Ok, you are getting this wrong. Both relativity and quantum physics were developed to try and explain phenomena that was observed on earth.
Quantum physics was developed because classical physics couldn't resolve the ultraviolet catastrophe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe
This video is an absolutely brilliant delve into the problem, where he shows the derivations of the issue from classical mechanics and explains why treating energy levels as quantised resolves the maths.
Special relatively was developed by Einstein because physicists were unhappy that Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism were not invariant on different inertial frames. After the Michelson and Morley experiment, there was no way to get around that the speed of light is the same for all observers.
My statement was pointing to one of the justifications about space exploration is that "it will drive technological innovation". I just don't think that is the case, as innovation tends to happen whenever someone gives a bunch of very clever people money and the ability to do whatever they want. That was what Bell labs did. If your sole purpose to justify space exploration is for innovation, you are better off just funding a bunch of really clever people here on earth to do whatever they want"
Space exploration should be justified on scientific merit (Because understanding the world and universe is important) or commercial benefit. Justifying it on the basis that it might have some technological benefits in the future is very weak IMO
There are two types of observations in science, qualitative and quantitative, as well observations in the lab and the natural world. Newtons laws works on low gravity and low motion, where einstein's theory of relativity works with high gravity and high motion, if you input low motion and low gravity into einstein's laws you get newton's equations. Some observations made in the natural world wouldn't be possible in the lab setting, it doesn't mean you can't run experiments in a natural setting.
Blackholes, pulsars, quasars and neutron stars when it pertains to theory of relativity can only be observed in a natural setting, there is lots of things that can only be observed in natural setting, but you can also demonstrate and observe those things in a lab setting too, it isn't that common for an observation to be seen in a lab setting first before being observed in a natural setting. Both settings are of equal importance, does it really matter from which setting the advancement comes from ?
Besides it is just ONE facet of the theory of relativity.......and sure its basis is that of light if you will, or at least part of it....but who cares where the discovery is ultimately proven, that just sounds silly to me.
I think I will further add, there is chemical reactions or rather atom interactions which do not naturally occur on earth that only happens in space. Hydrogen for example on earth is gas, but on jupiter as an example due to extreme pressure and heat, displays properties of a metal, which creates a dynamo effect and the reason why Jupiter has a strong electromagnetic field, there is also elemental bonds between some elements not found on earth and only occurs in the extreme conditions of space. In the early formation of the universe helium and hydrogen bonded to form helium hydride, some thing that simply doesn't occur naturally on earth. We have a very limited understanding of nuclear fusion in general, especially when it comes to other elements on the periodic table. Plasma doesn't naturally occur on earth as an example, we don't have the extreme pressure, or heat necessary for it, most of our chemistry is based, of the 3 states we do find here solid, liquid and gas, at least with regards to traditional chemistry, advance chemistry is an entirely different subject when the two is compared.
But to the point without quantum physics NONE of what we have today would have been possible, and experimental, astro, mathematical, theoretically physics are all tied together in some fundamental way or another. It is ludicrous that you are trying to argue that advancement has been solely based on earth observation, which is false. Many things astro physicists have discovered has led to inventions based on their observations.
To add more, newtons laws, work in the solar system too, netwon in particular asked the question is the moon falling, and thus calculus was born, while his observations were based on earth he also looked to space, especially to the moon and the known planets with regards to motion and mass, all this in the 1700's were reasonably the fastest thing was a horse it would be several years before the first steam powered train was invented.So newton's law and equations work great within the solar system, it starts to breakdown else where. Special relativity deals with the absence of gravity and general relativity with gravity especially with regards to light, both of them with regards to what is happening on earth and astrophysics.
So you have it wrong implying that quantum psychics and general and special relativity was created solely based on earth observations, it is both, that is the correct answer. Quantum physics was created because of issues relating to problems with classic physics, with regards to particles like atom's, and subatomic particles the notion it was created for the sole purpose of solving one problem is absurd to say the least, it solved many problems especially issues encountered in classic physics planck pretty much the father of quantum theory used it to solve issues with regards to black body radiation. I mean we have E=hv the planck's constant.
You are also one of the folks that point out why spend money going into space and looking at space. Take a dollar note and slice off the part of the note equivalent to the yearly NASA budget. Slicing off the piece doesn't even make it to the ink of the note, the piece that you have sliced off is so small the note is still a valid tender, the NASA budget is 0.3% of the entire budget, and in 2024 they are getting 27 odd billion of the entire $6.9 trillion budget proposed for 2024.
Do you really think the NASA budget is some how going to be the magic bullet that turns the US around. Do you know how much the entire world has spend on the space sector around a $100 billion. Want to know what the entire world GDP is, around a $100 trillion. The yearly amount spend on the space sector is insignificant. Ironically most aren't even aware that NASA still splits up their budget to different sectors, like earth sciences which gets around $7 billion. Since the inception of NASA to date $650 billion has been allocated to NASA, and NASA is 64 years old.
So lets improve lives on earth, yay you have likely helped less that 10% of the entire world's population, but tomorrow 10% of the world's population will die as a result of a comet or asteroid hitting the earth, which could possibly have been prevented. The tunguska event as an example would have leveled a city like new york. How about space weather, if you don't monitor the sun, and we eventually get hit by a CME aimed at earth it stands the risk of completely knocking out the electrical grid you would rather us not have an early warning system in place and monitor sun activity, while the sun is a stable body, it won't remain one indefinitely, as it starts consuming heavier and heavier elements for nuclear fusion it is going to impact the stability and solar activity eventually.
Sure we have rather limited capabilities now but that in no way means you shouldn't improve our odds and capabilities now while we still can, our ignorance and complacency will impact future generations.Secondly if you were to scrap the budget of the space sector you are also indirectly going to impact people's decisions with regards to higher education and studies in this field and associated fields, why would anyone risk studying in this field if you aren't going to be rewarded for your efforts.Scientists in this field and indirect fields is a necessary evil, whether you like it or not, future generations depend on it.
..........I am undecided if woman and children should be included on the list, as it may take up valuable space of the coffee and hentai collection......
