This study is talking about two groups, one with a target INR of 2.0-2.5 and the other with a target INR of 2.5-3.5. The higher dose is the current standard dose.

The outcomes were extremely close group to group and it looks like the Confidence Interval was greater than 1.5%, so the study was not adequately powered to have confidence of non inferiority. Is that interpretation correct? Obviously the difference in the groups was not large, but it reads to me that they couldn't be sure it was close enough to not be worse with the lower dose, therefore they can't eliminate the possibility that low dose treatment is more dangerous than current dose? If so, would they do another study or would that basically amount to p-hacking? Further thoughts are appreciated.

Say we have all the empirical evidence from 19th-century science prior to the observation of the wavelike diffraction of matter particles, plus 21st-century math and theory to construct an alternative explanation.

I feel the obvious answer should be "no" but help me think this through. It came from the previous Q on blackholes and am posting here for more visibility.

So considering two blackholes rotating about each other and eventually combining. It's in this situation that we get gravitational waves which we can detect (LIGO experiments). But what happens in the closing moments when the blackholes are within each others event horizon but not yet combined (and so still rotating rapidly about each other). Do the gravitational waves abruptly stop? Or are we privy to this "information" about what's going on inside an event horizon.

Thinking more generally, if the distribution of mass inside an event horizon can affect spacetime outside of the horizon then what happens in the following situation:

imagine a gigantic blackhole, one that allows a long time between passing the horizon and being crushed. You approach the horizon in a giant spacecraft and hover at a safe distance. You release a supermassive probe to descend past the horizon. The probe is supermassive in the way a mountain is supermassive. The intention is to be able to detect it's location via perturbation in the gravity field alone. Similar to how an actual mountain causes a pendulum to hang a miniscule yet measurable distance off the vertical.

Say the probe now descends down past the horizon, at some distance off the normal. Say a quarter mile to the 'left' if you consider the direction of the blackholes gravitational pull.

Let's say you had set the probes computer to perform some experiment, and a simple "yay/nay" indicated by it either staying on its current course down (yay) or it firing it's rockets laterally so that it approaches the direct line been you and the singularity and ends up about a quarter mile 'right' (to indicate nay).

The question is, is the relative position of the mass of this probe detectable by examining the resultant gravitational force exerted on your spaceship? Had it remained just off of centre minutely to the 'left' where it started to indicate the probe communicating 'yay' to you, or has it now deflected minutely to the right indicating 'nay'?

Whether the answer to this is yes or no, I'm confused what would happen in real life?

If the probes relative location is not detectable via gravity once it crosses the horizon, what happens as it approaches? Your very sensitive gravity equipment originally had a slight deviation to the left when both you and probe were outside the horizon. Does it abruptly disappear when it crosses the horizon? If so where does it go? The mass of the probe will eventually join with the mass of the singularity to make the blackhole slightly more massive. But does the gravitational pull of its mass instantly change from the location in the horizon where it crossed (about a quarter mile to the 'left') to now being at the singularity directly below. Anything "instant" doesn't seem right.

Or.. it's relative position within the horizon is detectable based on you examining the very slight deviations of your super sensitive pendulum equipment on board your space craft. And you're able to track it's relative position as it descends, until it's minute contribution to gravity has coalesced with the main blackhole.

But if this is the case then aren't we now getting information from within the horizon? Couldn't you set your probe to do experiments and then pass information back to you by it performing some rudimentary dance of manoeuvres? Which also seems crazy?

So both options seem crazy? Which is it?

(Note, this is a thought experiment. The probe is supermassive using some sort of future tech that's imaginable but far from possible by today's standards. Think a small planet with fusion powered engines or whatever. The point is, in principle, mass is detectable, and mass is moveable. Is this a way to peek inside a blackhole??)

In the same vein, what about a stellar-sized black hole like Cygnus X-1? At this size the rate of evaporation is quicker, right?

I love space, I have since I was a kid but I'm not a professional by any means. All my knowledge comes from years of watching documentaries, reading space/science magazines, and looking things up on wikipedia/stack exchange etc.

Red Dwarfs are thought to be the most common types of stars in the universe, but despite that they're generally thought to be a poor choice for life to evolve. From what I've read, this is because planets orbiting in the habitable zone are close enough to be most likely tidally locked, and on top of that, it's thought that Red Dwarf stars have powerful and frequent flares.

Red Dwarfs are thought to have even more powerful flares than our own Sun, despite being significantly less massive than our parent star. Why is this? What causes a star with a potential mass as low as 0.08 solar masses to have such powerful and frequent flares? Why do more massive stars not have comparatively more massive flares?

I've also read that TOI-700 is thought to be a fairly stable Red Dwarf, as in it doesn't seem to flare up the way a lot of other Red Dwarfs are thought to do. What are the possible causes for this discrepancy in flare activity among Red Dwarf stars? Why is it thought that Red Dwarfs are generally quite grumpy and emit a lot of powerful flares?

This all seems as exotic or esoteric to us now as these invisible electromagnetic waves were to Heinrich Hertz, who reportedly regarded them as mere scientific curiosities with no practical applications.

Unable to foresee radio, television, telephones, remote controls, microwave ovens, Wifi, Bluetooth... you get the point, that "thing with no practical applications" is now a staple of daily life, and all around us. We have fully tamed Electromagnetism.

Now with things like Quantum Computing and Bose-Einstein Condensates, we are starting to tame a new esoteric scientific curiosity - the probability wave function, the Uncertainty Principle.

Heinrich Hertz did not foresee things like satellite television and Spotify while looking for a spark flying across two metal tips from his dark room in the 1880s, but surely we have a better grasp of what potential benefits the newest technologies have in store for humanity? Or are we for the most part still in the Hertz-like naive fiddling process?

Either way, there is going to be some incredible magic inside that quantum box!

I'm gonna eat that motherfucker, so I need to be sure. Can birds, cats and dogs also eat them?

Edit: my cat sneaked into the room and ate a bit of a leaf, the same size I had tried myself yesterday. We dead, I'm typing from the afterlife. I tried uploading an actual photo of my plant but lemmy won't let me.

Obviously, I've heard of table salt (NaCl), but I've also heard of others substances being called salts. What do they mean by something being a salt?

There's the regular Clorox bleach that we use with whites, but then there is non-chlorine bleach. What is a bleach?

I've long toyed with a mid-life pivot into a different field. Mostly, I lean towards IT as the most practical for me, but I love the idea of finally studying a hard science, which I grew to love, but never really got a good formal education in.

I've heard/read, for example, that there aren't necessarily tons of astrophysics jobs out there, so if you only have a bachelor's degree, you might have a tough time. I don't even know that this is true, but I use it as an example.

What are the hard science fields that would be the opposite of this? I could imagine there might be a lot of Chemistry-related jobs, for example, maybe? But I have a hard time imagining what you could do with a pure Physics degree (without also focusing on Engineering or something supplementary)? Would Biology get you anywhere by itself?

Or is it just the hard truth of all hard sciences that you're pretty much worthless with just a four-year degree, from a job perspective?

I live in Vancouver Canada, my house was built in the 1950's and the basement has the floor joists of the kitchen [above it] exposed.

At that time forestry here was felling massive ancient trees. I'm curious how precisely I can establish a maximum age of the trees felled.

Obviously I could count the rings visible on the joists and subtract that number from 1950, but not having the tree's full diameter limits measurement. I understand it's possible to compare relative ring sizes with existing [cross referenced] data sets to date timber.

Does anyone have any experience doing this or able to point me in the right direction? Any resources I'm unlikely to find on Google?

I understand that hurricanes get their strength from warm ocean water but do they take a measurable amount of heat from the water? ('Not going anywhere with this question, just wondering.)

My 8-year-old son asked this question and i couldn't give him a definite answer. So he's wondering if it would do the same thing as a balloon pushed underwater in the bathtub (which kind of makes sense to me, due to the density differences, not just gravity alone).

But I told him I'd ask those more knowledgeable than me.

What might prevent metal "blowing" and other forms of shaping from working if gravity was not a factor? Let's handwave-ignore the extremes of temperature as it relates to techniques and the present primitive space habitats and craft.

Is it possible to suspend a pool of molten metal, with a tube inside, spin while adding a gas to shape a container, and form more complex shapes through additional heat cycles in a repeatable process?