241–246 of 246 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Atomic bombs don't simply assemble themselves naturally though.
I know. Are you suggesting we have already discovered everything there is to know about our planet / this universe?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Atomic bombs don't simply assemble themselves naturally though.
Not exactly atomic bombs, but we do have evidence of naturally occurring, self sustaining nuclear reactors having operated for potentially hundreds of thousands of years in Earth's past ( https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why does the temperature of the sun’s atmosphere increase as you get further away from the surface? We still don’t know exactly. Kind of reminds me of the inner tip of the blue cone in the Bunsen burner which is supposed to be the hottest point of combustion rather than at the bottom of the flame, and the top of the flame is supposedly the coolest?
This always amazed me too. I guess we’re taught hot air rises but this does not apply to the way gas burns. Honestly I feel like all knowledge is some type of best effort approximation and I think it’s important to stay skeptical and open minded. I think it’s also a fun way to live. Enjoy the mysteries. Knowing all the things would be an insufferable bore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not exactly atomic bombs, but we do have evidence of naturally occurring, self sustaining nuclear reactors having operated for potentially hundreds of thousands of years in Earth's past ( https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor )
Yes, and there is a nuclear fusion reactor above our heads right now, but that is similarly irrelevant when talking about bomb self-assembly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is literally the definition of p-hacking, and no, it is not a good thing.
Sincere question from a non-scientist who struggles with the idea of how to make use of existing data without accidentally P-hacking: Is it still P-hacking if you stumble upon a correlation in the historical record (after stumbling around for a while), call it a hypothesis, and then stick with it long though to gather a statistically significant amount of _new_ data to support it? More broadly, are there ways to "go…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are different kinds of gravitational waves, LIGO doesn't see them all. Related: https://cplberry.com/2015/01/10/1408-0740/
> ground-based detectors like LIGO measure the higher frequencies, pulsar timing arrays measure the lower frequencies, and space-borne detectors like eLISA measure stuff in the middle. Does this data correlate with weather events, earthquakes or cosmic rays?
Cosmic rays - Astrophysical events that generate gravitational waves can also generate electromagnetic and particle emissions. If a black hole crashes into a neutron star, all kinds of stuff is going to come out.