The Covarying Coupling Constants theory posits that the fundamental constants of nature,[…], are not fixed but vary across the cosmos.
This undermines current fundamental axiom of science that laws of physics are constant across universe. Until we go there and measure them to be actually different. This hypothesis doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
I’m skeptical of this theory as well, but I’d point out that our observations show that at galaxy scales, gravity is much stronger in certain places than we’d predict using our current model of gravity and the matter we can otherwise detect, and at even larger scales the acceleration of the universe’s expansion is being driven by something we don’t understand.
Right now, the dominant theory in cosmology is that each of these observed phenomena are driven by dark matter and dark energy, but we don’t have any direct evidence of the existence of either, just indirect evidence that stuff doesn’t behave as we might expect.
So it’s a choice between theories that don’t make intuitive sense, and break some fundamental assumptions about physics.
Ooh new pbs spacetime will be sweet. (Although mond seems kinda meh).
🙏 wrong distance measurement (or light speed shenanigans) would be most fun to observe from outside of astronomy field, although they seemed kinda solid
Interesting, thank you for the reply! Learned something new today. The lines I see span over a quarter or so of the moon, so I’m not fully convinced yet. Absolute massive.
Observed magnitudes of Qianfan spacecraft range from 4 when they are near zenith to 8 when low in the sky.
Since this is the first run of the Qianfan satellite constellation, the most appropriate comparison would be to Starlink’s original satellites. As you can see below, the notion that China’s satellites are “significantly brighter than those of Western systems” is a inaccurate.
The Original spacecrafts have a relatively flat phase function, so they are comparatively bright over a wide range of phase angle. […] the characteristic magnitudes are: 4.7 (Original) […]
The mean apparent magnitude of Starlink Mini Direct-To-Cell (DTC) satellites is 4.62 while the mean of magnitudes adjusted to a uniform distance of 1000 km is 5.50.
Clearly, even the newest Starlink satellites are well above the magnitude 7 limit astronomers recommend for satellite brightness.
Ethan Seigel never does "clickbait’ articles. He does 100% educational articles. I actually didn’t know more than half of these things. Who the hell knew that Earth does not have the most water in the solar system?
I imagine the yellowish tinted areas are mostly sulfur from volcanic ash emissions. That middle picture, in the section between the two mare, it looks like how beach sand is altered after being inundated with water. In general, most of the surface looks like pulverized sand on a beach, at a high level abstracted perspective view. That one section between the mare looks whetted by comparison. Perhaps ash altered the consistency enough to create a similar type of compacted appearance, but if there was water and vulcanism in the area, perhaps that was the Lunar version of Yellowstone.
Funny that the most recent research on the anomalous regions inside the Earth’s mantle have now been linked to the Theia collision through the mantle hotspot activity. So it is likely that the moon and Yellowstone are directly linked. It would be interesting to find that the regional anomalies on the moon are likewise of a similar origin. It would be interesting to me if Yellowstone’s doppelganger is right there in plain sight as well.
I know it’s in the article headline and OP is likely not the author, but it’s impossible to give feedback on space.com so I’m leaving it here from frustration.
My wife only went because I was hellbent on seeing the eclipse at totality (we saw the last October’s eclipse and 2017 both from around 90% coverage). Afterwards she said “the Grand canyon ain’t got shit on a solar eclipse” and we are both still in shock for how amazing of an experience it was.
The wonky colors as day slowly turned to night, the sudden whooshing shadow as totality began, the burning ring of fire in the sky then the light whooshing back as totality ended, the cacophony of yelps by folks too slow to put their eclipse glasses back on. It was a hell of an experience
I’m in a similar boat. Flew across the country because after “missing” 2017s I immediately felt regret. Now I’m debating Europe in 2026.
But the colors. Can someone who understands this stuff please explain to me why a simple reduction in light in the lead up to (and following) totality makes all the colors seem “wrong”?
astronomy
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.