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.
I still think they should build out a lunar crater radio telescope out there on the dark side of the moon. The radio silence and scale would be impossible to get any other way.
That’s an interesting thought I hadn’t considered. The Webb is about as quiet as we’re going to get anywhere near our orbit, but a lunar compound could very easily be much larger, and would be a great deal easier to service/upgrade.
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?
astronomy
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.