somebody wrote:
>> Yep. And they do. Complaining that the scientists are spending money is
>> the wrong way to do it.
> 
> You may see it as pointless complaining, 

I didn't say that. I just said it wasn't the scientists you should be 
complaining about. "Science" doesn't need the conscience, because 
"science" isn't what's taking your money against your will.

The scientists are spending their money, not yours. It's the politicians 
spending *your* money.

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

Post a reply to this message

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

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>     In '98, the US also allocated 13.6 billion dollars for overall 
> medical research - for that year. Would like to get the current figures.

	BTW, the NIH now invests $28 billion annually on funding medical 
research. In the US alone. Now add up the amounts for the other 
countries who contributed to the LHC...

-- 
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


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

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> so we should tally up the money spent on cancer 
> research for all those countries combined.

And don't forget the private investments, and the amount of money that 
will be spent on cancer cures even after they're invented, as in paying 
for the drugs etc.

>     I do find this whole discussion amusing given that Congress is 
> considering a $700 Billion bailout for Wall Street. LHC is tiny on that 
> scale.

It's not $700 billion. It's $700 billion at one time. Once you sell off 
for $10 billion the stuff you bought for $700 billion, you can buy 
another $700 billion.

> Moreover, using your type of argument, given how much 
> money has been pumped into it without apparently coming *close* to a 
> cure, I could make the case that brain cancer research is wasteful and 
> funding for it should be reduced.

Plus, there actually is an upper limit on how much you can spend on that 
research, and it isn't obvious to me that we've not come close to that 
limit. Once all competent researchers are sufficiently funded and all 
patients are already engaged in studies, pouring more money into it is 
just wasteful. Not that I think we're there, but I'd like to see 
something about what percentage of people doing cancer research don't 
have enough funding to continue.

And why not talk about funding AIDS research? Merely because *you* don't 
have AIDS?

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

Post a reply to this message

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

I don't know what that means. Of course work has been done, we are not
starting from the stone age each time but build on top of existing
knowledge. 10 years is a perfectly fine timeframe to expect results from
applied sciences for most any project starting today.

> 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. If it doesn't, we will be in worse shape. In any case,
beyond the discovery of Higgs, there's very little that LHC can give us that
Fermilab did not. But besides that, the real issue is, it's all academic. No
application, no benefit.

> > 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.

HEP at TeV scales has *nothing* to do with nuclear fission (nor fusion).
That's a gross but common misconception. Physics today is highly
specialized, which laymen do not appreciate the different domains. I suggest
reading the "purpose" section of the Wiki page on LHC.

>  > 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.

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:48db0962$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > When budgets are made, for better or worse, spending on science is often
> > taken as a unit. Yes, in that sense, if particle physics gets a
> > disproportionately large sum, you can bet condensed matter will get
less.

> Yes, and my question remains: Why don't you consider an alternative
> solution that makes the pie bigger?

That's much harder than to better divide an existing pie. Pies don't grow on
trees.

> > It's humanity's failing, since as far as I can see from the responses
from
> > this group, people don't know what's good for them. I'm sure many of
you,

> they misled society (without giving citations). You're simply dumping on
> a group that happened to be efficient, rather than be proactive and try
> to find ways to assist the groups *you're* more interested in.

Education and discussion is one way to raise awareness.

> > and possibly I, will develop a form of life threatening cancer at one
point
> > in the near future, within a few years or a decade. It's a certainity
given
> > a large enough population. Would you rather have all those universities
> > spend their research budgets on an academic endavour that will benefit
not a
> > single human being, or one that could benefit many?

> We've been through this ad nauseum. I simply do not share your
> pessimism about the value of the results (even practical outcomes)
> coming out of the LHC. Because of that, your argument does not inspire
> sympathy.

Optimism, unfortunately, doesn't put food on the table, or cure ailments.
How exactly do you personally think you will benefit from LHC (maybe beyond
reading an interesting article in Popular Science at some point)? If people
don't ask themselves similar questions, they do not know or care about their
own well-being. We don't properly exercise our selfishness, if you will.

> > The very essence of existence goes through health. I cannot think of a
> > single reason why medical research should not top all lists when it
comes to
> > resource allocations.

> Perhaps because byproducts of other research can help medicine?

Not always. And there's always economics. HEP is an immensely wasteful way
for its byproducts to help medicine, if even possible.

> >> Also, comparing it with the amount of money the US spends on annually
> >> on some research is disingenuous. It's not as if we build an LHC every
> >> year.

> > We build one every decade or two.

> And they all cost $10 billion?

No,of course not. Next one will cost more.

> I do find this whole discussion amusing given that Congress is
> considering a $700 Billion bailout for Wall Street. LHC is tiny on that
> scale.

True. On the other hand, that $700 billion will merely exchange hands (or be
printed), it doesn't represent actual consumption of resources. You can
waste money without wasting resources (or the opposite, you can make money
without increasing value) - our monetary system is truly odd that way. The
most important resources being "wasted" at LHC are brainpower and time, and
then services, raw materials and energy.

> And then implying others over here simply have mixed priorities will
> win you no sympathy. You're implying that you're trying to create a
> discussion and make people more aware of the issue, yet your tactics go
> quite counter to that goal. You've asked on numerous occasions for
> possible useful benefits to humanity that the LHC may have, yet you
> didn't bother citing *specific* benefits of neglected research on cancer
> or aging.

I don't see why I have to. Medical research has proven itself over the years
as benefiting humanity. I don't think anyone here can honestly question if
medicine is a worthy science to spend money on. And even if one believes
medical research budgets are saturated (!), surely the 40 million or so
uninsured in America, or the 14 million who died in Africa from AIDS alone
since 2000 would have appreciate a little money spent on their health care
needs.

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> m_a_r_c wrote:
> |
> | Besides finding at last Milliway's Restaurant at the End of the Universe
> | adress !
> |
> | Marc
> |
>
> I ate there only next week :-)
> The food's not as good as it's going to be
>
> John

They do a good bread made from ground bones under that bridge ;)

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
>> Yes, and my question remains: Why don't you consider an alternative
>> solution that makes the pie bigger?
> 
> That's much harder than to better divide an existing pie. Pies don't grow on
> trees.

	I'd argue the opposite. When people are being even more wasteful with 
money than the physicists, it's easier to argue that some of their money 
should be diverted to <insert cause>.

	Now your argument is "Take money from them because it's easier"?

> Optimism, unfortunately, doesn't put food on the table, or cure ailments.
> How exactly do you personally think you will benefit from LHC (maybe beyond

	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.

>> Perhaps because byproducts of other research can help medicine?
> 
> Not always. And there's always economics. HEP is an immensely wasteful way
 > for its byproducts to help medicine, if even possible.

	And not always is medical research fruitful.

>> I do find this whole discussion amusing given that Congress is
>> considering a $700 Billion bailout for Wall Street. LHC is tiny on that
>> scale.
> 
> True. On the other hand, that $700 billion will merely exchange hands (or be
> printed), it doesn't represent actual consumption of resources. You can
> waste money without wasting resources (or the opposite, you can make money
> without increasing value) - our monetary system is truly odd that way. The

	Now you're shifting your argument to resources and missing the point. 
If they have $700 billion, ask them to reduce it to $690 billion and put 
$10 billion more in medical research.

	It seems a lot of people are upset at a number of proposals that either 
Bush or Congress on the whole rejected in the last few years (e.g. the 
"small" amount needed to make all children insured) because they were 
deemed too expensive (yet much, much smaller than $700 billion). If the 
politicians really wanted them, this is the best opportunity they'll 
have to get them.

 > most important resources being "wasted" at LHC are brainpower and 
  > time, and then services, raw materials and energy.

	As for resources, I don't see how you can easily shift those to medical 
research. Brain power? You want the physicists to become medical 
researchers? What "time" have they been deprived of? Ditto for raw 
materials and energy. Do we now not have enough materials to build a 
medical center?

> I don't see why I have to. Medical research has proven itself over the years
> as benefiting humanity. I don't think anyone here can honestly question if
> medicine is a worthy science to spend money on. And even if one believes

	Specific areas may, some others may not. Just as with physics. Physics 
research has been immensely useful. But some subprojects may not have 
been. I'd been letting the LHC vs medical research/cancer/aging aspect 
slide (i.e. comparing one project to a whole industry), but the real 
comparison in that case would be physics vs medical research.

> medical research budgets are saturated (!), surely the 40 million or so
> uninsured in America, or the 14 million who died in Africa from AIDS alone
> since 2000 would have appreciate a little money spent on their health care
> needs.

	Woah! I thought you wanted to limit this to science (hence the whole 
restricting to the science research pie and take money from physicists 
angle). Now you're talking about taking money away from science! If 
you're willing to discuss that, then go back to the government waste and 
deal with that.

	I still don't get it. 28 billion in this country annually alone for 
medical research. And I later found out that does *not* include money 
used to come up with actual medicines. The pharmaceutical industry 
spends a comparable amount on that. You said earlier that you wanted 
medical research to always get the largest slice of that pie.

	What makes you think they don't? I honestly don't know, but have *you* 
researched into it?

	Let me ask you a question:

	How much money *does* medical research have to get annually for you to 
say it's OK to spend $10 billion for the LHC? Assuming, of course, the 
current amount of wealth in the world is the same (no inflation games, 
sudden oil discoveries, etc).

	Look, if you simply think the LHC's not worth $10 billion - 
*regardless* of how much other areas of science get, that's fine with 
me, because it is an opinion, and not a fact. Getting upset that others 
don't see it your way seems silly.

	

-- 
AAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse


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

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:21:18 -0600, somebody wrote:

> * I challenge anyone to provide a single practical application that the
> discovery of the top quark (mass) has enabled.
> 
> * I challenge anyone to provide a single practical application that the
> discovery of the top quark (mass) may one day enable. Top quark was
> discovered more than a decade ago at Fermilab, an older generation
> collider than LHC.

Straw man argument.  Assuming that there isn't one *yet* doesn't mean 
there will never be one.  Sometimes it takes years for discoveries like 
this to find their way into practical application.

> * 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.

Until you actually *do* the research, you don't know what the benefits 
will be.  That's why it's called research.

> * 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.

And yet at the same time, without having done the scientific research 
necessary to put a man in space (and on the moon), we wouldn't have done 
microgravity research at all - because we wouldn't have found it.

And of course the fact that new moon missions are planned should tell you 
that there was in fact some merit to doing it - since we're going again.

> * I'm not a science luddite. Far from it. However, not all science is
> equal, economically and ethically speaking. There are points where the
> law of diminishing returns makes certain pursuits - how shall I put it
> tactfully - stupid. Science without regard to the human factor is just
> stamp collecting.

So knowledge has no value?

> * Sure, most of mathematics is theoretical, but it's much, much cheaper
> to do mathematics, and one can pursue _many_ branches for a fraction of
> the cost. LHC is akin to spending 10 billion dollars to find the 10
> billionth prime. Sure, an impressive feat on paper, but a _singular_
> feat, and with no feasible practicle applications.

Huh, yeah, math is cheaper, so let's put the brain trust to work solving 
Jojo's theorem instead of working on something worthwhile like cancer 
research?  Again, you make an assumption about practical applications 
based on your knowledge and experience and on *now*, not on what might 
come in the coming years, or what might not if the research wasn't done.

> * Laymen are, unfortunately, impossibly confused about the depth and
> breadth of physics and media and publicists prey on this. HEP (high
> energy physics) is a deep, deep end, far removed from mostly applied
> branches of physcis such as quantum optics, quantum computing, condensed
> matter, solid state... etc. I would much welcome a 10 billion dollars
> investment in any or all of those fields, that have proven or at least
> feasible returns on investment.

So because it's too difficult for the layman to understand, it shouldn't 
be done?  That would nix most (if not all) cancer research, since the 
chance of the layman understanding it is practically nil.

> * Some of you claim "yes, but what if we scoffed at this or that
> research in the past..." To those, I remind you of Sagan's (yes, I'm
> aware of the irony, as I believe much of cosmology to be a waste of
> resources too) quote (paraphrased) : "They laughed at Galileo, they
> laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown". In other
> words, just because we benefited from expensive experiments in the past
> (though not many, if at all, at this magnitude), we cannot assume any
> expensive experiment is worthwhile. Each case needs to be investigated
> for its own merits.

At the same time, we can't assume any expensive experiment is *not* 
worthwhile.  Unless you've got a crystal ball that will tell you what's 
valuable and what isn't, you don't find out until you actually *do* it.

> * And it's not true that we did not foresee any practical applications
> for the major breakthroughs in the past. It's a romatic myth that
> scientists are always working against the grain and that science is
> completely an unpredicable and wild pursuit.

Sure.  But it's also not true that everything we did that brought a 
scientific breakthrough was predicted - yet those breakthroughs did occur 
because investment was made.  Does it always pay off?  No.  But until you 
do the experiment you won't know that - which is why investors decide 
what to put their money in and take a risk - they do a risk analysis and 
are looking for a return on that investment.  Sometimes it pans out.  
Sometimes it doesn't.

> * Having said that, there have been many dead ends in science too.
> History tends to push them under the rug. Spending has been limited,
> though. As the frontiers are pushed, ever more expensive experiments are
> needed.

Exactly.  But until you go down the road to a dead end, you won't always 
know that it *is* a dead end.  At the same time, very often what is 
learned by going down the road to a dead end helps you with the next 
experiment.  I would venture to say that it's incredibly rare for there 
to be *nothing* of value learned from doing an experiment, even if the 
science doesn't pan out, because you *always* learn from the process of 
doing the experiment.  *Always*.

> * 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.

Sometimes you can't know until you do the experiment.  Just because 
there's no predicted practical application doesn't mean there won't be.

> * Finally, is anyone as naive to think that LHC will be the final
> experiment that explains everything? We have all the way to go to Planck
> energy (well, yes and no, there are suggestions we need not, which is a
> good thing, as we possibly cannot, but my general point is valid): LHC
> will at best answer some questions and posit some even finer ones. Do we
> then build a 10 trillion dollar collider? What about 10 zillion? Where
> do you draw the line in such a singleminded pursuit? For if you believe
> a line needs to be drawn, "where" is a valid question. If not, well,
> even if you don't closely follow high energy physics, you surely can
> agree on probabilistic grounds that it would be a fantastic coincidence
> for you and I to witness the end of physics.

If you can say with certainty what the result of the experiment will be 
without the experiment being done, then you should rent yourself out to 
these organizations, I'm sure they'd love to save lots of money by having 
you just tell them the outcome of every experiment before they actually 
do it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:45:44 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> somebody wrote:
>> What if jumping from a bridge will cause you to fly?
>> 
>> You don't try random things and hope that you'll get fantastic results.
> 
> 	I sincerely hope that the LHC was not built to do random things.

I suspect that it's not the much sought-after infinite improbability 
drive. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:00:34 -0600, somebody wrote:

> That's much harder than to better divide an existing pie

"It's too hard" is not a valid argument.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"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.

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.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:48dbafbb@news.povray.org...
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:21:18 -0600, somebody wrote:

> > * I challenge anyone to provide a single practical application that the
> > discovery of the top quark (mass) has enabled.

> > * I challenge anyone to provide a single practical application that the
> > discovery of the top quark (mass) may one day enable. Top quark was
> > discovered more than a decade ago at Fermilab, an older generation
> > collider than LHC.

> Straw man argument.  Assuming that there isn't one *yet* doesn't mean
> there will never be one.  Sometimes it takes years for discoveries like
> this to find their way into practical application.

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

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
48dbc037@news.povray.org...
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:48dbafbb@news.povray.org...
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:21:18 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
> Do you really believe top quark will ever have a practical application in
> the next, say, 100 years?
>
Religions are founded on beliefs, science is not.

Marc

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?

	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."

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

-- 
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:
>> 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.

	While I won't jump in and say the research was valuable (I really don't 
know), your argument is fallacious.

	When you have a patient lying in a bed here on Earth, there are a 
number of factors that we can't control. If you want to understand 
muscle atrophy, you won't know how it depends on variables W, X, Y and 
Z, because we can't eliminate those variables. We can just guess that 
perhaps it depends on them.

	Going up in space eliminated some of them, and provided a better 
understanding. It's not at all implausible that that knowledge may 
benefit those who are at 9.81g.

-- 
AAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse


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

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> m_a_r_c wrote:
>> |
>> | Besides finding at last Milliway's Restaurant at the End of the Universe
>> | adress !
>> |
>> | Marc
>> |
>>
>> I ate there only next week :-)
>> The food's not as good as it's going to be
>>
>> John
> 
> They do a good bread made from ground bones under that bridge ;)
> 
> Stephen
> 
What can you possibly mean? :-)

John

-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message

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

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

somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
>> Can you *prove* that?
> 
> No. Proof is for mathematicians and spirits.

And belief is for religious.

What does that leave for the scientists?

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Hmm how was that quote... "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Actually, yeah, it is.

Absence of proof isn't proof of absence. But evidence? Sure. It's 
certainly not evidence of presence. :-)

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

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:36:31 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Kyle" <hob### [at] gatenet> wrote in message
> news:0bakd49unltslh3hhab4b595hd2j7b93b3@4ax.com...
> 
>> ... plus an immeasurable number of side inventions that affect our daily
> lives ...
>>
>> http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml
> 
> Going to the moon was bad science (well, not even science, just a
> technological tour de force).

There was plenty of science that resulted from the Apollo missions like
the collection of lunar samples that could be radiometrically dated and
used to calibrate the crater counting method of determining the age of
cratered areas. Now we have estimates of the ages of cratered worlds
much further away than the Moon without having sent sample collection
mission to all of those worlds yet.

Those samples are older than most or all rocks we have on Earth so they
tell us about the early history of our neighborhood of the solar system.

Then there are the retroreflectors placed on the Moon that enable precise
determinations of its distance from us and its change.

We also shouldn't be shortsighted and not worry about how things will be
300 years from now because it'll be our descendants who will be around by
then. I won't want them to figure out stuff that we could've easily
figured out and then stereotype us as lazy bums who wasted those
centuries by not doing that research to give them the results sooner, like
how people today see Dark Ages Eurpoe.

We'd have to expand into space eventually if our kind or our descendants
are around long enough because the Sun is heating up slowly during its
main sequence lifetime, which has been predicted to make Earth
inhospitable to modern types of ecosystems within a billion years, long
before its red giant phrase. It'd be difficult through.

http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2003archive/01-03archive/k011303a.html

Brendan

Post a reply to this message

"m_a_r_c" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote:
> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 48dbc037@news.povray.org...
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> > news:48dbafbb@news.povray.org...
> >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:21:18 -0600, somebody wrote:
> >
> > Do you really believe top quark will ever have a practical application in
> > the next, say, 100 years?
> >
> Religions are founded on beliefs, science is not.
>


I think that I might disagree slightly here.
Religions are founded on faith. Nitpicking I know but some science is founded on
beliefs then the beliefs are studied and found to be true, wanting or in need of
modifying.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:

> > They do a good bread made from ground bones under that bridge ;)
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> What can you possibly mean? :-)
>
>

I’ll soon be able to come for a drink. Then I will tell you.

--

Stephen; thinking about listening to “In the Hall of the Mountain King”

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> a écrit dans le message de news: 
web.48dc91a9fe1a0943f8d41d850@news.povray.org...
>
> I think that I might disagree slightly here.
> Religions are founded on faith.
Is that objectively different? For believers it is faith, for others it is 
beliefs. Question of POV (but still o-t  ;-).

>Nitpicking I know but some science is founded on
> beliefs then the beliefs are studied and found to be true, wanting or in 
> need of
> modifying.
LOL now I shall nitpick (question of POV?) science is founded on theories.
The difference is that  theories have to face experiment, beliefs don't.

Marc

Post a reply to this message

"m_a_r_c" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote:
> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> web.48dc91a9fe1a0943f8d41d850@news.povray.org...
> >
> > I think that I might disagree slightly here.
> > Religions are founded on faith.
> Is that objectively different? For believers it is faith, for others it is
> beliefs. Question of POV (but still o-t  ;-).
>

Well speaking as a non believer, I think there is but that is subjective :)
My definition is faith needs no proof but belief can be subject to proof. Woolly
I know but there it is. As for “Question of POV” I think that I’ve read that
type of thread several times before.


> >Nitpicking I know but some science is founded on
> > beliefs then the beliefs are studied and found to be true, wanting or in
> > need of
> > modifying.
> LOL now I shall nitpick (question of POV?) science is founded on theories.
> The difference is that  theories have to face experiment, beliefs don't.
>

Are you asking for a discussion about hypothesis, theory, fact and divine
revelations?
Cause I’m not the one for it. I’ll leave that to those who care ;)

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> a écrit dans le message de news: 
web.48dca581fe1a0943f8d41d850@news.povray.org...
>
> Are you asking for a discussion about hypothesis, theory, fact and divine
> revelations?
> Cause I'm not the one for it. I'll leave that to those who care ;)
>
> Stephen
>
Oh no not at all, sorry.
I don't really care either.
There are enough preachers that care for us even if we asked nothing.

Marc

Post a reply to this message

"m_a_r_c" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote:
> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> web.48dca581fe1a0943f8d41d850@news.povray.org...
> >
> > Are you asking for a discussion about hypothesis, theory, fact and divine
> > revelations?
> > Cause I'm not the one for it. I'll leave that to those who care ;)
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> Oh no not at all, sorry.
> I don't really care either.
> There are enough preachers that care for us even if we asked nothing.
>
> Marc

We are in accord, my brother ;)

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> 
> I’ll soon be able to come for a drink. Then I will tell you.
> 
> --
> 
> Stephen; thinking about listening to “In the Hall of the Mountain King”
> 

I read your sig as " thinking about listening to "In the Hall of the 
Mountain Grill" :-)

To save everyone Googling the phrase, it's the title of a 1974 Hawkwind 
album - arguably, their best.

John

-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message

"Doctor John" <joh### [at] homecom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
48dce28d$1@news.povray.org...
> I read your sig as " thinking about listening to "In the Hall of the 
> Mountain Grill" :-)
>
> To save everyone Googling the phrase, it's the title of a 1974 Hawkwind 
> album - arguably, their best.
>
> John
>
Mmmm there are paraphrases as  well : "In the court of the Crimson King" 
(1969) was not bad either.
Mellotron rules !

Marc

Post a reply to this message

"Brendan" <Bry### [at] comcastcom> wrote in message
news:pan### [at] comcastcom...
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:36:31 -0600, somebody wrote:

> > Going to the moon was bad science (well, not even science, just a
> > technological tour de force).
>
> There was plenty of science that resulted from the Apollo missions like
> the collection of lunar samples that could be radiometrically dated and
> used to calibrate the crater counting method of determining the age of
> cratered areas. Now we have estimates of the ages of cratered worlds
> much further away than the Moon without having sent sample collection
> mission to all of those worlds yet.

And the benefit to mankind of  "having the estimates of the ages of cratered
worlds much futher away from the Moon" is what exactly? :) In your eagerness
to counter my point, you are emphasizing it.

> We also shouldn't be shortsighted and not worry about how things will be
> 300 years from now because it'll be our descendants who will be around by
> then. I won't want them to figure out stuff that we could've easily
> figured out and then stereotype us as lazy bums who wasted those
> centuries by not doing that research to give them the results sooner, like
> how people today see Dark Ages Eurpoe.

They will have better technology than us. Let *them* lazy bums figure out
things if they *need to* at that time. They will be able to do it much more
efficiently. If knowing the "estimates of the ages of cratered worlds much
futher away from the Moon" is of no practical benefit to our generation, it
is crime to our contemporaries to waste present resources on such pursuits,
when we could make a dent with those resources in the suffering of *already
existing* people.

> We'd have to expand into space eventually if our kind or our descendants
> are around long enough because the Sun is heating up slowly during its
> main sequence lifetime, which has been predicted to make Earth
> inhospitable to modern types of ecosystems within a billion years, long
> before its red giant phrase. It'd be difficult through.

You hopless romantics are completely missing the trees for the forest. While
thinking about a future billion years from now (!??), you miss what we could
be doing for ourselves and for our fellow people. Africa is at most 10 hours
away, not a billion years. And I am sure there's suffering right at your
doorstep too.

Who needs to care about a billion years from now? Do you think Etruscans
worried about us? Even if they did, could they have anticipated anything at
all about our lives to have made useful decisions *for us*? And that was a
little over 1000 years. Isn't it presumptuous of you to propose to help a
species billion years your technological superior? Do you honestly think we
can anticipate, or even *help* descendants of humans (if they will exist and
if we can call them humans), billions of years down the road? And even if we
could help them, why should we, especially when we could be helping
ourselves instead? Do you realize you yourself will cease to exist in much,
much, much less than a billion years and it won't then matter at all, much
as it did not matter about Etruscans before you were born?

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48dc0501@news.povray.org...
> 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.)

I'm at this point guessing that you might be a little confused of the "high
energy" part in "high energy physics". Specifically, the energy scale of
"high energy" in modern times. So I'll try to help you and do the legwork -
I mean - fingerwork:

Google "benefits of high energy physics". On top, we find:

http://www.er.doe.gov/hep/benefits/index.shtml

Oh no! I was wrong all along. Look just how many benefits there are!

On closer inspection, besides the medicinal benefits that originated back
when energies were so low that the term "high energy physics" was not even
coined (*), can anyone see a direct benefit of the *actual research*?

Even on this propaganda page, there's nothing that lists the benefit of any
of the discoveries of the actual experiements. Wouldn't it be fun to have
something like "and the benefit of the top quark to humanity is..."?

The "benefits" listed boil down to things like:

""We use supeconducting magnets in our experiments, so that's a benefit of
the high energy experiments.""

Well, I like to eat popcorn when watching movies, so watching movies is good
science, it helps make inventions in genetics...

No, superconducting magnets is not a benefit of high energy physics
experiments. High energy physics experiments do not produce superconducting
magnets. High energy physics experiments, for that matter, do not produce
*anything* of practical value. This is my point.

Yes, HEP is one of the important consumers of superconducting magnets, and
like any good consumer, they do work in a tight loop with other physicists
and industry who manufacture the magnets. But those who design the magnets
do not benefit from high energy physics experiments, they sessentially
benefit from the money and opportunity being given to them by HEP
experiementers. Trickle down economics is not a good reason to give billions
to HEP.

""We use computers in our experiments, so faster computers and networks are
a benefit of the high energy experiments.""

No. We owe faster computers to John Carmack, and legions of Wolfenstein
players. And I'm only half joking. While consumers surely provide the
demand, and may even have feedback or make improvements, one cannot claim
that "faster computers are invented through playing games". The experiment
is to find the Higgs boson. Higgs boson won't make our computers faster, we
*need* faster computers *in order to* detect the Higgs boson. Causality is
reversed. There's no practical *result* of the experiments that will make
the computers faster. It's disingenuous to have a page with a title
"benefits of particle physics to society" and then list incidental
"benefits" of a generic *large consumer*, not HEP. Any large consumer of
superconducting magnets or computers can list the same "benefits". What is
the *real* benefit of the actual experiments, of high energy physics?

If the goal is to support building of faster computers through demand, give
each employee of LHC a copy of FarCry 2 and send them home. It would be much
cheaper than $10 billion.

WWW was invented at CERN:

No, it wasn't. Hypertext over the networks was invented by Tim Berners-Lee,
who happened to be working at CERN. Yes, it was a very important milestone,
but it was more evolutionary than revolutionary. Hypertext (Apple's
Hypercard, gopher... etc), as well as the Internet existed. But my point is
not to try to diminish the value of his invention. On the contrary, it's Tim
Berners-Lee who deserves the credit, not CERN. He was working at CERN when
he made the invention, but he could have very well have been working at IBM
or Apple or Walmart or Starbucks (well, he'd have better access to networks
at that time with the former two). There are thousands of pioneers that
contributed in large or small ways to the present state of the internet, and
they worked at one place or another at the time they made their
contributions. Of course it's no surprise that most of these contributions
came from institutions with large computer infrastructure. TCPIP was
invented at DARPA, for instance (and no, that doesn't justify building
bombs, or give credence to the claim that building bombs is a benefit to
mankind, since it enables invention of network protocols).

The important point is, CERN's high energy physics research did not give
rise to Tim Berners-Lee's invention. It's because they had a decent
computing infrastructure and Berners-Lee saw it fit to try out his ideas
there. So the connection of WWW with HEP is incidental, or random. Hypertext
over TCPIP might have been invented anywhere, colliding leptons did not play
any role. If a cashier at Starbucks invents a new type of cash register,
that doesn't mean coffee is to take credit. High Energy Physics research
similarly, cannot be credited with WWW. If we are going to do that, we might
as well spend billions to open new patent bureaus at every corner. After
all, we owe to a patent bureau that which arguably is one of the most
important discoveries of the last century, and it stands to reason that the
more patent bureaus we have, the more discoveries we will make in physics.

(*) 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.

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:48dc20be$1@news.povray.org...
> 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.

That's an interesting position. How do you think then, if ever, will cancer
be cured?

Conversely, do you believe that the past advances in the field of cancer
treatment occured randomly, not as a result of directed research with
funding?

If you believe that past advances in cancer treatment were a result of
funded research, you *DO* have *some* evidence that "funded and directed
research" works and all is not random or comes out of thin air.

Or, of course, you might believe that while we spent so much already on
cancer research, we have made zero advances.

So what is it? Do we take past methodologies that yielded success as a
reasonable way to proceed in the future? Or do we try random, but zero cost
things since "you don't have a reason to believe money helps with cancer
research"?

> If I had good reason to think so,
> then it wouldn't be research.

You might have a very skewed understanding of research. Research isn't
random, planning is a big part of it, and you should expect results from it.
This seems to be the fundamental point on which we disagree.

> > 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.

Regardless of your views on research, I'd much appreciate if you answered
the question. The question has nothing to do with research or LHC, cancer  -
it's a simple question about lottery (and I'm not going to make deductions
based on your answer, I'm simply curious): Would you rather win $1 billion
in the lottery 2 minutes before you die, or $1000 now?

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:48dc2086$1@news.povray.org...

> 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.

That's easy: $100,000 billion.

And that's a very low figure when you think about it. Even if it only saves
10 lives (gross, gross underestimate), I'm saying that the value of one
human's life to me is about the same as satisfying the curiousity of about
1000 or so physicists. If you were faced with such a dilemma and were given
a two buttons, which one would *you* push?

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:26:08 +0100, somebody <x### [at] ycom> did spake,  
saying:

> "Brendan" <Bry### [at] comcastcom> wrote in message
> news:pan### [at] comcastcom...
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:36:31 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
>> > Going to the moon was bad science (well, not even science, just a
>> > technological tour de force).
>>
>> Now we have estimates of the ages of cratered worlds
>> much further away than the Moon without having sent sample collection
>> mission to all of those worlds yet.
>
> And the benefit to mankind of  "having the estimates of the ages of  
> cratered worlds much futher away from the Moon" is what exactly? :) In  
> your eagerness to counter my point, you are emphasizing it.

I think ticking off creationists who think the universe is only 5000 years  
old can be classed as a benefit.

>> We also shouldn't be shortsighted and not worry about how things will be
>> 300 years from now because it'll be our descendants who will be around  
>> by then. I won't want them to figure out stuff that we could've easily
>> figured out and then stereotype us as lazy bums who wasted those
>> centuries by not doing that research to give them the results sooner,  
>> like how people today see Dark Ages Eurpoe.
>
> They will have better technology than us.

Um no they won't because they'd have spent the previous 100 years just  
developing the stuff we could have. Think of how much time was spent  
playing catch-up during the Dark Ages and think where'd we be now if we'd  
been able to continue building on those principles during that time.

>> We'd have to expand into space eventually if our kind or our descendants
>> are around long enough because the Sun is heating up slowly during its
>> main sequence lifetime, which has been predicted to make Earth
>> inhospitable to modern types of ecosystems within a billion years, long
>> before its red giant phrase. It'd be difficult through.
>
> You hopless romantics are completely missing the trees for the forest.  
> While thinking about a future billion years from now (!??), you miss  
> what we could be doing for ourselves and for our fellow people. Africa  
> is at most 10 hours away, not a billion years. And I am sure there's  
> suffering right at your
> doorstep too.

On this point I do agree with you. I will however be laughing my arse off  
if an LHC spin-off develops a super-cheap energy source which allows the  
nations of the world to stop fighting over oil and get on with raising the  
standard of living for the poorer nations.

The difficulty is you seem to be suggesting that we only do projects when  
we know exactly what the return is going to be and sadly the universe  
scoffs at such plans - have the government encourage banks to give  
mortgages to the poor, grow crops for biofuels, encourage capatialism in  
China. In each of these cases we thought we knew exactly what the return  
would be. Do you need me to list the results we got?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
news:op.uh3glnkgc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> And lo on Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:26:08 +0100, somebody <x### [at] ycom> did spake,

> > They will have better technology than us.

> Um no they won't because they'd have spent the previous 100 years just
> developing the stuff we could have. Think of how much time was spent
> playing catch-up during the Dark Ages and think where'd we be now if we'd
> been able to continue building on those principles during that time.

Nowhere did I mention stopping all development in its tracks. If anything,
we should develop technology that benefits us (I've been mentioning medical,
but computer, solid state, conndensed matter, robotics... etc too have
immediate benefits) at a much faster rate and minimize spending on
technologies or sciences with no foreseeable benefit, like cosmology, HEP,
manned space exploration.

> > You hopless romantics are completely missing the trees for the forest.
> > While thinking about a future billion years from now (!??), you miss
> > what we could be doing for ourselves and for our fellow people. Africa
> > is at most 10 hours away, not a billion years. And I am sure there's
> > suffering right at your
> > doorstep too.

> On this point I do agree with you. I will however be laughing my arse off
> if an LHC spin-off develops a super-cheap energy source which allows the
> nations of the world to stop fighting over oil and get on with raising the
> standard of living for the poorer nations.

So will I. But freak occurances can happen anytime. You can come upon that
source as you are cursing after stubbing your toe on the coffee table. I
won't count on either.

> The difficulty is you seem to be suggesting that we only do projects when
> we know exactly

Not exactly, but reasonably sure that it may have applications. And
prioritize with benefits to humans in mind.

> what the return is going to be and sadly the universe
> scoffs at such plans - have the government encourage banks to give
> mortgages to the poor,  grow crops for biofuels, encourage capatialism in
> China. In each of these cases we thought we knew exactly what the return
> would be. Do you need me to list the results we got?

True, but they were not totally unpredictable either. Even I had thought
ethanol from corn was a dumbass idea. In matters involving humans, though,
it's often the case that you see a train barreling down to a bridge that's
washed away, but cannot do anything. With China or mortgages, for instance,
it's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Luckily, science is a
little more predictable in terms of RoI.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:24:28 +0100, Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> 
>> I’ll soon be able to come for a drink. Then I will tell you.
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Stephen; thinking about listening to “In the Hall of the Mountain King”
>> 
>
>I read your sig as " thinking about listening to "In the Hall of the 
>Mountain Grill" :-)
>

LOL

I was thinking about when Peer Gynt's visit to daughter of the King under the
mountain's home.


>To save everyone Googling the phrase, it's the title of a 1974 Hawkwind 
>album - arguably, their best.
>

Michael Moorcock, What!
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:48dcf516$1@news.povray.org...

> Google "benefits of high energy physics". On top, we find:
>
> http://www.er.doe.gov/hep/benefits/index.shtml
>
> Oh no! I was wrong all along. Look just how many benefits there are!

On the matter of incidental benefits, just one more thing I forgot to say in
my previous post: If you build a $10 billion medical research facility, you
can bet that they too will need superconductor magnets and state of the art
computers and networks, detectors, analysis equipment... etc. So you will
still get all the incidental benefits supporting the subsisidary industries
and research, but on top of that, you get the benefits from the main
research. For this reason, incidental benefits listed above are not really
benefits of HEP at all, they are benefits of any large and advanced
facility. The questions you have to ask, if you already decided to spend $10
billion, should relate to the main purpose of research to be conducted at
that facility.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Who needs to care about a billion years from now? Do you think Etruscans
> worried about us? 

Maybe not, but the Mayans did.

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

Post a reply to this message