I am sure that many observers and even researchers do not wish to have the drag of theoretical misadventures in the past ruining new information that will pour in from the new telescope.

Within 5 minutes of the webcast on July 12th, they were using imaging to demonstrate that Einstein was right in terms of elongations of the galaxies as seen from Webb, however, readers here can judge for themselves how poor his perspective was back in 1920 along with the following chapter used to support what is effectively celestial sphere or RA/Dec modelling-

https://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

I look at the comments from the USA and many declare that they are nothing but " expensive pretty pictures" and the money could be spent on social programmes. It is what those with influence do with those images and that is where a reset is necessary and bring humanity closer to their surroundings by showing a meaningful connection between their lives and what they observe..

On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 10:27:38 AM UTC-6, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> I am sure that many observers and even researchers do
> not wish to have the drag of theoretical misadventures
> in the past ruining new information that will pour in from
> the new telescope.

You are, are you?

> Within 5 minutes of the webcast on July 12th, they were
> using imaging to demonstrate that Einstein was right in
> terms of elongations of the galaxies as seen from Webb,

Shocking, isn't it? But gravitational lensing has been seen
on plenty of Hubble images. So there's no longer a need
"to demonstrate Einstein was right"; we _know_ he was,
and now we're putting the phenomenon of gravitational
lensing to *use* in seeing things further away.

> however, readers here can judge for themselves how poor
> his perspective was back in 1920 along with the following
> chapter used to support what is effectively celestial sphere
> or RA/Dec modelling-
>
> https://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

I'll have to admit that you _have_ found a section of Einstein's
writings where he was merely handwaving. Yes, Olbers'
paradox does eliminate a Universe of uniform finite nonzero
density, and a finite universe in an empty flat space is sort of
unsatisfying for the reason he notes, but getting unsatisfying
confused with impossible... that is one of his faults.

John Savard