One of man\'s greatest achievements...

[corvid]

On 1/13/22 20:55, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:20:01 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
On 1/13/22 18:25, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:08:22 PM UTC-5, corvid wrote:
On 1/13/22 14:16, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was
space with nothing in it (not helped by popular science
programmes showing an explosion) as opposed to nothing at
all - ie no spacetime.

\"prior to the Big Bang\" - if there was no time, how can the
word \"prior\" even be well-defined?

The Big Bang didn\'t occur earlier, or later, than it did, so
there had to be time already in place.

It there\'s nothing there to do anything time isn\'t doing anything
useful.

No, there is no basis for assuming that time existed before the
origin point.

What?? The universe could have been 14.7 billion years ago now, but
it had to wait another billion years until the conditions (of
nothing!) were ready. Only then, the Big Bang happened because it
had to. So what changed?

You are trying to put your own label - time - on axis that doesn\'t
serve any useful purpose until there are events happening

There\'s no evidence that events, of some sort, were ever not happening.

which could be put into some sort of sequence. No events means no
time.

Maybe. You can\'t get from there to \'events means time\'. or to \'no time
means no events\'.

It\'s BS. No Point or Bang, no Time, Einstein can reduce whatever
he likes as long as the math works out, but something else is real
and we\'re missing it.

That \"something else\" is your capacity for self-delusion, and we
prefer to set it aside.

Somebody\'s will have to be set aside.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 5:10:18 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:

On 1/13/22 20:55, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:20:01 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
On 1/13/22 18:25, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:08:22 PM UTC-5, corvid wrote:
On 1/13/22 14:16, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was
space with nothing in it (not helped by popular science
programmes showing an explosion) as opposed to nothing at
all - ie no spacetime.

\"prior to the Big Bang\" - if there was no time, how can the
word \"prior\" even be well-defined?

The Big Bang didn\'t occur earlier, or later, than it did, so
there had to be time already in place.

It there\'s nothing there to do anything time isn\'t doing anything
useful.

No, there is no basis for assuming that time existed before the
origin point.

What?? The universe could have been 14.7 billion years ago now, but
it had to wait another billion years until the conditions (of
nothing!) were ready. Only then, the Big Bang happened because it
had to. So what changed?

You are trying to put your own label - time - on axis that doesn\'t
serve any useful purpose until there are events happening.

There\'s no evidence that events, of some sort, were ever not happening.
which could be put into some sort of sequence. No events means no
time.

Maybe. You can\'t get from there to \'events means time\'. or to \'no time
means no events\'.

No events does mean no time, which is all that I was asserting.

It\'s BS. No Point or Bang, no Time, Einstein can reduce whatever
he likes as long as the math works out, but something else is real
and we\'re missing it.

That \"something else\" is your capacity for self-delusion, and we
prefer to set it aside.

Somebody\'s will have to be set aside.

Your delusions do seem to be remarkably incoherent.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 10:20:01 PM UTC-5, corvid wrote:

On 1/13/22 18:25, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:08:22 PM UTC-5, corvid wrote:
On 1/13/22 14:16, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was space
with nothing in it (not helped by popular science programmes
showing an explosion) as opposed to nothing at all - ie no
spacetime.

\"prior to the Big Bang\" - if there was no time, how can the word
\"prior\" even be well-defined?

CH
The Big Bang didn\'t occur earlier, or later, than it did, so there
had to be time already in place.

No, there is no basis for assuming that time existed before the
origin point.
What?? The universe could have been 14.7 billion years ago now, but it
had to wait another billion years until the conditions (of nothing!)
were ready. Only then, the Big Bang happened because it had to. So what
changed?

It\'s BS. No Point or Bang, no Time, Einstein can reduce whatever he
likes as long as the math works out, but something else is real and
we\'re missing it.

Sorry, i have no idea what you are trying to say. You are talking about time existing prior to the universe existing. Why does time have to extend to infinity in both directions, or either direction for that matter?

I think you may have some preconceptions of the universe. We have data points over the course of a few hundred years. Now we are extrapolating billions of years back as if things must absolutely correlate. But as we find new details of our data set, the extrapolations continue to change.

How much longer before someone comes up with the next new big idea and the extrapolations swing wildly again.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 1:10:18 AM UTC-5, corvid wrote:

On 1/13/22 20:55, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:20:01 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
On 1/13/22 18:25, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:08:22 PM UTC-5, corvid wrote:
On 1/13/22 14:16, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was
space with nothing in it (not helped by popular science
programmes showing an explosion) as opposed to nothing at
all - ie no spacetime.

\"prior to the Big Bang\" - if there was no time, how can the
word \"prior\" even be well-defined?

The Big Bang didn\'t occur earlier, or later, than it did, so
there had to be time already in place.

It there\'s nothing there to do anything time isn\'t doing anything
useful.

No, there is no basis for assuming that time existed before the
origin point.

What?? The universe could have been 14.7 billion years ago now, but
it had to wait another billion years until the conditions (of
nothing!) were ready. Only then, the Big Bang happened because it
had to. So what changed?

You are trying to put your own label - time - on axis that doesn\'t
serve any useful purpose until there are events happening
There\'s no evidence that events, of some sort, were ever not happening.

You mean we have no evidence that there was nothing... or something happening before the singularity? Yeah, that\'s the nature of singularities. There\'s no evidence nothing happened. There\'s no evidence something happened.

which could be put into some sort of sequence. No events means no
time.
Maybe. You can\'t get from there to \'events means time\'. or to \'no time
means no events\'.

What does time mean in an empty universe... or more accurately, a universe that isn\'t there?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Flyguy]

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 12:01:08 PM UTC-8, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:

On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 10:25:48 UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
...
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
10x over budget and 20 years late. Imagine how many ground-based
telescopes we could have built for that cost, or how many lives we
could have saved.
...
The US spent 70 times the total cost of the telescope on the military in a single year.

$753.5 billion vs $10 billion. It seems we would rather kill people than save them anyway.

kw

And which one will keep the CHICOMs out of Taiwan?

 

[corvid]

On 1/13/22 22:19, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 5:10:18 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
On 1/13/22 20:55, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:20:01 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
On 1/13/22 18:25, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:08:22 PM UTC-5, corvid
wrote:
On 1/13/22 14:16, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there
was space with nothing in it (not helped by popular
science programmes showing an explosion) as opposed to
nothing at all - ie no spacetime.

\"prior to the Big Bang\" - if there was no time, how can
the word \"prior\" even be well-defined?

The Big Bang didn\'t occur earlier, or later, than it did,
so there had to be time already in place.

It there\'s nothing there to do anything time isn\'t doing anything
useful.

No, there is no basis for assuming that time existed before
the origin point.

What?? The universe could have been 14.7 billion years ago
now, but it had to wait another billion years until the
conditions (of nothing!) were ready. Only then, the Big Bang
happened because it had to. So what changed?

You are trying to put your own label - time - on axis that
doesn\'t serve any useful purpose until there are events
happening.

There\'s no evidence that events, of some sort, were ever not
happening.
which could be put into some sort of sequence. No events means no
time.

Maybe. You can\'t get from there to \'events means time\'. or to \'no
time means no events\'.

No events does mean no time, which is all that I was asserting.

And to that much, I said Maybe! Aren\'t you trying still to assert that,
until a Bang, no events were happening? You haven\'t gotten far.

Some languages have no word for time. Really, there has only existed one
time, ever, the same one, which is Now. No \'years ago\', no \"in the
future\", those are helpers invented to allow us to process ideas in
useful ways. Imaginary numbers are useful too, aren\'t they?

It\'s BS. No Point or Bang, no Time, Einstein can reduce
whatever he likes as long as the math works out, but something
else is real and we\'re missing it.

That \"something else\" is your capacity for self-delusion, and we
prefer to set it aside.

Somebody\'s will have to be set aside.

Your delusions do seem to be remarkably incoherent.

Yours are more coherent.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 6:47:30 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:

On 1/13/22 22:19, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 5:10:18 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
On 1/13/22 20:55, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:20:01 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
On 1/13/22 18:25, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:08:22 PM UTC-5, corvid
wrote:
On 1/13/22 14:16, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there
was space with nothing in it (not helped by popular
science programmes showing an explosion) as opposed to
nothing at all - ie no spacetime.

\"prior to the Big Bang\" - if there was no time, how can
the word \"prior\" even be well-defined?

The Big Bang didn\'t occur earlier, or later, than it did,
so there had to be time already in place.

It there\'s nothing there to do anything time isn\'t doing anything
useful.

No, there is no basis for assuming that time existed before
the origin point.

What?? The universe could have been 14.7 billion years ago
now, but it had to wait another billion years until the
conditions (of nothing!) were ready. Only then, the Big Bang
happened because it had to. So what changed?

You are trying to put your own label - time - on axis that
doesn\'t serve any useful purpose until there are events
happening.

There\'s no evidence that events, of some sort, were ever not happening..

There\'s no way that such evidence could get through to us, so it doesn\'t exist. Wittering on about stuff that can only exist in your imagination is insane.

which could be put into some sort of sequence. No events means no time.

Maybe. You can\'t get from there to \'events means time\'. or to \'no time means no events\'.

No events does mean no time, which is all that I was asserting.

And to that much, I said Maybe! Aren\'t you trying still to assert that, until a Bang, no events were happening? You haven\'t gotten far.

No events that we can know anything about.

> Some languages have no word for time. Really, there has only existed one time, ever, the same one, which is Now. No \'years ago\', no \"in the future\", those are helpers invented to allow us to process ideas in useful ways. Imaginary numbers are useful too, aren\'t they?

Except that they aren\'t in the least imaginary.

It\'s BS. No Point or Bang, no Time, Einstein can reduce whatever he likes as long as the math works out, but something else is real and we\'re missing it.

That \"something else\" is your capacity for self-delusion, and we prefer to set it aside.

Somebody\'s will have to be set aside.

Your delusions do seem to be remarkably incoherent.

Yours are more coherent.

Since I\'m not deluded, I concentrate of saying stuff that means something. You don\'t seem to be constrained in the same way.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 6:07:48 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 12:01:08 PM UTC-8, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 10:25:48 UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
...
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
10x over budget and 20 years late. Imagine how many ground-based
telescopes we could have built for that cost, or how many lives we
could have saved.
...
The US spent 70 times the total cost of the telescope on the military in a single year.

$753.5 billion vs $10 billion. It seems we would rather kill people than save them anyway.

kw

And which one will keep the CHICOMs out of Taiwan?

Flyguy will never know. TSMC is probably Taiwan\'s best defense.

https://www.tsmc.com/english

A Chinese invasion would wreck it, almost certainly beyond repair - ASML wouldn\'t ship in any new lithography machines.

The damage to the world economy would be profound, and China would suffer more than anybody else, because they\'d created the problem, and nobody would want them to be able to do it again.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[corvid]

On 1/14/22 00:11, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 6:47:30 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
On 1/13/22 22:19, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

Your delusions do seem to be remarkably incoherent.

Yours are more coherent.

Since I\'m not deluded,

<chuckle> We usually let someone _else_ confirm things like that.

> I concentrate of saying stuff that means something.

Of course.

See below

> You don\'t seem to be constrained in the same way.

\"Begging the question\" never used to mean what most people think it
means today. Can you recognize when you\'re doing it?

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 8:49:44 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:

On 1/14/22 00:11, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 6:47:30 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
On 1/13/22 22:19, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

Your delusions do seem to be remarkably incoherent.

Yours are more coherent.

Since I\'m not deluded,
chuckle> We usually let someone _else_ confirm things like that.

I hang around with psychologists. You clearly don\'t.

I concentrate of saying stuff that means something.

Of course.

As if you were a reliable witness.

See below

You don\'t seem to be constrained in the same way.

\"Begging the question\" never used to mean what most people think it means today. Can you recognize when you\'re doing it?

Probably, if I were. Since you are going in for the usual right-wing loony trick of bailing out of a discussion that you lost by introducing a technical debating term that you don\'t actually understand, I couldn\'t be less interested in your posturings.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 11:15:25 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:39:40 PM UTC-8, Beeper 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.

Yes, that is a lie. Actually it was 20x over budget and 22 years late.

Not true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope

\"Development began in 1996 for a launch that was initially planned for 2007 with a US$500 million budget.[21] There were many delays and cost overruns, including a major redesign in 2005...

It\'s not the same project that was discussed in the initial plan. That\'s what \'major redesign\' means.

So, finished in 2021 instead of 2007: that\'s not \'22 years late\', at all. 2021 - 2007 = 14 years

It also was never planned to launch the Webb in 2007; the space telescope design was under review until 2010, and
only then did they know what to build and test. The 1996 project schedule wasn\'t the guide for this work.

Readiness to launch after build-and-test was about a year over first scheduled.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 13/01/2022 22:16, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was space with
nothing in it (not helped by popular science programmes showing an
explosion) as opposed to nothing at all - ie no spacetime.

\"prior to the Big Bang\" - if there was no time, how can the word \"prior\"
even be well-defined?

It may not be. It is quite possible that there was no meaningful
definition of either space or time \"before\" the Big Bang.

OTOH some models hold that the Big Bang was the result of a for want of
better words a collision between two higher dimensional structures or if
you prefer a quantum fluctuation in some much larger scale pool. eg.

https://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

And it has more than its fair share of critics. I\'m sceptical too.

https://physicsworld.com/a/ekpyrotic-cosmology-resurfaces/

One day perhaps even soon experimental observations will be able to
distinguish between some of the alternative contenders and rule them in
or out as viable theories worthy of further development.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

On 14/01/2022 02:24, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 5:16:30 PM UTC-5, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was space with
nothing in it (not helped by popular science programmes showing an
explosion) as opposed to nothing at all - ie no spacetime.
\"prior to the Big Bang\" - if there was no time, how can the word \"prior\"
even be well-defined?

For that matter, how can a question of the beginning of the universe not be a category error? The universe is existence itself, how can existence have a beginning or an end?

It clearly did have a beginning when everything was notionally at a
single infinitely dense point (at least in a mathematical sense).

(Pairs of) virtual particles flip into existence on borrowed vacuum
energy for a time determined by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

There is no reason in principle why at a still higher level entire
universes cannot flip into existence spontaneously (perhaps even as
universe anti-universe pairs).

> As to the nature of time at the \"origin\" of existence... what happens to time as nature is extrapolated back to the origin of existence? Does time fade away or cease to exist all at once at the moment of the singularity? Is the existence of time a step function or a continuous function or simply undefined at t=0?

Eventually something has to give when cosmological length scales and
gravitational forces become so extreme that quantum effects dominate.
They can get very close to t=0 within 10^-43 s with our present physical
theories (it gets a bit hazy prior to 10^-35) but no closer.

This isn\'t a bad introduction as to why we can\'t apply our current
models when all of the forces of nature merge into a single entity.

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec20.html

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 5:54:57 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:

On 14/01/2022 02:24, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 5:16:30 PM UTC-5, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was space with
nothing in it (not helped by popular science programmes showing an
explosion) as opposed to nothing at all - ie no spacetime.
\"prior to the Big Bang\" - if there was no time, how can the word \"prior\"
even be well-defined?

For that matter, how can a question of the beginning of the universe not be a category error? The universe is existence itself, how can existence have a beginning or an end?
It clearly did have a beginning when everything was notionally at a
single infinitely dense point (at least in a mathematical sense).

If that was the beginning, what existed before? Yeah, a category error.

(Pairs of) virtual particles flip into existence on borrowed vacuum
energy for a time determined by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

There is no reason in principle why at a still higher level entire
universes cannot flip into existence spontaneously (perhaps even as
universe anti-universe pairs).

You are not understanding the issue. If you suppose the universe had a beginning, what does that say about prior to the beginning? This is an aspect that simple makes no sense when you apply it to \"the universe\".

As to the nature of time at the \"origin\" of existence... what happens to time as nature is extrapolated back to the origin of existence? Does time fade away or cease to exist all at once at the moment of the singularity? Is the existence of time a step function or a continuous function or simply undefined at t=0?
Eventually something has to give when cosmological length scales and
gravitational forces become so extreme that quantum effects dominate.
They can get very close to t=0 within 10^-43 s with our present physical
theories (it gets a bit hazy prior to 10^-35) but no closer.

\"Something has to give\", I\'m sure that\'s exactly how the great minds of our times would put it. \"She can\'t take much more of this Captain!\"

This isn\'t a bad introduction as to why we can\'t apply our current
models when all of the forces of nature merge into a single entity.

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec20.html

You can\'t apply your time oriented thinking to the beginning of the universe or you get category mistakes. Perhaps you should read the links you provide.

\"Hartle-Hawking model says that if we could travel backward in time toward the beginning of the Universe, we would note that quite near what might have otherwise been the beginning, time gives way to space such that at first there is only space and no time. Beginnings are entities that have to do with time; because time did not exist before the Big Bang, the concept of a beginning of the Universe is meaningless.\"

Is that more clear? Perhaps you should continue reading.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[corvid]

On 1/14/22 02:33, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 8:49:44 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
On 1/14/22 00:11, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 6:47:30 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
On 1/13/22 22:19, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

Your delusions do seem to be remarkably incoherent.

Yours are more coherent.

Since I\'m not deluded,
chuckle> We usually let someone _else_ confirm things like that.

I hang around with psychologists. You clearly don\'t.

I concentrate of saying stuff that means something.

Of course.

As if you were a reliable witness.

See below

You don\'t seem to be constrained in the same way.

\"Begging the question\" never used to mean what most people think it
means today. Can you recognize when you\'re doing it?

Probably, if I were. Since you are going in for the usual right-wing
loony trick of bailing out of a discussion that you lost by
introducing a technical debating term that you don\'t actually
understand, I couldn\'t be less interested in your posturings.

Begging the question is the most basic and classic example of a Fallacy
of Presumption because it directly presumes the conclusion which is at
question in the first place.

That\'s just copied from DDG\'s top hit preview, without bothering to
follow the link to wherever it comes from.

It appears to be your way of arguing why there was nothing before a Big
Bang.

Show this post to your psychologists.

 

[Flyguy]

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:34:57 AM UTC-8, whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 11:15:25 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:39:40 PM UTC-8, Beeper 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.

Yes, that is a lie. Actually it was 20x over budget and 22 years late.
Not true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope

\"Development began in 1996 for a launch that was initially planned for 2007 with a US$500 million budget.[21] There were many delays and cost overruns, including a major redesign in 2005...

It\'s not the same project that was discussed in the initial plan. That\'s what \'major redesign\' means.

You are just providing an excuse for WHY it was over-budget, and not refuting the fact that it IS over-budget.

So, finished in 2021 instead of 2007: that\'s not \'22 years late\', at all. 2021 - 2007 = 14 years

It also was never planned to launch the Webb in 2007; the space telescope design was under review until 2010, and
only then did they know what to build and test. The 1996 project schedule wasn\'t the guide for this work.

Readiness to launch after build-and-test was about a year over first scheduled.

Again, you are just arguing what the launch date was. Big projects like the Webb are sold to Congress by low-balling cost and time estimates, and then coming back hat-in-hand begging them for more money later.

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 11:36:38 AM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:34:57 AM UTC-8, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 11:15:25 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:

\"Development began in 1996 for a launch that was initially planned for 2007 with a US$500 million budget.[21] There were many delays and cost overruns, including a major redesign in 2005...

It\'s not the same project that was discussed in the initial plan. That\'s what \'major redesign\' means.
You are just providing an excuse for WHY it was over-budget, and not refuting the fact that it IS over-budget.

Yes, that\'s what I did. I did it effectively, and that \'excuse\' (we call them
arguments, though, in classical philosophy) is why there\'s a telescope in space
today. Our representatives in Congress accepted that argument.

To be clear: the \'it\' in the initial 1996 rough plan and the \'it\' we\'ve launched, are
different items, and the costs (and benefits) are not comparable.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 6:36:38 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:34:57 AM UTC-8, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 11:15:25 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:39:40 PM UTC-8, Beeper 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.

Yes, that is a lie. Actually it was 20x over budget and 22 years late..
Not true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope

\"Development began in 1996 for a launch that was initially planned for 2007 with a US$500 million budget.[21] There were many delays and cost overruns, including a major redesign in 2005...

It\'s not the same project that was discussed in the initial plan. That\'s what \'major redesign\' means.

You are just providing an excuse for WHY it was over-budget, and not refuting the fact that it IS over-budget.

That\'s just you being simple minded about what the word \"budget\" meant in that context, Big and complicated projects that push the technology don\'t \"budgets\" in the same sense as a project like putting a pergola in your garden where every aspect of the project is predictable (except your desire to change it in mid-project).

So, finished in 2021 instead of 2007: that\'s not \'22 years late\', at all. 2021 - 2007 = 14 years

It also was never planned to launch the Webb in 2007; the space telescope design was under review until 2010, and
only then did they know what to build and test. The 1996 project schedule wasn\'t the guide for this work.

Readiness to launch after build-and-test was about a year over first scheduled.

Again, you are just arguing what the launch date was. Big projects like the Webb are sold to Congress by low-balling cost and time estimates, and then coming back hat-in-hand begging them for more money later.

Big projects like the Webb can\'t have accurate or predictable initial cost and time estimates. Congress may be silly enough to think that early estimates may have some chance of being realistic, but that would mean that they weren\'t paying attention to what they were being told, any more than you do..

There\'s no low-balling strategy involved - the costs really are unpredictable, though they are pretty much guaranteed to be bigger than the best preliminary estimates.

People make jokes about multiplying preliminary estimates by pi, which has a decimal representation that begins 3.14159265... This is only part of the decimal expansion of pi. In this context, it is an arbitrary number.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2822dca5-4520-47c8-a814-5bf93e54c631n@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 5:16:30 PM UTC-5, Clifford Heath
wrote:
On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was space
with nothing in it (not helped by popular science programmes
showing an explosion) as opposed to nothing at all - ie no
spacetime.
\"prior to the Big Bang\" - if there was no time, how can the word
\"prior\"

even be well-defined?

For that matter, how can a question of the beginning of the
universe not be a category error? The universe is existence
itself, how can existence have a beginning or an end?

As to the nature of time at the \"origin\" of existence... what
happens to time as nature is extrapolated back to the origin of
existence? Does time fade away or cease to exist all at once at
the moment of the singularity? Is the existence of time a step
function or a continuous function or simply undefined at t=0?

They are just putting in words that most lay person non science fan
folks will somewhat understand. They know about all you guys\'
arguments.

A lot of semantics stirred in.

The fact is we will see WAY THE FUCK BACK, and WAY THE FUCK OUT
THERE. and REAL close spotlight glimpses of exoplanet atmospheres.

Why is everyone pissing and moaning about something that employeed
top scientists and engineers around the world for decades and has
advanced a lot of processes and methods we now use every day for what
you would certainly call essential element of a modern life.

It can only get better from here. ...Errr there. at L2.

 

[server]

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:e35ab370-8b51-4e65-97d0-9bf8baaac488n@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:08:22 PM UTC-5, corvid wrote:
On 1/13/22 14:16, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was space
with nothing in it (not helped by popular science programmes
showing an explosion) as opposed to nothing at all - ie no
spacetime.

\"prior to the Big Bang\" - if there was no time, how can the
word \"prior\" even be well-defined?

CH
The Big Bang didn\'t occur earlier, or later, than it did, so
there had to be time already in place.

No, there is no basis for assuming that time existed before the
origin point.

If there was a \'singularity\' \'point\' That instantaneously
\'exploded\' into our universe bubble and then matter formed in it and
so on, what chain of events occurred that caused the point to decide
to burst open to start with? Even if after that point that one could
say time started. What happened a split second prior to it bursting?
Was there a causation effect or stimulus from an even larger already
existing universe in which we were all expanded into? Like a bubble
inside or suspended in a bigger medium.

If there is an end out there, what is on the other side of that
\'end\' barrier? Maybe the whole universe is a giant congealed ball of
jello and OUR little tiny Universe bubble is a spec inside it is like
a little air bubble in a big ball full of them, all frozen in their
places never to know about any other. Barely able to examine their
own bubble, which to them is practically infinitely vast and all
there is. And we are merely tiny dust particles amid that bubble
which were allowed to sit up and talk, and make mudballs and look at
the sky at night and contemplate the cosmos and the number 42. We
are so insignificant in any scheme of things. God looked upon our
mudballs and looking tubes, and said that we were a noble
experiment... that failed.