HERE’S WHAT NASA COULD ACCOMPLISH IF IT HAD THE US MILITARY’S $600 BILLION BUDGET

 


For Americans, NASA has been a household name since the 1960s when it accomplished the 
seemingly impossible impossible, transporting and landing humans on the moon. Since then, 
NASA has discovered other alien worlds such as Mars and the moon of Titan, and has flown 
over all the planets in our solar system.

He has achieved so much on a very small budget. Just consider if we give NASA hundreds of
billions of dollars a year like what we spend in the U.S. military. What else could NASA 
have done over the years?

The United States already spends more on space exploration than any other nation in the
world. NASA receives much of this investment, the country's leading space exploration agency.

But this part of the budget that NASA gets is nothing compared to the U.S. federal budget.
You will be surprised to hear that after NASA landed the first man on the moon in 1969, its 
budget dropped from 4.5% of the federal budget to less than 0.5%.

So let's imagine if NASA's budget hadn't been minimized? What if its funding was similar to
that of the US military?

It's impossible to know for sure what exactly what we could have gotten, but here's a look
at how NASA's budget compared to that of the U.S. military in 2016.

 

In other words, the army's budget for 2016 would pay for a manned mission to Mars with tens 
of billions to spare. NASA estimates that it would have cost $ 450 billion to land the first 
humans on Mars by the late 1930s or early 1940s.



What else could NASA do with $ 600 billion? Let's take a look at how NASA allocated its
funds in 2016. This would easily meet current costs for NASA's biggest ongoing projects, 
including:

Construction and launch costs for the most powerful rocket in history, Space Launch System.

The most powerful space telescope ever made, the James Webb Space Telescope.

Collaborate with SpaceX on his first mission to Mars in 2018, the Red Dragon Mission.

Pay for NASA operations aboard the ISS until 2024.

So how would you like NASA to spend the rest?

STEPHEN HAWKING WARNS WE MUST ESCAPE EARTH WITHIN 100 YEARS IF HUMANS ARE TO SURVIVE

 


Once again Stephen Hawking has a warning for humans, humans must leave Earth within 100 
years if we are to survive. The well-known theoretical physicist believes that life on 
Earth has an ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as asteroid 
attacks, epidemics, overpopulation and climate change.

As our world becomes less fit for life over the next century, Professor Hawking will warn
in a new documentary that future generations will have to forge a new existence in space.

As part of a new documentary, Expedition New Earth, which is part of the BBC's Tomorrow's
World starting in June, Professor Hawking will travel around the world to find out how we 
could exist in space.

In the documentary, broadcast on BBC 2, he will say that time is running out for human
existence on Earth and that we must sculpt our future elsewhere.

The season will also seek to find Britain's best invention, asking the public to rate the
innovation that has been the most influential in their lives.

In November last year, Professor Hawking was more conservative in his estimates.

He warned that humans could not survive another 1,000 years on "fragile" Earth.

During the speech, Professor Hawking told a whirlwind story of man's understanding of the
origin of the universe for an hour, from the myths of primordial creation to the most 
cutting-edge predictions made by "M theory".

He said: "Maybe someday we will be able to use gravitational waves to look back into the
heart of the Big Bang"

THESIS OF ARAB PHD STUDENT SHOWS ‘SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE’ THAT THE EARTH IS REALLY FLAT!

 


  • A student pursuing a PhD in science has a thesis about ‘flat earth’
  • It’s full of ‘scientific claims’ that’s against scientific breakthroughs from the past.
  • It was leaked by a former president of the Tunisian Astronomical Association.
This Arab student who is pursuing a doctorate in science hits the "globe" with his thesis 
that allegedly shows that the Earth is flat. Really flat.

It's not all! the thesis states that the earth does not move, the Universe is geocentric
(We are the center of the Universe) and that the world is 13,500 years old.



starting from all this, the student completely rejected the Newton and Einstein schools of
thought when it comes to physics, the heliocentric views of Kepler and Copernicus and many 
other scientific discoveries established in the past.

The thesis continues with the statements, and here are some:

STAY OUT OF THE SUN, IT IS NOT WHAT IT USED TO BE!

 



In 1980 ...



The SPF factor was 8+



1995 onwards is 50+



In 1980 ...



It took ALL DAY to get a sunburn.



1995 onwards it takes 20 minutes.



In 1980 ...



It took TWO WEEKS for a newspaper to turn yellow in the sun.



1995 onwards it takes one day.



In 1980 the children drew the YELLOW sun in pictures.



1995 onwards they design it BLUE OR WHITE



In 1980 you could look directly at the sun even at noon without
being blinded if you did it for 10 seconds or less.



From 1995 onwards you cannot even look in its GENERAL DIRECTION.

ASTRONOMERS HAVE DISCOVERED ANOTHER EARTH

 

It’s big news, set to shock, amaze, and entertain the world.
But unfortunately, it has nothing to do with a second Earth or better with that planet
Earth.

However, since you are now reading, you will almost certainly be interested in this
research which examined the click and share behavior of social media users who read 
(or not) the content and then share it on social media. We are here on Sci-Tech 
Universe has long noticed that many of our followers will appreciate, share and 
offer a happy opinion on an article, all without ever reading it. We are not alone 
in noticing this. Last April, NPR shared an article on their Facebook page asking 
"Why does America no longer read?". The joke, of course, is that there were no 
articles. They waited to see if their followers would have pondered an opinion 
without clicking on the link and were not disappointed.

We hoped for an opportunity to try it ourselves and this seemed the perfect
opportunity.

A team of computer scientists from Columbia University and the French National
Institute examined a dataset of over 2.8 million online news articles shared via 
Twitter. The study found that up to 59 percent of the links shared on Twitter were 
never actually clicked on by that person's followers, suggesting that social media 
users prefer to share content rather than clicking on it and reading it.

"People are more willing to share an article than to read it," said study co-author
Arnaud Legout in a statement, the Washington Post reports. “This is typical of modern
information consumption. People form an opinion based on a summary or summary of 
summaries, without making the effort to investigate. "

This study examines the psychology behind what makes people want to share content.
Research conducted by the New York Times Customer Insight Group investigated what 
motivates people to share information. Just under half of the people surveyed said 
they shared information on social media to inform people and "enrich" those around 
them. Instead, they found 68 percent of the odds to reinforce and project their image
- in a way, to "define" them

In the words of a participant in the study: "I try to share only information that will
strengthen the image I would like to present: thoughtful, reasoned, kind, interested 
and passionate about certain things".
This also raises the question of whether online media is just a massive "echo chamber"
where we all like only pages and views that reinforce our beliefs and are not 
interested in information for information purposes. Social media site algorithms 
also mean that the individuals or pages you tend to click, like or share - which 
are often the articles or views you agree with - will appear more frequently in your 
feed than news.

As an online media user, you are probably quite aware of this.

So if you are one of the lucky few who managed to click and read this article, we
congratulate you! Although sorry for the misleading title. In the meantime, have fun 
sharing the article and see who can chair a discussion on Earth 2.0 without ever 
reading it.

Astronomers Have Spotted The Birth Of Planets For The First Time

 


For the first time ever, scientists have been able to detect the formation of a planetary 
system. A research paper, published in Nature, proposes that the detected objects are newly 
born planets, which are currently put together by tremendously hot gas and dust. By means of
the system images captured between 2009 and 2015, the group of astronomers was able to 
detect two protoplanets - small objects that continue to form planets - together with a 
third potential, in orbit around a LkCa 15 star in an elliptical orbit, as expected by the 
planets.

Image Credit: Artist's Illustration of Planets Developing in a Transition Disc like LkCa 15.
The planets within the disc clearing collect material that would otherwise have fallen on 
the star, NASA / JPL-Caltech

Identifying the formation of planets is a rather difficult task. Newborn star systems are
generally shielded in a cloud of dust that blocks our view, making normal observation 
methods inadequate. As a result, the team of astronomers had to come up with a different 
method for studying the system. Newly formed stars produce large discs of material from 
which planets are formed. As developing planets move over this protoplanetary disk, they 
generate gaps in swirling debris, which astronomers can locate using infrared light. 
Numerous protoplanet candidates have been identified in this way. For this recent discovery,
the team gathered infrared observations from the large binocular telescope, with 
alpha-hydrogen examination by the Magellan Telescope.

The gap around the parent star LkCa 15 was first detected in 2011, which showed the
potential for the star to have at least one exoplanet. For this new study, astronomers 
were able to detect the hot gas (9,700 ° C [17,500 ° F]) that sinks to the nearest planet 
LkCa 15b. By examining the data from the system, astronomers realized that there were other 
discharges in the gap: a signal was recognized as a second planet after being observed 
numerous times. A third discharge should be another planet but it has yet to be confirmed.

This discovery and the success of this method offer new opportunities to study how planetary
systems are formed and how new planets connect with the disc of material around the star.

“PROVE” 2 = 0. CAN YOU FIND THE MISTAKE?

 

I received an email I wanted to share with you. Wolfgang came up with a false proof that 2 = 0. No one in his class, not even his teacher, could figure out the mistake. Can you?
I present the false proof and the mistake in a new video.
“Prove” 2 = 0. Can You Find The Mistake?

Here is the “proof” in text.
2 = 1 + 1
2 = 1 + √(1)
2 = 1 + √(-1 * -1)
2 = 1 + √(-1)√(-1)
2 = 1 + i(i)
2 = 1 + i2
2 = 1 + (-1)
2 = 0
Or keep reading for a text explanation.

.
.
.
.
M
I
N
D
.
Y
O
U
R
.
D
E
C
I
S
I
O
N
S
.
.
.
.
False Proof 2 = 0
2 = 1 + 1
2 = 1 + √(1)
2 = 1 + √(-1 * -1)
2 = 1 + √(-1)√(-1)
2 = 1 + i(i)
2 = 1 + i2
2 = 1 + (-1)
2 = 0
The mistake is between lines 3 and 4.
√(-1 * -1) ≠ √(-1)√(-1)
This is a misapplication of the product rule for square roots. The product rule is guaranteed to work only when both values are positive.
If xy ≥ 0, then
√(xy) = √(x)√(y)
When x = y = -1, the product rule may not apply, and as demonstrated, it is not a valid step because it leads to the conclusion that 2 = 0.
When you learn a property in math class, make sure to pay attention to the specific conditions when it applies. If you don’t you could end up with an absurd result like 2 = 0!
So how are we supposed to simplify a square root of a negative number? It is actually a mistake to use the product rule (which KhanAcademy teaches):
√(-52) = √(-1)√(52) = i √(52)
This is a mistake! You should not use the product rule unless both terms are positive–although in this case you do get the correct answer.
The correct way is that we define the square root of negative numbers as follows (see page 529 in here):
If b is a real number greater than 0 , then
√(-b) = i √b
So the correct way to find the answer is by definition:
√(-52) = i √(52)
You might think this is a nit-picking distinction as the KhanAcademy method gets to the correct answer. But remember that the process matters in math–it is not about getting the correct answer, it’s about getting the correct answer by the correct method.

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Search This Blog

Blog Archive

Popular Posts

About Me

Featured post

NOTHING BUT BLACKENED TEETH

  Cassandra Khaw's   Nothing But Blackened Teeth  is a gorgeously creepy haunted house tale, steeped in Japanese folklore and full of de...

Featured
blogger/disqus/facebook

Recent Posts

Comments

recentcomments

Featured Posts

Recent in Sports

Gallery

Videos

Column Right

Feat

Carousel

Column Left

Pages

Featured

Pages - Menu

Breaking News

Pages - Menu

Popular