Imagine an archer who has shot ten arrows. In this scenario, precision is a measurement of the arrows’ positions relative to each other and accuracy is a measurement of their positions relative to the bullseye. A precise archer isn’t necessarily an accurate one, and vice versa.
The precision of an archer is analogous to a concept called clock stability. If one thinks of each tick of the clock as a shot and hitting the bullseye as keeping the exact right time between every tick, then a precise but not accurate clock would consistently tick either slower or faster than the desired amount of time. On the other hand, an accurate but imprecise clock would tick sometimes faster and sometimes slower, but the accumulated errors would average out somewhat over time.
This is the first clear image of a planet caught in the act of formation. The star, PDS 70, is blacked out at the center of the image, while the planet, PDS 70b, is visible as a bright dot to its right. Astronomers just discovered a second newborn planet circling PDS 70.
From outside a black hole, all the infalling matter will emit light and always is visible, while nothing from behind the event horizon can get out. But if you were the one who fell into a black hole, what you’d see would be interesting and counterintuitive, and we know what it would actually look like.
Gif info: General relativistic visualization of a supercomputer magneto-hydrodynamic simulation of a disk and jet around a black hole. The disk and jet were supercomputed by John Hawley at the University of Virginia. The general relativistic rendering was done with the Black Hole Flight Simulator.
I subscribe almost completely Marcelo Gleiser perspectives (and I would have subscribed the same 20 years ago). Watch out, the title is a clickbait, in the context that the phrase is said -in defense of agnosticism as the only non-religious position, it makes perfect sense. Good reading.
Gleiser is the first Latin American (Brazilian) to win the Templeton Prize.