The scale of the universe

[BHDOGS]

Thats why i find quantum physics so exciting as it allows us to view back further in time if you will to the very early stages of the big bang that regular science just doesnt allow!. I believe that a newer scientific idea will come forward to allow us to view even further back in time just have to wait for the next Einstein or hawkins. And yes the god particle is exciting a particle that imparts mass and possibly allow us to manipulate it to make a spaceship weightless thus allowing super fast space travel! haha but thats getting ahead of ourselves. heres the latest news on it

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/itali...icle-1.1184178

[BHDOGS]

And id add it annoys me that 10 billion spent on hadron discovers this but we waste billions upon billions a year on war imagine how much we'd know by now with enough money.

[buggo]

Yes I can't wait. And by going off your link I'd say that new next big thing is not too far off. I'd doubt it'd be from an Einstein type scenario, with a sole genius working away for years by him self, but rather a team of brilliant people working together. Such as those at the LHC facility.
Once the 'god particle' is discovered, eventually a new form of physics will be introduced which will allow more work to be done with discoveries, inventions, new theories etc just like when quantum mechanics was new.
And yes like you mentioned, possibilities are endless and make almost no rational sense to us now, its just science fiction at the moment.

And regarding your point on spending on war, while I partly agree, its important to remember that the original space race was fueled by the cold war going on and America's fear that the Soviets would use the technology they were developing against them. It was their fear that predominantly drove them. As opposed to just the thirst for knowledge and expanding their horizons.
And I think that's the main thing that has to change. The world as a whole needs to grow the desire to go further. To invest in the long term future and innovation. To have the eagerness to learn more than they knew yesterday.
However with the world's economy and the way elections in government are won, especially in America, I doubt it'll change too much any time soon.

If NASA could be given even 10% of the US's military budget, that would be more money than they could ever imagine. They know how to work smarter, not harder.

[BHDOGS]

Interesting view on it buggo military technology pushing the boundary's of science and then leading to break throughs that better man kind quite a sad situation but as you said unlikely to change anytime soon.

[Resurrection]

Wow, I didn't realise mine was so small!

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by Charliewool

Interesting perspective on just how infinitesimal (tiny) we really are.

http://htwins.net/scale2/

I wonder if Gomez’s hamburgers are very busy, considering that they’re out in the middle of nowhere?

You’d be pretty disappointed if you went all that way to find that they taste just like a Quarter Pounder.

[joshy]

wow that's just amazing! we are so small but defiantly not insignificant. It takes something tiny to make something big ! fantastic thread by the way. so much to read and learn.

[buggo]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

Interesting view on it buggo military technology pushing the boundary's of science and then leading to break throughs that better man kind quite a sad situation but as you said unlikely to change anytime soon.

Yeah that's the irony of it. It wasn't only during the 60's that this was the case but in the World Wars as well. WW2 for example saw innovations in avition rise exponentially. So today's holidayers and businessmen can thank those men and women who fought for their country all those years ago for the relaxing, effiecnt and cheap ride. Kind of a sad truth really.

I looked up NASA's and the US Defence Force's bugdet allocation history.
Last year NASA received 0.48%. Thats so abysmally low its sad. They peaked in 66' at the height of the Apollo development at 4.41%, steadily declining over the next decades in line with public perception to its current levels.
A poll found the average American beleives NASA is allocated 20%, so very misinformed. With 'the people' arguing the line 'why spend up there when there's problems down here', any potential senate will not win votes by increasing the '20%' cut. It just won't happen the way the current system is run so short term.
A notion was put foward by Dr Tyson who I mentioned earlier, with the tag line 'penny on the dollar'. Its his push to effectively double NASA's income, to 1%. If you want I can put up a link of him putting foward his argument to the Senate's.

To put those numbers in perspective and compare them with defence force, right now they receive just over 4%, or more than 8x that of the space program. Granted they properly do need more money, but that is quite a bit.
They peaked at a staggering 37.8 percent in the last year of WW2. Even given the developments in aviation and other technologies and the health of the economy at the time, it is still a fair slice.

I'm getting a bit off topic now, so I'll leave it there and let this thread continue.
Gotta say this is probably the best conversation I've had on this forum, and its not even car related. So cheers mate haha

[Sprint]

^^ America cannot afford not to have it military now, America got rich on the back of war bonds during ww2 and blank cheques so that is why they are the power of today, but history teaches us that empires never last as they are not econmically sustainable.

Today in america, 6 out of 10 jobs can be linked to the military in some form, so without a military they would be back in depression days.

[buggo]

Originally Posted by Sprint

^^ America cannot afford not to have it military now, America got rich on the back of war bonds during ww2 and blank cheques so that is why they are the power of today, but history teaches us that empires never last as they are not econmically sustainable.

Today in america, 6 out of 10 jobs can be linked to the military in some form, so without a military they would be back in depression days.

Yeah I know and agree, and that 4% will be the minimum they'll get. That won't go down.
With a debt of $16,692,000,000,000 I'd say that unsustainability has shown itself, highlighted by the GFC. (Or created it)

So I guess in turn it puts up a hard case for any long term investments, but that expense now could end up costing a lot more.

The United States is no longer the super power it once was.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by buggo

Last year NASA received 0.48%. Thats so abysmally low its sad. They peaked in 66' at the height of the Apollo development at 4.41%, steadily declining over the next decades in line with public perception to its current levels.
A poll found the average American beleives NASA is allocated 20%, so very misinformed. With 'the people' arguing the line 'why spend up there when there's problems down here', any potential senate will not win votes by increasing the '20%' cut. It just won't happen the way the current system is run so short term.

The other problem with NASA is distrust and I don't know why. A common acronym I hear is Never A Straight Answer. Whether it was about NASA's debunking of Nibiru, the moon landings, alleged cover up of UFO's. Don't know.

The Moon landings are a pet peeve of mine. For me, a massive accomplishment for mankind to step foot on another celestial body, Neil and Buzz are my heroes - daylight to #3. We have independent tracking of each mission to the Moon including the Russians in which had somewhat of a vested interest in. We have 350+kg of moon rock collected by Apollo missions, Russian unmanned collection totals ~350g of moon material - no rock. We have laser reflective arrays installed by NASA astronauts on the moon that anyone can point their laser towards for range finding. We have images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of all Apollo landing sites, independently verified by all space agencies throughout the globe. We've been there. Stop trying to debunk it by claiming there's a C on a rock that Hollywood mistakenly placed on a prop.

Fun Solar System Trivia Fact - Saturn is magnificent sight to see through your own eye. I was about 15 the first time I gazed through a telescope and saw the rings of Saturn for myself. It's one thing to see pictures of it, but to experience it through a lens was breathtaking and was a life changing moment. However, for a free beer at a bar - how many planets in our Solar System have rings?

4. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

Thank me later.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by Rodp

The other problem with NASA is distrust and I don't know why. A common acronym I hear is Never A Straight Answer. Whether it was about NASA's debunking of Nibiru, the moon landings, alleged cover up of UFO's. Don't know.

The Moon landings are a pet peeve of mine. For me, a massive accomplishment for mankind to step foot on another celestial body, Neil and Buzz are my heroes - daylight to #3. We have independent tracking of each mission to the Moon including the Russians in which had somewhat of a vested interest in. We have 350+kg of moon rock collected by Apollo missions, Russian unmanned collection totals ~350g of moon material - no rock. We have laser reflective arrays installed by NASA astronauts on the moon that anyone can point their laser towards for range finding. We have images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of all Apollo landing sites, independently verified by all space agencies throughout the globe. We've been there. Stop trying to debunk it by claiming there's a C on a rock that Hollywood mistakenly placed on a prop.

Fun Solar System Trivia Fact - Saturn is magnificent sight to see through your own eye. I was about 15 the first time I gazed through a telescope and saw the rings of Saturn for myself. It's one thing to see pictures of it, but to experience it through a lens was breathtaking and was a life changing moment. However, for a free beer at a bar - how many planets in our Solar System have rings?

4. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

Thank me later.

i'd love to agree Rodp , but i'm sorry i just cant with moon landings . i believe we do have unmanned vehicles on mars , and satelites orbiting planets etc , but i dont believe we had the technology to go and drive electric cars around on the moon in the early 70's . i'd LOVE TO BELIVE IT , even my parents who arent scietists who sat there watching in awe on the black n white tv sets , now say they dont believe it happened .
i'm an rc junkie and the reed valve technology they we're using in rc models then compared to now , speak multitudes in the technology we had then , even the cars of the day couldnt drive a few hundred miles without a break down and several stops to the petrol station . if it was hugely difficult then but doable , then today it would be a cinch , and common practice .
and if they can spend heaps in science and technologically sending complex unmanned vehicles to distant planets , then that shows we have the interest and urge to do so , why wouldnt we have people outside of orbit , i'm sorry something doesnt measure up

[Madaya]

Lets try and keep on topic guys. I know there is alot of thought and emotion regarding Apollo, but this topic is Size of the Universe. We can perhaps debate Apollo on another thread.
pm me gtfpv, (or anyone), I've got some great sites that deserve a close read.

[Peuty]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

i'd love to agree Rodp , but i'm sorry i just cant with moon landings . i believe we do have unmanned vehicles on mars , and satelites orbiting planets etc , but i dont believe we had the technology to go and drive electric cars around on the moon in the early 70's . i'd LOVE TO BELIVE IT , even my parents who arent scietists who sat there watching in awe on the black n white tv sets , now say they dont believe it happened .
i'm an rc junkie and the reed valve technology they we're using in rc models then compared to now , speak multitudes in the technology we had then , even the cars of the day couldnt drive a few hundred miles without a break down and several stops to the petrol station . if it was hugely difficult then but doable , then today it would be a cinch , and common practice .
and if they can spend heaps in science and technologically sending complex unmanned vehicles to distant planets , then that shows we have the interest and urge to do so , why wouldnt we have people outside of orbit , i'm sorry something doesnt measure up

If you don't believe that they had the tech to do it in the late60's/early 70's, you will absolutely FREAK OUT when I tell you about a jet that the CIA had that was made from titanium, could fly at at height of 80,000 feet, had a top speed of 3500+km/h and could take photos over enemy territory at the same time, all while being designed in the 50's.

Come to think of it, it was probably a UFO...