We live in interesting times

[MarcoSpace]

<p>I dont know, but it seems to me that these days (years) are more productive "science" wise that previous. Just the amount of headlines on space.com are delivering juice more than previous as well. And not only that, but we are talking ground breaking science if you ask me. Look at some quick ones I am following: </p><p>- Phoenix landed on Mars (The result could be LIFE outside planet earth)</p><p>- Space station getting new lab(s) (The result could be tons of new improved tech's in a few years)</p><p>- GLAST coming up (The result could be that we get tons of new info about the universe, and we finally solve some old problems, indeed a big thing)</p><p>- The guys at CERN starting to fire up the particle accelerator (this baby will give us answers for sure, and some of them will change lots of things)</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Just the 4 ones I think are mayor! Never the less, seems like we are on the brink to "something". <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-cool.gif" border="0" alt="Cool" title="Cool" /> </p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I dont know, but it seems to me that these days (years) are more productive "science" wise that previous. Just the amount of headlines on space.com are delivering juice more than previous as well. And not only that, but we are talking ground breaking science if you ask me. Look at some quick ones I am following: - Phoenix landed on Mars (The result could be LIFE outside planet earth)- Space station getting new lab(s) (The result could be tons of new improved tech's in a few years)- GLAST coming up (The result could be that we get tons of new info about the universe, and we finally solve some old problems, indeed a big thing)- The guys at CERN starting to fire up the particle accelerator (this baby will give us answers for sure, and some of them will change lots of things)&nbsp;Just the 4 ones I think are mayor! Never the less, seems like we are on the brink to "something". <br />Posted by MarcoSpace</DIV></p><p>I agree that there is a lot going on, and we are spending a lot of money.&nbsp; But I think the late 1800's and early to mid 1900's were more revolutionary and more productive.</p><p>Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism</p><p>Developoment of the atomic model and Einstein's confirmation through the study of Brownian Motion.</p><p>Atomic theory becomes the basis of chemistry</p><p>Discovery of the nucleus and development of nuclear physics</p><p>Development of special relativity</p><p>Planck's explanation of blackbody radiation and the beginning of quantum theory</p><p>Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect kicks off more intense developoment of quantum theory</p><p>Development of general relativity</p><p>Schrodinger, Pauli, Bohr, Heisenberg et al codify quantum mechanics</p><p>Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga solidify quantum electrodynamics</p><p>Watson and Crick discover the double helical structure of the DNA molecule</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JadedShock]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I agree that there is a lot going on, and we are spending a lot of money.&nbsp; But I think the late 1800's and early to mid 1900's were more revolutionary and more productive.Maxwell's theory of electromagnetismDevelopoment of the atomic model and Einstein's confirmation through the study of Brownian Motion.Atomic theory becomes the basis of chemistryDiscovery of the nucleus and development of nuclear physicsDevelopment of special relativityPlanck's explanation of blackbody radiation and the beginning of quantum theoryEinstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect kicks off more intense developoment of quantum theoryDevelopment of general relativitySchrodinger, Pauli, Bohr, Heisenberg et al codify quantum mechanicsFeynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga solidify quantum electrodynamicsWatson and Crick discover the double helical structure of the DNA molecule&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br />I'll have to agree with this.</p><p>Right now we are just expanding on current technologies, not necessarily innovating. This is not to say we're not advancing but I feel it's at a slower rate than say, a hundred years ago. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>__________________________<br />www.phoenixreign.com</p> </div>

 

[wick07]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'll have to agree with this.Right now we are just expanding on current technologies, not necessarily innovating. This is not to say we're not advancing but I feel it's at a slower rate than say, a hundred years ago. <br />Posted by JadedShock</DIV><br /><br />I disagree.&nbsp; The advances inthe late 1800 early 1900s took place over a span of decades, our current theories change and evolve over a span of months or years.&nbsp; Just my bit though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#3366ff"><strong>_______________________________<em> </em></strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"</em>If you are surrounded by those who constatly agree with you, then you're in an intellectual vacuum.  If you feel like trying to make a difference, you have to BE different.  How can you do that without interacting with those who are different from yourself?"</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">-  a_lost_packet_</font></p> </div>

 

[JadedShock]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I disagree.&nbsp; The advances inthe late 1800 early 1900s took place over a span of decades, our current theories change and evolve over a span of months or years.&nbsp; Just my bit though. <br /> Posted by wick07</DIV><br />Fair enough but I sometimes feel that the application of such theories makes for more "interesting times" than the theory itself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>__________________________<br />www.phoenixreign.com</p> </div>

 

[bearack]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I dont know, but it seems to me that these days (years) are more productive "science" wise that previous. Just the amount of headlines on space.com are delivering juice more than previous as well. And not only that, but we are talking ground breaking science if you ask me. Look at some quick ones I am following: - Phoenix landed on Mars (The result could be LIFE outside planet earth)- Space station getting new lab(s) (The result could be tons of new improved tech's in a few years)- GLAST coming up (The result could be that we get tons of new info about the universe, and we finally solve some old problems, indeed a big thing)- The guys at CERN starting to fire up the particle accelerator (this baby will give us answers for sure, and some of them will change lots of things)&nbsp;Just the 4 ones I think are mayor! Never the less, seems like we are on the brink to "something". <br />Posted by MarcoSpace</DIV><br /><br />The CERN experiments very much intrigue me and I think that will open a whole new door to new innovations.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Fair enough but I sometimes feel that the application of such theories makes for more "interesting times" than the theory itself. <br />Posted by JadedShock</DIV><br /><br />For a paradigm shift to be realized by people, you need that its concrete applications become clearly visible (and its opponents to die btw). Bose-Einstein condensates have been theoretized in the first half of the 20th century, but became "reality" with their observations only in the 90s with actual applications right now.</p><p>Also, such technological milestones are needed to trigger the next wave of theoretical revolutions, as they lead to more observations of facts, so more mismatches and more anomalies in need of explanation. </p><p>Imho, the cycle accelerates generally. The time-to-market in all technological fieds is now about 5 years on average (two only exceptions: phamaceuticals > 10 years because of precautions and tests, and alas, space technology because the market force is too low to move the agencies and the pay off too remote time-wise to generate private funding excepted on telecom satellites...). Fundamental physics are subsequently&nbsp;out-of-the-loop, which explains why the rhythm looks constant (one revolutionary phase every century). Take care though for constancy is an illusion... </p><p>So Jadedshock, I think that times of theoretical revolution are as exciting intrinsically as times of technological surge. But they are less detectable for man-in-the-street. (and so less enjoyable!). Maybe the theoretical revolution in fundamental physics has already occured, unnoticed, with one brilliant theory invented twenty years ago out of mainstream, waiting for observational evidence to put it in the limelights.</p><p>Remember that Einstein's relativity had to wait for 14 years for Eddington to conduct the eclipse experiment (with biased results btw) before being recognized. And today's theories require considerably energetic situations to be okayed.</p>

 

[h2ouniverse]

<p>Marco,</p><p>&nbsp;Concerning the knowledge of the Solar System, I had put some statistics in perspective in the old thread below:</p><p>http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=806102&page=13&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=</p><p>My favourites because the figures speak for themselves imho:</p><p>A) Number of bodies known to mankind in our Solar System (updated): <br />Up to 1600AD: 8 <br />Up to 1800AD: 22 <br />Up to 1900AD: about 700 </p><p>Up to 1990AD: about 13,000<br />Up to 1995AD: about 27,000 <br />Up to 2000AD: about 62,000 <br />By&nbsp;Feb 2008AD: /> 400,000 </p><p>B) Objects larger than 500km (i.e. than Enceladus, the smallest active body known), known to mankind in the Solar System: <br />1800AD: 21 <br />1900AD: 29 <br />2000AD: 35 <br />2008AD:&nbsp;70 </p><p>C) RECENT DISCOVERIES OF ACTIVITY ON SOLAR SYSTEM BODIES IN THE TWO PREVIOUS DECADES <br />Venus, Mars, Io and the four giants were already evidenced as "active" before 1987. "Activity" is defined in the broadest sense, as opposed to&nbsp;geological death, including: Volcanism, Cryovolcanism, Ice convection or liquid water layers, Liquid core, Current resurfacing processes, Evaporation/condensation cycles, Atmospheric cycles.&nbsp;<br />= />11 (15 with the TBC) additional bodies with indication of activity, starting from Triton's fly-by by Voyager:<br />Triton (1989) (cryovolcanism) <br />Europa (1997) (water or slush layers) <br />Ganymede (2000) (water or slush layers) <br />Callisto (2001) (water or slush layer) <br />Pluto (2002) (atmospheric cycle) <br />Ceres (TBC) (2003) (differentiation evidenced) (frost cycle?) <br />Titan (2005) (atmospheric cycles, rains, lakes, cryovolcano) <br />Eris (TBC) (2005) (methane cycle) <br />Enceladus (2006) (resurfacing, vents) <br />Dione (TBC) (2007) (vents ?) <br />Mercury (2007) (molten core) <br />Quaoar (2007) (cristalline ice) <br />2003EL61 (2007) (cristalline ice) <br />Charon (2007) (cristalline ice) <br />Iapetus (2007) (surface substance transfers by thermal segregation)(currently? TBC) </p>

 

[ZenGalacticore]

<p>It's funny how things change and how some things remain essentially the same. The internal combustion engine powered automobile, for example, has not fundamentally changed in over 100 years. And yet everything from the engine itself to the tires, the engine valves, to the headlights, to the electrical systems have been vastly improved upon, except the windshield wipers. But even the rubber compounds have been improved for the wipers as well.</p><p>But I do think that change, over all, is happening faster and faster. When we figured out the electro-magnetic force, only then were electric lightbulbs, radios, and television possible. When we figured out the small and weak nuclear forces, only then were atom bombs and nuclear power possible. And when we come up with a Grand Unified Theory for Everything, who knows what will become possible? Wireless energy transmission? Viable artificial gravity, anti-grav, warping space at will?</p><p>In conclusion, I'd say that in many different fields things accelerate&nbsp; and in some fields they seem to stagnate, but then suddenly many fields come together and take off.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>