was it not at CERN where Sir Tim Burners-Lee (and a few others) invented the World-Wide Web? Sir David King would most likely label that invention useless as well.
@bobolishas The boy? He is 42 years of age. He kept interrupting because he was getting frustrated and I for one fully understand why. The moronic attitude the "old guy" was demonstrating is the very attitude that will stunt our technological growth.
@bobolishas The boy is 42, has 2 PHDs, and an understanding of the universe you'll probably never even imagine. I think you should show some respect instead of being condescending.
As for the "old guy" he was the greatest buzzkill of all time : the LHC is the greatest scientific endeavor of all time and on the day it starts the dude who's supposed to be in charge of promoting science in the UK basically says it's useless ? What a moron.
Brian,it's planet Earth,so why don't you build up a fancy machine to try go as deep as possible in it and learn how it's constructed on a factual information but not build up wrong ideas just because of lack of knowledge.Gravity's a force that affects or is produced by the Earth and other planets and its quite likely that planet's construction and inner forces are responsible for gravity so spend money on this research instead of throwing billions on seeking something that shouldn't be there
@gugutka1 we do have a machine that goes deep into earth its called a volcano and if we drilled down far enough we would get the same effect, gravity is not produced by the earth its produced by any object that has enough mass and to find out why we need to look out into the universe not on our planet.
It’s not the universe they are building this fancy tunnel to look at for but quite the opposite the atom and its universe ;) Quite frankly the whole graviton story represented it’s just cover up for not that attractive reason of collecting antimatter which makes it all kind of cute and widely acceptable. If big money was involved it’s all about military and defence.
@gugutka1 We already know how the planet is made, and the elements it's made out of. We can learn most things by looking at the universe. Knowing our origins teaches us so much why it happened, why we exist, and why are the basic laws of everything the way they are.
By 'we' did you mean you as if we knew it all we wouldn't need to look any further?There are only theories and hypothesis how planets were/are supposedly formed.New elements are found and added to the table every year and by looking at the universe we just can conclude how less we actually know about it all. Why we exist and why the things are the way they are is what is engaging our mind.I’m sure a time ll come when major theories may be proven wrong and replaced with others.
@gugutka1 'its quite likely that planet's construction and inner forces are responsible for gravity'
Gravity isn't about inner forces per say, but the mass of an object. The greater the mass of an object, the more it bends the fabric of space and time, which pulls on objects of lesser mass.
4:11 i want to slap that man! did he just say WHO CARES how the universe formed???? WEll then who cares how gravity works who cares how electricity works who even cares what they are THEN??!!SCIENTISTS OBVIOUSLY cared thats why u have the shit u do -.- UGH i hate his stupid ass comment -.-
$10 Billion for Professor Cox and his team and $10 to purchase a dictionary for Sir David King . He could look up the definition of "Advancement" for starters.
"Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace." Bill Hicks.
i almost feel sorry for professor Brian Cox because of the fact that he is surrounded by an idiotic host and a scientist who seems to have forgotten the very basic fundamental aspects of science itself
not to be rude toward the two top comments, but A the USA doesnt fund the LHC at all and B the USA is in a financial melt down... not a good example of proper money spending
The LHC may have cost £10billion but that's peanuts compared to the amount spent by governments bailing out banks and financial institutions. The worldwide average spend of governments on scientific research is 0.6% of GDP, a shockingly low figure when you look at the benefits research creates
Wow Sir David King need to resign asap, he's lost the spirit of science not to mention how ignorant he is, he doesn't seems to take in account the global elite and their desire for this planet.... cure to cancer? world pop would explode and many people are working against that kind of cure. U.S. Patent office keep secret 5000 patents... I see 2 old ignorant farts arguing with a young clever gentleman. Much respect to you Sir Brian Cox
King got it wrong, but his point is still valid. Perhaps if the concerted effort and resources employed developing CERN and gone towards fusion research first, then we would be closer to solving our energy problems. When science solves that problem is will be given all the funding it wants for other pursuits. But hindsight helps no-one, and Cox was perfectly right to criticise King for the timing of his comments. We caused our problems, we can't blame science for not solving them in advance.
How much is Jeremy Paxman paid to host this show? Isn't that money that could be better spent on cancer research or on the development of clean energy?
I hate this absurd argument that we can't spend money on anything that isn't the highest priority as if we were smart enough to know what the outcomes of research on the frontiers of science will be. If we were that smart we wouldn't have to do the research.
CERN spending vs. other, "more useful" science spending is a false dichotomy. CERN's $10B cost is peanuts to what is currently being spent by the US alone on its multiple wars. They could build one CERN per month if they only pulled out of their stupid military excursions. The "bailout" Wall street got from the US government was enough to pay for 80 CERNS, or, perhaps 80 cures for cancer or AIDS. One should get some perspective on the real numbers before criticizing ANY science spending.
Yeah, and even if you want to go ahead with these wars, and the bailout and whatever, just look at the b-2 bomber program, they cost about a billion dollar each, and the US built 21 =/
skip 2-3 of those and you have an LHC right there, and it would be insignificant for these wars.
It makes me sad to think that the president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science is trying to stop the advancement of curiosity driven science.
You can't tell a Physicist what to research. He'll research whatever he feels like. It's a completely different lifestyle, you don't work for the sake of working and getting money when your a Physicist, you work so you can answer the greatest questions of mankind.
i want to punch the second twat in the mouth. seriously, Brian just got done explaining how our modern world has been shaped by this type of research and some of the VERY REAL/IMPORTANT things that came out of it and you just then say it's useless science. Naval gazing! Where's my pack of attack raptors?
that ignorent fool of a man who asks brian why we didnt spend it on sumthing useful is . . . . . . . . A FUCKN USELESS SACK OV SHIT, WHOS SOUL WILL B PISSED ON WHEN HE DIES. FUCK U COCKSUCKER THE MONEY IS WELL SPENT.
Brian: "Nobody can predict where the next discovery is going to come from"
3 years later ... CERN releases its findings for peer review after 15000 trials, that the speed of light can be broken, and that neutrinos can travel faster!
You can argue all you want about well spent money - but this amazing project is the ultimate in human ambition in the quest for knowledge.
It is worth every penny - because knowledge is priceless.
Brian, you are my hero! Stuff all these idiots who cannot grasp the importance of moving forward in science for the greater good. They will all see the result of it and probably, directly or indirectly be affected.
Money well spend? 4.4 billion£ for the LHC. Lets put things in perspective first. By the end of 2008, the U.S. had spent approximately $900 billion in direct costs on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Was that money well spent?
Science gets the scraps while the big money goes into new tanks and bombs. The US military budget for 2010 was $663.8 billion! We humans need to take a good look at what we are spending money on.
Yes we humans can afford the Hadron Collider, hurrah for Brian Cox!
A quick Wikipedia of David King, hints at what angle he is coming from. I am surprised to hear that he is ignorant of the things that are off-shoots from CERN: high-speed cable, the internet, mass data storage, medical imaging, the world wide web, general medical applications. Even a single technology from CERN may have multiple uses.
its a juxtaposition of youthful idealism against perhaps a more mature and pragmatic mind.. It reminds me of an argument between father and son, the young and idealistic Brian Cox (I know he's 40!) against the wiser head of David King.
Oh come on Prof Cox! Just play David King something on a keyboard and keep him amused :) I also think the LHC is a really important thing...definitely need more money going into the sciences...just need to sort out the financial crisis out first lol.
"the president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science" He needs sacking. How can someone hold that position with no enthusiasm for the important questions and think that a fundamental understanding of the universe is an unworthy cause for science funding.Even if CERN had not came up with useful tech along the way, the knowledge gained from the LHC alone is worth the investment. You can hold CERN responible for a range of tech from the WORLD WIDE WEB, to Cancer treatments.
Sir David is really talking about engineering. Prof Brian is talking about science. The science budget should be spent on science, not on solving social and engineering problems as David advocates. Perhaps the science budget should be smaller and more money spent on engineering.
the day wiil come when the damage to the magnetic sheath of the earth due to the lhc could be monitured and also the fact that no question posed will be answard by this machine so far from the truth they are and so far from benefit for the world
What a contrast between these two men. I know which has the most energy and enthusiasm and passion for the subject, and I know which of these two men wins the argument hands down!! Way to go Brian!
I honestly think Paxman & King know nothing about Physics. Do they not know without 'curiosity driven research' we wouldn't have Electricity, Computers, Nano-Particles, Lasers, Maps of the Star Arrangement.
Physics is curiosity! That's what makes it the most thrilling science, without Physics we wouldn't have Biology & Chemistry, yet King & Paxman question wether it's money well spent!???!? Arghhhh! Idiots.
Given that the money for the LHC comes from a whole bunch of countries and not just the UK I find it incongruous that Paxo asks this while working for the BBC.
The BBC is funded to the tune of about £300,000,000 per year by our govt as well as about £3,500,000,000 from license fees payable by anyone in the UK who owns a TV, regardless of whether they ever watch any BBC channels.
@marcrosson Such a shame too, I really enjoy Paxman, and I'm pretty surprised he doesn't get this... I wonder how often he is just playing devils advocate, but I guess I'm just trying to soften the blow*
King is the guy who said "Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked"
Anyone else think this guy is a few cabbages short of an allotment?
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." - Arthur C. Clarke
Sir David King thinks it's very unlikely that the LHC's results will be very useful to humanity. I beg to differ - massively.
sounds like mr king has a little bit of resentment towards brian cox. my old biology lecturer is like that. He'd rather patronise if you don't know an answer than explain it to you....my young chmeistry lecturer encourages you to get back up if you fall.
I love this guys passion for science. I am just as passionate about art when I talk about it and so I love to see others as passionate in their chosen field.
King's claim that LHC funding would be better spent promoting AGW alarmism and 'solutions' to the non-problem of global warming should act as a warning to AGW apologists like PBC.
AGW scammers like King won't be happy just inflating our energy bills and taxing us to oblivion. No, they won't stop until they've sucked up ALL science funding to pay for AGW "research" / propaganda.
Policy-based evidence-making is expensive you know.
@bighands69 There's been no change in temps since 1998 - despite increasing CO2 levels. Rates of sea level rise which have been constant for hundreds of years are now declining. Svensmarks theory linking solar activity to cloudiness and hence temperatures is gaining support by the day.
What information was it exactly that convinced you man-made CO2 was having a catastrophic warming effect - despite evidence of past climate changes from the medieval warm period to the little ice age?
The real danger is not warming it is atmospheric radiation deflection and refraction known as global dimming.
Yes there has been medieval warm periods that have caused carbon spikes. So I do agree that the carbon warming issue is flawed and has been over hyped.
But that does not take away from atmospheric absorption (global dimming) of man made pollution that is causing erratic climate change.
I'm not educated in this area enough to give strong opinions but Sir David King made me think of Charles H Duell who famously said, "Everything that can be invented has been invented". That sort of thinking has no place in science and if you find any merit in it then you cannot claim any authority on matters related to science.
I'm rather disappointed with Sir David King's attitude here. He has done some great things and has been a bit of a legend in getting Climate Change on the agenda but here he appears to have lost his touch. A formidable character in science made to look (and rightfully so) like an ignorant, know nothing old man. Well done Proff Cox for an obvious victory in this debate.
"curiosity driven research" What other drive is there for research? Is there a "Oh we don't give a shit about this" driven research? Or a "We already know the answer to this but we're researching it anyway" driven research?
Well done Brian - to remain as calm as you did when the two old codgers (who didn't seem to have a working neuron between them) weren't listening to a word you were saying was excellent. I think I would have told them something they really wouldn't like to hear :)
As being interested in physics myself and studying it in my spare time, I agree with Brian as will anyone with common sense. The understanding of how things work HAS reached a roadblock - if you'd like. This Hadron Collider, if successful, WILL answer questions that are not perceivable to human beings at the moment.
David King is a politically motivated,arrogant TWAT ( dressed up in bow tie to impress)
King is just seeking personal self gain: one has to wonder why David King doing more politics than science? Doe financial reward and a knighthood press his button more than science?
In my opinion Brian Cox is in it for the science & the ultimate benefit to mankind
I also hate the argument that since the LHC exists and is paid for therefore other important research *isn't* happening. Come on, it's not like sustainable energy research or medical breakthroughs are going to stop being worked on because some money has been put into something else.
Best comment; with respect that arguement doesn't hold water,......., nobody in the world is intellegent enough to know when a discovery will be made (hence the word discovery)! You feed paxman and king there ass Bri!
Biggest scientific white elephant in history, Cox hasn't the courage to admit it's a waste of money. Cox tries to justify the enormous expense of this project by quoting past scientific achievements?? The CERN scientists know and are embarassed by the failure of the LHC. It has not produced any worthy results since it was switched on. This is a big boys toy for curiosity/assumptioon based science.
@the0fart0machine Apart from the fact he just said they created new cooling technology which is now being used in a french nuclear reactor out of the LHC, and nuclear IS the future for power btw, wind and solar technology are just gimmicks, they will not work as a mass sustainable source of power for a long long time.
If you want to know a useless way to spend money I have one word for you....WAR.
@boxxer221 Yes the new cooling technology has benefitted nuclear power. Wind power is plain silly, Solar is depended on clear skies, what my remark questioned was on the enormous amout of money spent on the LHC and that we don't yet know if this money has produced the goods.
@the0fart0machine So a cooling system which might bring reliable nuclear fusion, and thereby all the clean energy we could need, a step closer isn't worth the while? An who knows what other marvelous and beneficial spin-off technologies it might produce. Which was sort of Brian Cox's point.
@Carnilon1 You are still missing my point, will the LHC delivery on its promise or is it a very large white elelphant? The spin offs are a cover to divert from the money spent on this big toy.
Is the point that King is making, is that we already have the technology to build a better world but we don't?
We keep on building a better world for some and haven't worked out the reason why we continually do this, much less change our habits. I can't help but think we should be concentrating on the fact that while we can build a LHC we can not feed & educate the world. As for the question of nuclear fusion, would a better answer be less consumption of all fuels NOW!
We wage multi billion dollar per month wars and this interviewer has the audacity to question some 10bn scientific experiment that could change our perceptions of the universe...
@redmeatheart yeah your're right! I forgot that! Awwww man! I put my foot in my mouth once before about that song!!!! I must looooove toe cheese LOL :)
To be honest, considering the way science funding is gained, it's amazing anything like the LHC gets funding. In the UK for example I think it's something like 50% has to be based on "impact" so you have to say what will be gained from experiments that you haven't even done yet. Nobody could do that, especially since psychics and woo-woo don't exist. If it wasn't for physics, quantum in particular, we wouldn't have our pcs and tvs to watch this on. Physics is the way forward. Not just curiousity
If ever there was a case of a fuddy-duddy, bow-tie wearing professor looking like a dinosaur compared to a new generation of enthusiastic, knowledge-hungry young scientists; this is it.
@lucasisking .what a pathetic thing to say and all the people who gave you thumbs up are equally as pathetic.Yh lets get some annoying twenty something talk about science,that will get people involved.That sounds good to you does it?lol.
@laudrup90 He's 43 years old, has a phds in physics, and has a senior position at CERN. More importantly, he LOVES science. Thats what we need to inspire a new generation. So no, I dont think its pathetic and it does sound good to me. Whats your solution Mr smartarse?
I don't deny research and whatever you researching for can be used for good or bad. But B. Cox has repeatedly expressed his admiration for the "achievement" of the NASA moon landing.However the fact the moon landing was a hoax makes Cox looks what he really is -a kid from a small town.
@RXwankME The moon landings are a fundamental foundation of faith for Brian. They are beyond question and anyone who would dare to question it is a lunatic nut job conspiracy theorist. Clearly some subjects cannot be tackled by his scientific mind.
@RavenPrecept Why should people waste time on things they know to be the case? Shall we waste time on trying to decide if america was discovered or not? It's in the same league of stupidity as that. Maybe you should tackle that and leave actual questions up to intelligent people.
@Bumblybee256 I have been to America, I know it's there. I have not been to the moon and I don't have any proof that anyone else has. I would be interested in looking at any proof you know of. I am not sure how a trip to the moon can even be proved. We are told that the same rocks found on the moon are also found on earth. You would need something that could only have been brought back from the moon. Have you got a logical or scientific answer or is it as you indicated a matter of trust.
@Bumblybee256 Well that is tangible evidence, if I had a suitable laser and telescope I might give that a go. If I failed I would hardly conclude it's a lie, I would simply assume I had not got it right yet. It would have to work and it could not work on any old bit of moon, it would have to be where the mirror was. Reading about it, it sounds very difficult to do. Also because they reflect light back to the source they could have been dropped rather than planted.
@RavenPrecept "If I failed [to find it] I would hardly conclude it's a lie." It's interesting that the so-called "scientists" don't apply your logic to the question of whether there's a god. The fact is that so-called scientists are often the very worst culptirs when it comes to illogical thinking.
@raymondkhessel100 Yes, you can't blame your own lack of skill as evidence of absence. We have to go through life with faith rather than proof of everything. I have managed to prove a number of things absolutely and a few things to my own satisfaction. On other things like Moon Landings I am on faith. I have lost that faith, I need some proof. I am looking for God, I don't have proof but I have managed to test some things to my own satisfaction.
@raymondkhessel100 If we limit our knowledge to that which science claims is true then we will be unimaginably ignorant. Most people manage to function in their daily lives without incontrovertible proof of anything. They are able to drive and operate a car when the workings of it may as well be magic. If cars were a lie then millions of people would have wasted their money on something which does not get them to the office. If the moon landings were a lie, how would anyone know?
@RavenPrecept "If I failed [to find it] I would hardly conclude it's a lie." It's interesting that the so-called "scientists" don't apply your logic to the question of whether there's a god. The fact is that so-called scientists are often the very worst culprits when it comes to illogical thinking.
@Bumblybee256 The other thing I read is that they first started using lasers to measure the distance of the moon in 1962, before the moon missions. In all the alleged presence of reflectors on the moon does not fill me with confidence.
@Bumblybee256 The surface of the earth has been photographed in intense detail from high altitude and yet you can make our your own car on your drive using google or live maps. I want to see similar photos of the cars and landing stage they left on the moon.
@RavenPrecept Also explain why the rival russians never blew the whistle if there was any reason to suspect a hoax?
"I want to see similar photos of the cars and landing stage they left on the moon." so you can say it was faked and feel like you've outwitted nasa again? You give the awful impression of someone who's only sourcing comes from youtube.
@Bumblybee256 It seems like a hoax and it has been proved to my satisfaction to be a hoax. If you want to believe it was real then it's up to you to nurture your beliefs. However you ought to have proof for your science. The reflectors seem real but you can't prove that a man planted them so it does not prove a man walked on the moon. As for what the Russians were thinking, how would I know? So the reason that there are no satellite pictures of cars on the moon is because people would cry hoax?
@RavenPrecept Proven to your satisfaction means nothing since you know nothing about the topic. Let me guess- the flag was moving? lol.
"The reflectors seem real but you can't prove that a man planted them so it does not prove a man walked on the moon." The reflectors ARE real, because they had to deploy them. Boy, your education system......
@Bumblybee256 Maybe you just have to admit, it's a matter of faith in people that they would not lie that they went to the moon? I know you would not lie about it, I can feel that you are genuine. If you really can't find any evidence that they went to the moon then maybe you should be looking at these conspiracy theories a bit more critically. You maybe very shocked at what you find.
@RavenPrecept Lol, no I think it's more a mixture of the fact that they built a massive rocket, launched that massive rocket, are accepted to have done so by other space agencies and the fact there's a reflector array on the moon. I have looked at them, and there's no merit to any of them. I know you like to think you're outwitting the government but in reality you're making yourself look very silly and you still haven't told me why they would lie.
@Bumblybee256 Looking silly is not a reason to back off from this, that's emotional reasoning not scientific. However that is the best argument you put forward so far. Having a massive one does not mean you know how to use it. What about a reason given in the video for faking it, they simply could not do it. Please explain why reflectors mean that man walked on the moon?
@RavenPrecept I didn't use 'looking silly' as a reason. It was merely a comment.
Lol, so in your mind scientists who built a rocket capable of going to the moon didn't know how to operate it? Why did they decide to fake the moon landings in the first place and why didn't the soviets blow the whistle if anything looked suspicious?
"Please explain why reflectors mean that man walked on the moon?" Lmao. Because they need someone to PUT them there.
@Bumblybee256 I am after proof that they went to the moon. You have not explained why men had to plant the reflectors, just that they did. There are things on other planets that were put there by machine.
It seems there is some evidence that men went to the moon but no conclusive proof.
@RavenPrecept They didn't HAVE to plant them, they did it to study the moon's rotation amongst other things. Now you're after something different- now you accept they WENT to the moon but just didn't walk on it? Backpedalling! Avoiding questions! etc etc
I love the idea that you think you'd understand all the 'conclusive proof' there is. Basically you won't believe it unless you'd been there, which probably calls into question other things for you, like does the arctic exist?
was it not at CERN where Sir Tim Burners-Lee (and a few others) invented the World-Wide Web? Sir David King would most likely label that invention useless as well.
nikobrown1990 1 day ago
Is someone hoovering in the background?
pete86uk 2 days ago
president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.... I don't want to live in this world anymore
Carlsaganguy 4 days ago
EVERY FUCKING THING WAS INVENTED AT CERN SN.
Dannnytrules 4 days ago
Oh my "god" politicians make me rage. Fuck you, stop spending money on war and bullshit and give MORE money to science. Stupid fucktards
Carlsaganguy 4 days ago
did he just say the experiments at CERN aren't useful :o
Dannnytrules 4 days ago
It really annoys me on these programs, especially Newsnight that they cut off the discussion just as it's getting interesting and into it.
Tazza17 5 days ago
ahm.. HTML was invented at Cern..
Chris197980CH 6 days ago
Kick his ass brian, kick his ass
SnookeySk8 2 weeks ago 3
David king is really a moron.
If you can't see what the LHC is and how important it is you really should do the job you are doing.
Just kick his ass Brian !
felixcantournet 2 weeks ago
David King = dinosaur
hawkinscraig05 2 weeks ago
Brian interupts a bit too much very rude that old guy was very patient with him, ida just given the boy a good slap
bobolishas 3 weeks ago
@bobolishas He's passionate.
Bloigen 3 weeks ago
@Bloigen For that amount of money I would be passionate too ;))
gugutka1 2 weeks ago
@bobolishas The boy? He is 42 years of age. He kept interrupting because he was getting frustrated and I for one fully understand why. The moronic attitude the "old guy" was demonstrating is the very attitude that will stunt our technological growth.
thedei 2 weeks ago 2
@thedei fucking hell Issac Newton over here
bobolishas 2 weeks ago
@bobolishas The boy is 42, has 2 PHDs, and an understanding of the universe you'll probably never even imagine. I think you should show some respect instead of being condescending.
As for the "old guy" he was the greatest buzzkill of all time : the LHC is the greatest scientific endeavor of all time and on the day it starts the dude who's supposed to be in charge of promoting science in the UK basically says it's useless ? What a moron.
felixcantournet 2 weeks ago
4.4 billion for CERN. 700 billion for gabling banks (US alone). 'Nuf said...
gesehengehoert 3 weeks ago
Brian,it's planet Earth,so why don't you build up a fancy machine to try go as deep as possible in it and learn how it's constructed on a factual information but not build up wrong ideas just because of lack of knowledge.Gravity's a force that affects or is produced by the Earth and other planets and its quite likely that planet's construction and inner forces are responsible for gravity so spend money on this research instead of throwing billions on seeking something that shouldn't be there
gugutka1 3 weeks ago
@gugutka1 we do have a machine that goes deep into earth its called a volcano and if we drilled down far enough we would get the same effect, gravity is not produced by the earth its produced by any object that has enough mass and to find out why we need to look out into the universe not on our planet.
mikeysimo86 3 weeks ago
@mikeysimo86
It’s not the universe they are building this fancy tunnel to look at for but quite the opposite the atom and its universe ;) Quite frankly the whole graviton story represented it’s just cover up for not that attractive reason of collecting antimatter which makes it all kind of cute and widely acceptable. If big money was involved it’s all about military and defence.
I wouldn't comment on the volcano :)
gugutka1 2 weeks ago
@gugutka1 We already know how the planet is made, and the elements it's made out of. We can learn most things by looking at the universe. Knowing our origins teaches us so much why it happened, why we exist, and why are the basic laws of everything the way they are.
BigBrother1993 3 weeks ago
By 'we' did you mean you as if we knew it all we wouldn't need to look any further?There are only theories and hypothesis how planets were/are supposedly formed.New elements are found and added to the table every year and by looking at the universe we just can conclude how less we actually know about it all. Why we exist and why the things are the way they are is what is engaging our mind.I’m sure a time ll come when major theories may be proven wrong and replaced with others.
gugutka1 2 weeks ago
@BigBrother1993 Please, excuse me if you were reffering to biblicall explanation of things.
gugutka1 2 weeks ago
@gugutka1 'its quite likely that planet's construction and inner forces are responsible for gravity'
Gravity isn't about inner forces per say, but the mass of an object. The greater the mass of an object, the more it bends the fabric of space and time, which pulls on objects of lesser mass.
weefeatures 1 week ago
Sir David King (the president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science). What a twat.
Ashitaka255 3 weeks ago
4:11 i want to slap that man! did he just say WHO CARES how the universe formed???? WEll then who cares how gravity works who cares how electricity works who even cares what they are THEN??!!SCIENTISTS OBVIOUSLY cared thats why u have the shit u do -.- UGH i hate his stupid ass comment -.-
Crazyfor2PM 4 weeks ago
$10 Billion for Professor Cox and his team and $10 to purchase a dictionary for Sir David King . He could look up the definition of "Advancement" for starters.
evaloyale 4 weeks ago
I think they knighted the wrong person...
oychimichii 1 month ago
"Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace." Bill Hicks.
styot 1 month ago
i almost feel sorry for professor Brian Cox because of the fact that he is surrounded by an idiotic host and a scientist who seems to have forgotten the very basic fundamental aspects of science itself
gummylipstick 1 month ago
I love the "curiosity searching" bit at the start of the interview. Brian almost literally biting his lip to avoid an outburst!
ukanian 1 month ago
Go on Brian!
LewyAlsoDraws 1 month ago
Brian Cox, I think I'm in love with you. He's speech is both clever and inspiring, yay for basic science!
NinielPadma 1 month ago
not to be rude toward the two top comments, but A the USA doesnt fund the LHC at all and B the USA is in a financial melt down... not a good example of proper money spending
crouchforrest 1 month ago
If science is clever enough to build a LHC then I think science is by far clever enough to know how much is too much to spend.
RyRyTeaBragg 1 month ago
IT DIDN'T END?!?!?!?!?
Samovskii 1 month ago
what else are we doing with our lifes if we're not learning and discovering how we and the universe came about.
how can some people be so uncurious
SuperYellow1989 1 month ago
The LHC may have cost £10billion but that's peanuts compared to the amount spent by governments bailing out banks and financial institutions. The worldwide average spend of governments on scientific research is 0.6% of GDP, a shockingly low figure when you look at the benefits research creates
jbbresers 2 months ago
For a scientist, Sir David king is a bit of a Luddite. Good on Brian Cox for calling him out like he did.
amjid300 2 months ago
Wow Sir David King need to resign asap, he's lost the spirit of science not to mention how ignorant he is, he doesn't seems to take in account the global elite and their desire for this planet.... cure to cancer? world pop would explode and many people are working against that kind of cure. U.S. Patent office keep secret 5000 patents... I see 2 old ignorant farts arguing with a young clever gentleman. Much respect to you Sir Brian Cox
b0utch 2 months ago
@b0utch he is 43 0.0
Flextaa 1 month ago
@Flextaa is he? he doesn't look like 40
b0utch 1 month ago
@b0utch indeed he does not but i noticed you can slightly see wisdom on his hair (a metaphor for white hair i like to use)
Flextaa 1 month ago
King got it wrong, but his point is still valid. Perhaps if the concerted effort and resources employed developing CERN and gone towards fusion research first, then we would be closer to solving our energy problems. When science solves that problem is will be given all the funding it wants for other pursuits. But hindsight helps no-one, and Cox was perfectly right to criticise King for the timing of his comments. We caused our problems, we can't blame science for not solving them in advance.
DaithiDublin 3 months ago
How much is Jeremy Paxman paid to host this show? Isn't that money that could be better spent on cancer research or on the development of clean energy?
I hate this absurd argument that we can't spend money on anything that isn't the highest priority as if we were smart enough to know what the outcomes of research on the frontiers of science will be. If we were that smart we wouldn't have to do the research.
Setzer 3 months ago
Did Sir David King realize he going to looks like an old fart in the argument or that is tactic?
cfloveorg 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if cox siad its worth it, its worth it
oberonson18 3 months ago
CERN spending vs. other, "more useful" science spending is a false dichotomy. CERN's $10B cost is peanuts to what is currently being spent by the US alone on its multiple wars. They could build one CERN per month if they only pulled out of their stupid military excursions. The "bailout" Wall street got from the US government was enough to pay for 80 CERNS, or, perhaps 80 cures for cancer or AIDS. One should get some perspective on the real numbers before criticizing ANY science spending.
eleguaaugele 3 months ago 40
@eleguaaugele Most sensible comment I have ever read on youtube.
Edthebanjo 1 month ago
@eleguaaugele
@eleguaaugele
Yeah, and even if you want to go ahead with these wars, and the bailout and whatever, just look at the b-2 bomber program, they cost about a billion dollar each, and the US built 21 =/
skip 2-3 of those and you have an LHC right there, and it would be insignificant for these wars.
TheDecayingmaterial 1 month ago
@eleguaaugele yes i think that one air craft carrier costs the same, or even more.
FuBarracuda 2 weeks ago
It makes me sad to think that the president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science is trying to stop the advancement of curiosity driven science.
You can't tell a Physicist what to research. He'll research whatever he feels like. It's a completely different lifestyle, you don't work for the sake of working and getting money when your a Physicist, you work so you can answer the greatest questions of mankind.
GuitarCarbon 3 months ago 6
this video should be titled Brown Cox PWNS fools.
fuzzynippleman 3 months ago 4
i want to punch the second twat in the mouth. seriously, Brian just got done explaining how our modern world has been shaped by this type of research and some of the VERY REAL/IMPORTANT things that came out of it and you just then say it's useless science. Naval gazing! Where's my pack of attack raptors?
fuzzynippleman 3 months ago
that ignorent fool of a man who asks brian why we didnt spend it on sumthing useful is . . . . . . . . A FUCKN USELESS SACK OV SHIT, WHOS SOUL WILL B PISSED ON WHEN HE DIES. FUCK U COCKSUCKER THE MONEY IS WELL SPENT.
poobox12 4 months ago 2
Check out 4:05
Brian: "Nobody can predict where the next discovery is going to come from"
3 years later ... CERN releases its findings for peer review after 15000 trials, that the speed of light can be broken, and that neutrinos can travel faster!
You can argue all you want about well spent money - but this amazing project is the ultimate in human ambition in the quest for knowledge.
It is worth every penny - because knowledge is priceless.
jazzx251 4 months ago 2
Brian, you are my hero! Stuff all these idiots who cannot grasp the importance of moving forward in science for the greater good. They will all see the result of it and probably, directly or indirectly be affected.
zenzo11 4 months ago
ah good odl Brian. he got well vexed towards the end :)
lustreboy 4 months ago
Was this money well spent? Of course it bloody was! I can't even believe he asked the question!
DVrtaric 4 months ago 2
Money well spend? 4.4 billion£ for the LHC. Lets put things in perspective first. By the end of 2008, the U.S. had spent approximately $900 billion in direct costs on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Was that money well spent?
Science gets the scraps while the big money goes into new tanks and bombs. The US military budget for 2010 was $663.8 billion! We humans need to take a good look at what we are spending money on.
Yes we humans can afford the Hadron Collider, hurrah for Brian Cox!
FrozenPetrolPie 4 months ago 31
money welll spend?
i think we got a good bargain for the answers we will find.
im very interested in the missing particles and graviton and the dimensions.
sounds cool but complicated yet.
ImmortalUniverse 4 months ago
Brian Cox is the man!
greenr1v3r 4 months ago
A quick Wikipedia of David King, hints at what angle he is coming from. I am surprised to hear that he is ignorant of the things that are off-shoots from CERN: high-speed cable, the internet, mass data storage, medical imaging, the world wide web, general medical applications. Even a single technology from CERN may have multiple uses.
SupaShang 4 months ago
"young man sitting next to me" Congratulate yourself, Brain, ANOTHER PERSON FOOLED!!! >:D
TheHazBean 4 months ago
its a juxtaposition of youthful idealism against perhaps a more mature and pragmatic mind.. It reminds me of an argument between father and son, the young and idealistic Brian Cox (I know he's 40!) against the wiser head of David King.
untwerf 5 months ago
Brian cox is amazing, the other two dude are IGNORANTS!
mio68df 5 months ago
Im not sure paxmans heart is in his job anymore, his words only just fall off his tongue
ThanksDoctorThoctor 5 months ago
Sir David King should be fired and they should replace him with Brian Cox.
Stroop 5 months ago 2
Oh come on Prof Cox! Just play David King something on a keyboard and keep him amused :) I also think the LHC is a really important thing...definitely need more money going into the sciences...just need to sort out the financial crisis out first lol.
TemperatureIndicator 5 months ago
"the president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science" He needs sacking. How can someone hold that position with no enthusiasm for the important questions and think that a fundamental understanding of the universe is an unworthy cause for science funding.Even if CERN had not came up with useful tech along the way, the knowledge gained from the LHC alone is worth the investment. You can hold CERN responible for a range of tech from the WORLD WIDE WEB, to Cancer treatments.
dude157 6 months ago 4
Watch Brian Cox's talk on TED "Why we need explorers."
nikanj 6 months ago
Lol poor Brian!
PICLex 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think both had very valid points.
georgie4790 6 months ago
Well said Brian!
davrothelegend 6 months ago
Sir David is really talking about engineering. Prof Brian is talking about science. The science budget should be spent on science, not on solving social and engineering problems as David advocates. Perhaps the science budget should be smaller and more money spent on engineering.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
kick his ass coxy!
killbotone 7 months ago
the day wiil come when the damage to the magnetic sheath of the earth due to the lhc could be monitured and also the fact that no question posed will be answard by this machine so far from the truth they are and so far from benefit for the world
benshalomgad 7 months ago
What a contrast between these two men. I know which has the most energy and enthusiasm and passion for the subject, and I know which of these two men wins the argument hands down!! Way to go Brian!
outfromtheshadows 7 months ago
I honestly think Paxman & King know nothing about Physics. Do they not know without 'curiosity driven research' we wouldn't have Electricity, Computers, Nano-Particles, Lasers, Maps of the Star Arrangement.
Physics is curiosity! That's what makes it the most thrilling science, without Physics we wouldn't have Biology & Chemistry, yet King & Paxman question wether it's money well spent!???!? Arghhhh! Idiots.
TheeAvenged 7 months ago
Brian Cox owned the old duffer
edwardsrichard 7 months ago 2
Given that the money for the LHC comes from a whole bunch of countries and not just the UK I find it incongruous that Paxo asks this while working for the BBC.
The BBC is funded to the tune of about £300,000,000 per year by our govt as well as about £3,500,000,000 from license fees payable by anyone in the UK who owns a TV, regardless of whether they ever watch any BBC channels.
chrisofnottingham 7 months ago
@ 2:57 Brian Cox (the legend) looks angry! As if he is saying "Shut your mouth!"
MrEreda 7 months ago
The problem here is both Jeremy Paxman and Sir David King aren't intelligent enough to grasp what Professor Brian Cox is talking about .
marcrosson 7 months ago 47
@marcrosson Such a shame too, I really enjoy Paxman, and I'm pretty surprised he doesn't get this... I wonder how often he is just playing devils advocate, but I guess I'm just trying to soften the blow*
rickyoswald 4 months ago
and BAD FORM sir, somewhere along the road you have lost your way...
whitepanther84 7 months ago
I love Mr. Cox in Business Mode!
whitepanther84 7 months ago 2
King is the guy who said "Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked"
Anyone else think this guy is a few cabbages short of an allotment?
MMGWsceptic 7 months ago 13
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." - Arthur C. Clarke
Sir David King thinks it's very unlikely that the LHC's results will be very useful to humanity. I beg to differ - massively.
BreachedWall 8 months ago 4
sounds like mr king has a little bit of resentment towards brian cox. my old biology lecturer is like that. He'd rather patronise if you don't know an answer than explain it to you....my young chmeistry lecturer encourages you to get back up if you fall.
ah4fecksake 8 months ago
I love this guys passion for science. I am just as passionate about art when I talk about it and so I love to see others as passionate in their chosen field.
WillShakespeare2007 8 months ago
King's claim that LHC funding would be better spent promoting AGW alarmism and 'solutions' to the non-problem of global warming should act as a warning to AGW apologists like PBC.
AGW scammers like King won't be happy just inflating our energy bills and taxing us to oblivion. No, they won't stop until they've sucked up ALL science funding to pay for AGW "research" / propaganda.
Policy-based evidence-making is expensive you know.
MMGWsceptic 8 months ago
@MMGWsceptic
Global climate change is occurring and we are contributing to this.
I at one point used to believe that it was not occurring as I did not have enough information.
I do admit that it is being over hyped climate change and that could have long term implications.
Sir David King I admit is completely wrong on this point though. Brian cox is completely correct that it is a journey that we are on.
bighands69 8 months ago
@bighands69 There's been no change in temps since 1998 - despite increasing CO2 levels. Rates of sea level rise which have been constant for hundreds of years are now declining. Svensmarks theory linking solar activity to cloudiness and hence temperatures is gaining support by the day.
What information was it exactly that convinced you man-made CO2 was having a catastrophic warming effect - despite evidence of past climate changes from the medieval warm period to the little ice age?
MMGWsceptic 7 months ago
@MMGWsceptic
I have said climate change.
The real danger is not warming it is atmospheric radiation deflection and refraction known as global dimming.
Yes there has been medieval warm periods that have caused carbon spikes. So I do agree that the carbon warming issue is flawed and has been over hyped.
But that does not take away from atmospheric absorption (global dimming) of man made pollution that is causing erratic climate change.
bighands69 7 months ago
As Brian said very rightly the other day, we must find out about how the Universe works, considering that, unsurprisingly enough, we are in it.
shadowblade9876 8 months ago
I'm not educated in this area enough to give strong opinions but Sir David King made me think of Charles H Duell who famously said, "Everything that can be invented has been invented". That sort of thinking has no place in science and if you find any merit in it then you cannot claim any authority on matters related to science.
andyrooney12 8 months ago
I'm rather disappointed with Sir David King's attitude here. He has done some great things and has been a bit of a legend in getting Climate Change on the agenda but here he appears to have lost his touch. A formidable character in science made to look (and rightfully so) like an ignorant, know nothing old man. Well done Proff Cox for an obvious victory in this debate.
BonseBalm 8 months ago 2
Brian, you are a bit of a hero!
camhelloscience 9 months ago 36
"curiosity driven research" What other drive is there for research? Is there a "Oh we don't give a shit about this" driven research? Or a "We already know the answer to this but we're researching it anyway" driven research?
9hello123 9 months ago 3
Well done Brian - to remain as calm as you did when the two old codgers (who didn't seem to have a working neuron between them) weren't listening to a word you were saying was excellent. I think I would have told them something they really wouldn't like to hear :)
newforestobservatory 9 months ago
mr cox was showin up the old man big time!
reece35 9 months ago
As being interested in physics myself and studying it in my spare time, I agree with Brian as will anyone with common sense. The understanding of how things work HAS reached a roadblock - if you'd like. This Hadron Collider, if successful, WILL answer questions that are not perceivable to human beings at the moment.
VRally1997 9 months ago
David King was Chief Scientific Advisor from 2000 - 2007
Does that mean 7 years of bad advice?
Honestly he needs to simply retire and let the rest of us get on with it.
SidandCoke 9 months ago
How much did we spend bombing and invading Iraq?
Quiltinguk 9 months ago
David King is a politically motivated,arrogant TWAT ( dressed up in bow tie to impress)
King is just seeking personal self gain: one has to wonder why David King doing more politics than science? Doe financial reward and a knighthood press his button more than science?
In my opinion Brian Cox is in it for the science & the ultimate benefit to mankind
Quiltinguk 9 months ago
I agree with Brian.
End
impurekind 9 months ago
Haha and also Paxman trying to mix IQs with Brian Cox.
Don't even try Jezza. You won't win.
headcaseman 9 months ago
Paxman is such a twat sometimes.
"Couldn't the 10 billion dollars have been far better spent on more down to earth pursuits like curing cancer or stopping climate change?"
Yes Jeremy...because it's really that fucking simple...
Honestly the BBC makes me want to cry sometimes.
headcaseman 9 months ago
@headcaseman He's doing his job, setting out all the arguments to draw out Cox and King into a good debate.
captainmadguns 9 months ago
I also hate the argument that since the LHC exists and is paid for therefore other important research *isn't* happening. Come on, it's not like sustainable energy research or medical breakthroughs are going to stop being worked on because some money has been put into something else.
mdiem 9 months ago
How much does the LHC cost?
How much does the war in Iraq cost?
What are the potential benefits of each?
Let's quantify this for real, eh?
mdiem 9 months ago
Also seems that brian revised for this test. King got somebody else to do his paper!
36TommyHawkes 9 months ago
Best comment; with respect that arguement doesn't hold water,......., nobody in the world is intellegent enough to know when a discovery will be made (hence the word discovery)! You feed paxman and king there ass Bri!
36TommyHawkes 9 months ago
Biggest scientific white elephant in history, Cox hasn't the courage to admit it's a waste of money. Cox tries to justify the enormous expense of this project by quoting past scientific achievements?? The CERN scientists know and are embarassed by the failure of the LHC. It has not produced any worthy results since it was switched on. This is a big boys toy for curiosity/assumptioon based science.
the0fart0machine 10 months ago
@the0fart0machine Apart from the fact he just said they created new cooling technology which is now being used in a french nuclear reactor out of the LHC, and nuclear IS the future for power btw, wind and solar technology are just gimmicks, they will not work as a mass sustainable source of power for a long long time.
If you want to know a useless way to spend money I have one word for you....WAR.
boxxer221 9 months ago
@boxxer221 Yes the new cooling technology has benefitted nuclear power. Wind power is plain silly, Solar is depended on clear skies, what my remark questioned was on the enormous amout of money spent on the LHC and that we don't yet know if this money has produced the goods.
the0fart0machine 9 months ago
@the0fart0machine So a cooling system which might bring reliable nuclear fusion, and thereby all the clean energy we could need, a step closer isn't worth the while? An who knows what other marvelous and beneficial spin-off technologies it might produce. Which was sort of Brian Cox's point.
Carnilon1 9 months ago
@Carnilon1 You are still missing my point, will the LHC delivery on its promise or is it a very large white elelphant? The spin offs are a cover to divert from the money spent on this big toy.
the0fart0machine 9 months ago
@Carnilon1
Is the point that King is making, is that we already have the technology to build a better world but we don't?
We keep on building a better world for some and haven't worked out the reason why we continually do this, much less change our habits. I can't help but think we should be concentrating on the fact that while we can build a LHC we can not feed & educate the world. As for the question of nuclear fusion, would a better answer be less consumption of all fuels NOW!
pentz1 9 months ago
one talks like a scientist, like I'd expect. The other, a politician.
versiononedotzero 10 months ago
We wage multi billion dollar per month wars and this interviewer has the audacity to question some 10bn scientific experiment that could change our perceptions of the universe...
cunt
jakeybwoi 10 months ago 2
Im with Brian, he,s the king of logic
gasmeter1947 10 months ago 2
King was told off like a child by his superior.
roflkthxlol 10 months ago 2
wow! how could Brian maintain his cool during those stupid questions?!!
dkmystery 10 months ago 2
this is ridiculous! people counting budget of a science project, what 'bout budgets for weapons of 'mass destruction'??
dkmystery 10 months ago 4
The 'enormous' amounts of money they are talking about wouldn't even pay for a DAY in the military-industrial complex.
Why don't these two take a single look at the defense budget and talk about that for a second?
taicleis 10 months ago
Questiion: "Who cares how Universe was formed if the Earth ceases to have much intelligent life on it?"
Answer: Send everyone on that couch into outter space (all except for Brian). Problem solved!
Brian's got to be humming that old Bob Dylan tune, "Clowns to the left of me... jokers to the right..."
Triniumm1 10 months ago 4
@Triniumm1 it's not Bob Dylan it's stealers wheel, just so you know.
redmeatheart 10 months ago
@redmeatheart yeah your're right! I forgot that! Awwww man! I put my foot in my mouth once before about that song!!!! I must looooove toe cheese LOL :)
Triniumm1 10 months ago
Give'm hell Brian!!!
orbazel 10 months ago
"What was the point of spending the money on this as opposed to something useful?"
Paxman you utter bellend.
headcaseman 10 months ago 4
cern helps us understand the physics of creation and hopefully with that understanding we perhaps can create our world the way we would like it to be
arcamdomain 10 months ago
i cant believe how blatently paxman sided with king there, i thought he was supposed to be impartial?
Lynxtro 10 months ago
Don't get involved if you don't actually understand what CERN is doing...fools
wakasakiwakasaki 10 months ago
that made me fucking angry man brian has more patience than me
SuperLevi07 10 months ago 3
Comment removed
ubercamel 10 months ago
Comment removed
ubercamel 10 months ago
king is a dick :P
tophercfh 10 months ago 2
The people present there who are not brian cox are fucking ridiculous human beings that make me sick.
Angel8795 10 months ago 3
Brian must be thinking 'What the fuck? Are you idoit!?' at 4:52. Haha.
lellyumsX 10 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Haha, Brian must be thing 'You idoit!' at 4:52.
lellyumsX 10 months ago
Comment removed
lellyumsX 10 months ago
spending the money on something usefull? like what - benifits for the lazy and bankers bonuses (bailing the banks out) yeah really fucking useful....
theoneandonly690 10 months ago 2
To be honest, considering the way science funding is gained, it's amazing anything like the LHC gets funding. In the UK for example I think it's something like 50% has to be based on "impact" so you have to say what will be gained from experiments that you haven't even done yet. Nobody could do that, especially since psychics and woo-woo don't exist. If it wasn't for physics, quantum in particular, we wouldn't have our pcs and tvs to watch this on. Physics is the way forward. Not just curiousity
NeisanKitsune 10 months ago
physics pwn
Raskit3 10 months ago 2
Knighthood Fail...
TacticalAtheist 10 months ago 5
Brian Owned that old timer!!!!
robtubedude1 10 months ago 3
If ever there was a case of a fuddy-duddy, bow-tie wearing professor looking like a dinosaur compared to a new generation of enthusiastic, knowledge-hungry young scientists; this is it.
lucasisking 10 months ago 47
@lucasisking .what a pathetic thing to say and all the people who gave you thumbs up are equally as pathetic.Yh lets get some annoying twenty something talk about science,that will get people involved.That sounds good to you does it?lol.
laudrup90 7 months ago
@laudrup90 He's 43 years old, has a phds in physics, and has a senior position at CERN. More importantly, he LOVES science. Thats what we need to inspire a new generation. So no, I dont think its pathetic and it does sound good to me. Whats your solution Mr smartarse?
lucasisking 7 months ago 2
@laudrup90
I don't deny research and whatever you researching for can be used for good or bad. But B. Cox has repeatedly expressed his admiration for the "achievement" of the NASA moon landing.However the fact the moon landing was a hoax makes Cox looks what he really is -a kid from a small town.
RXwankME 6 months ago
@RXwankME The moon landings are a fundamental foundation of faith for Brian. They are beyond question and anyone who would dare to question it is a lunatic nut job conspiracy theorist. Clearly some subjects cannot be tackled by his scientific mind.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@RavenPrecept Why should people waste time on things they know to be the case? Shall we waste time on trying to decide if america was discovered or not? It's in the same league of stupidity as that. Maybe you should tackle that and leave actual questions up to intelligent people.
Bumblybee256 6 months ago
@Bumblybee256 I have been to America, I know it's there. I have not been to the moon and I don't have any proof that anyone else has. I would be interested in looking at any proof you know of. I am not sure how a trip to the moon can even be proved. We are told that the same rocks found on the moon are also found on earth. You would need something that could only have been brought back from the moon. Have you got a logical or scientific answer or is it as you indicated a matter of trust.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@RavenPrecept Lol, how about the fact you can fire a laser at the moon and it can return the signal due to reflectors left there by astronauts?
Bumblybee256 6 months ago
@Bumblybee256 Well that is tangible evidence, if I had a suitable laser and telescope I might give that a go. If I failed I would hardly conclude it's a lie, I would simply assume I had not got it right yet. It would have to work and it could not work on any old bit of moon, it would have to be where the mirror was. Reading about it, it sounds very difficult to do. Also because they reflect light back to the source they could have been dropped rather than planted.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@RavenPrecept "If I failed [to find it] I would hardly conclude it's a lie." It's interesting that the so-called "scientists" don't apply your logic to the question of whether there's a god. The fact is that so-called scientists are often the very worst culptirs when it comes to illogical thinking.
raymondkhessel100 6 months ago
@raymondkhessel100 Yes, you can't blame your own lack of skill as evidence of absence. We have to go through life with faith rather than proof of everything. I have managed to prove a number of things absolutely and a few things to my own satisfaction. On other things like Moon Landings I am on faith. I have lost that faith, I need some proof. I am looking for God, I don't have proof but I have managed to test some things to my own satisfaction.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@raymondkhessel100 If we limit our knowledge to that which science claims is true then we will be unimaginably ignorant. Most people manage to function in their daily lives without incontrovertible proof of anything. They are able to drive and operate a car when the workings of it may as well be magic. If cars were a lie then millions of people would have wasted their money on something which does not get them to the office. If the moon landings were a lie, how would anyone know?
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RavenPrecept "If I failed [to find it] I would hardly conclude it's a lie." It's interesting that the so-called "scientists" don't apply your logic to the question of whether there's a god. The fact is that so-called scientists are often the very worst culprits when it comes to illogical thinking.
raymondkhessel100 6 months ago
@Bumblybee256 The other thing I read is that they first started using lasers to measure the distance of the moon in 1962, before the moon missions. In all the alleged presence of reflectors on the moon does not fill me with confidence.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@Bumblybee256 The surface of the earth has been photographed in intense detail from high altitude and yet you can make our your own car on your drive using google or live maps. I want to see similar photos of the cars and landing stage they left on the moon.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@RavenPrecept Also explain why the rival russians never blew the whistle if there was any reason to suspect a hoax?
"I want to see similar photos of the cars and landing stage they left on the moon." so you can say it was faked and feel like you've outwitted nasa again? You give the awful impression of someone who's only sourcing comes from youtube.
Bumblybee256 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bumblybee256 I cant explain that but it's not as important as what you can't explain. What proof is there that man went to the moon?
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@Bumblybee256 It seems like a hoax and it has been proved to my satisfaction to be a hoax. If you want to believe it was real then it's up to you to nurture your beliefs. However you ought to have proof for your science. The reflectors seem real but you can't prove that a man planted them so it does not prove a man walked on the moon. As for what the Russians were thinking, how would I know? So the reason that there are no satellite pictures of cars on the moon is because people would cry hoax?
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@RavenPrecept Proven to your satisfaction means nothing since you know nothing about the topic. Let me guess- the flag was moving? lol.
"The reflectors seem real but you can't prove that a man planted them so it does not prove a man walked on the moon." The reflectors ARE real, because they had to deploy them. Boy, your education system......
Bumblybee256 6 months ago
@Bumblybee256 Maybe you just have to admit, it's a matter of faith in people that they would not lie that they went to the moon? I know you would not lie about it, I can feel that you are genuine. If you really can't find any evidence that they went to the moon then maybe you should be looking at these conspiracy theories a bit more critically. You maybe very shocked at what you find.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@RavenPrecept Lol, no I think it's more a mixture of the fact that they built a massive rocket, launched that massive rocket, are accepted to have done so by other space agencies and the fact there's a reflector array on the moon. I have looked at them, and there's no merit to any of them. I know you like to think you're outwitting the government but in reality you're making yourself look very silly and you still haven't told me why they would lie.
Bumblybee256 6 months ago
@Bumblybee256 Looking silly is not a reason to back off from this, that's emotional reasoning not scientific. However that is the best argument you put forward so far. Having a massive one does not mean you know how to use it. What about a reason given in the video for faking it, they simply could not do it. Please explain why reflectors mean that man walked on the moon?
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@RavenPrecept I didn't use 'looking silly' as a reason. It was merely a comment.
Lol, so in your mind scientists who built a rocket capable of going to the moon didn't know how to operate it? Why did they decide to fake the moon landings in the first place and why didn't the soviets blow the whistle if anything looked suspicious?
"Please explain why reflectors mean that man walked on the moon?" Lmao. Because they need someone to PUT them there.
Bumblybee256 6 months ago
@Bumblybee256 I am after proof that they went to the moon. You have not explained why men had to plant the reflectors, just that they did. There are things on other planets that were put there by machine.
It seems there is some evidence that men went to the moon but no conclusive proof.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@RavenPrecept They didn't HAVE to plant them, they did it to study the moon's rotation amongst other things. Now you're after something different- now you accept they WENT to the moon but just didn't walk on it? Backpedalling! Avoiding questions! etc etc
I love the idea that you think you'd understand all the 'conclusive proof' there is. Basically you won't believe it unless you'd been there, which probably calls into question other things for you, like does the arctic exist?
Bumblybee256 6 months ago