This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

rocket888's Profile

rocket888's Avatar Joined almost 4 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by rocket888

More Discussions by rocket888

Latest Comments by rocket888

Go to: 'Space Chronicles': Why Exploring Space Still Matters

rocket888's Avatar Jump to comment 40 by rocket888

I'm all for research in and of outer space. I just don't like government's monopoly on it.

If the government would only get out of the way, and stop taxing us to death, there'd be space stations of the likes in the movie 2001. Only governments want to send up astronauts so they can puke and lose bone mass.

As for research with robots, this too should be funded by private means. Perhaps some billionaires with an interest in space or universities that banded together could provide the funding. The fact that governments spend many times more than is needed is common knowledge. If we have to wait a few years for technology to catch up, then so be it. Just think of all the ways the wasted money could be better spent.What better a way than have people vote with their own dollars, instead of other peoples money.

There's also lot's of science documentaries, such as the many Tyson appears in that could be used to fund space research. If nobody is watching these science channels, then it means that people aren't interested in the subject and shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

By all means research space, but don't stick up the taxpayers to pay for it.

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:29:40 UTC | #923172

Go to: Why Romney's Religion Matters

rocket888's Avatar Jump to comment 69 by rocket888

A few said: "Ron Paul is a libertarian..." "..just look at his stance on health care..."

This is precisely why I wouldn't care less about whether he believes in creation, evolution, or the spaghetti monster.

A libertarian believes only that aggressive force is an evil. Ron Paul is running not so he can force his beliefs on anyone, but rather to take force out of the picture (except in defense).

His stance on health care is simple. Nobody has a right to enslave another. Healthcare is NOT a right. If it is a right, then what of the rights of those who would be forced to deliver health care. What of the rights of those who would be forced to pay for someone else's health care - even at the expense of their own.

I have few doubts that Romney is itching to use the new presidential powers that Obama has usurped. So, there won't be much of a change no matter who wins.

Only Ron Paul would be different. He's not beholden to the real owners of the US government (hint, not the "people"), so he won't get elected.

The real problem is that so many people fear libertarians. I don't understand why. I guess most people really don't like freedom, not even for themselves. And they really hate freedom for others.

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:28:06 UTC | #914875

Go to: While temperatures rise, denialists reach lower

rocket888's Avatar Jump to comment 51 by rocket888

"On the other hand, global warming supporters really haven't got anything to gain from it."

REALLY......

You mean there's nobody who gets any funding by saying they're looking at the effects of climate change on (fill in any blank). That's not what I was told at my NASA job. We were encouraged to use the terms climate change in any funding requests if it was at all feasible.

This whole subject is now so political/religious that I don't see how anyone truly has the ability to tell what the truth is on the matter. I don't think we'll really know for quite a few more decades what the truth is.

Note: I don't believe either side - but I think there's more activity on the alarmist side. I don't much care anyway, since I'll be dead before it matters, and I think it's more likely I'll get to know if string theory is real. I just don't see anyway to judge who's telling the truth, who's data is real, who's got the most to gain etc. One side compares non-believers to holocaust deniers. The other side claims it's all a huge conspiracy. For every article/story/claim etc. on either side, I can find one with the opposite opinion.

But I did look at some data once. And it was supposed to be the raw data on temperatures over the last 100 or so years. I found the reference on this site. Great I thought. Let me see this raw data. But all I could find were monthly averages and everything was in beautifully formatted digital text files that were obviously designed to be easily parsed by any modern scripting language, like perl or TCL; even easily imported into excel. I asked how this could be raw data when there weren't even any computers before WWII.

Obviously, much of the older raw data had to be on some form of paper. Even if it was 80 column punch cards, it still couldn't be the original raw data - someone would have had to keypunch it. I wanted to see some pictures of the actual raw record keeping. Something like a diary to show where these neat little text files came from. A few samples at least so I could do a bit of checking myself. What was called the raw data was so obviously data reduced that there was no way to tell if any of it was real or if it was entirely made up.

So, when I commented like this, naturally I was branded a denier.

Nothing either way is obvious from normal sensory experience. Everything has to be deduced from 3rd, 4th, 100th hand information. Maybe a handful of people in the entire world have access to actual 1st hand information. The rest are simply going by what someone else told them. You either believe or you don't.

As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

But to say that only the skeptics have something to gain..... I think first I'd believe there really is an invisible god in the sky that knows everything I do. Praise Yaweh.

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:37:27 UTC | #913315

Go to: To the Moon, Newt!

rocket888's Avatar Jump to comment 33 by rocket888

Newt is probably just is looking for a way to send his ex to the moon.

(You're all probably too young to remember the classic tv show - Alice! you're going to the MOON, pow zoom!)

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 06:00:40 UTC | #912142

Go to: Krauss finds something in nothing

rocket888's Avatar Jump to comment 37 by rocket888

Forget Jesus. Ok, but how many times did he also say, "Now that changes everything"!

Dark Energy, Dark Matter. The new new Jesus. Suppose in 20 years, they find out that they measured the expansion incorrectly, will that mean that Jesus is back?

I don't believe in invisible gods in the sky nor do I believe in the invisible energy and matter in the sky - based on one observation (or at most one kind of observation).

I believe there's something strange out there, but to say that "NOW, we understand it all" or even understand enough is as bad as religion. At the end of the 19th century, they too thought they had all of physics figured out.

For example, there's the theory of cosmic inflation. You would think this is some proven concept. Naw, it's just something that makes the math work. No idea where it came from, why it only worked when it worked, and no physical evidence or experiments that can prove it, at least not in the way someone like Feynman (Krauss' Quantum Man) would accept.

Ah, but there's a book one can buy... and oh yeah, I bought and read his Quantum Man, and thought it was pretty bad (which is tough when your subject is the fascinating Feynman). So, I don't think I'll be buying his new book. Fool me once...

Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:52:09 UTC | #905694

More Comments by rocket888