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.”
If we were realistic about going to Mars, we’d start with serious plans to build an oceanic base on Earth first. Traveling to Mars is a small hurdle, in comparison to actually living there. We’d learn a lot if we built a self-sustaining base in the deep ocean.
Update: moved to Monday (tonight) because transparency sucked and I was tired.
Seeing: very little or slow twinkling
Transparency / Light pollution: Polaris visible, only one of the cup stars of Ursa minor visible to the naked eye. This is actually slightly better than normal for my area.
Equipment: 12" dob, 1520 mm focal length, 2" 2x Barlow, 2" 34 mm wide field eyepiece.
What I hit: M44: sketched it from my 10x50 RACI. I love finding M44 because cancer is dim as fuck, and I’ve got a cool trick where I just make a right angle with my left hand, pointer finger touching Pollux, thumb touching Procyon, M44 will be right in the 90 degree angle.
M65, M66 again. M66 was actually readily apparent to me, for some reason, where M65 took a bit of work to resolve. Did not manage to resolve NGC 3628. I also accidentally resolved another galaxy about three degrees south of and about two degrees below Iota Leonis. Found it purely by accident, couldn’t find it again, looked very slender, stretched almost across the view in 100x (34 mm wide field + 2x Barlow).
What I attempted: Bode’s galaxy. Spent probably an hour trying to starhop to it with different tricks (I think the thing that got me closest was drawing a line through UmA’s front elbows and shoulders and following that down to the level of Alioth. That got me onto a very neat little square of stars with a trail pointing towards the horizon, which I followed again and again to nothing. Very frustrating. I tried again to hit the owl nebula and cigar Galaxy, also no dice. Not sure if I just suck this bad at star-hopping or if the light pollution is really kicking my butt.
I spent so long on it that I ran out my clock and had to choose one last thing to do. Bootes was now plainly visible in the mid-altitude east, so I decided to try and hit M3 by making a right triangle with epsilon bootes as one angle, Arcturus as the right angle, and M3 as the last angle. Didn’t work. Tried a few other spaghetti plate strategies to find M3 and got nowhere. I mostly tried slowly slewing over at 100x mag, which I know is low for globs, but I figured it would at least stand out as a kind of weird bullshitty star that I could investigate, but nothing stood out.
astronomy
Najnowsze
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.