Steve

Apr 16 2016, 02:55 AM

SSj4 Gotenks

Apr 15 2016, 08:39 AM

Quote:

 

How about science waste;

Teaching Mountain Lions to Ride a Treadmill: $856,000
or
Synchronized Swimming for Sea Monkeys: $307,524
or
Funding Kids Dressing Like Fruits and Vegetables: $5 million
or
Lost electronic devices from NASA: $1.1 million

Didn't you mention that a Javelin missile costs $200,000? Is that a more worthwhile purchase...?
Not to mention all the other weaponry, bought with taxpayers money.

Quote:

 

There are a lot of real properties within each country that science could try to help instead of wasting 13.29 billions for this particle accelerator, 5 billions for that, 2 billion for upgrades for more energy. 600 billions dollars over 10 years on sending people to mars to find rocks.

Putting more money in to things does not yield results faster or better results in any meaningful way.
You could have a million scientists fully funded on curing cancer and it's still going to take years or you could have a few thousand who'll figure it out at the same rate and leave tons of money for other research.


If we focused only on medical science, food production and all that then great, everyone would lead a happy life and the world would be a better place.
But then if anything threatened our existence, that's it. That all ends because we were too stupid to make space crafts in order to escape events we couldn't possibly control.
Meteors, super volcanos, solar flares, rapidly rising sea levels, Atlantians, mega tsunami's, greenhouse gasses becoming too much and various other things threaten to kill us at some point in the future and most of those we can't do s*** about.


As for that photo about Earth...I'm pretty sure there are live streams of the planet but also most space stations are in geostationary orbit, which means that they move at the same speed as the Earth so the planet would look still anyway, aside from the clouds and such.
Also different cameras can make things look incredibly different, try putting a laptop webcam on and seeing how much of a mess it makes you look.

SSj4 Gotenks

Apr 16 2016, 04:11 AM

Nagito Komaeda

Apr 16 2016, 02:26 AM

SSj4 Gotenks

Apr 16 2016, 02:14 AM

Nagito Komaeda

Apr 16 2016, 01:54 AM

Out of curiosity, how much do you think Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology deserve? If they're going to get any significant work done, they need a lot of funding, so even if you want to try and keep it in a state of stagnation, it's still gonna cost a lot. Private individuals are funding endeavours into space travel and research, but you can't expect them to pay for everything.

Well, Obama tried to enact the cuts to deep-space exploration that he's aiming for 2017 for the 2016 budget, but Congress intervened and stopped him, so unless Congress had no idea what they're talking about, they must see this exploration as valuable.

http://www.universetoday.com/127309/nasa-2017-budget/

Out of the $19B budget? or the US federal $4 trillion?

Space travel is important indeed. I think you are mistaken by my earlier posts, but let me make it clear space travel that revolves around finding a new suitable planet or trying to find how Venus became uninhabitable to sustain any life(or life forms we are accustom to like water life based) because it isn't just selfish, it's beneficial to majority of humans that funds the project. If the project or mission can justified or have a set goal on what to expect, and how will benefit humans in 5 years, 10 years then yes i would give them the funds and a huge chuck more of the $4 trillion, but like i've said if they ask for $5 just to build something they don't know what they going to find, i'd rather hold off and invest that $5B into something like medicine or biology that can help earth.

They need to spend that money to find out what we're dealing with a rule out possibilities. What you view as a waste of money, a scientist views as a big step forward in narrowing down what the truth actually is. Each failed experiment is a step towards a successful one. You're asking for the impossible there; scientists can't guarantee a certain result in 5 or 10 years. If they could, then there wouldn't be any failed experiments.

Our time on this planet is limited. The scary thing is, we don't know how limited it is. The sooner we properly invest in this kind of research, the sooner we'll have an escape route if something does happen that makes the Earth dangerous to inhabit.

Scientist around the world achieved the HGP in 13 years and that's in the 90's without fast internet and super computers which cost them (around $3B) far, FAR less than $14B. Today we have super fast single SSD that can write and read well over 530Mb/s and fiber optic cables for connections and scientists can't give more details besides "we don't know"....."maybe the multiverse".

Politicians ain't totally unreasonable, at the end they were willing to admit that industrialization played a huge part in global warming which America, China and India were the leading polluters. They were willing to reduce carbon by a certain %. That's the problem in my opinion, scientists can't even convince the committee to give them more money even when the Democrats are in office. Trust me, scientists have tried appearing front of the committee asking for larger piece of the pie.

SSj4 Gotenks

Apr 16 2016, 04:17 AM

Saiyajin Perfection

Apr 16 2016, 03:50 AM

A simple argument is that just because we don't understand now doesn't mean that we won't understand it in the future. Our understanding of the concept is limited by what we know now, not what we will know in the future.

Not saying that anyone's making this claim, but something also worth mentioning is that just because we don't know now doesn't automatically mean "God did it".
If that's the logic that people want to use, than the concept of God is simply a forever shrinking void of "unknown". There's no arguing against someone with that mindset, no matter what evidence you throw their direction.

It is indeed odd that we don't understand a lot about the Earth, but claim to know the origin of the Universe. However, gathering information about the Earth and how it works is far more complicated and tedious than brainstorming and scribbling equations on a blackboard, which is where the theories about the origin of the Universe comes from.

I'm tired of being labelled as a religious person trying to include god.

Quote:

 

That's false equivalence right there. ''See, these scientists in a completely different area managed to complete a project on a totally different topic in 13 years, why can't all the others?''

Surely you'd think that them ensuring that NASA kept funding for deep-space exploration would be an example of them being unreasonable, as there's no possible way they'd have results back within the next few years.

Just in the past few years, NASA found that there were visible ice caps on Mercury, evidence of liquid water on Mars, high quality images of Pluto, they're constantly on the lookout for new planets in different Solar Systems using high-tech telescopes, they're studying the effect of astronauts staying in conditions that closely resemble space, they're studying Stars, Black Holes, Supernovae, Nebulae and much, much more. Improving our understanding of the Universe and increasing the repertoire of knowledge we'll have when we inevitably start exploring it ourselves.

Instead of focusing on something that's furthering our knowledge, why don't you look to the tax breaks that are constantly given to private individuals and companies. Those breaks benefit nobody but the people receiving them, and they have a negative impact on everybody else, while research into space doesn't suffer from that.

Quote:

 

The two concepts will eventually mix in argument though, simply because there's only two possible arguments.

"God (or something else) did It", or "Science shows it's possible without God/unknown being".

There's no in-between.
And I didn't say you were religious. Religion is simply a method of worshipping a God (or concept like it). You can believe in God without being religious.

SSj4 Gotenks

Apr 17 2016, 03:41 AM

Quote:

 

The two concepts will eventually mix in argument though, simply because there's only two possible arguments.

"God (or something else) did It", or "Science shows it's possible without God/unknown being".

There's no in-between.
And I didn't say you were religious. Religion is simply a method of worshipping a God (or concept like it). You can believe in God without being religious.

ONLy two? Really.. are you sure?

Do you love Muslims or hate them? obviously you cannot be in between.

Quote:

 

As for the point, you can say that God maybe created the universe, but given that it's scientific evidence vs faith, there is no in-between answer outside your personal opinion.
Personal opinions aside, the truth of the subject boils down to he either exists and did, or doesn't exist and didn't.
With a subject like this, there is no "he half did".

SSj4 Gotenks

Apr 16 2016, 04:29 AM

What's all this stuff about ONLY?

So you're saying without increasing their $19B budget a year, science is going to starve and we cannot look in our telescopes and see the dangers? They are already powerful telescopes around each continent that cost a fortune.

Rising sea levels and volcanoes has everything to do with earth, so where did i say that i oppose this?

And about the photo, i have re-check i think it was either $1M or $1B, now i think about it may cost $1M. And the photo i'm talking about wasn't earth, it was a blank photo nothing but black.

SSj4 Gotenks

Apr 17 2016, 03:41 AM

Quote:

 

That's false equivalence right there. ''See, these scientists in a completely different area managed to complete a project on a totally different topic in 13 years, why can't all the others?''

Surely you'd think that them ensuring that NASA kept funding for deep-space exploration would be an example of them being unreasonable, as there's no possible way they'd have results back within the next few years.

Just in the past few years, NASA found that there were visible ice caps on Mercury, evidence of liquid water on Mars, high quality images of Pluto, they're constantly on the lookout for new planets in different Solar Systems using high-tech telescopes, they're studying the effect of astronauts staying in conditions that closely resemble space, they're studying Stars, Black Holes, Supernovae, Nebulae and much, much more. Improving our understanding of the Universe and increasing the repertoire of knowledge we'll have when we inevitably start exploring it ourselves.

Instead of focusing on something that's furthering our knowledge, why don't you look to the tax breaks that are constantly given to private individuals and companies. Those breaks benefit nobody but the people receiving them, and they have a negative impact on everybody else, while research into space doesn't suffer from that.

Why would it be false? Are you telling me the achievements done by HGP is less of a achievement because it only deals with genes and the universe is so much more complicated? Not denying it is more complicate, but don't undermine the HGP. Before the HGP, we didn't understand crap, as much as speculative as string theory.

Bill Clinton did a conference in 2010 presenting to the world what they could achieve if countries could come together, the project took 13 years so that means the scientists would have worked on the project in the early 90's when most of us are not even born yet and in a time where dial-up modem was in use. Not only the project was a HUGE success allowing us to map our genes and inform us that basically all life on earth are somehow all related, it's beneficial to medicine and biology in which medicine extends the life span of a average human. That's only spending $3B.

You can't justify string theory which started in the 60's and achieved absolutely s***.

The biggest problem is the scientists themselves can't justify the cost. They have tried under the Bush administration and failed (for obvious reasons) then under Barack Obama's Democrat which you think would agree, but both have denied more access to the fundings.

If your so passionate, donate half your salary to help fund the Mars exploration.

That's a problem with big corps. they off shore their profits outside of the US in Ireland or somewhere. Apple has accounts in Ireland and pays little tax in the US. How would you go about asking for more tax when Apple is going to send their lawyers?

Quote:

 

The two concepts will eventually mix in argument though, simply because there's only two possible arguments.

"God (or something else) did It", or "Science shows it's possible without God/unknown being".

There's no in-between.
And I didn't say you were religious. Religion is simply a method of worshipping a God (or concept like it). You can believe in God without being religious.

ONLy two? Really.. are you sure?

Do you love Muslims or hate them? obviously you cannot be in between.

SSj4 Gotenks

Apr 17 2016, 11:10 AM

Quote:

 

As for the point, you can say that God maybe created the universe, but given that it's scientific evidence vs faith, there is no in-between answer outside your personal opinion.
Personal opinions aside, the truth of the subject boils down to he either exists and did, or doesn't exist and didn't.
With a subject like this, there is no "he half did".

If I asked you how was symmetry broken in the in the four fundamental forces in nature? Now if I also informed that if you don't break the symmetry you don't get a universe that has matter and US humans. If the first thing that comes to your mind, "are you trying to insert God?" Then i'm sorry, you're just bias because i'm not inserting anything.

You don't have to have side with God or a universe from nothing. Even science itself has string theory or M-theory and other theories.

Quote:

 

You didn't ask me that at all.
The entire conversation that is taking place between you and I whether or not there can be another answer to "Yes or No" for if God created the Universe or not.

String Theory, aka M Theory isn't a theory that explains the creation of the universe, therefore that answer to the question if there's a god who created the Universe doesn't make sense.
Sting Theory, in essence, explains how gravity relates to the other three forces; which doesn't provide an answer to the question of whether or not God created the Universe.

A similar situation would be asking me what the best breed of cow is, and I gave you the answer "vegetable". That's not a valid answer because it doesn't answer the question that was asked.

You can have an opinion about "maybe he does exist and did create the Universe", but your opinion is not the answer to the broader question. If I asked you what your opinion was, you could give me an answer like that. But on a broader perspective from a scientific standpoint, the actual answer is either yes or no.

Something either exists or doesn't exist. It can't half-exist.

Quote:

 

They're two completely different topics. Researching genes is completely different from looking at the entire Universe and trying to process everything while coming to a conclusion about what exactly caused it.

How exactly would they justify it? They don't know what the answer is, so they'll have no idea when they're close to it. ''Mr. President, I'm not sure hwo close we are to a definitive answer, but we'll get an answer in the next 10 years, I'm positive about that.'' The justification for the cost is that we're furthering our understanding of the Universe and we're crossing off possibilities all the time. A failure narrows down the number of possibilities.

I would give half of my salary, but I need that to survive. Real nice to see you just give up on trying to tax corporations too. What if we were talking about trying to stop poverty?

''The problem with trying to tax big corporations and using that money to stop poverty is that they're so big that whenever you ask them to pay tax, they'll send their lawyers?

SSj4 Gotenks

Apr 18 2016, 07:26 AM

Quote:

 

You didn't ask me that at all.
The entire conversation that is taking place between you and I whether or not there can be another answer to "Yes or No" for if God created the Universe or not.

String Theory, aka M Theory isn't a theory that explains the creation of the universe, therefore that answer to the question if there's a god who created the Universe doesn't make sense.
Sting Theory, in essence, explains how gravity relates to the other three forces; which doesn't provide an answer to the question of whether or not God created the Universe.

A similar situation would be asking me what the best breed of cow is, and I gave you the answer "vegetable". That's not a valid answer because it doesn't answer the question that was asked.

You can have an opinion about "maybe he does exist and did create the Universe", but your opinion is not the answer to the broader question. If I asked you what your opinion was, you could give me an answer like that. But on a broader perspective from a scientific standpoint, the actual answer is either yes or no.

Something either exists or doesn't exist. It can't half-exist.

First off, if you're going to invoke God vs science there has to be context because this thread has been clean from the start. So i don't know where you and others think this leads to God. This is nothing more than a group of gangs (science and the big big bang) imposing there will on others "you have to believe in our theory that our universe started from absolute nothing (even though you have re-define the definition) if you question the big bang and our universe started from nothing you'll be labelled as a religious nut". Um... i'm not religious... "it doesn't matter because there's only two paths"

^ to respond to that there's also a theory that our universe could start from a black hole through a wormhole to another universe. Or there's the many world's theory.

And to respond to your notion of "a debate like always leads to two paths".. no it doesn't, we don't even know what caused the universe to break the laws (symmetry that allowed gravity and other forces to it's job), we don't even know we (earth) are the only ones sustain life even in our own galaxy? We haven't even left our solar system. How do you know it's only god or nothing? How do you not know we are in a simulation or really advance humans that lost their on universe? The simulation theory isn't far fetched as many believed... Qm had Einstein puzzled that if we closed our eyes, the moon could packed up and leave and the moment we open our eyes the moon is there. That's is for a different debate.

Back on track, this thread from the start has always been making fun of the fact that scientists think they pretty much know a origin of something that is 13.8 billions ago, but doesn't know it's own home origins and how it failed to get more money from congress.

Saiyajin Perfection

Apr 18 2016, 08:12 PM

SSj4 Gotenks

Apr 18 2016, 07:26 AM

Quote:

 

You didn't ask me that at all.
The entire conversation that is taking place between you and I whether or not there can be another answer to "Yes or No" for if God created the Universe or not.

String Theory, aka M Theory isn't a theory that explains the creation of the universe, therefore that answer to the question if there's a god who created the Universe doesn't make sense.
Sting Theory, in essence, explains how gravity relates to the other three forces; which doesn't provide an answer to the question of whether or not God created the Universe.

A similar situation would be asking me what the best breed of cow is, and I gave you the answer "vegetable". That's not a valid answer because it doesn't answer the question that was asked.

You can have an opinion about "maybe he does exist and did create the Universe", but your opinion is not the answer to the broader question. If I asked you what your opinion was, you could give me an answer like that. But on a broader perspective from a scientific standpoint, the actual answer is either yes or no.

Something either exists or doesn't exist. It can't half-exist.

First off, if you're going to invoke God vs science there has to be context because this thread has been clean from the start. So i don't know where you and others think this leads to God. This is nothing more than a group of gangs (science and the big big bang) imposing there will on others "you have to believe in our theory that our universe started from absolute nothing (even though you have re-define the definition) if you question the big bang and our universe started from nothing you'll be labelled as a religious nut". Um... i'm not religious... "it doesn't matter because there's only two paths"

^ to respond to that there's also a theory that our universe could start from a black hole through a wormhole to another universe. Or there's the many world's theory.

And to respond to your notion of "a debate like always leads to two paths".. no it doesn't, we don't even know what caused the universe to break the laws (symmetry that allowed gravity and other forces to it's job), we don't even know we (earth) are the only ones sustain life even in our own galaxy? We haven't even left our solar system. How do you know it's only god or nothing? How do you not know we are in a simulation or really advance humans that lost their on universe? The simulation theory isn't far fetched as many believed... Qm had Einstein puzzled that if we closed our eyes, the moon could packed up and leave and the moment we open our eyes the moon is there. That's is for a different debate.

Back on track, this thread from the start has always been making fun of the fact that scientists think they pretty much know a origin of something that is 13.8 billions ago, but doesn't know it's own home origins and how it failed to get more money from congress.

Put simply, when you ask "how come science...", there's seriously no other conclusion to draw but you're asking a question of science vs god. The reason why we're making that assumption is because that's generally how creationists and other religious folks ask questions to scientists and non-religious folks when they feel like debating.

And to be perfectly honest, the example you gave about the Universe coming from a black hole from another universe would be an entirely scientific explanation. Therefore you haven't actually nulled my argument of scientific explanation vs creation by a god, the original argument still stands. You've simply nulled the theory that the Universe was created.

This entire thread can seriously be summed up with the simple sentence "We don't know now, but we might someday".

Quote:

 

"We don't know now, but we might someday".

SSj4 Gotenks

Apr 18 2016, 10:44 PM

Not denying it, i just don't place that as a higher priority than medical care and biology for most which is where i think most of the funds should be targeted instead of spending up to $20 billions on experiments just to say "we need to rule that out".

Gearfried

Apr 19 2016, 12:58 AM

You know mankind is the masters of order out of chaos right? all problems are made by humans.