andrew s

All the skills (or did have in my youth) but for "Keeping a clean, tidy, organised production area.". Also my arm won't reach form my couch to Exeter. Regards Andrew

The debris might just be on an intersecting orbit with high eccentricity and or inclination. However, I doubt he could have eyeballed the calculation. Guess that's why it's called science fiction. Regards Andrew

The cost of a mirror depends on its shape (spherical, parabolic, hyperbolic) and how accurate its figure is. The epsilon also has a first class corrector. The mechanics are very good to. Regards Andrew

For what's worth the pros use etendue to define their telescopes/instruments. Roughly, this is aperture ^2 x field of view for imaging instruments. They are normally intent on getting as wide a field as deep as possible in the shortest time. They the make a detector to match. Focal length comes into play for field size but also corrected field size depending on optical design. For example a corrected Newtonian compared to a standard one of the same aperture and focal length. So it's not just aperture but also the size of the corrected field and then the detector to match seeing and field size. You can disregard the elements that don't apply to your imaging aims e.g. small field for planets and most galaxies. Regards Andrew PS Remind me what is an eyepiece? PPS @ollypenrice your a very naughty boy.

And before that acoustic. Regards Andrew

Yes but they will be model dependant . Currently the best accepted model is the LCDM one. Regards Andrew

You have to define the criteria for winning. Total photons collected or per pixel or mm^2 etc. Regards Andrew

Your clearly kneading confirmation @mikeDnight son. Regards Andrew

We can but speak our own truth. Regards Andrew

The post above was a joke please treat it as such. Regards Andrew PS honest

The IP has been long known to the non eye skyward population. Indeed it has a diagnosis of audiophilitus when it impacts the organs of hearing. It allow (amongst other things) different sound to be attribute to cables and weights placed on electronic boxes. More generally its known as expectation bias. As it is somewhat difficult to test telescopes double blind so evidence is illusive 🤩🧐🙈 Regards Andrew

There has been a discrepancy for some time the current measurement reduces the error bars and so highlighted the difference. I am sure the calculation is in good faith. They have made their code accessible to other research groups and it is common in this area to get other groups of theorists to cross check using the same or different methods. Given the nature of the calculation it would be difficult to fix on a specific number. However, you are right intellectual phase-locking has been known so we need to await confirmation by other groups as the theory group freely admits. Regards Andrew PS Here is a link to the Nature paper. The summary is very readable but you will have to pay for the full article

Good point. The abstract to the calculation points out the error estimate in the calculated and measured values were about the same. However, the error in the measured values were about to be reduced by (from memory) 4 times and hence the need for the new calculation. As far as I am aware there was no collusion between groups. Indeed the calculation paper must have been being refereed during the measurement given how long these things take. Also I am sure claiming new physics is every experimenters dream. All the code used to do the calculations is available to other researchers and the group which did it have a good track record. Regards Andrew

@Corncrake. In summary a new calculation of the magnetic moment of the muon using the standard model puts it in line with the measured value. The calculations are not easy and the previous method used empirically determined values. The new one avoided this but it needs to be confirmed. Regards Andrew

This is worth a look. Seems a new calculation puts it back into the standard model http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2021/04/muon-g-2-experiment-results-announced.html Regards Andrew

I would concur not suitable. Could you use aluminium cooking foil to line it? Regards Andrew

I don't know what elevation the moon was at but it could be atmospheric dispersion. The highter the air mass the greater the effect. Regards Andrew

Looks can be deceptive as @ollypenrice has shown. Look at the histogram. It sould, in an ideal world, show gaussian noise offset from zero by the bias level. In reality it will have additional noise e.g. telegraph noise in CMOS sensors and a high signal tail to the noise due to hot pixels. Some structure can show when zoomed in but as long as its static it does not matter. Regards Andrew

Gardeners World (before its PC phase) used to advocate peeing on your compost heap. Regards Andrew

Interestingly, its phosphorus that is most likely to limit the total biomass on earth. The Sun provides lots of low entropy energy so it's not a limiting constraints. Regards Andrew

Climb inside a cage with a lions or dive with sharks with a bleeding cut. Nothing like learning through experience. Regards Andrew

No, I think it very unlikely. Regards Andrew

Reflecting on my budgie smugglers is only slightly more perverted than licking objective lenes or sniffing Takahashi boxes and berlebach tripods. Not to be recommended. Regards Andrew

So is a repeat of a live feed chewing the cud or an over long SGL thread? Regards Andrew

Genetic drift is quite common, where changes have no advantage in the current environment but suddenly become so when the environment changes. My guess is there will always be constraints in an environment and some form of predation will evolve. Regards Andrew