fargolime

Look up the relativistic rocket equations on the Usenet Physics FAQ. Calculate in a spreadsheet what a crew member of a thrusting rocket would observe after throwing a ball upward at close to the speed of light. Chart the path of the ball's free fall. Use general relativity's equivalence principle to realize the same initial behavior must be observable to a person standing on the ground. You've found "dark energy". A little logic from there shows that high-redshift supernovae must accelerate away from us (the 1998 discovery that lead to the idea of dark energy). Good luck finding anyone else who'll look at your numbers.

> I would argue that the Constitution absolutely overrides laws to the contrary

We're agreeing with each other? It's up to each person who takes an oath to defend the Constitution, to ignore and even fight against unconstitutional laws, i.e. ones that in an ideal world would be overridden by a fair Supreme Court.

Couldn't reply earlier due to "you're posting too fast" limitation, even after a day. I may have to wait several days to reply again.

Thanks downvoters! One of the sources listed above is the first link Google showed. It really does work.

So was Rosa Parks. We have a whistleblower law, along with a gov't oath to defend the Constitution, that potentially trumps other laws. So his prison potential isn't so clear.

To get sources, I highlighted the sentence, right-clicked and chose Search Google for...

He'd be imprisoned for a long time for sure. But note that Rosa Parks wasn't. As a nation we're more ruthless now.

The average American thinks an arrest is tantamount to guilt; one of many signs of this is that mugshots are made public here. Snowden should stay exiled.

I had a reasonable polite comment here but got a downvote within 10 seconds. Downvote away further. Geez.

We should consider the alternatives. We're borrowing $trillions annually, so we have to pick our battles carefully. Why spend $billions to maybe possibly discover something like that, when the same $$$ can definitely pay back on some other crucial item? For example, most NASA funding should already have been diverted to solving the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico; that's a more critical need that's currently being ignored. And that's only one of many giant cleanup tasks left to be done.

That's why I said not now anyway. In the past, sure, it drove innovation to a great degree. But at this point we've wrung out the biggest gains. Almost anything NASA develops nowadays has little benefit to the public at large. It's entertainment mostly.

Are you suggesting there are no adverse consequences to the "borrowing", similar to borrowing?

If the benefits and carryover paid for it, fine. But I doubt it, not now anyway. If it wasn't borrowed money, I'd say throw .5% at at it. But no way when it's borrowed, unless it can be proven beyond doubt that the outcome is net positive.

Note that some of the private sector can't fail now either.

It's fine by me if a dictatorship takes the lead in space. Their people might suffer as a result. Our goal should always be to raise the average standard of living. If that means taking a back seat in some area, why not?

Well put. Of voters that have long term vision, I can't see them wanting space exploration over many better investments. We have so many huge problems to deal with that need funds before space exploration and its relatively small chance of payback for the average voter. Especially when it's all borrowed money.