Ever since I began quoting on Science from Google news headlines

No, there's more to it than that: either the entire broadcasting establishment has become dumbed down by the ****, or it's a part of the overall dumbing down program. The tabloid press is one thing, but when the BBC gets involved in it, that's government at work.

I mean what about this '17 minutes of terror'? NASA itself has being saying that.

 

You may feel that it's a dumbing down programme but then again it's ever been thus.

The BBC's science coverage, as flawed as individual reports may be, is streets ahead of the tabloid garbage.

If you want to know something, go to the original sources. BBC stories tend to (but not always) contain links to those original sources.

 

There's healthy skepticism and there are conspiracy theorists.
As it is,cerby's not convinced that astronauts landed on the Moon.

 

I suggest most 'people' today are self-serving...not just politicians.

Affordability of technology is a huge issue. But governments at all levels can force this to change over long periods of time...like requiring all new and/or rebuilt buildings to have solar energy generation...like requiring vehicles to have less pollution, etc. And this works but will take many decades to involve a majority of people. Of course many governments won't even begin the process!

Stuff like climate change and science always bumps up against capitalism...if it's not profitable for investors good luck getting it implemented...

 

You would know if you read and folllowed the links on your OWN CITES!

Some scientist made a remark in a paper. It did not seriousl suggest the object was an alien probe. It more suggested that the suspected acceleration was either a mistake or came from a short list of explanations of how objects in space accelerate.

It was not a peer reviewed paper and the guy who said it certainly does NOT believe it was of alien origin.

 

everybody needs to eat and pay the bills, there those of us who do it honestly and then there are criminals...with politicians there those who truly want to make a difference, they'll you the uncomfortable truth and then there those who will tell us as many lies as it takes in order to benefit themselves, there far too many of the later

[/QUOTE]Affordability of technology is a huge issue. But governments at all levels can force this to change over long periods of time...like requiring all new and/or rebuilt buildings to have solar energy generation...like requiring vehicles to have less pollution, etc. And this works but will take many decades to involve a majority of people. Of course many governments won't even begin the process!.[/QUOTE]and some countries are doing just that because they have the politicians with the balls to take the lead, implementing mandatory electric car dates...increasing stringent emission levels where manufacturers will have no choice but to switch to electric but it hits all equally so it's a level playing field...minimum housing standards that reduce energy consumption...those three alone are all doable it only requires politicians not obstruct the progress for their own election interests...

it's all profitable when manufacturers are on a level playing field... manufacturers are being coddled, remember the days when if they didn't build a good product and keep up with technology they'd go bankrupt.

 

Affordability of technology is a huge issue. But governments at all levels can force this to change over long periods of time...like requiring all new and/or rebuilt buildings to have solar energy generation...like requiring vehicles to have less pollution, etc. And this works but will take many decades to involve a majority of people. Of course many governments won't even begin the process!.[/QUOTE]and some countries are doing just that because they have the politicians with the balls to take the lead, implementing mandatory electric car dates...increasing stringent emission levels where manufacturers will have no choice but to switch to electric but it hits all equally so it's a level playing field...minimum housing standards that reduce energy consumption...those three alone are all doable it only requires politicians not obstruct the progress for their own election interests...

it's all profitable when manufacturers are on a level playing field... manufacturers are being coddled, remember the days when if they didn't build a good product and keep up with technology they'd go bankrupt.[/QUOTE]

Self-serving is detrimental to democracy since few can think about the 'whole' and instead only think about themselves.

The US has a culture, the good and the bad, and like it or not, our leaders and politicians, etc. all must deal with it. People...we're our own worst enemies! Trying to force moderate change is difficult never mind complex change!
IMO it mostly comes down to money and knowledge...knowledge to be able to rationalize our best interests and money to fund our ventures...sadly average Americans are short on both of these...

 

Why do you and The Don persist in making excuses and dream up desperate explanatory justifications for these people? You really want to believe all this crap don't you?

Good news on Insight oops, I mean InSight (what a brilliant play on a word?) yesterday wasn't it . . . years of missions to the Red Planet and despite all those squillions of miles to get there, nothing ever goes wrong? That's really amaaaaaaaaaaaaazing doncha agree? They'll soon be doing one a week at this rate - thank you dear taxpayers. Don't ask me why they've chosen Mars to obsess about though, because nobody will ever go there. They'd get off the spaceship, then drop dead for lack of oxygen. So then it'd be a classic case of 'Was your journey really necessary?'

Bloody hell, Will, wake up and smell the coffee.

 

Believe what ? The things you seem to be railing against are tabloid caricatures of the actual research being done.

Regarding Mars, you couldn't be more wrong if you think that nothing ever goes wrong. One of the reasons why this latest probe is such a big deal is that some recent ones - Beagle springs to mind - have failed very publicly.

The reason why Mars is of such interest is that it's the most Earth-like planet in the solar system and that at least some of the prerequisites for life are, or have been in place.

I really don't understand your objection to scientific research.

 

Yes, but the question is (and I asked it yesterday) Why do they do it? Especially the BBC?

Do any others 'spring to mind' or only Beagle? So that's what? 1 failure (probably a lie to cover a lie anyway, and make it all look more legit?) out of about 30 or 40 'missions'over the years?

But apart from being spherical it isn't at all 'Earth-like' is it? There probably isn't another planet more unlike Earth? It has no atmosphere, nor oceans, nor forests, nor animal life forms (so we'd starve to death even if we could breathe?). So we can't live there, nor ever effing will.

You know where I'm coming from, and it isn't from a place of objecting to scientific research: I've already said a few times how much I admire and respect scientists for the tangible results of their efforts which benefit us all as a species. My objection, as you're well aware, is focused on scurrilous opportunism in the guise of 'scientific research'. They're toying with you; and what I don't understand - you being an obviously intelligent man - is why the **** you can't see it as being the nonsensical space-babble that it is.

 

Ignorance is a plague on society, and it's at its worst when it's willful ignorance; that is, when you have a person who knows nothing about a subject, and refuses to be bothered with something as trivial and useless as learning about it before they open their mouth.

 

So I'm wilfully ignorant and you're wilfully gullible? I can live with that. But having read your posts and assessed your IQ by them, I don't think you're in any position to educate me?

 

"Moment NASA control room erupts in jubilation as probe lands on Mars"



Well at least they're not high-5ing like sporty people do? And note the ubiquitous lanyards - they probably wear 'em in bed! lol Nice 'work' if ya can get it though.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/wor...-spacecraft-touches-down-on-red-a4000836.html

Actually the more I look at that pic, the more it looks staged??

 

Well...I watched it live so if staged they had some really good actors.

Oh and they DID some high 5ing as well as fistbumping…..no endzone dances though.

 

Why do they do what ?

They report on science stories for the same reason that they report on other stories, they are of interest to their audience.

I mentioned Beagle because it was a UK-built probe and Colin Pillinger was good box office. If you were at all interested in learning, you could have typed "list of Mars missions" into an internet search engine. I've done it for you and here's the Wiki article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Mars

Why are you so fixated on living there ?

Mars is certainly more Earth-like than any of the other planets in the Solar system.

You do however seem to object to fundamental research - research where there is no immediate practical application.

 

DUH! I'm asking why they infantilize it?

I'd already seen it on the BBC On-line news while sitting on the loo this morning. I seem to recall there was a partial failure too, in addition to the Beagle's total one.

What other reason can there be for keep going there at the cost of zillions of taxpayers money? Don't forget to answer that question because it's very salient.

Non-seq.

Nor long-term practical applications. Are you skim-reading posts because I keep saying it!![/QUOTE]

 

This is the bit that really confuses me. You seem to go out of your way to find the most infantilised source, and be outraged by it, and yet never seem to bother to find or read the original research.

The BBC is less bad than most at "dumbing down" in my opinion but the reason why the media presents stories in this way is so that the readership can understand it and want to read it. I actually have an interest in astronomy and astrophysics and a bachelors degree which included these subjects but academic papers are:

• Sometimes far too technical in parts for me to be able to understand
• Really dry and boring

Well the Wikipedia page provides a decent summary of the success or otherwise of Mars missions but you prefer to don your armoured suit of ignorance.

We've been through this before in at least one other thread. There are number reasons why scientists are interested in Mars without there being a desire to live there.

????

You claimed that

I dispute that. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are all gas giants with no solid surface. They are far, far colder than either Earth or Mars and as far as we know have none of the requirements for life. Venus is 400C and has an atmospheric pressure 90 times that of Earth and Mercury is a rock which is -170C at night and 400C during the day.

You have no idea what the long term practical applications of this research may be - and that's the point.

 

Do you then? Give me one example (topically, seeing as it's gone there to discover what Mars is made of subterranean-wise?) what will be the advantages of finding out what's underground that will make any difference to ours or anyone else's lives?

Oh, and there are quacks and charlatans in all repeat all professions and fields of 'scientific research', don't you agree>?

 

I'm not sure, I'm not a geologist. Then again it could be the pursuit of knowledge simply for its own sake.

Absolutely, and one of the great things about the scientific method and peer review is that, if they actually submit papers to renowned publications, they will soon be found out. That's why most quacks and charlatans don't publish, or publish in fringe journals, to avoid scrutiny.

 

Isn't the whole point of spinoff technologies is that people don't know how they can be used until the technology is developed because of the initial need in the first place?

Just because you're on another anti NASA rant, these are a few things that were a result of the technological developments needed to solve a different problem by NASA

LASIK
Temper foam
LED's for different medical treatments
Invisible braces for teeth
Scratch resistant lenses for glasses
Space blankets, now included in a lot of first aid kits.
Aircraft de-icing
Improved tires
Chemical detection
Firefighting equipment
Shock absorbers for buildings
GPS accuracy
Structural analysis software

 

Having read your posts and assessed your IQ by them, I know.you're in no position to assess mine.

 

No, I want people not to get confused by the supermarket tabloids that imply nonsense about what people say and do. YOU could have refused to be so taken in by simply clicking through to read what was REALLY said about that cigar shaped interloper.

Human exploration of the planets has included all sorts of failures. Some have just been blown up by their launch vehicle. Some have landed "hard". Some have had failures of individual instruments, wheels on rovers, or whatever.

Missions don't all have the same purpose. These satellites just aren't big enough to include all the instruments and equipment needed to figure everything out. There are reasons for going to Mars instead of other places - it's near (communication, travel), it can be landed on (not a gas planet), it doesn't have super high radiation, its atmosphere isn't shrouded in sulfuric acid clouds, 850 F, and at a pressure equivalent to 3,000' deep in the ocean, like Venus, its near enough to the sun that solar energy is enough and a nuclear power plant isn't required (like it is for outer planets), etc.

 

Or it could be a self-serving scam? Did you seem them all 'celebrating' yesterday? Like a bunch of kids they were! The pursuit of knowledge - especially when it's funded by the taxpayers - should be for the advancement of mankind, not 'simply for its own sake'?

But if they're part of a recognised organisation, such as one of the international space agencies, their gravitas will be instantly accepted at face value. Still no comment as to why the BBC chooses to be condescending and jokey . . . bit like the specially-selected-for-their-glibness PR talking heads are, when being interviewed. Have you noticed that? They always try to slip in something which will cause a laugh. I don't miss these revealing little nuances, even if you do.

 

Jesus wept - all of those things could have been achieved without going to effing Mars couldn't they? And I don't rant, I discuss enthusiastically.