Creating my own site where I can simply post things that matter to _me_—the stuff _I_ think is important to sort out even when evidence and logic run counter to things people very badly _want_ to be true, writing however _I_ want to write—has been so very liberating.
10/10 would recommend!
It’s that sleepy joe and his pizza sniffing Benghazi what about her emails
Exactly. Has this person ever seen her show??
Oops! She beat me to it!
Lol yeah my bet (before Sarah weighs in) is that the fog is brighter in Saturn’s direction and that’s about it. But I’ll trade cool geography and atmosphere for Cassini’s views of the Saturn system and the stars any day :)
Titan?!? Surely you’ve not done anything so horrible as to believe the best you can hope is to live in the Saturn system and not be able to see ANY of it!
Give me Enceladus or Europa any day. Ice fishing under unobscured skies while seeing Saturn or Jupiter and all the other moons right up close! 🤩👌
I’ve had permanent DST at 52 N my whole life. The few weeks around Dec 21 when the Sun has already set by the time I finish work are the most depressing. Walking to school/work in the dark is nothing compared to leaving work and the Sun is already down.
That is the shits!
Oh my! That’s an awesome image.
And I’m just coming to evolution of low mass stars in class, so perfect timing!
Two images of a planetary nebula in space. The image to the left, labelled “Euclid & Hubble”, shows the whole nebula and its surroundings. A star in the very centre is surrounded by white bubbles and loops of gas, all shining with a powerful blue light. Farther away a broken ring of red and blue gas clouds surrounds the nebula. The background shows many stars and distant galaxies. A white box indicates the centre of the nebula and this region is the image to the right, labelled “Hubble”. It shows the multi-layered bubbles, pointed jets and circular shells of gas that make up the nebula, as well as the central star, in greater detail.
Wowowow - our @science.esa.int Hubble's picture of the month for March is the Cat's Eye Nebula, from combined images of #Hubble and #Euclid. Euclid's wide field and low surface brightness sensitivity brings out an external shell. Incredible image. esahubble.org/images/potm2... 🔭
We’ve been on fixed DST in Saskatchewan all my life. I think it’s great!
It works so well though in SK! I wake up at 6am and go to bed around 10pm, so 1pm solar noon splits the sunlight hours better throughout the day. If it happens this way in BC, I hope you end up loving it!
Coming from a place that stays on daylight saving time year round, I agree with you. I would not want to shift noon to 12pm. I spend a lot more of my day awake after noon than before noon!
In SK we stay on daylight saving time year-round! Solar noon in Saskatoon is a little after 1pm, and honestly I find it nice having more sun into the evening.
That said, I think having to adjust time by an hour twice a year would really suck. It’s so nice not having to deal with that!
Have you ever seen a lunar eclipse from a dark site? I was at CTIO for telescope maintenance a few years ago. It was near full moon, so no dark skies. But then one night there was an eclipse and the sky was so dark—the Magellanic Clouds came out, etc.
Lunar eclipse star parties should be a thing!
Five year Astro career development fellowship in Oxford open for applications, broadly in survey astronomy including transients and cosmology. College teaching and research. Do think about joining us. Happy to answer questions! 🔭
Nope. I can’t get onboard with the YouTube thing either.
Draft a 1000-word explainer and pitch it to The Conversation. They publish openly and SciTechDaily, Space.com, etc, republish them.
I wrote 3 articles last year that were read half a million times across translations and republications.
Here’s an example. Worked with an editor who tightened it from a 1700-word initial draft. It’s been read nearly 300k times, including 60k in the French translation. So the potential reach is huge.
theconversation.com/space-time-d...
Nope. I can’t get onboard with the YouTube thing either.
Draft a 1000-word explainer and pitch it to The Conversation. They publish openly and SciTechDaily, Space.com, etc, republish them.
I wrote 3 articles last year that were read half a million times across translations and republications.
That’s pretty much the model at The Conversation! So that might just be what you’re looking for. Though it’s very broad content-wise, so you may not find a lot of content that meets your immediate interests.
So for me, I guess that’s the probe. I just don’t have another thought for a person who can’t engage with objections to their thing. Because if it’s right, it needs to explain those points of tension. If you tell someone why you think their thing is wrong, that already IS help.
That response touches on something that gets to the heart of the matter for me:
I don’t have time for any agenda other than curiosity about the world and desire to understand it better.
If someone has a pet theory they seem more committed to than that basic principle, I’ve already lost interest.
It’s the collection of worldlines of all the elements that make up an extended object. So the four-dimensional region of spacetime traced out by that object’s matter over time.
I think that makes sense. There’s only so much bandwidth. And it IS a tricky thing, deciding where to engage.
I really liked @sarahkendrew.bsky.social’s take below.
What an interesting thread. I do agree that sci comm plays a part, and could say a lot about that.
To the main point: I wonder if a framing shift might help? Rather than classifying *people* why not simply choose to engage or not based on substance and relevance to whatever you’re doing?
“The astrophysical nature of black holes” preprint title and abstract.
Thoughts?
This is nontrivial. If the logic holds, the consequences for horizons, singularities, and information loss would be significant.
🧪 ⚛️ #cosmology
Preprint: cosmicave.org/wp-content/u...
And thank you for responding. Sorry I didn’t say that first!
Oh sorry! That’s a bit embarrassing. I see who you are now.
I just would really like to figure out if there’s something wrong with my reasoning. Maybe Katie or someone else will find the paper interesting enough to read.
I appreciate the well wishes. Hopefully the referees will have good feedback!
I’d be so interested in the opinion of someone like @astrokatie.com or @physgal.bsky.social. Thing is, it’s not an esoteric paper: it could be explained to any undergrad with a basic relativity background. But for the life of me I can’t find any other physicists willing to comment.
I think we got gravitational collapse wrong. Penrose’s singularity theorem doesn’t apply to physics. No information loss.
I doubt black holes can be saved from this paper’s central theorem. If so, it’s not trivial: the paper has been in review 2.5 months. cosmicave.org/2026/01/18/t...
🧪⚛️🔭#philsky
