1
Science & Alternative Science / eso releases first ever image of the shadow of a black hole
« on: April 10, 2019, 02:04:23 PM »
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
You think a spinning earth would add additional pull straight down towards its surface?
Make a thread in the discussion forums about your idea please. I am curious to know what you think the situation is.
The demo team built on work they did four years ago, when they collected every detail they could to understand the iconic image. They researched the rivets on the lunar lander, identified the properties of the dust coating the moon’s surface, and measured the reflectivity of the material used in the astronauts’ space suits.
To update our original demo, NVIDIA engineers rebuilt the scene of the moon landing in Unreal Engine 4, a game engine developed by Epic Games. They simulated how the sun’s rays, coming from behind the lander, bounced off the moon’s surface and Armstrong’s suit, to cast light on Aldrin as he stepped off the lander.
All of this only heightened the fidelity of our latest demo — and re-confirmed what we’d discovered four years ago. That the illumination of the astronaut in the photo wasn’t caused by something other than the sun — such as studio lights — but by light doing what light does.
The study, in Joule, was written by researchers at Carbon Engineering in Calgary, Canada, which has been operating a pilot CO2-extraction plant in British Columbia since 2015. That plant — based on a concept called direct air capture — provided the basis for the economic analysis, which includes cost estimates from commercial vendors of all of the major components. Depending on a variety of design options and economic assumptions, the cost of pulling a tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere ranges between US$94 and $232. The last comprehensive analysis of the technology, conducted by the American Physical Society in 2011, estimated that it would cost $600 per tonne.
You are arguing that we should assume that the color (or lack of color) in a star's spectrum has anything to do with what it is made out of, without experimental evidence to back that up.not at all. practically everything science knows about these features comes from robust experiments carried out here on earth. if there were no stars, scientists would still have discovered absorption lines and everything we know about them now.
We can't even recreate stellar fusion in a lab. It's a hypothesis. How are we supposed to know what colors this hypothetical process produces?
It'd be stupid a talk down to a politician you actively donate money to in order to support legislation and deals relevant to your company.
Ultimately, this is just the name of the game. You talk good about people you want something from and you talk bad about people you want to defeat. e.g. Bernie said Hillary was unfit to be POTUS and then endorsed her a few months later. Arguing from a stance of "well that's hypocritical" is nonsense. Bernie wanted Hillary to lose and now he wants her to win. It's no different for Trump.
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
The Trump campaign released a statement insisting opaquely that Mr. Trump had been referring to the “power of unification.”
“Second Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power,” said Mr. Trump’s spokesman, Jason Miller. “And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won’t be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump.”
Until you can come up with an argument that can defeat the Ontological Argument, I advise shutting your yap. Since we're dealing with God here, the Ultimate Reality is that which is coherent. My God, I just went through this in the LAST post! How dense is it possible for one group of people to be?! It can't possibly be that bad, can it? The atheist cannot prove a negative. I, on the other hand, can give you strong reasons for believing that God exists, albeit not deductively certain ones. You cannot give me strong reasons for assuming that he does not. You've tried, in this and other threads, and failed, miserably at it.
Existence is greater than non-existence.