somebody wrote:
> But 10 years is a perfectly valid timeframe for many a medical research to
> give fruits.

Only after the fundamental work has been done by scientists.

>> How long between the invention of  relativity and the launching of GPS
> satellites?
> 
> Einstein did not get a $10 billion grant to follow a wild goose chase. He
> explained an existing problem.

And you don't think there's any existing problem in fundamental physics 
the LHC is trying to gather evidence to solve? Like, where does mass 
come from? Why does inertia match gravity?

> Not all science is wasteful, I make no such claim. Just the opposite, I
> claim that the worthiness of scientific research needs to be examined on a
> case by case basis. High energy physics research, amongst all branches of
> science, is the least useful of sciences.

Because, you know, all those nuclear energy plants that France is 
building aren't at all useful.

 > In fact, it has zero application, past, present or foreseeble future.

Do you have a citation for this? Or is this argument from ignorance? 
Because, like, you keep saying this, and it seems to be the center of 
your argument, but I've seen nothing except your statements that the 
research is and must be useless.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message