Science fleeting thoughts

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

ijuin
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby ijuin » Thu May 09, 2019 7:56 pm UTC

Even if distance does not exist in the traditional sense, there is still a need for a parameter that governs the strength of the fundamental forces/interactions between particles, which we at present represent by stating that force varies with separation.

Tub
Posts: 472
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 3:13 pm UTC

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby Tub » Thu May 09, 2019 8:14 pm UTC

You were the one that brought up the book. Don't expect a recommendation from me.

Anyone who claims that time doesn't exist is demonstrably wrong. Anyone who claims that time is "just an illusion" is misunderstanding the nature of scientific theories as descriptions of our universe. Anyone who claims that time may not be fundamental will get no argument from me, but they better have some insights beyond a vague possibility.

The book predicted a "scientific revolution". 20 years later, that revolution hasn't happened, and I haven't heard any respectable scientist working in that direction. Many are busy trying to model space as an emergent property of quantum entanglement, but I haven't seen anyone do anything similar about time.

At this point, he has raised enough red flags that I'm not inclined to buy the book.

If you're looking for accessible science literature, I can recommend anything from Sean Carroll. You can start with his blog or some of his talks on youtube before committing to a full book.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby Thesh » Thu May 09, 2019 9:24 pm UTC

Tub wrote:The book predicted a "scientific revolution". 20 years later, that revolution hasn't happened, and I haven't heard any respectable scientist working in that direction. Many are busy trying to model space as an emergent property of quantum entanglement, but I haven't seen anyone do anything similar about time.


To misrepresent Feyerabend, this is all because of a conspiracy against progress.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby Eebster the Great » Thu May 09, 2019 10:40 pm UTC

That's not even too unfair a misrepresentation. Feyerabend has some super weird views about pretty much everything and believes science should not be taught in schools, because that gives science an unfair advantage.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri May 10, 2019 12:23 am UTC

Feyerabend can go fuck himself
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5532
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby doogly » Fri May 10, 2019 1:22 pm UTC

Feyerabend is the legit sauce
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby Eebster the Great » Fri May 10, 2019 2:01 pm UTC

Feyerabend is a parody of himself.

(Or was; I guess he's dead.)

User avatar
SuicideJunkie
Posts: 424
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby SuicideJunkie » Fri May 10, 2019 6:36 pm UTC

Well, that escalated quickly.

gd1
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby gd1 » Mon May 13, 2019 11:44 am UTC

To reduce global warming we should cut back on our dependency on Euler's Method or at the very least any crude uses of it.

I should wash my hands clean of this matter...
...I mean the matter I was handling...
...the physical matter that was in my hands... made of atoms...
... I'm washing my hands in the sink.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
cyanyoshi
Posts: 412
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby cyanyoshi » Thu May 30, 2019 5:01 am UTC

I went down a Wikipedia rabbit hole again, and ended up at this.....innovative hypothesis on the origin of ball lightning. You know it's gonna be good when the abstract starts with:
Small, quiescent black holes can be considered as candidates for the missing
dark matter of the universe, and as the core energy source of ball lightning.

I especially like the idea that ball lightning being more common around volcanoes is evidence to support this hypothesis, since volcanoes running on black hole energy is an idea that someone else proposed, and "Other models don't explain this."

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby Eebster the Great » Thu May 30, 2019 11:21 am UTC

There's some weird stuff in there, like, "At present there is no direct or indirect experimental evidence concerning the space near or inside black holes, nor whether they are Einsteinian or Newtonian." But . . . Newtonian gravity can't even describe black holes at all. They don't exist. That would seem to suggest Newtonian gravity isn't going to do the trick.

Not that this was the main issue with the paper. The volcano thing is funny, but I'm mostly concerned with all the typos in the abstract. How did he not notice that?

This preprint seems significantly more serious than Chalko's published paper No second Chance: Can Earth Explode as a result of Global Warming?

User avatar
cyanyoshi
Posts: 412
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby cyanyoshi » Thu May 30, 2019 7:07 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:There's some weird stuff in there, like, "At present there is no direct or indirect experimental evidence concerning the space near or inside black holes, nor whether they are Einsteinian or Newtonian." But . . . Newtonian gravity can't even describe black holes at all. They don't exist. That would seem to suggest Newtonian gravity isn't going to do the trick.

I think they're referring to a "dark star", i.e., an object whose escape velocity is faster than the speed of light. It would be quite the surprise to see a comeback of Newtonian physics near a gravitational singularity, where GR hasn't yet been proven right.

p1t1o
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:32 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby p1t1o » Fri May 31, 2019 12:37 pm UTC

cyanyoshi wrote:...where GR hasn't yet been proven right.


Issues with the term "proven"...

User avatar
Sungura
When life gives you banananas, make bananana bread
Posts: 3917
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:32 am UTC
Location: AL

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby Sungura » Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:41 pm UTC

Having seen* ball lighting when I was about five years old, I am fascinated by it. For years every storm id have my camera ready but I have not seen another since. But that experience is how I discovered Tesla, because I went to the library to research it and the only book that mentioned it was one on Tesla’s work.

Spoiler:
was amazing! About size of a basketball it hovered over our driveway for a few seconds, floating mostly in place but moving slowly towards our house - enough for me to realise and blink and rub my eyes thinking i was crazy, yelling to my brother to come see and i turned back to look and it was hovering still but then touched the ground and disappeared. No one else saw it and they all thought I was mad until I found that book about Tesla. Ah pre-internet days! Ill never forget it though. One the most amazing phenomenon I have ever seen. Maybe the most.
"Would you rather fight a Sungura-sized spider or 1000 spider-sized Sunguras?" -Zarq
she/<any gender neutral>/snug

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3713
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby PM 2Ring » Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:22 am UTC

Sungura wrote:Having seen* ball lighting when I was about five years old, I am fascinated by it.

Wow! That's fantastic. And I'm totally not jealous. :D

BTW, there's been an update to the What-If 0085: "Rocket Golf" thread:
E.D.S. Courtney wrote:I can confirm that we are indeed a family of physicists who managed to turn screwing around with potato guns into a career

Michaelsmit
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:08 pm UTC

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby Michaelsmit » Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:49 am UTC

Regarding that matter, does anybody know what the restricting component is on making space tests littler? Putting similar usefulness into a little mass is of such clear advantage that I envision there's a valid justification each test isn't one centimeter littler.
Electrical Design Training
Last edited by Michaelsmit on Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:07 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby Eebster the Great » Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:08 am UTC

Typically, every ounce is justified. What confuses me is manned missions, given the grossly disproportionate amount spent on carrying tiny conveniences for the astronauts vs. paying them for their dangerous missions. For instance, astronauts could carry up to 24 ounces of personal items onto the space shuttle (subject to certain restrictions). It cost around $500/oz for the space shuttles to take items into space, meaning those 24 oz of precious items cost $12000. By comparison, the astronauts were paid a per diem of in the ballpark of $1.20/day. Don't you think at least a few of them would prefer to carry up only 12 oz of personal items in exchange for $6,000 extra pay?

It just seems weird is all.

p1t1o
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:32 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby p1t1o » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:32 am UTC

Michaelsmit wrote:Regarding that matter, does anybody know what the restricting component is on making space tests littler? Putting similar usefulness into a little mass is of such clear advantage that I envision there's a valid justification each test isn't one centimeter littler.


Well microsats and "cubesats" are now a thing, but what exactly do you mean by "space test"?

KittenKaboodle
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:36 am UTC

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby KittenKaboodle » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:00 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:Don't you think at least a few of them would prefer to carry up only 12 oz of personal items in exchange for $6,000 extra pay?

It just seems weird is all.


Considering that there are people willing to PAY millions to go to space, I'm going to say no.
Maybe too simple of answer, if one is not a Billionaire, and is guarantied a trip either way, then some few might choose the extra money, but if there was any chance that appearing to only be in it for the money might result in someone else being picked for the mission I don't think anyone would care about a measly $6000.
Of course astronauts are not exactly average people, but, Wikipedia says the average US female masses about 426 oz. less than the average male, did female astronauts get a $200,000 bonus?

There is a story that NASA is considering offering tourists a place on the ISS (I have no idea what the "I" stands for, but I think SS is Space Station) for $35,000 a night and Space X might fly them up for $53,000,000 (but the budget minded can get the economy package for only $52,994,000 if they limit their luggage to 12oz :lol: ) I might have made up that last part, but apparently someone thinks there is some market for spending 20 times the US median lifetime income and risking ones life for a chance to say in a glorified mobile home for a few days.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby Eebster the Great » Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:53 pm UTC

KittenKaboodle wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:Don't you think at least a few of them would prefer to carry up only 12 oz of personal items in exchange for $6,000 extra pay?

It just seems weird is all.


Considering that there are people willing to PAY millions to go to space, I'm going to say no.
Maybe too simple of answer, if one is not a Billionaire, and is guarantied a trip either way, then some few might choose the extra money, but if there was any chance that appearing to only be in it for the money might result in someone else being picked for the mission I don't think anyone would care about a measly $6000.

Why not? This isn't a vacation, this is constant hard work. Astronauts are by far the most underpaid professionals on Earth if you compare qualification and risk to compensation. And $6,000 per trip is a lot of money, especially if you go up 4 or 5 times.

Of course astronauts are not exactly average people, but, Wikipedia says the average US female masses about 426 oz. less than the average male, did female astronauts get a $200,000 bonus?

No, but there has been serious discussion that the mission to Mars should be all female because of the millions that would save. In any case, I don't see how it's relevant here.

There is a story that NASA is considering offering tourists a place on the ISS (I have no idea what the "I" stands for, but I think SS is Space Station) for $35,000 a night and Space X might fly them up for $53,000,000 (but the budget minded can get the economy package for only $52,994,000 if they limit their luggage to 12oz :lol: ) I might have made up that last part, but apparently someone thinks there is some market for spending 20 times the US median lifetime income and risking ones life for a chance to say in a glorified mobile home for a few days.

And those people, notably, are not astronauts.

There are people who will spend $1 million on a diamond-encrusted dress. But if every dress necessarily contained a few diamonds at the cost of $6,000, I bet some people would prefer not to have them.

ijuin
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby ijuin » Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:57 am UTC

The reality, unfortunately, is that such savings would never be passed down to the crew/passengers who are sacrificing on their own mass allowance. If they were, then it would be equally appropriate for them to get pay/rebate for reducing their own body mass (i.e. losing some excess body fat). I do not doubt that most people of a middle-class background would be motivated to lose weight for a reward of eight thousand dollars per pound lost.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby Eebster the Great » Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:19 am UTC

Why not? Does NASA have no choice at all about how to compensate their astronauts?

The thing that surprises me more is not that they are allowed to take up a few ounces of stuff but that astronauts are paid virtually nothing for actually going to space, which is by orders of magnitude the most difficult and dangerous thing they have to do. You get paid the same amount just for training. It seems weird.

p1t1o
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:32 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby p1t1o » Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:20 am UTC

What if an astronaut "sold" his 24oz allowance, so that he got paid to take various things to space? People pay to have various things go to space just to know that it went there. If a cubesat is a thing, I imagine there are some instruments or experiments they could take for less than 24oz.

Could get a small business going ;)

elasto
Posts: 3757
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby elasto » Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:17 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:The thing that surprises me more is not that they are allowed to take up a few ounces of stuff but that astronauts are paid virtually nothing for actually going to space, which is by orders of magnitude the most difficult and dangerous thing they have to do. You get paid the same amount just for training. It seems weird.

I think it's just the nature of public service jobs. In the UK especially, people haven't traditionally gone into such jobs (teaching/firefighting/police/medicine etc.) for the money, but because they have a passion for the field and a passion to serve.

And firefighters don't get paid more for attending a fire than when waiting around; nor do police don't get paid differently if they spend a week doing paperwork to taking part in an armed siege. I guess it's just an extreme version of that.

Most of these guys would give their right arm to be chosen to go into space, they probably couldn't care less about the money...

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:09 pm UTC

Employers pay employees to make the job desirable. Being an astronaut is an incredibly desirable job so extra money isn't needed. Nasa already has (close to) the best candidates it could ask for who are willing to do everything humanly possible for the mission.

You could incentivize the astronauts to be lighter, but that might be incentivizing risk. Astronauts are already required to have an healthy build, further weight loss risks their heath during the mission, especially considering muscle loss is a space problem.

As for personal items, mental health is important and space is stressful. A person consenting a hardship is not a guarantee that they can endure it.
Last edited by Quizatzhaderac on Tue Jun 18, 2019 7:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby Thesh » Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:34 pm UTC

"Did science in orbit" probably does a lot for your resume.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

ijuin
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby ijuin » Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:30 am UTC

Probably the most efficient use of the personal allowance mass would be a smartphone and charger, which would function as personal diary, camera, organizer, gaming device, and media device all in one.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby Eebster the Great » Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:42 am UTC

elasto wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:The thing that surprises me more is not that they are allowed to take up a few ounces of stuff but that astronauts are paid virtually nothing for actually going to space, which is by orders of magnitude the most difficult and dangerous thing they have to do. You get paid the same amount just for training. It seems weird.

I think it's just the nature of public service jobs. In the UK especially, people haven't traditionally gone into such jobs (teaching/firefighting/police/medicine etc.) for the money, but because they have a passion for the field and a passion to serve.

And firefighters don't get paid more for attending a fire than when waiting around; nor do police don't get paid differently if they spend a week doing paperwork to taking part in an armed siege. I guess it's just an extreme version of that.

Most of these guys would give their right arm to be chosen to go into space, they probably couldn't care less about the money...


Teaching in particular pays much better if you take a public job than a private one. Nevertheless, there is a shortage of highly qualified teachers, because they are paid so poorly for their level of qualification. And I understand your point, but after elementary school, fighting fires no longer seems like a great job, and it objectively isn't, in part because they don't get paid enough. And don't tell me firefighters are the best people for the job.

In any case, firefighters and police officers are not federal workers, and many of them do receive hazard pay. More to the point, those jobs shouldn't pay as much as going to space, since there are hundreds of times as many people qualified to do them. Soldiers, notably, are federal workers, and they also receive some hazard pay, though it is often painfully small (still not as small as the ISS per diem).

I know that going to space is intrinsically desirable, which makes it easy to recruit astronauts even for relatively modest salaries. But in my mind, the possibility of paying your workers less when they deserve more is not a good enough reason. The cost to the government here is so small, and it seems almost insulting to pay someone $3 extra per day for the period in which they are floating 250 miles up and working 15 hours a day. And if saving the government trivial amounts of money is really the goal here, then they should allow astronauts to trade small amounts of weight for small amounts of cash.

elasto
Posts: 3757
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby elasto » Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:30 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:Teaching in particular pays much better if you take a public job than a private one.

It's the other way around in the UK.

Nevertheless, there is a shortage of highly qualified teachers, because they are paid so poorly for their level of qualification. And I understand your point, but after elementary school, fighting fires no longer seems like a great job, and it objectively isn't, in part because they don't get paid enough.

Agreed. Too many governments - ours included - take advantage of the fact that so many want to serve their country and pay the least they can get away with.

In any case, firefighters and police officers are not federal workers, and many of them do receive hazard pay.

I think they are local government employees in the UK but there isn't the distinction in the UK there is in the US. And I don't believe they receive hazard pay here.

I know that going to space is intrinsically desirable, which makes it easy to recruit astronauts even for relatively modest salaries. But in my mind, the possibility of paying your workers less when they deserve more is not a good enough reason.

Agreed. Teachers and nurses should be amongst the highest paid workers in the land given how vital they are to quality of life for the young and the old alike; After all, we were all the former and all hope to be the latter!

The cost to the government here is so small, and it seems almost insulting to pay someone $3 extra per day for the period in which they are floating 250 miles up and working 15 hours a day. And if saving the government trivial amounts of money is really the goal here, then they should allow astronauts to trade small amounts of weight for small amounts of cash.

I don't think it's about saving money at all. Being an astronaut is one of the most glamorous, exciting and sought after jobs there is, and, past a certain point (which astronauts are) there's more to life than your pay packet.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2107
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby Sableagle » Sun Jun 16, 2019 6:32 pm UTC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzHl1WUWy-c

"From 1 in 69 to 1 in 59 so a ten-point jump."

Horseshit, much?

I commented, bu the comment posted 4 times instead of once and now I can't see comments under that vid at all.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby Eebster the Great » Sun Jun 16, 2019 6:45 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
The cost to the government here is so small, and it seems almost insulting to pay someone $3 extra per day for the period in which they are floating 250 miles up and working 15 hours a day. And if saving the government trivial amounts of money is really the goal here, then they should allow astronauts to trade small amounts of weight for small amounts of cash.

I don't think it's about saving money at all. Being an astronaut is one of the most glamorous, exciting and sought after jobs there is, and, past a certain point (which astronauts are) there's more to life than your pay packet.

But if it's not about saving money, what is it about? Making sure people don't get more than they deserve? That seems like a rather perverse way of viewing compensation. Surely the reason not to pay someone more is to not waste money. The idea that the reason not to pay them more is just to make sure they don't get the money is nonsense.

And if you agree that teachers should be paid more even though it is already possible to hire enough teachers, why doesn't that apply to other public positions?

Sableagle wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzHl1WUWy-c

"From 1 in 69 to 1 in 59 so a ten-point jump."

Horseshit, much?

I commented, bu the comment posted 4 times instead of once and now I can't see comments under that vid at all.

It's RT, what do you expect? Anyway, the comment shows up now.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2107
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby Sableagle » Sun Jun 16, 2019 6:56 pm UTC

Possible to hire enough teachers, eh?

The Guardian's a pretty respectabel newspaper (unless you're violently allergic to anyone left of Margaret Thatcher, of course) and helpfully puts headlines in the URLs and allows you to read articles without paying for them, so, the Guardian's website I shall use.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/teacher-shortages

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... hers-money
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... in-england
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... ent-report
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... government
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... uge-abroad
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... five-years
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... chers-away
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... -education
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... ays-labour
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... mian-hinds
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... r-teachers
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... hers-union
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... on-schools
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... misleading
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... the-answer
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... sing-staff
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... cky-morgan
https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-net ... ived-areas
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... -pressures
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... d-teachers
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... 5000-staff
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... chools-gap
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... g-up-leave
https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-net ... evelopment
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -retention
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... udget-cuts
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2107
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby Sableagle » Sun Jun 16, 2019 6:58 pm UTC

Oof, Of *course* they show up abbreviated so you can't read them without mousing over them. Of course they do. Sorry!

Eebster the Great wrote:It's RT, what do you expect? Anyway, the comment shows up now.
Yeah, I sort of thought I might have been insta-blocked for knowing what I was talking about, but after refreshing the page twice I saw my comments down there ... twice ... and was able to delete one without deleting the other. Thanks for checking.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby Eebster the Great » Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:22 pm UTC

But like, I'm taking about NASA, I don't really get the relevance.

ijuin
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby ijuin » Tue Jun 18, 2019 4:52 am UTC

I think that the lack of “flight pay” is to avoid the appearance of discrimination against those astronauts who are not flying. Some astronauts go their entire careers without ever getting into orbit, so seeing the ones who go up getting a big bonus would feel like a slap in the face to them.

elasto
Posts: 3757
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby elasto » Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:38 am UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:And if you agree that teachers should be paid more even though it is already possible to hire enough teachers, why doesn't that apply to other public positions?

Many who go into teaching are great, but many who would be the cream of the crop go elsewhere. Because teaching is so vital to our nations' futures it is foolish to try to scrimp here.

Almost anyone with a basic aptitude can become a teacher, but to be an astronaut who actually gets to go into space, competition is so fierce that you are already the best of the best.

So there's no need for the government to add big bonuses here; Being one of the lucky few who get the joy and glamour of going into space is already winning the lottery.

ijuin
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby ijuin » Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:37 pm UTC

We must also remember that, as per basic market economics, salaries are set based not upon the value of the work, but upon the availability of acceptable candidates—a job that generates $1 million a year for an employer yet can be performed by any high school graduate will command a lower salary than a job which requires a Master’s degree yet brings only $600 thousand a year for the employer.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:17 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:But if it's not about saving money, what is it about?
What is about saving money is a general policy of eliminating all minimizing all expenses unless a positive reason is provided for them. In that context, "it's cheap" is no reason at all. The burden of proof (or rather, argument) is on the side for giving astronauts bonus pay.
But in my mind, the possibility of paying your workers less when they deserve more is not a good enough reason. The cost to the government here is so small, and it seems almost insulting to pay someone $3 extra per day for the period in which they are floating 250 miles up and working 15 hours a day.
That raises the question of what the workers deserve. I agree that hours worked and dangers endured are legitimate considerations, but I'd also argue that worker preferences are also legitimate considerations.

AFIAK, astronauts are well informed of what they're getting into, and have decent alternatives. When we look at abuses of labor we can generally find some kind of lack of information, artificial limitation of opportunities, lack of negotiation, broken promises/expectations, or something to indicate the situation isn't a pure and simple case of two parties making an agreement. I see no reason for the ultimate judgement of the desirability of the job to be subjectively judged by astronauts.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

p1t1o
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:32 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby p1t1o » Thu Jun 20, 2019 10:47 am UTC

ijuin wrote:We must also remember that, as per basic market economics, salaries are set based not upon the value of the work, but upon the availability of acceptable candidates—a job that generates $1 million a year for an employer yet can be performed by any high school graduate will command a lower salary than a job which requires a Master’s degree yet brings only $600 thousand a year for the employer.


Oh how I wish this were true.

I think it might be roughly the case, a high school diploma wont command much anywhere if you are talking entry-level, but there are plenty of exceptions.

For example - investment banks take almost any graduate (literally any degree) and start them on £33k whereas a masters in chemistry gets you an entry level position at £22k (and a job in forensics with a masters gets you 18k, barely enough to live on in London). The investment banking job would be mostly "entertaining" clients, involving portfolios of tons of money, whereas the chemistry grad will be working in industry with dealing with commercial projects worth orders of magnitude less. This is all based on my actual experience of trying to find work circa 2007.

It doesnt seem to be about job availability and competition either, since competition is fierce for both investment banking and forensics, amongst many other things.

"Desirability" is sometimes a factor but seems to go both ways - sometimes the pay is surprisingly low because the job is very desirable and many people want it, sometimes the pay is surprisingly high, because they job is very desirable and they want the best candidates. But sometimes the job is desirable simply because it pays well, so its a complex interplay.

I dont think there is a hard and fast set of rules tbh.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5532
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: Science fleeting thoughts

Postby doogly » Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:09 pm UTC

Well the rule you alluded to is pretty hard - the closer you work to money, the more money there is in it.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests