Should we be investing more money in physics research?
Some people are noticing that physics has become so compartmentalized that researchers are unable to recognize when the same underlying physics drives different systems. They are also noticing that increasing the number of researchers actually makes solving this problem harder (read The Mythical Man-Month).Is Science Hitting a Wall?An example of this compartmentalization is given in Jen Jamison’s answer toWhat are plausible explanations for the universe's gravity that do not involve dark matter?On the global scale, cosmologists invented dark energy to explain the accelerating universe. On the galactic scale, cosmologists invented dark matter to explain the stellar velocities of spiral nebula. On the atomic scale, physicists proposed virtual photons as the rationale for the electric force. On the nuclear scale, binding energy was attributed to gluons. To explain inertia, the Higgs boson. And for Gravity, there are two choices - the graviton if you like the idea of messenger particles delivering momentum or force, or spatial curvature if you prefer GR (but then you must the explain the space curving force created by inert matter).All of the above theories have one thing in common - they do not predict the force.Did this happen because none of the cosmologists or particle physicists ever studied fluid dynamics? or because the Stokes Navier problem is really hard to solve analytically or numerically?It bugs me when people insist that things are mysterious when what they really mean is that they are computationally difficult. To me physics mystification looks like a transparent attempt to fool people into handing over more research money.It would be more honest if they said that they need to study the problems in order to find more computationally efficient ways to model the systems.
How do you invest your time, energy, and money into personal growth?
You can get coaching. There are professional life coach that can help you extend your awareness and explore new avenues with you.I would also invest time in Toastmasters. It’s an NPO for developing public speaking and leadership skills. The more surrounded you are with people, the better you’ll become.Take some acting, improv and yoga classes. Acting is good for creating a new character that has a different personality than yours. You’ll develop your own style. Improv is good for thinking on your feet.Traveling is important you’ll see yourself from a different way. There is two versions of you : you at home and you in travel. The goal is to reassemble the pieces and combine both. In traveling you can be free, you can be yourself. At home, you have certain rule of conducts to follow.Read self-help book and try to apply them in your life.I would finally suggest practicing a group sport such as : volleyball, hockey or judo. Anything again that will let you go outside your house to meet others people.
What are the best renewable energy companies to invest my money in?
Never invest money you can’t afford to lose. Renewable energy companies are all risky investments. I’ve already written about what the problems of acceptance are for renewables and there are many other problems as well, even that our energy demands far exceed what renewables are going to provide.It seems obvious that wind, hydro, solar and wave will be the main pathways for stationary power. None are new. Any investment here seems low risk but low gain. An exception would be to invest in commercial rooftop solar PPAs which seem to be a boon.I would think that pumped hydro is the most promising form of stationary energy storage. Energy storage is getting urgent because renewables are not reliable. Anything to do with batteries is not a good investment unless someone comes up with something that is long lasting, high power, inexpensive and low environmental impact. None fit the bill here.For transport there are many challenges and half a century of work has gone into hydrogen, fuel cell, compressed air and other engines. None of these are going anywhere while gasoline is cheap. However, light transport and electric short trip commercial transport is looking good.You might invest your money betting against things. For example, anyone highly valued who says the future is a high reliability city wide smart grid is going to crash. Anyone with mini nukes. Fully autonomous vehicles without infrastructure. Expensive electric cars based on Lithium batteries. You can make money shorting these. Shorting sends an important message to the market.
Why doesn't the government invest more money into NASA?
We're talking about food shortages, job shortages, and energy shortages. We're talking about a problem with the national deficiate. My question is why doesn't the government invest more into the innovations juggernaut we call NASA? How many jobs were created when the computer was made more practical? Countless. Without NASA, the computer would just be this huge room sized thing that could only do basic math. What about the invention of plastics? I mean no organization in the world has made more patinents then NASA. It's also where we'll probably develop alternate fuel sources, plus we could mine the resources on the moon, preserving our own enviroment. There's nothing living to destroy up there. On a financial level, for every dollar we put into NASA we get about 4 back. We're always talking about having to export more. But since technology is I believe our lead export, shouldn't we do things that could potentially up the amount of technology we export? Okay, so I know this won't solve every single problem in the world. The high cost of health care, world hunger, and political tyrants will still run amuck. And it will take time for us to see results of our investment. But seriously, it will solve quite a few of them I think. So what I'm trying to figure is why don't we? What's the counter arguement against investing more into NASA?
Should we invest in renewable energy and alternative fuels?
Lawmakers only focus on these high gas prices. I think they should look into investing funds into renewable energy and alternative fuels. This is the only way we can successfully become energy independent. And these fossil burning fuels are ruining the environment. For example they could put _______ billion dollars into automobile companies so they could lower the cost of hybrid cars, and _____ billion in the production of these vehicles.
Should carbon taxes be reinvested into renewable energy?
Eric Last's prescriptive answer is correct, but doesn't answer one thing, which I will here: the politics of the article you read.In politics, people who want or don't want something often try to swap in more high-sounding reasons than the shortsighted selfishness or ideological fervor that is their real reason. Often they tell themselves the same lie they're telling you, just to make them feel better about themselves, making them not cynical but rather self-deluded in a venal sort of way.Or they'll try to give you the reason they think you're most like to swallow.Saying a carbon tax's revenues should go to alternative energy is really a way of saying "I don't want a carbon tax so I'll add demands that will make it harder to pass a carbon tax--demands which add the pretence of fairness, so I can hide my opposition to all carbon taxes behind that mask."There's also the "a la carte-ificaton" of government which is often proposed by people who have lost their grip on the idea of government serving the common good, not my particular set of interests.That's where you have people--Left and Right--saying "I don't want MY tax dollars going to pay for X (say, war, or abortion). When what anyone in particular wants shouldn't determine tax allocations.A carbon tax helps everyone. I want government to support the development of alternative energy sources--we lost Solyndra because the Chinese dumped huge amounts of older-designed solar panels on the American market at a loss, and the government didn't jump in to protect fledgling American industries, and now China controls the lion's share of the solar panel market with an inferior consumer product. But as Eric said, since a carbon tax benefits all, the funds can be used in any way that helps all--such as repairing our ancient water piping, which loses a zillion gallons of drinking water to simple leakage every year nationally.
Why are US politicians so old? Why don't they retire?
First, I assume you are referring to politicians on the national level or Governors. The answer is they are not all old, however it takes time to be a viable candidate and the higher the office, the stiffer the competition. In most cases, there is a choice for politicians. Work your way up the ladder of elective office OR build a name for yourself outside of politics and THEN get into politics. Next, it is hard to walk away from power. There is no mandatory retirement age, although there may be term limits.