Wow, I never see NGC 4945 pop up in the news, science or otherwise. I looked at it as part of my undergraduate thesis 20 years ago, so I’m always keeping an eye out for it, and almost every time I get a ping it turns out to be M88 or the Sculptor galaxy.
Hi there! For a beginner-friendly telescope under $200 that’s great for nebulae and galaxies in a Bortle class 3 sky, I’d recommend checking out the award-winning options from TelescopeAdvisor. The 2025 Telescope Advisor Awards highlight some fantastic manual scopes perfect for your needs—no smartphone apps required! Something like a 4.5-inch or 5-inch reflector with decent magnification could be ideal for spotting deep-sky objects in Southern California’s rural skies. Visit Award Winning Telescopes to see the top picks—well worth a look for your stargazing adventure!
The force of gravity is weak. And not just a little bit weak. It’s so much weaker than the other three fundamental forces—electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces—that it’s almost impossible to provide analogies.
Gravity isn’t a force. It’s the curvature of spacetime, the bending itself. You can’t compare it to the three other forces.
We can’t see the bulk, touch the bulk, experience the bulk, or otherwise interact with the bulk because our entire universe—all the particles and forces of nature—are restricted to life on the brane.
That means it isn’t falsifiable. It’s same as believing in god - it’s faith and not a scientific theory. Also the article says:
Physicists just need some way to pierce the veil of the brane and peer into the realm of the bulk.
How should physicists do that when by definition a bulk can’t be detected? In the later parts it is claimed that the bulk-brane-interactions somehow influences gravity and that this influence could be detected. I call bullshit.
If our running knowledge of gravity is mistaken
We know that our understanding of gravity is flawed because we can’t unify it with the theory of quantum mechanics. But there must be a link between them.
In 2019, the LIGO detector (…) measured gravitational waves emanating from the merger of a black hole with … something else. The black hole had a mass of around 23 solar masses. Its companion had a mass of only 2.6 solar masses. That’s far too small to be a black hole … but also a little too big to be a neutron star.
Objects with a mass above 2.5 solar masses are likely light weight black holes. Source
The whole article consists only of a lot of ‘could be’, nothing tangible and bullshit.
Gravity isn’t a force. It’s the curvature of spacetime, the bending itself. You can’t compare it to the three other forces.
I do agree but, it is very common in academia to disagree with this, to believe that the geometric representation of gravity is merely a clever trick to approximate gravitational effects, but that in reality it is caused by a force-carrying particle just like any other force, a graviton, and spacetime is flat. That was the basis of String Theory and some other views. I don’t know why this view is so popular but it is.
Very interestingly, they found that systems with fewer planets tend to exit their “ejection” phase after about 100 million years, but systems with 10 planets are still unstable even after a billion years. They also found that these more bountiful systems actually eject the majority of their planets, losing 70 percent after a billion years. Most of the ones ejected are lower-mass, as expected.
Wonder how many sibling planets we had when our solar system first formed. This sort of topic is always fascinating to me.
I flat out don’t accept the notion that some starts have no planets. As far as I am concerned, if we have 8 major plantes and on average, 40% of planets are ejected, we should assume the average number of starting planets is 11.
This is like saying, “If a carbon atom has 12 electrons, and on average it forms 4 covalent bonds, we should assume all atoms start with 16 electrons.”
astronomy
Gorące
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.