The arsehole John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> persisting in being an Off-topic troll... -- John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:> Path: not-for-mail > NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 15:43:06 +0000 > From: John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > Subject: Re: moon race > Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 07:42:39 -0800 > Organization: Highland Tech > Reply-To: xx@yy.com > Message-ID: <0hp9li5qvuutioq03li9d7c78licq4phl8@4ax.com> > References: <rak4lipre2a8p4ifagehq2o894ebaakok3@4ax.com> <dfb44dbe-dc95-421f-a74d-e4f88e7ef6a5n@googlegroups.com> <u5n4li11gpbgskqobfr6vpm2hl2jmc2s5n@4ax.com> <uiv20u$1g4i2$1@solani.org> <nh47li5varc5qv835u57jt3bgr0fgu7l7s@4ax.com> <uj1n87$1hgrs$1@solani.org> > X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Lines: 61 > X-Trace: sv3-MnXXXNSVK9uFN1lGAwFI87mGWKD86nxhyKUIcVoyGTCWPf9PWFO9iUzTyfuqT+Y2yLN8X3z9YIeRYv/!Kw/5SsrwIZtGNld0vbidJR1qXCW11dhTnbj0xlJmq0ddGEt2eRRzqLD357EVlYjAO0/2Xk8pScO2!lrXsIQ== > X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html > X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html > X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers > X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly > X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 > X-Received-Bytes: 3930
moon race
Started by ●November 13, 2023
Reply by ●November 15, 20232023-11-15
Reply by ●November 15, 20232023-11-15
On 11/15/2023 10:01 AM, whit3rd wrote:> Nonsense; thermodynamics was what the steam tables were all about, > the whole point of science is to have a good grasp of reality even when > the apparatus isn't yet built. You cannot call engines an inspiration of knowledge > and deny that knowledge inspires invention.It isn't always that there is some theoretical basis *missing* but, rather, that it may not seem necessary. Rules of thumb are wonderful in that they codify knowledge that may not have a known basis in theory. [We're bombarded by all sorts of recommendations about diet, lifestyle, exposure to toxin, etc. -- yet there's no provable theory behind most of these things... just observation. Of course, no one is foolish to think that there *isn't* a rational basis for them -- we just haven't discovered it AND the "rules of thumb" work sufficiently well (without having to sequence everyone's DNA to determine *if* you should worry about X, Y or Z)] How did the ancients decide that tracking the solstices was An Important Thing -- worthy of elaborate constructions for just that purpose? Folks, here, use evaporative coolers. But, "know" that the cooler only works in dry weather AND they can only expect about a 30 degree temperature differential. So, if it's raining/humid, you won't want to even turn the thing on. And, if it is 115 outside and 75 degrees *inside*, you most definitely don't want to turn it on as it will HEAT your house instead of provide cooling. All can be explained in theory. Why aren't the controls for these devices smart enough to do embody this common knowledge?
Reply by ●November 15, 20232023-11-15
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:01:06 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:>On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:29:10?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote: >> On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 09:46:24 +0000, Martin Brown >> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote: > >> >Science invents and discovers new things that have no apparent >> >usefulness at the time of their discovery. It is usually a few decades >> >before industry even gets remotely interested in such breakthroughs. > > >> People built structures and water systems before there was any >> corresponding science. > >That's not clear. The "corresponding science" may just not have been >written down; language arts and writing are recent compared to >structures and water systems as we know them from archaeology. > >> Basic concepts of sanitation and medical >> hygiene preceded knowledge of bacteria and viruses. > >That just means we've got a few steps farther in our understanding >those things, not that 'science' wasn't present in the early concepts. > >> We had eyeglasses >> and telescopes before there was any theory of optics. > >Huh? "any theory" cannot have been absent for producing telescopes, though >the optical design of those early years may not have been the rich field of knowledge >that optics later became. > >>Franklin and Ohm >> and Edison and DeForest invented electronics before anyone understood >> the physics. > >They were early researchers, in a sense; obviously "the physics" was what Franklin >and Ohm were researching. They didn't precede it, they led it. > >>Steam engines inspired thermodynamics, not the reverse. > >Nonsense; thermodynamics was what the steam tables were all about,Newcomen had steam tables?>the whole point of science is to have a good grasp of reality even when >the apparatus isn't yet built. You cannot call engines an inspiration of knowledge >and deny that knowledge inspires invention. > >> It's hard to think of a case where science preceded invention, ... > >They both arise from confusion, which is apparently where John Larkin is dwelling.You seem to be saying that midievil cathedral builders and Newcomen and Edison and DeForest were scientists. OK, that's your definition. I guess that you consider that Julia Child was a scientist. And Col Sanders.
Reply by ●November 15, 20232023-11-15
The arsehole john larkin <jl@650pot.com> persisting in being an Off-topic troll... -- john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:> Path: not-for-mail > NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 20:06:13 +0000 > From: john larkin <jl@650pot.com> > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > Subject: Re: moon race > Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 12:06:12 -0800 > Message-ID: <qk8ali56addu9bna1iv8hcscb4nou24pii@4ax.com> > References: <rak4lipre2a8p4ifagehq2o894ebaakok3@4ax.com> <dfb44dbe-dc95-421f-a74d-e4f88e7ef6a5n@googlegroups.com> <u5n4li11gpbgskqobfr6vpm2hl2jmc2s5n@4ax.com> <67a5b770-9808-45ba-95d1-4410d6a0f706n@googlegroups.com> <6ea5li9jd5v2klac279m4499ocbrfh304t@4ax.com> <uivflg$16958$1@dont-email.me> <u937lipvrvsfuhue2lr5h48558spk4o3v5@4ax.com> <dd5a55aa-050a-4664-a19b-56bd2149f477n@googlegroups.com> > User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Lines: 61 > X-Trace: sv3-40YHZlm4fyNa26E3gCD4abdNqrG0wL1hyMWP7XMmj58a2XdsZ+rb82lQBzLUcRZ5cP+O4KewXf58lPk!BT/5G2oaoVIsV/V183IgSDh1W37lUebnNIWitEWsQNYDUQ0zWOIpihl9GEt5Ud2Y2IfYub+aD7PU!blALdQ== > X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html > X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html > X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers > X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly > X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 > Bytes: 3699 > X-Received-Bytes: 3899
Reply by ●November 15, 20232023-11-15
The idiot Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> persisting in being an Off-topic troll... -- Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:> Path: not-for-mail > From: Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > Subject: Re: moon race > Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 12:04:05 -0700 > Organization: A noiseless patient Spider > Lines: 35 > Message-ID: <uj34nc$1rrht$3@dont-email.me> > References: <rak4lipre2a8p4ifagehq2o894ebaakok3@4ax.com> > <dfb44dbe-dc95-421f-a74d-e4f88e7ef6a5n@googlegroups.com> > <u5n4li11gpbgskqobfr6vpm2hl2jmc2s5n@4ax.com> > <67a5b770-9808-45ba-95d1-4410d6a0f706n@googlegroups.com> > <6ea5li9jd5v2klac279m4499ocbrfh304t@4ax.com> <uivflg$16958$1@dont-email.me> > <u937lipvrvsfuhue2lr5h48558spk4o3v5@4ax.com> > <dd5a55aa-050a-4664-a19b-56bd2149f477n@googlegroups.com> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Injection-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:04:13 -0000 (UTC) > Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d54e60bac4869010f681b4fb05599286"; > logging-data="1961533"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+yleLfWI4kAH2kDRsh6mSs" > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 > Thunderbird/102.2.2 > Cancel-Lock: sha1:1Ga98WDJrgMjZ+v4WvSntoA2ZMI= > In-Reply-To: <dd5a55aa-050a-4664-a19b-56bd2149f477n@googlegroups.com> > Content-Language: en-US > X-Received-Bytes: 3070
Reply by ●November 16, 20232023-11-16
On a sunny day (Wed, 15 Nov 2023 07:42:39 -0800) it happened John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote in <0hp9li5qvuutioq03li9d7c78licq4phl8@4ax.com>:>On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 06:08:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >wrote: > >>On a sunny day (Tue, 14 Nov 2023 07:34:38 -0800) it happened John Larkin >><jl@997PotHill.com> wrote in <nh47li5varc5qv835u57jt3bgr0fgu7l7s@4ax.com>: >> >>>On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 05:53:34 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>On a sunny day (Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:31:08 -0800) it happened John Larkin >>>><jl@997PotHill.com> wrote in <u5n4li11gpbgskqobfr6vpm2hl2jmc2s5n@4ax.com>: >>>> >>>>>On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:15:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs >>>>><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 11:45:05?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/concerns-growing-over-the-new-moon-space-race-between-china-and-the-us/ar-AA1jQ6iU >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This makes no sense to me. Who cares if China or India waste a >>>>>>> trillion dollars "establishing norms" on the moon? How many kids are >>>>>>> going hungry to bring back more boring moon dirt? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And "space" is pretty big. Nobody is going to dominate space. >>>>>> >>>>>>It's 21st century circus for the fools...both of those places are in dire need of freeing up the geniuses distracted by >>>>>>that >>>>>>waste to work on more pressing down to Earth problems, like feeding themselves. >>>>> >>>>>One argument is that spending resources on NASA equivalents bootstraps >>>>>technology in a poor country. I think they have that backwards. >>>>> >>>>>It's tragic how much North Korea spends on missiles and cannons and >>>>>nukes. >>>> >>>>US is the poorest country on the planet, >>> >>>That's silly. >>> >>>>its debt is the biggest >>> >>>As a fraction of GDP, it's not. Look it up. >>> >>>>It sells weapons to its own people and others, payed for by that debt and their tax payers. >>>>The people are poor, homelessness is extreme, people killing each other for automatic weans, >>>>they designed things like COVID, many of their products suck >>>>and are expensive, >>> >>>If you don't like american technology, don't use it. >> >>Right >>Chinese stuff is cheaper and works 99% of the time. > >So a board that uses 300 Chinese parts will work 5% of the time.You twist the facts I buy complete Chinese stuff, satellite receiver, DVB-T reeiver, several modules like GPS, motion sensors, temperature and air pressure sensors, power supply modules, radios, multimeters, wallwarts, LNBs,the list is much longer. All work Of all the separate semiconductors I have ordered only one time I got a buch that did not do what that chip number implied, got a refund. Even my drone is made in China, OLED modules too, flashlighs, UV light, SDcard reader.. just looking around... You could not make any of it for that money. TV remotes... LED srips (not sure if that is from China but I think so), hundreds of LEDs.. for your Christmas lighting..>>US men die 6 years before women, as life expectancy gap widens: > >> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/11/231114215650.htm > >Surfing and skydiving and mountain climbing and suntanning with babes >on the beach are dangerous.Yep And serving uncle Joe High lung cancer rates in naval veterans linked to asbestos: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/11/231114143823.htm
Reply by ●November 16, 20232023-11-16
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 2:43:23 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:> On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 06:08:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid> > wrote: > > >On a sunny day (Tue, 14 Nov 2023 07:34:38 -0800) it happened John Larkin > ><j...@997PotHill.com> wrote in <nh47li5varc5qv835...@4ax.com>: > > > >>On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 05:53:34 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid> > >>wrote: > >> > >>>On a sunny day (Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:31:08 -0800) it happened John Larkin > >>><j...@997PotHill.com> wrote in <u5n4li11gpbgskqob...@4ax.com>: > >>> > >>>>On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:15:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs > >>>><bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 11:45:05?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > >>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/concerns-growing-over-the-new-moon-space-race-between-china-and-the-us/ar-AA1jQ6iU > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This makes no sense to me. Who cares if China or India waste a > >>>>>> trillion dollars "establishing norms" on the moon? How many kids are > >>>>>> going hungry to bring back more boring moon dirt? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And "space" is pretty big. Nobody is going to dominate space. > >>>>> > >>>>>It's 21st century circus for the fools...both of those places are in dire need of freeing up the geniuses distracted by that > >>>>>waste to work on more pressing down to Earth problems, like feeding themselves. > >>>> > >>>>One argument is that spending resources on NASA equivalents bootstraps > >>>>technology in a poor country. I think they have that backwards. > >>>> > >>>>It's tragic how much North Korea spends on missiles and cannons and > >>>>nukes. > >>> > >>>US is the poorest country on the planet, > >> > >>That's silly. > >> > >>>its debt is the biggest > >> > >>As a fraction of GDP, it's not. Look it up. > >> > >>>It sells weapons to its own people and others, payed for by that debt and their tax payers. > >>>The people are poor, homelessness is extreme, people killing each other for automatic weans, > >>>they designed things like COVID, many of their products suck > >>>and are expensive, > >> > >>If you don't like american technology, don't use it. > > > >Right > >Chinese stuff is cheaper and works 99% of the time. > So a board that uses 300 Chinese parts will work 5% of the time. > > > >US men die 6 years before women, as life expectancy gap widens: > > > https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/11/231114215650.htm > Surfing and skydiving and mountain climbing and suntanning with babes on the beach are dangerous.Perhaps, but they don't kill as many as eating too much, drinking too much and over-dosing on opioids. https://dph.illinois.gov/topics-services/life-stages-populations/mens-health/top-10-causes-death.html -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●November 16, 20232023-11-16
On a sunny day (Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:01:06 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in <dd5a55aa-050a-4664-a19b-56bd2149f477n@googlegroups.com>:>On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:29:10 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrot= >e: >> On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 09:46:24 +0000, Martin Brown >> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote: > >> >Science invents and discovers new things that have no apparent >> >usefulness at the time of their discovery. It is usually a few decades= > >> >before industry even gets remotely interested in such breakthroughs. > > >> People built structures and water systems before there was any >> corresponding science. > >That's not clear. The "corresponding science" may just not have been >written down; language arts and writing are recent compared to >structures and water systems as we know them from archaeology. > >> Basic concepts of sanitation and medical >> hygiene preceded knowledge of bacteria and viruses. > >That just means we've got a few steps farther in our understanding >those things, not that 'science' wasn't present in the early concepts. > >> We had eyeglasses >> and telescopes before there was any theory of optics. > >Huh? "any theory" cannot have been absent for producing telescopes, thoug= >h >the optical design of those early years may not have been the rich field of= > knowledge >that optics later became. > >>Franklin and Ohm >> and Edison and DeForest invented electronics before anyone understood >> the physics. > >They were early researchers, in a sense; obviously "the physics" was what F= >ranklin >and Ohm were researching. They didn't precede it, they led it. > >>Steam engines inspired thermodynamics, not the reverse. > >Nonsense; thermodynamics was what the steam tables were all about, >the whole point of science is to have a good grasp of reality even when >the apparatus isn't yet built. You cannot call engines an inspiration of = >knowledge >and deny that knowledge inspires invention. > >> It's hard to think of a case where science preceded invention, ... > >They both arise from confusion, which is apparently where John Larkin is dw= >elling.You sound like some other script that used to run here John is right All starts with 'observation' when the guy observed the kettle lid pushing up he decided to make it turn a wheel. When some guy used electrickety on a frog leg... Gun powder .. Then models were made, mamamatical equations were made to APPROXIMATE what was observed, so you could sort of scale things or predict things. The models were modified over time as more was found out about what was really happening. This is all still going on. Unfortunately many (like Albert E. parrots) take those mamamatical equations for reality, and they cannot see... Becomes their religion so to speak.
Reply by ●November 16, 20232023-11-16
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:18:59 PM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:> On a sunny day (Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:01:06 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd > <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in > <dd5a55aa-050a-4664...@googlegroups.com>: > > >On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:29:10 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrot= > >e: > >> On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 09:46:24 +0000, Martin Brown > >> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> >Science invents and discovers new things that have no apparent > >> >usefulness at the time of their discovery. It is usually a few decades= > > > >> >before industry even gets remotely interested in such breakthroughs. > > > > > >> People built structures and water systems before there was any > >> corresponding science. > > > >That's not clear. The "corresponding science" may just not have been > >written down; language arts and writing are recent compared to > >structures and water systems as we know them from archaeology. > > > >> Basic concepts of sanitation and medical > >> hygiene preceded knowledge of bacteria and viruses. > > > >That just means we've got a few steps farther in our understanding > >those things, not that 'science' wasn't present in the early concepts. > > > >> We had eyeglasses > >> and telescopes before there was any theory of optics. > > > >Huh? "any theory" cannot have been absent for producing telescopes, thoug= > >h > >the optical design of those early years may not have been the rich field of= > > knowledge > >that optics later became. > > > >>Franklin and Ohm > >> and Edison and DeForest invented electronics before anyone understood > >> the physics. > > > >They were early researchers, in a sense; obviously "the physics" was what F= > >ranklin > >and Ohm were researching. They didn't precede it, they led it. > > > >>Steam engines inspired thermodynamics, not the reverse. > > > >Nonsense; thermodynamics was what the steam tables were all about, > >the whole point of science is to have a good grasp of reality even when > >the apparatus isn't yet built. You cannot call engines an inspiration of = > >knowledge > >and deny that knowledge inspires invention. > > > >> It's hard to think of a case where science preceded invention, ... > > > >They both arise from confusion, which is apparently where John Larkin is dw= > >elling. > > You sound like some other script that used to run here > > John is right > All starts with 'observation' > when the guy observed the kettle lid pushing up > he decided to make it turn a wheel. > When some guy used electrickety on a frog leg... > Gun powder .. > > Then models were made, mamamatical equations were made to APPROXIMATE > what was observed, so you could sort of scale things or predict things. > The models were modified over time as more was found out about what was > really happening. > This is all still going on. > Unfortunately many (like Albert E. parrots) take those mathematical equations > for reality, and they cannot see... Becomes their religion so to speak.Jan Panteltje seems to have missed the point that Albert Einstein's equations clued us into the idea that the universe might be expanding and that black holes and gravity waves might exist. When we looked we found that the universe was expanding and that black holes and gravitational waves could be detected. That wasn't a religious insight, but rather a clearer picture of how the universe might work. Paul Dirac's magnetic monopoles haven't bee found yet, though his positron showed up quite rapidly. Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●November 16, 20232023-11-16
On 15/11/2023 20:06, john larkin wrote:> On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:01:06 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:29:10?AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:>>> Steam engines inspired thermodynamics, not the reverse. >> >> Nonsense; thermodynamics was what the steam tables were all about, > > Newcomen had steam tables?In the early days it was purely empirical and based on indicator diagrams where the work done could be estimated. The jig for doing that to optimise a steam engine was a very closely guarded trade secret for some considerable time (decades). So closely guarded that there were multiple independent inventors of the rick and litigation about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicator_diagram Clapeyron (and Bernoulli) eventually formalised the theory.>> the whole point of science is to have a good grasp of reality even when >> the apparatus isn't yet built. You cannot call engines an inspiration of knowledge >> and deny that knowledge inspires invention. >> >>> It's hard to think of a case where science preceded invention, ... >> >> They both arise from confusion, which is apparently where John Larkin is dwelling. > > You seem to be saying that midievil cathedral builders and Newcomen > and Edison and DeForest were scientists. OK, that's your definition.People like Galileo, Archimedes and Aristotle were scientists of their day. Much was done in the past by over engineering things based on pervious trade experience of what didn't fall down after 5-10 years was good enough. Sometimes they got it only slightly wrong like the leaning towers and Ely cathedral which nearly had its tower fall down. We don't see their total cock ups because the stone would quickly be recycled into other buildings. -- Martin Brown
