One of man\'s greatest achievements...

[Jasen Betts]

On 2022-01-09, Tom Del Rosso <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

It\'s hard to separate big science from big money.

Or big movies. It would make more sense to complain about how much goes
to Spiderman etc.

Of course there is the issue of public funding.

Eisenhower said, \"Beware the military-industrial complex\" and \"Beware
public funding of the academy.\"

Nobody remembers the latter, so we have corrupted science first in
climate and now in medicine.

Without public funding, Tetra-ethyl lead, and asbestos would still be safe
and smoking, homeopathy, and radium water would be good for you. Life
would be so much better - oh wait that\'s not how science works.

Ignorance is (also) no protection under the laws of nature.

--
Jasen.

 

[John Walliker]

On Sunday, 9 January 2022 at 10:01:04 UTC, Jasen Betts wrote:

Nobody remembers the latter, so we have corrupted science first in
climate and now in medicine.
Without public funding, Tetra-ethyl lead, and asbestos would still be safe
and smoking, homeopathy, and radium water would be good for you. Life
would be so much better - oh wait that\'s not how science works.

The USA still allows the widespread use of leaded aviation gasoline which
contains tetra-ethyl lead.

John

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 5:01:04 AM UTC-5, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2022-01-09, Tom Del Rosso <fizzbin...@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

It\'s hard to separate big science from big money.

Or big movies. It would make more sense to complain about how much goes
to Spiderman etc.

Of course there is the issue of public funding.

Eisenhower said, \"Beware the military-industrial complex\" and \"Beware
public funding of the academy.\"

Nobody remembers the latter, so we have corrupted science first in
climate and now in medicine.
Without public funding, Tetra-ethyl lead, and asbestos would still be safe
and smoking, homeopathy, and radium water would be good for you. Life
would be so much better - oh wait that\'s not how science works.

Ignorance is (also) no protection under the laws of nature.

Heh, heh,... heh, heh, heh, heh, he said homeopathy!

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[server]

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:80ab267a-a314-47b5-99de-070930c63ef6n@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 5:01:04 AM UTC-5, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2022-01-09, Tom Del Rosso
fizzbin...@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

It\'s hard to separate big science from big money.

Or big movies. It would make more sense to complain about how
much goes to Spiderman etc.

Of course there is the issue of public funding.

Eisenhower said, \"Beware the military-industrial complex\" and
\"Beware public funding of the academy.\"

Nobody remembers the latter, so we have corrupted science first
in climate and now in medicine.
Without public funding, Tetra-ethyl lead, and asbestos would
still be safe and smoking, homeopathy, and radium water would be
good for you. Life would be so much better - oh wait that\'s not
how science works.

Ignorance is (also) no protection under the laws of nature.

Heh, heh,... heh, heh, heh, heh, he said homeopathy!

Fire that mother up! That\'s what Willie and Tommy would say.

 

[John S]

On 1/8/2022 3:44 PM, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan
Frank) wrote:
Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:

On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:

10x over budget and 20 years late.

How so? Please provide citation to a credible source supporting your
claims that documents the original projected budget and expected
delivery/launch date.

Don\'t be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google \"jwst over budget
and late\"

Don\'t be a jerk. You can find that the total time for the project was
circa 20 years, but very little of that time is \'late\' duration. You
can also find a projected budget by each of several successive
administrations, over a couple of decades, and claim the total budget
(going forward a few years) to be something that does not match those
estimates.

Or you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics, few of whom
are well-informed, but they\'re all mouthy.

You will find John was accurate and being conservative.

Nah; you can\'t find accuracy in such a search, you need to have an
accountant look over \'the books\'. And as for being \'conservative\'?
In what sense? Trying to evaluate cost-and-benefits is what a
conservative assessment would do; he never considered benefits, and has
only a ballpark idea on costs. Does he think all telescope instruments
are alike? It seems so.

Don\'t get in a jerk fight.

JWST is definitely late and over budget. The claims of utility are dubious.

Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB already does that.

Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe? The expansion of
space is moving objects faster than the speed of light. Nothing can see
beyond that.

No need to have an accountant look at the books. There is more than
sufficient evidence from qualified observers to show the trend. We are not
astronomers. We do not need 6-digit accuracy. Just get the trend and move
on with our lives.

NASA was famous for satellites that explored the planets and some comets.

However, it has lost much of its reputation on Artemis and has become a
laughing stock. It is merely a jobs program for Aerojet Rocketdyne, Boeing,
Jacobs, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. It is far outclassed by
SpaceX.

We lost a great deal when Arecibo went down. How about funneling a small
amount from Artemis to rebuilding Arecibo?

If JWST ever detects life on other planets, Aricebo will be needed to
communicate with them. If, by chance, they use radio technology.

They use frequency modulated neutrinos. Good luck.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:32:46 AM UTC-5, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

This is commendable work...

Many nations involved.

Many many tons of gear down here and techs and engineers to make use
of it...

https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html

It\'s just government welfare to keep the crappy space agencies alive. Only a simple minded fool would take anything they say at face value. They\'re just a bunch of career liars and cheats.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2022-01-09, Tom Del Rosso
fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

It\'s hard to separate big science from big money.

Or big movies. It would make more sense to complain about how much
goes to Spiderman etc.

Of course there is the issue of public funding.

Eisenhower said, \"Beware the military-industrial complex\" and \"Beware
public funding of the academy.\"

Nobody remembers the latter, so we have corrupted science first in
climate and now in medicine.

Without public funding, Tetra-ethyl lead, and asbestos would still be
safe
and smoking, homeopathy, and radium water would be good for you. Life
would be so much better - oh wait that\'s not how science works.

Ignorance is (also) no protection under the laws of nature.

Ike said \"beware\", not \"banish.\"


--
Defund the Thought Police
Andiamo Brandon!

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 3:41:41 PM UTC-5, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:32:46 AM UTC-5, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
This is commendable work...

Many nations involved.

Many many tons of gear down here and techs and engineers to make use
of it...

https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
It\'s just government welfare to keep the crappy space agencies alive. Only a simple minded fool would take anything they say at face value. They\'re just a bunch of career liars and cheats.

I know. I don\'t give them any more credence than some guy posting in newsgroups.

Well, maybe a bit more.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 7:41:41 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:32:46 AM UTC-5, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
This is commendable work...

Many nations involved.

Many many tons of gear down here and techs and engineers to make use
of it...

https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
It\'s just government welfare to keep the crappy space agencies alive. Only a simple minded fool would take anything they say at face value. They\'re just a bunch of career liars and cheats.

Fred does like to keep thing simple enough for him to understand. Working out what the James Webb telescope is intended to do is quite beyond him, while the idea that people involved are career liars and cheats is much less demanding. It\'s also pretty implausible, but Fred hasn\'t got a lot of options.

Unlike Cursitor Doom, he doesn\'t actively demand implausible explanations, but he\'s not got enough sense left to differentiate between degrees of implausibility.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d06f4c61-4f97-4eb4-9ab2-00e90479ef3en@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:32:46 AM UTC-5,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
This is commendable work...

Many nations involved.

Many many tons of gear down here and techs and engineers to make
use of it...

https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html

It\'s just government welfare to keep the crappy space agencies
alive. Only a simple minded fool would take anything they say at
face value. They\'re just a bunch of career liars and cheats.

So, they lied and the telescope doesn\'t exist and we didn\'t go to the
Moon in 1969?

 

[Martin Brown]

On 08/01/2022 23:03, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 2022-01-08 22:44, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan
Frank) wrote:

You will find John was accurate and being conservative.

Nah; you can\'t find accuracy in such a search, you need to have an
accountant look over \'the books\'.   And as for being \'conservative\'?
In what sense?   Trying to evaluate cost-and-benefits is what a
conservative assessment would do; he never considered benefits, and has
only a ballpark idea on costs.   Does he think all telescope instruments
are alike?   It seems so.

Don\'t get in a jerk fight.

JWST is definitely late and over budget. The claims of utility are
dubious.

Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB already does that.

That we can see back to the surface of last scattering of the Big Bang
means that everything that it between that and us is in principle if we
choose the right wavelength to look for it.

Lyman alpha is a nice bright UV line in our rest frame but by the time
you get towards the edge of the universe it is well into the infra red.

Seeing what the first galaxies looked like experimentally will put very
tight constraints on the theoreticians models.

Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe? The expansion of
space is moving objects faster than the speed of light. Nothing can see
beyond that.

It can perhaps look back to the point where the first stars and galaxies
were forming and right into nearby dense molecular clouds where stars
are forming today. That is a very long way from the edge of the universe.

One might hope that the JWST brings some order to cosmology,
because in its current form, it\'s little better than Genesis.

Jeroen Belleman

That is a little unfair. Big Bang cosmology (a derogatory name coined by
Fred Hoyle to mock it) has gone a long way to explaining how things are
as they are and why we are living in such a complex universe.

I recommend Martin Rees\'s book \"Just Six Numbers\" if you haven\'t already
read it as a popular level introduction to where we are at present.

We live in a golden age of observational astronomy where the new data
puts very tight constraints on the imaginations of cosmologists.

I\'m resigned to there being dark matter since otherwise galaxies would
simply fly apart. Until comparatively recently you could have hidden it
as chair legs, sticks or rhubarb or old biro pens but not any more. It
now has to be something that doesn\'t interact with EM radiation.

But I still find dark energy rather difficult to stomach. My
observational friends tell me it is real but TBH I would prefer to
believe there was something odd about very earliest supernovas than to
have the universe spontaneously accelerating of its own accord.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2022-01-10 11:07, Martin Brown wrote:

On 08/01/2022 23:03, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2022-01-08 22:44, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer
(ex Jan Frank) wrote:

You will find John was accurate and being conservative.

Nah; you can\'t find accuracy in such a search, you need to have
an accountant look over \'the books\'. And as for being
\'conservative\'? In what sense? Trying to evaluate
cost-and-benefits is what a conservative assessment would do;
he never considered benefits, and has only a ballpark idea on
costs. Does he think all telescope instruments are alike?
It seems so.

Don\'t get in a jerk fight.

JWST is definitely late and over budget. The claims of utility
are dubious.

Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB already
does that.

That we can see back to the surface of last scattering of the Big
Bang means that everything that it between that and us is in
principle if we choose the right wavelength to look for it.

Lyman alpha is a nice bright UV line in our rest frame but by the
time you get towards the edge of the universe it is well into the
infra red.

Seeing what the first galaxies looked like experimentally will put
very tight constraints on the theoreticians models.

Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe? The
expansion of space is moving objects faster than the speed of
light. Nothing can see beyond that.

It can perhaps look back to the point where the first stars and
galaxies were forming and right into nearby dense molecular clouds
where stars are forming today. That is a very long way from the edge
of the universe.

One might hope that the JWST brings some order to cosmology,
because in its current form, it\'s little better than Genesis.

Jeroen Belleman

That is a little unfair. Big Bang cosmology (a derogatory name coined
by Fred Hoyle to mock it) has gone a long way to explaining how
things are as they are and why we are living in such a complex
universe.

[..]

Big bang cosmology has altogether too many unphysical patches.
It\'s just another creation myth instead of a coherent physical
theory.

I predict we will discover ever more galaxies, with ever more
extreme red shifts. There will be no \"edge of the universe\",
no \"recombination epoch\".

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 9:07:20 PM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:

On 08/01/2022 23:03, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2022-01-08 22:44, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:

I\'m resigned to there being dark matter since otherwise galaxies would
simply fly apart. Until comparatively recently you could have hidden it
as chair legs, sticks or rhubarb or old biro pens but not any more. It
now has to be something that doesn\'t interact with EM radiation.

There\'s a conceptually simpler alternative.

https://www.springer.com/gp/about-springer/media/research-news/all-english-research-news/factoring-in-gravitomagnetism-could-do-away-with-dark-matter/18928150

Since the mathematics seems to be totally hideous, the simplicity is confined to the conceptual part.

I suppose we can hope that dark energy might turn out to be some interaction that is equally difficult to think about.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 2022-01-10 11:07, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/01/2022 23:03, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2022-01-08 22:44, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer
(ex Jan Frank) wrote:

You will find John was accurate and being conservative.

Nah; you can\'t find accuracy in such a search, you need to have
an accountant look over \'the books\'.   And as for being
\'conservative\'? In what sense?   Trying to evaluate
cost-and-benefits is what a conservative assessment would do;
he never considered benefits, and has only a ballpark idea on
costs.   Does he think all telescope instruments are alike?
It seems so.

Don\'t get in a jerk fight.

JWST is definitely late and over budget. The claims of utility
are dubious.

Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB already
does that.

That we can see back to the surface of last scattering of the Big
Bang means that everything that it between that and us is in
principle if we choose the right wavelength to look for it.

Lyman alpha is a nice bright UV line in our rest frame but by the
time you get towards the edge of the universe it is well into the
infra red.

Seeing what the first galaxies looked like experimentally will put
very tight constraints on the theoreticians models.

Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe? The
expansion of space is moving objects faster than the speed of
light. Nothing can see beyond that.

It can perhaps look back to the point where the first stars and
galaxies were forming and right into nearby dense molecular clouds
where stars are forming today. That is a very long way from the edge
of the universe.

One might hope that the JWST brings some order to cosmology,
because in its current form, it\'s little better than Genesis.

Jeroen Belleman

That is a little unfair. Big Bang cosmology (a derogatory name coined
by Fred Hoyle to mock it) has gone a long way to explaining how
things are as they are and why we are living in such a complex
universe.

[..]

Big bang cosmology has altogether too many unphysical patches.
It\'s just another creation myth instead of a coherent physical
theory.

I predict we will discover ever more galaxies, with ever more
extreme red shifts. There will be no \"edge of the universe\",
no \"recombination epoch\".

Jeroen Belleman

We know there\'s a recombination epoch because (apart from the dipole
term) the CMB has nearly the same temperature in every direction.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 5:59:13 AM UTC-5, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 2022-01-10 11:07, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/01/2022 23:03, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2022-01-08 22:44, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer
(ex Jan Frank) wrote:

You will find John was accurate and being conservative.

Nah; you can\'t find accuracy in such a search, you need to have
an accountant look over \'the books\'. And as for being
\'conservative\'? In what sense? Trying to evaluate
cost-and-benefits is what a conservative assessment would do;
he never considered benefits, and has only a ballpark idea on
costs. Does he think all telescope instruments are alike?
It seems so.

Don\'t get in a jerk fight.

JWST is definitely late and over budget. The claims of utility
are dubious.

Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB already
does that.

That we can see back to the surface of last scattering of the Big
Bang means that everything that it between that and us is in
principle if we choose the right wavelength to look for it.

Lyman alpha is a nice bright UV line in our rest frame but by the
time you get towards the edge of the universe it is well into the
infra red.

Seeing what the first galaxies looked like experimentally will put
very tight constraints on the theoreticians models.

Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe? The
expansion of space is moving objects faster than the speed of
light. Nothing can see beyond that.

It can perhaps look back to the point where the first stars and
galaxies were forming and right into nearby dense molecular clouds
where stars are forming today. That is a very long way from the edge
of the universe.

One might hope that the JWST brings some order to cosmology,
because in its current form, it\'s little better than Genesis.

Jeroen Belleman

That is a little unfair. Big Bang cosmology (a derogatory name coined
by Fred Hoyle to mock it) has gone a long way to explaining how
things are as they are and why we are living in such a complex
universe.

[..]

Big bang cosmology has altogether too many unphysical patches.
It\'s just another creation myth instead of a coherent physical
theory.

Well, of course! With every question we answer, two more questions arise from that answer. We will never have complete understanding of the universe as the concept of \"complete understanding\" is flawed. Asking questions of how the universe arose is a category error, asking a question of a property that does not exist in the context. We might as well be building a restaurant at the end of the universe.

I predict we will discover ever more galaxies, with ever more
extreme red shifts. There will be no \"edge of the universe\",
no \"recombination epoch\".

What do you base your proposal on?

I predict we will make a discovery that will show many of our current questions to be invalid, but will result in many more new questions... even stranger. This will generate more demand for more exotic electronic equipment and at the same time make such equipment possible from the new physics discovered.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 9:56:53 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 7:41:41 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:32:46 AM UTC-5, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
This is commendable work...

Many nations involved.

Many many tons of gear down here and techs and engineers to make use
of it...

https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
It\'s just government welfare to keep the crappy space agencies alive. Only a simple minded fool would take anything they say at face value. They\'re just a bunch of career liars and cheats.
Fred does like to keep thing simple enough for him to understand. Working out what the James Webb telescope is intended to do is quite beyond him, while the idea that people involved are career liars and cheats is much less demanding. It\'s also pretty implausible, but Fred hasn\'t got a lot of options.

Unlike Cursitor Doom, he doesn\'t actively demand implausible explanations, but he\'s not got enough sense left to differentiate between degrees of implausibility.

You don\'t know what you\'re talking about or how things are done. The space telescope idea has been around a long time, and quite of lot of work on prospective systems was funded, even though there was no actual program.

The really hard stuff was already done by the time they committed to a new program.

These crummy overpriced boondoggles are all fantasy science. They don\'t observe a single thing that is applicable to life on Earth.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2022-01-10 16:05, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2022-01-10 11:07, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/01/2022 23:03, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2022-01-08 22:44, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie
Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:

You will find John was accurate and being conservative.

Nah; you can\'t find accuracy in such a search, you need to
have an accountant look over \'the books\'. And as for
being \'conservative\'? In what sense? Trying to evaluate
cost-and-benefits is what a conservative assessment would
do; he never considered benefits, and has only a ballpark
idea on costs. Does he think all telescope instruments
are alike? It seems so.

Don\'t get in a jerk fight.

JWST is definitely late and over budget. The claims of
utility are dubious.

Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB
already does that.

That we can see back to the surface of last scattering of the
Big Bang means that everything that it between that and us is in
principle if we choose the right wavelength to look for it.

Lyman alpha is a nice bright UV line in our rest frame but by
the time you get towards the edge of the universe it is well into
the infra red.

Seeing what the first galaxies looked like experimentally will
put very tight constraints on the theoreticians models.

Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe? The
expansion of space is moving objects faster than the speed
of light. Nothing can see beyond that.

It can perhaps look back to the point where the first stars and
galaxies were forming and right into nearby dense molecular
clouds where stars are forming today. That is a very long way
from the edge of the universe.

One might hope that the JWST brings some order to cosmology,
because in its current form, it\'s little better than Genesis.

Jeroen Belleman

That is a little unfair. Big Bang cosmology (a derogatory name
coined by Fred Hoyle to mock it) has gone a long way to
explaining how things are as they are and why we are living in
such a complex universe.

[..]

Big bang cosmology has altogether too many unphysical patches. It\'s
just another creation myth instead of a coherent physical theory.

I predict we will discover ever more galaxies, with ever more
extreme red shifts. There will be no \"edge of the universe\", no
\"recombination epoch\".

Jeroen Belleman

We know there\'s a recombination epoch because (apart from the dipole
term) the CMB has nearly the same temperature in every direction.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

If you combine red shift with Olber\'s paradox, you also end up
with a uniform thermal background at about the same temperature.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[server]

Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in news:srh3hs$rb1$1
@gioia.aioe.org:

creation myth instead of a coherent physical
theory.

Hehe hehe hehehe He said \'coherent\'

This dude wants us to think he understands the meaning of the term
after saying that.

Just wait... the Big Shrink will finish us all off.

Coherently Cohesive shrinking. One \'tiny\' mass.

Now that\'s some silly putty.

 

[server]

Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:4bab59d0-210e-402e-9fd5-72cdd50a0ef0n@googlegroups.com:

On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 9:07:20 PM UTC+11, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 08/01/2022 23:03, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2022-01-08 22:44, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer
(ex Jan Frank) wrote:

I\'m resigned to there being dark matter since otherwise galaxies
would simply fly apart. Until comparatively recently you could
have hidden it as chair legs, sticks or rhubarb or old biro pens
but not any more. It now has to be something that doesn\'t
interact with EM radiation.

There\'s a conceptually simpler alternative.

https://www.springer.com/gp/about-springer/media/research-news/all-
english-research-news/factoring-in-gravitomagnetism-could-do-away-w
ith-dark-matter/18928150

Since the mathematics seems to be totally hideous, the simplicity
is confined to the conceptual part.

I suppose we can hope that dark energy might turn out to be some
interaction that is equally difficult to think about.

snip

I look at the surface of a black coffee I just made. I stir it up
to a fairly laminar fast pace stirring. Then, pour the creamer in
very slowly right at the edge of the cup and it will not mix
completely and you will see a \"galaxy\" form on the surface in the
center. That effect is bound by gravity, but the mass of coffee
under the \"galaxy\" is HUGE and it \"stirs\" or rotates the entire
galaxy around as a whole (the velocity problem). Ok, so let\'s go 3D
now.

Look at the Sombrero galaxy. VERY flat and most of what we call
matter out near the fringe edges of \"the disc\". Think of that with a
GIANT \"hershey\'s Kiss\" under it and another on top of it. Two big
plops of dark matter spinning above and below the whole galaxy, and
the galaxy itself (the part we call matter) is just a thin membrane
sandwiched between those two enormous structures.

That is a very weak interaction but is able to spin the galaxy at
the rate that causes cosmologists to declare it to exists.

So a Galaxy also has these two giant hershey\'s kiss shaped swirls
of Dark matter above and below their equatorial plane that are many
many times larger than the galaxy as we know it or see it.

What do you think of them apples?

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 2022-01-10 16:05, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2022-01-10 11:07, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/01/2022 23:03, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2022-01-08 22:44, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie
Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:

You will find John was accurate and being conservative.

Nah; you can\'t find accuracy in such a search, you need to
have an accountant look over \'the books\'.   And as for
being \'conservative\'? In what sense?   Trying to evaluate
cost-and-benefits is what a conservative assessment would
do; he never considered benefits, and has only a ballpark
idea on costs.   Does he think all telescope instruments
are alike? It seems so.

Don\'t get in a jerk fight.

JWST is definitely late and over budget. The claims of
utility are dubious.

Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB
already does that.

That we can see back to the surface of last scattering of the
Big Bang means that everything that it between that and us is in
principle if we choose the right wavelength to look for it.

Lyman alpha is a nice bright UV line in our rest frame but by
the time you get towards the edge of the universe it is well into
the infra red.

Seeing what the first galaxies looked like experimentally will
put very tight constraints on the theoreticians models.

Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe? The
expansion of space is moving objects faster than the speed
of light. Nothing can see beyond that.

It can perhaps look back to the point where the first stars and
galaxies were forming and right into nearby dense molecular
clouds where stars are forming today. That is a very long way
from the edge of the universe.

One might hope that the JWST brings some order to cosmology,
because in its current form, it\'s little better than Genesis.

Jeroen Belleman

That is a little unfair. Big Bang cosmology (a derogatory name
coined by Fred Hoyle to mock it) has gone a long way to
explaining how things are as they are and why we are living in
such a complex universe.

[..]

Big bang cosmology has altogether too many unphysical patches. It\'s
just another creation myth instead of a coherent physical theory.

I predict we will discover ever more galaxies, with ever more
extreme red shifts. There will be no \"edge of the universe\", no
\"recombination epoch\".

Jeroen Belleman

We know there\'s a recombination epoch because (apart from the dipole
term) the CMB has nearly the same temperature in every direction.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


If you combine red shift with Olber\'s paradox, you also end up
with a uniform thermal background at about the same temperature.

Jeroen Belleman

But the red shift blows up Olbers\' paradox.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com