Oh I just read you can't see it from May onwards.
My granda was born in Saskatchewan and his mother knew Grey Owl you know. I have always wanted to return to the land of my roots. Then maybe I'd get to see the lights. I hope I get to go some day.
Interesting Findings from the ESA Plank Satellite
by cantleave 82 Replies latest social current
-
-
jgnat
I am sure I have seen the Northern Lights later in the year than that. They're as common as...gophers around here. Saskatchewan
is a little different than where I live now.
-
slimboyfat
Maybe see it then!
-
cantleave
SBF - my objection was to these statements
these ideas be superseded just like Newton was?
Newtons ideas are still relevant and have been built on.....
Half the lies science tells you are not true.
Your statement here talks about "lies" half of which are "not true" - not exactly objective or accurate
Scientist mumbo jumbo
"Mumbo Jumbo" that has brought every technological advancement that your life some much better than any generation has ever enjoyed before.
As for your opinion of "a Brief History" of time, that is indeed your opinion, but it might be because you didn't undertstand it, I did and found it a fascinating book, although I still prefer Lord of the Rings!
-
slimboyfat
Cantleave, have you ever taken a look at The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn?
Scientific theories do not build on one another, they supersede one another.
Scientific modernity may have done good, but it has its costs too, from Auschwitz and Hiroshima to the panopticon and the carceral society.
I understood that Hawking is deeply deluded that the universe is structured in such a way as to deliver its ultimate unifying essence to his brain. Shades of Hegel believing that human history had culminated within his own brain right there!
-
QC
@cant
QC - Your video and comments do not have any relevance to your statement regarding the cosmological constant.
Oh, no claim by me about cosmological constant. So, you are confused.
Relevance reference:
Our universe has an elegant, intelligible, and discoverable underlying mathematical structure in quantum
mechanics, general relativity and DNA biochemistry, which proves INTENT. Intent in this context means one
thing, nothing in the universe science happens by chance.
Relevance is, the Big Bang BEGINNING has the same underlying mathematical structure as ALL universe science. This proves INTENT.
Which means NOTHING in our universe science happens by chance. NOTHING!
Your partner is also artificially confused regarding OP# 11361.
“we do know there was a BEGINNING, a situation before when nothing material exists, including time”
This contrast our current universe with what was "BEFORE when nothing material exists, including time.”
Speculation @ EP :
"what came before the big bang... You appear to be claiming that scientists do" [know].
Conjecture, “appear” (his words), is a disingenuous attempt to “game” (his words), creating a ‘straw man’ to knock down, thus he’s the superior one.
Failure!
JWN members refusing to indulge disingenuous self-promotion are a good thing.
-
EntirelyPossible
Conjecture, “appear” (his words), is a disingenuous attempt to “game” (his words), creating a ‘straw man’ to knock down, thus he’s the superior one.
Failure!
Yep, posting BS like you just did IS a total failure. Let's look at your own words, shall we?
You wrote " But we do know there was a BEGINNING, a situation before when nothing material exists, including time". So, Show me where scientists have said they do know what came before the Big Bang? Or how that formula you post that you claimed showed how we know actually does?
So, your childish name calling aside, can you back up your original claim?
-
EntirelyPossible
Scientific theories do not build on one another, they supersede one another.
Theories often build upon other theories.
-
QC
@cant
@EP: "Show me where scientists have said they do know what came before the Big Bang."
OP# 11361, “we do know there was a BEGINNING , a situation before when nothing material exists, including time.”
Note OP# 11361 makes no mention of the expression Big Bang nor does it say, " scientists have said they do know what came before the Big Bang."
Mathematics goes back only as far as the Big Bang, no further. Make sure your guys understand that.
Hope this clears things up. My apology if some wording led to this confusion.
If some still remain intractable, off course we can always agree to disagree.
There's a watershed of new information challenging your position coming. Suppose to be game changing.
You have a great thread. I'll check in from time to time.
-
EntirelyPossible
OP# 11361, “we do know there was a BEGINNING , a situation before when nothing material exists, including time.”
Note OP# 11361 makes no mention of the expression Big Bang nor does it say, "scientists have said they do know what came before the Big Bang."
Mathematics goes back only as far as the Big Bang, no furher. Make sure your guys understand that. OK, so show me where there is evidence that we know that there was a situation when nothing material existed, even time. You say math only goes so far (as you well should know since you posted an equation and proceeded to make incorrect statements about it, so perhaps should include the addendum that you have a limited understanding of math as well) and correctly so. So how do we (who is "we" in this sentence?) know something before math, before physics as we understand it, before observational evidence exists? If you make a claim, it is on you to prove it. Make sure you understand that. Hope this clears things up. My apology if some wording led to this confusion. It does indeed. You have a made a claim with no proof and when asked, refused to provide any, provided wrong information and are now making conflicting statements and backtracking on what you sais.
