Mention three main invention to distinguish between science and meaningful science
Answers
Answer:
What are two inventions to distinguish between 'science' and 'meaningful science'?
In terms of invention, ‘science vs meaningful science’ would be the difference in performance. I am referring to “Newtonian science vs quantum science (non-material science, theory)”, and the difference in technological advantages, when applied to the same mechanical invention.
The conventional nut fastener for example, an ancient machine (threaded fastener) that dates back to over two thousand years, and one of four fundamental fasteners (nail, screw, nut, bolt). It has remained “unchanged” since it became widely used in the industrial revolution, and a necessity in all complex machines and structures. A world-wide multi-billion dollar industry, available in all grades of steel and standards.
The conventional nut fastener is based on Newtonian science and has one fundamental flaw, “it loosens from vibration”. Countless lives have been lost, simply because the nut vibrated loose. There are about a thousand, so called “locking nut” patents world-wide, all with the objective of becoming “vibration-proof”, unsuccessfully.
All nut fasteners designs, including special one and two-piece locking nuts, use “friction for vibration resistance”, the problem is that “vibration cancels friction”, so all nut fasteners must eventually loosen. Locking nuts only delay the loosening process, not prevent it.
The strength of a bolted joint is “pressure”, the higher the pressure, the stronger the bolted joint. Conventional nuts loose about 25% of pressure to friction, some locking nuts loose over 50% of pressure, severely weakening bolted joint strength. Conventional nuts have the highest pressure, because they have the least friction. In essence, locking nuts trade “vibration resistance” for “bolted joint strength”.
I believe the best technology in mechanical engineering today, is based on quantum mechanics, specifically “quantum mechanical engineering (non-particle)”(QME). QME based technology have advantages, that are generally accepted as “impossible” using Newtonian science.
The first example of QME is the permanent nut fastener. It is the only nut fastener design that does “not use friction for vibration resistance”. Instead of friction, it uses "the difference of relative space/time" in thread timing, and is the only nut fastener design that is “vibration-proof”.
This nut design incorporates "space/time compression", a result of "the twisting of space/time" for permanent pressure and holding strength. The permanent nut fastener is based on the theory of a "black hole", (spiraling gravity well, with a twist).
The permanent nut is unsurpassed in all performance areas (torque, proof load, clamp load, maximum load, and features material strength vibration resistance) It appears and installs like a conventional nut, oiled or dry depending on your application. Available in all sizes, materials, coatings and standards.
You remove it the same way as a conventional nut, but all of the threads will strip off of the bolt, destroying both the nut and bolt in the process. It won’t come off unless you want it to. Imagine improving bolted joint strength by 60%, just by updating the nut fasteners.
Advanced performance so extreme, you can cut a bolted joint in quarters and it still retains pressure and engagement. It also retains pressure and engagement even if the bolt head is removed and cut in half. It’s the only nut design on the planet, that’s capable of this, all other nut fastener designs violently release pressure once nut integrity fails, and simply fall-off.
This advanced technology is literally a “quantum leap” in nut fastener design, combining quantum mechanics with mechanical invention. This is what I am referring to as “meaningful science”.
Explanation:
Science is meaningful indeed.
What's more meaningful than science? I don't see anything.
No you can't blame Alfred Nobel for his invention. We turned that against each other. Otherwise, it was done with best intention.
Failed experiments doesn't fills this category of meaning less or bad science. Yes, science for all the wrong reasons do make the list, but that happens more in the movies than in real science.
What's more important is whether it's interesting or not. This will raise eyebrows since science seems to be interesting for everyone.
But wait, i recently saw an online article reading something like “Are theoretical physicist fooling around/ are we wasting best minds in theoretical physics?
See, experiments look beautiful and interesting while theories only attract a handful of group. Yet we have the most popular scientists from theoretical background like Einstein, Newton, etc.
This is possibly because of the successful results. A successful experiment gets applauded while failed ones are for pure rant business. And the theories mostly go unnoticed in the mass.
Read more on Brainly.in - https://brainly.in/question/4808290#readmore