swansont

Because you made a statement about non-nukes.

It depends on whether you could take out the launch sites with conventional weapons. And also on how many missiles had been launched. But they did when the crisis happened.

Or, you know, you could just make an effort to explain what you mean, so people don’t have to read between the lines. And not put the blame on others when they don’t get what you mean No, but that’s not the point. It’s analogous to Pascal’s wager, with free will taking the place of the existence of a supreme being

In the Cuban missile crisis they were nukes. That’s why it was a crisis. How about answering the question that was asked, instead of trying to divine some other question.

Why is this posted in philosophy? What is it you want to discuss?

Maksimiusz banned as a sockpuppet of Bart, bart2, ravell, exuczen, kawiusz Further iterations will be spam-banned (no trace)

OTOH, I think part of the issue is taking an imprecise/ambiguous statement and assuming that there can be only one narrow interpretation of it.

! Moderator Note Anecdotes aren’t evidence and there’s no science here.

If NPR is going to publish crap like this, no thanks “RFK Jr. wants to 'Make America Healthy Again.' He could face a lot of pushback” https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2024/11/15/nx-s1-5191947/trump-rfk-health-hhs As if the pushback is because he wants to make the country healthy, rather than his batsh** crazy ideas about how to do it.

Agree - I was going to point out that a simulation is a numerical solution and/or iterative sequence. A lot of math, with the computer cranking through it.

“There is precedent for releasing an ethics report after a member has left Congress. In December 1987, the panel put out an unfinished rundown of its investigation into Rep. Bill Boner (D-Tenn.), who had resigned two months earlier to run for Nashville mayor, over his relationship with a government contractor.” https://nypost.com/2024/11/15/us-news/house-speaker-mike-johnson-strongly-requests-ethics-panel-not-issue-report-on-matt-gaetz-sex-misconduct-allegations/

Simple math is still math. Simulations are not magic. The result isn’t conjured. They are math, and the result is from computations Yup. With math.

There are theoretically an infinite number of shells, but they tend to switch to numbers when you have excited states. In physics I rarely used this lettering convention, and in chemistry you’re often only worried about the occupation of the lowest states, but (as you note) we haven’t identified anything that goes that far.

! Moderator Note The international language of science is English, which is what we use here

You can call it either one, just like a helium nucleus is also known as an alpha particle The shell naming is an artifact of science history. The emitted light was discovered before the electron shell model was developed. “The names of the electron shells come from a fellow named Charles G. Barkla, a spectroscopist who studied the X-rays that are emitted by atoms when they are hit with high energy electrons. He noticed that atoms appeared to emit two types of X-rays. The two types of X-rays differed in energy and Barkla originally called the higher energy X-ray type A and the lower energy X-ray type B. He later renamed these two types K and L since he realized that the highest energy X-rays produced in his experiments might not be the highest energy X-ray possible. He wanted to make certain that there was room to add more discoveries without ending up with an alphabetical list of X-rays whose energies were mixed up” https://education.jlab.org/qa/historyele_02.html

They probably could, but the GOP already controls the house, and the committee, so they could have just not investigated. I get the impression that nobody likes Gaetz very much.

Yes Right The protons and neutrons would be the nucleus. The electrons are not part of it; they are part of an atom. Pretty much, yes. Yes. But free neutrons decay, so they aren’t around all that long, and free protons attract electrons to form hydrogen

Yes it’s similar - it’s all gravitation - but, as you say, on a different scale.

kakistocracy kak·i·sto·cra·cy government by the least suitable or competent citizens of a state (from Google dictionary)

Which I agreed with. (that’s what the “yes” means) GR did not come from Newtonian physics. GR was math and your position leaves that avenue closed. It would require Eddington’s experiment happen on its own, without being motivated by theory, to spur new theory development. A simulation requires that the math already exist, and real particles limits us to what we’ve already discovered. How does that get us any new physics?

'This process includes the replacement of all first-rate talents, regardless of their political loyalties, with crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is the best guarantee of their loyalty.' (The Origins of Totalitarianism, renewed version, A Harvest Book New York, 1976, 339) I think Trump’s recent picks qualify. He’s pushing to see what the GOP senate will accept, and I doubt there’s enough GOP backbone among the non-MAGA-diehards to reject all of them. There aren’t many well-known loyalists left around, so I expect later picks will be more obscure names —- I don’t think there’s anything keeping someone on the ethics committee from entering the report into the congressional record

How so? The discovery of the nucleus wasn’t a new theory, it was an experiment. Any new atomic theory afterwards had to be consistent with the data from before (e.g. positive and negative charges) and the new one (positive charges in a very dense collection) Rutherfords discovery was not precluded in any way.

Yes. But the “new” part is…new. Newtonian gravity did not give us GR. Yes. Nobody has said there isn’t new physics. But you haven’t described a valid path to get there. So it’s not part of theory, yet it’s a requirement of yours? Something that doesn’t exist and you can’t/won’t define or describe beyond the name? You might as well say we need splunge.

Physics tells us how nature behaves. Its job isn’t to explain reality. i.e. there’s plenty of stuff in physics that are calculational conveniences and don’t actually exist. (field lines and phonons to name two)

GR is 100 years old. It’s established physics, not new foundational physics, which is what this topic is about.