 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody nous illumina en ce 2008-09-26 10:44 -->
> (*) Yes, atomic and subatomic particle physics at one point had practical
> applications. But like I mentioned several times earlier, we long since have
> crossed over that line where practical applications are possible. There's
> always a law of diminishing returns as you get further away. Studying the
> atmosphere of Earth has definite benefits. Studying the atmosphere of Venus
> has little, if any. Studying the atmosphere of a planet 20 LY away (when
> such time comes) is completely useless and wasteful. Similar scales exist in
> any endavour. With particle physics, that scale of practicality correlates
> more or less with energy.
>
>
Studying the athmosphere of a planet 20 light years away can have some benefit.
It can tell us if life can exist there, then if WE can live there. Then, it can
tell us if there is a civilisation on that planet. Then, several years later, we
could send peoples there and establish a colony, or establish some commercial
relationship with that planet's residents.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
I can read your mind, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Alain" <ele### [at] netscape net> wrote in message
news:48e256aa@news.povray.org...
> somebody nous illumina en ce 2008-09-26 10:44 -->
> > atmosphere of Earth has definite benefits. Studying the atmosphere of
Venus
> > has little, if any. Studying the atmosphere of a planet 20 LY away (when
> > such time comes) is completely useless and wasteful. Similar scales
exist in
> > any endavour. With particle physics, that scale of practicality
correlates
> > more or less with energy.
> Studying the athmosphere of a planet 20 light years away can have some
benefit.
> It can tell us if life can exist there, then if WE can live there. Then,
it can
> tell us if there is a civilisation on that planet. Then, several years
later, we
> could send peoples there and establish a colony, or establish some
commercial
> relationship with that planet's residents.
It's hard to argue with fantasy like that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: End of the world delayed until spring
Date: 2 Oct 2008 18:13:24
Message: <48e54784@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain wrote:
> scott nous illumina en ce 2008-09-30 05:09 -->
>>> HEP operates in a domain not presently or foreseeably applicable to
>>> everyday
>>> life.
>>
>> Heh, didn't someone famously say exactly the same when the transistor
>> was invented?
>
> Not just for the transistor! When the Wright brothers made their first
> flight or the first photographs where made, the first computer
> constructed, the first vacuum tubes tested, peoples said something like:
> "It's all good and nice, but it will never get everydays use" Just
> remember that the very first steam engines where made during the Plato
> era...
Don't forget lightbulbs. I'm sure Edison was told they had no practical
purpose.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news: 48e54784@news.povray.org...
>
> Don't forget lightbulbs. I'm sure Edison was told they had no practical
> purpose.
Not sure but Edison said AC had no practical purpose.
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
m_a_r_c wrote:
> Not sure but Edison said AC had no practical purpose.
Marconi didn't know what radio waves were good for either. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:49:51 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>m_a_r_c wrote:
>> Not sure but Edison said AC had no practical purpose.
>
>Marconi didn't know what radio waves were good for either. :-)
"One day sir, you may tax it." Faraday's reply to William Gladstone, then
British Minister of Finance, when asked of the practical value of electricity.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10 billion
> dollars is being spent on an experiment that will have absolutely zero
> practical benefit to mankind (even if it's spectacularly successful beyond
> imagination)?
Way much better than spending it on weapons research or funding some stupid war
somewere.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
JPGargoyle nous illumina en ce 2008-10-03 06:56 -->
> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
>> Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10 billion
>> dollars is being spent on an experiment that will have absolutely zero
>> practical benefit to mankind (even if it's spectacularly successful beyond
>> imagination)?
>
>
> Way much better than spending it on weapons research or funding some stupid war
> somewere.
>
>
>
I totaly agree with you on that point. Take all those military budgets and
transfert them to just about ANYTHING else! That anything else, even if very
wastfull and useless, will be more usefull.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may leave you wondering what the hell
happened to your bra and panties.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
