wookielover
Prominent Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,608
- Reaction score
- 373
- Points
- 582
from the inspirational picture thread. why do certain people think the cern experiments are a waste of money ?
We're already benefiting as the engineering that led to the building of the LHC gave us advances in, for example, medical scanning equipment.Because they don't understand how, over time, the information obtained from the likes of the LHC works into everyday products.
For example, GPS requires extremely accurate clocks in the satellites which came out of 'blue sky' research.
It's a waste of money because without CERN we wouldn't have the world wide web and how much time is wasted by people having useless debates on the internet, when they should be doing some work?
I think that CERN had access to the technology and the expertise to utilise it before others, but I don't believe that without CERN it wouldn't have evolved.
They got there first, but it would still have evolved without them.
Yeah and someone else could have written all those plays, it's just Shakespeare got there first.I think that CERN had access to the technology and the expertise to utilise it before others, but I don't believe that without CERN it wouldn't have evolved.
They got there first, but it would still have evolved without them.
would it do any damage to you etc?
can i ask something REALLY ****ing stupid please?
what would happen if you were able to stand inside the LHC as they were firing round all the particles etc?
I understand they shoot the protons round at something crazy like 11,000 times a second, but what would happen if whilst they were going round, you could somehow climb inside of the LHC?
would they collide with you? would it do any damage to you etc?
You would come out with super-human strength.
NASA is a waste of money.
+ there was the Cold WarThink there is a big difference between NASA use now and use before...... No doubt some huge gains from the space programme but I think there is a realisation that from a research point of view we are experiencing diminishing returns which is why the shuttle programme has gone.
'NASA' was a very expensive option to perfect a technology, the Chinese invented, several centuries earlier. Apart from lowering communist self esteem, I can't think what other benefits the space race gave us.Gee, developing the technology to put up weather satellites doesn't help people to know what is happening with typhoon, get communication satellites working (Sky/Freesat anyone?) etc..
In tough economic times, our exploratory science programs -- from space probes to the LHC -- are first to suffer budget cuts. Brian Cox explains how curiosity-driven science pays for itself, powering innovation and a profound appreciation of our existence.
'NASA' was a very expensive option to perfect a technology, the Chinese invented, several centuries earlier. Apart from lowering communist self esteem, I can't think what other benefits the space race gave us.
What's to say that hasn't anything to do with the procurement process, with private companies over charging. I read during the 1980's about contractors charging NASA $1 for a screw whereas for a private contract they charge by the lb weight and a dollar could get you several dozen screws.The smart question to ask is: "how much return can we expect from our investment in science."
One assessment about the Apollo space program suggests that for every $1 spent, $14 came back into the US economy.
I would call that list into serious question because we had a thermos flask at school that was made during the 1940's and LCD was invented by RCA if I recall correctly. Also how can you invent 'microwaves'? That's like saying they invented soundwaves.Well developments from NASA tech include: LCD, colourmatic glasses e.g. transitions glasses, microwaves, thermos containers, alkaline high packed batteries, ticket scanners, solid state recorders etc and the list goes on...
here is also a quick (not sure if exhaustive) rundown: http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2010/pdf/Brochure_10_web.pdf
or a more extensive edition: http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2010/pdf/Spinoff2010.pdf
I would call that list into serious question because we had a thermos flask at school that was made during the 1940's and LCD was invented by RCA if I recall correctly. Also how can you invent 'microwaves'? That's like saying they invented soundwaves.
I'n not sure when NASA began but Percy Spencer was manufacturing microwave ovens during the 1940's. And if you Google LCD panels, NASA 'again' isn't in the picture I thought it was RCA but it's someone called T Peter Brody and the technology goes back as far as 1888 apparently.as in microwave ovens... (but I'm sure you knew that) and the LCDs that we saw in our TVs was a direct derivative of LCD panels found in the space shuttle programme
The first point is that nobody is in the vicinity as the LHC is cooled by liquid nitrogen to an operating temperature very near absolute 0 (-273ºC). Any particulate damage would be secondary to death by freezing.what would happen if you were able to stand inside the LHC as they were firing round all the particles etc?