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

somebody wrote:
> 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

	I *am* being intellectually honest. I've already said earlier that I 
have no reason to believe throwing $100 billion at cancer research will 
bring us an iota closer to curing it. If I had good reason to think so, 
then it wouldn't be research.

>> 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?

	I already pointed out to you that I don't view (any) science as an 
investment that is supposed to give material returns. The return you get 
is knowledge. Everything else (technology, etc) is a side effect not 
related to the goal.

	Given that, your question makes little sense.

-- 
AAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse


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

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:48db0b08$1@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
>>> 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.

Hmm how was that quote... "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Post a reply to this message