Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A taste of things to come.. – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited August 28 in General
A taste of things to come.. – politicalbetting.com

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Come along, Mike. Gordon Brown was pretty gurntastic before he took over, and what a legendary PM he turned out to be.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,037
    It's not all bad - not all the UK has the love for Brexit-Russia Mick that Politics Joe has.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Oh wait no he didn't, sorry, thinking of someone else.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,756
    IshmaelZ said:

    Oh wait no he didn't, sorry, thinking of someone else.

    Oh, he was legendary all right.

    In the same way Mordred became legendary,
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,340
    Betfair next prime minister
    1.08 Liz Truss 93%
    12.5 Rishi Sunak 8%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.07 Liz Truss 93%
    13 Rishi Sunak 8%
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,756
    Incidentally I haven't seen any mention of this:

    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...
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Seriously, have watched the first three minutes and CBA to watch any further, but what point is being made here? Beyond SHE'S A WOMAN, obv.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,245
    I’m bored of her already and she’s not even taken office yet.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    I’m bored of her already and she’s not even taken office yet.

    She speaks highly of you.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,245
    IshmaelZ said:

    I’m bored of her already and she’s not even taken office yet.

    She speaks highly of you.
    I’d be very concerned if the next FM of England spent any time considering little ole me.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    IshmaelZ said:

    Seriously, have watched the first three minutes and CBA to watch any further, but what point is being made here? Beyond SHE'S A WOMAN, obv.

    Liz you're no Margaret Thatcher.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,022
    "GPs reject Treasury plan for them to prescribe money off energy bills

    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
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,192
    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.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bring-back-boris-why-swing-voters-dont-trust-truss-or-sunak-0dqxlhdmb
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    Yum yum.. I had me some crudités tonight.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTR2PVNOGow
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    This might be an interesting development...

    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
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    HYUFD said:
    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.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,192
  • eekeek Posts: 21,808
    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally I haven't seen any mention of this:

    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...

    Also given that most people don't have smart meters yet how would you collect the information....
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,015
    edited August 21
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally I haven't seen any mention of this:

    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...

    Disadvantages the working poor, then.

    Serve them right.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,570
    ...
    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally I haven't seen any mention of this:

    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...

    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.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,586
    HYUFD said:
    Could this article have any less actual detail in it?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,856
    Question for the historically-minded.

    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?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
    :lol:

    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.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,022
    "Jacob Rees-Mogg backs Liz Truss’s claim UK workers need ‘more graft’"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/21/jacob-rees-mogg-backs-liz-truss-claim-uk-workers-need-more-graft
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,438
    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,015
    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
    :lol:

    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.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,520
    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."


    https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1561445930020241408
  • HYUFD said:
    LOL at "red shirt"!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Andy_JS said:

    "GPs reject Treasury plan for them to prescribe money off energy bills

    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

    And it is also breathtakingly inconsistent.

    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,438
    Toms said:

    Yum yum.. I had me some crudités tonight.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTR2PVNOGow

    Oh my God, that's hilarious.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,438
    HYUFD said:
    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,015
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/21/journalists-at-rightwing-daily-express-set-to-strike-over-pay

    '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 ...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,756
    Andy_JS said:

    "GPs reject Treasury plan for them to prescribe money off energy bills

    It ‘beggars belief’ that ministers think'

    Why didn't they just leave it there?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,756

    Question for the historically-minded.

    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,438

    HYUFD said:
    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
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,022
    Barcelona 1
    Real Sociedad 1
    29 mins

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/62617428
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,438
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.)
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,520
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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...
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,015

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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 ...
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,245
    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.

    https://twitter.com/suzyjourno/status/1561252959782113280?s=21&t=Qyh-NtcVG3iLX23EPjdQvw
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,520
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,438

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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 is indeed massively exciting.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,808

    ...

    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally I haven't seen any mention of this:

    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...

    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..
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,438

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
    Shhhh
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,545
    True this.


  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,856
    HYUFD said:
    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.)
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 2,931
    edited August 21
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,022
    edited August 21
    "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."

    https://news.sky.com/story/raf-recruitment-chief-refused-unlawful-order-to-prioritise-women-and-ethnic-minorities-over-white-men-leaked-email-reveals-12678612
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,611
    Toms said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Seriously, have watched the first three minutes and CBA to watch any further, but what point is being made here? Beyond SHE'S A WOMAN, obv.

    Liz you're no Margaret Thatcher.
    Truss = Poundshop Theresa May
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Prediction: We are about to a revival in Harold Wilson's reputation and interest in his story.

    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
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    HYUFD said:
    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.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,611

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
    You can't get something from nothing.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,876
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,920
    Andy_JS said:

    "Jacob Rees-Mogg backs Liz Truss’s claim UK workers need ‘more graft’"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/21/jacob-rees-mogg-backs-liz-truss-claim-uk-workers-need-more-graft

    If only every workplace allowed workers to take naps on long green sofas we could all reach his level of productivity.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,748
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
    Have you read the article? It is utter nonsense
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,575
    edit
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,786
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
    You can't get something from nothing.
    Quantum foam says different.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103

    True this.


    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.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,920
    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally I haven't seen any mention of this:

    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...

    Are they ones most likely to be undecided but leaning Tory voters though?
  • IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,235
    I made it through the first 38 seconds of that video, but couldn’t take anymore. I doff my hat to those of you who made it through to the full 8.27.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,046
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    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.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,611
    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
    You can't get something from nothing.
    Quantum foam says different.
    Look into my eye!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,611
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,046

    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.

    https://twitter.com/suzyjourno/status/1561252959782113280?s=21&t=Qyh-NtcVG3iLX23EPjdQvw

    Rubbish. The same poll had staying in the UK 7% ahead and just 36% wanting a border poll in the next 5 years.

    Young people always get more conservative as they age too
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,920

    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.

    Fingers in ears and pretend not to notice. Next?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,611

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
    If finite, where is your point of origin?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,748
    Can anyone link to a properly written article regarding JWST / universe origins rather than the nonsense HYUFD linked to
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,520

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Andy_JS said:

    "Jacob Rees-Mogg backs Liz Truss’s claim UK workers need ‘more graft’"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/21/jacob-rees-mogg-backs-liz-truss-claim-uk-workers-need-more-graft

    His Nanny certainly puts in the hours.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,756
    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/21/journalists-at-rightwing-daily-express-set-to-strike-over-pay

    '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 ...

    Enough crudité, thank you.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,611
    Pulpstar said:

    Can anyone link to a properly written article regarding JWST / universe origins rather than the nonsense HYUFD linked to

    Just think for yourself - how can an entire universe arise from nothing?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,876

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,575
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,046

    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

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/07/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-jets-chinese
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,756
    HYUFD said:

    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

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/07/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-jets-chinese
    He's invented time travel?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,876
    Andy_JS said:

    "Jacob Rees-Mogg backs Liz Truss’s claim UK workers need ‘more graft’"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/21/jacob-rees-mogg-backs-liz-truss-claim-uk-workers-need-more-graft

    Funny, given that an image of him lying down on the job is ineradicably etched on nearly everyone's memory cells.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    HYUFD said:

    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

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/07/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-jets-chinese
    I'm talking about 2025 when he wins again not a few months ago.

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,575
    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    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

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/07/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-jets-chinese
    He's invented time travel?
    Yes. And it's the best time travel ever invented. Way, way better than anyone else's.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,245

    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.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,864
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,551

    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 ?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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?
    Probably in Macedonian with a pair of binoculars.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,046

    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
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    edited August 21
    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".

    Is that how many people do science?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,786
    edited August 21

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,245
    HYUFD said:

    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.

    https://twitter.com/suzyjourno/status/1561252959782113280?s=21&t=Qyh-NtcVG3iLX23EPjdQvw

    Rubbish. The same poll had staying in the UK 7% ahead and just 36% wanting a border poll in the next 5 years.

    Young people always get more conservative as they age too
    I love the smell of Unionist complacency in the morning.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,022
    Just noticed on Betfair there's a football team in Bolivia called Always Ready.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,046

    HYUFD said:

    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

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/07/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-jets-chinese
    I'm talking about 2025 when he wins again not a few months ago.

    Like him or not Russia never invaded Ukraine and China never tried to blockade Taiwan when Trump was president
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 46,996

    HYUFD said:
    LOL at "red shirt"!
    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.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    HYUFD said:

    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
    I think we already do?

    It's the missiles that we need the US for.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,245
    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    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.
This discussion has been closed.