# NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment



## Wyverex (May 6, 2011)

NASA said:
			
		

> *May 4, 2011:* Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity.
> 
> Researchers confirmed these points at a press conference today at NASA headquarters where they announced the long-awaited results of Gravity Probe B (GP-B).
> 
> ...


Continue here


I think it's great that there's still _pure_ science research going on. Applied science & technology is great, but they usually evolve faster after breakthroughs in fundamental knowledge


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 6, 2011)

I dunno, there's a lot of variables they couldn't eliminate like space debris/meteorites.  Not saying general relativity is wrong; just saying I have little faith in this experiment.


----------



## AsRock (May 6, 2011)

They will need a good shield generator too .

I have little faith in any thing they do tbh,  in fact how America is at the moment the money could be better spent else were and we should start looking after what we have and stop this crap about other planets as we will just do the same to that one.


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

AsRock said:


> They will need a good shield generator too .
> 
> I have little faith in any thing they do tbh,  in fact how America is at the moment the money could be better spent else were and we should start looking after what we have and stop this crap about other planets as we will just do the same to that one.



i entirely disagree.  the pie below shows spending:






we need to STOP trying to police the world, and find ourselves a way to space.  our planet will NOT last forever, and every generation we sit here brings us closer to extinction.

the most important thing the human race could EVER do for itself, is come together well enough to make our way into space.


----------



## AsRock (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> i entirely disagree.  the pie below shows spending:
> http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?...=p3&chl=2010 NASA budget|2010 Military budget
> 
> we need to STOP trying to police the world, and find ourselves a way to space.  our planet will NOT last forever, and every generation we sit here brings us closer to extinction.
> ...



Silly chart has no numbers lol.. And so what if the human race goes like hell it be more of a good thing than bad as hell we cannot look after the one we have already.

Cannot tell me that this planet would not be so much better of without us lol.

And still regardless how low it may seem tot he military budget  was last years nasa crap some thing around 20 billion ?.. Which could of gone to help New Orleans and please that place is not right even today.


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

AsRock said:


> Silly chart has no numbers lol.. And so what if the human race goes like hell it be more of a good thing than bad as hell we cannot look after the one we have already.
> 
> Cannot tell me that this planet would not be so much better of without us lol.
> 
> And still regardless how low it may seem tot he military budget  was last years nasa crap some thing around 20 billion ?.. Which could of gone to help New Orleans and please that place is not right even today.



so it'd be a good thing if we were extinct, but we should do more to help new orleans?

i care about the planet and all, but mostly to the extent that my life depends on it.  sure
the planet would be better off, but we would not exist so how is that even a considerable option?


----------



## NinkobEi (May 6, 2011)

Nasa's budget is .45% of 1 penny for each $100 payed in taxes..or something like that. As far as I'm concerned, their budget is the only worthwhile money spent ;P


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

Ninkobwi said:


> Nasa's budget is .45% of 1 penny for each $100 payed in taxes..or something like that. As far as I'm concerned, their budget is the only worthwhile money spent ;P



++++++

how could science and exploring space *NOT *be considered the most important thing humans could ever do.

i just don't get it.


----------



## plugugly (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> how could science and exploring space *NOT *be considered the most important thing humans could ever do.
> 
> i just don't get it.



Because the cost of exploring space is prohibitive and until we find a way to make some money off of it there will be no incentive to explore. For the most part I think the only way we can continue exploring into space is by removing it from being a government sponsored undertaking and push the cost into the private sector. Surely if there is money to made in a galaxy far far away, it will be done.


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

plugugly said:


> Because the cost of exploring space is prohibitive and until we find a way to make some money off of it there will be no incentive to explore. For the most part I think the only way we can continue exploring into space is by removing it from being a government sponsored undertaking and push the cost into the private sector. Surely if there is money to made in a galaxy far far away, it will be done.



so we don't have to be physically exploring if it's not worth it, but researching the technology.

i'm not saying we are currently going about it the best way, but i am saying less money
and opportunity is not the answer.  the goal is of the utmost importance, so we need to
continue to advance in every way possible towards that goal.


----------



## HTC (May 6, 2011)

plugugly said:


> *Because the cost of exploring space is prohibitive* and until we find a way to make some money off of it there will be no incentive to explore. For the most part I think the only way we can continue exploring into space is by removing it from being a government sponsored undertaking and push the cost into the private sector. Surely if there is money to made in a galaxy far far away, it will be done.



No: US's defense budget is prohibitive.


----------



## plugugly (May 6, 2011)

The defense budget is extremely high, but with that budget there is a lot of money being made. Contracts to design and build the weapons which we use to make war, the United States Defense budget creates jobs and helps maintain an entire industry, more so than the exploration of space does.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 6, 2011)

plugugly said:


> Because the cost of exploring space is prohibitive and until we find a way to make some money off of it there will be no incentive to explore. For the most part I think the only way we can continue exploring into space is by removing it from being a government sponsored undertaking and push the cost into the private sector. Surely if there is money to made in a galaxy far far away, it will be done.



So I guess the government figured out a way to rape us on health care then? Or are you just for privatizing things the corporate/goverment masters say is good for you? We need NASA. We need everything they can bring and have brought to our lives. Turn off the Ed Schultz and open your mind. NASA can give us results. A lot more then any bomb ever could.


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

themailman78 said:


> so i guess the government figured out a way to rape us on health care then? Or are you just for privatizing things the corporate/goverment masters say is good for you? We need nasa. We need everything they can bring and have brought to our lives. Turn off the ed schultz and open your mind. Nasa can give us results. A lot more then any bomb ever could.



qftmft


----------



## plugugly (May 6, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> So I guess the government figured out a way to rape us on health care then? Or are you just for privatizing things the corporate/goverment masters say is good for you? We need NASA. We need everything they can bring and have brought to our lives. Turn off the Ed Schultz and open your mind. NASA can give us results. A lot more then any bomb ever could.



Government raping us on health care? What the hell are you talking about. The only reason the government is attempting to making any changes to health care is to lower the cost of it, and the reason they want to lower the cost of it is because of the massive impact the cost of Health Care is having on our budget ( See Medicare/MediCaid budget for a real shocking contrast). 

I wasn't suggesting that the massive disparity of spending between NASA and Defense was a great idea, I was just giving some insight to why it is.


----------



## Sasqui (May 6, 2011)

Getting off the topic of military vs. Nasa budget, the whole GPS system is designed around the thoery of relativity (it really IS true):

" To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the *Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy*. 

Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). *Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion. *

*Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture).* As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day. 

The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, *a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! *The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time. This kind of accumulated error is akin to measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus, Ohio one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are currently about 5000 meters in the air somewhere over Detroit. ..."

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (May 6, 2011)

well the way i see it, meteorites contain precious materials are planet lacks, other planets around us could be harnessed for different gases that could be used for a multitude of different purposes, theres also the fact that planets could contain new metals and materials that could reshape how we build things, but im guessing those are not good enough reasons either right? Besides it may be an issue that we are using are planet, but mars had water at somepoint and life, which means deep in mars there could be oil of some kind similar to what we use, now granted yes we are moving towards cleaner energy but if we could actually travel to mars and mine its materials would that not also be a a good reason to explore space.

Fact is Nasa's budget is tiny compared to what we spend blowing up destorying or using of are own planet, id rather pay for nasa to develop new tech and get us closer to exploring and exploiting are galaxy, because the sooner we can exploit the galaxy itself the sooner we can stop exploiting earth to the ridiculous extent that we do.

and for those against space exploitation id rather blow up all the other planets and save earth  because earth is the only planet in are solar system that can support life, all other planets to me are just giant resources we cant quite exploit yet.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 6, 2011)

plugugly said:


> Government raping us on health care? What the hell are you talking about. The only reason the government is attempting to making any changes to health care is to lower the cost of it, and the reason they want to lower the cost of it is because of the massive impact the cost of Health Care is having on our budget ( See Medicare/MediCaid budget for a real shocking contrast).


 Which in turn will skyrocket cost. It already has.


----------



## NinkobEi (May 6, 2011)

plugugly said:


> Because the cost of exploring space is prohibitive and until we find a way to make some money off of it there will be no incentive to explore. For the most part I think the only way we can continue exploring into space is by removing it from being a government sponsored undertaking and push the cost into the private sector. Surely if there is money to made in a galaxy far far away, it will be done.



You assume NASA has never made money for the Gov't. I dare say NASA is responsible for the creation of satellites, COMPUTERS (Where would computer tech be without a good reason for computing power?), tons of synthetic plastics, biological/pharmaceutical research (cant have our astronauts getting sick, biology in space is very much different from biology on earth). 

There are so many things that NASA is indirectly responsible for that I cant even name them all. Hell, I challenge you to find something that NASA ISN'T indirectly responsible for in today's society. The moon landing fiasco furthered human knowledge/technology more than any project in history.


----------



## plugugly (May 6, 2011)

Ninkobwi said:


> There are so many things that NASA is indirectly responsible for that I cant even name them all. Hell, I challenge you to find something that NASA ISN'T indirectly responsible for in today's society. The moon landing fiasco furthered human knowledge/technology more than any project in history.



I don't think anyone is suggesting that NASA is not good, and exploration is good for humanity. However, the discussion was about removing money from one part of the federal budget to another. Explicitly, taking money out of the Defense budget and adding it to NASA's budget.

And what exactly did the moon landing give us aside for a hollow victory against the Soviet Union. The only reason we were able to go to the moon and make those great leaps into space during the 60's was because NASA's budget at the time was around %4 of the federal budget, currently NASA's budget is around %.6 so we would have to increase NASA's budget by over %600 to get back to where we were in the 60's.


----------



## cheesy999 (May 6, 2011)

plugugly said:


> And what exactly did the moon landing give us aside for a hollow victory against the Soviet Union. The only reason we were able to go to the moon and make those great leaps into space during the 60's was because NASA's budget at the time was around %4 of the federal budget, currently NASA's budget is around %.6 so we would have to increase NASA's budget by over `0 to get back to where we were in the 60's.



moon landing was terrible, takes all the mystery out of it, what's that up in space? nothing just a lump of rock


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (May 6, 2011)

mystery what mystery its not like anyone believed the moon was a giant cookie that could end world hunger or something / end troll post 

lol


----------



## cheesy999 (May 6, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> mystery what mystery its not like anyone believed the moon was a giant cookie that could end world hunger or something / end troll post
> 
> lol



yeah but there's a lot of religous stuff based on themoon etc if you see what i mean


----------



## Suhidu (May 6, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> mystery what mystery its not like anyone believed the moon was a giant cookie that could end world hunger or something / end troll post
> 
> lol



You mean you never thought ... not even for a moment, that just maybe....


----------



## streetfighter 2 (May 7, 2011)

That's all fine and well, BUT WHERE THE HELL ARE THE GRAVITONS!?!?





Sorry I couldn't resist .  That's an actual quote and picture of Clifford Will, one of the people monitoring this experiment.

In case anyone cares, here are a few things NASA did for you.


----------



## stevednmc (May 7, 2011)

NASA gave us Tang, they're alright in my book just for that..


----------



## twilyth (May 7, 2011)

I recently read about a paper that says that there is no time dimension to space time since time doesn't actually exist - a belief I've held since . . . well, forever really.

They say that space is indeed 4D, it's just not the 4D's that Einstein gave us.  Not sure that really makes much of a difference though.  It was a pretty dense article and I can't say I ever got the point they were trying to make.

Anyway, I sort of get the idea of space being curved on some higher dimensional level.  The thing I have a problem with is frame-dragging (what they proved is happening here).  If someone could explain that to me in a non-mathematical but not overly simplified way, I'd be grateful.


----------



## wahdangun (May 7, 2011)

plugugly said:


> I don't think anyone is suggesting that NASA is not good, and exploration is good for humanity. However, the discussion was about removing money from one part of the federal budget to another. Explicitly, taking money out of the Defense budget and adding it to NASA's budget.
> 
> And what exactly did the moon landing give us aside for a hollow victory against the Soviet Union. The only reason we were able to go to the moon and make those great leaps into space during the 60's was because NASA's budget at the time was around %4 of the federal budget, currently NASA's budget is around %.6 so we would have to increase NASA's budget by over %600 to get back to where we were in the 60's.



what are you crazy. Moon landing is the most important thing that america can achieve it make you america a head start to the race to exploit rare material on the moon, if you don't take that advantage it will be super dumb, you will be left out in the dust by china, europe, and even india. They all have started the RnD to go to the moon, hell even china increasing their budget to speed up their development.

btw if you want to increasing the nasa budget there are simple way,  GET YOUR ASS OUT FROM IRAQ AND LIBIYA, if you want to make better world then nuke all that stupid pirate in somalia.

And one more thing there is cheaper way to do space exploration in the 70's, just search project orion if you want to know about it.


----------



## wahdangun (May 7, 2011)

twilyth said:


> I recently read about a paper that says that there is no time dimension to space time since time doesn't actually exist - a belief I've held since . . . well, forever really.
> 
> They say that space is indeed 4D, it's just not the 4D's that Einstein gave us.  Not sure that really makes much of a difference though.  It was a pretty dense article and I can't say I ever got the point they were trying to make.
> 
> Anyway, I sort of get the idea of space being curved on some higher dimensional level.  The thing I have a problem with is frame-dragging (what they proved is happening here).  If someone could explain that to me in a non-mathematical but not overly simplified way, I'd be grateful.



yes time is the 4th dimension, just like our movement in 3d space that are relative to each other.
example: 
when a bird walking around you then that bird travel in 2d, but when the bird fly to evade you then it was travel in 3d space. Same as time, imagine you want to in to the future, so you go to the blackhole, because the mass is so immense it create gravity that so powerfull it can bend space and time, and make the time slower in that place, so when you got out from it you are basically travel in time to the future, because let say, 1minute in blackhole equall 100 years out site, so when you 10 minute in there then you go out, to the earth the time have passed for 1000 years. So the conclusion is you basically have travel to future 1000 years relative to earth time


----------



## HTC (May 7, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> yes time is the 4th dimension, just like our movement in 3d space that are relative to each other.
> example:
> when a bird walking around you then that bird travel in 2d, but when the bird fly to evade you then it was travel in 3d space. Same as time, imagine you want to in to the future, *so you go to the blackhole, because the mass is so immense it create gravity that so powerfull it can bend space and time*, and make the time slower in that place, so when you got out from it you are basically travel in time to the future, because let say, 1minute in blackhole equall 100 years out site, so when you 10 minute in there then you go out, to the earth the time have passed for 1000 years. So the conclusion is you basically have travel to future 1000 years relative to earth time



The gravity that a black hole has is so immense that the person you mentioned would be crushed long before interring the black hole, from our perspective, that is.

There's an episode of Stargate SG1 that talks about this (S2-Ep16): it's obviously fictional but the "time differences" within the show explain what i mean.


----------



## digibucc (May 7, 2011)

HTC said:


> The gravity that a black hole has is so immense that the person you mentioned would be crushed long before interring the black hole, from our perspective, that is.
> 
> There's an episode of Stargate SG1 that talks about this (S2-Ep16): it's obviously fictional but the "time differences" within the show explain what i mean.



it depends on the size of the black hole.  a large enough one could suck you 
in whole, though most would stretch you out like a piece of spaghetti.

stargate was one of the more accurate shows in regards to the actual science 
it portrayed, and probably why i loved it so much   just re-watched the entire 
series these past few weeks

but yeah, it depends on the perspective of the viewer of course, but a large 
enough hole _could _theoretically suck in a whole person.


----------



## HTC (May 7, 2011)

digibucc said:


> it depends on the size of the black hole.  a large enough one could suck you
> in whole, though most would stretch you out like a piece of spaghetti.
> 
> *stargate was one of the more accurate shows in regards to the actual science
> ...



That's what i'm assuming though i could be wrong.

Recently, i watched an episode of "How the Universe Works" and it was talking about moons. What this episode has in common with black holes is that it was mentioning that Jupiter once had more then 200 moons but some were too close to the planet they were literally crushed by it's gravity.

The same show mentioned NASA sent a "probe" (???) literally into Jupiter: it went roughly 64 Kms inside Jupiter before it was crushed by it's gravity. Jupiter's gravity is so immense it's felt all the way to Saturn.


----------



## hv43082 (May 7, 2011)

digibucc said:


> i entirely disagree.  the pie below shows spending:
> http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?...=p3&chl=2010 NASA budget|2010 Military budget
> 
> we need to STOP trying to police the world, and find ourselves a way to space.  our planet will NOT last forever, and every generation we sit here brings us closer to extinction.
> ...



"Focus on space, the Untied States of Space...because I am not stopping at the moon.  Write this down M.A.R.S, Mars bitches.  That's where we are going.  Red Rock, yay yay!"


----------



## digibucc (May 7, 2011)

HTC said:


> That's what i'm assuming though i could be wrong.
> 
> Recently, i watched an episode of "How the Universe Works" and it was talking about moons. What this episode has in common with black holes is that it was mentioning that Jupiter once had more then 200 moons but some were too close to the planet they were literally crushed by it's gravity.
> 
> The same show mentioned NASA sent a "probe" (???) literally into Jupiter: it went roughly 64 Kms inside Jupiter before it was crushed by it's gravity. Jupiter's gravity is so immense it's felt all the way to Saturn.



well obviously there was plenty of impossible/unknown things, it's a sci-fi show.  but they
really put effort into properly explaining theories (as simple as possible albeit) , and
adding real science to their plots.  that's so rare nowadays with "syfy" crahp.

now nasa is trying to figure out how to withstand the gravity, so they can maybe find
out what all is down there.  i love watching the docs where they build the probes and stuff, super interesting.



hv43082 said:


> "Focus on space, the Untied States of Space...because I am not stopping at the moon.  Write this down M.A.R.S, Mars bitches.  That's where we are going.  Red Rock, yay yay!"



what is that from?


----------



## theJesus (May 7, 2011)

plugugly said:


> Because the cost of exploring space is prohibitive and until we find a way to make some money off of it there will be no incentive to explore. For the most part I think the only way we can continue exploring into space is by removing it from being a government sponsored undertaking and push the cost into the private sector. Surely if there is money to made in a galaxy far far away, it will be done.


So the only motivation to do anything in life is money?  I disagree.


----------



## HTC (May 7, 2011)

digibucc said:


> well obviously there was plenty of impossible/unknown things, it's a sci-fi show.  but they
> really put effort into properly explaining theories (as simple as possible albeit) , and
> adding real science to their plots.  that's so rare nowadays with "syfy" crahp.
> 
> ...



That same show i mentioned (How the Universe Works) said Jupiter is a gas planet and so is Saturn. That *small detail* wasn't mentioned when i learned the planets while @ school.


----------



## digibucc (May 7, 2011)

HTC said:


> That same show i mentioned (How the Universe Works) said Jupiter is a gas planet and so is Saturn. That *small detail* wasn't mentioned when i learned the planets while @ school.



i know, the gas part was there but not the understanding that that potentially (likely)
is all the planet is made from.

i mean seriously, that size and immense force - made from gas.

the universe is simply awe-inspiring


----------



## D4S4 (May 7, 2011)

Ninkobwi said:


> There are so many things that NASA is indirectly responsible for that I cant even name them all. Hell, I challenge you to find something that NASA ISN'T indirectly responsible for in today's society. The moon landing fiasco furthered human knowledge/technology more than any project in history.



i haven't gone thru the rest of the thread after reading this post so i may be a lil off topic, but:

if there wasn't NASA, you wouldn't have VELCRO bitchez!


----------



## theJesus (May 7, 2011)

stevednmc said:


> NASA gave us Tang, they're alright in my book just for that..





D4S4 said:


> if there wasn't NASA, you wouldn't have VELCRO bitchez!


Straight from NASA:

"Tang, Teflon, and Velcro, are not spinoffs of the Space Program. General Foods developed Tang in 1957, and it has been on supermarket shelves since 1959. In 1962, when astronaut John Glenn performed eating experiments in orbit, Tang was selected for the menu, launching the powdered drink’s heightened public awareness. NASA also raised the celebrity status of Teflon, a material invented for DuPont in 1938, when the Agency applied it to heat shields, space suits, and cargo hold liners. Velcro was used during the Apollo missions to anchor equipment for astronauts’ convenience in zero gravity situations. Although it is a Swiss invention from the 1940s, it has since been associated with the Space Program."

Source: NASA Spinoff FAQ


----------



## wahdangun (May 7, 2011)

HTC said:


> The gravity that a black hole has is so immense that the person you mentioned would be crushed long before interring the black hole, from our perspective, that is.
> 
> There's an episode of Stargate SG1 that talks about this (S2-Ep16): it's obviously fictional but the "time differences" within the show explain what i mean.



actually if we can invent antigravity device then it won't matter at all, we can even go back in time through wormhole with that device


----------



## HTC (May 7, 2011)

Not from Youtube but it's the full episode, i think:

http://watchdocumentary.com/watch/how-the-universe-works-episode-02-black-holes-video_0afbc5202.html

This ain't the one i mentioned: that one was titled "Alien Moons".


----------



## HTC (May 7, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> actually if we can invent antigravity device then it won't matter at all, we can even go back in time through wormhole with that device



Don't think so, dude: if you were in a chamber with so-called anti-gravity, you would be OK for as long as the chamber functioned as it should but the chamber itself would be crushed and, therefore, so would you.

EDIT

Oooops: double post.


----------



## wahdangun (May 7, 2011)

HTC said:


> Don't think so, dude: if you were in a chamber with so-called anti-gravity, you would be OK for as long as the chamber functioned as it should but the chamber itself would be crushed and, therefore, so would you.
> 
> EDIT
> 
> Oooops: double post.



don't think so dude lol.

its because if we can generate it past the chamber then it won't matter at all, tough it will difficult to propel the vehicle inside antigravity


----------



## pantherx12 (May 7, 2011)

plugugly said:


> The defense budget is extremely high, but with that budget there is a lot of money being made. Contracts to design and build the weapons which we use to make war, the United States Defense budget creates jobs and helps maintain an entire industry, more so than the exploration of space does.



Protip: if you stopped spending money on guns, you could develop other industries.
( For example, thousands of jobs in hospitals if you spend the money on health care, thousands of engineering jobs if you spent more on space, 1000s of teaching jobs if you developed schools etc)

What you said is what a politician would say, technically correct. But doest''t mean it's the be all and end all.



Or hell! go nuts, and invest the money into developing a society were people are not required to work ( I.E working their whole life to have a home) but choose to work so they can have nice things.

I.E Tax the hell out of tvs etc Make housing, education and food(not chocolate and other crap) cheap as hell, maybe even free.

But why would any government ever do that eh? Better to have a work force you can rely on isn't it? he he


----------



## Kreij (May 7, 2011)

I see that this thread quickly went from science to politics.
We expected that in this new section, HOWEVER, keep the discussion civil and if you are going to make sweeping political statements on the status of funding of various scientific endeavors ... *post sources* and try to base your posts on something at least marginally verifyable.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, just getting you all to learn how to take responsibility for your posts. 
Thanks guys. Carry on.


----------



## BinaryMage (May 7, 2011)

digibucc said:


> ++++++
> 
> how could science and exploring space *NOT *be considered the most important thing humans could ever do.
> 
> i just don't get it.



I agree entirely. Unfortunately, TPU is not the American government. (W1zzard, you want to run for president?) I think we need to focus on humanity as a species and work together to really explore and better ourselves. We have so much potential that is wasted bickering with and sometimes killing each other that could be used to make incredibly fast progress in fields like space travel, astrophysical research, etc. 

The intelligent people of the world just need to band together, form a organization or such, and we could accomplish so much. With the Internet, I think that could very well be possible.


----------



## wahdangun (May 7, 2011)

if just america didn't scrap project orion in the 70's we will already go to mars right now


----------



## BinaryMage (May 7, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> if just america didn't scrap project orion in the 70's we will already go to mars right now



Who knows if Project Orion would work, though, and if it did, it probably would be rather inefficient for long-term propulsion.


----------



## D007 (May 7, 2011)

I don't think this thread is supposed to be about the American economy and what/where we should be, according to everyone with an opinion.. We should get back on topic. 

I think the study seems very thorough and I take Einsteins word over any forum members any day..lol.. No matter how big of a nerd u think you are, your no Einstein. So when people on a forum try to counter predict a geniuses theories, I can't help but chuckle.
Building/overclocking and programming pc's are nothing compared to physics and quantum physics.
Einstein is still kickin ass, even from the grave.. nice..


----------



## a_ump (May 7, 2011)

D007 said:


> I don't think this thread is supposed to be about the American economy and what/where we should be, according to everyone with an opinion.. We should get back on topic.
> 
> I think the study seems very thorough and I take Einsteins word over any forum members any day..lol.. No matter how big of a nerd u think you are, your no Einstein. So when people on a forum try to counter predict a geniuses theories, I can't help but chuckle.
> Building/overclocking and programming pc's are nothing compared to physics and quantum physics.
> Einstein is still kickin ass, even from the grave.. nice..



i hear what your saying, but just because this community is dedicated to computer technologies doesn't mean there aren't any of us with respectable knowledge in other areas, including physics.

OT: This is all very intriguing, but um....so basically this entire project was to further prove something that everyone or almost everyone, had accepted? I guess to me, this isn't exactly huge. If it was some phenominal discovery that proved or supported the idea of something that had long been thought far-fetched, then it'd be epic. Though i could see how it could be considered epic bc of the tech they invented lol


----------



## NinkobEi (May 8, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> if just america didn't scrap project orion in the 70's we will already go to mars right now



We still wouldnt be at Mars because the VASIMR engine isnt complete yet. 

http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/VASIMR


----------

