| Charles Lucas <charlesandmilly@gmail.com>: Jul 28 06:25PM -0700 On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 8:31:11 AM UTC-5, Anass Luca wrote: > You had 85 lines of quote in the post to which I replied, most not > relevant to your actual added content, for only 24 lines of material > added by you. Thank you for pointing that out. My apologies for the limited time I had and for not trimming the posts. I will keep that in mind from now on. I noticed that too. Part of all of that was learning on my part and part of it was not taking the proper time to do so. I will do my best to remember for the future. Have a great day and thanks again. Sincerely, Charles Lucas |
| "ohg...@gmail.com" <ohger1s@gmail.com>: Jul 29 06:33AM -0700 > Thank you for pointing that out. My apologies for the > limited time I had and for not trimming the posts. Don't sweat it. Back when usenet was actually breathing regularly, a "proper" newsreader might have been worth the money. It's unfortunate, but usenet and even dedicated web forums have suffered badly because of the dreaded Facebook, which I admit I have gravitated to. Don't sweat using the free Google interface - that's what I use. |
| Freethinker <freethinker@mymail.com>: Jul 29 09:55AM +0200 On 25.07.22 20:13, Peter W. wrote: > Yikes!! > a) What is known of the Universe may be extrapolated backwards in time. All a telescope does, whatever type of radiation it observes, is look backward in time. Well, yes and no. A Telescope does indeed see a situation as it was when the light (or radiation) started it's travel towords it. This does not mean that what we know of the unviverse can be extrapolated backwards in time. Or at least it's not the same things: if it can be done, it needs much more than a telescope. > b) It is a pretty linear extrapolation based on the data observed to follow distributed energy back to a (probably) single point. It may be a non linear extrapolation: we don't know. We are still trying to find out. > c) And, this really is basic, established science based on direct observation of specific evidence that also is repeatable. The observations are repeatable, the conclusions are only based on "best" models of which we are not certain at all. > d) CERN has told us a great deal on how matter is formed, how it holds together, how it behaves and more. CERN cannot tell us anything, it doesn't speak. The results of the experiments done at CERN have shown us what basic building blocks matter has and how they interact with one another, but these are far from being complete and telling us "more" than that. They even raise more questions than ansqers and this is the beauty of physical research: there's work to be done tonorrow too. > e) It turns out that even this is predictable and repeatable. Making it also basic science. What is? > f) However, we still do not know what we do not know. Exactly. > g) Clarke's Third Law: Science, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic. Was, is no longer. > 2. There is a Prime Mover that is self-aware. > 3. There is/are forces that is/are responsible/resulted in the 'big bang'. Said force/forces need not be self-aware, intelligent, self-directed, nor anything else other than (a) Force/Forces. > Which is the simplest explanation? I am not advocating the existence of a God nor his non-existence. I am with ohg who says you just can't prove either way, so this whole discussion is just repeating your own conviction and nothing else. It is futile to try to convince other people of your convictions, especially with "evidence" you can't have because there is just none. A lot of people have tried before and it hasn't worked yet. What I am saying is that you clearly never studied any physics at a University. Had you done that, you would have remembered very well the moment the professor told you "We don't know if the "Big Bang" ever really occurred. It's a theory, but as of right now it's the best theory we have" (and that was about 15 years ago, when the neutrino didn't have a mass). In other words ohg is right when he writes "scientists don't know for sure, they think it is this way". |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 3 updates in 2 topics"
Post a Comment