Then my questions stands: why do teams of scientists chase lunar eclipses around the world at great expense?
The _main_ point is to test precision positioning of satellites, not make shadows. For example, one very good scientific use of precision formations is that there are plans to have orbital gravitational wave detectors such as LISA. This will require three satellites flying in a very precise formation creating a triangular interferometer with 2.5 million km arms. This should be sensitive to difference frequencies of gravitational waves than the current earth based detectors like LIGO.
That example only works in hindsight.
No it does not just work in hindsight. The Greeks knew basic geometry - indeed they were the ones who came up with it! They knew that the Earth was a sphere and in 240 BC Eratosthenes measured the radius with an accuracy of a few hundred kilometres. This meant that they knew the circumference and the surface area of the planet and they also knew how much they had explored which was a lot less than the total area.
At the time until proven otherwise it could have just as easily been that their math was wrong the whole time.
It WAS proven otherwise by the ancient Greeks themselves! Mathematical proofs are absolute. The Greeks knew with absolute certainty what the surface area and circumference of a sphere was given the radius. They knew the Earth was a sphere from measurements they made which as I mentioned above, determined its radius surprisingly accurately. Hence, they knew there was much more unexplored surface out there. Where possibly uncertainties would have come in for them is in not knowing whether the curvature of the surface was constant so, had they considered this (which they likely did not since they tended to think that nature like perfect geometry) that would have lead to some increased uncertainty on how much surface there was to explore but would not change the conclusion that there evidence of a lot of surface left to explore.
Again, why I should I be responsible for paying the cost of someone else's fault
So, with a straight face, you're arguing I should pay more to cover somebody else's driving error, because I chose to drive a more expensive car than the mean.
In the case where it is entirely, 100% the result of something under the control of the other driver then I agree you have a strong point but the reality is that accidents are only rarely entirely the blame of one individual. In those cases where there is shared blame your choice to drive a more expensive car will end up costing the other person money for something that is not entirely their fault. Then there are the cases where there is a genuine accident e.g. a tyre gets a puncture and you lose control. Technically this is your fault but it is clearly an accident so why should you have to pay more just because the person you hit - arguably through no fault of your own, or at least no fault that you could avoid - decided to buy a Rolls?
I suppose that's why, in general, I tend to prefer no fault insurance (although I know it is far from perfect) since then everyone is covering themselves for the choices they make and not anyone elses.
If everyone on the road (except you) suddenly got a Rolls Royce next year, YOUR insurance rates would also go up
That does not necessarily follow. Yes, the cost of your accidents would go up but the insurance company is now also making tons more money from selling insurance to those drivers who now earn Rolls Royces. Given that each company is selling insurance to a statistical sampling of cars that should match what is on the road they can - and I would argue should - make those insuring expensive cars pay for the larger insurance costs those cars cause. Indeed in areas with no-fault insurance this is exactly what already happens.
So how is that any different from the "safe" drivers paying more for insurance
"Safe" drivers, defined as those who make fewer claims, do pay less for their insurance since normally you have a no-claims bonus and eventually even a "one-claim" insurance against losing it.
However, insurers claiming that they have to pay more because of electric cars is a very spurious argument because, at least here in Canada, the amount of your insurance depends on the vehicle you drive. An expensive sports car costs a lot more to insure than a compact car so, if EVs do cost insurers more then they should recoup that cost by charging EV owners more for their insurance.
his paper had two other authors.
This is factually wrong: you can see his paper here.
We call it the BEH boson.
I do not know anyone in the field who calls it that.
Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek