Could Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) be tested by measuring the gravitational effects of Jupiter on our moon? As I understand, Newtonian Dynamics suggests the force of gravity decays by the square of distance, but MOND says it decays somewhat more slowly over great distances. Since our moon is rather reflective, it seems to me we could probably bounce a laser off of it, or if necessary even place a mirror on the moon to facilitate this test. Then, I imagine we could measure its distance with very high precision. If this is feasible, then I imagine we might be able to detect the subtle gravitational effects of other planets on our moon as their distance to our moon changes. (I don't really believe this would work, or else astronomers would probably have tried it, but I'd be curious to know which aspect of this proposed experiment renders it completely infeasible.)

Cool. Thanks. So just shot me off into the unknown when my time comes.

No, those are all obstacles we've already overcome with space probes. Biggest obstacle is just time.

Also I didn't realize your question was about sending a dead body out of the solar system lol

We've sent probes outside of the solar system already. Wouldn't be hard to send an inert coffin the same way.

Yea but I’m dead. Time doesn’t matter to me, at all. What I more mean to ask is like would it be impossible to get past the asteroid belt or Jupiter’s gravity or some obstacle I don’t know about.

The body would be subject to the same laws of physics as anything else. Assuming an airtight seal, it would experience minor degradation as it would allow microorganisms present to decompose it for a time before death. A non-airtight seal allows particles to escape, and assuming all microorganisms present die, the body would remain in a preserved state. There would be nothing left to continue the process of decomposition.

Biggest obstacle for leaving the solar system is time. We have the technology to travel across space. We just won't get anywhere in the same lifetime. This is why most science fiction solves this problem with warp drives to teleport across vast distances, cryostasis to wait it out, or use generational ships (where the crew's grandchildren are the ones who arrive at the destination). We currently do not have viable versions of those sci-fi solutions. So the biggest obstacle is overcoming the long trip duration.

Ah, so I think my issue might be that I have a lay person's understanding of brightness? I suppose I was thinking as brightness solely as the amplitude of waves. So like, low amplitude is only gonna excite the rods? High amplitude will allow the excitation of cones and at that point frequency will determine which cones are excited? It's been about 15 years since my last physics class, and it was a struggle lol. Definitely not my strength.

What would happen if we were laid to rest in space? With and/or without an airtight coffin. Would you go on forever, unless you hit something or are pulled somewhere? Would the body decompose or be torn apart? What would be the biggest obstacles for leaving our solar system?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

It protects against the 2 (16 & 18) that cause 90% of the cancers and a couple of the other strains that cause cancer as well as some that cause warts. They haven’t bothered to pay for clinical trials on the other 140 known strains but most of these are not likely to lead to cancer, and theirs no point in wasting money on clinical trials for strains that don’t have a medical necessity. But it is likely to block other strains, they just haven’t had and likely won’t have clinical trials to prove it.

I see. Your wording seemed to suggest it prevented more than the 9 the literature currently says. My point in asking for the source is because there are over 150 strains and 14 of them that often cause cancer. The Gardisil9 will only help prevent 9. It doesn't provide protection against any of the others, correct?

https://www.hpv.org.nz/about-hpv/hpv-strains

Take the victoria clipper north sometime and stand on the rear deck watching Mount Rainier. As you leave Seattle, you see the city recede into a dot, but the mountain behind it doesn't appear to get any smaller. It's wild.

It was designed for 4 strains but apparently provoked an immune response against 5 other strains. https://www.cancer.gov/types/cervical/research/gardasil9-prevents-more-hpv-types

tl;dr: Adjuvants may increase the response of the immune system if given without an antigen, but that immune response would not be directed towards the existing pathogen.

The reason behind this is tied to how the immune system targets a pathogen in the first place. The initial step is chopping up the pathogen/virus and creating antigens by the first line responders (known as antigen presenting cells, or APCs). These cells then give two signals to other white blood cells to induce the immune response: the antigen and the biochemical signals (cytokines) to teach the WBCs how to break down the pathogen. Without both signals, the antigen AND the cytokines, there is no further immune response.

Some adjuvants (aluminum/M59) increase antigen processing while other adjuvants artificially provide instructions on how to combat the pathogen. Without an antigen associated with the adjuvant, the immune system would fail to create any immune response to target the pathogen even if it's already in the body. Failure in this two-signal process is mirrored in some inherited auto-immune deficiencies as well as immune evasion of cancer cells.

If you're interested in a relatively recent update on how adjuvants work, this literature review go over recent advancements.

[removed]

I’d like to know too. I remember reading about a clinical trial where they had just the adjuvant as a control, and they had a response rate similar to the actual drug. So I’d guess “yes, needs more research” and probably applies to some diseases more than others.

[deleted]

Source?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

In response to hmartin430, my expertise is really in the use and application of CIE colour matching and display screen technologies, rather than the actual structure of the human eye.

My understanding too is that the rods are sensitive to low light (and saturate at higher light levels).

If we just consider the cones in the fovea, that comprises three types of cone: L,M,S (long, medium, short wavelength), which are very loosely red,green,blue. They are actually much broader bandwidth, with highly overlapping wavelength sensitivities than true RGB. The CIE colour matching functions (and resulting "chromaticity" coordinates) X,Y,Z are mathematically related to the L,M,S cone spectral sensitivities but are not quite the same thing (it's a long story...). The XYZ colour-matching functions are 'mathematically fudged' slightly such that the Y-coordinate represents luma (brightness) as well as (sort of) "green".

Grappling slightly for a consistent solution to all these things, I believe the answer is that in the fovea there is a highest density of M-cones, fewer L-cones, and fewer S-cones still. This means that our "luma" resolution is highest, red-green resolution is somewhat lower lower, and blue-yellow resolution the lowest. (In practice you need to match the luma (brightness) of the coloured test-stimuli to really demonstrate this effect, otherwise if "yellow" is much brighter than your "blue" it may be resolved in luma even if it isn't really resolved in chroma).

Again from a technological perspective, the Bayer colour filter array pattern used in the vast majority of electronic colour-camera sensors has twice as many green pixels as blue and red, which again maps to approaching human-eye properties to get the "best" visual image from finite technical resources.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter

[removed]