Physicists and mathematicians is it a country club like getting paid to play golf or is the truth a security risk. Why all the bologna? Is there anybody out there?

On 11/1/2022 2:39 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:

> Is there anybody out there?

On Earth? Yes.
There are people out there (out here)
with pain and joy like your pain and joy.

Off Earth? We don't know yet.
Evidence is collecting that
the answer is probably "yes, somewhere".

> Why all the bologna?

There's nowt so queer as folk.

> Physicists and mathematicians
> is it a country club like getting paid to play golf
> or is the truth a security risk.

Mostly, no security risks are involved.

However, it's not playing golf, either.
They are real, difficult jobs which require
a lot of effort, and talent, and (maybe?) luck.

If you want a paid-to-play-golf job,
I recommend picking the right parents and
having them make you CEO of something.
You can come in from the golf course
to sign whatever your minions hand you,
and then go back out.

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 3:01:02 PM UTC-4, Jim Burns wrote:
> On 11/1/2022 2:39 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:
>
> > Is there anybody out there?
> On Earth? Yes.
> There are people out there (out here)
> with pain and joy like your pain and joy.
>
> Off Earth? We don't know yet.
> Evidence is collecting that
> the answer is probably "yes, somewhere".
>
> > Why all the bologna?
>
> There's nowt so queer as folk.
> > Physicists and mathematicians
> > is it a country club like getting paid to play golf
> > or is the truth a security risk.
> Mostly, no security risks are involved.
>
> However, it's not playing golf, either.
> They are real, difficult jobs which require
> a lot of effort, and talent, and (maybe?) luck.
>
> If you want a paid-to-play-golf job,
> I recommend picking the right parents and
> having them make you CEO of something.
> You can come in from the golf course
> to sign whatever your minions hand you,
> and then go back out.
Thank you Jim so if it's neither then these physicists actually believe in their workt. They find their work valid truthful accurate and sound is that correct? If so there's hope for me yet and no I don't want a job like that I just ou would like recognition and monetary gain if my work is at all valid and important and true and helpful and a contribution. I'm not in the club Jim. I don't have a secretary.

On 11/1/2022 3:50 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022
> at 3:01:02 PM UTC-4, Jim Burns wrote:
>> On 11/1/2022 2:39 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:

>>> Physicists and mathematicians
>>> is it a country club like getting paid to play golf
>>> or is the truth a security risk.
>>
>> Mostly, no security risks are involved.
>>
>> However, it's not playing golf, either.
>> They are real, difficult jobs which require
>> a lot of effort, and talent, and (maybe?) luck.
>>
>> If you want a paid-to-play-golf job,
>> I recommend picking the right parents and
>> having them make you CEO of something.
>> You can come in from the golf course
>> to sign whatever your minions hand you,
>> and then go back out.
>
> Thank you Jim
> so if it's neither then
> these physicists actually believe in their workt.
> They find their work valid truthful accurate
> and sound is that correct?

What you said could be a lot stronger.

It's not only that they "believe".
They (collectively) have spent hundreds of years
doing their best to be _forced_ to believe
whichever theories turn out to be best,
by working to eliminate other possibilities.

Yes, some of these theories sound crazy.
I get that. But, however, hard it is for you
to take them seriously, consider how hard it is
for someone who has invested their life in
the old theories. There is a saying:
| Physics advances one funeral at a time.
Sometimes a better theory has to wait for the
Old Guard to die off.

Better theories do come.
But they come when the evidence DEMANDS that
they come. Crazy-sounding theories are not
accepted lightly.

I don't want you to stop asking questions.
I bring this up as a warning:
The crazier a theory sounds,
the stronger the evidence for it there would be,
in order for it to be adopted,
and the harder it would be to dislodge it.
I think I might be paraphrasing David Hume here.

For example, back in the 1800s, Michelson and
Morley performed a nice experiment expected to show
the presence of the substance, luminiferous aether,
which electromagnetic waves wave. The experiment
failed, in that it showed no such thing.
Bada bing, bada boom: special relativity.

The story doesn't end there, though.
Since then, physicists have been working to make
the M&M result stronger, or to defeat special
relativity, one or the other.

They have added a bunch more decimal points to
the result.
| Laser, maser and optical resonators are used,
| reducing the possibility of any anisotropy of
| the speed of light to the 10⁻¹⁷ level.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

> If so there's hope for me yet
> and no I don't want a job like that
> I just ou would like recognition and monetary gain
> if my work is at all valid and important and true
> and helpful and a contribution.
> I'm not in the club Jim. I don't have a secretary.

It's not so much a question of being in the club,
as it is that the clubhouse has tools, elegant,
powerful, that they have spent literal centuries
inventing, developing, improving. I mean no
disrespect, but it is not level playing field.

Their abstract tools are free for the asking.
They would love for you to take them, I'm sure.
Please consider taking up the offer.

Let me personify these theories:
Special relativity is the Hulk.
Quantum mechanics is Thor.
You want to join the Avengers.

It seems to me that you should put the Hulk and
Thor to work for you. Like taking some physics
classes, etc.

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 5:45:32 PM UTC-4, Jim Burns wrote:
> On 11/1/2022 3:50 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 1, 2022
> > at 3:01:02 PM UTC-4, Jim Burns wrote:
> >> On 11/1/2022 2:39 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:
>
> >>> Physicists and mathematicians
> >>> is it a country club like getting paid to play golf
> >>> or is the truth a security risk.
> >>
> >> Mostly, no security risks are involved.
> >>
> >> However, it's not playing golf, either.
> >> They are real, difficult jobs which require
> >> a lot of effort, and talent, and (maybe?) luck.
> >>
> >> If you want a paid-to-play-golf job,
> >> I recommend picking the right parents and
> >> having them make you CEO of something.
> >> You can come in from the golf course
> >> to sign whatever your minions hand you,
> >> and then go back out.
> >
> > Thank you Jim
> > so if it's neither then
> > these physicists actually believe in their workt.
> > They find their work valid truthful accurate
> > and sound is that correct?
> What you said could be a lot stronger.
>
> It's not only that they "believe".
> They (collectively) have spent hundreds of years
> doing their best to be _forced_ to believe
> whichever theories turn out to be best,
> by working to eliminate other possibilities.
>
> Yes, some of these theories sound crazy.
> I get that. But, however, hard it is for you
> to take them seriously, consider how hard it is
> for someone who has invested their life in
> the old theories. There is a saying:
> | Physics advances one funeral at a time.
> Sometimes a better theory has to wait for the
> Old Guard to die off.
>
> Better theories do come.
> But they come when the evidence DEMANDS that
> they come. Crazy-sounding theories are not
> accepted lightly.
>
> I don't want you to stop asking questions.
> I bring this up as a warning:
> The crazier a theory sounds,
> the stronger the evidence for it there would be,
> in order for it to be adopted,
> and the harder it would be to dislodge it.
> I think I might be paraphrasing David Hume here.
>
> For example, back in the 1800s, Michelson and
> Morley performed a nice experiment expected to show
> the presence of the substance, luminiferous aether,
> which electromagnetic waves wave. The experiment
> failed, in that it showed no such thing.
> Bada bing, bada boom: special relativity.
>
> The story doesn't end there, though.
> Since then, physicists have been working to make
> the M&M result stronger, or to defeat special
> relativity, one or the other.
>
> They have added a bunch more decimal points to
> the result.
> | Laser, maser and optical resonators are used,
> | reducing the possibility of any anisotropy of
> | the speed of light to the 10⁻¹⁷ level.
> |
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
> > If so there's hope for me yet
> > and no I don't want a job like that
> > I just ou would like recognition and monetary gain
> > if my work is at all valid and important and true
> > and helpful and a contribution.
> > I'm not in the club Jim. I don't have a secretary.
> It's not so much a question of being in the club,
> as it is that the clubhouse has tools, elegant,
> powerful, that they have spent literal centuries
> inventing, developing, improving. I mean no
> disrespect, but it is not level playing field.
>
> Their abstract tools are free for the asking.
> They would love for you to take them, I'm sure.
> Please consider taking up the offer.
>
> Let me personify these theories:
> Special relativity is the Hulk.
> Quantum mechanics is Thor.
> You want to join the Avengers.
>
> It seems to me that you should put the Hulk and
> Thor to work for you. Like taking some physics
> classes, etc.
Thanks Jim I will take your encouragement under consideration.

The Michelson Morley experiment is not necessarily a verification of Einstein's special relativity nor should it promote Einstein special Theory of relativity. everyone in the should be aware of this. I was reading about or listening about leibniz as opposed to Newton's notion of a divine reference frame. I admit I do not know Leibnitz ideA if any.

The tools I understand are very technologically advanced including the theory that I am opposed to learning I'm not smart enough and I don't have that kind of time but for example it seems the James Webb Telescope is real neat right down to the refrigeration also Hubble Telescope is really neat too they kind of f***** that up though didn't they how did that happen? Just to express that the impressiveness and the hard work Don't Mean a Thing I'll give you a hypothetical example. I have a really neat expensive well made set of Cabinetry tools and I have the most expensive most reliable strongest Lumber. I wouldn't know how to build beautiful strong well supporting cabinets To Hold all that wonderful information produced by intelligent meaningful hard-working- people in the form of physics and math books. to express my anger and frustration I would never have enough wood.

Jim thanks again you had brought me out of my existential angst and my view of nature convoluted. I will save this for a different discussion.

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 6:47:05 PM UTC-4, Simon Roberts wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 5:45:32 PM UTC-4, Jim Burns wrote:
> > On 11/1/2022 3:50 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 1, 2022
> > > at 3:01:02 PM UTC-4, Jim Burns wrote:
> > >> On 11/1/2022 2:39 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:
> >
> > >>> Physicists and mathematicians
> > >>> is it a country club like getting paid to play golf
> > >>> or is the truth a security risk.
> > >>
> > >> Mostly, no security risks are involved.
> > >>
> > >> However, it's not playing golf, either.
> > >> They are real, difficult jobs which require
> > >> a lot of effort, and talent, and (maybe?) luck.
> > >>
> > >> If you want a paid-to-play-golf job,
> > >> I recommend picking the right parents and
> > >> having them make you CEO of something.
> > >> You can come in from the golf course
> > >> to sign whatever your minions hand you,
> > >> and then go back out.
> > >
> > > Thank you Jim
> > > so if it's neither then
> > > these physicists actually believe in their workt.
> > > They find their work valid truthful accurate
> > > and sound is that correct?
> > What you said could be a lot stronger.
> >
> > It's not only that they "believe".
> > They (collectively) have spent hundreds of years
> > doing their best to be _forced_ to believe
> > whichever theories turn out to be best,
> > by working to eliminate other possibilities.
> >
> > Yes, some of these theories sound crazy.
> > I get that. But, however, hard it is for you
> > to take them seriously, consider how hard it is
> > for someone who has invested their life in
> > the old theories. There is a saying:
> > | Physics advances one funeral at a time.
> > Sometimes a better theory has to wait for the
> > Old Guard to die off.
> >
> > Better theories do come.
> > But they come when the evidence DEMANDS that
> > they come. Crazy-sounding theories are not
> > accepted lightly.
> >
> > I don't want you to stop asking questions.
> > I bring this up as a warning:
> > The crazier a theory sounds,
> > the stronger the evidence for it there would be,
> > in order for it to be adopted,
> > and the harder it would be to dislodge it.
> > I think I might be paraphrasing David Hume here.
> >
> > For example, back in the 1800s, Michelson and
> > Morley performed a nice experiment expected to show
> > the presence of the substance, luminiferous aether,
> > which electromagnetic waves wave. The experiment
> > failed, in that it showed no such thing.
> > Bada bing, bada boom: special relativity.
> >
> > The story doesn't end there, though.
> > Since then, physicists have been working to make
> > the M&M result stronger, or to defeat special
> > relativity, one or the other.
> >
> > They have added a bunch more decimal points to
> > the result.
> > | Laser, maser and optical resonators are used,
> > | reducing the possibility of any anisotropy of
> > | the speed of light to the 10⁻¹⁷ level.
> > |
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
> > > If so there's hope for me yet
> > > and no I don't want a job like that
> > > I just ou would like recognition and monetary gain
> > > if my work is at all valid and important and true
> > > and helpful and a contribution.
> > > I'm not in the club Jim. I don't have a secretary.
> > It's not so much a question of being in the club,
> > as it is that the clubhouse has tools, elegant,
> > powerful, that they have spent literal centuries
> > inventing, developing, improving. I mean no
> > disrespect, but it is not level playing field.
> >
> > Their abstract tools are free for the asking.
> > They would love for you to take them, I'm sure.
> > Please consider taking up the offer.
> >
> > Let me personify these theories:
> > Special relativity is the Hulk.
> > Quantum mechanics is Thor.
> > You want to join the Avengers.
> >
> > It seems to me that you should put the Hulk and
> > Thor to work for you. Like taking some physics
> > classes, etc.
> Thanks Jim I will take your encouragement under consideration.
>
> The Michelson Morley experiment is not necessarily a verification of Einstein's special relativity nor should it promote Einstein special Theory of relativity. everyone in the should be aware of this. I was reading about or listening about leibniz as opposed to Newton's notion of a divine reference frame. I admit I do not know Leibnitz ideA if any.
>
> The tools I understand are very technologically advanced including the theory that I am opposed to learning I'm not smart enough and I don't have that kind of time but for example it seems the James Webb Telescope is real neat right down to the refrigeration also Hubble Telescope is really neat too they kind of f***** that up though didn't they how did that happen? Just to express that the impressiveness and the hard work Don't Mean a Thing I'll give you a hypothetical example. I have a really neat expensive well made set of Cabinetry tools and I have the most expensive most reliable strongest Lumber. I wouldn't know how to build beautiful strong well supporting cabinets To Hold all that wonderful information produced by intelligent meaningful hard-working- people in the form of physics and math books. to express my anger and frustration I would never have enough wood.
>
>
> Jim thanks again you had brought me out of my existential angst and my view of nature convoluted. I will save this for a different discussion.

I apologize I forgot to add the adage do not throw the baby out with the
bath water and it shouldn't matter how old that baby is. And the tub too or else we may end up with everything except the kitchen sink. I'm trying to be smart doesn't go over very well.

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 6:54:24 PM UTC-4, Simon Roberts wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 6:47:05 PM UTC-4, Simon Roberts wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 5:45:32 PM UTC-4, Jim Burns wrote:
> > > On 11/1/2022 3:50 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, November 1, 2022
> > > > at 3:01:02 PM UTC-4, Jim Burns wrote:
> > > >> On 11/1/2022 2:39 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> Physicists and mathematicians
> > > >>> is it a country club like getting paid to play golf
> > > >>> or is the truth a security risk.
> > > >>
> > > >> Mostly, no security risks are involved.
> > > >>
> > > >> However, it's not playing golf, either.
> > > >> They are real, difficult jobs which require
> > > >> a lot of effort, and talent, and (maybe?) luck.
> > > >>
> > > >> If you want a paid-to-play-golf job,
> > > >> I recommend picking the right parents and
> > > >> having them make you CEO of something.
> > > >> You can come in from the golf course
> > > >> to sign whatever your minions hand you,
> > > >> and then go back out.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you Jim
> > > > so if it's neither then
> > > > these physicists actually believe in their workt.
> > > > They find their work valid truthful accurate
> > > > and sound is that correct?
> > > What you said could be a lot stronger.
> > >
> > > It's not only that they "believe".
> > > They (collectively) have spent hundreds of years
> > > doing their best to be _forced_ to believe
> > > whichever theories turn out to be best,
> > > by working to eliminate other possibilities.
> > >
> > > Yes, some of these theories sound crazy.
> > > I get that. But, however, hard it is for you
> > > to take them seriously, consider how hard it is
> > > for someone who has invested their life in
> > > the old theories. There is a saying:
> > > | Physics advances one funeral at a time.
> > > Sometimes a better theory has to wait for the
> > > Old Guard to die off.
> > >
> > > Better theories do come.
> > > But they come when the evidence DEMANDS that
> > > they come. Crazy-sounding theories are not
> > > accepted lightly.
> > >
> > > I don't want you to stop asking questions.
> > > I bring this up as a warning:
> > > The crazier a theory sounds,
> > > the stronger the evidence for it there would be,
> > > in order for it to be adopted,
> > > and the harder it would be to dislodge it.
> > > I think I might be paraphrasing David Hume here.
> > >
> > > For example, back in the 1800s, Michelson and
> > > Morley performed a nice experiment expected to show
> > > the presence of the substance, luminiferous aether,
> > > which electromagnetic waves wave. The experiment
> > > failed, in that it showed no such thing.
> > > Bada bing, bada boom: special relativity.
> > >
> > > The story doesn't end there, though.
> > > Since then, physicists have been working to make
> > > the M&M result stronger, or to defeat special
> > > relativity, one or the other.
> > >
> > > They have added a bunch more decimal points to
> > > the result.
> > > | Laser, maser and optical resonators are used,
> > > | reducing the possibility of any anisotropy of
> > > | the speed of light to the 10⁻¹⁷ level.
> > > |
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
> > > > If so there's hope for me yet
> > > > and no I don't want a job like that
> > > > I just ou would like recognition and monetary gain
> > > > if my work is at all valid and important and true
> > > > and helpful and a contribution.
> > > > I'm not in the club Jim. I don't have a secretary.
> > > It's not so much a question of being in the club,
> > > as it is that the clubhouse has tools, elegant,
> > > powerful, that they have spent literal centuries
> > > inventing, developing, improving. I mean no
> > > disrespect, but it is not level playing field.
> > >
> > > Their abstract tools are free for the asking.
> > > They would love for you to take them, I'm sure.
> > > Please consider taking up the offer.
> > >
> > > Let me personify these theories:
> > > Special relativity is the Hulk.
> > > Quantum mechanics is Thor.
> > > You want to join the Avengers.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that you should put the Hulk and
> > > Thor to work for you. Like taking some physics
> > > classes, etc.
> > Thanks Jim I will take your encouragement under consideration.
> >
> > The Michelson Morley experiment is not necessarily a verification of Einstein's special relativity nor should it promote Einstein special Theory of relativity. everyone in the should be aware of this. I was reading about or listening about leibniz as opposed to Newton's notion of a divine reference frame. I admit I do not know Leibnitz ideA if any.
> >
> > The tools I understand are very technologically advanced including the theory that I am opposed to learning I'm not smart enough and I don't have that kind of time but for example it seems the James Webb Telescope is real neat right down to the refrigeration also Hubble Telescope is really neat too they kind of f***** that up though didn't they how did that happen? Just to express that the impressiveness and the hard work Don't Mean a Thing I'll give you a hypothetical example. I have a really neat expensive well made set of Cabinetry tools and I have the most expensive most reliable strongest Lumber. I wouldn't know how to build beautiful strong well supporting cabinets To Hold all that wonderful information produced by intelligent meaningful hard-working- people in the form of physics and math books. to express my anger and frustration I would never have enough wood.
> >
> >
> > Jim thanks again you had brought me out of my existential angst and my view of nature convoluted. I will save this for a different discussion.
> I apologize I forgot to add the adage do not throw the baby out with the
> bath water and it shouldn't matter how old that baby is. And the tub too or else we may end up with everything except the kitchen sink. I'm trying to be smart doesn't go over very well.

By the way I'm starting to think that the number of people who hate me is a lot smaller than I had thought and the number of people who me appreciate me is more important and perhaps more than I had imagined .I'm a legend in my own mind. For this I should say thank you.

On 11/1/2022 6:47 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:

> also Hubble Telescope is really neat too
> they kind of f***** that up though didn't they
> how did that happen?

| A commission headed by Lew Allen, director of
| the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, was established
| to determine how the error could have arisen.
| The Allen Commission found that a reflective null
| corrector, a testing device used to achieve a
| properly shaped non-spherical mirror, had been
| incorrectly assembled—one lens was out of position
| by 1.3 mm (0.051 in). During the initial grinding
| and polishing of the mirror, Perkin-Elmer analyzed
| its surface with two conventional refractive null
| correctors. However, for the final manufacturing
| step (figuring), they switched to the custom-built
| reflective null corrector, designed explicitly to
| meet very strict tolerances. The incorrect assembly
| of this device resulted in the mirror being ground
| very precisely but to the wrong shape. A few final
| tests, using the conventional null correctors,
| correctly reported spherical aberration. But these
| results were dismissed, thus missing the opportunity
| to catch the error, because the reflective null
| corrector was considered more accurate.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope

On 11/1/2022 11:39 AM, Simon Roberts wrote:
> Physicists and mathematicians is it a country club like getting paid to play golf or is the truth a security risk. Why all the bologna? Is there anybody out there?

How unusual! A moron with a gmail address is posting from google groups!

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:04:57 AM UTC-4, Dave wrote:
> On 11/1/2022 11:39 AM, Simon Roberts wrote:
> > Physicists and mathematicians is it a country club like getting paid to play golf or is the truth a security risk. Why all the bologna? Is there anybody out there?
> How unusual! A moron with a gmail address is posting from google groups!
You're a handsome man Dave who took that picture.

GLONASS and BeiDou satellites falling out of the skies. (AP news)

Steady aim of Ayaz and Banerjee with decades of spamming practice. Firing the Satellite Rifle to take down GLONASS and BeiDou//Armondikov--Feb 6, 2013 - Via PsyGremlin via PZ Myers, this is Archimedes Plutonium, my new favourite crank hat. SATELLITE LASER RIFLE--bring down GLONASS

On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 12:38:13 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>Drinking Principle in the notation

Fritz Feldhase,Dan Christensen,Sergey Lavrov what would Russia do, once it sees their GLONASS satellites falling out of the sky? Would they exit Ukraine?

Easiest way to disable and make ICBMs obsolete is to make their navigation system obsolete.

Easiest way to make navigation systems obsolete is to down satellites.

Easiest way to down satellites is a Laser beam zapping for 5 seconds on a "satellite panel". And so, down falls the satellite.

Now are the satellites coordinated in GLONASS? For if coordinated and synchronized, there is the physical possibility of "if we down one of the satellites, all of GLONASS satellites are downed".

Jan Burse with satellite-rifle laser beam with telescope - scope is trying to shoot down GLONASS satellites in a Smullyan liquor proof at his home near Zurich. Any luck Jan?

Jan are you catching the satellites missed by Dan Christensen overhead in Ontario Canada?

More on Jan Burse, aka, Mostowski Collapse can be found on his website of liaring hate-spew --

ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM BANNED - Google Groups
https://groups.google.com › comp.lang.prolog
https://groups.google.com › comp.lang.prolog

ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM BANNED from. Dartmouth canteen. His wheelchair is too wide, he doesn't pass the entrance. Mostowski Collapse's profile photo ...

> Armondikov
Archimedes Plutonium | Spherical Bullshit
sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/archimedes-plutonium/‎

◦ Cached

Feb 6, 2013 - Via PsyGremlin via PZ Myers, this is Archimedes Plutonium, my new favourite crank hat. I was really fucking surprised to have taken this long to ...

Nomen Nescio artwork in use:

NATO's most reliable LASER SATELLITE RIFLE

███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃
▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂
I███████████████████].
◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤...

Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart Award:
[ ]
/
/ .'
/ .'
/ ______. .'
/ / __/_// ' OWOWOWOWOOWOWW
/ / / @"@ OWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW
/ \ G ' >' OWOWOWOWOWOWOWO _.-'
/ \/. C ' OWOWOWOWOW _.-'
/ .---\ / --. _.-'
/ / \( \ _.-' HOLY GOD
/ / \ \ (. ) ' THE RAPE RAYS
/ / /\ \ /
/ \ | \ \ __..--''
/ .' \_\ ) )\ __..--''
/ .' ) \ | / \ -''
/ .' _ '///` ( /\ \
/.' _.-' __ / ) ) )
'.-'..--'' / ,' / /
.__---------- /__./ / / --------------------
``--.. __// / ) /
/ _J) /)`-\
`-__/-' ` \ |(
`\ \ -..__
`--' ``--..__
``--

[ ] Careful when you aim the Satellite Laser Rifle. We want to save our young virgin sharpshooters.

[ ]
___________________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please don't |
/ O O\__ feed |
/ \ GLONASS satellites a Glurrrgz sock? |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

[ ] Why didn't
In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017

|^|^| |^|^|
| | | | | |
>. <| | | | | |
(x x)" "----" |
\/\/\ @ --------.
"----------''''''''

[ ]
____ _ _ _ _ _
| _ \ | | ___ _ __ | | __ | | | | | |
| |_) | | | / _ \ | '_ \ | |/ / | | | | | |
| __/ | | | (_) | | | | | | < |_| |_| |_|
|_| |_| \___/ |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_)

I'M NEW TO SATELLITE DOWNING !!!!!!!!!!!

GLONASS time clock Award:
[ ]
5 SECOND LASER-O-METER

5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *
0* -*- *
* |\ *
* \ *
* \ *
* _\/ *
* * *
[ ] dolf

[ ] Bad News for Cad Kooks
[ ] ❄ Snowflake ❄ OK, now this is seriously fucked up... ❄ Snowflake ❄
[ ]
" , ,
", ,
"" _---. ..;%%%;, . I HIDE OUT IN BeiDou satellites look like this
"" .", , .==% %%%%%%% ' .
"", %%% =%% %%%%%%; ; ;-_
%; %%%%% .;%;%%%"%p ---; _ '-_
%; %%%%% __;%%;p/; O --_ "-,_
q; %%% /v \;%p ;%%%%%;--__ "'-__'-._
//\" // \ % ;%%%%%%%;',/%\_ __ "'-_'\_
\ / // \/ ;%% %; %;/\%%%%;;;;\ "- _\
," %; %%; %%;;' ';% -\-_
-=\=" __% %%;_ |;; %%%\ \
_/ _= \==_;;,_ %%%; % -_ /
/ /- =%- ;%%%%; %%; "--__/
//= ==%-%%; %; %
/ _=_- d ;%; ;%;
\ =,-" d%%; ;%%;
// % ;%%;
// d%%%"
\ %%
V
[ ] Why did Since it was revealed that apparently Who

The Iran satellite looks like a dinosaur

\
\ __.,,------.._
,'" _ _ "`.
/.__, ._ -=- _"` Y
(.____.-.` ""` j
VvvvvvV`.Y,. _.,-' , , ,
Y ||, '"\ ,/ ,/ ./
| ,' , `-..,'_,'/___,'/ ,'/ ,
.. ,;,,',-'"\,' , . ' ' ""' '--,/ .. ..
,'. `.`---' `, / , Y -=- ,' , ,. .`-..||_|| ..
ff\\`. `._ /f ,'j j , ,' , , f , \=\ Y || ||`||_..
l` \` `.`."`-..,-' j /./ /, , / , / /l \ \=\l || `' || ||...
` ` `-._ `-.,-/ ,' /`"/-/-/-/-"'''"`.`. `'.\--`'--..`'_`' || ,
"`-_,', ,' f , / `._ ``._ , `-.`'// ,
,-"'' _.,-' l_,-'_,,' "`-._ . "`. /| `.'\ , |
,',.,-'" \=) ,`-. , `-'._`.V | \ // .. .. /j
|f\ `._ )-."`. /| `.| | `.`-||-\\/
l` \` "`._ "`--' j j' j `-`---'
` ` "`_,-','/ ,-'" /
,'",__,-' /,, ,-'
Vvv' VVv'

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 11:48:24 PM UTC-4, Jim Burns wrote:
> On 11/1/2022 6:47 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:
>
> > also Hubble Telescope is really neat too
> > they kind of f***** that up though didn't they
> > how did that happen?
> | A commission headed by Lew Allen, director of
> | the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, was established
> | to determine how the error could have arisen.
> | The Allen Commission found that a reflective null
> | corrector, a testing device used to achieve a
> | properly shaped non-spherical mirror, had been
> | incorrectly assembled—one lens was out of position
> | by 1.3 mm (0.051 in). During the initial grinding
> | and polishing of the mirror, Perkin-Elmer analyzed
> | its surface with two conventional refractive null
> | correctors. However, for the final manufacturing
> | step (figuring), they switched to the custom-built
> | reflective null corrector, designed explicitly to
> | meet very strict tolerances. The incorrect assembly
> | of this device resulted in the mirror being ground
> | very precisely but to the wrong shape. A few final
> | tests, using the conventional null correctors,
> | correctly reported spherical aberration. But these
> | results were dismissed, thus missing the opportunity
> | to catch the error, because the reflective null
> | corrector was considered more accurate.
> |
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope
Sorry Jim I believe you but that's not what I heard. Anyway the way I see it no pun intended is that they didn't insert a lens they just moved the mirror back to the wrong place wouldn't that fix everything. When I was watching the news at the time I thought they had said they put all lens in. They were talking small fractions of a millimeter guy guys in space suits and their pliers and drills what a joke. I had suspected they swapped out the motherboard or something to that effect what do you think.

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:33:59 PM UTC-4, Simon Roberts wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 11:48:24 PM UTC-4, Jim Burns wrote:
> > On 11/1/2022 6:47 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:
> >
> > > also Hubble Telescope is really neat too
> > > they kind of f***** that up though didn't they
> > > how did that happen?
> > | A commission headed by Lew Allen, director of
> > | the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, was established
> > | to determine how the error could have arisen.
> > | The Allen Commission found that a reflective null
> > | corrector, a testing device used to achieve a
> > | properly shaped non-spherical mirror, had been
> > | incorrectly assembled—one lens was out of position
> > | by 1.3 mm (0.051 in). During the initial grinding
> > | and polishing of the mirror, Perkin-Elmer analyzed
> > | its surface with two conventional refractive null
> > | correctors. However, for the final manufacturing
> > | step (figuring), they switched to the custom-built
> > | reflective null corrector, designed explicitly to
> > | meet very strict tolerances. The incorrect assembly
> > | of this device resulted in the mirror being ground
> > | very precisely but to the wrong shape. A few final
> > | tests, using the conventional null correctors,
> > | correctly reported spherical aberration. But these
> > | results were dismissed, thus missing the opportunity
> > | to catch the error, because the reflective null
> > | corrector was considered more accurate.
> > |
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope
> Sorry Jim I believe you but that's not what I heard. Anyway the way I see it no pun intended is that they didn't insert a lens they just moved the mirror back to the wrong place wouldn't that fix everything. When I was watching the news at the time I thought they had said they put all lens in. They were talking small fractions of a millimeter guy guys in space suits and their pliers and drills what a joke. I had suspected they swapped out the motherboard or something to that effect what do you think.
I apologize I didn't read your post carefully I don't get it he's in the whole purpose of a parabolic mirror to admit omit all lenses especially with the Advent of photo sensor arrays as in most digital cameras why the lenses? Wouldn't that just defeat the accuracy of the mirror?
E either
Eva the truth varies or I have a serious problem or both

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:41:52 PM UTC-4, Simon Roberts wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:33:59 PM UTC-4, Simon Roberts wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 11:48:24 PM UTC-4, Jim Burns wrote:
> > > On 11/1/2022 6:47 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > > also Hubble Telescope is really neat too
> > > > they kind of f***** that up though didn't they
> > > > how did that happen?
> > > | A commission headed by Lew Allen, director of
> > > | the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, was established
> > > | to determine how the error could have arisen.
> > > | The Allen Commission found that a reflective null
> > > | corrector, a testing device used to achieve a
> > > | properly shaped non-spherical mirror, had been
> > > | incorrectly assembled—one lens was out of position
> > > | by 1.3 mm (0.051 in). During the initial grinding
> > > | and polishing of the mirror, Perkin-Elmer analyzed
> > > | its surface with two conventional refractive null
> > > | correctors. However, for the final manufacturing
> > > | step (figuring), they switched to the custom-built
> > > | reflective null corrector, designed explicitly to
> > > | meet very strict tolerances. The incorrect assembly
> > > | of this device resulted in the mirror being ground
> > > | very precisely but to the wrong shape. A few final
> > > | tests, using the conventional null correctors,
> > > | correctly reported spherical aberration. But these
> > > | results were dismissed, thus missing the opportunity
> > > | to catch the error, because the reflective null
> > > | corrector was considered more accurate.
> > > |
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope
> > Sorry Jim I believe you but that's not what I heard. Anyway the way I see it no pun intended is that they didn't insert a lens they just moved the mirror back to the wrong place wouldn't that fix everything. When I was watching the news at the time I thought they had said they put all lens in. They were talking small fractions of a millimeter guy guys in space suits and their pliers and drills what a joke. I had suspected they swapped out the motherboard or something to that effect what do you think.
> I apologize I didn't read your post carefully I don't get it he's in the whole purpose of a parabolic mirror to admit omit all lenses especially with the Advent of photo sensor arrays as in most digital cameras why the lenses? Wouldn't that just defeat the accuracy of the mirror?
> E either
> Eva the truth varies or I have a serious problem or both

I couldn't resist honestly I can't resist

https://youtu.be/2IsgzMXiFx0

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 7:39:08 PM UTC+1, simonro...@gmail.com wrote:

> Is there anybody out there?

Who knows?

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 8:50:32 PM UTC+1, simonro...@gmail.com wrote:

> ... then these physicists actually believe in their work. They find their work valid truthful accurate and sound is that correct?

I'd say, usually yes. (After all, I'm [or was] one myself.)

> If so there's hope for me yet and no I don't want a job like that I just [too] would like recognition and monetary gain if my work is at all valid and important and true and helpful and a contribution.

Great!

So go ahead.

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 12:26:51 AM UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 7:39:08 PM UTC+1, simonro...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Is there anybody out there?
> Who knows?
That's reassuring.

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 12:32:18 AM UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 8:50:32 PM UTC+1, simonro...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > ... then these physicists actually believe in their work. They find their work valid truthful accurate and sound is that correct?
>
> I'd say, usually yes. (After all, I'm [or was] one myself.)
>
> > If so there's hope for me yet and no I don't want a job like that I just [too] would like recognition and monetary gain if my work is at all valid and important and true and helpful and a contribution.
>
> Great!
>
> So go ahead.

First of all I qualified my statement secondly why did you quit for lack of a better word.

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 11:47:05 PM UTC+1, simonro...@gmail.com wrote:

> The Michelson Morley experiment is not necessarily a verification of Einstein's special relativity [....]

No, it isn't. But it is in "agreement" with Einsteins special relativity [or the other way round].

[Note that _no_ experiment can "verifiy" a cetain theory. An experiment can only refute a certain theory. ->Karl Popper]

> everyone in the should be aware of this.

Right.

> I was reading about or listening about Leibniz as opposed to Newton's notion of a divine reference frame. I admit I do not know Leibnitz idea if any..

Well, you are takling about philosophy now. Views. Of course, important stuff too.

> The tools I understand are very technologically advanced [...]

Well, to a certain degree.

But it can be "understood" with some engagement [and/or motivation].

Lit.: Leonard Susskind, George Hrabovsky: The Theoretical Minimum: What You Need to Know to Start Doing Physics

"If you ever regretted not taking physics in college -- or simply want to know how to think like a physicist -- this is the book for you. In this bestselling introduction to classical mechanics, physicist Leonard Susskind and hacker-scientist George Hrabovsky offer a first course in physics and associated math for the ardent amateur. Challenging, lucid, and concise, The Theoretical Minimum provides a tool kit for amateur scientists to learn physics at their own pace."

and: Leonard Susskind, Art Friedman : Special Relativity and Classical Field Theory: The Theoretical Minimum

"Combining rigor with humour, Susskind and Friedman guarantee that Special Relativity and Classical Field Theory will become part of the reader's physics toolbox."

So my advice: Just go ahead!

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 12:49:30 AM UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 11:47:05 PM UTC+1, simonro...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The Michelson Morley experiment is not necessarily a verification of Einstein's special relativity [....]
>
> No, it isn't. But it is in "agreement" with Einsteins special relativity [or the other way round].
>
> [Note that _no_ experiment can "verifiy" a cetain theory. An experiment can only refute a certain theory. ->Karl Popper]
> > everyone in the should be aware of this.
> Right.
>
> > I was reading about or listening about Leibniz as opposed to Newton's notion of a divine reference frame. I admit I do not know Leibnitz idea if any.
>
> Well, you are takling about philosophy now. Views. Of course, important stuff too.
>
> > The tools I understand are very technologically advanced [...]
>
> Well, to a certain degree.
>
> But it can be "understood" with some engagement [and/or motivation].
>
> Lit.: Leonard Susskind, George Hrabovsky: The Theoretical Minimum: What You Need to Know to Start Doing Physics
>
> "If you ever regretted not taking physics in college -- or simply want to know how to think like a physicist -- this is the book for you. In this bestselling introduction to classical mechanics, physicist Leonard Susskind and hacker-scientist George Hrabovsky offer a first course in physics and associated math for the ardent amateur. Challenging, lucid, and concise, The Theoretical Minimum provides a tool kit for amateur scientists to learn physics at their own pace."
>
> and: Leonard Susskind, Art Friedman : Special Relativity and Classical Field Theory: The Theoretical Minimum
>
> "Combining rigor with humour, Susskind and Friedman guarantee that Special Relativity and Classical Field Theory will become part of the reader's physics toolbox."
>
> So my advice: Just go ahead!
Thanks Fritz but I think I'm done unless I become more creative.

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 5:54:16 AM UTC+1, simonro...@gmail.com wrote:

> Thanks Fritz but I think I'm done unless I become more creative.

I see. So why bother? Just enjoy your life! :-P

"Einstweilen, bis den Bau der Welt Philosophie zusammenhält, erhält sich das Getriebe durch Hunger und durch Liebe." (F. Schiller)

[[In prose:] In the meantime, until philosophy holds the structure of the world together, the drive is maintained through hunger and through love.]