- #36
ohwilleke
Gold Member
- 2,347
- 1,340
SUSY.Vanadium 50 said:
SUSY.Vanadium 50 said:Please give an example of spending billions of dollars on a theory that should be abandoned. Multiple examples would be even better.
I was talking about the LHC: https://www.google.com/search?q=lhc+costVanadium 50 said:Please give an example of spending billions of dollars on a theory that should be abandoned. Multiple examples would be even better.
The symbol of infinity is infinite. Just like a circle is.Demystifier said:Humans comprehend infinity by reducing it to something finite. All explanations of infinity take a finite number of symbols.
Or to paraphrase Janis Joplin, infinity's just another word for something left to gain.
And what theory "that should be abandoned" has caused us to spend billions on the LHC?jaketodd said:I was talking about the LHC:
No, it's finite but without boundary.jaketodd said:The symbol of infinity is infinite. Just like a circle is.
It's my opinion that way too much money is spent on "science." A lot of the time, tons of money is spent on complicated operations and research that yield very little actual advances. That's the gist here.Vanadium 50 said:And what theory "that should be abandoned" has caused us to spend billions on the LHC?
Here's what I think. I think you just Made It Up. You will find that's not how PF works and that's not how science works.
So in a world of ~8000000000 people, supporting a couple of 1000 string theorists is excessive?jaketodd said:It's my opinion that way too much money is spent on "science." A lot of the time, tons of money is spent on complicated operations and research that yield very little actual advances. That's the gist here.
I think there are times in life when it's time to call it quits, in many areas.Frabjous said:So in a world of ~8000000000 people, supporting a couple of 1000 string theorists is excessive?
First, you are shifting your ground. You originally said this was pursuing "theories that should be abandoned." But you couldn't give any examples. This is reinforcing my conclusion that you just Made It Up. You will not go far on PF if you insist on just Making Things Up.jaketodd said:It's my opinion that way too much money is spent on "science." A lot of the time, tons of money is spent on complicated operations and research that yield very little actual advances.
String theory is not a charlatan theory. It may prove to be wrong or unverifiable, but that is completely different. The resistance to string theory is arising from the physics community itself, so the idea that it will go in perpetuity “as is” is naive and a waste of our time. Most research areas do not die, they go fallow.jaketodd said:I think there are times in life when it's time to call it quits, in many areas.
And it's not a purely monetary subject. Convoluted, over-complicated, confusing, charlatan theories exist in physics and all areas. And they just confuse people and waste time.
You're trying to put words in my mouth, and are just plain rude.Vanadium 50 said:First, you are shifting your ground. You originally said this was pursuing "theories that should be abandoned." But you couldn't give any examples. This is reinforcing my conclusion that you just Made It Up. You will not go far on PF if you insist on just Making Things Up.
Second, how much is too much? How much do you think should be spent on science? Or as you say, with scare quotes, 'science'. 10% of GDP? 5%? If you think it is too much, tell us what it should be, and defend your number.
Finally, using the World Wide Web and devices using transistors and ICs manufactured using UV lithography to complain about a lack of benefits of science...excuse me...'science'...is, well hilarious.
jaketodd said:Convoluted, over-complicated, confusing, charlatan theories exist in physics and all areas.