by that reasoning, every space mission further than earth orbit is a gargantuan waste of money

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/about/BasicScience3-en.html

I find it hilarious that someone boasting two considered doctorates is dissing any form of science, might not want to put that on your academic resum

What if we spotted a phalanx of Vogon warspaceships heading our way?

and you'd be wrong

EVERY basic science has practical applications down the line

astronomy no use? entire generations of sailors, long traders and naval empires are laughing in your face... IN YOUR FACE!!! and that's only from history

> Einstein wrote:

> Astronomy and some space travel is a waste.

However a lot of science is done in space. Memory foam was made in space for instance. This has practical uses.

Finding planets or new galaxies nets us nothing. Nothing at all.

> Einstein wrote:

> Render your a joke.

Acolyte verifying the Standard model over what, a 20 year period?, has no importance to me. There is a lot of science which I am attracted to.

Let's list some:
Graphene
Carbon Nanotyubes
Buckyballs
Racetrack Memory
Lithium-Ion Nuclear power
Ion Engines
Plasma Engines

I am watching promising advances in glass, wood, metals, composites....

All of that is practical and useful science. Bosons, Particles, and subatomic makeup is not so useful.

Ok, I am not sure if anyone explained this yet (I only popped in to check things out, do not have any great amount of time), but you realise that most of your above examples are actually ENGINEERS not scientists working on them? You are actually providing examples of advances on existing technologies which is mostly from an engineering perspective (I mean lets take the Lithium-Ion Nuclear power, the elements and process were already discovered by SCIENTISTS, and at the time such applications would not have been forseen. You are now taking engineers to make it into a viable power source).

You are arguing about physics, something which my above example actually needed an understanding of before practical usages were even imaginable. It is like saying that the man who discovered Uranium must have had Nuclear power in mind before he discovered the ore, or even the massive heat/energy given off when bombarded with neutrons. Both of your engine examples also clearly fall under this category, since the important "development" of such examples is clearly engineering in nature. The only examples there I would pay any small amount of credit to would be the first 2, but even so, the "developments" (based of earlier posts) is still based around an engineering perspective.

To discover the way particles work allows scientists to extend that knowledge and understand how other processes work. I mean, if you are only going to pay credit to "practical" examples, then you are mostly recognising the engineers, not the scientists.

how about we discover a meteorite heading straight for us?

pitchblende was sought after for the nice colored glass it made, and then when its radioactivity was learned, it was refined for health tonics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Byers

ion engines are a joke

> Einstein wrote:

> Engineers are not finding how to make Graphene they are waiting for scientists to tell them how.

Even the best Carbon Nanotube makers can only get a couple inches and scientists are trying to increase size and quality.

The new wood composite (stronger than treated Iron) was found by a scientist and work continues with scientists on the new concepts.

The new glass, stronger and lighter than steel, with the ability to bend a bit before breaking... scientists.

Pink Silicon was by students in a science class and their proffesor.

Racetrack memory is not ready for engineers yet.

HP's new atmospheric pressure memory is at the engineering stage but funny I did not mention it...

The new transitors created with Buckyballs and Carbon Nanotubes was written as a Scientific Whitepaper.

Face it... I was talking science, not engineering.

To be honest your entire post was about the quality I expected from Ryan back in the day.

And it's funny that you DIDN'T mention the examples I actually used...well done...but whatever, I am over trying to talk to you...As for the quality, laughable considering most the posts you make, but screw it, I am over it...

Wornstrum I should not be held to a high standard.

If you doubt don't accuse me, educate me, school me, slap me down...

Ask.

If you had asked what science I meant then there would have been no confrontation, no issues. It is the same problem (though much less so) that Kemp has where he is naturally counter to me so cannot actually ask or believe me when I say something.

YOOOOU leave the rowley gunnersmate out of this!!!!

also Einstein, you're making a logical error based on hindsight bias

fundamental sciences lead to practical advances down the road, but it's not always easy to predict how and when that will happen. If you say f*** fundamental sciences then sooner or later the practical sciences will run out the fuel that allows them to go forward. This is not rocket science you know.

It is actually quite fundamental, since we are talking about particles that are building blocks of the building blocks. However, I would posit that all science is fundamental, as there is so much more that we DON'T know about the universe, compared to what we have observed and recorded up to now. The potential supply of knowledge is unlimited. In light of this, I would hesitate to declare ANY discovery a small one in view of other, more popular discoveries.

Flint: After reading your retarded excuses for posts I realise you don't know what Science is.... Also you are wrong, nearly all your fields of study are Engineering disciplines given I studied most during my Engineering bachelors about a decade ago in some form or another, or at least similar topics. Which also means none of them are "leading edge" areas of scientific advance. I also think that mods should change your forum nick back to Flint, since you are an embarrassment to the memory of Einstein if you cannot see the benefit of theoretical physics and thing that only applied physics and engineering have any merit.

To add on to your analogy (for the fun of it) you are right, except that the only way to learn about the workings of the car is to bash them together and see what comes out, and from that we will get an understanding of the make up of the cars and from there be able to understand how to take it apart and put it back together.

But then again you are an idiot so I shouldn't be surprised...

In other news

"A New Zealander has climbed everest! Split the atom! Fired rockets at the moon! Achieved miracles in every field of human endeavor-- EXCEPT CRIME!!!!"

Fixed it for you Yell, no need to apoligise for the mistake, easily made really...