Changes

::::I thought the Hubble was another example of scientists scamming the public purse for more money; we spent $30 billion to launch it, and when it got there it didn't work, so we had to spend a couple billion more to fix it (guess who got paid twice for not doing their job right the first time).  You are right, tho.  Facts in 1983 probably aren't facts anymore today, so we should be cautious about what we allege to be scientific facts today.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:51, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I thought the Hubble was another example of scientists scamming the public purse for more money; we spent $30 billion to launch it, and when it got there it didn't work, so we had to spend a couple billion more to fix it (guess who got paid twice for not doing their job right the first time).  You are right, tho.  Facts in 1983 probably aren't facts anymore today, so we should be cautious about what we allege to be scientific facts today.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:51, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: You are willing to accept the "past theories have been wrong" but not "sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries?"  You cannot pick and choose quotes.  Take it all, with context or none at all.  Carlos Frenk's research is about star formation, he is trying to further it.  The quote in the context of the article is about the need for more and better sky surveys - not saying that the theories are wrong.  Could you provide the full context of the third quote so that one can look at what is stated in the paper and what is stated in current research?  The 2002 and 2004 quotes are about different things than the 1983 quote.  In 1983, there wasn't any hope of looking at extra solar planets.  Now they are being found at a reasonable rate. In 1983, one didn't have the power to model star formation - we do today.  In 1983, scientists were not able to do Xray astronomy or see objects at the distance that the Hubble can today.  Gamma ray flashes were still in their infancy http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/short_burst_oct5.html (you couldn't see the companion galaxy).  Go to the astronomy department of the local university and ask a professor there what has been discovered since 1983.  Alternatively, look at a astronomy text book from the early 80's and compare it with one today.  --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:53, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: You are willing to accept the "past theories have been wrong" but not "sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries?"  You cannot pick and choose quotes.  Take it all, with context or none at all.  Carlos Frenk's research is about star formation, he is trying to further it.  The quote in the context of the article is about the need for more and better sky surveys - not saying that the theories are wrong.  Could you provide the full context of the third quote so that one can look at what is stated in the paper and what is stated in current research?  The 2002 and 2004 quotes are about different things than the 1983 quote.  In 1983, there wasn't any hope of looking at extra solar planets.  Now they are being found at a reasonable rate. In 1983, one didn't have the power to model star formation - we do today.  In 1983, scientists were not able to do Xray astronomy or see objects at the distance that the Hubble can today.  Gamma ray flashes were still in their infancy http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/short_burst_oct5.html (you couldn't see the companion galaxy).  Go to the astronomy department of the local university and ask a professor there what has been discovered since 1983.  Alternatively, look at a astronomy text book from the early 80's and compare it with one today.  --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:53, 4 May 2007 (EDT)