This is a repository for all cool scientific discussion and fascination. Scientific facts, theories, and overall cool scientific stuff that you'd like to share with others. Stuff that makes you smile and wonder at the amazing shit going on around us, that most people don't notice.
Post pictures, vidoes, stories, or links. Ask questions. Share science.
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis:
I've never experienced this, but at the same time, I have a really distorted perception of time compared to other people. A "chronological" past is a very difficult concept for me; I get the idea of "past" but the ordering of past is what is tricky for me. I have a hard time distinguishing something that happened yesterday vs something that happened a couple of weeks ago. Something that happened 15-20 years ago still seems relatively recent to me. I know when folks talk about events regarding the Chiefs, saying such and such happened in such and such year, it is such a foreign concept to me.
That's an interesting topic, but not what the post quoted is talking about.
Say the second hand on a clock only comes to a complete stop for 1/10 sec. If you happen to look at it at that EXACT second, your mind will not register when it starts moving again until it stops at the next tic 9/10 sec later. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis:
0.6% of the budget is a whole heck of a lot higher than I would of anticipated; with that big of a chunk of the budget, it is a relative boondoggle of a program when you get down to it. That is a HUGE percentage of the budget when you consider how many programs are competing for a piece of the budget pie. You look at that percentage and think it is underfunded because you personally value it so much, but I doubt that you've ever really had to look at a large overall budget before (I may be mistaken in that). NASA should have its budget whacked; the privitization of space exploration will result in much more effective results. NASA laid a lot of groundwork--it was crucial for where we are now, but we are no longer in the mid 60s. Good things still come out of it and that is why I don't advocate for abolishing it completely. Give the reigns over to guys like Elon Musk and use the money for other emergent scientific disciplines. Cut it by 2/3rds and split the money between the National Science Foundation and the National Institute for Health; you'll get more bang for your buck there.
I'm sorry but you are fucking insane. Mods can we have a thread ban here. JFC the stupidity in this one. [Reply]
In 2010, Americans spent just as much money on pet food, as they did NASA's annual federal budget. Think about that..
Perhaps you should think about that. There are approximately 72 million pets in the US. That averages out to about $263/year for each household with a pet.
It is estimated that, generously, there are approximately 300,000 amateur astronomers in the US. That averages out to about $63,333 for each household with an amateur astronomer.
Look at it another way, as of Jan. 1, 2009 there were approximately 12,549,000 Americans who have had cancer in their lives. That averages out to about $1514 for each household with a person who has or had cancer. Where do you think they would prefer the money to be spent? And that is with the understanding that some of the imaging techniques used in cancer detection today came from NASA problem solving....
Cut NASA's budget--don't eliminate it, but use the money in emergent sciences where you can see a greater RoI. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis:
Perhaps you should think about that. There are approximately 72 million pets in the US. That averages out to about $263/year for each household with a pet.
It is estimated that, generously, there are approximately 300,000 amateur astronomers in the US. That averages out to about $63,333 for each household with an amateur astronomer.
Look at it another way, as of Jan. 1, 2009 there were approximately 12,549,000 Americans who have had cancer in their lives. That averages out to about $1514 for each household with a person who has or had cancer. Where do you think they would prefer the money to be spent? And that is with the understanding that some of the imaging techniques used in cancer detection today came from NASA problem solving....
Cut NASA's budget--don't eliminate it, but use the money in emergent sciences where you can see a greater RoI.
You are so woefully uneducated on this issue it would be far better for you if you didn't comment further so others can't see the depth of your ignorance. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
That's an interesting topic, but not what the post quoted is talking about.
Say the second hand on a clock only comes to a complete stop for 1/10 sec. If you happen to look at it at that EXACT second, your mind will not register when it starts moving again until it stops at the next tic 9/10 sec later.
No, I understand that. I was just wondering if there was any relationship between my experience of time and my lack of experiencing chronostasis.... [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dave Lane:
I'm sorry but you are ****ing insane. Mods can we have a thread ban here. JFC the stupidity in this one.
Originally Posted by Dave Lane:
You are so woefully uneducated on this issue it would be far better for you if you didn't comment further so others can't see the depth of your ignorance.
You're just butthurt because someone doesn't agree that your pet project should get the amount of funding it currently receives (let alone more). It's not my fault you can't comprehend diminishing returns. You and Fish say it is woefully underfunded because it is 0.6% of a huge, huge budget--yet other branches of science--branches that are generating new discoveries at more accelerated rates-- get even less funding. Put the money there like I said you idiot. You complain because you two compare NASA's funding to the amount of money spent on pet food, yet you don't tell folks the fact that NASA's funding is so bloated it is more than many states entire fiscal budgets. It is a boondoggle. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis:
Perhaps you should think about that. There are approximately 72 million pets in the US. That averages out to about $263/year for each household with a pet.
It is estimated that, generously, there are approximately 300,000 amateur astronomers in the US. That averages out to about $63,333 for each household with an amateur astronomer.
Look at it another way, as of Jan. 1, 2009 there were approximately 12,549,000 Americans who have had cancer in their lives. That averages out to about $1514 for each household with a person who has or had cancer. Where do you think they would prefer the money to be spent? And that is with the understanding that some of the imaging techniques used in cancer detection today came from NASA problem solving....
Cut NASA's budget--don't eliminate it, but use the money in emergent sciences where you can see a greater RoI.
I never watched the clip you had posted, Fish, until now. NDT is a fucking monster of knowledge and the closest that one could get to a physics rockstar.
Originally Posted by Fish:
Video of a meteor explosion during the Perseids.... Looks like it hit an invisible force field....
I just got back from 12 days in the west doing stills and s I should have some pretty good Perseids meteors in there. I need to get them done and get them posted. [Reply]
