3 ms·

Introduction, paragraph 2: >The multiple discoveries of LSSs made throughout the past few decades are well known to challenge our understanding of the Standard

Introduction, paragraph 2: >The multiple discoveries of LSSs made throughout the past few decades are well known to challenge our understanding of the Standard Cosmological Model (ΛCDM) [2, 8–12], in particular due to a possible violation of a fundamental assumption, the Cosmological Principle (CP), which states that our Universe is both homogeneous and isotropic on large scales That gives you a couple papers and a few terms that you can get started with. Unless your goal is to argue, instead of learn, which it seems like it might be.

moralestapia 2y ago
Context, as it seems to have been missed: >For reasons*, there's a soft limit on the scale that you'd expect structures** to scale to. The content you cited acknowledges the premise of the Cosmological Principle, but it does not say anything about what these "reasons" could be. So, nope, that's not an adequate argument. Again, I could waste my time on a PhD in Cosmology to come back and actually make a good argument for why homogeneity in structure is favored at large cosmological scales ... but why should I? I didn't bring that particular argument into the conversation [1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
- ziddoap 2y ago
  >So, nope, that's not an adequate argument. I'm not trying to argue, lol. You're asking for more information but in such a weirdly aggressive way. The reason there is a soft limit (in our current theories) is because of the cosmological principle Big lol at the wiki linking of burden of proof. Not every conversation is an argument, holy. As much as I love HN, this type of aggressiveness and desire to converse as if defending a dissertation can get bloody exhausting.
  - moralestapia 2y ago
    >The reason there is a soft limit (in our current theories) is because of the cosmological principle What? That's a circular argument. HN is definitely not the place for "me vs. you" grudges, so I stick to making arguments and try to drive the conversation forward, however, >Have fun! It's quite interesting. >Unless your goal is to argue, instead of learn, [...] >Big lol at the wiki linking of burden of proof. You don't seem to be the one arguing in good faith, though. "You're being aggressive", laughable.
    - ziddoap 2y ago
      My "Have fun!" was genuine, I had a lot of fun learning about this stuff despite not pursuing a PhD in cosmology. Anton Petrov covers this specific topic in a few videos, as well as other large structures, and it's truly fascinating. The rest was probably a bit uncalled for, you're right. I was immediately put on edge by "Yeah, read the site guidelines, yo." (which, uhh, not sure how that is focused on moving the conversation forward but lets leave it at we were both touchy!)

moralestapia 2y ago

Context, as it seems to have been missed: >For reasons*, there's a soft limit on the scale that you'd expect structures** to scale to. The content you cited acknowledges the premise of the Cosmological Principle, but it does not say anything about what these "reasons" could be. So, nope, that's not an adequate argument. Again, I could waste my time on a PhD in Cosmology to come back and actually make a good argument for why homogeneity in structure is favored at large cosmological scales ... but why should I? I didn't bring that particular argument into the conversation [1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

ziddoap 2y ago
>So, nope, that's not an adequate argument. I'm not trying to argue, lol. You're asking for more information but in such a weirdly aggressive way. The reason there is a soft limit (in our current theories) is because of the cosmological principle Big lol at the wiki linking of burden of proof. Not every conversation is an argument, holy. As much as I love HN, this type of aggressiveness and desire to converse as if defending a dissertation can get bloody exhausting.
- moralestapia 2y ago
  >The reason there is a soft limit (in our current theories) is because of the cosmological principle What? That's a circular argument. HN is definitely not the place for "me vs. you" grudges, so I stick to making arguments and try to drive the conversation forward, however, >Have fun! It's quite interesting. >Unless your goal is to argue, instead of learn, [...] >Big lol at the wiki linking of burden of proof. You don't seem to be the one arguing in good faith, though. "You're being aggressive", laughable.
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    My "Have fun!" was genuine, I had a lot of fun learning about this stuff despite not pursuing a PhD in cosmology. Anton Petrov covers this specific topic in a few videos, as well as other large structures, and it's truly fascinating. The rest was probably a bit uncalled for, you're right. I was immediately put on edge by "Yeah, read the site guidelines, yo." (which, uhh, not sure how that is focused on moving the conversation forward but lets leave it at we were both touchy!)