Perhaps, although ultimately Newton's foundational assumption that two bodies exert a force on each other has been proven to be wrong, with the bodies influencing curved spacetime which in turn influences other bodies. The distinction is maybe not so great as to say that Newton was wrong, as he developed an approximation which explained his observations. But ultimately his assumption and theory did turn out to be incorrect so were technically disproved. In the end that example just goes to prove what we both say - science is always about developing more accurate approximations of the world through theory, with each new approximately facilitating new technologies. Newton's approximation was good enough for space travel and everyday use, but Einstein's approximation was required for particle physics, and hence modern X-Rays, MRI, and all the other associated techs. I should title it "How the Large Hadron Collider will create a black hole that sucks up all of Liverpool's points and hopes"
Newton's equations are still used and are important parts of astrophysical mathematics. When you get to the very small this is where Newton's law falls short. But with large masses it is fine, particles not so much. Newton's equations deal with forces also, Relativity doesn't deal not with forces.
There is no doubt that some scientific experiments are a waste of time. We hear examples of them all the time. Do cats always land on their feet? Is obesity unhealthy? Are traffic jams caused by traffic? But we need to look beyond that. As Kennedy in a moment of wisdom once said... I've chosen that quote because I think it typifies thinking that sets civilisations apart throughout history. I travel a lot and I see the complete lack of any sense of innovation or purpose for greater thinking by people and governments of some countries. They don't get the point and it's so sad bcos all I see is a limited nation with people who lack the capacity for greatness. What I mean is they will spend incredible sums on things like energy resources, infrastructure development, healthcare because they can see a tangible purpose. But very few will look at the need for a "Tomorrow's World" type of research. If everyone had that approach, the world would stagnate. Yes we'd take methodical steps in scientific progress, but not the leaps and bounds in human advancements we have through greater, broader, often immaterial, intangible endeavours when at our best throughout history. In the modern era I see this thinking in certain nations/continents and Europe seems to be one. So who cares if someone decides to research "whether clothing keeps you warm", when there are others who may be discovering “oogonial stem cells” that could have massive implications on the ageing process
I can see the sense in that. Especially the "some countries" bit, but it really extends to hte whole scientific community because of problems.. Science is suffering in several ways. One of the worst afflictions on science is "funding", the second is consensus or "science by vote" as there are many examples of this that has held science back for decades or even centuries. Another is the religious nature of the science world in some ways, where an alternate view can be seen as an attack on beliefs, with the biggest zealots defending the religious beliefs not even being scientists, or not a sientist in that field, de Grasse Typson defending GM food an example. Then there is priority, again funding can and often does dictate. What I mean is, shall we spend billions funding smashing particles together or shall we fund research into a certain disease? Pollution or landing on a comet, replacing oil or proving there is dark matter? As for the whole "why not the moon" thing, we still haven't figured out our brains, we still do not know where memories are stored. The bottom of the oceans still are largely unexplored too. In short it is chaos, a myriad of entities all pulling in their own direction often to the longterm detriment of the whole. That is humanity in a nutshell Ageing We already live far longer than we were built for. When you are born your heart, like any other piece of equipment has a lifespan, it only has only so many beats in it no matter how well you look after it. People do talk about lifespan and ageing then go eat sugar and drink booze and smoke s**t and do coke, even the scientists abuse themselves physically and foregoing sleep shortening their life spans while looking to increase lifespan. We are funny, we want to abuse ourselves and have science fix it all, that typifies modern humans perfectly. Scientists are a mixed bag like the rest of us, not some pure alternate species, they lie cheat and steal like the rest of humanity. Remember the guy who claimed to have quantum computing cracked, got a job with Lockheed n all, only got caught why? Because the mother of a fellow student noticed his chart data looked familiar, because it was the same data curves from another experiment. This guy was supposedly so s**t hot every one believed they could not replicate his work because he was so good, so not peer reviewed, turned out he made it all up, total fabrication, lied his way to the top of the sciences And the big hullabaloo about Quantum computing being cracked... all just vaporised without much fanfare. Theoretical science is much like refereeing, interpretation, one scientist will interpret data one way or another. If you are already predisposed to an idea then that will almost certainly influence your interpretation. Take the big bang, the founding father of the big bang was a Belgian priest and mathematician who wanted to prove St. Augustine's dictum called "creation out of nothing". Ideologial driven science goes against scientific principle.
One of the most inspirainal pieces of non-war leadership rhetoric there. Still brings goosebumps and shivers. Mankind desperately needs another JFK, but nowadays he'd be run out of town for his womanising, as that's what the media is more ****ing focussed upon . Top notch sentiment from Treble too.
