Unlikely, since no English speaker would be able to pronounce that cluster. The odds are overwhelming that it represents nothing at all, just like the apostrophe in "don't".
We've also seen instances where visible "clumping" in a galactic disc correspond to differences in the rotation curves, which dark matter can't really explain. But this is still a topic of much debate.
However, there's lots of good evidence for dark matter besides rotation curves of galaxies. For instance, models of galactic formation work a lot better with it than without it (without dark matter, as galaxies coalesce, they get hot and the pressure keeps the gas apart and makes star formation really hard).
We also see the Bullet Cluster, where two galaxies collided/passed through each other. The gas and dust has been slowed down from collisions, but the dark matter has passed right through. We know this from the gravitational lensing. The lensing happens around the mass of the galaxy, but with the bullet cluster, the lens is off to the side where there is no normal matter, because the dark matter kept going when the regular matter slowed down.
In other words, we have some really good evidence for dark matter, but there's a few things going on here and there we can't explain.
I remember reading/hearing somewhere that the bullet cluster actually fits MOND better than dark matter. I think it was a video by Sabine Hossenfelder but I can't find it right now and I'm not qualified to say whether it made sense or not.
Bullet cluster is inconsistent with LCDM on the grounds that given the apparent dark matter:matter ratio a collision between clusters of that size is something like unlikely to the tune of one in a trillion? IIRC universes. (Aka the collision should not have happened in the first place).
The thing about lensing is that we don't have a solution in (GR would need to be tweaked if MOND is true -- the math is much harder!!) so we can't really say what the lensing would look like in any given MOND-like theory yet. Seems weird to declare that MOND can't explain lensing. It's should be more qualified: "we don't think MOND can explain the lensing"
It's not clear that GR would need to be tweaked to match MOND. The GR solutions we currently use in LCDM are based on the FLRW metric, but that metric could just be the wrong fit for our universe.
I wasn't familiar with the Bullet Cluster[0], but as you described it made it very interesting. I'm no astronomer, but from all of the examples of gravitational lensing[1] I'm familiar with have a very distinct look that I'm just not seeing with the Bullet Cluster. Where is the lensing effect occurring that is leading to this theory?
Gravitational lensing doesn't have to be apparent to the eye as those extreme examples on the wiki page are. The second image on the bullet page shows matter in pink and measured lensing in blue.
I thought gravitomagnetism was extremely weak? Wouldn't normal magnetism and its interaction with environmental plasma (which IIRC is also neglected on the grounds of being a rounding error) be more significant?
That's SpaceX's philosophy, but Boeing operates on a measure-twice build-once philosophy where everything is supposed to be close to perfect in the first place.
But it's not close enough to perfect and they didn't factor a failure into the costs. So now there's pressure in not doing a second trial run that may or not be perfect because they don't want to lose money.
Not only that but it's year later than planned and has failed most of its tests. And even if everything had worked as planned it would have lost money.
It's really not a very successful philosophy anymore.
I've recently switched from Firefox to Edge until they fix this bug. Every now and then I go back to Firefox hoping it'll be fixed, and then it bites me again.
Mexico City is one of the largest cities in the world. Five people out of 21 million is nothing. Sure, every death is tragic, but there are a lot more efficient ways to spend time and money preventing deaths than tree trimming.
Five deaths in the Bay Area from one storm, two in San Francisco (with a population around 800,000). There were other tree related deaths last year. More to the point, the trees that the city is actively removing are old, mature ficus trees that present a variety of risks (e.g. sidewalks, sewer and other underground utilities), overhead (e.g. public transit) wires.
Same story with shuttle and that's why it looks the way it is and was as expensive as it was. It would have been a completely different vehicle if Congress weren't meddling.
What NASA wanted was a space station, a small tug to move stuff in space, and a small shuttle to move people and cargo from earth to that station.
The whole point of the space shuttle was to have it service the space station, but the station wasn't greenlit. Instead we got a much bigger shuttle that was useful as a military asset but was a money pit with terrible safety record. Luckily the Soviet Union collapsed and the ISS was funded as a job program for Soviet rocket scientists (out of fear they could be poached to work on ICBMs for other nations).
> Luckily the Soviet Union collapsed and the ISS was funded as a job program for Soviet rocket scientists (out of fear they could be poached to work on ICBMs for other nations).
It's the first time that I heard this theory. Do you have any sources to read up on it?
NASA is neither a public or private company, but rather a government agency. Congress is an employee of the US taxpayer. I think that makes them more of a manager of NASA and we should hold Congress accountable.
Except I can't do anything about Senator John Jones from Arizona who wants to keep the couple thousand jobs he brought to his constituency. He won't budge on it because non-Arizonans didn't vote for him.
You’re probably thinking about the former senator of Alabama, Richard Shelby. There is no current or former senator by the name John Jones in Arizona. Additionally it is Alabama that benefits from the SLS program, not Arizona.
If that's true, then I'm officially notifying everyone in Congress and the Senate, they are terminated immediately and need to clear their offices by the end of the week. Let's see if it happens or not, and then we'll know whether you were correct or not.
The leadership and composition of Congress has changed numerous times over the years without change to management ideology. It does not seem likely that electing mildly different people will change the management ideology. Management acted in accordance with the incentives they were presented with.
I can't say NASA seems particularly wasteful outside ways in which they are mandated to be so.
I think this is because local state concerns are so prevalent here. Political colour doesn't even matter, but getting the pork barrel for the state manufacturing locations is.
This won't change no matter who you vote in. It's like hardwired into the system.
Exactly. There's not actually much of an incentive for a congressperson to create something broadly positive for the US as a vague whole, like an independently-operating excellent space program.
The incentive massively is instead in favor of that congressperson to have a space program that is meets some minimum bar of competence, and past that point do everything to benefit that congressperson's voting district such as mandate certain things be manufactured there, etc.
I did this about 18 months ago, and surprisingly, Spectrum came out and actually put a new line up my road. I'd asked them off and on for years to get broadband. Last time I'd been quoted 12k to cross the little creek they stopped at and service the dozen or so houses on my side. But for whatever reason, this time they did it for free (well, normal hookup costs) after I challenged them on the FCC site.
Glad to hear that. I've been fighting to get Frontier to service my neighborhood and the best they could tell me is that there is some hidden ticket and they have no idea what the real status is.
Frontier is labeled as a fiber provider for my address on the New York State PSC Broadband map and I made sure to provide some feedback to them about that claim.
Would love to have even just a single alternative option besides satellite internet. I'm only 10 miles outside of the downtown area.
QD-OLED beats LG panels on brightness without resorting to tricks (WOLED uses white pixels to increase brightness). Seeing them side by side with images of shiny metals such as gold, QD-OLED just looks far better.
There's a reason Sony use QD-OLED panels in their top-of-the-range TV's.
Sony are actually dumping QD-OLED for Mini LED for their top-of-the-range TVs in 2024, because they don't think QD-OLED is bright enough either, in the context of new 4000-nit mastering monitors.
Because Samsung TVs deliver 90% of the quality at half the price. There's a reason basically every single major TV reviewer put the x95c as the TV of the year in 2023. LG and Sony eke out minor quality victories at massively increased prices. I do miss my Sony up-scaling quality for the odd old show I watch. The Samsung is noticeably bad here.
If I could have purchased the LG G3 77" around Black Friday timeframe last year for cheaper than the Samsung I absolutely would have. I really wanted to go with the G3, but was around a $1,200 difference that was hard to justify for the bump in quality.
At least a few years ago, it was cheaper for me to buy an 55" LG OLED TV than a comparable Samsung model in the US, and that was factoring in the Samsung employee discount I had at the time.
