xxx200

all i want from members of science forum to give me one benefit that can be achieved only by sending somebody to another planet and not otherwise. the forum members show me benefits of so called space programme which could otherwise be achieved here on earth without the space programme. they cannot show me benefits to human race that can be exclusively related to a space programme. some members compare space programme with very important things which is NOT a comparison at all. some compares space programme with other USEFUL inventions which is again an impossible comparison. i ignore these impossible comparisons for usual reasons. the discussion is almost over. i conclude that sending people to other planets has no benefits for humanity since no one can show any benefit exclusively related to space programme. it is just a magnificent wastage of money and a pleasurable passtime for rich fat americans.

sorry . benefits from these innovation is seen at the time of innovation. expanding knowledge does not require such a huge expnditure at all. it may not be so. it is just a remote possibility. there is no concreate certainity. seed, steam engine, steel sword have a certain usage or need in human society which was visualized at the time of their creation. in this case there is no such certainity that in future stuff from mars will have any use. what have we done with moonstone and moondust which appollo brought from moon? bring moonstone and moondust and forget the moon bring mars stone or marsdust and .............................

who said the war on terror that isn't working? do you think that war on terror is finished after laden's death? if yes then let me remind you that majority of muslims DO NOT LIKE america at all. they will continue war against america in their way. besides by criticizing their prophet america makes most of the muslim, if not all, its worst enemy. these enemies will attack america in their own way. besides china also do not like american influence over their policy. there is a possible warfare ahead in the future with so many enemies of america. so defence is more necessary than space research. because steam engine can carry more load and work faster than horse with no fatigue at all. steam engine can be used in industry. steal sword is sharper than copper and bronze sword. it can be used in war. pottery is used to make pots that store our food and necessary things. seeds will grow into plants that can be used for commercial purpose. house is just like another cave. i still don't get the logic of leaving cave. why send people to another planet? why find life on another planet when we have life on earth?

let me show you how all these things can be achieved without sending spacecrafft to mars; mine technology can be developped here on earth. do you mean that when people of earth live on land, water and sky in a large quantity? well that is too distant a future to worry about now. this can be done on earth too. in a less costly way. this is done by fuel technologists, autumobile companies and airplane companies here on EARTH. this is the objective of many airplane makers. this can also be done by making airplane and testing them on the sky of EARTH. you don't need to go to outer space for that. there is a science called aeronautics that deals with how to make vehicle move through air. all FMCG goods companies are doing it HERE ON EARTH in their lab. so you see : you don't have to go to mars to achieve the ends you mention. exactly what are the returns that we can get from mars exploration which is not available otherwise? sir i don't want to hear how NASA's technology helped people in the past. my topic is how NASA's current mission to mars is helping people now? please be specific and straightforward. thanks.

look man don't make me laugh. defence is one of the most important field of any country. spending in that field has MANY returns. but what return NASA mars exploration has on human race? why searching for evidence of the former presence of water and of past environments that may have been capable of sustaining life? what is the use of such info in our present situation? the life sustaining environ is a past thing in mars. it is not present there anymore. then why digging the past? why looking for water in the mars? there is plenty of water here on earth.

just show what we get apart from jobs from mars exploration project. be specific and straightforward.

NASA mission to planet mars creats a budget of $2.5 billion . its only return to american people is creation of 7000 jobs in 31 states. but is job creation the only objective of NASA space programme? what other benefits are there in the recent mars exploration? why america doesn't spend $2.5 billion to save life on planet earth instead of finding life on planet mars? besides there is a deficit of $1.327 trillion in US budget 2012 . is it good for america to spend $2.5 billion for nothing? some people may argue that mars exploration creates job but those job will be gone once the curiosity returns to earth. this is not a long term benefit at all. what other benefit a country like america will get whose budget runs on huge deficit?

is it a hypothesis?

if the begining of a methodology is arbitrary then how come the rest of the methodology is sound? if you start your journey in the wrong direction how come the rest of the journey be in the right direction? how come you arrive at your destination in that case? enjoy the humor and laugh out loud.

look man understand this: THERE IS NO LACE OF ARBITRATION IN SCIENCE. be it the begining of scientific invention or middle or end. NO ARBITRATION. ok? the way you write my signature is the way people do debate both in debate forum and in court. i am not debating here. i am just trying to explain that scientific investigation must have sound basis. there should be no arbitration in it.

you said that prediction is arbitrary . it means that prediction is not based on sound logic and fact. this is the meaning of arbitraryness. prediction must be based on sound logic. arbitrary prediction is like a sand castle. it can be broken down easily. if you have to predict, predict based on careful observation.

in science THERE IS NO PLACE FOR ARBITRARINESS. science is concrete, logical and based on sound facts. i really cannot appreciate arbitration in science.

well then the pattern of scientific investigation is : observation A, prediction B, observation B, prediction C......................................... observation N. ok. is modern scientific investigation goes on in this pattern?

but he discovered the foundation of modern science: gravity, light, motion etc. he must have some erudition in him. but how we can explain a thing without seeing it first? how could we even predict about a thing without seeing it properly? what we should predict? no it is like setting the carriage before the horse rather than setting the horse before carriage. it is very stupid. what is going on now is that people set a prediction and then do the experiment and interpret the outcome in a way to support the prediction. this practice gives birth to some of the most bizzare concepts which is beyond our wildest imagination. i think newton is right. =Uncool-

so you said that to know something invisible or subtle prediction is needed. but why then sir issac newton said that prediction has no place in experimental science in his optiks.

why we need prediction in studying nature? suppose we study how trees grow. should we first predict how trees grow and then measure the accuracy of the prediction? why not just simply observe how trees grow?

hi the question is why should we use a hypothesis? is it necessary to use hypothesis in every situation? in ancient times natural philosophers use question-answer method to know nature. they do not use hypothesis. in early modern ages, baconian method ( sir francis bacon) were used by sir thomas brown, issac newton, john stuart mill etc. also emphasizes that no hypothesis should be used. sir issac newton said in his principia that "hypotheses non fingo" (I don't make hypotheses). in his optiks he said "hypotheses have no place in experimental science." but in modern science hypothesis is the starting point of research. why it is so? who started it? why noted scientists such as issac newton were so against it? please answer. source: baconian method

look A molecule (/ˈmɒlɪkjuːl/) is an electrically neutral group of two or more atoms held together by covalent chemical bonds.[1] so molecules consist of atoms. many atoms gather to create a molecule. ok? the nature of molecule must come from nature of atoms or the that of the bonds. solid atoms gather to create solid molecules. then these Solids, liquids, and gases are states of atoms too. so by this logic there are 3 types of atom :Solids, liquids, and gases. now furthur info on atom: atoms contain elements called electron, protron and nutron. they r called composite subatomic particle. these particles are made of elementary sub atomic partcles called flavours or quirks. quirks carry on electric charge, color charge, mass and spin. they cannot be separable. these elementary particles give matter the flavour: color, mass, spin, electric charge etc. so matters are no more than these elementary sub atomic particle called quirks. there are also many elementary sub atomic particle: lepton, gauge boson, gluon, higgs boson. they all give the matter its property. so matters are no more than these elementary sub atomic particle. links: subatomic particle

ok i withdraw my caim that matter is nothing but charges. but if these electrons don't have any charge then what they actually are? a matter(solid/liquid/gas) or something else/ we must know that in order to understand matter.

you mean electron, proton and nutron are not charges, they are elements? what are they then? they are in solid, liquid and gas. what are they then?

every physics was first a speculation and then become physics. there is nothing wrong in speculation. it is the first step towards discovery. take the example of ice. what is ice? isn't it water that appear solid? or is it something more than water? the same way if matter consists of atoms and atoms consists of charges, then logical conclusion is matter consists of charges. so my theory is logically correct.

all i say that charges like electron accumulate in a particular pattern to appear as matter; solid, liquid or gas. they are measurable like solid, liquid or gas but actually they are charges. universe is nothing but gathering of charges like electrons in a particular pattern. that pattern is a cause of appearence as solid, liquid or gas. that pattern is temporary. in time slowly slowly the pattern changes and so the appearence of matter. sometimes the pattern is altered by men causing change in appearence of matter. there is no such thing as solid, liquid or gas. its only the appearence of matter.

a matter can be reduced to atom and atom is reduced to electron, protron and neutron which are nothing but charges. if we link up all ideas from electron to matter then what is matter anyway? smallest charges accumulate o create atom and atoms accumulate to create matter. so the matter is nothing but charges. be it solid, liquid or gas, it is nothing but charges. what do you think?

so it is based on consensus and peer reviewed article. some people say that these claims are false (consensus) means that these claims are scientifically false. the article of gallow the finder of HIV=AIDS theory is not peer reviewed, by the way. really? koch's postulate shows how to judge cause - effect relationship. such postulate will be outdated because new scientists, a mere magazine said so. how silly. cause effect relationship is identical to everything in this world. if this thing really happened then how come there is HIV positive people with no AIDS? how come HIV when injected in chimps does not cause AIDS? then either this article is a lie or the world health statistics is a lie. which one is a lie then? what are the name of those denialist-turned- believer scientists? please give their name. who is this ted goertzel? what is his qualification and why should we believe him? reallu mueee, you have posted the SILLIEST piece of article i have ever seen. thank you for westing my time.

it is clear from the facts i gather that HIV does not cause AIDS. now why the conspiracy? it is for one reason: business. there is a partnership between CDC and other private sector organization to achieve the aim of CDC. such partnership is authorized by section 399F of the Public Health Service Act. the "medicine" of HIV is anti retroviral drugs which is sold by the private sector health organization who are partners of CDC. since HIV is a retrovirus, anti retroviral drugs are the only weapon against it. so the sell of anti retroviral drug skyrocketed after discovery of HIV. if HIV is not declared the cause of AIDS, then these anti retroviral drugs will be useless. their SELL will decline. hence CDC is so against the AIDS deniers. it clearly propagates that HIV caused AIDS without sufficient proof. now do you understand? this is your belief and not necessarily truth. if people with HIV has really some illness, what is the proof of such illness except the fact that they have HIV? you just look at their bloodstream, find HIV and prescribe drug cocktail without caring if they really have any disease or not. it sounds like hearing that the falcon took my ear i go looking out for the falcon without ever seeing if my ear is really in its place. such nonsense. what if AIDS is really related with homosexuals? have you ever tested the relation between gays and AIDS? you have never seen the video i have posted in my initial post which clearly shows that 62% gays have AIDS. unless you see the videos and UNDERSTAND the facts stated there, you will never understand me. my agenda is to open you eyes up and show you the truth. and what is proper science according to you? trusting what others say rather than understanding the facts? no, thats not your forum rules. the rule is to trust BLINDLY what others say without understanding the meaning of it. i don't want to follow such rules.