Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Why? O Why?

  1. #11
    Undead Pirate d_stilgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,987

    Default Re: Why? O Why?

    I read about it in my astronomy book, which I sold . . . and I found a link to a digital textbook, which of course I can't read. Nonetheless, here is a small snippet from about two minutes of google. http://www.universetoday.com/tag/black-hole/

  2. #12
    Will YOU be ready when the zombies rise? x88x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    MD, USA
    Posts
    6,334

    Default Re: Why? O Why?

    An interesting theory. Do you know if results have been found yet by the Pierre Auger Cosmic Ray Observatory? In the articles you linked, and those linked from there, it mentions that only "extremely energetic" cosmic particles have the possibility of creating such a scenario, and even then, they would have to come within 10^-35 m of a proton or neutron. Even in the article you linked to, which is only a couple months old, it still is talking about it as a possibility, not a certainty. Did your textbook have more recent data?

  3. #13
    Undead Pirate d_stilgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,987

    Default Re: Why? O Why?

    I remember now. My teacher was talking about the Large Hadron Collider, and then we read the chapter that talked about particles entering the atmosphere. He said that the LHC would isolate and replicate (among other things) particles entering the atmosphere. He said we shouldn't worry about the LHC because it happens constantly on Earth all day.

    So yeah, still just a theory that they make tiny black holes, but a probable one.

  4. #14
    Yuk it up Monkey Boy! Airbozo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    In the Redwoods
    Posts
    5,270

    Default Re: Why? O Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by blueonblack View Post
    Personally, I think the entire space program should be shelved, at least for the time being. It's like the decision-makers haven't looked around lately. We've got problems. Big ones. Right here on Earth. I have to wonder what kind of progress could be made on those problems (or just *one* of them, pick one) if the money and manpower we're spending on the space program were focused on the home planet. Don't get me wrong, I know there are benefits from the space program, obviously, but they are normally a long time coming, and there are a LOT of other very serious needs that are much more immediate. The people in power need to rethink their priorities.
    The thing is, if we stop doing everything else to focus on one problem, then nothing would get done. There has been so much that has come out of space exploration that benefits the humans on this planet. Medical research, physics, etc... If anything I feel we should increase funding. We should have already been setting up a colony on the Moon and Mars...

    Most of the problems on this earth are caused by our governments and religion. And there, I hit two topics in one sentence that are no-no's on this board...

    Get rid of both of the above and this world wouldn't have so many problems.
    "...Dumb all over, A little ugly on the side... "...Frank Zappa...

  5. #15
    Will YOU be ready when the zombies rise? x88x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    MD, USA
    Posts
    6,334

    Default Re: Why? O Why?

    Yup, and how many of those problems would be fixed if we had more space that people could go to? (off-world colonies) Or if food production costs were drastically reduced? (hydroponics/synthetic food) Or if dirt cheap mass water purification were perfected? Or who knows, maybe we'll find that proverbial common enemy out there that will bind us all together...or many a common friend. We won't know till we get out there.

    I think the problem we have is that a lot of people do get so caught up in the here-and-now problems, that they don't think of where we as a race will be in the future. The here-and-now problems will always be there, and political problems will always be there, but if we can look past those and grasp at the impossible, perhaps we can make the universe a better place in the process.

    EDIT:
    For example, if you take world population. In 1000, there was an estimated 310 million people in the world; in 1800, 978 million. Jump forward just 208 years, and we're sitting at 6.7 billion (2008 ). In another 200 years, we're gonna be long since out of space...or out in space
    Last edited by x88x; 10-05-2009 at 04:51 PM. Reason: population

  6. #16
    ATX Mental Case gamer_from_aust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    thangool, queensland
    Posts
    133

    Default Re: Why? O Why?

    I suppose you do raise a good point bout metoers hitting the moon and never really thought of it like that, and i suppose if it all works out as they plan if will have a great good impact on things.
    I hope he had a few beers to blame it on....

    Picking up girls at a videogame store? sigh...... a gamer's dream

  7. #17
    Stupidity feeds my children blueonblack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,616

    Default Re: Why? O Why?

    Airbozo, x88x: I would have heartily agreed with you several decades ago, but it's gone too far. To keep pumping money in the space program while we have the problems we have here on Earth, hoping it will help is like trying to dig your way out of a mine with a spoon while the supports behind you that hold the whole thing up are cracking. Shore up the foundation, then you can get out your pretty little spoon if you want.

    What about the ocean? You guys want to spend money on exploration, how about that? It's right here on Earth, covers most of the surface, and we haven't even explored the vast majority of it, much less tried to see what could be done with it to benefit the species. It's time to stop looking up and look around.

    And you're right, the population is a HUGE problem. Your numbers are a little conservative though, and that's the problem. It's bigger than most people realize. In 1959 there were an estimated three billion people alive on Earth. In 1999 that figure was six billion. To put that in perspective, in forty years we added as many people to the current active population of the world as we did from 1959 back to the dawn of time. I don't know what exactly you think the space program is going to bring us in forty years, but it's not going to be enough. To think otherwise is simple dangerous idealism.

  8. #18
    Will YOU be ready when the zombies rise? x88x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    MD, USA
    Posts
    6,334

    Default Re: Why? O Why?

    At the risk of verging on politics, I don't think we had any more or less problems on the Earth 'several decades ago' than we do now. Personally I don't think enough is going into the space program. If you look at the advances that were made in the first 40 years of its existence, if we put that much effort into it now, then yes, I think we could make very significant strides in the next 40 years. You do make a good point about the oceans though, and I think the same problem is there as is present with the space program. The long-term view that is required to justify the expense of research and expansion into the oceans is something that is not common in the people who make such decisions; and there's not much money to be made in either in the short term. There's also the problem of all the myriad political issues that you can be sure will pop up when some nation starts developing any part of the oceans. There's also, to my knowledge, no large group in any country that is investing any significant time or money in research into developing the oceans.

    As for pumping money into the space program, the 2008 NASA budget was 'only' $17.3 billion; only ~2.7% of the 2009 US Department of Defense budget of $651 billion. Not to mention the $49 billion foreign aid bill that was passed in July. My point is not that the US spends a lot (proportionately) on foreign aid, or that we should spend as much as we do on our military (those two things, I feel go too far towards politics, so I won't discuss them here); my point is that compared to so many other things, the amount that we spend on the space program is pocket change.

    Honestly though, I don't see the population problem being as large a problem as we think it is right now. If you look at world population density maps, something like 70-80% of the world population is currently located in something like 10% of the world landmass. I think the problem is not running out of space on the planet (or even on the natural landmasses), it's convincing people to use the space that's already there.

  9. #19
    Undead Pirate d_stilgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,987

    Default Re: Why? O Why?

    The Earth's carrying capacity is way more than people usually estimate. We are way beyond the estimates of last generation and we're doing fine. In all honesty, we're doing better than ever as a planet.

    The one year NASA budget could fund the current ocean research budget for 1000 years. That's really sad. The ocean is the place to expand first, and covers 3/4 of the planet. We have better maps of mars than our own planet. Let's study that unknown 3/4 of our planet.

    Anyone want a mathematical breakdown of my solution to the so called "climate crisis" that has a positive return on investment? It's the only one I know of with a positive ROI.

  10. #20
    Mentally Underclocked mDust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,639

    Default Re: Why? O Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by d_stilgar View Post
    The Earth's carrying capacity is way more than people usually estimate. We are way beyond the estimates of last generation and we're doing fine. In all honesty, we're doing better than ever as a planet.

    The one year NASA budget could fund the current ocean research budget for 1000 years. That's really sad. The ocean is the place to expand first, and covers 3/4 of the planet. We have better maps of mars than our own planet. Let's study that unknown 3/4 of our planet.

    Anyone want a mathematical breakdown of my solution to the so called "climate crisis" that has a positive return on investment? It's the only one I know of with a positive ROI.
    Most of Africa isn't doing all that great...wide spread drought and famine.

    And searching for life on another planet is way more interesting than searching for life in the ocean. Everyone already knows that there's a ton of creepy things swimming miles beneath the waves...leave em be. Although, floating cities or even independent nations drifting around the oceans would be cool.

    My ears are open to your breakdown, but it would probably require it's own thread.
    I'll procrastinate tomorrow.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •