On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:39:40 PM UTC-8, Beeper wrote:
> On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> > 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.
> How so? Please provide citation to a credible source supporting your
> claims that documents the original projected budget and expected
> delivery/launch date.

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

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

"Development began in 1996 for a launch that was initially planned for 2007 with a US$500 million budget.[21] There were many delays and cost overruns, including a major redesign in 2005,[22] a ripped sunshield during a practice deployment, a recommendation from an independent review board, the COVID-19 pandemic,[23][24][25] issues with the Ariane 5 rocket[26] and the telescope itself, and communications issues between the telescope and the launch vehicle.[27] The high-stakes nature of the launch, which is the planned backbone of the next generation of research in its[clarification needed] fields, and the telescope's required complexity, was remarked upon by the media, and commented on by scientists and engineers.[28][29]

Construction was completed in late 2016, when an extensive testing phase began.[30][31] JWST was launched 12:20 UTC 25 December 2021[32] by an Ariane 5 launch vehicle from Kourou, French Guiana and was released from the upper stage 27 minutes later.[33]"

https://www.geekwire.com/2021/high-cost-high-risk-high-hopes-theres-a-lot-riding-on-the-10b-james-webb-space-telescopes-launch/#:~:text=The%20launch%20of%20NASA's%20%2410,result%20in%20the%20deepest%20tragedy.
"The launch of NASA’s $10 billion James Webb Space Telescope from French Guiana could mark a triumph in a tale that thousands of astronomers have been following for a generation. Or it could result in the deepest tragedy."

On 1/13/22 22:19, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 5:10:18 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
>> On 1/13/22 20:55, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:20:01 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
>>>> On 1/13/22 18:25, Rick C wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:08:22 PM UTC-5, corvid
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/13/22 14:16, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>>>>>> On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>> Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there
>>>>>>>> was space with nothing in it (not helped by popular
>>>>>>>> science programmes showing an explosion) as opposed to
>>>>>>>> nothing at all - ie no spacetime.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "prior to the Big Bang" - if there was no time, how can
>>>>>>> the word "prior" even be well-defined?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Big Bang didn't occur earlier, or later, than it did,
>>>>>> so there had to be time already in place.
>>>
>>> It there's nothing there to do anything time isn't doing anything
>>> useful.
>>>
>>>>> No, there is no basis for assuming that time existed before
>>>>> the origin point.
>>>>
>>>> What?? The universe could have been 14.7 billion years ago
>>>> now, but it had to wait another billion years until the
>>>> conditions (of nothing!) were ready. Only then, the Big Bang
>>>> happened because it had to. So what changed?
>>>
>>> You are trying to put your own label - time - on axis that
>>> doesn't serve any useful purpose until there are events
>>> happening.
>>
>> There's no evidence that events, of some sort, were ever not
>> happening.
>>> which could be put into some sort of sequence. No events means no
>>> time.
>>
>> Maybe. You can't get from there to 'events means time'. or to 'no
>> time means no events'.
>
> No events does mean no time, which is all that I was asserting.

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

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

>>>> It's BS. No Point or Bang, no Time, Einstein can reduce
>>>> whatever he likes as long as the math works out, but something
>>>> else is real and we're missing it.
>>>
>>> That "something else" is your capacity for self-delusion, and we
>>> prefer to set it aside.
>>
>> Somebody's will have to be set aside.
>
> Your delusions do seem to be remarkably incoherent.

Yours are more coherent.

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 6:15:25 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:39:40 PM UTC-8, Beeper wrote:
> > On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> > > 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.
> > How so? Please provide citation to a credible source supporting your
> > claims that documents the original projected budget and expected
> > delivery/launch date.
>
> Yes, that is a lie. Actually it was 20x over budget and 22 years late.

Except that the initial budget wasn't expected to anything more than an initial estimate, and the projected launch date was much the same.

It was a technically demanding project, and nobody who understood what was going on would have seen either number as anything more than a plausible low end estimate of what might happen if the design process went unusually smoothly.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope
>
> "Development began in 1996 for a launch that was initially planned for 2007 with a US$500 million budget.[21] There were many delays and cost overruns, including a major redesign in 2005,[22] a ripped sunshield during a practice deployment, a recommendation from an independent review board, the COVID-19 pandemic,[23][24][25] issues with the Ariane 5 rocket[26] and the telescope itself, and communications issues between the telescope and the launch vehicle.[27] The high-stakes nature of the launch, which is the planned backbone of the next generation of research in its[clarification needed] fields, and the telescope's required complexity, was remarked upon by the media, and commented on by scientists and engineers.[28][29]
>
> Construction was completed in late 2016, when an extensive testing phase began.[30][31] JWST was launched 12:20 UTC 25 December 2021[32] by an Ariane 5 launch vehicle from Kourou, French Guiana and was released from the upper stage 27 minutes later.[33]"
<https://www.geekwire.com/2021/high-cost-high-risk-high-hopes-theres-a-lot-riding-on-the-10b-james-webb-space-telescopes-launch/>

Geekwire is an odd source for that kind of information. Google tends to offer NASA sources first. Presumably Flyguy liked the "deepest tragedy" line, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that it's total nonsense.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 6:47:30 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
> On 1/13/22 22:19, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 5:10:18 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
> >> On 1/13/22 20:55, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >>> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:20:01 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
> >>>> On 1/13/22 18:25, Rick C wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:08:22 PM UTC-5, corvid
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/13/22 14:16, Clifford Heath wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there
> >>>>>>>> was space with nothing in it (not helped by popular
> >>>>>>>> science programmes showing an explosion) as opposed to
> >>>>>>>> nothing at all - ie no spacetime.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "prior to the Big Bang" - if there was no time, how can
> >>>>>>> the word "prior" even be well-defined?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> The Big Bang didn't occur earlier, or later, than it did,
> >>>>>> so there had to be time already in place.
> >>>
> >>> It there's nothing there to do anything time isn't doing anything
> >>> useful.
> >>>
> >>>>> No, there is no basis for assuming that time existed before
> >>>>> the origin point.
> >>>>
> >>>> What?? The universe could have been 14.7 billion years ago
> >>>> now, but it had to wait another billion years until the
> >>>> conditions (of nothing!) were ready. Only then, the Big Bang
> >>>> happened because it had to. So what changed?
> >>>
> >>> You are trying to put your own label - time - on axis that
> >>> doesn't serve any useful purpose until there are events
> >>> happening.
> >>
> >> There's no evidence that events, of some sort, were ever not happening..

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

> >>> which could be put into some sort of sequence. No events means no time.
> >>
> >> Maybe. You can't get from there to 'events means time'. or to 'no time means no events'.
> >
> > No events does mean no time, which is all that I was asserting.
>
> And to that much, I said Maybe! Aren't you trying still to assert that, until a Bang, no events were happening? You haven't gotten far.

No events that we can know anything about.

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

Except that they aren't in the least imaginary.

> >>>> It's BS. No Point or Bang, no Time, Einstein can reduce whatever he likes as long as the math works out, but something else is real and we're missing it.
> >>>
> >>> That "something else" is your capacity for self-delusion, and we prefer to set it aside.
> >>
> >> Somebody's will have to be set aside.
> >
> > Your delusions do seem to be remarkably incoherent.
>
> Yours are more coherent.

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

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 6:07:48 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 12:01:08 PM UTC-8, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
> > On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 10:25:48 UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
> > ...
> > > ><https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html>
> > > 10x over budget and 20 years late. Imagine how many ground-based
> > > telescopes we could have built for that cost, or how many lives we
> > > could have saved.
> > ...
> > The US spent 70 times the total cost of the telescope on the military in a single year.
> >
> > $753.5 billion vs $10 billion. It seems we would rather kill people than save them anyway.
> >
> > kw
>
> And which one will keep the CHICOMs out of Taiwan?

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

https://www.tsmc.com/english

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

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

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

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

>>> Your delusions do seem to be remarkably incoherent.
>>
>> Yours are more coherent.
>
> Since I'm not deluded,

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

> I concentrate of saying stuff that means something.

Of course.

See below

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

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

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 8:49:44 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
> On 1/14/22 00:11, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 6:47:30 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
> >> On 1/13/22 22:19, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>
> >>> Your delusions do seem to be remarkably incoherent.
> >>
> >> Yours are more coherent.
> >
> > Since I'm not deluded,
> <chuckle> We usually let someone _else_ confirm things like that.

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

> > I concentrate of saying stuff that means something.
>
> Of course.

As if you were a reliable witness.
> See below
>
> > You don't seem to be constrained in the same way.
>
> "Begging the question" never used to mean what most people think it means today. Can you recognize when you're doing it?

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

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 11:15:25 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:39:40 PM UTC-8, Beeper wrote:
> > On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:

> > > 10x over budget and 20 years late.

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

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

Not true.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope
>
> "Development began in 1996 for a launch that was initially planned for 2007 with a US$500 million budget.[21] There were many delays and cost overruns, including a major redesign in 2005...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 5:54:57 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 14/01/2022 02:24, Rick C wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 5:16:30 PM UTC-5, Clifford Heath wrote:
> >> On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
> >>> Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was space with
> >>> nothing in it (not helped by popular science programmes showing an
> >>> explosion) as opposed to nothing at all - ie no spacetime.
> >> "prior to the Big Bang" - if there was no time, how can the word "prior"
> >> even be well-defined?
> >
> > For that matter, how can a question of the beginning of the universe not be a category error? The universe is existence itself, how can existence have a beginning or an end?
> It clearly did have a beginning when everything was notionally at a
> single infinitely dense point (at least in a mathematical sense).

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

> (Pairs of) virtual particles flip into existence on borrowed vacuum
> energy for a time determined by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
>
> There is no reason in principle why at a still higher level entire
> universes cannot flip into existence spontaneously (perhaps even as
> universe anti-universe pairs).

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

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

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

> This isn't a bad introduction as to why we can't apply our current
> models when all of the forces of nature merge into a single entity.
>
> http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec20.html

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

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

Is that more clear? Perhaps you should continue reading.

--

Rick C.

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

On 1/14/22 02:33, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 8:49:44 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
>> On 1/14/22 00:11, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 6:47:30 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote:
>>>> On 1/13/22 22:19, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>
>>>>> Your delusions do seem to be remarkably incoherent.
>>>>
>>>> Yours are more coherent.
>>>
>>> Since I'm not deluded,
>> <chuckle> We usually let someone _else_ confirm things like that.
>
> I hang around with psychologists. You clearly don't.
>
>>> I concentrate of saying stuff that means something.
>>
>> Of course.
>
> As if you were a reliable witness.
>
>> See below
>>
>>> You don't seem to be constrained in the same way.
>>
>> "Begging the question" never used to mean what most people think it
>> means today. Can you recognize when you're doing it?
>
> Probably, if I were. Since you are going in for the usual right-wing
> loony trick of bailing out of a discussion that you lost by
> introducing a technical debating term that you don't actually
> understand, I couldn't be less interested in your posturings.

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

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

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

Show this post to your psychologists.

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 12:01:51 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 6:15:25 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:39:40 PM UTC-8, Beeper wrote:
> > > On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > How so? Please provide citation to a credible source supporting your
> > > claims that documents the original projected budget and expected
> > > delivery/launch date.
> >
> > Yes, that is a lie. Actually it was 20x over budget and 22 years late.
> Except that the initial budget wasn't expected to anything more than an initial estimate, and the projected launch date was much the same.
>
> It was a technically demanding project, and nobody who understood what was going on would have seen either number as anything more than a plausible low end estimate of what might happen if the design process went unusually smoothly.

All you are saying is that I am right.

> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope
> >
> > "Development began in 1996 for a launch that was initially planned for 2007 with a US$500 million budget.[21] There were many delays and cost overruns, including a major redesign in 2005,[22] a ripped sunshield during a practice deployment, a recommendation from an independent review board, the COVID-19 pandemic,[23][24][25] issues with the Ariane 5 rocket[26] and the telescope itself, and communications issues between the telescope and the launch vehicle.[27] The high-stakes nature of the launch, which is the planned backbone of the next generation of research in its[clarification needed] fields, and the telescope's required complexity, was remarked upon by the media, and commented on by scientists and engineers.[28][29]
> >
> > Construction was completed in late 2016, when an extensive testing phase began.[30][31] JWST was launched 12:20 UTC 25 December 2021[32] by an Ariane 5 launch vehicle from Kourou, French Guiana and was released from the upper stage 27 minutes later.[33]"
>
> <https://www.geekwire.com/2021/high-cost-high-risk-high-hopes-theres-a-lot-riding-on-the-10b-james-webb-space-telescopes-launch/>
> Geekwire is an odd source for that kind of information. Google tends to offer NASA sources first. Presumably Flyguy liked the "deepest tragedy" line, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that it's total nonsense.

And SNIPPERMAN provides no sources WHATSOEVER. Presumably, he expects us to just accept everything he writes w/o question (even though he has been proven WRONG on so many issues!).
>
> --
> SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:34:57 AM UTC-8, whit3rd wrote:
> On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 11:15:25 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:39:40 PM UTC-8, Beeper wrote:
> > > On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>
> > > > 10x over budget and 20 years late.
>
> > > How so? Please provide citation to a credible source supporting your
> > > claims that documents the original projected budget and expected
> > > delivery/launch date.
>
> > Yes, that is a lie. Actually it was 20x over budget and 22 years late.
> Not true.
>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope
> >
> > "Development began in 1996 for a launch that was initially planned for 2007 with a US$500 million budget.[21] There were many delays and cost overruns, including a major redesign in 2005...
>
> It's not the same project that was discussed in the initial plan. That's what 'major redesign' means.

You are just providing an excuse for WHY it was over-budget, and not refuting the fact that it IS over-budget.
>
> So, finished in 2021 instead of 2007: that's not '22 years late', at all. 2021 - 2007 = 14 years
>
> It also was never planned to launch the Webb in 2007; the space telescope design was under review until 2010, and
> only then did they know what to build and test. The 1996 project schedule wasn't the guide for this work.
>
> Readiness to launch after build-and-test was about a year over first scheduled.

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

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 11:36:38 AM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:34:57 AM UTC-8, whit3rd wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 11:15:25 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:

> > > "Development began in 1996 for a launch that was initially planned for 2007 with a US$500 million budget.[21] There were many delays and cost overruns, including a major redesign in 2005...
> >
> > It's not the same project that was discussed in the initial plan. That's what 'major redesign' means.
> You are just providing an excuse for WHY it was over-budget, and not refuting the fact that it IS over-budget.

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

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

On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 6:36:38 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:34:57 AM UTC-8, whit3rd wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 11:15:25 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:39:40 PM UTC-8, Beeper wrote:
> > > > On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> >
> > > > > 10x over budget and 20 years late.
> >
> > > > How so? Please provide citation to a credible source supporting your
> > > > claims that documents the original projected budget and expected
> > > > delivery/launch date.
> >
> > > Yes, that is a lie. Actually it was 20x over budget and 22 years late..
> > Not true.
> >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope
> > >
> > > "Development began in 1996 for a launch that was initially planned for 2007 with a US$500 million budget.[21] There were many delays and cost overruns, including a major redesign in 2005...
> >
> > It's not the same project that was discussed in the initial plan. That's what 'major redesign' means.
>
> You are just providing an excuse for WHY it was over-budget, and not refuting the fact that it IS over-budget.

That's just you being simple minded about what the word "budget" meant in that context, Big and complicated projects that push the technology don't "budgets" in the same sense as a project like putting a pergola in your garden where every aspect of the project is predictable (except your desire to change it in mid-project).
> >
> > So, finished in 2021 instead of 2007: that's not '22 years late', at all. 2021 - 2007 = 14 years
> >
> > It also was never planned to launch the Webb in 2007; the space telescope design was under review until 2010, and
> > only then did they know what to build and test. The 1996 project schedule wasn't the guide for this work.
> >
> > Readiness to launch after build-and-test was about a year over first scheduled.
>
> Again, you are just arguing what the launch date was. Big projects like the Webb are sold to Congress by low-balling cost and time estimates, and then coming back hat-in-hand begging them for more money later.

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

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

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

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

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

> On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 5:16:30 PM UTC-5, Clifford Heath
> wrote:
>> On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
>> > Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was space
>> > with nothing in it (not helped by popular science programmes
>> > showing an explosion) as opposed to nothing at all - ie no
>> > spacetime.
>> "prior to the Big Bang" - if there was no time, how can the word
>> "prior"
>
>> even be well-defined?
>
> For that matter, how can a question of the beginning of the
> universe not be a category error? The universe is existence
> itself, how can existence have a beginning or an end?
>
> As to the nature of time at the "origin" of existence... what
> happens to time as nature is extrapolated back to the origin of
> existence? Does time fade away or cease to exist all at once at
> the moment of the singularity? Is the existence of time a step
> function or a continuous function or simply undefined at t=0?
>

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

A lot of semantics stirred in.

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

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

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

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

> On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:08:22 PM UTC-5, corvid wrote:
>> On 1/13/22 14:16, Clifford Heath wrote:
>> > On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
>> >> Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was space
>> >> with nothing in it (not helped by popular science programmes
>> >> showing an explosion) as opposed to nothing at all - ie no
>> >> spacetime.
>> >
>> > "prior to the Big Bang" - if there was no time, how can the
>> > word "prior" even be well-defined?
>> >
>> > CH
>> The Big Bang didn't occur earlier, or later, than it did, so
>> there had to be time already in place.
>
> No, there is no basis for assuming that time existed before the
> origin point.

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

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

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:a1f619c6-a968-4964-84c9-e162c6be455dn@googlegroups.com:

> On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 11:15:25 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
>> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:39:40 PM UTC-8, Beeper wrote:
>> > On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> > > 10x over budget and 20 years late.
>
>> > How so? Please provide citation to a credible source supporting
>> > your claims that documents the original projected budget and
>> > expected delivery/launch date.
>
>> Yes, that is a lie. Actually it was 20x over budget and 22 years
>> late.
>
> Not true.
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope
>>
>> "Development began in 1996 for a launch that was initially
>> planned for 2007 with a US$500 million budget.[21] There were
>> many delays and cost overruns, including a major redesign in
>> 2005...
>
> It's not the same project that was discussed in the initial plan.
> That's what 'major redesign' means.
>
> So, finished in 2021 instead of 2007: that's not '22 years late',
> at all. 2021 - 2007 = 14 years
>
> It also was never planned to launch the Webb in 2007; the space
> telescope design was under review until 2010, and only then did
> they know what to build and test. The 1996 project schedule
> wasn't the guide for this work.
>
> Readiness to launch after build-and-test was about a year over
> first scheduled.

Spot on for you as usual.

On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 12:14:56 AM UTC-5, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:e35ab370-8b51-4e65...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:08:22 PM UTC-5, corvid wrote:
> >> On 1/13/22 14:16, Clifford Heath wrote:
> >> > On 13/1/22 8:02 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
> >> >> Most people imagine that prior to the Big Bang there was space
> >> >> with nothing in it (not helped by popular science programmes
> >> >> showing an explosion) as opposed to nothing at all - ie no
> >> >> spacetime.
> >> >
> >> > "prior to the Big Bang" - if there was no time, how can the
> >> > word "prior" even be well-defined?
> >> >
> >> > CH
> >> The Big Bang didn't occur earlier, or later, than it did, so
> >> there had to be time already in place.
> >
> > No, there is no basis for assuming that time existed before the
> > origin point.
> If there was a 'singularity' 'point' That instantaneously
> 'exploded' into our universe bubble and then matter formed in it and
> so on, what chain of events occurred that caused the point to decide
> to burst open to start with? Even if after that point that one could
> say time started. What happened a split second prior to it bursting?
> Was there a causation effect or stimulus from an even larger already
> existing universe in which we were all expanded into? Like a bubble
> inside or suspended in a bigger medium.
>
> If there is an end out there, what is on the other side of that
> 'end' barrier? Maybe the whole universe is a giant congealed ball of
> jello and OUR little tiny Universe bubble is a spec inside it is like
> a little air bubble in a big ball full of them, all frozen in their
> places never to know about any other. Barely able to examine their
> own bubble, which to them is practically infinitely vast and all
> there is. And we are merely tiny dust particles amid that bubble
> which were allowed to sit up and talk, and make mudballs and look at
> the sky at night and contemplate the cosmos and the number 42. We
> are so insignificant in any scheme of things. God looked upon our
> mudballs and looking tubes, and said that we were a noble
> experiment... that failed.

More category mistakes. Personally I think there are many questions that science is ill equipped to answer and in fact are simply invalid questions for science. The existence of God is one of those issues. Different domains, so scientific questions do not apply. What existed before the universe is another category error which some people can't understand *is* an error because they continue to think too linearly. Who says the universe or time has to be infinite in all directions. It literally makes no sense scientifically to think about the universe or anything we know prior to the universe existing. Where the universe came from, what existed prior to the universe existing is not a scientific question and science is not equipped to help us understand these questions, much less the answers.

Here is an analogy. A friend has macular degeneration with large areas of no vision. When you ask what he sees, he doesn't see "black" or anything else. It's just a region of which he is not aware where objects simply vanish from his view. It's like an object that moves behind your head. You don't sense "blackness" behind your field of view. It simply is not for you to see. My friend has this in the middle of his field of view. No hole, no black spot, things just disappear without any indication of there being a hole. Asking what he sees in that area is a category mistake.

--

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:149eddfb-ffa0-
4f35-b8cf-4b0caa21813en@googlegroups.com:

> More category mistakes.

Yes. As in you are not in the category folks agree to refer to as
"scientist".

Goddamn. Get off it, boy.