what do you think of astronomy?

[FalloutJack]

*Sigh*

No, I did not miss any point. The point is that attempts to make fusion generators have failed, but you believe that people shouldn't hold out for something else merely because it's supposedly as theoretical or unfounded. Well, let's have some perspective here. Despite the split hairs of what fusion power is, which I knew thank you, it doesn't WORK like we want to. Right? Right. You said so, I say so. Done. Nowhere did I say that anything should stop. All of your questions don't even apply to my comments, because you seem to think I'm saying give up. Well, you're wrong.

However, in no way should we stop reaching for what we want to reach either. I don't think you're in any position to criticize. Shall I debunk your ocean research as a viable and worthwhile study? I'm not planning to, but I could do it, and it would make as much sense. But all fields are relevant and all should be explored. This is not a frivolous thing, but you seem rather keen to belittle it. If you have no interest in the vast infinite black out there, then that problem lies squarely on your shoulders. My statement that space is inevitably the future is because we will eventually run out of things on Earth to look into. There is NO changing that.

Also...

 

[Benni88]

Okay, so I'll preface that. What has it done for mankind? Personally as a person with libertarian type views, I think it's done remarkably well to be as successful as it is, considering all the public funding it receives, but that's hardly a commendation.

NASA has been directly responsible for a large portion of scientific progress in the past 60 years, there are a large number of innovations and discoveries that NASA found while working on something else that the private sector was been given access to and made a lot of money from (and paid taxes on -- certainly enough to cover the minuscule NASA operating budget).

Without trying to detract from any of NASA's achievements, I think that there are many other natural sciences, maths, chemistry etc, which have had just as big of an impact on today's society as the study of space.

However, I totally understand why Space/Astronomy is deemed super important. The sheer scale of it ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U )makes is fascinating. In terms of its importance, we should only be discussing those advantages limited to within the solar system, anything else is currently science fiction.

I feel that there are a lot of issues on earth which need to be resolved before we put all of our attention into space. The planet's in a bad shape, and current trends suggest that we won't be fixing it. If we want somewhere for the species to live, we have to create an equilibrium. Space isn't a viable option here, unless we want to consider sending a fraction of the population elsewhere.

 

[Joccaren]

A few points.

One: You're saying "What's this thing done for us? Yeah, its done this, but ignoring all that, what's it done for us?". I can do that for anything. Don't discount an entire part of a certain field of science just because you want to make a point about how useless it is, which it isn't.
Two: Astronomy is a valuable part of physics that tells us how the universe works, which helps with discoveries down here. Dark Energy. Dark Matter. Two things we would have no idea whether they existed or not without Astronomy, and that may prove useful in future years once we get samples and analyse them. Things like Black Holes that cause problems in our current model of physics that force us to find a new, more correct answer to how the universe works, would also have not been discovered. Going back a thousand years, astronomy was the single most important skill any navigator could have. The ability to know when and where certain stars should appear at different areas of the world, and use that to discover where we should be going. You are a fool if you think everything in the universe is visible here on Earth. Looking at the stars we see things we would not otherwise know of, and we can use that to further not only our understanding of the universe, but also of technology in general. Additionally, it is used for all manner of technology in the present day. Every satellite sent into space is possible thanks to astronomy.
Three: I quite like living in this world, where we know the Earth is round and orbits around the sun. Take away Astronomy and we would believe the Earth was flat, and the centre of the universe. Its about discovery, and understanding our place in the universe. Some are happy to simply accept what they are told, there are many that yearn to know more though. I would like to think this is the majority. Edification is a goal in and of its self. Discovery about the universe we exist in, and how we fit into the giant puzzle, is awe inspiring. The knowledge that we are to the universe what not even a single electron is to us really puts things in perspective.

Basically, Astronomy does a lot for us. Just because it doesn't fit your hyper specific criteria for being important doesn't make it not so. Historically it has had a massive role in human development, and it will continue to far into the future. You can ignore its benefits all you like, but that doesn't stop them from existing.

 

[Yopaz]

*Sigh*

No, I did not miss any point. The point is that attempts to make fusion generators have failed, but you believe that people shouldn't hold out for something else merely because it's supposedly as theoretical or unfounded. Well, let's have some perspective here. Despite the split hairs of what fusion power is, which I knew thank you, it doesn't WORK like we want to. Right? Right. You said so, I say so. Done. Nowhere did I say that anything should stop. All of your questions don't even apply to my comments, because you seem to think I'm saying give up. Well, you're wrong.

However, in no way should we stop reaching for what we want to reach either. I don't think you're in any position to criticize. Shall I debunk your ocean research as a viable and worthwhile study? I'm not planning to, but I could do it, and it would make as much sense. But all fields are relevant and all should be explored. This is not a frivolous thing, but you seem rather keen to belittle it. If you have no interest in the vast infinite black out there, then that problem lies squarely on your shoulders. My statement that space is inevitably the future is because we will eventually run out of things on Earth to look into. There is NO changing that.

Also...

OK, so you didn't notice this, but I compared ocean research to space research because ocean research isn't plausible in the near future. I have already debunked it myself. It has potential just like space research, but as for now it's unlikely to see it go much further.

And you choose to debunk my argument about fusion in stars. Why? That's definitive proof that this is actually possible. You said it was theoretical, well I brought up that because it's actually a proven concept. We know it's theoretically possible to make a planet support life using the Earth as an example, but what proof do we have that we can actually duplicate that? What successes do we speak of? It's most likely possible, but can we do it with our current technology and knowledge?

Also again you are COMPLETELY missing my point. I NEVER said it was impossible, I NEVER said we should give up, I never said we should stop any kind of exploring. I said we should stop shouting "this is the future!" every time a new fascinating research project pops up. The reason we don't do the same every time someone mentions nanobeads, molecular catalysts, enzymes or a newly discovered pathway in HIV's replication that may be used to prevent infection in the future is that spaaaaace and computers are about fulfilling the naïve dream of accomplishing what we know from science fiction.

So yeah, I do have grounds to say you have missed my point here. You missed the point where I said ocean exploration isn't feasible and you somehow got the idea that I think we should dismiss all research that I don't like. All I am saying is that you shouldn't read science fiction and ideals as actual results or science.

 

[J Tyran]

I could say fusion reactors is the future, but after decades of work we're still unable to make it put out more than we put in.

Look how long it took the steam engine to become something useful that did the work of more than a couple of horses instead of a curiosity that needed more than its weight in coal and tended to explode, then apply the same to the steam locomotive. Nuclear reactors and internal combustion engines where the same, these types of technology relied on a single sudden leap during development before they actually became a thing. Usually a single idea or material suddenly snowballed the whole process, fusion reactors will probably be the same.

It will be fumbled about with and there will be dead ends and failures, next thing you know some scientist will invent a bi-folded whizzmatron and the whole field will explode into a frenzy of development that ends up solving the problem.

 

[Griffolion]

Space is a wondrous thing. I commend any pursuit to discover what's out there. It may not have a "net gain" financially, but it's still important work.

I could say fusion reactors is the future, but after decades of work we're still unable to make it put out more than we put in.

There's been some positive progress being made there: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24429621

The BBC understands that during an experiment in late September, the amount of energy released through the fusion reaction exceeded the amount of energy being absorbed by the fuel - the first time this had been achieved at any fusion facility in the world.

Still years and years out from any form of commercial application, though. Very exciting prospects, however.

 

[K12]

There are two main ways of defending NASA, one is by saying that they invented Teflon and other such things as by products of research. The other is saying "They went to the FUCKING MOON" and so on.

It's very hard to tell how much "practical" benefit a particular area of science will have and it shouldn't need to be justified from that angle.

The funding issue I think is a side issue really, you can say NASA receives X billion that could have saved starving kids but when wealth is distributed so unfairly and the richest keep avoiding tax then NASA isn't the best group to go after.

 

[Yopaz]

I could say fusion reactors is the future, but after decades of work we're still unable to make it put out more than we put in.

Look how long it took the steam engine to become something useful that did the work of more than a couple of horses instead of a curiosity that needed more than its weight in coal and tended to explode, then apply the same to the steam locomotive. Nuclear reactors and internal combustion engines where the same, these types of technology relied on a single sudden leap during development before they actually became a thing. Usually a single idea or material suddenly snowballed the whole process, fusion reactors will probably be the same.

It will be fumbled about with and there will be dead ends and failures, next thing you know some scientist will invent a bi-folded whizzmatron and the whole field will explode into a frenzy of development that ends up solving the problem.

I must have done a terrible job of making my point here since both of you miss it and I don't think either of you are stupid.

I'm saying we should look for more than a neat idea or the fact that someone is working on a project before we say it's the future. However as you pointed out and I should have been clear about is that we shouldn't ridicule an idea just because we don't think it's likely. No-one believed the guy who said peptic ulcer was caused by a bacteria and look who's laughing now. I apologize for the confusion and for sounding dismissive.

Space is a wondrous thing. I commend any pursuit to discover what's out there. It may not have a "net gain" financially, but it's still important work.

I could say fusion reactors is the future, but after decades of work we're still unable to make it put out more than we put in.

There's been some positive progress being made there: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24429621

The BBC understands that during an experiment in late September, the amount of energy released through the fusion reaction exceeded the amount of energy being absorbed by the fuel - the first time this had been achieved at any fusion facility in the world.

Still years and years out from any form of commercial application, though. Very exciting prospects, however.

Yes, I've read that story before and I got the surge of excitement I get every time I read any news on fusion before I remember that they have had several ground breaking milestones in the past and they've said that they'll make it a viable source of energy "soon" (meaning about a decade for the most part) before. They were a decade away from that point a decade ago, I even think they were a decade away 20 years ago. I do hope this will be guiding the way to seeing it work as we want to. Clean energy and the "waste" product is helium, a gas we could really need more of. I hope it will work, but I won't hold my breath. So sorry if I seem dismissive, that was not my intention.

 

[J Tyran]

I could say fusion reactors is the future, but after decades of work we're still unable to make it put out more than we put in.

Look how long it took the steam engine to become something useful that did the work of more than a couple of horses instead of a curiosity that needed more than its weight in coal and tended to explode, then apply the same to the steam locomotive. Nuclear reactors and internal combustion engines where the same, these types of technology relied on a single sudden leap during development before they actually became a thing. Usually a single idea or material suddenly snowballed the whole process, fusion reactors will probably be the same.

It will be fumbled about with and there will be dead ends and failures, next thing you know some scientist will invent a bi-folded whizzmatron and the whole field will explode into a frenzy of development that ends up solving the problem.

I must have done a terrible job of making my point here since both of you miss it and I don't think either of you are stupid.

I'm saying we should look for more than a neat idea or the fact that someone is working on a project before we say it's the future. However as you pointed out and I should have been clear about is that we shouldn't ridicule an idea just because we don't think it's likely. No-one believed the guy who said peptic ulcer was caused by a bacteria and look who's laughing now. I apologize for the confusion and for sounding dismissive.

I get that, typically the things that really where "the future" where something that came out of nowhere or things that had been generally dismissed. Although with fusion power I do believe personally that its a very viable solution once the technology gets there, no emissions and fuel is plentiful so it would solve a lot of problems unless there are problems science is unaware of yet. Which is a possibility that cannot be taken lightly, look how fission reactors turned out and they seemed to be an abundant source of cheap and clean energy. How many exclusion zones are there in the world that are completely uninhabitable now? 3-4 iirc.

 

[Fireaxe]

Okay, so I'll preface that. What has it done for mankind? Personally as a person with libertarian type views, I think it's done remarkably well to be as successful as it is, considering all the public funding it receives, but that's hardly a commendation.

NASA has been directly responsible for a large portion of scientific progress in the past 60 years, there are a large number of innovations and discoveries that NASA found while working on something else that the private sector was been given access to and made a lot of money from (and paid taxes on -- certainly enough to cover the minuscule NASA operating budget).

Without trying to detract from any of NASA's achievements, I think that there are many other natural sciences, maths, chemistry etc, which have had just as big of an impact on today's society as the study of space.

NASA has not exclusively been a study of space though. To take an example, the act of putting a human in space is about far far more than just knowing how space works; consider the process of getting a spacecraft through the atmosphere without burning up, still having communications with earth, etc etc. There were huge physics, computing, and engineering challenges involved, and that's where a lot of the discoveries came from.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The Space Race was a way in which the US and USSR could compete by firing rockets into space, rather than at each other.

I think that was the right decision, personally.

Nowdays, less of an issue...but still, lets scrap the Olympics, and nations can peacefully compete with space exploration instead.

 

[cyboryxmen]

We need astronomy! It's all about understanding our place in the universe. Surely you wouldn't want to keep letting the religious people tell us what THEY think is the truth. We've learned so much about the universe, and hopefully we'll use this knowledge to push man-kind to evolve with the universe.

You...you...uninformed person. I tried to rationalise this hate for religion but clearly it is irrational. How can you not realise that Astronomy was founded by Islam!

A millenium ago while most of europe was shovelling poop, muslims have been studying the stars in their ever growing pursuit to be closer to Allah. The Islamic world was civilization?s Science Central, the primary haven for contemplating the cosmos and discerning the natural laws governing physical existence and Astronomy absolutely thrived in it. The only reason you know of us now is through reports of our various negative political issues which makes you hypocritically ignorant.

This is your world now and we are at your mercy. If it wasn't for the islamic world's research on astronomy, Christopher Columbus would have never been found America and you will never exist. So please, if you dare say that you will stop the pursuit of astronomy for something as silly as economics, humanity will go back to poop shovelling.

Also to retrack,

We need astronomy...Surely you wouldn't want to keep letting the religious people tell us what THEY think is the truth.

I had to sit down for a while to process that.
-Zekilk

 

[Atmos Duality]

To this date, I think our understanding derived from Astronomy has lead to the most incredible achievements of humanity.
Namely, how we are the only known species to ever leave its home planet.

Which is to say nothing of what it has done for our greater understanding of the universe and a bit of ourselves.
(We are stardust. Literally.)

Though that's just my personal biases talking.

 

[cyboryxmen]

Of course they are. All works are derivative of something else. Heck, you cannot credit us for the number zero and decimals since they come from India anyway. That's not a bad thing. Science is an important aspect of islam and you cannot discredit our involvement in modern science. Muslims deserve to be involved in scientific discussions without being attacked like this. This is dehumanising.
-Zekilk

 

[o_O]

...So you're saying to shorten our horizons. Good to know you don't like progress.

I also like how you go "What has astronomy done for me other than goddamn telecommunication sattilies, GPS and other such technological wonders." That alone should be enough. You never know what crap comes out of researching something, no matter how trivial it seems. Astroglide was made by a NASA engineer after failing to make a coolant for the shuttle or some such thing. Shit's weird yo.

I'm glad you have no say in the matter. You'd hold us down for the short term gain.

 

[kurokotetsu]

While it is true that Islamic scientists advanced science in a number of ways, they mostly built on theories and research done by Babylonians, Persians, Assyrians, Ancient Greeks and Romans (Zoroastrians, Pagans and a few non-religious). Heliocentrism (one of the most important principles in Astronomy) was discovered by Galilei and Copernicus (an Italian and a Pole for your information). The only thing we can directly credit to Islam is the number zero, and decimal numbers in general

Not true, Algebra is a discipline that was advanced and bascially formulated by the Islamic mathematicians, specially Al-Kwarizmi in his seminal work Al-Jebr. Also, the AL-Kwaizmi also helped the spread of alfgorithms in EUrope and was very important for the early algorithms, which were later formilized by Turing to give us computers. Also, the zero was more Indian, as the numbers are Indo-arabic numbers, where teh Persian EMpire did more for the graphology of the numbers than to the system. And several works on Optics (lenses) and more. THey are very important in the history of science, and not just as extra developers, but doing some new and interesting work.

OT: Astronomy is great. No science, no knowledge is futile and we should always keep these entreprises goinf. Still a great argument in favour of astronomy is Sagan's Pale Blue Dot.

 

[rcs619]

Well?

Okay, so I'll preface that. What has it done for mankind? Personally as a person with libertarian type views, I think it's done remarkably well to be as successful as it is, considering all the public funding it receives, but that's hardly a commendation. Also to be fair, astronomy is NOT a completely government based science only used to attract the eye of the public, as many on my side have tried to say. Not at all, in fact many private industries rely on the discoveries of NASA just as much and the government relies on them to distract us in America... which let?s be honest NASA isn't a good tool for that anymore... and I'm sure the conspiracy theories write themselves on that, considering that they're having funding issues right now...

Anyway, yes I?m aware of cell phones and that the connection I have right now is? well a cable connection, but DSL was a big deal for a while so there?s that. I?m more talking about the exploration of Jupiter and constantly trying to figure out the age of the universe by looking at the stars and spending so much on mega telescopes (yes, I know that?s not what they?re called) to find new stars. What do you think it does for us? Or do you kind of doubt its necessity, or maybe even wonder if we should be leaving well enough alone in many cases (like on black hole experiments)?

To be perfectly honest, astronomy and space-based technology in general, is the future of the species in my opinion. I'm not even talking about interstellar colonization (as cool as that'd be), but even just being able to move about the solar system in a reasonable way would be huge. I think it's pretty ironic that so many groups make fun of NASA, other space programs and the suggestion of expanding into space by talking about how it's "Too expensive", when there's basically an infinite amount of resources in our solar system alone. Just, sitting there, waiting for someone to grab them. I'm pretty sure I remember someone doing a guesstimate about how much money a single decent asteroid full of platinum would be on Earth, and it was staggering. If we could actually get to the asteroid belt and start mining, not only would we have access to a neigh-infinite source of raw materials, but we wouldn't have to strip-mine our own planet to do so, which is a win-win. Then, you can use the massive economic boom and interest in space to fund other fun stuff, and pure-science kind of stuff.

Granted, we would probably need to build an orbital elevator to make any sort of heavy space presence viable in the first place. Rockets and shuttles are just terrible, in terms of what they can actually transport into space and what it costs to do so. Even building a viable orbital elevator and being able to easily expand into the Earth-Moon system would be huge. Then you're opening up the possibility of things like orbital solar power collectors, which show some great potential if they ever figure out how to get the tech to work.

And while interstellar travel is probably the least important thing on the list, if we ever get to the point where we can do it, it does have some great benefits as well. Just being able to send science teams to alien star systems and worlds would be massive. All of our current scientific theories are based on things we've observed first-hand in one star system, and one planet. Being able to see, in person, how other stars behave, how other worlds were formed, or even how alien life actually looks and was formed, would be massive from a scientific standpoint. It would actually give us a broader sample to test our assumptions against. And, of course, I think colonizing alien worlds is ultimately a good thing too. Get all of our eggs out of the same basket and such.

 

[piinyouri]

On an entirely un-scientific or economic platform, I think exploring the unknown truly is it's own reward.
They've seen far enough to roughly view how galaxies form in clusters like seemingly everything else in the universe.
Just like stars and planets, dust and rock form galaxies, galaxies themselves when viewed from far enough form something.

That's...that's pretty much the inspiration for me. Push deeper, find the source, if there is one at all.

And I'd extend this exploration and research to universal scale going the other way.
The smaller we see, the more opens up. It seems to be the same stuff either way you go.

 

[Daverson]

What do I think of an alternative to suffocating on a rock slowly being consumed by the inevitable march of entropy? Well... I can't say I'm opposed to it.