The NASA blurb is all self-serving PR about how their current missions will allow them further exploration of space. Not even a replacement for TANG has been developed - lol...As for satellite tech, yes that is useful, and why I restricted my comment to exploration of other planets. Sure, as NASA says, their mission is to further explore our meaning and destiny. So, outer exploration is seen as a valid use of science. Inner exploration, aka yogic science, not so much. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <olliesedwuz@...> wrote : Why would NASA speak about colonizing *anything*?? ollieollieollie, it was you who just wrote, "When asked, the people involved mention some fantasy about colonizing other planets." It sort of proves my point that such a fantasy is centuries away. Nobody is disputing that point, especially not the folks involved in the space probe missions. Colonization is still just science fiction. They aren't even close to having the tech to initiate such a project. And yes, we now have TANG, the orange-flavored breakfast drink with a full day's worth of Vitamin C, from our moon missions. :-) Yeah, you should probably read the page I linked to to see what other benefits there are already and will be soon from space exploration. Let's take particle physics as another example, with no practical value to any of their experiments, and yet somehow a collective feeling that this is useful science I'll let salyavin handle the notion that particle physics is not a useful science. , vs yogic science, which is largely seen as mystical. The bias is unmistakable, as is the preference for funding. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <olliesedwuz@...> wrote : Yeah, there is a pretty strong bias against yogic science in the West. Possibly even a racial prejudice. Yoga did not evolve out of either the Western sciences or religions, and as such, is considered suspect by many. In terms of Western science, there is certainly no justification to spend billions to send space probes to other celestial bodies and planets. When asked, the people involved mention some fantasy about colonizing other planets. Excuse me? That is easily as far-fetched as the Maharishi Effect, in terms of technology's ability to fulfill such an undertaking. Perhaps in several centuries, but not any time soon, given the magnitude of such an undertaking. Yet, because we can send a robot to Mars, no one questions the veracity of such a fantasy, and the continued billions spent. I don't know who you've been listening to, but I don't believe it's scientists who are actually involved in the space probe missions. The vast majority will agree that colonization is an extremely long-term goal, one that they aren't even thinking about currently. They're much too busy making use of their findings and technology to benefit life on earth. Have a look at this from NASA. See if you can find any mention of colonization. Overview https://www.nasa.gov/topics/benefits/overview/index.html https://www.nasa.gov/topics/benefits/overview/index.html Overview https://www.nasa.gov/topics/benefits/overview/index.html NASA.gov brings you the latest images, videos and news from America's space agency. Get the latest updates on NASA missions, watch NASA TV live, and lea... View on www.nasa.gov https://www.nasa.gov/topics/benefits/overview/index.html Preview by Yahoo