On 25-Sep-08 8:13, somebody wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message


> I cannot cite for something that doesn't exist.

Exactly, so stop doing it.

Post a reply to this message

On 25-Sep-08 2:56, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:48D### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 24-Sep-08 19:21, somebody wrote:
[snp]
>>> * Side effects and peripheral benefits does not justify an endavour of
> this
>>> magnitude. If you are going to suggest grid computing as a benefit, why
> not
>>> suggest pouring all 10 billion dollars into it? That would give much
> bigger
>>> and surer yields.
>> No, it wouldn't. Because this and other technology was developed to
>> support scientific research at first and only then the potential for the
>> general public was discovered. You could have poured money directly into
>> grid computing, the internet and GPS (to name a few examples that came
>> up), except nobody would have had the vision to do so.
> 
> What does high energy physics have anything to do with GPS?

Nothing directly, why do you ask? I was talking about technology in 
general.

> 
>>> * Moon program (or in general, manned space exploration programs)
> are/were
>>> huge wastes of funds as well. If there were any merits to it, we would
> have
>>> visited the moon in the last 40 years. It was one-upmanship, clear and
>>> simple. Post-facto justifications, "space-age-technology" hype as a
> result
>>> is NASA trying to save face.
> 
>> You totally missed the point of the moon program. It was not intended to
>> go to the moon, it was intended for the process of going. The journey is
>> far more important than the arrival. (somebody (not you) said that much
>> better)
> 
> No, the goal was was exactly precisely 100% to *be* at the moon before
> somebody (not me) else. Nobody cared about the journey. Why romanticize
> something that was essentially a pissing contest?

No it wasn't. Or more precisely it was something disguised as one. That 
is how management and politics work. Set a goal and give a story. The 
naive ones will take that for granted and people who recognize the trick 
will still be motivated, as long as it fits with there own goals. 
Kennedy did it with the space program, Reagan tried it with the star 
wars program (and failed mostly), Blair an Bush tried it with Iraq (also 
with mixed results).

>>> * Hence my question, what possible practical expectation is there from
> this
>>> experiment? Feel free to ask around. No honest scientist will give you
> an
>>> answer.
> 
>> Many will and did, but whatever they say will be disregarded by you as
>> irrelevant. So why would you even ask such a question.
> 
> Nobody did, and I know nobody will. Knowledge for knowledge's sake is NOT a
> _practical_ expectation.

No, many people answered that and you refuse to accept the answer 
because it is not the one you want.
Short recap:
1) knowledge in itself has practical value, at least for scientists
2) you can not judge the practical value of something before it starts.
3) almost every experiment done in the history of science had zero 
direct practical implications.
4) Nearly all practical things were based on knowledge or experience 
gathered those earlier experiments without practical use.
5) OTOH many experiments done turned out to have no practical 
consequences whatsoever (yet).
6) Proving some experiment was in category 4 is straightforward, proving 
it to be in category 5 is impossible.
Conclusion: your question was invalid.

Take it or leave it. Feel free to devise your own standards for judging 
if something has practical value or not. Feel free to decide for 
yourself what you would and what you wouldn't support in science and for 
how much. But don't bother the rest of the world with your half baked 
ideas that you did not think through yet. Alternatively, if it was meant 
as a sincere question for other people's opinions, learn not to sound as 
if you and you alone know the truth.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
>> Only after the fundamental work has been done by scientists.
> 
> I don't know what that means. 

I mean that (for example) research on genetic causes/cures for cancer 
wouldn't have been possible at all without high-energy physics research.

(Figure out how the structure of DNA was determined, for example.)

>> 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?
> 
> If it comes from Higgs, we won't be in better shape than we are now. We
> already assume that. 

But we don't know the details.

> If it doesn't, we will be in worse shape. 

But we'll have evidence saying where to look.

> In any case,
> beyond the discovery of Higgs, there's very little that LHC can give us that
> Fermilab did not. 

You keep making these claims with no evidence to support your position.

> But besides that, the real issue is, it's all academic. No
> application, no benefit.

You keep making these claims with no evidence to support your position.

>> Because, you know, all those nuclear energy plants that France is
>> building aren't at all useful.
> 
> HEP at TeV scales has *nothing* to do with nuclear fission (nor fusion).

So you're saying the high energy physics they did 50 years ago had 
obvious applications at the time?  Have you any evidence for that?

>>  > 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.
> 
> Please provide an application, if you can. I cannot cite for something that
> doesn't exist.

You can cite "respectable scientists" saying there's no practical 
application for it. You're not saying "I don't know any application." 
You're saying "everyone involved agrees there's no application."

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

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Do you really believe top quark will ever have a practical application in
> the next, say, 100 years?

It seems to me that at this point, you're not interested in discussing 
the situation. You're interested in browbeating people who disagree with 
you, by jumping up and down and repeating the same thing repeatedly. 
Toodles. Have fun.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:51:01 -0600, somebody wrote:

> Do you really believe top quark will ever have a practical application
> in the next, say, 100 years?

Do you really believe it *won't*?  Can you *prove* that?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:27:01 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:48dbb06d$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:42:14 -0600, somebody wrote:
> 
>> > No. Satellites falls into "unmanned" space exploration. I
>> > specifically made a distinction: Unamanned=good, manned=bad. The
>> > fringe benefits of manned exploration to unmanned is not worth
>> > carrying out manned exploration. Spend that money on unmanned, and
>> > you can launch 10 times more satellites.
> 
>> One of the more significant benefits of manned exploration of space is
>> a better understanding of muscle atrophy - which has had real-world
>> practical application in disease research.
> 
> Sure, because there are not aldready tens of thousands of easily
> accessible bedridden patients in hospitals already to conduct the
> research on.

Why does it need to be either/or?  Those patients are used in research, 
but seeing what happens to *normal* muscle mass when it's subjected to 
low gravity/microgravity provides information on the progression of 
muscle atrophy, which is something that would be very difficult to 
simulate in a short period of time in Earth's gravity.

> If you are thinking of MARES, it mainly adresses atrophy due to
> microgravity. So it's to solve a problem that manned space exploration
> created anyway. Take out manned exploration, the artificially created
> problem goes away. Now you can use the freed funds to do research that
> actually will benefit those who suffer on earth.

Oh, I see - you've just presupposed that any scientific research out 
there that you don't agree with has no possible benefit to anyone.  
You're not arguing science, you're arguing religion.  You *believe* 
something, so it must be true, and you're not willing to be convinced 
otherwise.

C'ya.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:48dbd314@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > Do you really believe top quark will ever have a practical application
in
> > the next, say, 100 years?

> You keep asking this, so I'll respond with a statement that I think
> most here agree with:

> "I have no reason to believe that finding the top quark will have no
> practical applications, and thus won't take it as an assumption."

Fine. But if you are intellectually honest, you will also be able to say "I
have no reason to believe that finding the top quark will have *any*
practical applications, and thus won't take it as an assumption" (people in
the field will be able to make a more definite statement, but even this is
enough to justify my reasoning below).

Any sensible person, if he has no reason for or against an action that has a
definite cost, will refrain from taking that action. Even a gambler needs to
have some odds. If you disagree, why don't you send me $20?

> Besides, why limit to 100 years? What if it provides benefits 300 years
> from now?

Who (currently alive) need care about 300 years from now? You simply don't
make dubious investments for what might or might not happen in 300 years,
wasting present resources in the process.

There's a sharp diminishing of value towards the end of one's lifespan. Even
100 years is an overly generous period. Would you rather win $1 billion in
the lottery 2 minutes before you die, or $1000 now?

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:51:01 -0600, somebody wrote:

> > Do you really believe top quark will ever have a practical application
> > in the next, say, 100 years?

> Do you really believe it *won't*?

Yes.

> Can you *prove* that?

No. Proof is for mathematicians and spirits.

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:48dbae4a$1@news.povray.org...

> Why on Earth should I be thinking of personal benefits?
>
> If the benefits arrive hundreds of years later, the money may have been
> really well spent.

That's the most absurd, as well as most interesting thing I've read in a
while, so I'd like to understand this line of thought better. Do you not
care about your own existance? Alternatively, how do you plan on enjoying or
getting satisfaction from the fruits of hundereds of years long investment?

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> That's the most absurd, as well as most interesting thing I've read in a
> while, so I'd like to understand this line of thought better. Do you not
> care about your own existance? Alternatively, how do you plan on enjoying or
> getting satisfaction from the fruits of hundereds of years long investment?

	I care quite a bit about my own existence. That's why I invest in it. 
Is it hard for you to understand that folks don't need to invest every 
single penny to their own existence? That they might actually spend a 
portion elsewhere?

	I can see you did not bother answering how much you'd like to see 
medical research get before you're willing to be OK with spending $10 
billion for the LHC.

	The more I look at your statements in this thread, the more I suspect 
that your concern is not medical research. It's that you feel $10 
billion shouldn't be spent on this regardless of what is spent 
elsewhere, and that the appeal to cancer and aging research was just a 
guise to provide legitimacy.
	
-- 
AAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message