Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Cost Of Nasa
We now know (to great jubilation), that Pluto has a 'deep crater' and that these images received could be reproduced by micro/macro photographs of the Earth's surface.
Given the problems we face here, are the billions upon billions of taxpayer's money spent on achieving this warranted and if so why?
What benefits has humanity achieved from the space programme and are scientists being allowed to run amok?
Given the problems we face here, are the billions upon billions of taxpayer's money spent on achieving this warranted and if so why?
What benefits has humanity achieved from the space programme and are scientists being allowed to run amok?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@Khandro,
it's early days but I think they're aiming to answer the question of whether Pluto is a moon that came detached from one of the gas giant planets or whether it is a Kuiper belt object, or akin to one, which has fallen inwards, into a tighter orbit than normal.
If it is rich in organics, for instance, that could tell us a lot about the cloud of gas and dust which formed our star. New Horizons will try to flyby two Kuiper belt objects and we will see if the same composition signatures are found there, which would tend to reinforce that picture.
That may then knock on to the possibilities for abiogenesis, in the early times of the solar system. Abiogenesis hypotheses have to simultaneously explain why it occurred here and why it failed on all the planets where we fail to find evidence of it (note: bits knocked off Mars have landed on Earth and, very probably, vice versa so Mars is not an adequately sterile control).
it's early days but I think they're aiming to answer the question of whether Pluto is a moon that came detached from one of the gas giant planets or whether it is a Kuiper belt object, or akin to one, which has fallen inwards, into a tighter orbit than normal.
If it is rich in organics, for instance, that could tell us a lot about the cloud of gas and dust which formed our star. New Horizons will try to flyby two Kuiper belt objects and we will see if the same composition signatures are found there, which would tend to reinforce that picture.
That may then knock on to the possibilities for abiogenesis, in the early times of the solar system. Abiogenesis hypotheses have to simultaneously explain why it occurred here and why it failed on all the planets where we fail to find evidence of it (note: bits knocked off Mars have landed on Earth and, very probably, vice versa so Mars is not an adequately sterile control).
No seriously, I was sitting in my garden this morning reading 'The Figure of the Singer' by Daniel Karlin and contemplating the metaphorical identification of poet and singer in nineteeth-century poetry, when the little bird; a tree creeper who has raised with his partner a family in the far reaches of my garden, briefly settled by my foot, and I said, "Do you think you and all this; the flowers, the trees, the insects and even me, are a product of abiogenesis? and he said "don't make me larf".
This will not be the first path I shall regret entering, but put simply; you can't get blood out of a stone. A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is; what is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means? Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.
Suggested reading; 'Darwin's Black Box' by Michael J. Behe. Once done, come back with your refutations and we can discuss it further.
Suggested reading; 'Darwin's Black Box' by Michael J. Behe. Once done, come back with your refutations and we can discuss it further.
"...an irreducible level of complexity..."
There's the refutation right there, then. So far, pretty much every time we think we have found irreducible complexity in nature it turns out to be anything but. Besides which, if irreducible complexity is a problem for abiogenesis, then it's also a problem for life starting directly on Earth. Which would appear to me to mean that you are basically invoking the existence of a creator of some sort...
There's the refutation right there, then. So far, pretty much every time we think we have found irreducible complexity in nature it turns out to be anything but. Besides which, if irreducible complexity is a problem for abiogenesis, then it's also a problem for life starting directly on Earth. Which would appear to me to mean that you are basically invoking the existence of a creator of some sort...
The Uk government spent in order of 500 billion dollars bailing out banks that had speculated away (our) money. I'd much rather this amount of money was spent on science rather than city wide boys.
The exploration missions (pioneer, voyager, mariner, new horizons etc) have been extremely good value for money.
You might as well say what was the point of the Wright brothers trying to fly, what a waste of money!
In my opinion the new horizons mission has been pretty much the pinnacle of our civilisation- 112 years from first flight to visiting Pluto is pretty impressive.
The exploration missions (pioneer, voyager, mariner, new horizons etc) have been extremely good value for money.
You might as well say what was the point of the Wright brothers trying to fly, what a waste of money!
In my opinion the new horizons mission has been pretty much the pinnacle of our civilisation- 112 years from first flight to visiting Pluto is pretty impressive.
Same question put, but I feel unsatisfactorily answered, here today
http://
Comparisons with Columbus or the Wright brothers are not analogous, we got plenty of important and useful material out of 'local' space exploration of ourselves, our moon and we can continue exploring space with conventional astronomy. When we have sorted out the problems on this planet perhaps that will be the time for exotic, expensive missions, but from my perspective that, sadly, looks to be a long way off.
http://
Comparisons with Columbus or the Wright brothers are not analogous, we got plenty of important and useful material out of 'local' space exploration of ourselves, our moon and we can continue exploring space with conventional astronomy. When we have sorted out the problems on this planet perhaps that will be the time for exotic, expensive missions, but from my perspective that, sadly, looks to be a long way off.
"Irreducible complexity" is an offshoot of the whole "intelligent design" bandwagon.
I have referenced this before, describing it as "OMG, it's all too complicated for me to understand" a.k.a. "armwaving"; as in drowning, swamped by amounts of information too voluminous and complicated for any individual - even most scientists - to understand. We only deal with one field of research each, remember?
So, the armwavers conclude that it must have all been designed by someone or something immeasurably clever: we are puny humans and any attempt to explain the workings of the universe is just arrogance.
Or some such defeatist claptrap.
If you are right, Khandro, then we are *designed* to work all these answers out.
If I am right then we are going to work these answers out because *we* want to know the answers. Sort of now-ish, while we are still alive, if possible.
Which reminds me, it's a pity Patrick Moore didn't get to see out another couple of years so he could see that comet rendezvous and Pluto, in close up. Maybe the hope of lasting long enough to do so was what kept him going?
I have referenced this before, describing it as "OMG, it's all too complicated for me to understand" a.k.a. "armwaving"; as in drowning, swamped by amounts of information too voluminous and complicated for any individual - even most scientists - to understand. We only deal with one field of research each, remember?
So, the armwavers conclude that it must have all been designed by someone or something immeasurably clever: we are puny humans and any attempt to explain the workings of the universe is just arrogance.
Or some such defeatist claptrap.
If you are right, Khandro, then we are *designed* to work all these answers out.
If I am right then we are going to work these answers out because *we* want to know the answers. Sort of now-ish, while we are still alive, if possible.
Which reminds me, it's a pity Patrick Moore didn't get to see out another couple of years so he could see that comet rendezvous and Pluto, in close up. Maybe the hope of lasting long enough to do so was what kept him going?
Here's a quick précis, to save you having to read the whole book.
http://
Included links to rebuttals of selected points.
Well worn ground, it appears.
http://
Included links to rebuttals of selected points.
Well worn ground, it appears.
Hypo. The BBC asks its Science editor, David Shukman for his opinion on this subject and it is hardy surprising for him to affirm its validity - albeit for non-scientific, 'human adventure' type reasons.
You seem, even as a scientist, not to see that the major motivation behind this project is politico-American, "we'll show 'em!" masked as science, macho stuff, to produce a strong WOW factor.
I suppose some lives are so bloody boring that they need this kind of thing. To quote Juvenal; "Panem et Circenses" - Bread and Circuses, with the accent on the latter at the expense of the former.
Regarding ID, your description of it is wrong, (certainly not mine) and you really should do better than trawl for critics before directly researching what has been said, particularly by Behe and specifically on blood-clotting for example.
You seem, even as a scientist, not to see that the major motivation behind this project is politico-American, "we'll show 'em!" masked as science, macho stuff, to produce a strong WOW factor.
I suppose some lives are so bloody boring that they need this kind of thing. To quote Juvenal; "Panem et Circenses" - Bread and Circuses, with the accent on the latter at the expense of the former.
Regarding ID, your description of it is wrong, (certainly not mine) and you really should do better than trawl for critics before directly researching what has been said, particularly by Behe and specifically on blood-clotting for example.
I googled for amphibian blood clotting but, even better, this link references lamprey (example of fish before jaws evolved) and hagfish, which secrete a gelatinous slime, made of fibrin, in order to repel predators (if it can choke the attacking fish's gills with goo, it may even kill its attacker)
It is a set of slides and I suspect the associated lecture is not provided. Just keep scrolling on and reading the text statements for a few nuggets.
http://
There is an, otherwise inexplicable, slide of the cover of Behe's book, near the start. I can't imagine what the lecturer might be saying, at this point!
It is a set of slides and I suspect the associated lecture is not provided. Just keep scrolling on and reading the text statements for a few nuggets.
http://
There is an, otherwise inexplicable, slide of the cover of Behe's book, near the start. I can't imagine what the lecturer might be saying, at this point!
Latest Posts
Crosswords9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
ChatterBank27 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles68 mins ago
ChatterBank106 mins ago
