniques for orbital rendezvous – many of which were actually used. Then there is technology. This is where the money is. “Research and Development” is proprietary, as people seek to find methods to make the applied science a technology. Again, let’s look at the lunar moonshot. There were three possibilities for how to get to and from the moon. The most simple would be “direct ascent” – shooting a rocket straight to the moon and then straight back. The second was an “earth-orbit rendezvous”, which would send the lunar vehicle in one launch and the fuel tank in another into earth orbit, where they would meet up and then go to the moon and return in one piece. Like the direct ascent only in two launches instead of one. The third was “lunar orbit rendezvous,” which meant one launch to the moon, but a separate vehicle would land on the moon while another orbited it and then they would meet up again in lunar orbit and return to earth. All three ideas were applied science. The winner would be determined on the basis of technology – what did the US have the capability of doing? There was a goal to reach the moon by the end of 1969, and the problem was that there was not sufficient technology for a rocket powerful enough to do a direct ascent. Earth orbit rendezvous was also a technological issue of developing a vehicle for a moon landing that could survive earth re-entry. From a technological standpoint, the ONLY way to do it in time was with lunar orbit rendezvous. When technology, applied science and basic science are confused, arguments ensue because people are speaking in the same breath about different things. Sure, there are plenty of similarities, but confusing applied science with basic science is a threshold error. Separating the basic science from applied science is pretty crucial. I think that CERN is working on some of the coolest stuff ever. CERN is making breakthrough discoveries and testing theories. CERN is looking for evidence, which is what science is about. And CERN may not find it. Apollo 16 was dispatched to the Descartes highland because the photographs of the moon suggested that there were ancient volcanoes there, which would be useful to learn about the moon’s interior geology. So Apollo 16 went looking for lava. They didn’t find any. None. And in NOT finding evidence of volcanism, they advanced the science of lunar geology further than anybody in history. I’m just as fascinated in what CERN won’t find as what it will. Not finding a Higgs boson will be just as cool to me as finding it because either results advances our knowledge. Either result opens the door to new advancements. There are so many things we don’t know. CERN is exploration, the point of which is to find out. I dig it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #78 November 22, 2011 The entire world owes so very much to pure science researchers. THEY should be in the Zero Tax Group.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #79 November 22, 2011 QuoteThe entire world owes so very much to pure science researchers. THEY should be in the Zero Tax Group. They often are. Your average RA makes too little to interest the IRS, and PhD candidates do the lion's share of pure research. "It's not just a job - it's an indenture." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #80 November 22, 2011 PhD candidates...slave labor, eh? Free the Pre-Docs!!!!!!My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mpohl 1 #81 November 22, 2011 Another indication that you have no clue!!! Whatsoever!!! The people inventing new treatments for diseases, sponsored by NIH grants. PhD's after 10+ years of academic training! For the salary of a TI !!! And to add insult to injury, those very same NIH postdoc-researchers do not qualify for employer-sponsored health insurance!!! May you rot in your trailer because of an MRSA-resistant infection. W/ no known antibiotic at your disposal. QuotePhD candidates...slave labor, eh? Free the Pre-Docs!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mpohl 1 #82 November 22, 2011 On a more positive note, over POPSJUMPER. Almost 15 yrs ago, I encountered a high-ranking exec of Sonics (the hamburger chain). His wife experienced severe symptoms as she was going thru menopause. I talked to him about it from a chemist's perspective and the work we put in every day to treat the human condition! He was extremely grateful. After all w/o the post-docs work, there ain't no medications by MDs to prescribe! It's not the pilots who will get you to your destination; because you would have never lifted off w/o the ground crew. It's not the MD that will ameliorate one's condition. Because w/o chemists, physicists, pharmacists, etc., etc. there would be no treatment! QuotePhD candidates...slave labor, eh? Free the Pre-Docs!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #83 November 22, 2011 QuoteI talked to him about what from a chemist's perspective Evidently, you've been ingesting too much of your own product.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mpohl 1 #84 November 22, 2011 Say Hi! to Hans and Sandy from me and Angelika. Old, clueless man! QuoteQuoteI talked to him about what from a chemist's perspective Evidently, you've been ingesting too much of your own product. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #85 November 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteI talked to him about what from a chemist's perspective Evidently, you've been ingesting too much of your own product. It for sure was NOT MDs who came up with all those fancy pharmaceuticals that they prescribe. Your Viagra was developed by chemists.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #86 November 23, 2011 Jeez. You all are proving my longstanding point that scientists are no less likely to engage in pissing contests than anyone else. I'll say this - there would be no Viagra without the chemist. Or the venbture capitalist. There's plenty of credit to go around... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #87 November 23, 2011 QuoteJeez. You all are proving my longstanding point that scientists are no less likely to engage in pissing contests than anyone else. I'll say this - there would be no Viagra without the chemist. Or the venbture capitalist. There's plenty of credit to go around... Viagra was first developed as a general antihypertensive drug. Didn't work well for that, but the male clinical trial subjects noticed that it had other very interesting properties. Must have been hard work to be part of that study. It is used (under the name Revatio to protect patients from embarrassment) for treating pulmonary arterial hypertension.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #88 November 23, 2011 QuoteViagra was first developed as a general antihypertensive drug. Didn't work well for that Yep. Phizer made a boner!!! QuoteMust have been hard work to be part of that study Yep. Indeed. I'm suing Phizer. I blame the company for my carpal tunnel syndrome... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #89 November 23, 2011 QuoteYour Viagra was developed by chemists. I can't take the stuff. I have to beat the damn thing down as it is.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #90 November 28, 2011 Couple of interesting articles... http://activities.fit.edu/crimsons/?p=2253 http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111020/full/news.2011.605.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
