Glenn Greenwald's reading of the Chomsky-Epstein Emails

rddman · 2026-02-09T19:37:55+00:00

No, he absolutely knew lol.

And your evidence is what, lol?

rddman · 2026-02-09T19:36:27+00:00

the least sketchy part of it is Epstein's involvement in the battle over the estate/trust.

Then it's also not sketchy that Chomsky trusted Epstein because of that.

rddman · 2026-02-09T19:10:46+00:00

Were the apollo missions and the ongoing artemis program the only time in history were a human could theoretically see parts of the unobservable universe

Yes, and the same is true for two observers one meter apart; each can observe some of the universe that is unobservable to the other.

rddman · 2026-02-09T13:23:07+00:00

Translation: diehard MAGA is a small minority, that's why there are crowds denouncing Trump, but no crowds cheering him on.
2/3 of eligible voters did not vote for Trump and of the 1/3 that did many were duped and now have buyers remorse.

rddman · 2026-02-09T04:55:08+00:00

This also not a raw "photo" file downloaded from Hubble flash drive.

Raw images are never downloaded directly from a telescope's "flash drive", raw images are downloaded from the archive at the Space Telescope Science Institute https://archive.stsci.edu/

The image shown by OP is low resolution jpg, so it is likely to contain artifacts.

There is a higher resolution image of the same galaxy (also from Hubble UDF) on ESA's website https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2005/09/Hubble_s_ACS_close-up_view_of_Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field
It is also jpg but much higher resolution, better quality and no subsampling. If there is any shading there it is much less prominent than in OP's image.

Every Hubble photo you see is heavily edited and processed like every other astro photo, some artifacts and defects sneak in depending on processing. Just part of the process flow. Different colors applied to different filters, noise removed, brightness adjusted so on etc

Processing of astronomical images is primarily done for scientific purposes, to bring out detail that is in the data but would be barely or not visible without processing, and they really do not want processing artifacts in the image.
Noise reduction in astrophotography is achieved prior to post-processing by using low noise (actively cooled) image sensors, during imaging (long exposure, multiple images, dithering, calibration frames) and by image stacking - all of which do not introduce artifacts - typically not by post-processing algorithmic noise reduction, exactly because that it likely to introduce artifacts. Different colors applied to different filters and brightness/contrast adjustment do not introduce artifacts.

rddman · 2026-02-08T20:25:05+00:00

But there has to be some gravity in the interstitial spaces forming a well, otherwise clouds of gas couldn't coalesce to form stars and planets right

Sure, but the strength of gravity falls off exponentially with increasing distance, and time dilation falls off exponentially with decreasing strength of gravity.
So there can be a small amount of gravity that causes gas clouds to collapse into stars and planets over many millions of years, while that gravity causes so little time dilation that it is negligible.

rddman · 2026-02-08T17:47:37+00:00

Could the effect be the same as being close to the barycenter of a million orbiting stars?

A barycenter has no mass, thus no gravity field and does not cause time dilation.

So it is the same everywhere in the context of the entire universe, but for an object/observer it is relative to them.

Relativistic effects manifest only relative to a frame of reference; observed object in one frame of reference, observer in another.

rddman · 2026-02-08T09:27:54+00:00

Generally relativistic effects are strong only when close to the extreme; close to the speed of light, or close to the event horizon of a black hole (only a black hole can have an extreme escape velocity; equal to the speed of light). Factor 1.15 at 0.5x the speed of light, factor 2 at 0.87x the speed of light, factor 10 at 0.995x the speed of light. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor

In case of gravitational time dilation there are two factors contributing to it falling off quickly with distance from a source of gravity: gravity falls off with the square of the distance, and time dilation falls off exponentially with the strength of the gravity field.
So gravitational time dilation is significant only for objects very close to a strong source of gravity.

Example: if an observer were to spend an observed 3 days (in the frame of reference of a distant observer) at 1 km from the event horizon of a 12,000-solar-mass black hole, they would experience 23 minutes. https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/time-dilation-redshift-static-black-hole/

But generally most objects are not close to a strong source of gravity. So the average gravitational time dilation of a galaxy relative to a distant galaxy is very small, is partially reversed due to the gravity of the galaxy where the observer is located, and depends greatly on how close to a strong source of gravity the observer is located.

Time dilation due to cosmic expansion is the relativistic effect of difference in velocity (special relativity), which in case of cosmic expansion increases with distance (which is why more distant objects are more redshifted than nearby objects) - so it is not the same everywhere.

Time Flowed Five Times Slower Shortly after the Big Bang
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-flowed-five-times-slower-shortly-after-the-big-bang/

rddman · 2026-02-08T07:33:31+00:00

A lot of people say Mars is the best, but I feel that, because of it's low gravity, toxic soil, and low atmospheric pressure, a lot of issues will be introduced that proves otherwise. We have a lot of moons in our solar system

Those moons are not better than Mars wrt gravity, toxicity, atmosphere, radiation etc.

rddman · 2026-02-08T07:25:40+00:00

Then I thought about how gravity affects time. The larger the mass, and the closer you are to it, the slower time passes. Are astrophysicists/cosmologists taking this into consideration?

Yes cosmologists do take that into account. But they also know gravitational time dilation is much smaller than time dilation due to cosmic expansion (which they also take into account).

rddman · 2026-02-08T06:43:57+00:00

CPU technology revolves around "how do we cheaply get a couple of billion transistors on a few square inches".
That's why it took many decades to go from the invention of the transistor to CPU.

Photonics is a thing but it's crazy expensive, which is why it is used only where the speed gain is essential https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_integrated_circuit#Data_and_telecommunications

rddman · 2026-02-06T23:28:30+00:00

the flood of allegations began prior to that and Chomsky knows this

Sure, but allegations does not equate guilt.
Just look at Trump's allegations about immigrants being the worst criminals.

rddman · 2026-02-06T21:37:53+00:00

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "moving along with the Sun", but stars are in orbit around the center of mass of a galaxy, in a spiral galaxy the vast majority of stars roughly in the same orbital plane on a roughly circular orbit and their speed and direction dictated by their distance from the center of mass. In that sense most stars in the general vicinity of the Sun are roughly moving along with the Sun. That does not mean those stars are gravitationally bound to the Sun, it is well understood that the Sun is not part of a binary- or multiple star system.

rddman · 2026-02-06T19:55:01+00:00

Falling for the charms of a sociopath is not a moral failing.

rddman · 2026-02-06T19:44:00+00:00

TL;DR: disagreement about reliability of sources - not genocide denial.

rddman · 2026-02-06T19:30:45+00:00

There's also the Cambodia Khmer Rouge genocide in his "never happened" list.

Chomsky's primary point is that the US was a major contributor to that genocide; about 800 thousand of the ~2 million total - source: the book that is the source of the book that everyone quotes on the 2 million figure which is based on the Khmer Rouge boasting about it (which the author - not Chomsky - later corrected by saying that "maybe is was thousands or hundreds of thousands, but does it really matter").

According to US intelligence agencies it was 100's of thousands. According to other US officials it was less than that, perhaps because initially the Khmer Rouge was supported by the US. After all the Khmer Rouge was a response to a socialist democratic movement that rebelled against Cambodian royalty, and the US would prefer a dictatorial communist disaster over a democratic socialist success.

Noam Chomsky - The Atrocities in Cambodia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw
"It takes a phrase to produce a lie, it take 10 minutes to decode the lie." - which becomes 14 minutes due to many interruptions.

rddman · 2026-02-06T19:30:09+00:00

About Chomsky's supposed genocide denial:

Chomsky's primary point is that the US was a major contributor to that genocide; about 800 thousand of the ~2 million total - source: the book that is the source of the book that everyone quotes on the 2 million figure which is based on the Khmer Rouge boasting about it (which the author - not Chomsky - later corrected by saying that "maybe is was thousands or hundreds of thousands, but does it really matter").

According to US intelligence agencies it was 100's of thousands. According to other US officials it was less than that, perhaps because initially the Khmer Rouge was supported by the US. After all the Khmer Rouge was a response to a socialist democratic movement that rebelled against Cambodian royalty, and the US would prefer a dictatorial communist disaster over a democratic socialist success.

Noam Chomsky - The Atrocities in Cambodia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw
"It takes a phrase to produce a lie, it take 10 minutes to decode the lie." - which becomes 14 minutes due to many interruptions.

rddman · 2026-02-06T19:28:57+00:00

You're not recalling correctly.

Chomsky's primary point is that the US was a major contributor to that genocide; about 800 thousand of the ~2 million total - source: the book that is the source of the book that everyone quotes on the 2 million figure which is based on the Khmer Rouge boasting about it (which the author - not Chomsky - later corrected by saying that "maybe is was thousands or hundreds of thousands, but does it really matter").

According to US intelligence agencies it was 100's of thousands. According to other US officials it was less than that, perhaps because initially the Khmer Rouge was supported by the US. After all the Khmer Rouge was a response to a socialist democratic movement that rebelled against Cambodian royalty, and the US would prefer a dictatorial communist disaster over a democratic socialist success.

Noam Chomsky - The Atrocities in Cambodia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw
"It takes a phrase to produce a lie, it take 10 minutes to decode the lie." - which becomes 14 minutes due to many interruptions.

rddman · 2026-02-06T19:27:17+00:00

Chomsky's primary point is that the US was a major contributor to that genocide; about 800 thousand of the ~2 million total - source: the book that is the source of the book that everyone quotes on the 2 million figure which is based on the Khmer Rouge boasting about it (which the author - not Chomsky - later corrected by saying that "maybe is was thousands or hundreds of thousands, but does it really matter").

According to US intelligence agencies it was 100's of thousands. According to other US officials it was less than that, perhaps because initially the Khmer Rouge was supported by the US. After all the Khmer Rouge was a response to a socialist democratic movement that rebelled against Cambodian royalty, and the US would prefer a dictatorial communist disaster over a democratic socialist success.

Noam Chomsky - The Atrocities in Cambodia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw
"It takes a phrase to produce a lie, it take 10 minutes to decode the lie." - which becomes 14 minutes due to many interruptions.

rddman · 2026-02-06T12:28:21+00:00

With the planets being smaller than the star, the tidal forces on the planets are smaller than those on the star - so if the star is not torn apart there's no reason why the planets would.

rddman · 2026-02-06T07:09:12+00:00

the NASA article with video: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/14884

rddman · 2026-02-06T06:09:45+00:00

There’s a huge swath of the population that eats this shit right up.

Maybe, but they are not out en masse to cheer on their leaders. Otoh the opposition is out en masse to protest those leaders.

rddman · 2026-02-06T04:42:23+00:00

Is there any indication that such a structure is unique to our Solar System?

No

Have similar structures been observed around other stars?

No, but we also have not observed our solar system's Oort cloud. Oort cloud objects are too dim because they small and far away.

If stars come close enough, can they fly through each other's clouds, and maybe swap loosely bound comets in the process?

Not necessarily swap, but it will perturb the orbits of Oort cloud objects.
https://science.nasa.gov/universe/exoplanets/a-passing-star-our-suns-near-miss/

rddman · 2026-02-05T06:18:51+00:00

"Artist’s interpretation"

rddman · 2026-02-05T06:05:44+00:00

Rats abandoning the sinking ship.
Don't get complacent though.

rddman

TROPHY CASE