Re: Instead scopes

On a sunny day (Sun, 1 Sep 2024 21:38:47 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vb1job$1fp20$1@dont-email.me>:

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.

The graphite was thw WIRES smartass!!!
Like this,
#
stuff at the crossings

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.

Fits no such observations
That is why MOND (modified ... Newtonian gravity) popped up.
Dark matter, etc etc

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.

Only in the imagination of mamaticians who are starting as kids to try to do a divde by nothing (zero)
and then create infinities such as black's holes

Tip: there are no infinitoes in natire, somethng always wil give way
Same with Ohm's law, 1 V in zero Ohm gves infinte curent , no it does not.
Undestand electrons, without electrons Ohms law is sueless
Without a mechanism onestoines babble is uselss.
Withoput onestine's babbl;e things become fun.
Withoutg Ohm's law and with electroins things become fun.

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

Neither CERN nor ITER is designed to go anywhere

Right. they are job creation programs for albert's parrots