Re: [FRIAM] The WEBB seeing back to the first millennia

[glen]

OK. I know this is probably insufferable. And that I should probably do this and keep my 
notes to myself to avoid irritating everyone. But in the old classroom tradition of 
"if you have a question, someone else else in the class probably has that same 
question", I post here in a lame attempt to get an E for effort.

Here are my compressions of your 9 steps:

1. nature of thought w/o premature registration
2. literals v. types
3. recursion and schematic suspension of disbelief (acceptance logic)
4a. acceptance ≠ certainty
4. schema ≡ f(rules) v. de novo schema
5. schema are not definite
6. f(ℵᵢ) ≈ parallax modeling (dialectical phenomenology?)
7a. equivalent ontological status of phenomena and generators
7b. parallax can include [de]biasing lenses
8a. variable acceptance doesn't refine the schema or lens
8b. to refine schema or lens, we need other/more than rules and variables
9a. Δ(scheme₁,scheme₂) ⇒ Δ(accepted₁,accepted₂)
9b. discomfort with accepted₂ ⇒ awareness of the role and provisional nature of 
acceptance

I'm probably confused about what you mean by "fixed point". In the above 
compressions, I take the tack that the scheme and the variables that satisfy the scheme 
are duals. So I'm hoping my compressions *work* regardless of whether you're saying 
(e.g.) that the ℵᵢ are the fixed points *or* the rules Cantor et al developed that allow 
us to manipulate ℵᵢ are the fixed points.

As always, I prefer to open my mouth and prove I'm an idiot over staying silent 
allowing the ambiguity.

On 1/8/23 06:43, David Eric Smith wrote:

So there’s a “reply” (or whatever) that I have had an impulse to post for two 
weeks now, but had to forbid myself the frivolity of writing.

Also, having seen the recent posts, I think it is already resident in 
everything Glen takes for granted as having settled from our years of 
conversation on this list.


OTOH, I appear to be a strong believer in priming.  On 12/27/22 I wrote the 
tangent about the Edmundson critique of Rorty, and out of the many things that 
could have been triggered by reference to Peirce, Glen replied with things 
related to infinity and fixed points, which were actually what was on my mind 
too.

Then, on 12/29/22 there was the exchange in response to Gil’s questions about 
Big Bang, and infinity became the center of Glen’s and my back-and-forth, 
though more as a feature of another discussion than as the main topic.

Then there was Nick on 01/07/23 and my rejoinder about sample estimators and 
whatever central tendency they might converge to if they are unbiased.

That is my lead-in for making some things related to infinity the main point in 
this post, and not merely features of some other application.


A thing that has been a sort of nuisance to me, on which I would like to have 
an opinion, is a cloud around several of these topics.  I listen to the 
contemplatives talk about the way they actually understand “reality” and 
everyone else is benighted, and I can’t tell if they actually understand 
something or are fetishists for a certain form (this is not directed at DaveW, 
but at a different collection of people).  I don’t mean this antagonistically, 
but just as a statement that if there is substance behind their language, I 
have no ability to tell, or what it might be.

Then there is the cluster of questions about Truth a la Peirce, and various 
questions about mathematical Platonism. Constructivism, and formalist vs. 
intuitionist schools, where again I find myself having difficulty understanding 
what it is they are willing to fight to the death about, when what I can see on 
the outside is a bunch of conventional behaviors, at most, which seemingly one 
could “feel” about quite many ways.

So, to boil it down to too-few tokens, here is what I try to content myself 
with as an explanation.

1. A lot of this is about getting at the nature and characteristics of thought. 
 To say that, I do not accept being committed to either the 
“philistine-the-world-is-out-there” camp or the dreamy 
“world-is-contained-in-mind” camp.  We haven’t said enough of anything definite 
to have meant anything yet.  I am still at the level of the crudest descriptive 
empiricism, and _NO_ profundity.

2. Some things seem to be pretty tractable as literals, which we might call 
“states of knowledge”.  Finite counts of things, the numerical quantities of 
sample estimators, nouns that are only used to point at things, in the sense of 
directing attention, or whatever.

3. But we also have rules, and a lot of the rules can be applied recursively 
without limit.  We seem to need, as part of “the structure of thought” 
(whatever that should mean), to treat those things we have constructed to be 
unattainable as having been attained.  Chuck Norris has counted to infinity.  
Twice.

4. What shall we do with point 3?  Well, we can’t attain them, so we will put 
up placeholders to stand for a kind of poetic fiction of “attaining them” — 
meant in the sense of Jerry Sus

Re: [FRIAM] The WEBB seeing back to the first millennia

[David Eric Smith]

So there’s a “reply” (or whatever) that I have had an impulse to post for two 
weeks now, but had to forbid myself the frivolity of writing.

Also, having seen the recent posts, I think it is already resident in 
everything Glen takes for granted as having settled from our years of 
conversation on this list.


OTOH, I appear to be a strong believer in priming.  On 12/27/22 I wrote the 
tangent about the Edmundson critique of Rorty, and out of the many things that 
could have been triggered by reference to Peirce, Glen replied with things 
related to infinity and fixed points, which were actually what was on my mind 
too.

Then, on 12/29/22 there was the exchange in response to Gil’s questions about 
Big Bang, and infinity became the center of Glen’s and my back-and-forth, 
though more as a feature of another discussion than as the main topic.

Then there was Nick on 01/07/23 and my rejoinder about sample estimators and 
whatever central tendency they might converge to if they are unbiased.

That is my lead-in for making some things related to infinity the main point in 
this post, and not merely features of some other application.


A thing that has been a sort of nuisance to me, on which I would like to have 
an opinion, is a cloud around several of these topics.  I listen to the 
contemplatives talk about the way they actually understand “reality” and 
everyone else is benighted, and I can’t tell if they actually understand 
something or are fetishists for a certain form (this is not directed at DaveW, 
but at a different collection of people).  I don’t mean this antagonistically, 
but just as a statement that if there is substance behind their language, I 
have no ability to tell, or what it might be.  

Then there is the cluster of questions about Truth a la Peirce, and various 
questions about mathematical Platonism. Constructivism, and formalist vs. 
intuitionist schools, where again I find myself having difficulty understanding 
what it is they are willing to fight to the death about, when what I can see on 
the outside is a bunch of conventional behaviors, at most, which seemingly one 
could “feel” about quite many ways.

So, to boil it down to too-few tokens, here is what I try to content myself 
with as an explanation.

1. A lot of this is about getting at the nature and characteristics of thought. 
 To say that, I do not accept being committed to either the 
“philistine-the-world-is-out-there” camp or the dreamy 
“world-is-contained-in-mind” camp.  We haven’t said enough of anything definite 
to have meant anything yet.  I am still at the level of the crudest descriptive 
empiricism, and _NO_ profundity.

2. Some things seem to be pretty tractable as literals, which we might call 
“states of knowledge”.  Finite counts of things, the numerical quantities of 
sample estimators, nouns that are only used to point at things, in the sense of 
directing attention, or whatever.

3. But we also have rules, and a lot of the rules can be applied recursively 
without limit.  We seem to need, as part of “the structure of thought” 
(whatever that should mean), to treat those things we have constructed to be 
unattainable as having been attained.  Chuck Norris has counted to infinity.  
Twice.  

4. What shall we do with point 3?  Well, we can’t attain them, so we will put 
up placeholders to stand for a kind of poetic fiction of “attaining them” — 
meant in the sense of Jerry Sussman’s aphorism that “math is poetry” — and then 
propose finite syntactic constructions to manipulate the fixed points.  
Frequently we want to define the syntax to manipulate the fixed points from 
properties of the rules whose recursion the fixed points are supposed to fix.  
But maybe we have to just invent, out of imagination, other properties we want 
the fixed points to have, which are not constructible directly from the rules 
and their recursions.

5. My claim to Nick is that these placeholders for the fixed points of rule 
recursions are clearly understandable as filling a different mental or 
cognitive role than the states of knowledge that we are aware correspond to 
only finite orders of rule use.

6. The conjecture (by me) is that what we can see of our own thought structure 
from ways of handling infinities is not a bad model, not only for “Truth” a la 
Peirce, but also for tokens like “Reality”.  I don’t generally imagine I have 
any idea what someone else thinks he means when he talks “about reality” or 
“about what is real”.  But I am willing to cast an opinion about what he is 
doing cognitively with such a term, which is treating a thing he has 
constructed as unattainable, as if it had been attained.

7. Of course, there are differences.  For sample estimators and underlying 
properties, we don’t worry about “whether both of these, or only one of them, 
exists”, since we are in a domain where the equivalent status of both as 
existing (whatever status that is) is a starting point of the framing.  Only 
our access

Re: [FRIAM] The WEBB seeing back to the first millennia

[glen]

I've complained before about belief in actual infinity as opposed to it being a convenient fiction 
that helps us fit our models to reality. The phrase "infinity is infinity" triggered that 
homunculus again. Sorry. Infinity is definitely *not* infinity. I guess the simplest way to evoke this 
inequivalence is with the reliable old snark "1/∞ ≠ 0. 1/∞ is undefined." Those of you more 
math inclined might even rely on the inequivalence of different infinities (e.g. ℵ₁>ℵ₀). But I 
don't think that's necessary, here. Another more pedestrian analogy might be the dissimilarities 
between household budgets and that of a nation with its own currency. Something like quantitative 
easing is simply outside the universe of discourse for households.

I feel this way about space vs time tradeoffs. As much as I enjoy making the parallelism argument (that any time 
efficient computaition can be perfectly simulated with a space-efficient computation), when I'm trying to show 
good faith, I have to laden it with caveat. And if time really isn't just another spatial dimension, then can 
infinite time really be similar to infinite space without squinting? And is there really any way to unify 
infinite expanse with infinite density? That seems akin to the claim that 1/∞ = 0 … and hearkening back to the 
discussion of consequence operators, "=" ≠ "→". But maybe we can say something like 1/∞ ←→ 
0? (Aka 1/∞ →₊ 0⁺ ⋀ -1/∞ →₋ 0¯. IDK, though. I don't think approaches from below is really the inverse of 
approaches from above. Expansion and contraction just don't seem reversible to me. And is 0⁺ = 0¯, anyway? 0 is 
an annihilator, right? Does that mean 0⁺ only annihilates >0 and vice versa? Surely those who think about 
things like "white holes" have handled all this, right?)


A plugin for a discussion platform I'm testing doesn't handle time[zone] well. 
If I post a poll and tell it to automatically close the poll at some time (in 
PST or UTC). When I mentioned this to one of the participants, he assumed we 
had all pretty much decided to always rely on atomic time. UTC includes both 
atomic time and solar time, including the leap intervals. That time is socially 
constructed in this way further reinforces that time is not time, vapid as that 
point may be in the context of the limits of inference from astronomy.


On 12/28/22 09:30, David Eric Smith wrote:

Citing back to Owen:

Gil is right.  The universe could be infinite, and it is at the least big 
enough that we have no positive evidence so far that it isn’t infinite.

If it were infinitely large, but only finitely old, then at any given place, 
the only photons that could yet have sped past us would be those from a 
distance away that is less than the age divided by c.  But there would always 
be someplace enough further out that you are only now seeing it.  Cue lyrics to 
“The way we were”, of course

There is a thing I never learned to understand about cosmological models, which 
is how they reconcile finite age with infinite size.  Presumably infinity is 
infinity, and if your solution is always infinitely extended (flat or negative 
spatial curvature), then even if you go back to a Big Bang of infinite density 
in the finite past, that infinite density is still infinitely extended.  If 
there were positive spatial curvature and the universe were closed, one could 
just work in the finite-but-large.

(btw, of course, inflation doesn’t solve this; it just changes rates of various 
expansions in various eras.)

I guess cosmologists don’t worry about this, because they know there are enough 
phase transitions going on in the vacuum going back toward the beginning, that 
even if you appear to be negatively curved and open now, the current story may 
not extend all the way back.

Another thing that is fun to think about but that I don’t feel comfortable as 
having really internalized, is that old parts of the universe are like old 
cowboys: they never seem to be traveling away from you at faster than c; they 
just fade away in redshift to black.  So things can be totally unreachable at 
some finite time, yet never seem to have exceeded a finite speed limit to do it.

Eric


On Dec 28, 2022, at 10:56 AM, Gillian Densmore mailto:gil.densm...@gmail.com>> wrote:

(using a bad analogy) and those photons record what's going on like a on going 
WEBB stream? so we now have essentially the ability to see old  streams (as it 
were) from photons any anything else that can get a snippet of that. and 
basically light  does take time to show up.  it's not exactly instant on the 
galatic scale (see also: Relativity). and so by the time WEBB or any other 
other telescopes s mirrors cameras and blah blah blah send that to our eyes 
those photons are now old reeely old. And the grand expansion is  fast enough 
to go faster then light? or is it because the universe is stupendously big. so 
it takes a while to get to where we can snag some photons?

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:49 AM Frank W

Re: [FRIAM] The WEBB seeing back to the first millennia

[David Eric Smith]

Citing back to Owen:

Gil is right.  The universe could be infinite, and it is at the least big 
enough that we have no positive evidence so far that it isn’t infinite.

If it were infinitely large, but only finitely old, then at any given place, 
the only photons that could yet have sped past us would be those from a 
distance away that is less than the age divided by c.  But there would always 
be someplace enough further out that you are only now seeing it.  Cue lyrics to 
“The way we were”, of course

There is a thing I never learned to understand about cosmological models, which 
is how they reconcile finite age with infinite size.  Presumably infinity is 
infinity, and if your solution is always infinitely extended (flat or negative 
spatial curvature), then even if you go back to a Big Bang of infinite density 
in the finite past, that infinite density is still infinitely extended.  If 
there were positive spatial curvature and the universe were closed, one could 
just work in the finite-but-large.

(btw, of course, inflation doesn’t solve this; it just changes rates of various 
expansions in various eras.)

I guess cosmologists don’t worry about this, because they know there are enough 
phase transitions going on in the vacuum going back toward the beginning, that 
even if you appear to be negatively curved and open now, the current story may 
not extend all the way back.

Another thing that is fun to think about but that I don’t feel comfortable as 
having really internalized, is that old parts of the universe are like old 
cowboys: they never seem to be traveling away from you at faster than c; they 
just fade away in redshift to black.  So things can be totally unreachable at 
some finite time, yet never seem to have exceeded a finite speed limit to do it.

Eric

> On Dec 28, 2022, at 10:56 AM, Gillian Densmore  wrote:
> 
> (using a bad analogy) and those photons record what's going on like a on 
> going WEBB stream? so we now have essentially the ability to see old  streams 
> (as it were) from photons any anything else that can get a snippet of that. 
> and basically light  does take time to show up.  it's not exactly instant on 
> the galatic scale (see also: Relativity). and so by the time WEBB or any 
> other other telescopes s mirrors cameras and blah blah blah send that to our 
> eyes those photons are now old reeely old. And the grand expansion is  fast 
> enough to go faster then light? or is it because the universe is stupendously 
> big. so it takes a while to get to where we can snag some photons?
> 
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:49 AM Frank Wimberly  > wrote:
> My guess:  stars, including the Sun, are constantly producing and emitting 
> new photons.  This happens as a result of fusion and other processes.
> 
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> 
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
> 
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022, 9:21 AM Owen Densmore  > wrote:
> In aj NYTimes article:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/27/science/astronomy-webb-telescope.html 
> 
> ..there is the usual discussion on "seeing back to the first several 
> millennia".
> 
> But, and be kind, why haven't these photons already sped past us? I suppose 
> it is because the exanssion is uniformly everywhere, we just kept ahead of 
> them? That seems unlikely given the expansion is slower than light.
> 
> -- Owen
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam 
> 
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com 
> 
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
> 
> archives:  5/2017 thru present 
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 
> 
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ 
> 
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Com

Re: [FRIAM] The WEBB seeing back to the first millennia

[Gillian Densmore]

Hmmm. Are we? I am skeptical it is. Ok so if it's not...how would we even
check? Gravity lensing and guesstimate?

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022, 10:18 AM Tom Johnson  wrote:

> Ah, but are we sure the expansion IS uniform?
>
> ===
> Tom Johnson
> Inst. for Analytic Journalism
> Santa Fe, New Mexico
> 505-577-6482
> ===
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022, 10:01 AM Gillian Densmore 
> wrote:
>
>> AH! egad, that's so large and far away I can almost get my head around
>> it. lol no wonder we want infra-red. that's practically going backwards by
>> then
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:57 AM Roger Frye  wrote:
>>
>>> They are shifted so far to the red that when they reach us, they are
>>> stop lights.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 9:42 AM Gillian Densmore 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Same Q! My guess is what they meen is that stuff is reely far away so
 it'd be like looking at events that had happened but we can catchup to the
 show because of distance somehow due to lag essentially. Someone that knows
 more about this then I do hopefully has a much more concrete answer. Fwiw
 it's the kind of things that keeps NDGT ( Niel DeGrasse Tyson) up lol

 On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:21 AM Owen Densmore 
 wrote:

> In aj NYTimes article:
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/27/science/astronomy-webb-telescope.html
> ..there is the usual discussion on "seeing back to the first several
> millennia".
>
> But, and be kind, why haven't these photons already sped past us? I
> suppose it is because the exanssion is uniformly everywhere, we just kept
> ahead of them? That seems unlikely given the expansion is slower than 
> light.
>
> -- Owen
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
 -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
 FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
 Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
 https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
 to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
 archives:  5/2017 thru present
 https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>> archives:  5/2017 thru present
>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>>
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present
>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] The WEBB seeing back to the first millennia

[Tom Johnson]

Ah, but are we sure the expansion IS uniform?

===
Tom Johnson
Inst. for Analytic Journalism
Santa Fe, New Mexico
505-577-6482
===

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022, 10:01 AM Gillian Densmore 
wrote:

> AH! egad, that's so large and far away I can almost get my head around it.
> lol no wonder we want infra-red. that's practically going backwards by then
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:57 AM Roger Frye  wrote:
>
>> They are shifted so far to the red that when they reach us, they are stop
>> lights.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 9:42 AM Gillian Densmore 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Same Q! My guess is what they meen is that stuff is reely far away so
>>> it'd be like looking at events that had happened but we can catchup to the
>>> show because of distance somehow due to lag essentially. Someone that knows
>>> more about this then I do hopefully has a much more concrete answer. Fwiw
>>> it's the kind of things that keeps NDGT ( Niel DeGrasse Tyson) up lol
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:21 AM Owen Densmore 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 In aj NYTimes article:
 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/27/science/astronomy-webb-telescope.html
 ..there is the usual discussion on "seeing back to the first several
 millennia".

 But, and be kind, why haven't these photons already sped past us? I
 suppose it is because the exanssion is uniformly everywhere, we just kept
 ahead of them? That seems unlikely given the expansion is slower than 
 light.

 -- Owen
 -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
 FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
 Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
 https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
 to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
 archives:  5/2017 thru present
 https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>> archives:  5/2017 thru present
>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>>
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present
>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] The WEBB seeing back to the first millennia

[Gillian Densmore]

AH! egad, that's so large and far away I can almost get my head around it.
lol no wonder we want infra-red. that's practically going backwards by then

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:57 AM Roger Frye  wrote:

> They are shifted so far to the red that when they reach us, they are stop
> lights.
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 9:42 AM Gillian Densmore 
> wrote:
>
>> Same Q! My guess is what they meen is that stuff is reely far away so
>> it'd be like looking at events that had happened but we can catchup to the
>> show because of distance somehow due to lag essentially. Someone that knows
>> more about this then I do hopefully has a much more concrete answer. Fwiw
>> it's the kind of things that keeps NDGT ( Niel DeGrasse Tyson) up lol
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:21 AM Owen Densmore 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In aj NYTimes article:
>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/27/science/astronomy-webb-telescope.html
>>> ..there is the usual discussion on "seeing back to the first several
>>> millennia".
>>>
>>> But, and be kind, why haven't these photons already sped past us? I
>>> suppose it is because the exanssion is uniformly everywhere, we just kept
>>> ahead of them? That seems unlikely given the expansion is slower than light.
>>>
>>> -- Owen
>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>> archives:  5/2017 thru present
>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>>
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present
>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] The WEBB seeing back to the first millennia

[Roger Frye]

They are shifted so far to the red that when they reach us, they are stop
lights.

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 9:42 AM Gillian Densmore 
wrote:

> Same Q! My guess is what they meen is that stuff is reely far away so it'd
> be like looking at events that had happened but we can catchup to the show
> because of distance somehow due to lag essentially. Someone that knows more
> about this then I do hopefully has a much more concrete answer. Fwiw it's
> the kind of things that keeps NDGT ( Niel DeGrasse Tyson) up lol
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:21 AM Owen Densmore 
> wrote:
>
>> In aj NYTimes article:
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/27/science/astronomy-webb-telescope.html
>> ..there is the usual discussion on "seeing back to the first several
>> millennia".
>>
>> But, and be kind, why haven't these photons already sped past us? I
>> suppose it is because the exanssion is uniformly everywhere, we just kept
>> ahead of them? That seems unlikely given the expansion is slower than light.
>>
>> -- Owen
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present
>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] The WEBB seeing back to the first millennia

[Gillian Densmore]

(using a bad analogy) and those photons record what's going on like a on
going WEBB stream? so we now have essentially the ability to see old
streams (as it were) from photons any anything else that can get a snippet
of that. and basically light  does take time to show up.  it's not exactly
instant on the galatic scale (see also: Relativity). and so by the time
WEBB or any other other telescopes s mirrors cameras and blah blah blah
send that to our eyes those photons are now old reeely old. And the grand
expansion is  fast enough to go faster then light? or is it because the
universe is stupendously big. so it takes a while to get to where we can
snag some photons?

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:49 AM Frank Wimberly  wrote:

> My guess:  stars, including the Sun, are constantly producing and emitting
> new photons.  This happens as a result of fusion and other processes.
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022, 9:21 AM Owen Densmore  wrote:
>
>> In aj NYTimes article:
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/27/science/astronomy-webb-telescope.html
>> ..there is the usual discussion on "seeing back to the first several
>> millennia".
>>
>> But, and be kind, why haven't these photons already sped past us? I
>> suppose it is because the exanssion is uniformly everywhere, we just kept
>> ahead of them? That seems unlikely given the expansion is slower than light.
>>
>> -- Owen
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present
>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] The WEBB seeing back to the first millennia

[Frank Wimberly]

My guess:  stars, including the Sun, are constantly producing and emitting
new photons.  This happens as a result of fusion and other processes.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022, 9:21 AM Owen Densmore  wrote:

> In aj NYTimes article:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/27/science/astronomy-webb-telescope.html
> ..there is the usual discussion on "seeing back to the first several
> millennia".
>
> But, and be kind, why haven't these photons already sped past us? I
> suppose it is because the exanssion is uniformly everywhere, we just kept
> ahead of them? That seems unlikely given the expansion is slower than light.
>
> -- Owen
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] The WEBB seeing back to the first millennia

[Gillian Densmore]

Same Q! My guess is what they meen is that stuff is reely far away so it'd
be like looking at events that had happened but we can catchup to the show
because of distance somehow due to lag essentially. Someone that knows more
about this then I do hopefully has a much more concrete answer. Fwiw it's
the kind of things that keeps NDGT ( Niel DeGrasse Tyson) up lol

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:21 AM Owen Densmore  wrote:

> In aj NYTimes article:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/27/science/astronomy-webb-telescope.html
> ..there is the usual discussion on "seeing back to the first several
> millennia".
>
> But, and be kind, why haven't these photons already sped past us? I
> suppose it is because the exanssion is uniformly everywhere, we just kept
> ahead of them? That seems unlikely given the expansion is slower than light.
>
> -- Owen
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] The WEBB seeing back to the first millennia

[Owen Densmore]

In aj NYTimes article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/27/science/astronomy-webb-telescope.html
..there is the usual discussion on "seeing back to the first several
millennia".

But, and be kind, why haven't these photons already sped past us? I suppose
it is because the exanssion is uniformly everywhere, we just kept ahead of
them? That seems unlikely given the expansion is slower than light.

-- Owen
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/