It's not a silly idea in itself, but it does occur to me that it would advantage those who (a) work from home or (b) have more modern equipment with timers on it.
Who are not the ones who will most likely need the most help...
Conservative voters have “sellers’ remorse” over the ousting of Boris Johnson and would prefer him as prime minister over the two rivals vying to be his successor, focus group research and polling for The Times reveals today.
Interviews with floating voters in marginal constituencies found little enthusiasm for either Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak becoming the next Conservative leader.
This was backed up by polling that found 49 per cent of Tory supporters thought Johnson should remain prime minister — more than the combined support for both Truss and Sunak.
Mark Galeotti @MarkGaleotti It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If the 'National Republican Army' is indeed responsible, it’s striking that there is an anti-Putin terrorist movement now willing to be so active, although if there’s one thing the regime can do is crackdowns, so… 1/
It's not a silly idea in itself, but it does occur to me that it would advantage those who (a) work from home or (b) have more modern equipment with timers on it.
Who are not the ones who will most likely need the most help...
Also given that most people don't have smart meters yet how would you collect the information....
JWST has seen the Glory of the Coming of the Lord, and man, that motherfucker is ANGLICAN. Squeaky bum time and wish I hadn't had so many abortions.
Not exactly Nature or Science though, that website. It contains the dramatic new theory that galaxies have a "red shirt" to their light. Obvs if they don't, they are good Conservatives and suitable for the C of E.
It's not a silly idea in itself, but it does occur to me that it would advantage those who (a) work from home or (b) have more modern equipment with timers on it.
Who are not the ones who will most likely need the most help...
It's not a silly idea in itself, but it does occur to me that it would advantage those who (a) work from home or (b) have more modern equipment with timers on it.
Who are not the ones who will most likely need the most help...
Also given that most people don't have smart meters yet how would you collect the information....
It will put a lot of smart meters in a lot of homes.
There are examples of Leaders of the Opposition getting a second hearing from the electorate, albeit usually because the government has crashed and burned. Cameron did it, Starmer looks like he is doing it. Further back in time, Wilson and Heath?
I'm struggling to think of a PM who has fundamentally changed their public perception once it has settled in place. There was Maggie and the Falklands Factor, sure, but that was more seeing the benefits of Iron Stubbornness than realising she was different to initial perceptions.
JWST has seen the Glory of the Coming of the Lord, and man, that motherfucker is ANGLICAN. Squeaky bum time and wish I hadn't had so many abortions.
Not exactly Nature or Science though, that website. It contains the dramatic new theory that galaxies have a "red shirt" to their light. Obvs if they don't, they are good Conservatives and suitable for the C of E.
It's those black short galaxies I can't stand. The ones where they had run out of shirts, and Spode dressed them up in footer bags.
People who voted against AV in the 2011 referendum because they disliked it more than FPTP were idiots.
If we'd had AV 10 years ago we might have moved to STV by now.
I voted against AV.
Personally, my preference is small multi-member constituencies, that make our elections a little more proportional, while still preserving the link between voters and MPs, and allowing for majority governments to be formed regularly, if not all of the time.
I think three to four MP constituencies would be perfect: it would result in a party who got 42-43% of the vote to get a majority in Parliament, but not an overwhelming one. It would mean that issues like the UK's membership of the EU would be addressed earlier. And it would also encourage the existence of independents.
Obviously, this would not use party lists, so voters would be able to express their preference for one Conservative (or Liberal or whoever) over another.
So basically the NI Assembly's electoral system where the most important task is deciding how many candidates do you field in the constituency to minimise the risk of your candidates splitting the vote so badly all are eliminated early on...
On the upside / downside Sinn Fein got it so wrong they aren't currently in power in Ireland....
That's not quite true.
Imagine that there's a single member seat with STV (just for the purposes of this experiment). The Conservatives put up three candidates, and the LDs put up one.
After the first round, It's:
LD 40% C1 30% C2 20% C3 10%
First C3 gets eliminated. If his voters second choices split 50-50 between C1 and C2, you get:
LD 40% C1 40% C2 30%
Then C2 gets eliminated. And C1 ends up elected.
The same thing works with multimember constituencies. The advantage of only fielding a single candidate is that (a) the voters don't get to choose which of your candidates gets most votes, and (b) there's less confusion or possible leakage due to people who rank the candidates as C3, LD, C2.
JWST has seen the Glory of the Coming of the Lord, and man, that motherfucker is ANGLICAN. Squeaky bum time and wish I hadn't had so many abortions.
Not exactly Nature or Science though, that website. It contains the dramatic new theory that galaxies have a "red shirt" to their light. Obvs if they don't, they are good Conservatives and suitable for the C of E.
It's those black short galaxies I can't stand. The ones where they had run out of shirts, and Spode dressed them up in footer bags.
Not to mention the blue shirts. Na Léinte Gorma and all that, drinking their Guinness dark as the intergalactic spaces.
This could be nothing, or it could be the beginning of the end.
The Kyiv Independent @KyivIndependent · 8m ⚡️Unknown Russian group claims responsibility for murder of imperialist ideologue's daughter.
The National Republican Army is responsible for the murder of Daria, the daughter of Russian imperialist Alexander Dugin, former Russian lawmaker Ilya Ponomaryov said.
He claimed that the group had authorized him to issue the statement. "We declare President Putin a usurper of power and a war criminal who amended the Constitution, unleashed a fratricidal war between Slavic peoples, and sent Russian soldiers to certain and senseless death."
Many years ago the job of assessing whether someone was too sick to work and therefore entitled to ESA or Incapacity Benefit was taken off GPs because they were seen as soft on the ill and disabled.
We had a party last night, and this was a major topic of conversation. It is quite possible that the James Webb telescope completely changes some of our assumptions about the Universe.
'Although one journalist at the titles acknowledged that a rightwing anti-union newspaper going on strike is a “satirist’s dream”, they insisted there is solidarity between unionised staff across all of Reach’s titles, regardless of their political stance.'
There are examples of Leaders of the Opposition getting a second hearing from the electorate, albeit usually because the government has crashed and burned. Cameron did it, Starmer looks like he is doing it. Further back in time, Wilson and Heath?
I'm struggling to think of a PM who has fundamentally changed their public perception once it has settled in place. There was Maggie and the Falklands Factor, sure, but that was more seeing the benefits of Iron Stubbornness than realising she was different to initial perceptions.
Who am I missing?
I would suggest Baldwin, who went from being tariff reformer to centrist plodder to hard-right ideologue to Father of the Nation during the 15 year span of his three premierships.
Afterwards, he became an Enemy of the People but from 1937 to 39 he was genuinely beloved having being highly controversial ten years earlier.
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
(If the Universe is much older and larger than we previously thought, then the possibility of aliens being out there is commensurately higher.)
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
This would be massively exciting. A bit weird the way the article presents it as a crisis for science. New evidence new theories, new questions to answer with the next, even larger space telescope...
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
My best guess, they are predatory groomer galaxies. Prolly in breach of parole terms.
The constant barrage of anti-Truss articles is getting a bit tedious. She may be rubbish but let's at least wait and see.
I feel some of this is Remainer disappointment. What did Hezza say - when Boris goes, Brexit goes. And yet now it looks like the Brexit project continues.
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
This would be massively exciting. A bit weird the way the article presents it as a crisis for science. New evidence new theories, new questions to answer with the next, even larger space telescope...
That was rather th epoint of launching the telescope ...
The Union is under threat like never before. A @lucidtalk poll shows 57% of 18-24-yr-olds want Irish unity with just 35% opting to stay in the UK. Among those aged 25-44, it’s 48% to 42%. The writing is on the wall, although some are too blind to see it.
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
(If the Universe is much older and larger than we previously thought, then the possibility of aliens being out there is commensurately higher.)
Well, yes, but the probability of them being close enough that we could have any meaningful contact with them would be unchanged.
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
This would be massively exciting. A bit weird the way the article presents it as a crisis for science. New evidence new theories, new questions to answer with the next, even larger space telescope...
It's not a silly idea in itself, but it does occur to me that it would advantage those who (a) work from home or (b) have more modern equipment with timers on it.
Who are not the ones who will most likely need the most help...
Also given that most people don't have smart meters yet how would you collect the information....
It will put a lot of smart meters in a lot of homes.
Say it takes 2 hours to install smart meters - a team can do 4 a day max..
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
(If the Universe is much older and larger than we previously thought, then the possibility of aliens being out there is commensurately higher.)
Well, yes, but the probability of them being close enough that we could have any meaningful contact with them would be unchanged.
Well, it went on a few seasons longer than it should, but that's American networks for you.
There are worse ways of wasting half an hour in front of the telly.
(The real irony of the blog is that the astronomical Big Bang Theory was largely down to Fr Georges Lemaître, and some respectable scientists of the time hated it, in part becuase the Big Bang was an irrational thing that gave a space where God could be said to intervene.)
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
Or far more likely:
(3) Our models of early galaxy formation need a little tweaking.
"RAF recruitment head refused 'unlawful' order to 'prioritise women and ethnic minorities over white men', leaked email reveals
The group captain - whose subsequent resignation was revealed by Sky News - told her boss in the email earlier this month that she was not willing to allocate slots on RAF training courses based purely on a specific gender or ethnicity, according to a copy of the message, seen by Sky News."
Well, it went on a few seasons longer than it should, but that's American networks for you.
There are worse ways of wasting half an hour in front of the telly.
(The real irony of the blog is that the astronomical Big Bang Theory was largely down to Fr Georges Lemaître, and some respectable scientists of the time hated it, in part becuase the Big Bang was an irrational thing that gave a space where God could be said to intervene.)
I can recommend Moonfall, if you are into rigorous hard-core orbital physics.
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
Or far more likely:
(3) Our models of early galaxy formation need a little tweaking.
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
Well, the author of "The Big Bang Never Happened" is certainly convinced the Big Bang has been disproved. And so is "Evolution News".
It seems to be a lot harder to find this kind of statement in reputable sources, though.
We had a party last night, and this was a major topic of conversation. It is quite possible that the James Webb telescope completely changes some of our assumptions about the Universe.
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
I remember as a student reading some of the articles about the steady state theory, which was fashionable around that time and always seemed to me more intuitively credible than much of what has followed.
If the universe has always existed (better considered as time itself being an internal feature within and property of the universe, rather than some external absolute construct as we imagine it) then all the human-centric nonsense around its creator simply goes away.
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
Or far more likely:
(3) Our models of early galaxy formation need a little tweaking.
Bit over the top. I suspect the Khmer Rouge top the GOP for mad nihilism and destructiveness. But the point still stands.
2024 is a battle for the very existence of the democratic republic of America. Nothing less. Trump is clear and present danger and easily the worst threat since its foundation.
The fact he remains alive proves his fabled Deep State does not exist.
It's not a silly idea in itself, but it does occur to me that it would advantage those who (a) work from home or (b) have more modern equipment with timers on it.
Who are not the ones who will most likely need the most help...
Are they ones most likely to be undecided but leaning Tory voters though?
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
I remember as a student reading some of the articles about the steady state theory, which was fashionable around that time and always seemed to me more intuitively credible than much of what has followed.
If the universe has always existed (better considered as time itself being an internal feature within and property of the universe, rather than some external absolute construct as we imagine it) then all the human-centric nonsense around its creator simply goes away.
If the universe was infinite in age and infinite in size the night sky would have a bright white sky from all the star light reaching us from every direction.
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
I remember as a student reading some of the articles about the steady state theory, which was fashionable around that time and always seemed to me more intuitively credible than much of what has followed.
If the universe has always existed (better considered as time itself being an internal feature within and property of the universe, rather than some external absolute construct as we imagine it) then all the human-centric nonsense around its creator simply goes away.
No as God would have created it. The evidence is not that the universe has always been created but that it is much older than thought
As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
Or far more likely:
(3) Our models of early galaxy formation need a little tweaking.
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
I remember as a student reading some of the articles about the steady state theory, which was fashionable around that time and always seemed to me more intuitively credible than much of what has followed.
If the universe has always existed (better considered as time itself being an internal feature within and property of the universe, rather than some external absolute construct as we imagine it) then all the human-centric nonsense around its creator simply goes away.
No as God would have created it. The evidence is not that the universe has always been created but that it is much older than thought
Who created God? Where did God "live" before he "created" the universe?
The Union is under threat like never before. A @lucidtalk poll shows 57% of 18-24-yr-olds want Irish unity with just 35% opting to stay in the UK. Among those aged 25-44, it’s 48% to 42%. The writing is on the wall, although some are too blind to see it.
As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
I remember as a student reading some of the articles about the steady state theory, which was fashionable around that time and always seemed to me more intuitively credible than much of what has followed.
If the universe has always existed (better considered as time itself being an internal feature within and property of the universe, rather than some external absolute construct as we imagine it) then all the human-centric nonsense around its creator simply goes away.
If the universe was infinite in age and infinite in size the night sky would have a bright white sky from all the star light reaching us from every direction.
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
I remember as a student reading some of the articles about the steady state theory, which was fashionable around that time and always seemed to me more intuitively credible than much of what has followed.
If the universe has always existed (better considered as time itself being an internal feature within and property of the universe, rather than some external absolute construct as we imagine it) then all the human-centric nonsense around its creator simply goes away.
If the universe was infinite in age and infinite in size the night sky would have a bright white sky from all the star light reaching us from every direction.
Not if the density of stars was low enough that the inverse-square law meant that the brightness of the night-sky asymptotes to a limit.
'Although one journalist at the titles acknowledged that a rightwing anti-union newspaper going on strike is a “satirist’s dream”, they insisted there is solidarity between unionised staff across all of Reach’s titles, regardless of their political stance.'
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
I remember as a student reading some of the articles about the steady state theory, which was fashionable around that time and always seemed to me more intuitively credible than much of what has followed.
If the universe has always existed (better considered as time itself being an internal feature within and property of the universe, rather than some external absolute construct as we imagine it) then all the human-centric nonsense around its creator simply goes away.
No as God would have created it. The evidence is not that the universe has always been created but that it is much older than thought
Who created God? Where did God "live" before he "created" the universe?
It's really impressive that people here are able to come up with these amazing insights that no one has ever thought of before, despite some of the human race's greatest minds having pondered these questions for thousands of years.
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
The idea that science in any field is complete is vanishingly unlikely. The whole point of science is that every single thing it ever says is open to development, falsification and verification. When you stop thinking that way about anything you are into dogma and authority.
In general it is bad when one set of ideas becomes over dominant, because it drifts easily into that sort of dogma. The real interest is in the battle of ideas, not a cosy consensus.
People who can't cope with this are in the wrong job. Being proved wrong is the lifeblood of science.
As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.
Trump said he would now bomb Putin a few months ago
As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.
Trump said he would now bomb Putin a few months ago
As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.
Trump said he would now bomb Putin a few months ago
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
I remember as a student reading some of the articles about the steady state theory, which was fashionable around that time and always seemed to me more intuitively credible than much of what has followed.
If the universe has always existed (better considered as time itself being an internal feature within and property of the universe, rather than some external absolute construct as we imagine it) then all the human-centric nonsense around its creator simply goes away.
No as God would have created it. The evidence is not that the universe has always been created but that it is much older than thought
Who created God? Where did God "live" before he "created" the universe?
It's really impressive that people here are able to come up with these amazing insights that no one has ever thought of before, despite some of the human race's greatest minds having pondered these questions for thousands of years.
Amazing too that a single sentence aphorism or 5 year old's question can confirm or overturn thousands of years of careful disputation.
As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.
Trump said he would now bomb Putin a few months ago
As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.
Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.
If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
The preliminary JWST calibration that has been used for many of these studies is wrong by up to 30% and that can have a huge impact on the inferred redshifts of these objects.
The constant barrage of anti-Truss articles is getting a bit tedious. She may be rubbish but let's at least wait and see.
I feel some of this is Remainer disappointment. What did Hezza say - when Boris goes, Brexit goes. And yet now it looks like the Brexit project continues.
The disappointment is that there’s likely to be another 2 years of EU hate on steroids as Truss is a puppet for the ERG .
Not sure how Brexit can go given the UK is out . What’s going to happen to change this ?
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
I remember as a student reading some of the articles about the steady state theory, which was fashionable around that time and always seemed to me more intuitively credible than much of what has followed.
If the universe has always existed (better considered as time itself being an internal feature within and property of the universe, rather than some external absolute construct as we imagine it) then all the human-centric nonsense around its creator simply goes away.
No as God would have created it. The evidence is not that the universe has always been created but that it is much older than thought
Who created God? Where did God "live" before he "created" the universe?
As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.
Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.
If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
The other day we were sitting outside our local caff having a coffee and saying somewhat logorrhoeacally (if that's a word) that some people think that climate change is just a natural fluctuation when I heard a matron behind us say "Yes, yes, that's right".
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
I remember as a student reading some of the articles about the steady state theory, which was fashionable around that time and always seemed to me more intuitively credible than much of what has followed.
If the universe has always existed (better considered as time itself being an internal feature within and property of the universe, rather than some external absolute construct as we imagine it) then all the human-centric nonsense around its creator simply goes away.
No as God would have created it. The evidence is not that the universe has always been created but that it is much older than thought
Who created God? Where did God "live" before he "created" the universe?
Precisely. Bertrand Russell dealt with this human fallacy in the 1960s. If your problem is how X came to exist and your answer is that Y created X, you simply shift the question from X to Y, with any answer you conjure up for Y being equally applicable to X hence cutting out the need for Y.
The Union is under threat like never before. A @lucidtalk poll shows 57% of 18-24-yr-olds want Irish unity with just 35% opting to stay in the UK. Among those aged 25-44, it’s 48% to 42%. The writing is on the wall, although some are too blind to see it.
As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.
Trump said he would now bomb Putin a few months ago
The Red Shirt was the one who beamed down to the planet and then got eaten/vaporised/was the victim of a transporter failure and turned into a bloody puddle.
As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.
Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.
If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
As far as I know no one has asked at the leader hustings how they will cope with a Trump fascist America that is pulling out of NATO and supporting Putin.
Some civil servants might want to have a very close read of the fine print of the Trident contract.
If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
We could create our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly if needed, as could Israel and Japan
Ho ho. The financial resources for that would have to be nicked from other budgets. Given a choice between widespread civil unrest and chucking the nukes, it is easy to see what they’d do.
Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
OK.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought (2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
I remember as a student reading some of the articles about the steady state theory, which was fashionable around that time and always seemed to me more intuitively credible than much of what has followed.
If the universe has always existed (better considered as time itself being an internal feature within and property of the universe, rather than some external absolute construct as we imagine it) then all the human-centric nonsense around its creator simply goes away.
While it may be more intuitively credible, it doesn't fit the evidence as well as the big bang theory does. The cosmic microwave background radiation, for example, was predicted by the BBT and duly discovered some time later.
Comments
In the same way Mordred became legendary,
1.08 Liz Truss 93%
12.5 Rishi Sunak 8%
Next Conservative leader
1.07 Liz Truss 93%
13 Rishi Sunak 8%
Plans to cut energy bills if peak-time use avoided
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62626908
It's not a silly idea in itself, but it does occur to me that it would advantage those who (a) work from home or (b) have more modern equipment with timers on it.
Who are not the ones who will most likely need the most help...
It ‘beggars belief’ that ministers think doctors could assess if patients were vulnerable enough to need help, says GP leader"
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/21/gps-reject-treasury-plan-for-them-to-prescribe-money-off-energy-bills
Interviews with floating voters in marginal constituencies found little enthusiasm for either Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak becoming the next Conservative leader.
This was backed up by polling that found 49 per cent of Tory supporters thought Johnson should remain prime minister — more than the combined support for both Truss and Sunak.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bring-back-boris-why-swing-voters-dont-trust-truss-or-sunak-0dqxlhdmb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTR2PVNOGow
https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/sci/big-bang-theory-debunked.html
Mark Galeotti
@MarkGaleotti
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If the 'National Republican Army' is indeed responsible, it’s striking that there is an anti-Putin terrorist movement now willing to be so active, although if there’s one thing the regime can do is crackdowns, so… 1/
https://twitter.com/MarkGaleotti/status/1561414590050729984
https://twitter.com/Chunko2018/status/1561140814713085954
Serve them right.
There are examples of Leaders of the Opposition getting a second hearing from the electorate, albeit usually because the government has crashed and burned. Cameron did it, Starmer looks like he is doing it. Further back in time, Wilson and Heath?
I'm struggling to think of a PM who has fundamentally changed their public perception once it has settled in place. There was Maggie and the Falklands Factor, sure, but that was more seeing the benefits of Iron Stubbornness than realising she was different to initial perceptions.
Who am I missing?
It's those black short galaxies I can't stand. The ones where they had run out of shirts, and Spode dressed them up in footer bags.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/21/jacob-rees-mogg-backs-liz-truss-claim-uk-workers-need-more-graft
Imagine that there's a single member seat with STV (just for the purposes of this experiment). The Conservatives put up three candidates, and the LDs put up one.
After the first round, It's:
LD 40%
C1 30%
C2 20%
C3 10%
First C3 gets eliminated. If his voters second choices split 50-50 between C1 and C2, you get:
LD 40%
C1 40%
C2 30%
Then C2 gets eliminated. And C1 ends up elected.
The same thing works with multimember constituencies. The advantage of only fielding a single candidate is that (a) the voters don't get to choose which of your candidates gets most votes, and (b) there's less confusion or possible leakage due to people who rank the candidates as C3, LD, C2.
The Kyiv Independent
@KyivIndependent
·
8m
⚡️Unknown Russian group claims responsibility for murder of imperialist ideologue's daughter.
The National Republican Army is responsible for the murder of Daria, the daughter of Russian imperialist Alexander Dugin, former Russian lawmaker Ilya Ponomaryov said.
He claimed that the group had authorized him to issue the statement. "We declare President Putin a usurper of power and a war criminal who amended the Constitution, unleashed a fratricidal war between Slavic peoples, and sent Russian soldiers to certain and senseless death."
https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1561445930020241408
Many years ago the job of assessing whether someone was too sick to work and therefore entitled to ESA or Incapacity Benefit was taken off GPs because they were seen as soft on the ill and disabled.
'Although one journalist at the titles acknowledged that a rightwing anti-union newspaper going on strike is a “satirist’s dream”, they insisted there is solidarity between unionised staff across all of Reach’s titles, regardless of their political stance.'
Must go and slice some more shallots ...
Afterwards, he became an Enemy of the People but from 1937 to 39 he was genuinely beloved having being highly controversial ten years earlier.
Here's the story.
The James Webb telescope is looking at stars and galaxies that are a long, long way away. We are therefore seeing them billions of years ago. When the universe was a lot younger. According the standard model, these galaxies should therefore look a lot less developed and a lot less stable.
However, what we're seeing is galaxies that are billions of years away, and look much more mature than we'd expect to see.
This means one of several things, of which the two most likely are:
(1) The Galaxy is a lot older (and larger) than we had previously thought
(2) The Big Bang theory is simply wrong
Real Sociedad 1
29 mins
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/62617428
I feel some of this is Remainer disappointment. What did Hezza say - when Boris goes, Brexit goes. And yet now it looks like the Brexit project continues.
Among those aged 25-44, it’s 48% to 42%.
The writing is on the wall, although some are too blind to see it.
https://twitter.com/suzyjourno/status/1561252959782113280?s=21&t=Qyh-NtcVG3iLX23EPjdQvw
There are worse ways of wasting half an hour in front of the telly.
(The real irony of the blog is that the astronomical Big Bang Theory was largely down to Fr Georges Lemaître, and some respectable scientists of the time hated it, in part becuase the Big Bang was an irrational thing that gave a space where God could be said to intervene.)
(3) Our models of early galaxy formation need a little tweaking.
The group captain - whose subsequent resignation was revealed by Sky News - told her boss in the email earlier this month that she was not willing to allocate slots on RAF training courses based purely on a specific gender or ethnicity, according to a copy of the message, seen by Sky News."
https://news.sky.com/story/raf-recruitment-chief-refused-unlawful-order-to-prioritise-women-and-ethnic-minorities-over-white-men-leaked-email-reveals-12678612
Some evidence:
Newstatesman piece this week by Phil Collins pointing out that Starmer is doing what Wilson would have done. Starmer is a fan of the 1960/70s PM.
and now:
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1561326794774560769
It seems to be a lot harder to find this kind of statement in reputable sources, though.
If the universe has always existed (better considered as time itself being an internal feature within and property of the universe, rather than some external absolute construct as we imagine it) then all the human-centric nonsense around its creator simply goes away.
2024 is a battle for the very existence of the democratic republic of America. Nothing less. Trump is clear and present danger and easily the worst threat since its foundation.
The fact he remains alive proves his fabled Deep State does not exist.
Young people always get more conservative as they age too
In general it is bad when one set of ideas becomes over dominant, because it drifts easily into that sort of dogma. The real interest is in the battle of ideas, not a cosy consensus.
People who can't cope with this are in the wrong job. Being proved wrong is the lifeblood of science.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/07/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-jets-chinese
If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years.
Not sure how Brexit can go given the UK is out . What’s going to happen to change this ?
Is that how many people do science?
It's the missiles that we need the US for.