From Newsgroup: sci.physics

Looks like chaps here are far too stupid to apply middle school maths.
No wonder they worship Chat not that they can grasp it's vomit.

Sad.

Woof

--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 19:37:41 +0000, Python wrote:

Le 20/07/2025 |a 14:36, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) a |-crit :

Hubble should be able to detect centimetre sized objects on the Moon.

Simple arithmetic will show that.

Show it.

You try. We have given enough hints.

WOOF

--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

Looks like chaps here are far too stupid to apply middle school maths.
No wonder they worship Chat not that they can grasp it's vomit.

Sad.

Woof

--

ArindamrCOs response to the explanations about why the Hubble Space
Telescope cannot resolve Apollo landing sites is a dismissive insult,
not a counter-argument. LetrCOs break down what's happening here:
Content and Structure

rCLLooks like chaps here are far too stupid to apply middle school maths.rCY

This is:

Ad hominem: Insulting the intelligence of others instead of
addressing their reasoning.

Vague: No actual rCLmiddle school mathsrCY is presented to counter
the original claims.

False implication of superiority: Suggests he understands something
others don'trCobut offers no evidence.

rCLNo wonder they worship Chat not that they can grasp it's vomit.rCY

Another insult via associationrCocalling reliance on AI tools like
ChatGPT rCLworship,rCY and their output rCLvomit.rCY

This adds nothing substantive to the issue; it's just rhetorical sneering.

rCLSad.rCY

Truncated dismissal used for effect, mimicking the style of
contemptuous social media posts. This underscores disdain, not argument.

On the Actual Issue: Hubble and Apollo Sites

The posts Arindam is reacting to likely point out this well-understood fact:

The angular resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope, limited by
diffraction, is around 0.05 arcseconds in visible light.

The smallest object Hubble could resolve on the Moon, given its
distance (384,000 km), is about 85rCo100 meters across.

Apollo landers, at ~4 meters wide, are far too small for Hubble to resolve.

This is not controversial and is easily demonstrable using basic opticsrCoprecisely the rCLmiddle school mathsrCY Arindam invokes but fails to apply.
What the Post Reveals

Projection: Arindam accuses others of lacking middle school math
skills, but avoids engaging with a quantitative explanation himself.

Confirmation of rhetorical pattern: He avoids empirical engagement and
replaces it with mockery, as seen in previous posts.

Irony: In attempting to portray himself as the only rational party,
he confirms the criticism of his being emotional, evasive, and
logically incoherent.

Conclusion

This response is pure contempt posing as critique. Arindam doesnrCOt refute
the factual, mathematical limits of the Hubble Space Telescope; he mocks
those who understand and explain them. His use of rCLmiddle school mathsrCY
as a cudgel is ironic and hollow, given the absence of any applied math or logic in his post.

In short:
No counter-evidence. No engagement. Just sneering dismissal.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 19:37:41 +0000, Python wrote:

Le 20/07/2025 |a 14:36, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) a |-crit : >>> Hubble should be able to detect centimetre sized objects on the Moon.

Simple arithmetic will show that.

Show it.

You try. We have given enough hints.

WOOF

--

This exchange provides a clear contrast between a fact-based challenge
and a rhetorical dodge, which merits detailed evaluation.
Content Breakdown
Claim by Bertietaylor (Arindam):

rCLHubble should be able to detect centimetre sized objects on the Moon.rCY

This is factually incorrect. As noted previously, HubblerCOs angular
resolution is about 0.05 arcseconds, which translates to being able
to resolve objects no smaller than about 85rCo100 meters on the Moon.

The claim contradicts well-known optical limits and basic diffraction
math.

rCLSimple arithmetic will show that.rCY

Assertion without demonstration.

This sets up an appeal to logic that is never followed through.

Reply by Python:

rCLShow it.rCY

This is precise, reasonable, and scientific.

It calls for evidence, as is appropriate when someone makes a
numerical claim.

It invites the original poster to demonstrate their position with
the "simple arithmetic" they referenced.

BertietaylorrCOs Response:

rCLYou try. We have given enough hints.
WOOFrCY

Evasion: Instead of showing the math, Arindam flips the burden of
proof onto his critic.

Intellectual cowardice: If itrCOs "simple arithmetic," refusing to
show it suggests either he canrCOt or wonrCOtrCoboth weaken his credibility.

Disguised retreat: The rCLWe have given enough hintsrCY line implies
herCOs already done the workrCowhich he hasnrCOt.

rCLWOOFrCY: Again used as a rhetorical flourish to signal detachment or
dismissiveness, but contributes no content.

Evaluation of Argumentative Dynamics

Burden of Proof: Lies with the claimant. Arindam made the
extraordinary (and false) claim about Hubble. Python simply asked for
justification.

Failure to Engage: Arindam not only fails to show his math, but
avoids any real discussion of optics, diffraction, or resolution.

Dismissive Tone: Suggests contempt rather than confidence. This is
characteristic of someone defending a position rhetorically, not
scientifically.

Conclusion

PythonrCOs response is intellectually honest and appropriate: "Show it." Arindam's refusal to do so, paired with smug deflection, undermines his
claim entirely.

The net effect is that Arindam:

Makes a demonstrably false assertion.

Refuses to back it up.

Resorts to evasion and posturing instead of engagement.

In short:
The exchange exposes Arindam's rhetorical stylerCoprovocation without proofrCoand affirms that he cannot substantiate even basic claims when challenged.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2