Suppose you go down to the beach and make some measurements of "water waves". Does that prove that water is a fundamental force in the Universe? Or could water waves be the result of other fundamental forces?

What, call that an argument! That is just contradiction - the automatic gain-saying of what the other person said. Don't worry. On another reply I have already been called a pedant. Hoping to get him to compare me to the Nazis next.

Sorry. I was in a foul mood and wanted to get into an argument with the internet. Happy cruising.

Star Wars and Star Trek actually exist. That is, there really are objects like light sabres and space ship models that were made to be used in the movies. In some cases you can buy the original objects or they exist in collections. Mostly though we would be buying replicas of those objects since they are more abundant and less expensive. Now if there was a computer model used only for CGI and never physically produced, you could still consider a model of it to be a replica because it is made based on the detail of the original.

You can suppose whatever you like about something for which there is no actual evidence. In any case that makes the prop a replica model of a plesiosaur - of which I agree there is ample evidence.

Ye cannae have a 'replica model' of something that (probably) does not exist.

Worse than that. Suppose their research 'proves' that you can catch 333 whales 'sustainably'. Is their research then complete? Sadly no. They can come back and research a higher number. When the outcome of the research could only be to allow you to undertake an illegal activity then it should never take place. Meanwhile any whale meat that is a by-product should be incinerated. Total sham and embarrassing to see a country acting in this way.

There is no "laser beam". Reflection from the ring particles would be quite random in direction rather than directed like from a mirror. Most ring particles are small, likely to be rough and oriented pretty randomly. Sure it would be brighter when it is more face on but that is just a result of the greater amount of bright area that is visible. The moon shows a relatively flat image to us rather than an obvious sphere for the same reason. The surface is composed of randomly oriented rough particles so light scatters pretty equally in all directions irrespective of the angle of the average surface to an observer. Within the star system and assuming pretty much co-planar planetary orbits, unless the axis of the ring system lies in the same plane as that of the location from which you are observing from, the axis can never actually point at you. Chances are high that the axis is not co-planar. Still it would be an awesome sight. Uranus has an axial tilt of 97.77 degrees so it is close to being in the plane of the ecliptic but a little off. It is thought to be the result of a massive collision early in the Solar System formation. While it would be spectacular, the actual amount of radiation and the frequency ranges in the reflected light would be visible but far from damaging. Hold your hand up and feel the lack of heat from a full moon at night. Sunlight is about 500,000 times more powerful than full moon light. Finally, it is a very long way from Earth so 'we' are not going to be in any danger at all. It was only detected through blocking the host star's light. It might make a good observing target when it is in opposition but still don't expect clear Saturn-like images until we build a multi-kilometer sized telescope (or equivalent).

The primary mirror of GMT will be composed of 7 segments - each of which is 8.5m (28ft) in diameter. The overall resolving power will be equivalent to a single mirror 24.5m (80ft) in diameter.

The war is indeed hundreds of years old:

-- http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/secrets-of-silk-production/

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gunpowder

Perhaps the same for paper, printing, rockets, fine china, glazing? Not sure about bronze and iron working.

Then there are all of the traditional medicines and biodiversity around the world that is being trawled for patentable medical applications.

Given the enormous problems and inherent risks of landing a sophisticated probe in working condition, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to first send some quite dumb but very robust impactors. Gather basic information and then plan a longer duration mission.

It is possible to make some pretty durable basic sensors, batteries and a transmitter. Have a solid rocket final stage to decelerate on the way in so that they are not vaporised on impact. Launch a cluster that separate on the way and adjust slightly their trajectories to come in staggered over time and spread over distance. Camera view on the way down.

Then spend the $5B or whatever it takes to get a more capable lander / rover / driller onto the surface in working condition.

They did. However the Doctor's sidekick left an iPod behind. Kodak engineers reverse engineered it leading to the creation of cheap consumer digital electronics. The inevitable demise of analog technology and analog recordings followed as a natural consequence. Um...Where were we...