![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't done anything since then. Begs the question if building an even larger, costlier linear accelerator. LHC is down now, getting a power upgrade. Still, spending $15B and finding something (the Higgs) is better than to have spend $150 billion for nothing (ISS).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQAcLW6qdQY |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 18:30:09 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote: Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't done anythi= ng since then. Begs the question if building an even larger, costlier line= ar accelerator. LHC is down now, getting a power upgrade. Still, spending= $15B and finding something (the Higgs) is better than to have spend $150 b= illion for nothing (ISS). It's wrong to say we've got nothing from the ISS. Haven't you seen some of the many beautiful videos from there? It has also given good training in international cooperation. And it has given Americans the valuable insight that they are not always best at everything, now that they are forced to rely on Russia to get their astronauts to and from the ISS and have been so for almost 8 years. You may of course argue if what we got from the ISS is worth the cost or not. But it's just plain wrong to say we got absolutely nothing from the ISS. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Saturday, 15 December 2018 03:42:36 UTC-5, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 18:30:09 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't done anythi= ng since then. Begs the question if building an even larger, costlier line= ar accelerator. LHC is down now, getting a power upgrade. Still, spending= $15B and finding something (the Higgs) is better than to have spend $150 b= illion for nothing (ISS). It's wrong to say we've got nothing from the ISS. Haven't you seen some of the many beautiful videos from there? It has also given good training in international cooperation. And it has given Americans the valuable insight that they are not always best at everything, now that they are forced to rely on Russia to get their astronauts to and from the ISS and have been so for almost 8 years. You may of course argue if what we got from the ISS is worth the cost or not. But it's just plain wrong to say we got absolutely nothing from the ISS. Add up all the positives and divide into $150 billion. Then divide the $150 billion by any other worthwhile public projects you can think of. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
RichA wrote:
Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't done anything since then. Begs the question if building an even larger, costlier linear accelerator. LHC is down now, getting a power upgrade. Still, spending $15B and finding something (the Higgs) is better than to have spend $150 billion for nothing (ISS). Please do not post here again until you have a minimum clue: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/results_category And if you post, either please do not use Google Groups, or work around its bugs. For example, your lines are light-years long, give or take some orders of magnitude; the agreed limit is 80 characters. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
RichA wrote:
On Saturday, 15 December 2018 03:42:36 UTC-5, Paul Schlyter wrote: You may of course argue if what we got from the ISS is worth the cost or not. But it's just plain wrong to say we got absolutely nothing from the ISS. Add up all the positives and divide into $150 billion. Then divide the $150 billion by any other worthwhile public projects you can think of. If one day the medical research done up there helps to save *your* life, would that be "positive" enough for you? Blithering idiot. Do not feed the troll. (This has nothing to do with amateur astronomy, the topic of this newsgroup.) -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 19:46:59 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote: On Saturday, 15 December 2018 03:42:36 UTC-5, Paul Schlyter wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 18:30:09 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't done anythi= ng since then. Begs the question if building an even larger, costlier line= ar accelerator. LHC is down now, getting a power upgrade. Still, spending= $15B and finding something (the Higgs) is better than to have spend $150 b= illion for nothing (ISS). It's wrong to say we've got nothing from the ISS. Haven't you seen some of the many beautiful videos from there? It has also given good training in international cooperation. And it has given Americans the valuable insight that they are not always best at everything, now that they are forced to rely on Russia to get their astronauts to and from the ISS and have been so for almost 8 years. You may of course argue if what we got from the ISS is worth the cost or not. But it's just plain wrong to say we got absolutely nothing from the ISS. Add up all the positives and divide into $150 billion. Then divide the $150 billion by any other worthwhile public projects you can think of. Doing that may produce a result you think is too small, but it will still be larger than zero. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 7:50:13 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't done anything since then. That's sort of a "What have you done for us lately?" comment, since that alone justified the effort in building it. Now that it exists, it's the best instrument available for high-energy research. Maybe it will point out that an even bigger accelerator is genuinely needed for new physics. The negative result that the Standard Model is pretty good to energies as high as it can reach, while unexiting, is useful too. The blame belongs to the way the Universe works, not how it was built. John Savard |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sunday, 16 December 2018 22:54:15 UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
RichA wrote: Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't done anything since then. Begs the question if building an even larger, costlier linear accelerator. LHC is down now, getting a power upgrade. Still, spending $15B and finding something (the Higgs) is better than to have spend $150 billion for nothing (ISS). Please do not post here again until you have a minimum clue: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/results_category And if you post, either please do not use Google Groups, or work around its bugs. For example, your lines are light-years long, give or take some orders of magnitude; the agreed limit is 80 characters. Where, on your 9" green screen monochromatic CGA monitor? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, 17 December 2018 01:58:51 UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 7:50:13 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote: Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't done anything since then. That's sort of a "What have you done for us lately?" comment, since that alone justified the effort in building it. Now that it exists, it's the best instrument available for high-energy research. Maybe it will point out that an even bigger accelerator is genuinely needed for new physics. The negative result that the Standard Model is pretty good to energies as high as it can reach, while unexiting, is useful too. The blame belongs to the way the Universe works, not how it was built. John Savard You can't be serious. It's like spending $1 billion on a moon rocket that can't break orbit then blaming the rocket. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 6:59:37 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
You can't be serious. It's like spending $1 billion on a moon rocket that can't break orbit then blaming the rocket. The difference is that escape velocity is known in advance, whereas the energy regime in which new physics may be found... is unknown. So it's not like a rocket that can't get to orbit; it's like a rocket that _does_ get to Mars... but fails to find life there. John Savard |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Large Hadron Collider | Angelocracy | Policy | 49 | September 15th 08 04:13 PM |
The Large Hadron Collider | Angelocracy | History | 54 | September 15th 08 04:13 PM |
LARGE HADRON COLLIDER and 'Higgs field' (Was... ) | oldcoot | Misc | 1 | September 9th 08 08:22 PM |
Large Hadron Collider | L.A.T.[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | September 3rd 08 12:51 AM |
Large Hadron Collider | David Sweeney | Amateur Astronomy | 14 | March 5th 07 12:10 AM |