Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #433880 > unrolled thread
| Started by | gray_wolf <g_wolf@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-04 13:04 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-11-05 11:07 -0500 |
| Articles | 17 on this page of 97 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
NASA’s most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) gray_wolf <g_wolf@nospam.com> - 2016-11-04 13:04 -0500
Re: NASA’s most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-04 20:23 +0000
Re: NASAs most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2016-11-04 18:24 -0400
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2016-11-05 11:34 -0400
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 09:51 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-08 14:59 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2016-11-09 02:33 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-09 18:03 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 08:08 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 09:29 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-10 10:03 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 10:27 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-10 03:54 -0800
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-10 14:23 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 14:41 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-10 16:06 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 12:53 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 13:40 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 19:24 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 19:33 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2016-11-11 13:23 +0100
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 17:12 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 12:48 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-11 18:17 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-11 13:20 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-11-11 13:29 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2016-11-12 01:57 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 11:26 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-11 18:41 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-11-11 13:42 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:33 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2016-11-12 14:21 -0600
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:38 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Phil Hobbs <pcdhobbs@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:52 -0800
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:49 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-11 17:59 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-12 09:05 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 09:41 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-12 14:57 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 10:03 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2016-11-12 18:46 +0100
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2016-11-12 13:46 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 19:30 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2016-11-13 00:56 +0100
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 17:19 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 22:44 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 18:47 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 08:29 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-11-13 12:00 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 18:29 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-11-13 13:52 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 19:22 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 19:36 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-15 00:47 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2016-11-15 04:47 +0100
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-13 18:06 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 23:53 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-13 19:59 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:53 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 08:31 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-13 09:25 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-13 17:29 -0800
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 17:36 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-15 00:08 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 08:49 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2016-11-13 01:10 +0100
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 19:47 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-12 17:56 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 17:20 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-11-13 00:50 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 20:06 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-11-13 01:50 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-13 18:08 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-13 17:34 -0800
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-12 18:44 -0800
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-13 09:20 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-13 18:09 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-14 08:44 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 09:36 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-14 12:21 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2016-11-14 16:55 -0800
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2016-11-12 13:44 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2016-11-13 09:00 +1100
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-12 17:21 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2016-11-13 10:46 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-13 18:10 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:55 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:29 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-11-12 20:15 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:26 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-11-10 13:02 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 17:49 +0000
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) krw <krw@somewhere.com> - 2016-11-11 13:00 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:36 -0500
Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 19:34 +0000
Re: NASA’s most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 09:16 +0000
Re: NASA’s most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) gray_wolf <g_wolf@nospam.com> - 2016-11-05 11:07 -0500
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 16:55 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <e5fd0d59-8a90-4d53-9cb5-7d9bc625bfe3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #435559 |
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 4:24:20 AM UTC+11, krw wrote: > On 14 Nov 2016 08:44:31 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: > > >krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: > >> On 13 Nov 2016 09:20:42 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: > >> > >>>krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: > >>>>>I do not hate the religious, I just consider them naive and sometimes dumb. > >>>> > >>>> No, you hate. You think them to be sub-human. Militant atheists are > >>> > >>>I know that religious people can only hate other people that think > >>>differently, but that does not mean those other people do that too. > >> > >> You're cracked, too. You don't even make any sense. > > > >You are so locked into your religious bullshit that you cannot even > >understand how other people think about it. But that does not mean > >that other people hate you. Hate is what is in the religious books. > > You haven't been right yet. There's no reason anyone should believe > you're going to start anytime soon. By "being right" krw means "agreeing with krw". -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 13:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <o07o3j$ca8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #434981 |
krw wrote: > On 11 Nov 2016 18:41:05 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: > >> But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific >> explanation of something that was previously attributed "to God", it >> turned out that that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now >> suggests that given enough time, there will be an explanation for >> everything and all the previously written religious explanations >> will be disproven. > > OK, when will science answer the question "Why?"? What does "why" mean in science? There has to be a precise logical definition. Usually "why" is a question of cause and effect, and science says that cause precedes effect, but when I do something to reach a goal then the cause is in the future. Yes, that depends on how you define the cause. If the cause is defined in terms of cause and effect in temporal sequence, then science already addresses that. So if there's another "why" that science doesn't address then it has to be defined. Is it about "what is the goal"? Then why should we think there is a goal?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 09:00 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <58279103$0$7232$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #435157 |
On 13/11/16 05:44, Tom Del Rosso wrote: > krw wrote: >> On 11 Nov 2016 18:41:05 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >> >>> But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific >>> explanation of something that was previously attributed "to God", it >>> turned out that that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now >>> suggests that given enough time, there will be an explanation for >>> everything and all the previously written religious explanations >>> will be disproven. >> >> OK, when will science answer the question "Why?"? > > What does "why" mean in science? There has to be a precise logical > definition. Usually "why" is a question of cause and effect, and > science says that cause precedes effect, but when I do something to > reach a goal then the cause is in the future. Yes, that depends on how > you define the cause. If the cause is defined in terms of cause and > effect in temporal sequence, then science already addresses that. So if > there's another "why" that science doesn't address then it has to be > defined. Is it about "what is the goal"? Then why should we think > there is a goal? Its worse than that. A goal requires a goal-setter. Why should we think that there is a goal-setter?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@somewhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 17:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <oe5f2cp4husikejp1osl2or6rm4soh7upb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #435157 |
On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:44:17 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote: >krw wrote: >> On 11 Nov 2016 18:41:05 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >> >>> But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific >>> explanation of something that was previously attributed "to God", it >>> turned out that that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now >>> suggests that given enough time, there will be an explanation for >>> everything and all the previously written religious explanations >>> will be disproven. >> >> OK, when will science answer the question "Why?"? > >What does "why" mean in science? That's *exactly* the point. Science and religion have nothing to do with each other. >There has to be a precise logical >definition. Usually "why" is a question of cause and effect, and >science says that cause precedes effect, but when I do something to >reach a goal then the cause is in the future. Yes, that depends on how >you define the cause. If the cause is defined in terms of cause and >effect in temporal sequence, then science already addresses that. So if >there's another "why" that science doesn't address then it has to be >defined. Is it about "what is the goal"? Then why should we think >there is a goal? > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 10:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <MPG.329254e0af4097dc989f8c@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #435213 |
In article <oe5f2cp4husikejp1osl2or6rm4soh7upb@4ax.com>, krw@somewhere.com says... > > On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:44:17 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso" > <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote: > > >krw wrote: > >> On 11 Nov 2016 18:41:05 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: > >> > >>> But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific > >>> explanation of something that was previously attributed "to God", it > >>> turned out that that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now > >>> suggests that given enough time, there will be an explanation for > >>> everything and all the previously written religious explanations > >>> will be disproven. > >> > >> OK, when will science answer the question "Why?"? > > > >What does "why" mean in science? > > That's *exactly* the point. Science and religion have nothing to do > with each other. > I don't know about that, I find myself telling GOD to Damn it when something does not work as expected! Jamie
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@somewhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 18:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <flsh2ctbcfn343f6kvl738hblb5n9rmluh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #435343 |
On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 10:46:26 -0500, M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> wrote: >In article <oe5f2cp4husikejp1osl2or6rm4soh7upb@4ax.com>, >krw@somewhere.com says... >> >> On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:44:17 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso" >> <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote: >> >> >krw wrote: >> >> On 11 Nov 2016 18:41:05 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific >> >>> explanation of something that was previously attributed "to God", it >> >>> turned out that that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now >> >>> suggests that given enough time, there will be an explanation for >> >>> everything and all the previously written religious explanations >> >>> will be disproven. >> >> >> >> OK, when will science answer the question "Why?"? >> > >> >What does "why" mean in science? >> >> That's *exactly* the point. Science and religion have nothing to do >> with each other. >> > I don't know about that, I find myself telling GOD to Damn it when >something does not work as expected! Well, there is that. ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 22:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <o08o68$a17$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #435157 |
On 11/12/2016 1:44 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote: > krw wrote: >> On 11 Nov 2016 18:41:05 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote: >> >>> But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific >>> explanation of something that was previously attributed "to God", it >>> turned out that that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now >>> suggests that given enough time, there will be an explanation for >>> everything and all the previously written religious explanations >>> will be disproven. >> >> OK, when will science answer the question "Why?"? > > What does "why" mean in science? There has to be a precise logical > definition. Usually "why" is a question of cause and effect, and > science says that cause precedes effect, but when I do something to > reach a goal then the cause is in the future. Yes, that depends on how > you define the cause. If the cause is defined in terms of cause and > effect in temporal sequence, then science already addresses that. So if > there's another "why" that science doesn't address then it has to be > defined. Is it about "what is the goal"? Then why should we think > there is a goal? The cause is not in the future. The cause is in your present desire to impact the future. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 13:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <o07n0n$731$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #434897 |
On 11/11/2016 1:41 PM, Rob wrote: > krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>> No, they are not all equivalent. Religion in particular can not be >>>> proven or disproven. It is constructed to be so, but that does not make >>>> it "bizarre". >>> >>> Of course a good scientist tries to find a theory that is as minimalistic >>> as possible to explain the observed facts. >>> Having a book of extra theory that does not contribute to proof is not >>> what a good scientist should strive for. >> >> The problem with your theory is that "science" doesn't, and can't, >> explain everything. It can only reveal one level of the onion at a >> time. > > But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific explanation > of something that was previously attributed "to God", it turned out that > that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now suggests that given > enough time, there will be an explanation for everything and all the > previously written religious explanations will be disproven. > > In the meantime, of course people still believe otherwise. That conclusion does not follow. If you drive west and you keep finding road, does that mean you will never drive into the Pacific ocean? By definition science can only describe things that can be either controlled for experimentation or observed under many conditions sufficient to cover the theory you are testing. Many things in life do not fit that mold. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob <nomail@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 20:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <slrno2eu3m.47u.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #435146 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/11/2016 1:41 PM, Rob wrote: >> krw <krw@somewhere.com> wrote: >>>>> No, they are not all equivalent. Religion in particular can not be >>>>> proven or disproven. It is constructed to be so, but that does not make >>>>> it "bizarre". >>>> >>>> Of course a good scientist tries to find a theory that is as minimalistic >>>> as possible to explain the observed facts. >>>> Having a book of extra theory that does not contribute to proof is not >>>> what a good scientist should strive for. >>> >>> The problem with your theory is that "science" doesn't, and can't, >>> explain everything. It can only reveal one level of the onion at a >>> time. >> >> But in the past, every time when a scientist found a scientific explanation >> of something that was previously attributed "to God", it turned out that >> that attribution was wrong. Everything up to now suggests that given >> enough time, there will be an explanation for everything and all the >> previously written religious explanations will be disproven. >> >> In the meantime, of course people still believe otherwise. > > That conclusion does not follow. If you drive west and you keep finding > road, does that mean you will never drive into the Pacific ocean? > > By definition science can only describe things that can be either > controlled for experimentation or observed under many conditions > sufficient to cover the theory you are testing. Many things in life do > not fit that mold. That is fine with me, but I want to judge those situations myself and not leave it to what some desert nomades wrote about it thousands of years ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 13:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <o07mr1$731$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #434890 |
On 11/11/2016 1:17 PM, Rob wrote: > rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/11/2016 7:23 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote: >>> On 2016-11-11 01:33, rickman wrote: >>>> On 11/10/2016 2:24 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>>>> On 10/11/16 18:40, rickman wrote: >>>>>> On 11/10/2016 4:29 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/11/16 08:08, Martin Brown wrote: >>>>>>>> You have just elected a deranged conspiracy theorist Trump who will >>>>>>>> likely have >>>>>>>> US history rewritten to say NASA did not go to the moon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have a distant relative married to a Russian woman. >>>>>>> The woman's mother worked closely with Putin in the >>>>>>> KGB and successors. Clearly neither can be dismissed >>>>>>> as yokels. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The woman and her mother are resolute that the US >>>>>>> didn't go to the moon, and that it is a US media >>>>>>> conspiracy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your second paragraph contradicts the first... >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately not! >>>>> >>>>> Otherwise intelligent people can have bizarre beliefs; >>>>> I offer this usenet group as a proof of that :) >>>> >>>> "Otherwise"??? If you have a PhD in astrophysics and yet believe the >>>> moon is made of green cheese, I think that says something about your >>>> "otherwise" credentials. >>>> >>> >>> You postulating a ridiculous example doesn't make the >>> original statement false. I knew a capable engineer >>> who believed in astrology. Many scientists are religious. >>> Astrophysicists believe everything originated in a >>> tremendous explosion of nothing. Physicists believe >>> cats can be dead and alive at the same time. Bizarre >>> beliefs, every one of them. >> >> No, they are not all equivalent. Religion in particular can not be >> proven or disproven. It is constructed to be so, but that does not make >> it "bizarre". > > Of course a good scientist tries to find a theory that is as minimalistic > as possible to explain the observed facts. > Having a book of extra theory that does not contribute to proof is not > what a good scientist should strive for. Acknowledging there is a part of life that is not described well by science does not make one's beliefs "bizarre". Science is science and life is life. If you apply science to *every* aspect of life you are going to miss a lot. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 13:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <lgd92chb0tu9diqkf0c4q3k5okuq82635l@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #434651 |
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 08:08:25 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 09/11/2016 23:03, krw wrote: >> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 02:33:52 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso" >> <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote: >> >>> Martin Brown wrote: >>>> On 05/11/2016 15:34, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You could already see the footprints around the lander bases from >>>>> ground-based telescopes even before adaptive optics. >>>> >>>> That is complete nonsense. You can't even see the lunar landers from >>>> Earth. The resolution limits for ground based observations of the moon >>>> with the largest instruments are worse than for any other solar system >>>> object since they cannot track it well. The Moon is in orbit around >>>> the Earth and as such is a nuisance to track. >>> >>> You're right. I've seen pictures of the landing sites but those were >>> taken from moon orbit. I must have been thinking of other images. The >>> point is the same though. >> >> Come on! Everyone knows that those were taken in the Nevada desert. > >Don't joke about it! > >You have just elected a deranged conspiracy theorist Trump who will >likely have US history rewritten to say NASA did not go to the moon. Why not? You're joking about Trump.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 17:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <o050aq$1p4d$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #434717 |
On 10/11/2016 18:02, krw wrote: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 08:08:25 +0000, Martin Brown > <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 09/11/2016 23:03, krw wrote: >>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 02:33:52 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso" >>> <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Martin Brown wrote: >>>>> On 05/11/2016 15:34, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> You could already see the footprints around the lander bases from >>>>>> ground-based telescopes even before adaptive optics. >>>>> >>>>> That is complete nonsense. You can't even see the lunar landers from >>>>> Earth. The resolution limits for ground based observations of the moon >>>>> with the largest instruments are worse than for any other solar system >>>>> object since they cannot track it well. The Moon is in orbit around >>>>> the Earth and as such is a nuisance to track. >>>> >>>> You're right. I've seen pictures of the landing sites but those were >>>> taken from moon orbit. I must have been thinking of other images. The >>>> point is the same though. >>> >>> Come on! Everyone knows that those were taken in the Nevada desert. >> >> Don't joke about it! >> >> You have just elected a deranged conspiracy theorist Trump who will >> likely have US history rewritten to say NASA did not go to the moon. > > Why not? You're joking about Trump. Trump is a joke. As you will find out soon enough. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw <krw@somewhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 13:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <lp1c2clcim587brclpf0rm9olgcjfuqmlf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #434880 |
On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 17:49:15 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 10/11/2016 18:02, krw wrote: >> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 08:08:25 +0000, Martin Brown >> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 09/11/2016 23:03, krw wrote: >>>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 02:33:52 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso" >>>> <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Martin Brown wrote: >>>>>> On 05/11/2016 15:34, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You could already see the footprints around the lander bases from >>>>>>> ground-based telescopes even before adaptive optics. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is complete nonsense. You can't even see the lunar landers from >>>>>> Earth. The resolution limits for ground based observations of the moon >>>>>> with the largest instruments are worse than for any other solar system >>>>>> object since they cannot track it well. The Moon is in orbit around >>>>>> the Earth and as such is a nuisance to track. >>>>> >>>>> You're right. I've seen pictures of the landing sites but those were >>>>> taken from moon orbit. I must have been thinking of other images. The >>>>> point is the same though. >>>> >>>> Come on! Everyone knows that those were taken in the Nevada desert. >>> >>> Don't joke about it! >>> >>> You have just elected a deranged conspiracy theorist Trump who will >>> likely have US history rewritten to say NASA did not go to the moon. >> >> Why not? You're joking about Trump. > >Trump is a joke. As you will find out soon enough. Oh, wise one. What stock should I buy today?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 13:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <o07ndl$9a1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #434880 |
On 11/11/2016 12:49 PM, Martin Brown wrote: > On 10/11/2016 18:02, krw wrote: >> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 08:08:25 +0000, Martin Brown >> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 09/11/2016 23:03, krw wrote: >>>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 02:33:52 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso" >>>> <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Martin Brown wrote: >>>>>> On 05/11/2016 15:34, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You could already see the footprints around the lander bases from >>>>>>> ground-based telescopes even before adaptive optics. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is complete nonsense. You can't even see the lunar landers from >>>>>> Earth. The resolution limits for ground based observations of the >>>>>> moon >>>>>> with the largest instruments are worse than for any other solar >>>>>> system >>>>>> object since they cannot track it well. The Moon is in orbit around >>>>>> the Earth and as such is a nuisance to track. >>>>> >>>>> You're right. I've seen pictures of the landing sites but those were >>>>> taken from moon orbit. I must have been thinking of other images. >>>>> The >>>>> point is the same though. >>>> >>>> Come on! Everyone knows that those were taken in the Nevada desert. >>> >>> Don't joke about it! >>> >>> You have just elected a deranged conspiracy theorist Trump who will >>> likely have US history rewritten to say NASA did not go to the moon. >> >> Why not? You're joking about Trump. > > Trump is a joke. As you will find out soon enough. We will see. He may well be the biggest practical joke ever promulgated on the US citizens. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 19:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NASA's most advanced telescope complete after 20 years (PHOTO) |
| Message-ID | <C9KVz.122474$ha2.50886@fx46.am4> |
| In reply to | #435151 |
On 12/11/16 18:36, rickman wrote: > On 11/11/2016 12:49 PM, Martin Brown wrote: >> Trump is a joke. As you will find out soon enough. > > We will see. He may well be the biggest practical joke ever promulgated on the > US citizens. Well, these http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37956018 should provide amusement for a few years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-05 09:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvk817$hrj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #433880 |
On 04/11/2016 18:04, gray_wolf wrote: > https://www.rt.com/usa/365330-webb-space-telescope-nasa/ > > "Its resolution is so high that Mather says it would be able to spot a > bumblebee at a distance from Earth to the Moon, and could pick up the > bee’s body heat as well." It's a misleading publicity statement or a misquote. The resolution challenge is always to separate two closely spaced point sources. I suspect the moon might be a bit on the warm side for seeing a bumblebee - which itself would be having problems of its own. You can see stars with your own eyes. None of them subtend an angle on the sky bigger than 10mas but you still see them on signal to noise. > Is this really possible? Assuming that the bumble bee is 5/8 inch and > the moon 238,900 miles away. I come up with 2.37470968851E-06 deg = 0° > 0' 0.01" DMG > My best guess its resolution is 1/10 that resolution is 1.22lambda/D Telescope mirror 6.5m across operating in NIR 1-5um so ~5x10^-7 radians ~ 0.1" arc operating in thermal 5-30um band ~3x10^-6 rad ~ 0.9" (taking resolution at mid band approx back of envelope) The latter resolution is broadly comparable with the typical resolution of a ground based optical scope without AO on a good night. It will yield a lot of interesting stuff since it is a new band to explore in high resolution and these wavelengths let you see into star formation. -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gray_wolf <g_wolf@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-05 11:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <NsnTz.29568$3J2.5095@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #433954 |
On 11/5/2016 4:16 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 04/11/2016 18:04, gray_wolf wrote:
>> https://www.rt.com/usa/365330-webb-space-telescope-nasa/
>>
>> "Its resolution is so high that Mather says it would be able to spot a
>> bumblebee at a distance from Earth to the Moon, and could pick up the
>> bee’s body heat as well."
>
> It's a misleading publicity statement or a misquote. The resolution challenge is
> always to separate two closely spaced point sources.
>
> I suspect the moon might be a bit on the warm side for seeing a bumblebee -
> which itself would be having problems of its own.
>
> You can see stars with your own eyes. None of them subtend an angle on the sky
> bigger than 10mas but you still see them on signal to noise.
>
>> Is this really possible? Assuming that the bumble bee is 5/8 inch and
>> the moon 238,900 miles away. I come up with 2.37470968851E-06 deg = 0°
>> 0' 0.01" DMG
>> My best guess its resolution is 1/10 that
>
> resolution is 1.22lambda/D
>
> Telescope mirror 6.5m across
>
> operating in NIR 1-5um so ~5x10^-7 radians ~ 0.1" arc
>
> operating in thermal 5-30um band ~3x10^-6 rad ~ 0.9"
>
> (taking resolution at mid band approx back of envelope)
>
> The latter resolution is broadly comparable with the typical resolution of a
> ground based optical scope without AO on a good night. It will yield a lot of
> interesting stuff since it is a new band to explore in high resolution and these
> wavelengths let you see into star formation.
Thanks for the reply. I didn't realize I had forgotten so much.
4
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web