Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10 billion
dollars is being spent on an experiment that will have absolutely zero
practical benefit to mankind (even if it's spectacularly successful beyond
imagination)? To keep things in perspective, the total annual funding for
cancer research in USA for the four most common cancers is around a billion
dollars. I cannot imagine how much benefit to humanity would result in
channelling all that money, time, resources and especially brainpower to
worthy causes. Everyone needs health care, without exception. Even if you
never get sick, there's much medical science could be doing to improve
quality or quantity of your life. I'd even be tempted to say 10 billion
dollars in the next 10 years spent on fighting aging could have the
potential to add 10 years to the lifespan of our species, to my and your
life. Sure, someone will comment how US wastes 100s of billions in Iraq, but
what irresponsible polititicians do should not excuse what supposedly smart
scientists do. Science without ethics and mismanagement of resources, to me,
is just as much a crime against humanity. What's even more frustrating is
that the media is brainwashing the masses into believing that this
experiment will have earth shattering (no pun intended) results. Nobody
seems to stop and ask, for instance, what the discovery of the top quark did
for humanity? What remotely practical consequence did it have? What remotely
practical consequence *could* it have? High energy physics operates in a
domain that has no connection whatsoever with anything applicable to
everyday life. It's the same kind of meaningless pursuit as analyzing the
makeup of a galaxy 5 billion light years away. There can be no application
whatsover, even in one's wildest dreams. It's about satisfying empty
curiosity (and pushing papers).

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> High energy physics operates in a
> domain that has no connection whatsoever with anything applicable to
> everyday life. It's the same kind of meaningless pursuit as analyzing the
> makeup of a galaxy 5 billion light years away. There can be no application
> whatsover, even in one's wildest dreams. It's about satisfying empty
> curiosity (and pushing papers).

Most of number theory is about "empty curiosity" about the properties 
and relationships of numbers. It is precisely because of this that we 
now have asymmetric ciphers that make secure ecommerce plausible.

Electricity was discovered as a result of "empty curiosity" about 
various seemingly unimportant phenomina.

You cannot know how useful something will or won't be until you find it.

In summary, I refute your contention that learning about how the 
Universe works is a pointless waste of money. On the other hand, I 
accept that while this is "worthwhile", there are other endevours that 
would have been more so...

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:36:11 +0100, somebody <x### [at] ycom> did spake,  
saying:

> Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10  
> billion dollars is being spent on an experiment that will have  
> absolutely zero
> practical benefit to mankind (even if it's spectacularly successful  
> beyond imagination)?

[pops into time machine and heads back to 1968]

Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 1 billion  
dollars is being spent on an contest of one-upmanship that will have  
absolutely zero practical benefit to mankind (even if it's spectacularly  
successful beyond imagination)?

[returns]

Oo sat-nav

[heads back to 1980]

Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that all this time  
and money is being spent to connect up companies and universities when we  
already have the telephone, fax, and postal service in place; this will  
have absolutely zero practical benefit to mankind (even if it's  
spectacularly successful beyond imagination)?

[returns]

Um hello.

-- 
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

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
48da09d1@news.povray.org...
> Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10 
> billion
> dollars is being spent on an experiment that will have absolutely zero
> practical benefit to mankind (even if it's spectacularly successful beyond
> imagination)?

Would you mind if I laugh?
It's slightly comical that somebody who uses internet everyday writes that 
CERN experiments are useless :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet#CERN.2C_the_European_internet.2C_the_link_to_the_Pacific_and_beyond

To get beyond, research about particles physics is far from useless !
All the world of new technologies (even diagnosis and cures for cancer !) 
uses quantum physics so does your computer, your mp3 player, your cellular, 
your DVD player....

Marc

Post a reply to this message

> To keep things in perspective, the total annual funding for
> cancer research in USA for the four most common cancers is around a 
> billion
> dollars.

What a waste, it would save far more lives if spent intelligently in poorer 
countries.

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > To keep things in perspective, the total annual funding for
> > cancer research in USA for the four most common cancers is around a
> > billion
> > dollars.
>
> What a waste, it would save far more lives if spent intelligently in poorer
> countries.

But then the spivs and speculators would not benefit. Have some sense of what is
important and to whom. ;)

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10 billion
> dollars is being spent on an experiment that will have absolutely zero
> practical benefit to mankind (even if it's spectacularly successful beyond
> imagination)?

Most of what government does nowadays is of no practical benefit to 
mankind, so the CERN deal really isn't that unusual.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:14:52 +0100, "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk>
wrote:

>Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 1 billion  
>dollars is being spent on an contest of one-upmanship that will have  
>absolutely zero practical benefit to mankind (even if it's spectacularly  
>successful beyond imagination)?
>
>[returns]
>
>Oo sat-nav

... plus an immeasurable number of side inventions that affect our daily lives ...

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml


>[heads back to 1980]
>
>Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that all this time  
>and money is being spent to connect up companies and universities when we  
>already have the telephone, fax, and postal service in place; this will  
>have absolutely zero practical benefit to mankind (even if it's  
>spectacularly successful beyond imagination)?
>
>[returns]
>
>Um hello.

Heh.  :)

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:33:21 +0100, Stephen <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com>  
did spake, saying:

> "scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>> > To keep things in perspective, the total annual funding for
>> > cancer research in USA for the four most common cancers is around a
>> > billion dollars.
>>
>> What a waste, it would save far more lives if spent intelligently in  
>> poorer countries.
>
> But then the spivs and speculators would not benefit. Have some sense of  
> what is important and to whom. ;)

Exactly. What are you going to get out of the poor countries - nothing,  
just a thank you very much and a step closer to world peace. Much better  
off ploughing money into things rich people want like cancer cures, laser  
eye surgery, and breast implants that feel just like the real thing;  
besides some of these benefits are bound to trickle down to the level  
where the poor people can afford them too.

[how my mind connects] How long did it take manufacturers to start  
producing flesh-coloured sticking plasters that weren't just for white  
people?

-- 
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

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10 billion
> dollars is being spent on an experiment that will have absolutely zero
> practical benefit to mankind (even if it's spectacularly successful beyond
> imagination)?

  Yeah, they will try colliding a few hadrons, search for the Higgs boson,
and after that they will just shut down the whole thing when it's done.

  You must be joking. Do you *seriously* think that they would spend that
much money and not have long-term plans of hundreds if not thousands of
different experiments of different fields of quantum mechanics, which
hopefully will help us understand better how the physical world works,
with the ultimate goal of developing new technology which will make
everyone's lives easier? Do you seriously think that investors would spend
that much money on something with no prospects of benefiting mankind?

  I find it rather ironic that you are writing this on a computer and
clearly haven't even stopped to think how exactly science and technology
was developed so much that you are able to write that on a computer for
people around the world to see.

  Just as one example: Exactly how do you think they discovered the
properties of semiconductors and transistors?

  How do you think the world would be today if they had simply thought
"this is a useless waste of money, let's use the money on something
more useful"?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:38:26 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

>   Just as one example: Exactly how do you think they discovered the
> properties of semiconductors and transistors?

Looked down the back of the sofa? Maybe the discoverers tripped over it  
while routing through the attic; it's amazing what you can find up there  
sometimes.

>   How do you think the world would be today if they had simply thought
> "this is a useless waste of money, let's use the money on something
> more useful"?

<connection to internet lost>

-- 
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

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:36:11 -0600, somebody wrote:

> Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10 billion
> dollars is being spent on an experiment that will have absolutely zero
> practical benefit to mankind (even if it's spectacularly successful beyond
> imagination)?

You're forgetting the LHC Computing Grid that they developed to be able to
process and distrbute the pentabytes of information that will be generated
at a rate of about a gigabyte per second. CERN was also where the
fountations of the WWW was first developed.

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/09/04/the-lhc-will-revolutionize-physics-can-it-revolutionize-the-internet-too/

Brendan

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
48da09d1@news.povray.org...
> Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10 
> billion ...

  The fool looks at the finger that points to the moon |-D

Marc

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:36:11 -0600, somebody wrote:

> doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10 billion dollars
> is being spent on an experiment that will have absolutely zero practical
> benefit to mankind

Prove it will have no practical benefit to mankind.

Very often, when it comes to experiments like this, the development of 
technology to do the experiments has application outside of the field 
it's being used in.  Going to the moon had no practical benefit to 
mankind, except of course that it enabled us to develop technology that's 
now being used to do medical research that couldn't be done in Earth's 
gravity.....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10 billion
> dollars is being spent on an experiment that will have absolutely zero
> practical benefit to mankind (even if it's spectacularly successful beyond
> imagination)?

How do you know that? It's examining the same sorts of questions about 
the universe that relativity and quantum mechanics examined. You don't 
think lasers, semiconductors, and computers were of benefit to humanity?

> I'd even be tempted to say 10 billion
> dollars in the next 10 years spent on fighting aging could have the
> potential to add 10 years to the lifespan of our species, to my and your
> life. 

I'm not sure of that. What would you spend 10 billion dollars on to be 
*sure* to answer a question of aging, or cancer cures? Or would you just 
spend it in the hopes that maybe you'll find something out that's useful?

Of course, the other problem is that the people with money already spend 
it on things like cancer cures, because the result *will* be profitable. 
It's useful to pay for fundamental research where the initial results 
won't be profitable to anyone, but where future developments will help 
mankind, because otherwise the initial results don't get created.

> what the discovery of the top quark did
> for humanity? What remotely practical consequence did it have? 

A better understanding of quantum chromodynamics, which might yield 
reliable nuclear-quantum computers in the future?

> What remotely practical consequence *could* it have? 

Infinite free energy for the taking?

> High energy physics operates in a
> domain that has no connection whatsoever with anything applicable to
> everyday life. 

Funny enough, people doing the experiments actually disagree. :-)

The funny thing about basic research is you never know what it might 
lead to.

 > It's the same kind of meaningless pursuit as analyzing the
> makeup of a galaxy 5 billion light years away. There can be no application
> whatsover, even in one's wildest dreams.

So, you'd rather wait for the asteroid to actually hit the earth before 
you start building telescopes capable of seeing it coming?

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

Post a reply to this message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

somebody wrote:
| Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10
billion

Please don't feed the troll

- --
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjab0sACgkQ0+/LI0EN4LyuZQCfdeiC+NSJMtCFitWHdCsAN0ms
PmQAn3xJONLbm61Tph0yZvWSfGnc+uGP
=KAAx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message

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

> | Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10
> billion

> Please don't feed the troll

There have been many more responses than I expected and can individually
answer, so I will follow up the most thoughtful of the responses above, and
summarize my answers:

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

Post a reply to this message

"John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:48da29f3$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10
billion
> > dollars is being spent on an experiment that will have absolutely zero
> > practical benefit to mankind (even if it's spectacularly successful
beyond
> > imagination)?

> Most of what government does nowadays is of no practical benefit to
> mankind, so the CERN deal really isn't that unusual.

True, true. But shouldn't we expect better from scientists? Granted, no
individual physicist is going to turn down an opportunity to take part in
such an experiment, individual scientists are motivated by the same selfish
interests as the rest of us. But science, as an institution, needs to
develop a conscience, a scale of proportion, and prioritization.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> discovered more than a decade ago at Fermilab, an older generation collider
> than LHC.

Ten years is a rather short time for practical applications from 
something like this. How long between discovery of Maxwell's equations 
and practical applications thereof? How long between the invention of 
relativity and the launching of GPS satellites?

> suggest pouring all 10 billion dollars into it? 

Remember that 10 billion dollars today is closer to what, 100 million 40 
years ago? Something like that.

> * 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.

We came, we saw, we conquered. Why go back? We did what we needed to do. 
Plus, nowadays, due to advanced in understanding of elementary physics, 
we can send space ships without people that can go to the moon and back.

> It was one-upmanship, clear and
> simple. Post-facto justifications, "space-age-technology" hype as a result
> is NASA trying to save face.

Evidence?

> * 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.

The Higgs boson is what gives matter mass. A good understanding of that 
may settle research into a number of questions that have practical 
applications for things like faster-than-light travel, reduction of 
inertia, and so on, I'd expect.

Science is most interesting when you find something you *didn't* expect. 
That's kind of the point of doing the experiments. Asking what practical 
results are assured to come from scientific experiments is like asking 
how long it'll take to fix the bugs you'll find when you do the beta 
testing next week.

> LHC will at best answer some questions and posit some even finer ones. 

So?

> Do we then build a 10 trillion dollar collider? What about 10 zillion? 

Eventually. Why not?

> Where do you draw the line in such a singleminded pursuit? 

You don't. Indeed, you're begging the question by asking about it as a 
"singleminded pursuit". (In the actual meaning of "begging the 
question". :-)

At what point do you give up on medicine trying to cure old age? Why the 
single-minded pursuit there?

> 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.

I think that's what some people are worried about: The LHC causing the 
end of all physics. ;-)

Seriously, tho, why do you think anyone thinks the LHC will be the last 
such experiment?

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

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> But science, as an institution, needs to
> develop a conscience, a scale of proportion, and prioritization.

Nonsense. Listen to yourself.

Science doesn't think - scientists do.

It's OK for all the politicians to be corrupt, too, as long as the 
government itself isn't corrupt?

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

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> 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.

  1900: I challenge anyone to provide a single practical application that
the disvocery of electrons and atomic structure may one day enable.

> * 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.

  Do you have some kind of difficulty in understanding the concept of
*one* example of a potential benefit, and that *one* example does not mean
it's the *only* example?

  Pouring all the 10 billion dollars on one single application would be
a huge waste of money. Pouring it into experimentation which may produce
dozens of applications is more beneficial.

> * 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.

  Yeah, right. The manned space exploration programs did not induce
technology which is nowadays used to launch satellites to orbit and keep
them there.

  Says the person who might be viewing satellite channels, using GPS and
google maps as we speak.

> * 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.

  Which you write using a computer and technology which is the result of
those stupid mad scientists studying useless things like subatomic
particles.

> * 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.

  And you assume that they did *not* investigate this case for its own
merits and instead decided to spend billions on a useless project. Right.

> * 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.

  And naturally you have credible sources and references for this.

> * Finally, is anyone as naive to think that LHC will be the final experiment
> that explains everything?

  Exactly who claimed it would be? Except maybe some sensationalistic
newspaper.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
48da7aaf@news.povray.org...
> The Higgs boson is what gives matter mass. A good understanding of that 
> may settle research into a number of questions that have practical 
> applications for things like faster-than-light travel, reduction of 
> inertia, and so on, I'd expect.

Besides finding at last Milliway's Restaurant at the End of the Universe 
adress !

Marc

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> 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.

Not surer. You'd be guessing at what grid computing would *actually* 
need to be able to do. With the LHC, you have an excellent example of a 
collection of applications that need something like this.

Guessing at what some customer who never heard of your system might want 
out of a product is the surest way to build a product nobody wants.

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

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48da7b0b$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > But science, as an institution, needs to
> > develop a conscience, a scale of proportion, and prioritization.

> Nonsense. Listen to yourself.
>
> Science doesn't think - scientists do.

And government doesn't govern, people do. Universisties don't teach, people
do. Nations don't war, people do. Sure, at one level. At another level,
taking organizational structure of humans, governments govern, universities
teach, nations fight, and science makes policies and decisions. I thought
the level of abstraction was clear from the inclusion of "as an
institution".

> It's OK for all the politicians to be corrupt, too, as long as the
> government itself isn't corrupt?

The checks and balances system is precisely there to prevent individual
corruption affecting the government. Whether you think it works or not is
open for debate. Personally, I don't think it works in most governments, and
it doesn't work in most scientific institutions. We could make this a
political discussion, but I prefer to discuss the scientific policies
instead on this thread. Scientists are as much capable as making bad choices
and decisions as politicians, but while it's fashionable to discuss the
corruption and selfishness of politicians, it seems to be a taboo to express
displeasure with wastefulness of scientists.

Post a reply to this message

-----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

- --
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjagusACgkQ0+/LI0EN4LwgnQCgksLnLm/l75ff6/+bmG94Q0n/
yqAAoIifV/3MevjlwQNHnkvD1CFj9oUC
=nWLT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message

"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

Ah yes, the edible toothpaste. Where would we be without it? Seriously, any
and all so called spin-offs were either developed, being developed, or to be
developed independently. The joystick, for instance, has its roots in the
turn of the 20th century and was being used for gaming before the moon
landing. It's shameless propaganda to say we _owe_ those things to manned
exploration. Some of those inventions, yes, NASA expediated, and not all
space programs are a waste of course. Unmanned space programs, especially
the communication and surveillence satellites are an example of good
science. Going to the moon was bad science (well, not even science, just a
technological tour de force).

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:48da7dae@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:

> > * 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.

>   Do you have some kind of difficulty in understanding the concept of
> *one* example of a potential benefit, and that *one* example does not mean
> it's the *only* example?
>
>   Pouring all the 10 billion dollars on one single application would be
> a huge waste of money. Pouring it into experimentation which may produce
> dozens of applications is more beneficial.

Yet, you fail to provide even a *single* potential benefit. My challenge
stands.

> > * 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.

>   Yeah, right. The manned space exploration programs did not induce
> technology which is nowadays used to launch satellites to orbit and keep
> them there.

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.

Post a reply to this message

"Doctor John" <joh### [at] homecom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
48da82f8$1@news.povray.org...
> I ate there only next week :-)
> The food's not as good as it's going to be
>
> John
>
Oh thanks for the advice :-)
I'll be having would go to have eaten later then

Marc

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48da7aaf@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > * 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.

> We came, we saw, we conquered. Why go back?

Exactly. It wasn't science, it was show.

> > * 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.

> The Higgs boson is what gives matter mass. A good understanding of that
> may settle research into a number of questions that have practical
> applications for things like faster-than-light travel, reduction of
> inertia, and so on, I'd expect.

You really do? Please do explain. Extraordinary claims such as FTL require
extraordinary evidence. You cannot put the onus on me, if you really have
such expectations, do share. I'm afraid, however, fantasy is not enough of a
justification in this matter.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> the level of abstraction was clear from the inclusion of "as an
> institution".

A university is "an institution."   Science isn't "an institution."

>> It's OK for all the politicians to be corrupt, too, as long as the
>> government itself isn't corrupt?
> 
> The checks and balances system is precisely there to prevent individual
> corruption affecting the government.

Checks and balances work only when most politicians *aren't* corrupt.

> Scientists are as much capable as making bad choices
> and decisions as politicians, 

Who made the decision to spend 10 billion dollars? If it was the 
scientists, then what do you care? It's their 10 billion dollars.

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

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:48da7aaf@news.povray.org...
>> somebody wrote:
> 
>>> * 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.
> 
>> We came, we saw, we conquered. Why go back?
> 
> Exactly. It wasn't science, it was show.

Well, no. We learned what we needed to learn. We're not doing 
Michelson-Morley experiments any more either, except in high school.

Once you have 600 pounds of lunar soil, how much more do you need to 
analyze?

>> The Higgs boson is what gives matter mass. A good understanding of that
>> may settle research into a number of questions that have practical
>> applications for things like faster-than-light travel, reduction of
>> inertia, and so on, I'd expect.
> 
> You really do? Please do explain.

Given that previous investigations of things like "the position of 
electrons within the atom" lead to things like Bose condensates and 
tunnel diodes, what makes you sure that investigations into particles 
that are supposed to be responsible for mass and inertia might not have 
results concerning technology to manipulate mass and inertia?

Note the word "may" there. I *expect* they *may*. Not "I expect they 
will". Not "they may". Understand the differences there.

> Extraordinary claims such as FTL require extraordinary evidence. 

And you are in favor of preventing such evidence from being collected. I 
see what you did there.

> I'm afraid, however, fantasy is not enough of a justification in this matter.

Then explain why we're spending 10 billion dollars on it. I'm afraid 
fantasy certainly seems to be enough of a justification, yes?

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

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Yet, you fail to provide even a *single* potential benefit. My challenge
> stands.

Yet, when we provide potential benefits, you say "no, those couldn't 
happen."

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

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> 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.

  I assume you consider Hubble a completely useless experiment as well.
(Hubble wouldn't have been possible without manned spaceflights.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> life. Sure, someone will comment how US wastes 100s of billions in Iraq, but
> what irresponsible polititicians do should not excuse what supposedly smart
> scientists do. 

	Consider me that someone.

	I never understand why people view science funding as a zero sum 
system. Why is the solution to something being underfunded always "Take 
money away from some other scientific discipline", when the waste of 
money elsewhere (not *just* military) is enormous. Why not simply 
suggest that cancer research get more funding, irrespective of how much 
NASA or the LHC gets?

	Instead of going after wasteful politicians, you'd rather go after 
scientists? Let's not take care of the more serious problem and just 
rant against those who are less wasteful? Isn't that counter to the 
whole point behind your message?

> Science without ethics and mismanagement of resources, to me,
> is just as much a crime against humanity. 

	I disagree. Choosing to study obscure particles in no way has any 
bearing on ethics, let alone be a crime against humanity. The only 
ethics in science is if you're actively hurting others.

	I also disagree with what seems to be an assumption in your message: 
That if you put enough money on studying something (e.g. aging), you'll 
get positive results. For all we know, putting those $10 billion in that 
research may yield absolutely nothing.

	That's what science is: An investigation of the unknown. You can't plan 
for results in it the way you plan for results in a company.

	Additionally, the money being spent on this comes from a variety of 
resources, over time. I don't know the details, but (from Wikipedia):

"It is funded by and built in collaboration with over eight thousand 
physicists from over eighty-five countries as well as hundreds of 
universities and laboratories."

	If "hundreds" of universities and laboratories decided to contribute 
parts of their research budget and get together and build this, where's 
the problem? If the cancer research folks can't do this, it's their 
failing.

	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.

	And of course, I don't know where you got the 1 billion dollar figure 
for cancer funding. The National Cancer Institute alone has a budget 
exceeding 4 Billion Dollars:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding

	This doesn't even include funding from other agencies.

	At the end of the day, you are, however, welcome to petition 
politicians to reduce funding to those areas. Ultimately, they get to 
appropriate (if it's taxpayer money), not the scientists. Stop blaming 
them. If a physicist receives a boatload of money after applying for a 
grant where he was truthful, he has no need to worry about ethics. He 
didn't grab the money - it was given to him willingly. From his 
perspective, his work is kosher.

	You sound like you want scientists to become politicians...

-- 
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small.


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

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> * 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.

	Actually, 10 billion dollars is small if a few side effects end up 
being very profitable.

	As for pouring 10 billion dollars "directly into it", it's a case of 
necessity. I can't ask for 10 billion dollars to create a system for 
handling huge amounts of data if I can't give a reason to handle huge 
amounts of data to begin with. That, unfortunately, is how funding works.

> * 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...

	Actually, some of your questions would be *quite* valid for some of 
those items listed above, just around the time they were being 
discovered. Go back to the late 19th century, and try to justify 
spending any money on the study of atoms - other than for chemistry's sake.

	It's easy to look back now and say research in those areas was worth 
it, but it wasn't obvious back then.

 > 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.

	Science is not compartmentalized that easily. You can't study things 
independently of one another. Progress in one field often gives insight 
on others. Are you suggesting the study of HEP thus far has not 
furthered areas like condensed matter physics and quantum computing?

 > Science without regard to the human factor is just stamp collecting.

	Actually, science *is* without regard to the human factor. Science, at 
least the physical sciences, is the study of nature. Not the study of 
nature to benefit humanity. All benefits are incidental. People seem to 
forget that.

	Which is why I say: Don't expect any real professional scientists to be 
concerned about issues of practicality. It's simply not their goal nor 
their job. Real science has no ordering where one discipline is more 
valuable than another. That has to be enforced from beyond, not from within.


-- 
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small.


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

Post a reply to this message

I've already pointed out that I don't feel anyone need to. Once money 
is allocated to science, consider it money lost. Science gives no 
promises on returns. That's accepted when money is allocated for it. But 
I'll play along:

> Yet, you fail to provide even a *single* potential benefit. My challenge
> stands.


	A bunch of people on the Internet not answering questions to your 
satisfaction is not really an argument for anything.


-- 
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small.


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

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Extraordinary claims such as FTL require
> extraordinary evidence.

What if the evidence costs 10 billion to find?

Post a reply to this message

On 24-Sep-08 19:21, somebody wrote:
> "Doctor John" <joh### [at] homecom> wrote
>> somebody wrote:
> 
>> | Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10
>> billion
> 
>> Please don't feed the troll

why not?

> There have been many more responses than I expected and can individually
> answer, so I will follow up the most thoughtful of the responses above, and
> summarize my answers:
> 
> * I challenge anyone to provide a single practical application that the
> discovery of the top quark (mass) has enabled.

It more or less was found where it was predicted. Hence it proved we 
understood something. While some have honestly tried to answer this and 
similar questions I think it is time for you to answer this on: Assume 
that the top quark was not detected as predicted, explain how this would 
have changed our understanding of matter and give examples of practical 
applications that would have been either possible or impossible or 
different when that the top quark not exists. Alternatively proof that 
it would not have made a difference.

> * 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.

Yet, the Higgs boson was not found, eventhough some theories expected it 
to be within range of the then current equipment.

> * 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.

> * 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)

[snipped some more of the same]

Let me also observe this: I know a lot of research that could in 
hindsight have been skipped, some of the failures I had even predicted 
before the start. In fact I do now predict that one specific 
multimillion euro EU program that just started is going to fail. 
(Knowing that, I'll do my best to safe it, eventhough I am not part of 
it, but that is beside the point)
Some of the research I did previously can be classified as a failure 
too. Some of my best work on the other hand I could not have done 
without those failures. You grossly underestimate the importance of 
failures.

Observation two: many governments and organisations have tried to cut 
expenses by observing that about 1/3rd of the projects fail and not 
supporting the bottom halve. Guess what: the numbers are still the same, 
you can not predict which project will bring something and which will 
fail. The only thing we know for sure is that the bureaucracy needed to 
'identify the weaker plans' eats a very substantial part of the budget. 
We now spend much more on research because we tried to do it cheap.

I assume that this 'somebody' from north america has a brilliant idea 
how you can improve the practical use of research while cutting costs. I 
work in science, I have seen a lot of ideas to do just that and the one 
thing they have in common is that the have failed miserably and 
expensively. So, if you have a good idea, please don't tell me.

> * 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.

> * Finally, is anyone as naive to think that LHC will be the final experiment
> that explains everything? 

It might, but it will probably not. And I do hope it won't.

Post a reply to this message

On 24-Sep-08 22:29, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>> life. Sure, someone will comment how US wastes 100s of billions in 
>> Iraq, but
>> what irresponsible polititicians do should not excuse what supposedly 
>> smart
>> scientists do. 
> 
>     Consider me that someone.

Oh no, not another somebody.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>> Extraordinary claims such as FTL require
>> extraordinary evidence.
> 
> What if the evidence costs 10 billion to find?

LOL!  I think you win. :-)

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

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48da8c38$1@news.povray.org...

> Who made the decision to spend 10 billion dollars? If it was the
> scientists, then what do you care? It's their 10 billion dollars.

I much doubt that LHC was built from pocket change donated by scientists,
nor do I think scientists there work for free. It is the other way;
taxpayers financially support scientists, scientists give us knowledge in
return. As such, taxpayers have a right to question decisions by scientists
and need to have a say in what kind of knowledge will benefit them most.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> As such, taxpayers have a right to question decisions by scientists
> and need to have a say in what kind of knowledge will benefit them most.

Yep. And they do. Complaining that the scientists are spending money is 
the wrong way to do it.  The scientists didn't take the money from you. 
Your elected representatives did.  So the decisions have already been 
questioned by the taxpayers, and the taxpayers said it was a good use of 
money.

Welcome to politics, where you get one decision regardless of how many 
people it affects.

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

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:48daa315@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > life. Sure, someone will comment how US wastes 100s of billions in Iraq,
but
> > what irresponsible polititicians do should not excuse what supposedly
smart
> > scientists do.

> Consider me that someone.
>
> I never understand why people view science funding as a zero sum
> system.

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.

> I also disagree with what seems to be an assumption in your message:
> That if you put enough money on studying something (e.g. aging), you'll
> get positive results. For all we know, putting those $10 billion in that
> research may yield absolutely nothing.
>
> That's what science is: An investigation of the unknown. You can't plan
> for results in it the way you plan for results in a company.

Yes we can. Conversely, if we cannot, gambling with such enourmous money on
LHC is even more silly, is not it?

If you want to be conservative, invest in areas of medical research that are
most promising. There are plenty of underfunded fields.

> Additionally, the money being spent on this comes from a variety of
> resources, over time. I don't know the details, but (from Wikipedia):
>
> "It is funded by and built in collaboration with over eight thousand
> physicists from over eighty-five countries as well as hundreds of
> universities and laboratories."
>
> If "hundreds" of universities and laboratories decided to contribute
> parts of their research budget and get together and build this, where's
> the problem? If the cancer research folks can't do this, it's their
> failing.

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,
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?

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.

> 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 of course, I don't know where you got the 1 billion dollar figure
> for cancer funding. The National Cancer Institute alone has a budget
> exceeding 4 Billion Dollars:
>
> http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding

I did not say "budget" in my OP, I said "annual spending". (Spending the
entire budget in one year would mean closing doors the next year). Even so,
LHC costing more than twice the budget of NCI is telling.

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:48D### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 24-Sep-08 19:21, somebody wrote:

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

> It more or less was found where it was predicted. Hence it proved we
> understood something. While some have honestly tried to answer this and
> similar questions I think it is time for you to answer this on: Assume
> that the top quark was not detected as predicted, explain how this would
> have changed our understanding of matter and give examples of practical
> applications that would have been either possible or impossible or
> different when that the top quark not exists. Alternatively proof that
> it would not have made a difference.

When I say "practical application", I am not looking for a tautological
answer (ie "by discovering X, we learned X"). So we learned X. Fine. What's
the practical benefit? What's the 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.
>
> 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?

> > * 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?

> > * 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.

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48da8db5@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > Yet, you fail to provide even a *single* potential benefit. My challenge
> > stands.

> Yet, when we provide potential benefits, you say "no, those couldn't
> happen."

No, guessing (or worse, fantasy) makes not a potential benefit. Saying FTL
is a potential benefit of LHC is like saying finding $1M is a potential
benefit of digging into my belly button. Is it possible there's $1M hidden
in there? Well, maybe, if one's willing to include fantasy. More
realistically, though, is that all I can hope to dig out is lint.

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote
> somebody wrote:

> > Extraordinary claims such as FTL require
> > extraordinary evidence.

> What if the evidence costs 10 billion to find?

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.
That's not how science or nature work. That's why I'm betting that no self
respecting scientist will make such ridiculous claims as suggesting that LHC
will give us FTL or levitation, perpetual motion machines or anything
similarly fanciful.

On the other hand, maybe it will cure cancer, grow hair on bald heads and
prevent toasts from falling buttered side down. Just as likely as FTL, I'd
wager.

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48da7aaf@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > discovered more than a decade ago at Fermilab, an older generation
collider
> > than LHC.

> Ten years is a rather short time for practical applications from
> something like this.

As is 100 years.

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

> How long between discovery of Maxwell's equations
> and practical applications thereof?

Maxwell wrote his equations as practicaly applications of electromagnetism
(or electricity and magnetism) were being developed.

> 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.

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. In fact, it has zero application,
past, present or foreseeble future. Don't confuse the matters by comparing
it to electromagnetism. Even the ancients, when they rubbed materials
together or observed magnetic materials, had already discovered practical
applications of electromagnetism. The theory was developed in conjunction
with applications, or to explain applications and observations.

Post a reply to this message

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

> > As such, taxpayers have a right to question decisions by scientists
> > and need to have a say in what kind of knowledge will benefit them most.

> 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, but maybe if we have this
discussion now, we can ask more critical questions and affect better
decisions next time large amounts of money is considered on similar
projects.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
>> I never understand why people view science funding as a zero sum
>> system.
> 
> 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? Why decide on infighting when it's 
actually easy to make a case to increase science funding, given the 
amount of waste in other parts of the government - both intentional and 
unintentional.

>> That's what science is: An investigation of the unknown. You can't plan
>> for results in it the way you plan for results in a company.
> 
> Yes we can. Conversely, if we cannot, gambling with such enourmous money on
> LHC is even more silly, is not it?

	Well, if you're not sympathetic to the goal of understanding nature, 
and you're only interested on returns on money spent, then you can have 
that viewpoint. I don't share it.

	Andrel actually had a very good point. Attempts at prioritizing 
research to get useful results are notoriously poor. The proportion of 
useful results they got was almost the same as it was before the 
prioritization.

>> If "hundreds" of universities and laboratories decided to contribute
>> parts of their research budget and get together and build this, where's
>> the problem? If the cancer research folks can't do this, it's their
>> failing.
> 
> 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,

	That sounds like a classic case of sour grapes. "No one agrees with me, 
so you're all wrong."

	You're now shifting the blame to humanity. When one scientific group 
actually *is* successful in securing resources for a large project, 
rather than ask why the others haven't been able to do it, you just 
assume that the money was procured by unfair means - by hinting that 
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.

> 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.

> 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? Do you 
think Roentgen had medicine in mind when he discovered X-rays? Do you 
think they had medicine in mind when they invented lasers? The 
transistor? And so much more? All these things either directly or 
indirectly contributed *very* heavily to medical work *and* research. 
You know, on the order of the discovery of penicillin.

>> 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?

>> And of course, I don't know where you got the 1 billion dollar figure
>> for cancer funding. The National Cancer Institute alone has a budget
>> exceeding 4 Billion Dollars:
>>
>> http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding
> 
> I did not say "budget" in my OP, I said "annual spending". (Spending the
> entire budget in one year would mean closing doors the next year). Even so,

	No, that's their annual budget. They're to spend most of it that year. 
It's not part of a 5 or 10 year plan. It includes operational costs, etc.

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

 > LHC costing more than twice the budget of NCI is telling.
	
	Not if you look at the cost over the number of years it is operational. 
If it lasts 20 years, then it will be 0.5 billion per year + operational 
costs. It's not really all that big a sum.

	Also, comparing the money with US funding is again disingenuous. It's 
not as if the US paid all of the money. I suspect a number of countries 
contributed, so we should tally up the money spent on cancer research 
for all those countries combined.

	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.

	You know, I don't necessarily disagree with your point. At some level, 
someone or some agency has to prioritize funding. I haven't put much 
thought on what is too much for one project or not. I just fundamentally 
disagree with your assumptions and a lot of your analysis.

	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. Classic ranting, reactionary, behavior.

	So, to act just like yourself: Name a benefit of some specific possible 
cancer research that *isn't* receiving adequate funding, and make your 
case. Vague notions of "Well, we might find a cure for brain cancer" is 
highly unspecific, and devoid of any evidence that it is being 
underfunded. 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.

-- 
How many of you believe in telekinesis?  Raise MY hand!


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

Post a reply to this message

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.


-- 
How many of you believe in telekinesis?  Raise MY hand!


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

Post a reply to this message