Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Helgoland]

How about this:

We want to.

That should be reason enough, shouldn't it?

[Reelya]

Especially when the only source cited in support decries the lack of testable predictions, and then you say "what's the point of testing predictions? it's a waste of time"

First, we prove that the Higgs is "a thing", which helps validate that our general model of the family of particles is on the right track and there isn't any unknown factor preventing this particle to exist. If the Higgs was never found, we'd have to explain that, just assuming any model is correct without ever checking isn't smart science.

Also, the Standard Model doesn't give the mass of the Higgs, so measuring them can fill in the blank there (at least they can give upper and lower bounds on the mass and statistically narrow that down as they observe more particles). Any model that attempts to explain the mass of the particles will therefore have one more data point it has to match, cutting out a virtually infinite number of potential equations.

The standard model was completely built on observation, not theory, observing previously unobserved quantum phenomena has obvious value in itself to improve the model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Alternative_models
Plus, there are already alternate models for the Higgs, and measuring / studying them more will rule out all models that don't match observations. This process will probably nuke a LOT of potential string theory variants, thus cutting down the chaff so we can see the wheat better.

This table summarizes the potential signifigance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Significance

[Solifuge]

-snop-

Science is cool and useful. So are other philosophies and ways of thinking. Diversity of thought encourages new ideas and developments. As we discuss neat new theories and compare the measure of our academic e-peens etc., let us maintain our chill composure.

Spoiler: Also, because it was too cool to get lost amid arguments: (click to show/hide)

And also much harder to make than the old "make a person-shaped baloon and inflate it" way of making a spacesuit. There is a reason we're still not using elastic fabric.

By the time we're colonizing mars, we'll probably have suit-locks and spandex space-suits that keep the body pressurized by hugging tightly the body, instead of filling it with 1atm of oxygen. :v
-snip-

Plus I wanna see dem hunky astronauts in spandex, so sue me~

Interestingly enough, Descan, you might get that wish.

There's been significant work in thin suit designs that use elasticity and compressive bands instead of a gas balloon/bladder, for low-pressure environments recently. It isn't to show off how toned and good-looking the astronauts are (that's just a side effect), but rather to deal with the complete lack of mobility and hand dexterity in the current "inflatable" EVA suits, which lock the body in place like a human-shaped sarcophagus, with only basic mobility in the arms and fat-fingered gloves. That's kind of an intentional design in the current suit, though; keep in mind that whole Newtonian Physics thing means that moving your limbs in 0G could send you spinning. You can see a similar sort of thing if you're sitting in a swivel-chair, by lifting your legs from the floor and moving your arms and waist... only in space you wouldn't have friction to stop you. If you've seen the footage from the Apollo Mission, that's also why you see them Bunny Hopping on the moon; their suits literally didn't allow them to walk normally. And while that works great for low-G environments like Orbit or the Moon, fuck Bunny Hopping in heavier gravity like Mars... not to mention it'd make manual labor and science pretty damned difficult. Probably better to send robots to do it at that point.

That's where things like these come in:

KCL's Skinsuit


MIT's Bio-Suit


These use bands of active material as tension lines, to put pressure on the wearer in low pressure and low-g environments, instead of using bladders/balloons. The Bio-Suit (which is designed for use outside of the atmosphere) would offer actual mobility and manual dexterity, and is less bulky, more puncture-resistant, and easier to repair than current designs (given that your could literally slap on an adhesive patch of insulating material mid-Spacewalk, instead of deflating and counting the seconds as the atmosphere boils out from your tissues). They would also help fight tissue/bone expansion in 0G, which poses serious health-risks, but is currently just lumped in as a cost of going to space. If you paired that with an Adaptive-Resistance Motorized Exoskeleton, you could provide astronauts with mobility assistance to compensate for High-Gs or heavy loads, mobility resistance in Low-Gs, and in 0G could lock or automatically adjust an astronaut's limbs (optionally along with servos/gyros) to stabilize them when on Spacewalk. Not to mention, an active-resistance system would provide a workout for astronauts going about their regular activities in low-g, which could reduce or eliminate the need for that whole "run on a treadmill in space for a few hours a day" exercise regimen.

So yeah, skin-tight space suits! They're probably gonna be a thing! Also potentially way better than the current thing! And not just for looks!

EDIT: The Skinsuit isn't intended for use in a Vacuum, of course (the whole No Helmet/Arm Insulation bit, for starters); it's designed for use in a low-g atmospheric environment like a station or base. The Biosuit is designed for use in Vacuum, though, and was in part dreamed up for a hypothetical Mars Mission; the more recent designs are suggesting a torso shell connected with the helmet, due to issues with sealing the atmosphere in just the headpiece while retaining neck mobility. The shell and helmet would be discarded in pressurized places like a station or vessel, similar to the Skinsuit.

[Putnam]

Other philosophies and ways of thinking are science, as long as they're not false. Any attempt at finding the truth is science, as long as that attempt is honest (I.E actually looking for truth instead of looking for certain results that you want to be truth).

[Helgoland]

Lolnope. Science is defined by empiricism. Otherwise you'll have to call theology and the likes sciences as well.

[4maskwolf]

Lolnope. Science is defined by empiricism. Otherwise you'll have to call theology and the likes sciences as well.

They share a certain desire for knowledge with science, but I personally wouldn't t define them as sciences.

[Putnam]

Lolnope. Science is defined by empiricism. Otherwise you'll have to call theology and the likes sciences as well.

Empiricism determines truth, so, uh, yeah, basically what I said?

[MaximumZero]

KCL's Skinsuit

I find myself wondering if two of these women are incredibly tall, or one is incredibly short.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Law of averages suggests the former.

[Sergarr]

It looks like people think that I am anti-science.

This is wrong. I am not anti-science. But I think the modern science is too disconnected from philosophy to make progress.

How about this:

We want to.

That should be reason enough, shouldn't it?

No.

This reason could be used anywhere. Want to kill your neighbor? Sure!

No, screw that, anti-science is the single biggest problem the world faces and I will not stand for something even resembling it.

My problem was the statement:

The only reason you need justify gathering more knowledge is wanting to gather more knowledge.

It shows that the in the eyes of the public, science is a form of religion!

And how do you call that anti-science when you miss the point of what the science is?

[da_nang]

Japan has shown another creature from the uncanny valley.

[Putnam]

Philosophers are the kind who say "all is fire" without knowing anything. Science is an attempt (mostly successful) at finding a good solution from epistemology. What do you think philosophy could add to science?

How about this:

We want to.

That should be reason enough, shouldn't it?

No.

This reason could be used anywhere. Want to kill your neighbor? Sure!

Once again, you're completely ignoring the whole "we're actually talking about something specific" angle. That argument could be used that way, but it's not being used that way and gaining knowledge isn't actively harmful, so it's irrelevant.

[Helgoland]

Putnam, empiricism does not determine truth. Mathematical truth, for example, has nothing to do with empiricism. Neither has philosophy, which certainly searches (mostly uncuccessfully) for truth, just like theology and the likes. Even esotericists look for truth, but that doesn't make what they do science!

[Putnam]

That's why I'm focusing on the epistemology and not the search itself, as of two posts ago.

[Helgoland]

Hmmm... Aren't we saying the same thing then? Science is pursuit of knowledge by the epistemology (I hope I'm using this usage of the word is correct) of empiricism?