Seconded. Also, it is ncredibly annoying when somebody publishes a paper that fills in some tiny little corner of knowledge that subtly changes how your work should be interpreted and how you would have written it.

Along with Space Engine

Computer education (at least as of 10 years ago) was less business and more "cool" topics, e.g., artificial intelligence & computer graphics, data structures & algorithms, hardware architecture & operating systems... and practically nothing on web development, databases, project management, teamwork, i.e., the things you actually do upon graduation. I was passionate about computer science and the university program fed into that passion. Two years into my first job killed it entirely. Now my job is just something I do for money and I really kinda hate it. Moral: Don't say with a job you hate just because it pays well. Passion isn't something you can just rekindle after that spark is snuffed out.

​@@cybisz2883 , I would say it depends on CS course what you study. Some lower level programs with only bachelor's degree often are more towards business only. While master level programs are much more focused towards theory with ability select between science or engineering. I studied in engineering program where there was ability choose science focus combined with minor in theoretical physics. But I didn't do science focus because my nature is more like old school hacker type person. (No. Nothing like hackers in popular culture)

@@cybisz2883 Money is very bad for the planet and if we don't get rid of it, all life on Earth will die and no life will be possible for millions of years!

Fascinating discussion! As another person that got in to computers in the early 80's I am delighted I did! My first passion was, and always will be, forestry & ecology, but that comes at a heavy price in my experience - flies. Midges or mosquitoes tip the balance in favour of my 2nd love - computers. So I worked in IT - business, business, business! I know that code I wrote in the 90's and naughties, at least, is still crucial to the success of world class airlines, banks, supermarkets and insurance companies, I suspect some has been superseded, though (arrogantly?) not much. That, apart from being frigging enjoyable, paid for me to travel the world, see trees in all climates, touch and see plants in the most fantastic places, marry well, eat well, party well. People can love more than one thing, imho. I haven't yet mentioned a love of history, politics, all sciences.... I might offer to arm-wrestle Dr Becky over which is the best science; I'm going with botany over physics.

@@sdaniel9129 I mentioned arm-wrestling Dr Becky, but I make the same offer to you: you want to get rid of money and claim it to be the root of all evil - I paraphrase. To misquote Churchill "‘Many forms of capitalism have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that capitalism is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that capitalism is the worst form of existence except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’ Money, of itself, isn't bad: what do you suggest replaces it? How will you save the world? I suspect I will regret asking.

Haha nice! I did that with some colleagues as well - so cool finally putting faces to names you read at masters level

Here here!

@@DrBecky Or hear hear!

John Cleese is a genius. 😃

@pink hot acid boots Alas, I was an Aeronautical Engineering student so I did not. I used "And now for something completely different" as a section heading for more than one submission too...

@@lamegoldfish6736 He's a grumpy old posh boy

A closet eh... funny you should say that 😆

Definitely built it myself!

Hope you enjoy it Jibril! 👍

Hope you enjoy the book!

Dr. Becky guaranteed! 👍🏻

LOL

I'm not a native English speaker. What does it mean to say that "people are dense"?

@@Shenron557 me neither, you will pick it up with time :) it means they are stupid

@@breimalislobodnoime oh. Thanks!

@jumbonium you need to be dense AND you need fuel. neutron stars don't have fuel

Quasars, the most powerful sources of radiation in the Universe, are powered by a black hole. The radiation doesn't come from inside the black hole itself, of course, nothing does. It comes from the in-falling matter. We're not talking theories here. This is a fact, confirmed by observations.

I will defer to the experts, but consider the following: The net effect of solar winds, particles and energy pushing outward from galaxies, continuously, over a prolonged period of time, and other galaxies doing the same, with nothing to stop them from doing so, not only would tend to push galaxies apart from one another giving the appearance of space itself expanding, but would tend to form the cosmic web between galaxies. (And note: even modern science recognizes 'em', electromagnetic radiation energy as having momentum).

@@charlesbrightman4237 the cosmic web is not between galaxies, it IS the galaxies (and gas etc)

@@girv98 The cosmic web also goes between the galaxies. (Reference SuspiciousObservers KZfaq channel).

Many processes can lead to matter existing between galaxies; for example, ejected material from a galaxy as explained at 5:28 , or extremely active galactic nucleus like quasars which fling jets outwards longer than the galaxy itself, galactic collisions, etc. Might even be matter that never condensed into a galaxy proper.

Ok, here is the actual answer.... The filaments consist mainly of dark matter. Dark matter, like the matter we are made of (baryonic matter), has mass but interacts very weakly (if at all) with ordinary matter. It is responsible for the formation of galaxies as its mass far exceeds that of ordinary matter. Unlike ordinary matter, it can't interact with itself much either so, it can't clump together by physical contact to form lumps the way ordinary matter does as it forms stars and planets. Instead, it is only held in place by gravity - basically, it's all pretty loose. I hope that helps to answer your question.

Correction: the gas is always redder on the other side.

@@jennmartia9309 Look, my fingers know what they've typed. If they chose to say grss, who are we to judge?

@pink hot acid boots exactly.

I thought she said "The graph is always redder on the other side."

Thanks 🤗

I am looking forward to updates from Future Becky as the story of galaxy quenching, and the fate of galaxies as a whole becomes more detailed, and involved. Thanks for sharing this with us, a fascinating glimpse into the world of professional astronomy.

PPS You could have also quoted Gildor Inglorion's greeting to the Hobbits..." "Elen síla lúmenn’ omentielvo" (literally "A Star shines on the hour of our meeting")

👋 that’s one thing we’re not completely sure about yet. It’s thought to be down to the interaction of the particles in the accretion disc and the magnetic field around the black hole but it’s poorly understood

Hope you enjoy the book! 🤗

Join the club, my friend....join the club!

never!

Ever held up a stemmed wine glass in front of a light or a candle and been able to make a circle of light in the glass base? Same principle for an Einstein ring, except the candle is a background galaxy and the wine glass is a huge cluster of galaxies that’s very massive. The cluster bends the light from the background galaxy - and if they’re lined up just right from our perspective on Earth the light from the background galaxy is bent into a ring. It’s rare because that perfect line up doesn’t happen often and instead we get arcs and half rings

@@DrBecky so is it like bending space time? The article said the rarest ones they were talking about has to do with them being around black holes.

Yep! It’s a lot - that’s why people say don’t do a PhD if you’re not really passionate about a topic

All the best for it! 🤗

Hope you enjoy the book!

You can download it: ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:c7023345-ec69-42c3-907e-32c12a9ee115

frequency? What specific frequency? How does that change the speed? Last I checked infrared and xrays travel at the same speed and are VERY different frequencies. The medium it travels through kind of effects the time it takes to get from a to b, but it doesn't actually change the speed light travels. So, that statement is completely wrong. The speed of light is the speed of information in the universe and it is constant

Gooblord in a vacuum light travels at X speed. When that same light travels through water, for instance, it slows down. When that same light exits the water and back into the vacuum it immediately resumes its initial speed, the speed of light in a vacuum. Notice that no energy was added to get the light to resume its speed. Nor was there any energy lost when it was in water. The mediums are a vacuum and water. The difference of these two mediums is density. The vacuum has ‘zero’ density as it contains no matter that interacts with light. Whereas water is in liquid form therefor dense. Glass could be used as a medium or any other medium which allows light through. The difference in medium densities will only affect the length of time differing frequencies of light pass through that medium. This is seen when white light travels through a prism. Blue light for instance takes longer to travel through the prism as its frequency is greater than red light. Blue therefor has more interactions with the particles of matter in the prism than red. We see this also as blue and red shifts in cosmology. More or less as refraction. Rate of inductance of a medium can therefor be calculated by using each frequency of light. All energy is a frequency and its corresponding amplitude. There is no difference from a radio ‘wave’ vs a light ‘wave’ other than their individual frequencies. Radio waves travel in a vacuum at the same rate as light waves. The difference between them is the permissibility and permeability of the medium they are interacting with. For instance radio waves can travel through a regular house wall whereas the light will be absorbed. The only difference is their frequencies of which the permeability of the walls will allow passage. The speed of light is only ‘constant’ in a perfect vacuum. Its speed, rate of induction, through other mediums is dependent of that medium. Here is a brain twister for you. In a perfect vacuum what is light travelling through, in, or....?

My understanding was that light is traveling slower in a particle filled medium (water, glass, gas etc) due to a great many discrete events where the photon is absorbed (obliterated) and reemitted (generated) by each atom/particle it interacts with; the delay between absorption and emittance adds up to cause an overall slower light propagation. But, between each event, those photons are always traveling at exactly 'c'.

I would have done, myself, but this margin is too small to contain it.

@trololospaghetto as i understand La Grange points ... they are like a resting point where the effects of planetary are nulified... meaning the gravity pull of 2 or more bodies are cancelled out

i may have miss typed lagrainge wrong... but i am 70% blind from years of welding.... most of my space education has been by automated readers... as i cant see the typed words like most people.... best i can describe my eyesight is for others to look through a lace doylie... my brain does its best to put the missing parts together as best it can... gravity may be the wrong word... influence would be better suited

@trololospaghetto all be kewl... takes more then my misspelling to egg me on... most times i type all caps... but my friend is typing for me so i dont need all caps to see what is typed... keep smiling...life is too short to be a angry man