Haven't tried to run that, I'm cheap and it's not. So I have the energy but will spend it elsewhere.

If you don't want to be asked if you're new, stop using born-last-night arguments. Lots of windows software runs poorly on Windows and I'm tired of people pretending that's not true.

You use the police and military every second of every day.

GOOD. That is what makes tariffs effective at changing behavior. Without that we would only have the ban hammer.

Constitutional amendments can change any part of the Constitution.

Oh, OU Phys.Soc.

Didn't know they had one that videoed lectures etc - but not surprised. I stumbled onto the OU Archaeology Soc. recently, and they had an interesting few hours of presentations there, so I think the Phys.Soc should repay a good search too.

Thanks for digging that out. I didn't come across that in my hunting (I was working from the RS end more than this guy's website.

Off to watch and write notes.

You haven't noticed any of the astronomical publications about refinements to the chain of "standard candles" across the observable universe over the last 40+ years? I remember reading about these things in the town library in the late 1970s, in the university library in the 1980s, the journals waiting, wedging the front door shut when I got home in the 1990s, and on ArXiv (it's a chi, not an "X", but Slashcode can't handle HTML) in the 2000s, 2010s and 2020s.

The process of refining those candles continues to this day. Each publication cycle approximately halves the uncertainties of the previous one. See above for the recent publication cycles.

That's not what this is, or even could reasonably be described as.

At most, not that it would be inconsequential, we are talking about a government with no limits on taxation.

In practice we have had that since Citizens United. Complain about that if you like.

Shrug. We can't do experiments in historical geology (what happened in the past), but that doesn't render the field unscientific - it just means we have to use more indirect arguments and slightly longer chains of inference.

Everything can't rotate because there's nothing else for it to rotate relative to.

Not only that, but if it was rotating, it would have an obvious centre and we would see everything orbiting it.

I don't think so. Not necessarily.

Consider a universe - the whole shebang, everything, no external reference frame. Separate it into two regions, of (approximately) equal size ; set one part rotating clockwise relative to the other, and the second part rotating anticlockwise relative to the first.

You now have a universe where everything (except that on the rotation axes) is rotating, but the net angular momentum is zero.

But yes, if (if) your local "observable" universe included one or other of the rotation axes, then you should have something to look at. If the axes are outside your observable section of the universe, maybe you'd be able to tell, maybe not. My maths isn't up to saying for sure, either way.

Bloody Slashcode can't even handle a perfectly reasonable HTML entity, "& chi ;" necessary to spell "ArXiv" correctly.

Found it via the 3rd name.

https://royalsociety.org/scien...

15 - 16 April 2024 09:00 - 17:00 The Royal Society ... ah, the GRauniad article is from the 14th!

Scientific discussion meeting organised by [names]

Is the universe simple enough to be adequately described by the standard [lambda]CDM cosmological model which assumes the isotropic and homogeneous Friedmann-LemaiÌtre-Robertson-Walker metric? Tensions have emerged between the values of cosmological parameters estimated in different ways. Do these tensions signal that our model is too simple? Could a more sophisticated model account for the data without invoking a Cosmological Constant?

Speaker abstracts will be available closer to the meeting date. Meeting papers will be published in a future issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A.

There are abstracts of the presentations, but no details.

I guess, if I were really interested, I'd search Ariv for papers by the relevant names, but I'm not that enthused. I've got better things to do this evening.

Yeah, I'm hunting around the RS's website looking for some information about this meeting ... to find it has gone down the cracks. Their programme of meetings covers 25th Apr onwards, while the Grauniad item talks about "this week's meeting" ... and if it's going at the moment, then the videos won't be on YT, yet. (The most recent RS video is "Dr Anthony Fauci on the lessons from AIDS and COVID-19 , 1.6K views, 4 days ago"). (Not a particularly engaging set of lectures. The RI is better.)

The named organiser (https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/our-people/sarkar) ... doesn't have anything on his website.

Jesus would throw their asses out and be crucified for it, because that's what we do to people who are trying to help us.

"Corporations pay no taxes, We pay it all."

False. You paid for a product or service. That money became the corporation's money. Then they paid taxes. All you had to decide was whether the product was worth paying for.