Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/20/24 in all areas

  1. 100 Mpc is the correct currently accepted scale though there was roughly 5 years ago some consideration of using 120 Mpc instead. Never happened as it wasn't really necessary. Here is a counter paper to the DESI findings and it raises a couple of valid points in so far as DESI uses the Hubble tension as part of its argument however the Hubble tension is largely resolved in so far as the later papers brought forward. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.18579 In essence the paper strongly suggests caution as the evidence isn't strong enough yet.
    1 point
  2. Local inhomogeneities and anisotropies do not matter on cosmological scales. The cosmological principle's assumption is that on some large scale, currently about 100+ Mpc AFAIK, the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. All manifestations of the DE so far are on such scales.
    1 point
  3. They would have some explaining to do
    1 point
  4. BTW, if the main facility that is generating quintessence theories is called DESI, then they should have a facility that generates rival vacuum energy theories called LUCY.
    1 point
  5. Nope - The nuclear missile sites on Cuba were wholly under the control of Soviet technicians and military commanders. Cuban officers had no command authority or launch codes for the IRBMs, only the Kremlin could have authorised their use against the USA. The American invasion plan was rejected for a number of different reasons. The writer David Spanier explains one of them in his book Total Poker (1977) citing David Halberstam’s account of how General David Shoup, Commandant of the US Marine Corps at the time addressed this topic in briefings :
    1 point
  6. So - which hypothetical scenario is involved here ? i. If Cuba were to launch *non* nuclear Russian supplied cruise missiles at the US mainland ? ii. If Cuba were to launch Russian made missiles armed *with* nuclear warheads at the US mainland? Two very different scenarios - neither of them remotely plausible, or worth any serious discussion. It is worth noting, even at the height of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, that the USA never once considered launching any form of missile strikes on Cuba, even though American U2 surveillance flights had detected 9 launch sites for Soviet missiles with thermonuclear warheads being prepared on Cuban soil. The American military options were confined to conventional airforce and naval bombardement, followed by an amphibious invasion: or a naval quarantine blockade of Cuba. It later emerged that in addition to the IRBM missiles, the Soviets also had up to a dozen 9K52 Luna-M (Russian Луна, - ‘Moon’ ) short range artillery rockets armed with 2 Kiloton tactical nuclear warheads. The presence of these weapons code named Frog 7 by NATO was wholly unknown to American intelligence, or to US secretary of defense Robert Mcnamara. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K52_Luna-M These tactical nukes were under the control of Soviet forces on Cuba whose commanders were tasked with defending the Cuban missile sites, and they had command authority to launch them on their own initiative, without consulting the Kremlin in an emergency. If America had proceeded with the large scale amphibious invasion of Cuba recommended by JFK’s generals, then their invasion force could have been devastated with multiple tactical nukes, and WW3 would have ensued.
    1 point
  7. I like the Keillorian optimism, but would also suggest anyone who can could buy electric mowers, bikes, cars, and heat pumps. IOW make market forces that run counter to MAGAs drillbabydrill agenda. One power late stage capitalism gives we the peeps is to use our money to say no to Trump's "what global warming?" shtick.
    1 point
  8. So... if I tell you the density of the alloy is 10.5, you can tell me it has a composition which lies on that Isopycnic line. But you can't tell me which composition it is. In other words, you can't tell me anything that Archimedes couldn't have
    1 point
  9. For all of those who missed this word in the title. Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more hypothetical /hʌɪpəˈθɛtɪk(ə)l/ adjective adjective: hypothetical based on or serving as a hypothesis. "let us take a hypothetical case" supposed but not necessarily real or true. "the hypothetical tenth planet" Logic denoting or containing a proposition of the logical form if p then q. noun noun: hypothetical; plural noun: hypotheticals a hypothetical proposition or statement. "officials refuse to discuss military policy except in coy hypotheticals"
    -1 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.