Let's look, for comparison, at Kenny Miller in 2014/15 - 9 goals in 43 games playing in the Scottish Championship... Is Stevie May really that much of a dud? Yes he had an almost career ending injury that put him out from Dec 2015 - Feb 2017, but now he's back fit and I think he could do the business back in the Scotland where he last scored 27 in 49 games in 2013/14.
A good single malt. Favourite one I've ever found was at a Whisky tasting. It was called Longrow CV. My girlfriend bought it for me but unfortunately it was limited edition (now discontinued) and is hard to find. As for a more common malt, my favourite is probably Highland Park although I do enjoy the more peaty whiskies too.
I don't often get free drinks doing gigs and when I do usually opt for a soft drink as I'm a true professional... well... I'm usually driving.
I don't accept the infinite multiverse theory. Although on the surface it appears to tie up a lot of the problems in physics, to me it seems a lot like 'God of the gaps' - purporting to answer a question with an unfathomable and untestable "solution".
I have a keen interest in it also Panda although there are so many different things to try and get our heads around.
As you say the observable universe is estimated to be 90 odd billion light years across but most of the theories and ideas are really built on pure guess work.
Do you believe the Universe is infinit ?
Do you believe in god ?
Here is something you may find interesting, answer session from Brian Cox.
Sorry but it's not built of pure guess work. The estimate of 93 billion light years is the best estimate we have on all of the available evidence. Of course it is falsifiable, as everything must be in science, but it is the best calculations we have and until something (major) comes along to cast doubt upon it it is accepted as truth (or as close as we can currently get to truth).
93 billion light years isn't infinite, so no. There may be infinite multiverses, but I don't know enough about those current hypotheses to comment. Another option is an infinite cycle of big bang big crunch big bang... which now seems impossible due to the evidence of accelerated expansion.
No, I don't believe in a god.
I don't have time to watch the entire video at the moment, especially considering it's 3:10am, but I'm sure it's hugely interesting. I picked up on his answer to the question "how will the universe end?" in which he stated that "our current best estimate is that it will carry on expanding forever" because it is accelerating. He states that "before that discovery we thought that gravity is always attractive... and so it should at least be slowing down" and possibly recollapse.
I have my own idea which still involves a gravitational 'big crunch' despite the acceleration. I have to clarify, this isn't based on any analysis, mathematics or even a thorough understanding of physics, it's simply something which I thought of during my research.
So, the expansion of the universe is often explained in terms of a balloon being blown up. As Brian Cox said, it was previously thought that gravity would slow down the expansion but the evidence shows this isn't happening and therefore, no big crunch. However surely if not slowing down the speed of expansion it must hold back the acceleration somewhat. And here is my idea: what if there is a point at which the effects of gravity break down, maybe due to distance or speed, at the edge of the universe. What if this happened at one area of the universe in the same way that a an over inflated balloon perforates causing a split. Surely the other areas of the universe, still bound by gravity, would then attract and pull together around the edge accelerating away from the split until they eventually collide in a massive big crunch, leading to another big bang...
Yeah but we are unsure as to when it happened, the big bang is one theory that most of the brainy guys favour but I cant see or understand how it can be due to all the science.
They believe the whole universe or the big bang happened 13.8 billion years ago.
The closest galaxy to us is 2 million light years away, so effectivelly we are looking at it 2 million years ago......thats something else I dont quite understand.
They also say the universe and galaxies etc are still expanding and moving away, like an explosion ( big bang ) and the furthest we can see is 98 billion light years away ( observable universe ) but if light is the fastest anything can travel then how is it possible for something to be further than 13.8billion light years ?
Even double it if we are at the end of that moving explosion looking at the opposite side of the bubble but that still leaves over 60 billion light years they know in distance that exists......that doesnt even include what is beyond the bubble or observable universe as its likely space is never ending.
Thats why Im not convinced the big bang created all we can see, the science just doesnt add up.
Been too busy lately and questioning whether I actually want to return to SFF, but this is one topic I can really sink my teeth into.
I'll get to that, but first let me clear a couple of things up.
The universe is estimated to be 93 billion light years across. The most distant objects are moving away from us faster than the speed of light, and accelerating, so will never be observable.
The oldest galaxy we have observed is GN-z11 and the light we see left it 13.4 billion years ago, yet the galaxy (if it still exists) is now 32 billion years away. This has been calculated through it's redshift.
The science does add up, unfortunately it's hard to keep up with and to understand a lot of the time.