Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 11:32:49 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <ve09s1$1l0aq$2@dont-email.me>
References: <86jzf4829c.fsf@linuxsc.com> <lm2vj6Frf3oU1@mid.individual.net>
 <vdi0t5$2u3af$1@dont-email.me> <vdkp1g$3ed1r$6@dont-email.me>
 <vdkt00$3in73$1@dont-email.me> <vdl4ok$3jhjh$6@dont-email.me>
 <vdlk9g$3kq50$4@dont-email.me> <vdmq7e$3re5q$2@dont-email.me>
 <vdobe8$5cna$1@dont-email.me> <vdpad7$agqd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vdqvmf$mv5f$1@dont-email.me> <vdru7f$resc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vds087$rp06$1@dont-email.me> <vdtprc$16lu8$3@dont-email.me>
 <95f39b635da10c847f08be71581e3165@www.novabbs.org>
 <T4GMO.5508$Aty4.829@fx03.iad>
 <c139608808c220d3b36717a131924999@www.novabbs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2024 11:32:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="613852fb00db4b6d2d0146be3f5d4388";
	logging-data="1737050"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+k4uiFyMYo500rChyZK8vQM/CrhFMx/gU="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MHM8qSoIePdfeXdnLuPc78bZOwE=
In-Reply-To: <c139608808c220d3b36717a131924999@www.novabbs.org>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3719

On 07/10/2024 03:34, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 0:39:15 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> 
>> mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes:
>>> On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 10:47:08 +0000, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/10/2024 20:24, Brett wrote:
>>>>> Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Here is what Sabine Hossenfelder thinks of modern physics, and she 
>>>>> makes
>>>>> money promoting physics to people on YouTube.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://youtu.be/cBIvSGLkwJY?si=USc2fHsaWTJMSDSt
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sabine Hossenfelder is quite a good commentator, and I've seen many of
>>>> her videos before.  Her points here are not new or contentious - there
>>>> is quite a support in scientific communities for her argument here.  We
>>>> have arguably reached a point in the science of cosmology and
>>>> fundamental physics where traditional scientific progress is 
>>>> unavoidably
>>>> minimal.  Basically, we cannot build big enough experiments to provide
>>>> corroborating or falsifying evidence for current hypothetical models
>>>
>>> Based on the success of Webb--we can, we just don't have access to
>>> enough money to allow for building and shipping such a device up into
>>> space. Optics-check, structure-check, rocket-check, where to put it-
>>> check, telemetry and command-check.
>>
>> An article in this week's Aviation Week and Space Technology noted
>> that the starship will be able to boost a payload that masses
>> thirty times the Webb for less cost than the Webb launch.
> 
> I was counting on Starship in the above.
> I was only complaining about the "can't" part.
> Every piece of engineering is go--as long as someone will pay for it.

No, the engineering is not remotely close to "go" for these things (the 
ridiculously large particle accelerators), even if there were an 
unlimited supply of money.

There are, however, many other types of devices and experiments that 
would be useful for physics research which /are/ possible from the 
engineering viewpoint, but lack the funding.