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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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

On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:27:39 PM UTC-5, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> If you combine red shift with Olber's paradox, you also end up
> with a uniform thermal background at about the same temperature.

I can't say I appreciate Olber's paradox. Perhaps I've not seen a good explanation of it. I've often wondered myself why the sky is not more uniformly lit, but I reasoned that the more distant stars would be much weaker in appearance and so not make the sky uniformly bright. I had not considered that a red shift would also remove much of the light from the visible spectrum.

I suppose were it not for the red shift, Olber's concept of constant luminosity across the sky would make the entire sky the same brightness as the sun? Then the planets and the moon would appear to be holes in the brilliant sky. If fact, we would only know of the sun by the way it blocks our view of the planetary darknesses.

--

Rick C.

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

On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 2:08:45 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> 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.

You do like to make that claim. The implication is that you think you do, but you don't post anything that suggests that you have a clue. Claiming the unspecified people are "career liars and cheats" is a rather unspecific allegation, but that does seem to be as much as you can manage

> 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.

Or so Fred likes to think.

> They don't observe a single thing that is applicable to life on Earth.

Neither does Fred. He doesn't seem to have noticed that LIGO

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

hasn't either, but that this hasn't prevented it from being a a dramatic success.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:58:22 PM UTC-5, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
> news:4bab59d0-210e-402e...@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?

It's pretty clear you have little understanding of cosmology or even food. Hershey's kisses don't go with apples all that well. Besides, the rotation of the galaxies would turn the kisses into swirls of frozen yogurt.

--

Rick C.

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

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0e833a13-8a16-471c-ad81-ab92f493d6e4n@googlegroups.com:

> It's pretty clear you have little understanding of cosmology or
> even food.

Goddamn boy, you are a fucking total retard.

> Hershey's kisses don't go with apples all that well.

WTF are you mumbling about, fucktard?

The SHAPE of the hershey's kiss, you stupid fucktard. THAT is what
it referred to. Essentially, it is YOU that lacks a grasp of even
the simplest things.
> Besides, the rotation of the galaxies would turn the kisses into
> swirls of frozen yogurt.

You are a fucking abject idiot. There are images of a network of
dark matter "strings" connecting between "nodes" within which are our
galaxies.

Those nodes are what I described.

Oh, and did I say FUCK YOU yet, jackass motherfucker. No... well,
then FUCK YOU, RICKY TICKY TWERP.

It's pretty clear that your skull is as thick and dense as the shit
constantly spurting out of your upper anus.

See if you can picture that, fucktard.

Don't blame Trump for a lack of space exploration. It was Barrick Obama
who trashed our ability to launch astronauts into space.

OBAMA PAID RUSSIA $82 MILLION EACH FOR TAKING OUR ASTRONAUTS TO THE SPACE
STATION, FOR 8 YEARS!!!

Larkin'susual idiotic reply about space exploration has NOTHING TO DO
WITH DONALD TRUMP.

Always Wrong displays its severe Trump Derangement Syndrome...

--
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!5U2ooNuM5UP0Ynf/GmOnCg.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Subject: Re: One of man's greatest achievements
> Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2022 18:10:22 -0000 (UTC)
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Message-ID: <srck2e$fsf$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <sr8mq8$6n5$2@gioia.aioe.org> <5a1htgh7rds4oe2gv6teldui5sei314duo@4ax.com>
> Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="16271"; posting-host="5U2ooNuM5UP0Ynf/GmOnCg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
> User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:657305
>
> John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
> news:5a1htgh7rds4oe2gv6teldui5sei314duo@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 06:32:40 -0000 (UTC),
>> DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@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>
>>
>> 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.
>>
> Oh looky... The standard Trump TOTAL RETARD response!
>
> It would appear, and is decidedly 100% provable that Johnny jackass
> Larkin has no clue as to why Earth based observations do not work for
> this.
>
> So, Trump Blinder wearing FUCKHEAD, tell us all why Trump's
> retarded wall was to cost over $20 Billion? How did he even spend
> ONE Billion there? Oh... that's right... the fucktard didn't spend
> it. He and his Daddy trained criminal family ABSCONDED with hundreds
> of millions worth of it. All while he was killing military programs
> to ad funding to a wall that never happened.
>
> Your fucking logic is about as bent as it gets, putz boy.
>
> You could not be more pathetic if you tried and especially not
> since you claim to be a science person.
>
>

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Tue, 11 Jan 2022 05:58:40 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <srj6ag$m2a$6@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow it's own rules that it uses to troll other posters.

sQteOgJHsQkn

On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 4:58:47 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
> DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> > John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in news:5a1htgh7rds4oe2gv...@4ax.com:
> >> On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 06:32:40 -0000 (UTC), 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>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> > Oh looky... The standard Trump TOTAL RETARD response!
> >
> > It would appear, and is decidedly 100% provable that Johnny jackass
> > Larkin has no clue as to why Earth based observations do not work for
> > this.
> >
> > So, Trump Blinder wearing FUCKHEAD, tell us all why Trump's
> > retarded wall was to cost over $20 Billion? How did he even spend
> > ONE Billion there? Oh... that's right... the fucktard didn't spend
> > it. He and his Daddy trained criminal family ABSCONDED with hundreds
> > of millions worth of it. All while he was killing military programs
> > to ad funding to a wall that never happened.
> >
> > Your fucking logic is about as bent as it gets, putz boy.
> >
> > You could not be more pathetic if you tried and especially not
> > since you claim to be a science person.
>
> Don't blame Trump for a lack of space exploration. It was Barrick Obama who trashed our ability to launch astronauts into space.

Even a non-American like me can spell Barak Obama's name right.

> OBAMA PAID RUSSIA $82 MILLION EACH FOR TAKING OUR ASTRONAUTS TO THE SPACE STATION, FOR 8 YEARS!!!

So the previous Republican adminstration hadn't done anything about a replacement for the Space Shuttle? Donald Trump didn't either.

US private enterprise eventually did, but it took a while, as these things tend to do.
> Larkin's usual idiotic reply about space exploration has NOTHING TO DO WITH DONALD TRUMP.

Not exactly, but it's vacuity does remind us John Larkin's equally dimwitted adulation of Donald Trump ,
> Always Wrong displays its severe Trump Derangement Syndrome...

Not exactly. John Larkin and John Doe do that - they are deranged enough not to notice that Donald Trump is a total disaster.

US Covid-19 deaths are now up to 861,336, which is 2,579 deaths per million. Twenty countries have done worse, but none of them is anything like as rich as the USA.
Donald Trump isn't president any more, but his defects as president made the epidemic in the US quite a bit worse than it might have been, and vaccination rates in the US are remarkably low - and lower in the twits who support him.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

NOBODY likes this troll's contentless spam.
After being spanked in the electronics repair group, it wants
to annoy everybody.

This nym-shifting stalker Corvid/Edward/others is upset because it will
never again troll USENET without its nyms being exposed...

=?UTF-8?Q?C=c3=b6rvid?= <bl@ckbirds.org>
=?UTF-8?B?8J+QriBDb3dzIGFyZSBOaWNlIPCfkK4=?= <nice@cows.moo>
Banders <snap@mailchute.com>
Covid-19 <always.look@message.header>
Corvid <bl@ckbirds.net>
Corvid <bl@ckbirds.org>
Cows Are Nice <cows@nice.moo>
Cows are nice <moo@cows.org>
Cows are Nice <nice@cows.moo>
dogs <dogs@home.com>
Edward H. <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
Great Pumpkin <pumpkin@patch.net>
Jose Curvo <jcurvo@mymail.com>
Local Favorite <how2recycle@palomar.info>
Peter Weiner <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
Sea <freshness@coast.org>
Standard Poodle <standard@poodle.com>
triangles <build@home.com>
and others...

--
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx03.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: One of man's greatest achievements
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam
> References: <sr8mq8$6n5$2@gioia.aioe.org> <5a1htgh7rds4oe2gv6teldui5sei314duo@4ax.com> <srck2e$fsf$1@gioia.aioe.org> <srj6ag$m2a$6@dont-email.me>
> Lines: 22
> Message-ID: <pj9DJ.125118$6kH7.53684@usenetxs.com>
> X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 06:19:01 UTC
> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 06:19:01 GMT
> X-Received-Bytes: 1443
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:657624 free.spam:17050
>
> The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
> <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:
>
>> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...
>
> And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
> <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:
>
>> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
>> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
>> CLUELESS...
>
> And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
> incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Tue, 11 Jan 2022 05:58:40 -0000
> (UTC) in message-id <srj6ag$m2a$6@dont-email.me>.
>
> This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
> readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
> follow it's own rules that it uses to troll other posters.
>
> sQteOgJHsQkn
>
>
>

"the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
(Bill Sloman)

"the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
(Bozo paraphrased)

Bozo Bill Sloman is an attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be
reasoned with...

--
Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

> X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7f12:: with SMTP id f18mr2550537qtk.391.1641882431519; Mon, 10 Jan 2022 22:27:11 -0800 (PST)
> X-Received: by 2002:a25:2c0b:: with SMTP id s11mr1059151ybs.624.1641882431157; Mon, 10 Jan 2022 22:27:11 -0800 (PST)
> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 22:27:10 -0800 (PST)
> In-Reply-To: <srj6ag$m2a$6@dont-email.me>
> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=123.243.66.234; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 123.243.66.234
> References: <sr8mq8$6n5$2@gioia.aioe.org> <5a1htgh7rds4oe2gv6teldui5sei314duo@4ax.com> <srck2e$fsf$1@gioia.aioe.org> <srj6ag$m2a$6@dont-email.me>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID: <8418d0ad-2544-48b0-b8f4-93a0fc09be2en@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: One of man's greatest achievements
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 06:27:11 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Lines: 57
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:657625
>
> On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 4:58:47 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
>> DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
>> > John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in news:5a1htgh7rds4oe2gv...@4ax.com:
>> >> On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 06:32:40 -0000 (UTC), 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>
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> > Oh looky... The standard Trump TOTAL RETARD response!
>> >
>> > It would appear, and is decidedly 100% provable that Johnny jackass
>> > Larkin has no clue as to why Earth based observations do not work for
>> > this.
>> >
>> > So, Trump Blinder wearing FUCKHEAD, tell us all why Trump's
>> > retarded wall was to cost over $20 Billion? How did he even spend
>> > ONE Billion there? Oh... that's right... the fucktard didn't spend
>> > it. He and his Daddy trained criminal family ABSCONDED with hundreds
>> > of millions worth of it. All while he was killing military programs
>> > to ad funding to a wall that never happened.
>> >
>> > Your fucking logic is about as bent as it gets, putz boy.
>> >
>> > You could not be more pathetic if you tried and especially not
>> > since you claim to be a science person.
>>
>> Don't blame Trump for a lack of space exploration. It was Barrick Obama who trashed our ability to launch astronauts into space.
>
> Even a non-American like me can spell Barak Obama's name right.
>
>> OBAMA PAID RUSSIA $82 MILLION EACH FOR TAKING OUR ASTRONAUTS TO THE SPACE STATION, FOR 8 YEARS!!!
>
> So the previous Republican adminstration hadn't done anything about a replacement for the Space Shuttle? Donald Trump didn't either.
>
> US private enterprise eventually did, but it took a while, as these things tend to do.
>
>> Larkin's usual idiotic reply about space exploration has NOTHING TO DO WITH DONALD TRUMP.
>
> Not exactly, but it's vacuity does remind us John Larkin's equally dimwitted adulation of Donald Trump ,
>
>> Always Wrong displays its severe Trump Derangement Syndrome...
>
> Not exactly. John Larkin and John Doe do that - they are deranged enough not to notice that Donald Trump is a total disaster.
>
> US Covid-19 deaths are now up to 861,336, which is 2,579 deaths per million. Twenty countries have done worse, but none of them is anything like as rich as the USA.
> Donald Trump isn't president any more, but his defects as president made the epidemic in the US quite a bit worse than it might have been, and vaccination rates in the US are remarkably low - and lower in the twits who support him.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney
>
>

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly
formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
Tue, 11 Jan 2022 06:52:23 -0000 (UTC) in message-id
<srj9f7$ktb$1@dont-email.me>).

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

oJtT71sK2Taj

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Tue, 11 Jan 2022 06:53:14 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <srj9gq$ktb$2@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow it's own rules that it uses to troll other posters.

nT+DIvGfhCbE

On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 5:53:20 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 4:58:47 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
> >> DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> >> > John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in news:5a1htgh7rds4oe2gv...@4ax.com:
> >> >> On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 06:32:40 -0000 (UTC), DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

<snip>

> >> Don't blame Trump for a lack of space exploration. It was Barrick Obama who trashed our ability to launch astronauts into space.
> >
> > Even a non-American like me can spell Barak Obama's name right.
> >
> >> OBAMA PAID RUSSIA $82 MILLION EACH FOR TAKING OUR ASTRONAUTS TO THE SPACE STATION, FOR 8 YEARS!!!
> >
> > So the previous Republican adminstration hadn't done anything about a replacement for the Space Shuttle? Donald Trump didn't either.
> >
> > US private enterprise eventually did, but it took a while, as these things tend to do.
> >
> >> Larkin's usual idiotic reply about space exploration has NOTHING TO DO WITH DONALD TRUMP.
> >
> > Not exactly, but it's vacuity does remind us John Larkin's equally dimwitted adulation of Donald Trump ,
> >
> >> Always Wrong displays its severe Trump Derangement Syndrome...
> >
> > Not exactly. John Larkin and John Doe do that - they are deranged enough not to notice that Donald Trump is a total disaster.
> >
> > US Covid-19 deaths are now up to 861,336, which is 2,579 deaths per million. Twenty countries have done worse, but none of them is anything like as rich as the USA.
> > Donald Trump isn't president any more, but his defects as president made the epidemic in the US quite a bit worse than it might have been, and vaccination rates in the US are remarkably low - and lower in the twits who support him.

<snipped the usual Doeful drivel>
>
> Bill Sloman is an attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

More wishful thinking from John Doe. He'd like to think that the facts I present are lies, and he likes imagine that what he posts is reasoned argument, rather than childish spleen.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 2022-01-11, John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:
> Don't blame Trump for a lack of space exploration. It was Barrick Obama
> who trashed our ability to launch astronauts into space.
>
> OBAMA PAID RUSSIA $82 MILLION EACH FOR TAKING OUR ASTRONAUTS TO THE SPACE
> STATION, FOR 8 YEARS!!!

BY DOING SO HE SAVED A LOT OF MONEY!!!!

--
Jasen.