Re: Instead scopes

On 1/09/2024 9:06 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 1 Sep 2024 17:45:46 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vb163a$1dt9b$1@dont-email.me>:
 

On 30/08/2024 2:21 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:43:39 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vaq1f2$jdj$1@dont-email.me>:
>

It's lot easier and quicker to bread-board a circuit in LTSpice than it
is to wire up a test circuit, but what that means is that you need to
make fewer real circuits and they are a lot more likely to work when tested.
>
That, on it's own, is enough to explain why labs look different today
than they did in the dark ages.

>
All it explains is boeings falling apart and astronuts ending up stuck at the ISS
and no moonlanding from the US, not even a probe.
Slimulations are _not_ realty and never will be.

>
But they can capture useful parts of reality, if you know what you are
doing.
>
John Larkin's simulated inductors tend not to have any parallel capacitance.
>

mathematical bullshit much of the time.

>
It does happen. You do have to know what to look out for.
>

That is why we are stuck with Albert onestone crap and wrong cosmological models
that even a 10 year old can see are wrong.

>
Ten year-old don't usually know all that much,

 'Usually'
I was looking back at stuff I worked at at <10 years old, like OLED TV display
long before anyone even had the idea AFAIK.
I made conductors with carbon pencil on paper and tried stuff if it would light up if
the crossings were powered.

That's not any kind of organic light-emitting diode. Graphite is elemental carbon, not any kind of organic compound. A ten-ear-old might not know that. You still don't seem to be aware of it.

and quite a lot of  perfectly correct ideas look wrong to them, as they do to you, for much
the same reasons.

 The whole stuff of what they call big bang is sold the wrong way around.

It's not "sold". It's published as model that fits pretty much all the observations we've collected.

If indeed there was a big explosion the resulting fragments were black holes that then later started spewing out
material that formed galaxies or was - and became stars.

Explosion isn't quite the right concept. The universe is pictured as starting off very small, very dense, and expanding rapidly, but it created the space it expanded into  as it expanded.
If shrank back into what it started off as it would clearly be a black hole, but if it were it wouldn't have expanded. There weren't any fragments - the early inhomogeneities are visible as small variations in the cosmic microwave background, and they have been measured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background.

Like fireworks.

 From a ten-year-old's point of view.
<snipped more toxic ignorance>

His time / space is curved shit means he had no clue of any mechanism...
Look up Le Sage wikipedia for a mechanism.

One that doesn't work.

Albert's is as dumb as is electricity without electrons.

The discovery of electricity preceded the discovery of electrons
- J J Thompson didn't discover them until 1897.

Billions are wasted in job creation programs for parrots of his crap,
like CERN and ITER that never go anywhere.

Neither CERN nor ITER is designed to go anywhere - they are static installations. CERN has managed to find the Higg's Boson, so it has made some progress. ITER is still being put together
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/ITER-s-proposed-new-timeline-initial-phase-of-oper
Try to post about stuff you do know something about.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney