make someone laugh, pt 2

[DirtDawg]

I have a "friend" learning English, doing well and asked why I had had to say, "...had had."

It sparked a conversation. I ended up offering him this dilemma to sort out ...

"Does that that mean that that 'that' that that new kid used may not be that correct?"

 

[odeon]

Yeah, exactly that.

I do not have any advanced education on the subject, but my fourth grade teacher who could not even pronounce "Gas, Liquid or Solid" very well due to her incredibly thick German/Mexican accent taught me that concept early on.
Almost every advancement in any of the many sciences begins with a question.
I still believe her!
 

It's funny, though. More often than not, when science gets something wrong there's always some idiot shouting "so you don't know everything!" over the rooftops.

Case in point: the James Webb telescope has been feeding us new data for more than a year now. Some of that data might fundamentally change what we know about the early universe. For starters - not very likely, but still interesting - the universe might be almost twice as old as we thought.

To which the idiots reply: "so which is it? Make up your minds!"

[DirtDawg]

I found this goofy shit pic.

Old guy took a Martin neck, fused it with a moose antler, added Stratocaster electronics.

Another buddy from a music forum posted that he needed an antlifier to go with it. Fucking brilliant!!

 

Nothing more to add.

I would actually love to hear it play!!

[DirtDawg]

Yeah, exactly that.

I do not have any advanced education on the subject, but my fourth grade teacher who could not even pronounce "Gas, Liquid or Solid" very well due to her incredibly thick German/Mexican accent taught me that concept early on.
Almost every advancement in any of the many sciences begins with a question.
I still believe her!
 

It's funny, though. More often than not, when science gets something wrong there's always some idiot shouting "so you don't know everything!" over the rooftops.

Case in point: the James Webb telescope has been feeding us new data for more than a year now. Some of that data might fundamentally change what we know about the early universe. For starters - not very likely, but still interesting - the universe might be almost twice as old as we thought.

To which the idiots reply: "so which is it? Make up your minds!"

I have a hard time looking away from the latest James Webb telescope data.

I'm sure you've seen the trail of stars left in the wake of a supermassive black hole "escaping" a failed conglomeration of three supermassives.

Even if the universe is not twice as old, even a few percent off still changes everything we think we know.
Fun stuff!

[rock hound]

[DirtDawg]

[DirtDawg]

 

[DirtDawg]

Always pay close attention to what your doctor is saying.

[DirtDawg]

 

[DirtDawg]

 

[DirtDawg]

 

[odeon]

Yeah, exactly that.

I do not have any advanced education on the subject, but my fourth grade teacher who could not even pronounce "Gas, Liquid or Solid" very well due to her incredibly thick German/Mexican accent taught me that concept early on.
Almost every advancement in any of the many sciences begins with a question.
I still believe her!
 

It's funny, though. More often than not, when science gets something wrong there's always some idiot shouting "so you don't know everything!" over the rooftops.

Case in point: the James Webb telescope has been feeding us new data for more than a year now. Some of that data might fundamentally change what we know about the early universe. For starters - not very likely, but still interesting - the universe might be almost twice as old as we thought.

To which the idiots reply: "so which is it? Make up your minds!"

I have a hard time looking away from the latest James Webb telescope data.

I'm sure you've seen the trail of stars left in the wake of a supermassive black hole "escaping" a failed conglomeration of three supermassives.

Even if the universe is not twice as old, even a few percent off still changes everything we think we know.
Fun stuff!

We've been handed a gift. We'll gather the data and try to understand what it means. There's going to be more.

Me, I don't know yet. I'm not following the data closely enough, and there's so much I don't know right now.

[DirtDawg]

Check out this from a binary system captured by the James Webb with all its many scanning wavelengths. Then of course the manual imaging manipulation to seperate smaller and smaller portions of what the telescope actually picked up.

I don't think it makes the image fake to use every tool in the box to seperate the many wavelengths emitted from these far off places.
That is how it is done. Doesn't make it a fake image, just because it had some corrections to the lens pick up.

Anyone ever seen the raw images of how those magnificiently detailed coral reefs look without color corrections. It's all gray!
You have to work it some to increase color contrast. It is not fake. It is our imaging capability that needs an upgrade.

James Webb has a lot of that built in and the ground crew has even more to work with. The data stream is fucking enormous!

[DirtDawg]

 

[odeon]

Check out this from a binary system captured by the James Webb with all its many scanning wavelengths. Then of course the manual imaging manipulation to seperate smaller and smaller portions of what the telescope actually picked up.

I don't think it makes the image fake to use every tool in the box to seperate the many wavelengths emitted from these far off places.
That is how it is done. Doesn't make it a fake image, just because it had some corrections to the lens pick up.

Anyone ever seen the raw images of how those magnificiently detailed coral reefs look without color corrections. It's all gray!
You have to work it some to increase color contrast. It is not fake. It is our imaging capability that needs an upgrade.

James Webb has a lot of that built in and the ground crew has even more to work with. The data stream is fucking enormous!

It's one of *the* most amazing Webb images to date, that one. Because when I first saw that image I thought "diffraction," probably the same as many others trained in the field. Except those are real. It's a binary star where the interaction of the two stars produce "waves" on the IR wavelengths.