It's quite difficult with current rocket technology: you have to counteract most of the Earth-given 30km/s speed around the Sun in order to get close (it's smaller than Mercury's orbit), and then brake again to circularize the orbit once you are there. I am not sure that it can be done with what we have now. That said, it's not that far off either.
7.2 grams a day is still a lot. Low-sodium diets aim for less than 3 grams a day, and it is not that difficult to go even lower. Whether a near-zero sodium intake is good or not, it's another can of worms, but a study looking at a huge-salt diet vs. a high-salt diet does not look very useful.
The ring is not a product of the supernova. It's pre-existing material, that is being energized by impact of the supernova ejecta (it took a few months for it to start brightening).
There are actually three rings, a smaller one around the previous star's equator, and two larger ones above and below. The hourglass-like figure is actually quite common, produced by the star rotaton.
Sure, a bigger rocket could carry this particular payload while being reusable. But for any rocket there will always be payloads it can't carry while also having enough fuel to land.
It goes on until an Earth's day is as long as a month. Both will face each other in a fixed way.
But it takes many billions of years and the Sun will burn both to a cinder much before that.
It's not so uncommon in science to come to a strange conclusion by excluding all "reasonable" alternatives. For example, black holes have a similar status: no one has conclusively seen one, but we know of no mechanism for matter to support itself beyond a certain density, so black hole it is.
Have we not pointed telescopes into space and seen the way light bends around a black hole? I guess in a way it's true that nobody has conclusively "seen" one (since they don't emit light), but by that logic nobody has conclusively seen the hole in the middle of a donut either.
> but by that logic nobody has conclusively seen the hole in the middle of a donut either.
Not quite..we can see the donut hole very clearly, put things through it, measure it, interact with it. We can measure and observe and test it however we like.
My understanding is that the EHT images are a result of a lot (like, months) of data processing, not an image from the telescope. So arguably still not a direct observation.
Digital photographs are just the result of processing the sensor readings of photodiodes. It seems quite arbitrary to say one is an "image" and the other isn't just because the processing step is more complicated. Both accurately represent what you would see if you were there in person (ignoring false color etc.).
> It's not so uncommon in science to come to a strange conclusion by excluding all "reasonable" alternatives.
That is not what happen in the article, or to my understanding in this field of research.
> For example, black holes have a similar status: no one has conclusively seen one, but we know of no mechanism for matter to support itself beyond a certain density, so black hole it is.
Comparing the equation based methods of physics, often called a "hard" science, to neurology or biology, often called a a "soft" science, is not going to be an apples to apples comparison.
There is a continuum of hardness within the quantitative sciences, and physics definitely lies on the "more testable and verifiable" than chemistry, biology, and neuroscience (not neurology- that's a form of medicine). Many of the biological systems we work with, we don't even really test and verify, especially not at the level that a large-scale particle physics experiment would.
If you want to insist that biology is as testable and verifiable as physics, I have no interest in arguing with you- it's just a difference of opinion (and I think people with experience across the continuum would agree with me).
> If you want to insist that biology is as testable and verifiable as physics, I have no interest in arguing with you- it's just a difference of opinion
I just think the whole "There is a continuum of hardness within the quantitative sciences" is irrelevant. It's more of a binary thing, and biology is a hard science, period. But sure, we can agree to disagree.
Without any doubt though, biology is not a 'soft' science.
You seem to agree that the testability is not binary:
> Soft sciences are those that don't lend themselves to testing and verification very well, like economics and psychology.
But want hard to only used in a binary fashion with some heuristic triggering the step function from soft to hard.
People do talk using the term that way. They also use it as a continuum saying one field is harder than an another. I quoted the terms, "hard" and "soft" in my message above because the terms are used in a few different ways and are not rigorously defined. They only need a rough definition to make the point I was making though.
This sounds like the whole "we've never seen a species evolving". Much like fossils, radioactive dating, geology come together to give us a picture of evolution, we have tons of real evidence for black holes. But we even have two actual pictures now.
PAGINA INTERDETTA DAL CENTRO NAZIONALE PER IL CONTRASTO DELLA PEDOPORNOGRAFIA ONLINE (C.N.C.P.O.)
Il tuo browser sta tentando di raggiungere un sito Internet contenente immagini e filmati di pedopornografia minorile. L'inibizione dell'accesso a questo sito é prevista dalla legge n. 38/2006.
Questo servizio di protezione della navigazione sulla rete Internet è predisposto grazie alla collaborazione tra il Centro Nazionale per il Contrasto della Pedopornografia Online e gli Internet Service Providers italiani.
La visualizzazione intenzionale, la diffusione, la detenzione, la cessione, la produzione e la commercializzazione di questo tipo di materiale sono puniti dalla legge come reato.
What if that's just some illegal content that was reported? Even archived on purpose in the first place. Would that result in banning the whole domain?
The day your wish is fullfilled is the day I stop working with Python. I can't stand all those useless braces everywhere, why are they there at all since good practice mandates proper indentation anyway?
I am at the point where I prefer single quotes for strings, instead of double quotes, just because they feel cleaner. And unfortunately pep8 sometimes mandates double quotes for reasons unknown.
A while ago, when thinking about syntax design for a new language, I considered this combination (`:` and `end`, as opposed to `do` and `end` as used by Lua etc).
Are there any languages that use it, or is Python unique in using `:` to begin a block?
> Not just the Netherlands, most of Europe counts floors like this: ground, first, second, etc.
I think it wildly differs all around Europe.
In Spain for example, if someone says "1st floor" it can be two or three floors above the actual ground floor, if there is a "Entresuelo" or "Principal", and you start counting after those. Actual ground floor is "bajo".
On the other hand you have the "atico" (attic) which is the top level floor, unless there is a "sobre atico" ("above the attic"), so just because you live in the attic doesn't mean you live on the top floor.
Then every region can have their own convention, or even difference in neighborhoods in the same city.
I'm not sure how many countries in Europe count like that, the online information is totally unreliable. For example:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/mvnkja/floor_numbe...
That map is absolutely incorrect for a bunch of countries, e.g. the Nordic ones.
reply