One more goal to make the 2nd leg comfortable.

timbros:


@bolded...Mourinho took Spurs to a Cup final and would have won it if he coached that final.

Pochettino was dragging league with Leicester in 2015 and ended up 3rd. Who does that if not a bottler? On paper, that Spurs team vs their Leicester counterpart, who was better? Are we going to talk about the UCL that Poch went on a brilliant run to the final only to bottle it? Maybe you don't know of the EFL cup meeting against West Ham in 2017 where Spurs have a good chance of going all the way to maybe win it. Leading 2-0 first half on to come crashing down at full time 2-3 in their home. In 2018 FA cup semi final against Man United, Pochettino and his Spurs side was leading 1-0 comfortably only to suddenly caputilate in 2nd half and lose 1-2.... I can go on and on.

There is a reason why Poch and Spurs is called bottlers. I didn't invent the tag.

Mourinho didn't win anything. No shoulda or woulda here. None of what you typed makes pochettino a bottler. Absolutely nothing and they didn't bottle anything to Leicester. its absolute nonsense to say Mauricio Pochettino's side 'bottled' something they never had a chance or were even considered favourites of winning at any time. Pochettino over achieved at Tottenham. Why Is the serial winner Conte not winning anything at Tottenham and is getting chased away?

Bruno always looks busy defending and runs about a lot but his actual pressing ability and defensive skills are very limited, Players just run past him.

I don't understand why he is using the same line up vs Liverpool.

timbros:


I don't know how someone will compare a serial bottler with a serial winner.

This narrative will never stop being amusing to me. How exactly is Pochettino a serial bottler? Please name the coaches that will win trophies at Tottenham let's see. The Conte you are talking about is at the same club currently yet he hasn't won even a spoon or gotten close. He is even planing on running away or rather they are ones chasing him away from the club.

Ibime:


We faced the. In Group Stage

You can face Milan. That's for only the round of 16. There are no restriction for the quarter final draws.

timbros:


If you think say running a marathon league of 38 matches and end up being first is easy, make Pochettino do am na.

He did at Psg.

Spy360:

With due respect, your question is a stupid one (no insults please).

Why didn't Seu.n put an unlike button on his website? You will have to ask him for a vivid explanation and not me.

I have already told you that it's the decision of the creator. All I can say about that decision is that it is the source of your wonder. That wonder makes God God. If life was so common, people like you will say it is nature, or chemistry or biology. I will say the same too. But because it is not, we bow our heads in awe.

It's the same reason diamonds are carbon compounds with exactly the same chemistry with charcoal. Yet there is no comparison with their value. This is the reason I believe in a creator.

* Your explanation is not plausible. It's make believe and Cop-out to defend your so called Creator/designer.

* Your post actually points to a real problem. The concept of your Creator is so mutable that it can provide any ex-post facto reasoning for any scenario, because God is not well defined. He can remain ill defined because he doesn't actually exist - we never have to ascribe anything real to your Creator because he is never observable.

Spy360:

The very reason it sounds so unreal to you.

It is the state of wonder that makes it His decision. If there was a abundance of life- if there was any trace at all of life, people like you would dismiss his very existence. That's your answer.

There's no answer In what you just replied. Give a vivid explanation why you would think your Creator/designer created a vast universe to only put life in a tiny dot. Am sure even you realize how dumb that is.

Spy360:

Thanks for commenting. Your assertion is based on assumption. Mine is based on probability.

So far from what we have seen from near by stars and indeed galaxies there's no sign of life. In over a billion planetary bodies investigated, there is no single sign of even amoeba. That's earth in over a billion samples of planets. That probability is high. If we go by that, the chances of finding life any where in the universe is as impossible as the chances of finding a particular mustard seed in the sands of all the beaches on the earth put together.

With all our technology, no single sign accross the observable universe. The fact that any alien life has not even contacted us speaks volumes is another big sign.

Worst still, we will never know because the universe is constantly expanding faster than the speed of light.

The fact that we will never know, has brought us to an inevitable conclusion.

*We know what is needed for life. The elements that make up life on Earth are also, not coincidentally, the most common elements in the universe (Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen. it's not a question of if other life exist in the universe but when we discover them. It's far more likely that human technology is too primitive to see very far into space.


*We have only explored 9 planets up to date and only three we have landed in.


*There are thousands of exoplanets we have discovered which we feel comfortable can’t support life due to their makeup or proximity to a star and there are also many that we feel COULD support life. But we have no idea if they do until we send someone there. The problem is they are too far away and our technology is not developed to that extent yet.


*Why will your Designer/Creater create a massive universe and only put life in a tiny dot of it? Can you give an answer to that.

Spy360:

You are not current.

There's a rover in Mars as we speak. Voyager 1and 2 has toured the entire solar system. Also the JWST you mentioned has the capacity to detect life signatures and forms even in other galaxies.

In a billion solar systems with X10 number of planets, only earth has life. Not even microbes in other planetary systems.

That's a probability of 0.1*10^-10

You call that high?

There are more stars in the Galaxy than grains of sand on the Earth. More Galaxies in the Universe than grains of sand on the Earth.
So you believe your God/creator made Galaxies and Universes of untold and unimaginable size and dropped sentient beings in only a tiny blue dot of it? It is highly improbable that there is no other life in the universe.

[quote author=monerozi5590 post=121489684]

something that is a fact is true.
[quote]
**True beyond reasonable doubt?

monerozi5590:



Why are you exposing yourself like this. Newton's law of universal gravity holds true. There's a formula for it and even SS3 students know this.

I am giving you down to earth stuff. Something that is relatable.

Anything that goes up on earth come down because of gravity. Is that statement not true?

***I never told you gravity doesn't exist. Thats what you are insuinating by your post asking me kg3 questions lol. I said Universal law of gravity was flawed and had limitations. True or false?

Cc monerozi5590.

Maybe the wording I used here is confusing you and that's why we are going in circles.

**

Bombblacks:

Nothing in science is a confirmed fact. In natural science we cannot prove anything to be true.

What i was trying to tell you is that everything in natural science comes with a level of uncertainty, so nothing is ever scientifically proven "true" beyond a shadow of doubt. I used the word fact in my post. There's always room for improvement and it can even be thrown away when more accurate discoveries are made.

Tataffo:

Lol,How/When did Time come into being?

**First of all what do you understand by time?

monerozi5590:


But but do you know the meaning of Inertia?

Can you explain your point or you just want to ridicule Physics.

* You are the one that actually needs to explain cause right now am confused on what you are saying. You talked about Universal law of gravity and I told you it's flawed. It has been observed to be flawed around the universe then you switched to Newtons first law.

monerozi5590:


How is something not fact under certain conditions? E.g

A body will remain in its state of rest until a force is applied. Is that statement not true?

Why are you doing this?

*In non inertial frames it's not.

seankafor:

Why can't I quote the words?

monerozi5590:



Is like you didn't understand my post you quoted before now. I said most laws in Physics are fact under certain conditions. Truth.


Tell me the flaws of gravity on earth all conditions being equal.

You don't see how flawed that statement is. How is something a fact only under "certain condition". It already shows limitation and flaws.

monerozi5590:



Tell me the flaws of gravity under the right condition on earth. Emphasis on the right conditions.

It's called universal law of gravity so why are you restricting it to earth?

monerozi5590:



Haba bro. Nothing in science is a confirmed fact. This is not true. Most laws in Physics are confirmed fact under certain conditions.

Law of gravity to my level is a fact especially here on earth.

* Newton's laws of physics allowed us to calculate how to land a man on the moon. is it therefore a fact? Newton's laws fail to work well at velocities approaching the speed of light so needed adjustment.



* Law of gravity is not a fact. It has various proven flaws.

seankafor:
bro, you can write all epistles you want to defend your favorite scientists, it doesn't make you different from religionsits who go extra lengths to preach and manufacture variety of things for their followers to keep them in check..

Atheists worship scientists more like religionists worship their preachers.. nothing more nothing less..

These scientists, yes are trying to at least come up with practical solutions to the world's problems.. but they overstep their boundaries when they try so hard to explain what's beyond them, like how the world formed, what and what existed billion years ago.. that's where I draw the line in listening to their craps..

You can still choose to worship them as you wish.. it's your choice, but know there are people like me who will not agree and will attack the junks you Chun out here in a public forum..

The only way you get to enjoy these half cooked beliefs of yours is if you keep them to yourself alone

*You are actually comparing people who create theories and then carry out experiments and observation to prove those theories to people who believe in fairytales lol.


* Worship scientist? Elaborate on this statement cause am lost. How does stating a principal or theory equate to worshipping a scientist.


* Beyond them? If scientist did engage in things that were beyond them you won't be enjoying the advance technology of the 21st century. You are very bold.

monerozi5590:



.....Just like the name implies is still a theory and not a confirmed fact.. Not all scientists sef accept the theory.

Nothing in science is a confirmed fact. In natural science we cannot prove anything to be true.

seankafor:
People defending and ready to kill on what archaic scientific theories and postulations based on myth from their favorite scientists just to sound and appear woke

Big bang this, metaphysics that.. like they were there billion years ago when it exploded and formed something from nothing

There is no difference between these lots and the religionists they love to hate

Just that this time, they want to sound and appear woke and more intelligent not knowing they re appearing more dumb and dumber

*Stop talking from a place of ignorance and learn. Obviously we didn't see the Big Bang, and we can't make another Big Bang in labs So what scientist do is to devise theories to explain why the universe looks the way it does, and then do experiments to compare their theory with the real world. If the experiments match the predictions the more confident they feel about the theory being accurate.


* The theory we use to describe the universe is General Relativity. When we make a few assumptions about the universe and feed these into General Relativity it tells us that our universe is described by an equation called the F.L.R.W metric . This have been used to make predictions about the universe, and so far they've all been proven true, so we know it works.

*The thing about the FLRW metric is that we can use it to wind time back and calculate how the universe must have been in the past. If we do this we find the universe gets denser and denser and hotter and hotter, until around some billion years ago the density and temperature become infinite. This is the point called the big bang.

A001:

That's why I said your IQ is too low. You don't understand the subject you're arguing about.

Based on the Big Bang model, many physicists assert the Universe came from nothing, an initial state devoid of matter.

They use the term nothing because time, space, and matter didn't exist in that initial state, and the state isn't visible to the naked eye.

Facts in Physics generally don't align with your parochial views and emotions, and it's possible for something to come from nothing empirically speaking.

* Stop lying and repeating this mumbo jumbo.

*The big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. It doesn't attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside the universe.

* We have already established it was nothing or void like you are claiming.

A001:
Almost all scientists in the world belong or belonged to one religion or the other.

Your IQ is too low to know philosophy lies at the heart of all principles and concepts in science.

Na wa o. See the graduate the Nigerian education system is churning out.

Scientist don't read books about unicorns or minotaur to find any truths. Scientist don't read and find truths in fairytales. Scientist don't read the bible or Quran to find truth in anything. How can a physicist say scientist read fairytales to find truths? Wait you are reading and following Otem to find truth. What school did you attend again?

A001:

Type it on Google. Maybe it can cure your stupidity.

* I need to know what you school taught you so we know where to start educating you from.

A001:

The Big Bang is metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. A disgrace that calls himself a graduate. Lols

Can you show me where I said the above sentence? You keep reading without understanding.

A001:

I did philosophy in school and passed it in flying colors. That's why I know metaphysics, one of the aspects of philosophy, is different from physics.

Only fools confuse one with the other.

*What did you school teach you about metaphysics?

A001:

And you can see that quantum singularity? Your IQ is so low. You can see quantum particles? Without the physicists you disparage, would you know there are anything like quantum particles — sub-atomic particles which are too small to be seen with the naked eye?

You're obviously more knowledgeable that the scientists that designed the model who believe the universe expanded from nothing, a state the human eye can't see.

It's called a vacuum or void because it is devoid of matter. Learn the basics of Physics before discussing the subject.

You're just a clown.

* We have already established it didn't come from nothing like you claimed.


* Whenever you make a statement, try to define what you mean in terms of sense-experience. If you find that you can't, you are talking gibberish. This is called "positivism", and in positivism, one does not admit questions like yours as meaningful. Physicists are positivists.

*The big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. It doesn't attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside the universe.

A001:

If you're not foolish, you'd know philosophy is the mother of science.

That's why scientists read books on various philosophies, including those of Atum, Taoism, Buddhism, Daoism, Hermetica, Abrahamic religions, and many others.

There are some truths in all of them.

As a researcher, I've different books on many philosophies and religions because they're crucial to the field I'm engaged in.

About Otem, if you don't know Tem, the god of ancient Egyptians, you're more ignorant than I thought.

* Scientist don't read books about unicorns or minotaur to find any truths. Scientist don't read and find truths in fairytales. Scientist don't read the bible or Quran to find truth in anything.


*Make me understand. You ridicule religious people and their beliefs but find truths In their books? You ridicule religious people but believe in the words of Otem or is it atum.


*Mystical philosophy is mumbo jumbo. Nobody takes them seriously.

*

A001:
Big Bang is metaphysics. This one na big clown. Lols

*How can a so called physicist not know the meaning of metaphysics. Let me help you with the definition.

"Metaphysics is the branchof philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality; the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, cause and effect, necessity and possibility"


* There's no way you can convince me that your are physicist.