I have come to think of it as all being probability fields.

When studying a particle, one cannot know both the energy and position of that particle with certainty (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle). When chemists think about the 3d “structure” of atoms and molecules, they represent the nucleus as a tiny little ball and the electrons as bubbles of probability: .

The nucleus itself is in constant motion as well, and compared to the size of the actual protons and neutrons, there is much more empty space - kind of like planets in a solar system. And each of these protons/neutrons is composed of tiny particles called quarks, which again are in constant motion and thus make up probability fields that we call protons and neutrons.

Washington was a pretty bad president if you were Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois).

I think that they are referring to the somewhat adversarial attitude of the comments in this thread. I think that a religious person, especially a self identifying Christian, would feel a bit uncomfortable reading these comments.

Merriam-Webster on “militant” (2nd definition): aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative; militant conservationists; a militant attitude

Actually they haven’t admitted to shooting it down. It was more like:

“Sorry your plane crashed in Russian airspace.”

Clint’s Reptiles: He does great videos covering phylogeny as well as pet scores for individual species.

Professor Dave Explains: A huge variety of content explaining science, my favorites so far are on phylogeny.

Mothlight Media: Videos on evolution of modern and extinct species. One of my favorites!!

Others mentioned PBS Eons, you would most definitely like it.

Great article, but I’m surprised it didn’t end with them saying they planned to follow up with the indigenous people and use their knowledge to help fill in the gaps…

Yet another example of western science thinking we have to reinvent the wheel - the person they interviewed said that all these “new” species were already known to the locals. Obviously we just needed to ask.

From the article:

“The researchers trained 14 sighted and 12 blind people for between two and three hours twice a week over 10 weeks. They started by teaching participants to produce mouth clicks, then trained them on three tasks. The first two involved judging the size or orientation of objects. The third involved navigating virtual mazes, which participants moved through with the help of simulated click-plus-echo sounds tied to their positions.”

I wonder if the stars were brighter in the painting when it was new or if they come across more strongly in person or something… It would be an awful lot of effort to make such an accurate night sky and then not make it visible.

And if the comet is what the painting is celebrating, why not make that brighter too?