(November 11, 2018 at 6:04 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 11, 2018 at 6:03 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You mean beyond the rather obvious stars in the sky?

Yes, from a galaxy light years away.

(November 11, 2018 at 6:04 pm)Everena Wrote: Did you read the article?

Yes. It's nothing that different from other energy discovered. 
The fact you think it is, shows how little you know.

(November 11, 2018 at 6:09 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(November 11, 2018 at 6:04 pm)Everena Wrote: Did you read the article?

Yes. It's nothing that different from other energy discovered. 
The fact you think it is, shows how little you know.

No, the article clearly states that it is different.

(November 11, 2018 at 6:11 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 11, 2018 at 6:09 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Yes. It's nothing that different from other energy discovered. 
The fact you think it is, shows how little you know.

No, the article clearly states that it is different.

No, the article clearly states that it may be different, not that it is.

(November 11, 2018 at 6:13 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 11, 2018 at 6:11 pm)Everena Wrote: No, the article clearly states that it is different.

No, the article clearly states that it may be different, not that it is.

No it doesn't. 
"Fast radio bursts were first discovered in 2007, and scientists have been trying to ascertain their origin and cause ever since.

There are currently 18 known FRBs, but they were all detected by non-specialist radio telescopes that were unable to narrow down their origin to a precise location, according to researchers at McGill University."

Scientists discover all kinds of things they never detected before. It's a RADIO(range) signal. 
That's hardly anything new. You know what a radio is ? 

Wow. Just wow. 
Did you take high shcool science ?

(November 11, 2018 at 6:16 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(November 11, 2018 at 6:13 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: No, the article clearly states that it may be different, not that it is.

No it doesn't. 
"Fast radio bursts were first discovered in 2007, and scientists have been trying to ascertain their origin and cause ever since.

There are currently 18 known FRBs, but they were all detected by non-specialist radio telescopes that were unable to narrow down their origin to a precise location, according to researchers at McGill University."

Scientists discover all kinds of things they never detected before. It's a RADIO(range) signal. 
That's hardly anything new. You know what a radio is ? 

Wow. Just wow. 
Did you take high shcool science ?

Quote:While these are the most common explanations for FRBs, Bryan Butler of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory pointed out that they may not apply to this particular signal.

"We do have to keep in mind that this FRB is the only one known to repeat, so it may be physically different from the others," he said in a statement.

And yes, I took science classes in high school. Did you take English in high school?

(November 11, 2018 at 6:07 pm)Everena Wrote: Yes and I believe we are eternal and infinite and that we exist here and in another universe in superposition.

That's all nice and everything.  
It doesn't feed starving babies or cure cancer. 

I believe the moon is made of green cheese, and you can't prove it isn't.

(November 11, 2018 at 6:16 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(November 11, 2018 at 6:13 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: No, the article clearly states that it may be different, not that it is.

No it doesn't. 
"Fast radio bursts were first discovered in 2007, and scientists have been trying to ascertain their origin and cause ever since.

There are currently 18 known FRBs, but they were all detected by non-specialist radio telescopes that were unable to narrow down their origin to a precise location, according to researchers at McGill University."

Scientists discover all kinds of things they never detected before. It's a RADIO(range) signal. 
That's hardly anything new. You know what a radio is ? 

Wow. Just wow. 
Did you take high shcool science ?

Wow, just wow- here is the last sentence of the article "We do have to keep in mind that this FRB is the only one known to repeat, so it may be physically different from the others," he said in a statement.   

So two differences, one known and one not yet known- It is the only one known to repeat (that is the first known difference) and it may be physically different (that is the possible second difference.) 

(November 11, 2018 at 6:23 pm)Everena Wrote: Wow, just wow- here is the last sentence of the article "We do have to keep in mind that this FRB is the only one known to repeat, so it may be physically different from the others," he said in a statement.   

So two differences, one known and one not yet known- It is the only one known to repeat is the first difference and it may be physically different is the possible second difference. 

May be different.

Yet again, theists proving they lack reading comprehension skills.

(November 11, 2018 at 6:23 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 11, 2018 at 6:16 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: No it doesn't. 
"Fast radio bursts were first discovered in 2007, and scientists have been trying to ascertain their origin and cause ever since.

There are currently 18 known FRBs, but they were all detected by non-specialist radio telescopes that were unable to narrow down their origin to a precise location, according to researchers at McGill University."

Scientists discover all kinds of things they never detected before. It's a RADIO(range) signal. 
That's hardly anything new. You know what a radio is ? 

Wow. Just wow. 
Did you take high shcool science ?

Wow, just wow- here is the last sentence of the article "We do have to keep in mind that this FRB is the only one known to repeat, so it may be physically different from the others," he said in a statement.   

So two differences, one known and one not yet known- It is the only one known to repeat (that is the first known difference) and it may be physically different (that is the possible second difference.) 

I see the problem here. You're a fucking moron. Explains everything.