xxx200

all i want from members of science forum to give me one benefit that can be achieved only by sending somebody to another planet and not otherwise. the forum members show me benefits of so called space programme which could otherwise be achieved here on earth without the space programme. they cannot show me benefits to human race that can be exclusively related to a space programme.

some members compare space programme with very important things which is NOT a comparison at all. some compares space programme with other USEFUL inventions which is again an impossible comparison. i ignore these impossible comparisons for usual reasons.

the discussion is almost over. i conclude that sending people to other planets has no benefits for humanity since no one can show any benefit exclusively related to space programme. it is just a magnificent wastage of money and a pleasurable passtime for rich fat americans.

This is all clear now, but mostly because you are looking back and seeing all the benefits that came from these innovations.

sorry . benefits from these innovation is seen at the time of innovation.

Some humans have a need to expand our knowledge and push against the boundaries of ignorance. They live at the frontier rather than exist in a cave.

expanding knowledge does not require such a huge expnditure at all.

Discovering life on another planet would improve our understanding of life. Pushing the frontier off Earth could improve the future of humanity by seperating our fate from the fortunes of one planet.

it may not be so. it is just a remote possibility. there is no concreate certainity. seed, steam engine, steel sword have a certain usage or need in human society which was visualized at the time of their creation. in this case there is no such certainity that in future stuff from mars will have any use.

what have we done with moonstone and moondust which appollo brought from moon?

bring moonstone and moondust and forget the moon

bring mars stone or marsdust and .............................

Defence has one legitimate goal and nobody has invaded the US lately. But I wasn't questioning the fact of defence expenditure, but the level.

Nobody has invaded China lately either, and they spend much less.

 

On the other hand there is the war on drugs that is essentially lost, the war on terror that isn't working and the war in Afghanistan that looks like a stalemate.

What do you gain from military spending apart from job creation?

YOu can't use the spin-offs as an argument in favour because space research has lots of them and you don't accept those as a vald reason.

who said the war on terror that isn't working? do you think that war on terror is finished after laden's death? if yes then let me remind you that majority of muslims DO NOT LIKE america at all. they will continue war against america in their way. besides by criticizing their prophet america makes most of the muslim, if not all, its worst enemy. these enemies will attack america in their own way. besides china also do not like american influence over their policy. there is a possible warfare ahead in the future with so many enemies of america.

so defence is more necessary than space research.

Why make a steam engine when a team of horses can do the same work?

because steam engine can carry more load and work faster than horse with no fatigue at all. steam engine can be used in industry.

Who would need a steel sword it's easier to use copper or bronze?

steal sword is sharper than copper and bronze sword. it can be used in war.

Why collect dirt and make pottery?

pottery is used to make pots that store our food and necessary things.

Why do you throw those seeds there?

seeds will grow into plants that can be used for commercial purpose.

Why leave the cave? I'd rather just sleep.

house is just like another cave. i still don't get the logic of leaving cave.

why send people to another planet? why find life on another planet when we have life on earth?

We get scientific advancement, we can investigate technology to mine resources off world or build colonies off-world for when Earth's population becomes too large, figuring out how to use fuel more efficiently, figuring out how to make vehicles maneuver through air better, figuring out how to make something more endurable to shock and temperature change and radiation, a bunch of things, and even much of the US modern-day projectile weapons and some communications were created by NASA and organizations like it during the cold war. There's also just exploring the universe and seeing just what's actually out there.

let me show you how all these things can be achieved without sending spacecrafft to mars;

we can investigate technology to mine resources off world

mine technology can be developped here on earth.

build colonies off-world for when Earth's population becomes too large,

do you mean that when people of earth live on land, water and sky in a large quantity? well that is too distant a future to worry about now.

figuring out how to use fuel more efficiently

this can be done on earth too. in a less costly way. this is done by fuel technologists, autumobile companies and airplane companies here on EARTH.

figuring out how to make vehicles maneuver through air better

this is the objective of many airplane makers. this can also be done by making airplane and testing them on the sky of EARTH. you don't need to go to outer space for that. there is a science called aeronautics that deals with how to make vehicle move through air.

figuring out how to make something more endurable to shock and temperature change and radiation,

all FMCG goods companies are doing it HERE ON EARTH in their lab.

so you see : you don't have to go to mars to achieve the ends you mention.

exactly what are the returns that we can get from mars exploration which is not available otherwise?

Your stance on this is particularly... annoying to me and I am sure to a great many others.

 

You make the assertion that NASA is spending money on nothing and that money would be put to better use on saving the planet when in fact the money spent by NASA is an investment in technology. The technology produced by the space program has done a great deal to help save the Earth. From satellites that monitor the earth from space to research into the effects of man's activities to studies comparing the Earth to other planets a how man's activities mimic the effects seen there NASA does far more to save the Earth that people who sit around looking for things to criticize.

 

On top of that is the fact that the budget of NASA over time is a tiny fraction of the budget of the USA, in fact at the height of the Iraq war more money was being spent in a day killing people and destroying than NASA spent in a year (actually I think it was more than NASA spent in several years)

 

Deleting the budget of NASA would do little or nothing to solve the deficit crisis of the US but the effects of NASA throughout the economy in not just jobs but new technology is well worth the tiny amount that NASA spends...

sir i don't want to hear how NASA's technology helped people in the past. my topic is how NASA's current mission to mars is helping people now? please be specific and straightforward.

thanks.

If you think that's bad, look at the military spending.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ry_expenditures

you don't need to spend more money on "defence" than the total of all the next dozen or so countries put together. They are not all going to "gang up" on you.

So it's clearly not spent on defence.

 

It seems to me that it's comparable with what the USSR did: anyone who didn't have a job was put in the army.

Well, obviously there's a bit of difference- they are driven by market forces and a lack of a welfare state rather than conscription and not all of them are directly employed by the military- plenty of them get jobs in the industries that service the military.

But, as far as I can tell, the idea is basically the same.

 

If 2.5 Billion is too much to spend on job creation then you really need to make a fuss about the 700 billion that is spent on the military.

look man don't make me laugh. defence is one of the most important field of any country. spending in that field has MANY returns. but what return NASA mars exploration has on human race?

 

The Specifics of the Curiosity Program: This will search for evidence of the former presence of water and of past environments that may have been capable of sustaining life.

 

If you are unable to see the long term importance of this work, it may be that the fault lies with you and not NASA.

why searching for evidence of the former presence of water and of past environments that may have been capable of sustaining life? what is the use of such info in our present situation?

the life sustaining environ is a past thing in mars. it is not present there anymore. then why digging the past? why looking for water in the mars? there is plenty of water here on earth.

Every department and company is trying to keep as many jobs as they can, but that doesn't mean everything they do is fraudulent in any way, if they can be accused of such, they are just taking their sweet time. There's also politics, saying things like "saving life on Earth" is often associated with hippies because some hippies did advocate much peace and environmental awareness, which are then associated with drugs because many hippies smoked drugs as they did not view it as being wrong, so somehow for some reason traditionalists which still make up a large chunk of the voting block make the reasoning "all those things are automatically said by hippies, and are therefore all completely wrong because they smoked weed" or something like that, but with a mission to Mars, it's "We're expanding America's influence and then secondly trying to ensure humanity's survival in the cosmos.

just show what we get apart from jobs from mars exploration project. be specific and straightforward.

NASA mission to planet mars creats a budget of $2.5 billion . its only return to american people is creation of 7000 jobs in 31 states. but is job creation the only objective of NASA space programme?

what other benefits are there in the recent mars exploration? why america doesn't spend $2.5 billion to save life on planet earth instead of finding life on planet mars?

besides there is a deficit of $1.327 trillion in US budget 2012 . is it good for america to spend $2.5 billion for nothing?

some people may argue that mars exploration creates job but those job will be gone once the curiosity returns to earth. this is not a long term benefit at all. what other benefit a country like america will get whose budget runs on huge deficit?

Isn't it fair to say in beginning to scientific investigation we should know that in universe two form of actions are taking place all the time 1.simulatneous 2 sequential ?sequential actions are time bound so experimentally can be measured but simultaneous actions are in questions.isn't it? perhaps can only be calculated mathamatically ?

is it a hypothesis?

An arbitrary beginning to a scientific investigation and a sound basis for that investigation are NOT mutually exclusive. Please note that nobody suggested the entire methodology is arbitrarily handled, just that the beginning can be arbitrarily chosen. To use words that hopefully won't be misunderstood, it simply doesn't matter in most cases where you start your investigation, as long as the methodology used throughout is sound.

 

And to be clear, arbitration is NOT related to arbitrariness, it's related to arbiter: one who settles a dispute.

if the begining of a methodology is arbitrary then how come the rest of the methodology is sound? if you start your journey in the wrong direction how come the rest of the journey be in the right direction? how come you arrive at your destination in that case?

lol, this thread has taken a rather humorous turn.

enjoy the humor and laugh out loud.

Are you purposely misunderstanding what's being written? That's the second time you've rewritten what someone else wrote.

 

Bignose wrote, "Again, to me the starting point [of a scientific investigation] is rather arbitrary". HE DIDN'T SAY PREDICTION IS ARBITRARY.

 

 

 

Perhaps your signature should read, "ask the question, get the answer, and then tailor your response to that answer by strawmanning it, and then claim you're correct because you refuted the wrong answer."

look man understand this: THERE IS NO LACE OF ARBITRATION IN SCIENCE. be it the begining of scientific invention or middle or end. NO ARBITRATION. ok?

the way you write my signature is the way people do debate both in debate forum and in court. i am not debating here. i am just trying to explain that scientific investigation must have sound basis. there should be no arbitration in it.

Well, there is a new word you haven't used in this thread before. What exactly do you mean by 'arbitration'? What exactly is wrong with what I posted? What are you objecting to here?

 

Edited to add -- I do apologize. I thought this was a reaction to the methodology. It is in fact a reaction to my assertion that 'the starting place' is rather arbitrary. I wanted to leave the above note in there since I had it posted for several hours.

 

And then I am going to go ahead and defer to the next post in this thread by Phi For All, and his defense of the arbitrary starting point.

 

Again, sorry I misinterpreted your post here.

you said that prediction is arbitrary . it means that prediction is not based on sound logic and fact. this is the meaning of arbitraryness. prediction must be based on sound logic. arbitrary prediction is like a sand castle. it can be broken down easily.

if you have to predict, predict based on careful observation.

More or less. Again, to me the starting point is rather arbitrary. Also, I do think it is important not to gloss over some things in the chain "prediction B, observation B, prediction C".

 

I would have written this is: prediction B, observation B, calculate error between prediction B and observation B, evaluate the feasibility or likelihood of the model that lead to prediction B based on that calculated error, reject the model or refine it as needed (maybe no refinement at all), THEN made prediction C and repeat.

in science THERE IS NO PLACE FOR ARBITRARINESS. science is concrete, logical and based on sound facts. i really cannot appreciate arbitration in science.

You predict by noticing patterns. For example, Kepler predicted that planet's orbits will always be ellipses by seeing that the planets that he'd seen orbited in ellipses. And it turns out to be true - in general, planets orbit in ellipses. Newton predicted that gravity took the form F = G m_1 m_2/r^2 in general from Kepler's observations (plus some more), and Cavendish showed that those predictions were accurate on a small scale. Yes, observations come first, but the prediction step is crucial - and must come before experimentation.

well then the pattern of scientific investigation is : observation A, prediction B, observation B, prediction C......................................... observation N. ok. is modern scientific investigation goes on in this pattern?

For one thing, because he lived 350 years ago - long before most scientific philosophy had been discussed. Most of the relevant philosophy got its start in the 19th century if I remember correctly.

but he discovered the foundation of modern science: gravity, light, motion etc. he must have some erudition in him.

The same thing can happen with theories - do the experiment, see the outcome, and then tailor your theory to that outcome, and claim that your theory is correct because it explains that outcome.

but how we can explain a thing without seeing it first? how could we even predict about a thing without seeing it properly? what we should predict?

If, instead, you predict rather than postdict, then it's like setting the target in place before shooting - if you still manage to hit the center of the target, then yes, you are most likely a sharpshooter.

no it is like setting the carriage before the horse rather than setting the horse before carriage. it is very stupid.

what is going on now is that people set a prediction and then do the experiment and interpret the outcome in a way to support the prediction. this practice gives birth to some of the most bizzare concepts which is beyond our wildest imagination.

i think newton is right.

=Uncool-

Because it has the tendency to lead to conclusions based on incomplete information.

 

For one of the huge examples, look up N-rays. Scientists at the time "simply observed" their existence without forming the necessary predictions. Had they made predictions on whether N-rays would be observed in different situations, they would have noticed no difference between whether the supposed causes of N-rays were there or not - and so they would have found out that N-rays are a trick of the mind.

=Uncool-

so you said that to know something invisible or subtle prediction is needed. but why then sir issac newton said that prediction has no place in experimental science in his optiks.

I frankly don't care what the starting point is: hypothesis, questions and answers, 'logic', tea leaves, or a blow to the head. The bigger point is that science to a large extent doesn't care about that first step. It cares about making predictions and then comparing that prediction to measurements.

 

Whatever that 1st step is, what is really important is to get past just that 1st step, and actually make predictions and check their accuracy.

 

Too, too many people think that 1st step is sufficient, that their creativity, logic, or tea leaves is enough to create something meaningful. And while there is a lot of good to be said for being creative and coming up with new ideas -- the crucible of science is almost completely: what predictions can be made using the idea, and how good are those predictions. We have moved past the dark ages where ideas are judged based upon how much one likes the idea. In science, ideas are judged by accuracy of predictions.

why we need prediction in studying nature? suppose we study how trees grow. should we first predict how trees grow and then measure the accuracy of the prediction? why not just simply observe how trees grow?

hi

the question is why should we use a hypothesis? is it necessary to use hypothesis in every situation?

in ancient times natural philosophers use question-answer method to know nature. they do not use hypothesis. in early modern ages, baconian method ( sir francis bacon) were used by sir thomas brown, issac newton, john stuart mill etc. also emphasizes that no hypothesis should be used. sir issac newton said in his principia that "hypotheses non fingo" (I don't make hypotheses). in his optiks he said "hypotheses have no place in experimental science."

but in modern science hypothesis is the starting point of research. why it is so? who started it? why noted scientists such as issac newton were so against it?

please answer.

source: baconian method

Solids, liquids, and gases are states of molecules, not atomic and subatomic particles.

look A molecule (/ˈmɒlɪkjuːl/) is an electrically neutral group of two or more atoms held together by covalent chemical bonds.^[1]

so molecules consist of atoms. many atoms gather to create a molecule. ok? the nature of molecule must come from nature of atoms or the that of the bonds. solid atoms gather to create solid molecules. then these Solids, liquids, and gases are states of atoms too.

so by this logic there are 3 types of atom :Solids, liquids, and gases. now furthur info on atom:

atoms contain elements called electron, protron and nutron. they r called composite subatomic particle. these particles are made of elementary sub atomic partcles called flavours or quirks. quirks carry on electric charge, color charge, mass and spin. they cannot be separable. these elementary particles give matter the flavour: color, mass, spin, electric charge etc. so matters are no more than these elementary sub atomic particle called quirks.

there are also many elementary sub atomic particle: lepton, gauge boson, gluon, higgs boson. they all give the matter its property. so matters are no more than these elementary sub atomic particle.

links:

subatomic particle

I think 'xxx200' has a valid point.But an electron and positron will annihilate and produce photons,which have no charge and no mass.

On the other hand 2 photons with enough energy can produce an electron/positron pair,which do have charges.

 

So although I think xxx200 has a point,I think he is wrong to say that matter is nothing but charges.

 

A neutron which has no charge does add to the mass of an atom.

ok i withdraw my caim that matter is nothing but charges. but if these electrons don't have any charge then what they actually are? a matter(solid/liquid/gas) or something else/ we must know that in order to understand matter.

Atoms do not consist of charges. They consist of elements which have charges, but the charge is only one aspect of the element.

you mean electron, proton and nutron are not charges, they are elements? what are they then? they are in solid, liquid and gas. what are they then?

What's the charge on a neutron?

 

Step in front of a bus and see if it has only the appearence of matter.

 

Shouldn't this be in speculations? It's certainly not physics.

every physics was first a speculation and then become physics. there is nothing wrong in speculation. it is the first step towards discovery.

take the example of ice. what is ice? isn't it water that appear solid? or is it something more than water? the same way if matter consists of atoms and atoms consists of charges, then logical conclusion is matter consists of charges.

so my theory is logically correct.

all i say that charges like electron accumulate in a particular pattern to appear as matter; solid, liquid or gas. they are measurable like solid, liquid or gas but actually they are charges.

universe is nothing but gathering of charges like electrons in a particular pattern. that pattern is a cause of appearence as solid, liquid or gas. that pattern is temporary. in time slowly slowly the pattern changes and so the appearence of matter.

sometimes the pattern is altered by men causing change in appearence of matter.

there is no such thing as solid, liquid or gas. its only the appearence of matter.

a matter can be reduced to atom and atom is reduced to electron, protron and neutron which are nothing but charges. if we link up all ideas from electron to matter then what is matter anyway? smallest charges accumulate o create atom and atoms accumulate to create matter. so the matter is nothing but charges. be it solid, liquid or gas, it is nothing but charges.

what do you think?

Although members of the HIV/AIDS denialist community are united by their disagreement with the concept that HIV is the cause of AIDS, the specific positions taken by various groups differ. Denialists claim many incompatible things: HIV does not exist; HIV has not been adequately isolated,[44] HIV does not fulfill Koch's postulates,[45] HIV testing is inaccurate,[46] and that antibodies to HIV neutralize the virus and render it harmless.[47] Suggested alternative causes of AIDS include recreational drugs, malnutrition, and the very antiretroviral drugs used to treat the syndrome.[48]

 

]Such claims have been examined extensively in the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature; a scientific consensus has arisen that denialist claims have been convincingly disproved, and that HIV does indeed cause AIDS.[5][49]

so it is based on consensus and peer reviewed article. some people say that these claims are false (consensus) means that these claims are scientifically false. the article of gallow the finder of HIV=AIDS theory is not peer reviewed, by the way.

Regarding Koch's postulates, New Scientist reported: "It is debatable how appropriate it is to focus on a set of principles devised for bacterial infections in a century when viruses had not yet been discovered. HIV does, however, meet Koch's postulates as long as they are not applied in a ridiculously stringent way".

really? koch's postulate shows how to judge cause - effect relationship. such postulate will be outdated because new scientists, a mere magazine said so. how silly. cause effect relationship is identical to everything in this world.

The author then demonstrated how each postulate has been met - the suspected cause is strongly associated with the disease, the suspected pathogen can be both isolated and spread outside the host, and when the suspected pathogen is transmitted to a new and uninfected host, that host develops the disease.[5][53] The latter was proven in a number of tragic accidents, including an instance when multiple scientific technicians with no other known risk factors were exposed to concentrated HIV virus in a laboratory accident, and transmission by a dentist to patients, the majority of whom had no other known risk factor or source of exposure except the same dentist in common.[5]

if this thing really happened then how come there is HIV positive people with no AIDS? how come HIV when injected in chimps does not cause AIDS? then either this article is a lie or the world health statistics is a lie. which one is a lie then?

Early denialist arguments held that the HIV/AIDS paradigm was flawed because it had not led to effective treatments. However, the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy in the mid-1990s and dramatic improvements in survival of HIV/AIDS patients reversed this argument, as these treatments were based directly on anti-viral activity and the HIV/AIDS paradigm.[54] The development of effective anti-AIDS therapies based on targeting of the HIV virus has been a major factor in convincing some denialist scientists to accept the causative role of HIV in AIDS.[55]

what are the name of those denialist-turned- believer scientists? please give their name.

In a 2010 article on conspiracy theories in science, Ted Goertzel lists HIV/AIDS denialism as an example where scientific findings are being disputed on irrational grounds. He describes proponents as relying on rhetoric, appeal to fairness, and the right to a dissenting opinion rather than on evidence. They frequently invoke the meme of a "courageous independent scientist resisting orthodoxy", invoking the name of persecuted physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei.[56] Regarding this comparison, Goertzel states:

 

...being a dissenter from orthodoxy is not difficult; the hard part is actually having a better theory. Publishing dissenting theories is important when they are backed by plausible evidence, but this does not mean giving critics ‘equal time’ to dissent from every finding by a mainstream scientist.

— Goertzel, 2010[56]

who is this ted goertzel? what is his qualification and why should we believe him?

reallu mueee, you have posted the SILLIEST piece of article i have ever seen. thank you for westing my time.

What is it do you think is happening? If HIV does not lead to AIDS, why, in your mind, is this such a prevalent "conspiracy" and by who?

 

Please answer this, at least.

it is clear from the facts i gather that HIV does not cause AIDS. now why the conspiracy? it is for one reason: business. there is a partnership between CDC and other private sector organization to achieve the aim of CDC. such partnership is authorized by section 399F of the Public Health Service Act. the "medicine" of HIV is anti retroviral drugs which is sold by the private sector health organization who are partners of CDC. since HIV is a retrovirus, anti retroviral drugs are the only weapon against it. so the sell of anti retroviral drug skyrocketed after discovery of HIV. if HIV is not declared the cause of AIDS, then these anti retroviral drugs will be useless. their SELL will decline. hence CDC is so against the AIDS deniers. it clearly propagates that HIV caused AIDS without sufficient proof.

now do you understand?

Excuse me, but the people who have HIV and not AIDS are not perfectly healthy by definition; they have a virus in their blood stream. They also are usually required to live on a certain cocktail of drugs that prevents the disease from progressing to full-blown AIDS.

this is your belief and not necessarily truth. if people with HIV has really some illness, what is the proof of such illness except the fact that they have HIV? you just look at their bloodstream, find HIV and prescribe drug cocktail without caring if they really have any disease or not. it sounds like hearing that the falcon took my ear i go looking out for the falcon without ever seeing if my ear is really in its place. such nonsense.

Now look. There are usually two main reasons people deny HIV in general:

• They're homophobes who seem to have an agenda that AIDS is some homosexual disease and has nothing to do with HIV,
• They have some religious agenda, and often think it's better to promote abstinence and religion to the people of Africa (where AIDS is most prevalent) instead of promoting sex education and prevention.

what if AIDS is really related with homosexuals? have you ever tested the relation between gays and AIDS? you have never seen the video i have posted in my initial post which clearly shows that 62% gays have AIDS. unless you see the videos and UNDERSTAND the facts stated there, you will never understand me.

There are other options, of course, but these two seem to be the most common agendas behind HIV denialism. Seeing as you insist on NOT reading anything we say and not following proper science despite the fact you came to OUR forum and not the other way around, I would ask that you -- at the very least -- tell us what *your* agenda is in this clearly agenda-filled discussion.

my agenda is to open you eyes up and show you the truth. and what is proper science according to you? trusting what others say rather than understanding the facts?

I will remind you that what you are currently doing (ignoring facts, trolling answers, avoiding replies and attacking responses) is against our forum rules. We're being patient.

no, thats not your forum rules. the rule is to trust BLINDLY what others say without understanding the meaning of it. i don't want to follow such rules.