adsii1970

Members
  • Content count

    1786
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3124 Excellent

About adsii1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://www.adsii1970.us
  • Skype adsii@hotmail.com

Profile Information

  • Location Lookin' for my lost shaker of salt
  • Interests Model railroading, backyard astronomy, space exploration, music (composition, play the French Horn, Alto Recorder, and Coronet), learning to play the ukulele (seriously, I am :D), kit-bashing, camping and hiking, reading great science fiction, and escaping the university campus any chance I get!

    I teach World Civilization, U.S. History, and U.S. Foreign Policy at the college/university level. So, with that said, I love history, love to do research, and enjoy good conversation.

Recent Profile Visitors

11863 profile views
  1. Nope. No legoclone09 here. Maybe @legoclone09 will show up next.
  2. That's what I was kind of saying or trying to say... to some extent. A yet unproven theory (hypothesis) is still an interpretation of available facts. What I have learned is that even in science, when a theory is, as you state, "explains 100% of the available evidence...is still properly classified as a theory" there MUST be room made because there is always new data or a different interpretation of the data as more knowledge about a topic or issue is learned. I took a college chemistry class where the professor actually made a comment along the lines of if anyone ever tells you there is only one logical conclusion in science, then that person is no scientist... and to be honest, it has had such a profound impact on my research methods that I even approach my own research in that light. There must be an open mind... And as far as my comments about electricity - it relies on the imaginary number set (these are numbers based on the square root of -1, if I recall correctly) to explain how it behaves. We can explain what happens and sometimes we can even explain the why. But there is still a lot about the behavior of electricity that is still yet to be understood... And as you and I both know, even when 100% of the facts are present, the facts can be interpreted equally and differently, depending on the methods being used to interpret them.
  3. You're right. But blasting private corporations isn't the answer too. Three Mile Island did exactly what it was supposed to do - it shut down before melt-down occurred. But the problem is the government side of the equation. Within the United States, it is not the need of the public as much as the influence of $pecial interest groups that the politician (Republican or Democrat, makes no difference) listens to. It's been this way since the 1920s. The reason I am so hard on fission reactors is that for the sake of its funding - remember, the Manhattan Project had funded fission nuclear power. Fission had already been fully (to the best of their knowledge) developed, so therefore it was the first type of nuclear energy put into commercial production. Why bother with fusion when we already have this great idea! Now, with a few minor events, and yes, on the scale of what each fission disaster could have been, they have been minor, the government permit requirements are extremely difficult and expensive to apply for. It's one of the reasons there has been only a few new reactors built in the U.S. since the 1970s, the newest was built on an existing nuclear plant campus in 2016. The problem is the reactor permits are only good for 40 years and must be renewed (which is also very costly and has little to do with the maintenance and serviceability of the actual reactor) every twenty years after that. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dumps the permit fees directly into the Department of Treasury - into the government's general budgeting accounts. Fusion research has always been the victim of under-funding. And this is one of the reasons I am so "anti-fission". The only reason a working reactor has not been built is because of funding - but this is driven by public perception that all nuclear energy is bad. We've known the possibilities of fission since the mid 1950s, yet the pubic has been whipped into a frenzy with six legged frogs, monster spiders, and all things Svengoolie...
  4. @steve_v: Yes, but the U.S. Navy, the British Royal Navy, both rely heavily on fission reactors, have more safety requirements than the average civil-use fission reactors. All it would take is an accident at sea and the entire world environmental movement would descend on the navies using them with immediate demands to abandon nuclear energy. Unfortunately, private utility companies do not see the "need" for such stringent safety protocols, after all, their reactors are land-based. @Kerbart: I sill stand by that. For the simple reason fusion is cleaner and lower risk than fission. In fusion, you are combining light elements into heavier elements. In fission, you are splitting a heavy atom with the byproducts being radioactive isotopes of the heavier elements, free electrons and free protons, oh, and a lighter element. From a pure cost-benefits-analysis, fusion energy simply makes more sense. It always has, but because the general public has adopted a "any nuke is a bad nuke" idea, much to their own demise. Want to get off fossil fuels, good, but you have to have real alternatives. Wind and solar cannot provide the power needed for our modern world. It would take an area of 40 square miles of windmills just to produce enough electricity for New York City... and that's if you have a constant 15 to 20 mph winds and full windmill utilization every day. @tater: I tired to give you a "like" but got this instead... I owe you a like!
  5. The problem is politics gets in the way. Fission is the easiest type of nuclear power available, but the most deadly. Fukushima and Chernobyl are two great examples of why this type of nuclear energy is bad. Plus you have radioactive isotopes left as waste (hence it is referred to as radioactive waste). Ideally and theoretically, the safest nuclear energy is FUSION - the combining of atoms. Combine two hydrogen atoms and you get a lot of energy. The waste product is...helium (He). From what early studies in the 1950s indicated, radioactive waste is simply not as prevalent (depending on the style of fusion reactor, really). This is the same energy source as stars have; I do not remember where I read it, but someone theorized that one fusion reactor the size of one of America's largest fission reactors could literally provide electricity for HALF OF THE UNITED STATES and with very low risk. With fusion, there is no need to use heavy elements as lighter (and less radioactive elements) are highly fusible and will produce larger energy yields. The problem is that it is still "nuclear energy" and there are those who are convinced that all nuclear energy is bad. Science loses but special interest groups win.
  6. I dunno. They can be done to look right. Granted, this is on the 1.25 fuselage: She flies well and I do use her a lot. Only thing is the turboprops do not have the visual appeal - in screenshots, it literally stops them, instead of having the spinning effect. But I guess you cannot have everything. Oh, and the turboprops were in a mod pack that relies on Firespitter... The pontoons are from the mod, STX - Continued:
  7. One of the biggest problems I have with the modern scientific (and to be fair, any academic area of research) is too often the researcher conducts their research in a vacuum, isolated from other research simply because it is "not within the scope of the field..." Let me explain, I have some colleagues I work with who study climate change. But the problem is they only consider weather patterns - they do not include anyone outside their department for research. No astronomers, no geologists, so what happens is their research never considers two big components of Earth's weather - the impact of Sol on Earth (remember, sunspots are at an all-time low in the current cycle) or the Earth's own internal workings. It's not just this - another colleague of mine is researching American immigration but refuses to consider any data that does not support her thesis - and in my opinion, she is creating "junk history." She's not considering the biological impact (introduction of diseases eradicated by American immunization efforts now reappearing in some migrant communities and is fully documented through the CDC and WHO), the increase in poverty (as even indicated by 2010 U.S. census data), and information regarding global unrest and political instability, nor is she even discussing the patterns of immigration. As she told me Thursday - "all of that is irrelevant. I'm proving America is racist and has no right even to exist..." I absolutely hate agenda-driven research. When I research something, as I am now, it is because I'm not wanting to prove anything beyond "what can I learn and what conclusions can I make with available data." Right now, I am working on preparing a new class that will basically be a history of humankind's fascination with Mars. In preparation of it, I've read a lot of non-fiction books on Mars, some cornball and some good (about 12, so far this year). But I am approaching my research with a tabula rasa mindset. It is the only way to be a truly objective researcher.
  8. Hi !

    apparently i am not allowed to expand on my motivation. My post where i tried to explain it was deleted. So, i am out.

    A pity, seemed to be an interesting topic.

    Have a nice one :-)

    gb

     

    1. adsii1970

      adsii1970

      Wow... that's unfortunate. It stops what I was seeing as a free-flow discussion on ideas. :( More proof we are heading into an intellectually dark age.

      We can always continue the discussion as private messages AND invite key people who were interested in the conversation to take part. That way, it is not on the open forum and not in violation of any forum rules...

      And now the topic is closed and Frybert removed his "God Created" billboard reference... So sad...

  9. The problem is a march is just a headline-grabbing event. And it wasn't done during the previous American administration (President Obama), but under the current Trump administration, which has made science a political ground. From what I read from various European and American news sources, it came as a response to the Trump administration's appointment of a new head of the EPA and scaling back funding on "man-made climate change research." At this point, science became political... which is one of the reasons I am very surprised the moderators have not closed this thread. God knows, every one of my warning points has been for political commentary... If science is to prevail, it has to be made relevant. And again, this means we have to rethink public education. I purposefully began exposing my daughter, at the age of five, to science. She knows how to use a telescope, she knows how to focus it, and she knows the name of a few of the larger and easy to view lunar features. She knows the Earth is one of many bodies orbiting Sol, and that Sol also revolves around the galactic core. To help her understand, I even bought one of those solar system models that allows you to move the planets around the sun. In fact, yesterday she made the observation, "Daddy, the solar system looks like a giant atom!" Yes, we are definitely going in the right direction... Science needs to be brought to the level where it's fun, it's made understandable, and relevant. It doesn't need to be preachy or politicized, or used as a battering ram to make the masses "trust the experts." Our world did that before and we've paid the price...twice.
  10. The problem, as far as I see it, is the educational process itself - beginning in the early grade school years. I'm 46 and have a six year old daughter in Kindergarten this year. Back when she was 5, we began working at home on her math, writing, and reading skills. In less than six months, my daughter was doing single digit addition and subtraction (without finger aids) as well as writing her name and the abcs. She also learned how to tell time, tie her shoes, and the days of the week and the names of the first five planets of our solar system. When she went to Kindergarten, her teacher and I had an argument about learning. I believe in a student led approach - if the student asks, then teach what is asked. Don't force... and the teacher was all about "forced learning." My daughter has the highest grades in her class and on the recent achievement tests, scored low second grader scores for several categories -- and she is not even in first grade! We also are in the age of misconceptions. At an open house, my daughtere's teacher asked each parent where they worked. When I told her the university I worked at, she asked me if I worked as a groundskeeper or support staff... I then handed her a business card and introduced myself as Dr.... and you should have seen the woman's face change - as well as her attitude. The reason I brought that up is to illustrate that often we jump to the wrong conclusions because we only have a small sliver of data, even if we do not know the rest, we jump to trying to make the data fit into boxes of "ideas" we already have. This is why the marriage between government and science is so dangerous - as is the relationship between the military and industry (the military-industrial complex, as stated by President Eisenhower). Some scientists (who have no integrity) will create experiments and theories that match the need for desired government policy to increase government support. Even at the extent of data manipulation and ignoring undesired results from experiments. And in the case of the American Eugenics movement of the early 20th century, the results can be dire if there are no opposing voices to challenge it. A valid of a theory on the beginnings of life on Earth as Dr. Richard Dawkins theory of how life was created on Earth: What makes self-reasoning great is that if you believe in evolution, alien life-seeding, or even Biblical creation, it should be your right to believe it in the absence of a concrete set of facts and a proven means. But at the same time, one does not possess the right to ridicule others or force them to give up their understanding of how life began and adopt a different "theory" that has still not been proven. I am not defending the billboard in your picture but I am certainly not going to condemn it either. As my very wise grandfather taught me, "whatever floats your boat or heats your coffee is fine. But let me be me..."
  11. I disagree. But for a much different and principled reason. At the cornerstone of personal liberty is the concept of self-determination. While it is foolhardy to insist the earth is flat, it is not for someone to reject the concept of human-caused global warming. We have concrete proof the earth is not flat - satellite images from various vantage points and altitudes. However, we only have concrete proof the earth has been in a warming trend for the last 11,700 years ago, give or take. Human industry did not begin the cycle of global warming that ended the last ice age. So, to blame humankind for global warming does not make sense to me. NO, it is not my intent to start an argument, but to illustrate that I do have the right to not only demand more proof and facts, but to also have the right to reject "theories" that I feel do not match the evidence I am seeing. It is healthy to have a skeptical attitude about anyone who claims to have the absolute "correct" theory about anything. Humans are naturally skeptical and it has served the species well. This drive to create a consensus on every aspect of society, to include science, is simply a recreated folly of the Dark Ages when kings and priests controlled "pure science" and "pure religion" and no one had the ability to have any other opinion on the matter than what was prescribed. When I read things like PackledHostage said, it scares me that there are those who would prefer to create a consensus through "reeducation" into what science is. Should the world regard Drs. Steven Hawking and Richard Dawkins as the absolute authorities on climate change and "pure science" as they have deemed themselves experts? Absolutely not. For both men have taken science and bent it to a certain set of core ideologies that not only restrain the individual's right to self determination, but removes the individual's right of self-identity and thought. And this is totalitarianism in its finest. I am a professional historian by trade. It is not my job to tell anyone, including my students, what the facts "means". It is my job to teach them how to interpret the facts and base opinions, regardless if they are different than mine, on those facts. It is the same with science. We call certain things "theories" because we do not have the definitive answer in how they work, such as electricity (which is why we call it the "theory of electricity" rather than fact). It is the scientist's job to explain it, but we cannot demand that everyone understand it beyond "flip the switch on, and it comes on..." application. However, the data should be there for those who have inquiring minds and do want a deeper understanding. But at the same time, I have no right do demand that someone comply with the notion of either completely understanding the theory of electricity or not using electricity at all. What I have learned is the best approach for learning is to simply present the information and allow each individual the opportunity to learn, interpret the data, and make their own conclusions rather than to force any sort of consensus. That's the difference between true education and indoctrination.
  12. I've read some funny things, but for some reason, this was great! But seriously, i played with submarines for over two years and still do - some. I've kinda held back because each update to KSP causes so much turmoil. For a while, I was using stock parts with a small mod patch that added a second stock part back to use as ballast. It was a start. But there are two mods I would like to recommend that not only provide neat parts ( @Fengist's mod has engines, hull parts, and he wrote a system that uses "compressed water" to change the buoyancy of the models. This mod doesn't have engines, but has ballast tanks that can be used to fine-tune the trim of your submarine. It also has small nuclear reactors that do not generate as much heat as some of the ones other mods privide. It's by @Redshift OTF. For the most part, it also uses stock parts as a means to reduce memory usage. But me being me, I have to make my craft look like, well, my craft!
  13. Nope. RIC's puns and sarcastic wit are both legendary and entertaining. Yours, on the other hand...
  14. I like this idea! What about it, @Red Iron Crown