Podcasts about olbers

441-1-ID-D16 - 1505 - Astronomía: La Paradoja de Olbers - La Ley de Titus-Bode. Universo de Misterios tiene reservado el derecho de admisión y publicación de comentarios. Generalmente, los comentarios anónimos no serán publicados. Si hace comentarios con afirmaciones dudosas, arguméntelas aportando enlaces a fuentes fiables (este muro NO es una red social). En caso de no respaldar su comentario como se indica en la caja de descripción del episodio, su comentario podrá ser eliminado. Contacto con Universo de Misterios: universodemisteriospodcast@gmail.com La imagen de la miniatura que ilustra este episodio ha sido creada con la ayuda de una Inteligencia Artificial. Puedes hacerte Fan de Universo de Misterios y apoyarlo económicamente obteniendo acceso a todos los episodios cerrados, sin publicidad, desde 1,99 €, pero, si prefieres una tarifa plana en iVoox, consulta estos enlaces: https://www.ivoox.vip/premium?affiliate-code=397358271cac193abb25500d6dffa669 https://www.ivoox.vip/premium?affiliate-code=151a00607cbb1cb51c715a0e5ba841d2 https://www.ivoox.vip/plus?affiliate-code=af18e7aba430f5e6cd6342407a3b2cb9 Aunque a algunas personas, a veces, puede proporcionar una falsa sensación de alivio, la ignorancia nunca es deseable. Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

The darkness of the night sky, an apparently obvious observation, has fascinated astronomers for centuries. This straightforward question, referred to as Olbers' paradox, challenges our understanding of the universe and its enormity. Watch: https://youtu.be/SzInCq7Wsoc

Por qué el cielo es oscuro en la noche? Hay mucho más en la respuesta a esta pregunta que el hecho de que las estrellas no parecen tan brillantes como el sol desde la tierra. Si las estrellas estuvieran distribuidas igualmente a través del universo infinito… To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1235/29

Por qué el cielo es oscuro en la noche? Hay mucho más en la respuesta a esta pregunta que el hecho de que las estrellas no parecen tan brillantes como el sol desde la tierra. Si las estrellas estuvieran distribuidas igualmente a través del universo infinito… To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1235/29

On today's Bible Answer Man broadcast (11/08/24), we pick up where we ended on our previous broadcast and present more of an episode of the Hank Unplugged podcast. Hank is talking with Dr. Jay Richards, co-author of the 20th Anniversary Updated and Revised edition of The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery. Hank and Dr. Richards discuss the importance of telescopes, Olbers' paradox—a paradox that asks why the night sky is dark if the universe is full of stars, how our universe is fine-tuned for life, how the world has been set up for us to be able to understand it, if our size in relation to the universe matters, the myth of the Copernican principle, and the importance of reading.

441-1-AUD - RE20 - 1256 - Pneles solares de ETs como firma tecnológica - ¿Por qué el cielo nocturno es oscuro? La Paradoja de Olbers - La Energía solar con Ignacio Martil de la Plaza de la Universidad Complutense. Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Is earth a privileged planet or merely an insignificant speck of soil aimlessly adrift in a meaningless universe? Evidence refutes the principle of mediocrity—demonstrating that our earth is singularly privileged and designed for discovery. Jay Richards again joins Hank Hanegraaff to give the reasons why in this compelling conversation that clearly communicates why our earth is indeed a privileged planet amidst it's place in the cosmos.  https://www.equip.org/product/the-privileged-planet-book-new-20th-anniversary-edition-2024-the-farm-at-the-center-of-the-universe-original-2004-privileged-planet-dvd-hup/ Topics discussed include: Can machines ever truly replace humans? (7:15); panpsychism—is there a materialistic way to explain consciousness? (11:05); what is the hypothesis of The Privileged Planet? (14:15); why is the earth the best place in the universe for discovery? (17:00); why do people like Neil deGrasse Tyson make the argument that the earth is insignificant? (21:45); how can we overcome the issue of information overload we are facing today? (26:10); what is constrained optimization? (29:45); the role of solar eclipses in scientific discovery (33:00); how is earth a data recorder? (40:45); the reality of climate change (43:20); the four necessary questions you must ask to understand climate change/global warming (47:30); are natural disasters evidence of climate change? (55:40); should we all be driving electric cars? (1:05:25); how does the earth compare to the thousands of other planets that we know exist? (1:07:30); what role do other planets play in our survival? (1:11:45); is the sun mediocre like some famous scientists claim? (1:14:15); how important is our place in the Milky Way Galaxy? (1:17:35); the importance of telescopes (1:20:30); Olbers paradox—why is the night sky dark? (1:22:45); how is our universe fine-tuned for life itself? (1:24:15); how the world has been set up for us to be able to understand it (1:27:30); does our size in relation to the universe matter? (1:30:00); constrained optimization (1:32:00); the myth of the Copernican principle  (1:33:30); the best educational options for our children (1:38:30); what the early Christians can teach us about surviving cultural decay (1:40:40); the price to pay for seeking truth and not the approval of men (1:42:40); what is the anthropic principle? (1:45:20); explaining away the fine-tuning of the universe through the multiverse theory (1:47:10); UFOs—what is the truth about the alien encounters? (1:49:15); the UAP hype [unidentified aerial phenomena] (1:52:45); why are certain ideas deemed to be “science stoppers”? (1:54:00); how to read the book of nature (1:55:05); the importance of the Privileged Planet as a resource (1:59:45).To see how you can receive The Privileged Planet Book (New 20th Anniversary Edition-2024), The Farm at the Center of the Universe,  and Original (2004) Privileged Planet DVD for your partnering gift, please click here. https://www.equip.org/product/the-privileged-planet-book-new-20th-anniversary-edition-2024-the-farm-at-the-center-of-the-universe-original-2004-privileged-planet-dvd-hup/Listen to Hank's podcast and follow Hank off the grid where he is joined by some of the brightest minds discussing topics you care about. Get equipped to be a cultural change agent.Archived episodes are  on our Website and available at the additional channels listed below.You can help spread the word about Hank Unplugged by giving us a rating and review from the other channels we are listed on.

彗星 13P/Olbers 每 70 冬 來到 內太陽系 一擺。伊 tī 6 月30 行到 近日點，就是 kah 太陽上倚 ê 位置。這張相片翕--ê 是 tī 熱天暗暝 出現 tī 捷克共和國 歷史久長 ê Kunetice 城堡 天頂 ê 哈雷型彗星。伊這馬欲 轉去 伊 ê 故鄉 Oort 雲 矣。這張是 7 月 28 紀錄彗星軌跡 ê 合成相片。咱看會著彗星 ê 闊幅塗粉尾溜、光爍爍 ê 彗鬚、長長 ê 離子尾溜、kah 前景 ê 景色。這粒彗星 tī 城堡後壁 16 光分遠 ê 所在，背景是北天 ê 天星，彗星就出現 tī 大熊座 下底。這个山頂城堡 ê 歷史 ùi 15 世紀開始，毋過 彗星是 Heinrich Olbers tī 1815 年發現--ê。Olbers 彗星 tī 日頭落山了後出現 tī 地球天頂 ê 西北爿，是觀星者 用 天文望遠鏡 kah 雙筒千里鏡 觀測彗星 上好 ê 時機。彗星 13P Olbers ê 後一擺 行到 近日點，愛等到 2094 年。 ——— 這是 NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day ê 台語文 podcast 原文版：https://apod.nasa.gov/ 台文版：https://apod.tw/ 今仔日 ê 文章： https://apod.tw/daily/20240801/ 影像：Petr Horálek / Institute of Physics in Opava 音樂：P!SCO - 鼎鼎 聲優：阿錕 翻譯：An-Li Tsai (NSYSU) 原文：https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap240801.html Powered by Firstory Hosting

Om det finns en oändlig mängd stjärnor i ett oändligt universum, borde då inte himlen vara starkt upplyst?Den tyske astronomen och läkaren Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers påpekade i början av 1800-talet något som de flesta av oss aldrig har reflekterat över: det borde ju vara ljust på himlen även på natten!Wikipedia säger sitt om Olbers paradox. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Paul Hill & Dr. Jenifer “Dr. Dust” Millard host.  Damien Phillips, John Wildridge and Dustin Ruoff produce. This month the team talk Comet Olbers, black holes in globular Clusters, the cancellation of Vixen, the ultra calm lakes of Titan, more phosphine news from Venus and look forward to this months Perseids.   We've added a new way to donate to 365 Days of Astronomy to support editing, hosting, and production costs.  Just visit: https://www.patreon.com/365DaysOfAstronomy and donate as much as you can! Share the podcast with your friends and send the Patreon link to them too!  Every bit helps! Thank you! ------------------------------------ Do go visit http://www.redbubble.com/people/CosmoQuestX/shop for cool Astronomy Cast and CosmoQuest t-shirts, coffee mugs and other awesomeness! http://cosmoquest.org/Donate This show is made possible through your donations.  Thank you! (Haven't donated? It's not too late! Just click!) ------------------------------------ The 365 Days of Astronomy Podcast is produced by the Planetary Science Institute. http://www.psi.edu Visit us on the web at 365DaysOfAstronomy.org or email us at info@365DaysOfAstronomy.org.

This month the team talk Comet Olbers, black holes in globular Clusters, the cancellation of Vixen, the ultra calm lakes of Titan, more phosphine news from Venus and look forward to this months Perseids. Produced by Ralph, Paul, Jen, John, Damien & Dustin

Warum wird es nachts eigentlich dunkel? Wem jetzt in Anbetracht der scheinbaren Banalität dieser Frage leicht irritiert der Gedanke kommt, er habe vielleicht versehentlich einen Kinder- satt eines Astronomie-Podcasts eingeschaltet, sei entgegnet: So einfach, wie man zunächst denkt, ist die Antwort gar nicht! Tatsächlich sind sogar recht komplexe Erklärungen und Modellvorstellungen nötig, um die alltägliche Beobachtung eines dunklen Nachthimmels zu erklären. Das wissen natürlich auch unsere beiden Himmelsspaziergänger Susanne und Paul und nehmen uns in dieser Podcast-Folge mit in das Bremen des 18. Jahrhunderts. Dort beschäftigte sich nämlich der Arzt und Astronom Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers mit genau dieser Frage und formulierte das später als 'Olberssches Paradoxon' bekannte Rätsel: Wenn der Raum unendlich viele Sonnen enthält, müsste der Nachthimmel doch eigentlich ständig hell sein. Schließlich, so Olbers, müsste „jede Linie, die ich mir von unserm Auge gezogen denken kann“, „nothwendig auf irgendeinen Fixstern treffen, und also müßte uns jeder Punkt am Himmel Fixsternlicht, also Sonnenlicht zusenden“. Warum es nachts dennoch nicht hell ist und was wir aus dieser Tatsache alles noch über den Zustand unser Universum schlussfolgern können, erfahrt ihr in unserer neuesten Podcastfolge!

彗星 13P/Olbers 會 tī 68 年後閣轉來 內太陽系，這並 袂 矛盾。這粒 哈雷型 週期彗星 會 tī 6 月 30 行到後一个近日點，就是上倚太陽彼點。伊這馬已經變做是 雙筒千里鏡 tī 北半球 暗暝 咧看 ê 一个目標矣。這張清楚 ê 13P 望遠鏡影像，是 kā 6 月 25 暗暝翕--ê 幾若張相片疊出來--ê 結果。相片有翕著這粒光爍爍 ê 彗星 ê 足濟細節，包括去予太陽風吹甲散開 ê 離子尾溜，闊幅葵扇型 ê 塗粉尾溜，kah 青色 ê 彗鬚。這張 tī 天貓座方向 ê 相片有 2 度闊，背景是一大陣 暗暗 ê 天星。 ——— 這是 NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day ê 台語文 podcast 原文版：https://apod.nasa.gov/ 台文版：https://apod.tw/ 今仔日 ê 文章： https://apod.tw/daily/20240628/ 影像：Dan Bartlett 音樂：P!SCO - 鼎鼎 聲優：阿錕 翻譯：An-Li Tsai (NSYSU) 原文：https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap240628.html Powered by Firstory Hosting

Thibergs första frågespecial. Vi försöker svara på frågor kring bland annat Försvarsmaktens startled i Vasaloppet, mörkerseende, vintertriathlon, seedning på stakmaskin, effektiv träning tre dagar i veckan samt Fermis och Olbers paradoxer. Vi hade också en planerad intervju med Vasaloppet och Svenska Skidförbundet med anledning av de nya riktlinjerna kring seedning på rullskidlopp och vilka 2:or som är tillåtna att använda för seedningslopp. Men mitt i inspelningen, strax före vi skulle prata med dem, sköt de upp intervjun för att ta ett omtag kring vad de beslutar. Fortsättning följer. Dessutom: Erik T visar sig vara en motorsågsförare på elitmotionärsnivå och Erik W har persat i chins (9 st).  Tack till:  Hoka - Nu kutar vi i nya Speedgoat 6. Perfekt mängdsko för terrängen. Alliansloppet - Folkfest på rullskidor i Trollhättan 24 augusti. Till sist: Här finns Lagom Kondition på Instagram. Här kan du läsa om Wickström Coaching.

Join my mailing list https://briankeating.com/list to win a real 4 billion year old meteorite! All .edu emails in the USA

In een wegwerpmaatschappij hebben we eigenlijk niks aan traditionele ambachten. We kopen immers onze spullen bij de grote, internationale ketens in baanwinkels of online. En klaar. Toch willen Beke Olbers en Lynn Vanheste ambachten - zoals het traditioneel looien - in leven houden en doorgeven. Uit respect voor de eeuwenoude traditie. Uit respect voor het dier. Maar ook uit zelfrespect, als mens. Door een ambacht te leren, win je een stuk zelfstandigheid en zelfredzaamheid terug. Wil je na het beluisteren van deze uitzending zelf aan de slag, weet dat dit met beperkte middelen kan, maar dat het looiproces tijd, veel tijd en spierkracht vraagt. Succes. - ikwashier.live archiveert tradities en erfgoed, vooral immaterieel of ‘levend' erfgoed.

Are black holes places or objects? Neil deGrasse Tyson and cohosts Chuck Nice and Gary O'Reilly answer grab-bag questions about distorting spacetime, Olbers' Paradox, singularities, the shape of the universe, and more with astrophysicist Charles Liu. NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can listen to this entire episode commercial-free here: https://startalkmedia.com/show/cosmic-queries-black-hole-time-cloak-with-charles-liu/Thanks to our Patrons Logan Kent, James in 3d, Renee Skrip, Maarten Spruijt, Alan Domonoske, Liam Predergast, sparkman, Cecil J Taylor, abhinav yadav, and Markus Gustafsson for supporting us this week.

In dieser Folge spreche ich mit Maria Hermes-Wladarsch über die Entdeckungen des Bremer Astronomen Heinrich Wilhelm Matthias Olbers. Außerdem erklären wir den Ablauf historischer Nachlasserschließungen. Gast: Maria Hermes-Wladarsch leitet die Abteilung für Historische Sammlungen, Handschriften & Rara an der Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Bremen.

Torsten Olbers är professor i kirurgi och expert inom området gastric bypass. Vi går igenom för- och nackdelar. Hur ser framtidens behandling ut? 00:09:15 – Torsten in 00:51:25 – Torsten ut En Tyngre Podd! handlar om övervikt. Ett växande problem i vårt samhälle som vi vill förstå bättre och även inspirera andra. Mange och Pischa är två populära coacher med helt olika bakgrunder men som sammanstrålar i en DUO som vill hjälpa människor mot en bättre hälsa och relation till sig själva. Podden kommer även gästas av personer som på ett eller annat sätt berörs av ämnet övervikt. Du som lyssnar på vår podd får gärna betygsätta den på den plattform du lyssnar på – lämna gärna en recension. Då blir podden mer synlig för andra plus att vi värdar blir glada.

Perché il cielo è nero e buio? L'enorme quantità di stelle presenti nell'Universo dovrebbe illuminare il cielo notturno continuamente, come se fosse giorno, o quasi. Perchè questo non succede? La risposta la troviamo nella soluzione del Paradosso di Olbers. __________________

Las paradojas han fascinado a las personas desde que tenemos noticias. Los griegos llamaban aporías a afirmaciones correctamente formuladas pero que conducían a contradicciones evidentes. En las ciencias, incluyendo obviamente la astronomía, la formulación a paradojas nos han servido para poner a prueba nuestro entendimiento sobre el universo y la solución a algunas de ellas han hecho avanzar en algunos casos disciplinas científicas completas. En este episodio repasamos algunas de las paradojas mejor conocidas, la paradoja de Olbers, la paradoja de Zenón, la paradoja de la abuela, la paradoja de los mellizos, la paradoja de Bentley, entre otras. Realizado por: Jorge Zuluaga (Ph.D. en física, Profesor titular de Astronomía y Física de la Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia), Antonio Bernal (autor, divulgador de astronomía del Observatorio Fabra de Barcelona) Producido por: Jhossua Giraldo, Pregrado de Astronomía (U. de A.) Lista de episodios organizados por tema: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/punto-bernal-lista-reproduccion⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Lista de reproducción temática: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/astronomia-en-punto-bernal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Enlaces útiles: Artículo "¿Por qué el cielo es oscuro?" de Antonio Bernal.

Om det finns en oändlig mängd stjärnor i ett oändligt universum, borde då inte himlen vara starkt upplyst?Den tyske astronomen och läkaren Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers påpekade i början av 1800-talet något som de flesta av oss aldrig har reflekterat över: det borde ju vara ljust på himlen även på natten!Wikipedia säger sitt om Olbers paradox. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Vor 265 Jahren kam Wilhelm Olbers in Arbergen bei Bremen zur Welt. Der Arzt beschäftigte sich in seiner Freizeit intensiv mit der Himmelskunde. Er entdeckte zwei Asteroiden und einige Kometen.Lorenzen, Dirkwww.deutschlandfunk.de, SternzeitDirekter Link zur Audiodatei

Hace 200 años Henry Olbers se preguntó ¿Por qué el cielo nocturno es oscuro si existen infinitas estrellas que habrían de iluminarlo como si fuera de día?   Guion y montaje: Inko Martín.   Música: Cliff Martinez – First Sleep                Kerala Dust – Moonbeam, Midnight, Howl.

Ancak durum aslında çok daha karmaşıktır. Geceleri gökyüzünün neden karanlık olduğu yüzyıllarca bilim insanlarının kafasını meşgul etmiş bir soru ve cevaplanması ancak geçen yüzyılda yaşanan bilimsel gelişmelerden sonra mümkün oldu. Öncelikle Olbers paradoksu olarak adlandırılan bu durumun nereden kaynaklandığına bir göz atalım. Daha sonra da paradoksun nasıl çözüldüğünü görelim.

Did you know that Edgar Allan Poe solved Olbers' Paradox and invented the Big Bang Theory 100 years ahead of time—in a poem? In this episode, Katie and Tim discuss poetic discoveries.

This is the Weight and Healthcare newsletter! If you like what you are reading, please consider subscribing and/or sharing!The American Academy of Pediatrics has put out a new Clinical Guideline for the care of higher-weight children. This document is 100 pages long including references and there are so many things that are concerning and dangerous in it that I had trouble deciding how to divide it up to write about it. I began on Thursday with a piece about the undisclosed conflicts of interest. Ultimately for today, I decided to focus on what I think will do the most harm in the guidelines, which is the recommendations for body size manipulation of toddlers, children, and adolescents through intensive behavioral interventions, drugs, and surgeries.A few things before we dive in. First, this piece is long. Really long. I thought about breaking it up to make it easier to parse, but I also know that people are (rightly) very concerned about these guidelines and I didn't want to trickle information/commentary out over days and weeks in case it might be helpful to someone now. Also, know that this may be emotionally difficult to read, in particular for those who have been harmed by weight loss interventions foisted on them as children. That will likely be exacerbated by the gaslighting these guidelines do to erase the lived experience of harm and trauma from the “interventions” they are recommending, and from their co-option of anti-weight-stigma language to promote weight loss. So please take care of yourself, you can always take a break and come back. Per my usual policy I will not link to studies that are based in weight bias and the weight loss paradigm, but will provide enough information for you to Google if you want to read them. I'll also use an asterisk in “ob*sity” for the reasons I explain in the post footer. Ok, big breath and let's get into this.In later newsletters, I'll address other issues in depth, but for now here are some quick thoughts and links about overarching issues before I dig into the actual recommendation:The claim that “ob*sity is a chronic disease—similar to asthma and diabetes”No, it's really not. And it's this faulty premise (that having a body of a certain size is the same thing as having a health condition with actual identifiable symptomology) that underlies everything in these guidelines. The diagnosis of asthma requires documentation of signs or symptoms of airflow obstruction, reversibility of obstruction (improvement in these signs or symptoms with asthma therapy) and no clinical suspicion of an alternative diagnosis. The diagnosis of diabetes requires a glycated hemoglobin (A1C) level of 6.5% or higher. But to diagnose “ob*sity” you just need a scale and a measuring tape. A group of people with this “diagnosis” don't have to share any symptoms at all, they simply have to exist in their bodies. That is not the same as asthma or diabetes, though the weight loss industry (in particular pharmaceutical companies and weight loss surgery interests) have absolutely poured money into campaigns to try to convince us that it is. (Note that the argument that ob*sity is correlated with other health conditions and thus is a disease actually proves the fallacy since some kids/people who are “diagnosed” with “ob*sity” don't have any of those health conditions and some kids/people who are thin do have them. It's especially disingenuous as it ignores the confounding variables of weight stigma and, in particular, weight cycling both of which these guidelines, if adopted, are very likely to increase.)The myth of “non-stigmatizing ob*sity care” Like so much of these guidelines, this idea and much of the verbiage around it mirrors that of the weight loss industry. In this case, it's attempt to co-opt the language of anti-weight-stigma in order to promote (and profit from) weight loss (there's a guide to telling the difference between true anti-stigma work and diet industry propaganda here!) In truth, there is no such thing as non-stigmatizing care for ob*sity, because the concept of ob*sity is rooted in size and the treatment is changing size (the word was made up to pathologize larger bodies, based on a latin root that literally means to eat until fat so…less science than stereotype there.) There is no shame in having a disease, it's just that existing while fat isn't one. The concept of “ob*sity” as a “disease” pathologizes someone's body size. The concept of ob*sity says that your body itself is wrong, and requires intensive therapy and/or risky drugs and surgeries so that it can be/look right. There is no way to say that without engaging in weight stigma.If someone claims that the treatment is actually about health and not size, then it's not “ob*sity” treatment since both the criteria for the “disease” and the measure of successful “treatment” of ob*sity are based on body size. If the treatment is about health and not size, then the treatment and measures of success should be about actual metabolic health, not body size (which would be ethical, evidence-based, weight-neutral care.)The idea that “It is important to recognize that treatment of ob*sity is integral to the treatment of its comorbidities and overw*ight or ob*sity and comorbidities should be treated concurrently”Again, I think this is demonstrably untrue. Any health issues that are considered “comorbidities” of being higher-weight are also health issues that thin people get, which means that they have independent treatments. We could skip body size manipulation attempts entirely and still treat any health issues that a higher-weight child/adolescent has.The dubious claim that “ob*sity treatment” is compatible with eating disorders preventionI wrote a specific piece about this here. Weight loss as a “solution” to weight stigmaThis is unconscionable. Regardless of what someone believes about weight and health, the message that children (as young as 2!) should solve stigma by undertaking intensive and dangerous interventions that risk quality of life moves beyond inappropriate to disgusting, especially when one is perpetuating weight stigma, as these guidelines (and the weight loss industry talking points that are repeated herein) do.There is so much more to unpack here, but I want to move into a discussion of the recommendations themselves.For this, I will start where I left off on the conflict of interest piece. Which is to say, almost all of the authors of these guidelines are firmly entrenched in the body-size-as-disease paradigm. They have pinned their careers to it. None of the authors are coming from a weight-neutral paradigm.  In fact, in the research evaluation methodology section, they explain that they excluded studies that looked at impacting health, rather than weight. In their own words:The primary aim of the intervention studies had to be examination of an ob*sity prevention (intended for children of any weight status) or treatment (intended for children with overw*ight or ob*sity) intervention. The primary intended outcome had to be ob*sity, broadly defined, and not an ob*sity comorbidity.Note that by “ob*sity comorbidity” they mean a health condition that happens to children of all sizes.I don't know if it was intentional, or just a myopic focus on body size manipulation as a supposed healthcare intervention, but the option to focus on health rather than size was specifically excluded by a group of authors whose careers on based on focusing on size.There are three main areas of their recommendation that I'll talk about today - Intensive Health Behavior and Lifestyle Treatment, Weight Loss Drugs, and Weight Loss Surgeries.RECOMMENDATION:  Intensive Health Behavior and Lifestyle Treatment (IHBLT)This is recommended starting as young as age two. That's right, they are recommending intensive interventions to kids in diapers (and they think that they should look into how to “diagnose” kids who are even younger, yikes!) What these guidelines subtly admit is that these interventions don't actually work. They include this (long-time weight loss industry) talking point “a life course approach to identification and treatment should begin as early as possible and continue longitudinally through childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood, with transition into adult care.”The translation to this is that they have absolutely no idea how to make higher-weight people of any age thin long-term. They are aware (and if not they are negligent) that a century of data shows that the vast majority of people will lose weight short-term and gain it back long-term. What they seem to be trying to do here is rebrand yo-yo dieting (aka weight-cycling) as a successful intervention. If there is a prize for moving the goalpost and declaring victory, they are in the running.Don't just take my word for it, they created a graphic as part of Figure 1 to show it:Pro tip: When they say “relapsing remitting” they mean “yo-yo dieting". I know why the weight loss industry loves this idea - it's how they've built a business that creates exponential growth with a product that doesn't work. What I don't understand is how this group of authors can possibly justify this ethically. The health risks of weight cycling are documented (and very consistent with the health risks that get blamed on higher-weight bodies) so setting people up for weight cycling starting as toddlers does not, to me, have the ring of sound science or ethical, evidence-based medicine.Let's dig into the evidence they are using to support this:The guidelines claim that “IHBLT is the foundational approach to achieve body mass reduction or the attenuation of excessive weight gain in children. It involves visits of sufficient frequency and intensity to facilitate sustained healthier eating and physical activity habits.” The study they cite to back this up (Grossman et al; 2017, Screening for ob*sity in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement) says “Comprehensive, intensive behavioral interventions (≥26 contact hours) in children and adolescents 6 years and older who have ob*sity can result in improvements in weight status for up to 12 months.”They also include a chart of seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 2005-2017. The combined study population of all seven studies was just 1,153 kids. The largest study (with 549 participants) and the only study to include children from ages 2 to 5 had a duration of 12 months and showed a BMI change of 0.42 that year, and was only “effective” (if you consider a .42 change in a year “effective”) in kids ages 4-8 years old. There was only one study that followed up for more than 12 months, and from 12 months to 24 months, the BMI change decreased (from 3.3 to 2.8,) consistent with the weight regain pattern that we would expect.This will be a running theme in these guidelines - short-term studies will be used to justify life-long recommendations, and weight regain is ignored. In general, sometimes this is based on the idea that if a weight loss intervention works short-term, then it will continue to work forever, other times it's based on the idea that weight cycling is an ethical, evidence-based healthcare intervention. Again, the data on both the long-term failure of weight loss and the danger of weight cycling does not support this.They make a point to mention that IHBLT “involves interaction with pediatricians and other PHCPs who are trained in lifestyle-related fields and requires significantly more time and resources than are typically allocated to routine well-child care.” At this point I'll note that many of the authors of the guidelines run clinics or have practices that provide exactly this type of care.Their criteria for the studies was, I'll just call it lax: “Over a 3-12 month period: The criteria for the evidence review required a weight-specific outcome at least 3 months after the intervention started.” Obviously, this is a very short-term requirement and, again, excludes studies that looked at actual health instead of just body size.Here again they tell on themselvesTreatments with duration longer than 12 months are likely to have additional and sustained treatment benefit. There is limited evidence, however, to evaluate the durability of effectiveness and the ability of long-term treatments to retain family engagement.Note that the idea that longer duration treatment is “likely” to have additional and sustained treatment benefit is not remotely an evidence-based statement, and I would argue that it is biased and should not be included here. Also, they seem to be setting the stage for blaming families for the entirely predictable and almost always inevitable weight regain.Under “referral strategies” they get real about how little weight loss we're actually talking about:Pediatricians and other Primary Healthcare Providers (PHCP's) are encouraged to help to set reasonable expectations for these [BMI-based] outcomes among families, as there is a significant heterogeneity to treatment response and there is currently no evidence to predict how individual children will respond. Many children will not experience BMI improvement, particularly if their participation falls below the treatment threshold.”As described in the Health Behavior and Lifestyle Treatment section, those who do experience BMI improvement will likely note a modest improvement of 1% to 3% BMI percentile decline.So they are recommending an “intensive,” time-consuming, expensive intervention to kids starting as young as age 2 with no prognostics as to which kids might be “successful,” the stated result of which is that “many” (their word) of them won't experience any change in the primary outcome, those who do will see a very small change.They do mention the supposed actual health benefits of these interventions, but fail to mention that the health benefits may have nothing to do with the very small change in size. That's because often when health changes and weight changes (at least temporarily) follow behavior change, those who are invested in the weight loss paradigm (financially, clinically, or both) are quick to credit the weight change, rather than the behavior change, for the health change. Here again, the evidence does not support this. It's very possible that these same health improvements could be achieved with absolutely no focus or attention paid to weight, which would provide more benefits and less risks (including the risks associated with both weight stigma and weight cycling.) It could also allow the children (some, remember, still in diapers) to create healthy relationships with food and movement, rather than seeing choices around food and movement as punishment for their size or a way to manipulate it.As they move into specific recommendations, they start with:Despite the lack of evidence for specific strategies on weight outcomes many of these strategies have clear health benefits and were components in RCTs of intensive behavioral intervention. Many strategies are endorsed by major professional or public health organizations. Therefore, pediatricians and other PHCPs can appropriately encourage families to adopt these strategies. To me this sounds a lot like throwing the concept of “evidence-based” right out the window. None of this means “these strategies are likely to lead to long-term weight loss,” but I'll bet that won't be what is conveyed to the patients and families upon whom these “strategies” are foisted. Before we move on to their recommendations around diet drugs, here is some research to contextualize these recommendations:Neumark-Sztainer et. al, 2012, Dieting and unhealthy weight control behaviors during adolescence: Associations with 10-year changes in body mass indexNone of the behaviors being used by adolescents for weight-control purposes predicted weight lossOf greater concern were the negative outcomes associated with dieting and the use of unhealthful weight-control behaviors…including eating disorders and weight gain [Note: This is not to say that there is anything wrong with higher-weight, but that there is something wrong with a supposed healthcare intervention that has significant risks, almost never works, and has the opposite of the intended effect up to 66% of the time.] Raffoul and Williams, 2021, Integrating Health at Every Size principles into adolescent careCurrent weight-focused interventions have not demonstrated any lasting impact on overall adolescent healthBEAT UK, 2020 Eating Disorders Association, Changes Needed to Government Anti-ob*sity StrategiesGovernment-sanctioned anti-ob*sity campaigns* increase the vulnerability of those at risk of developing an eating disorder* exacerbate eating disorder symptoms in those already diagnosed with an eating disorder* show little success at reducing ob*sityStrategies including changes to menus and food labels, information around ‘healthy/unhealthy' foods, and school-based weight management programs all pose a risk.Pinhas et. al. 2013, Trading health for a healthy weight: the uncharted side of healthy weights initiativesOb*sity-prevention programs that push “healthy eating” are triggering disordered eating in some children, creating sudden neuroses around food in children who never before worried about their weightThey were all affected by the idea of trying to adopt a more healthy lifestyle, in the absence of significant pre-existing notions, beliefs or concerns regarding their own weight, shape or eating habits prior to the interventionFiona Willer, Phd, AdvAPD, FHEA, MAICD, Non-Executive Board Director at Dietitians AustraliaQuoted from: health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/articles/for-healthy-kids-skip-the-kurbo-app“Dieting to a weight goal was found to be related to poorer dietary quality, poorer mental health and poorer quality of life when compared with people who were health conscious but not weight conscious”Ok. Moving on.RECOMMENDATION: Use of Pharmacotherapy (aka Weight Loss Drugs)Their consensus recommendation is that pediatricians and other PCHPs “may offer children ages 8 through 11 years of age with ob*sity weight loss pharmacotherapy, according to medication indications, risks, and benefits as an adjunct to health behavior and lifestyle treatment.”They admit that “For children younger than 12 years, there is insufficient evidence to provide a Key Action Statement (KAS) for use of pharmacotherapy for the sole indication of ob*sity,” but then go on to suggest that if kids 8-11 also have other health conditions, somehow weight loss drugs (which are not indicated for the treatment of the actual health conditions they have) “may be indicated.”Their KAS is that “pediatricians and other PHCPs should offer adolescents 12 y and older with ob*sity weight loss pharmacotherapy, according to medication indications, risks and benefits as and adjunct  to health behavior and lifestyle treatment.”The studies that were actually included in the evidence review predominantly studied metformin (alone and in combination with other drugs,) which is not approved for weight loss, orlistat, exenatide, and one study that looked at phentermine, mixed carotenoids, topiramate, ephedrine, and recombinant human growth hormone.Even though the studies for other drugs did not exist at the time of the evidence review, they made the choice to include them anyway. (This includes Wegovy, the drug that Novo Nordisk, a donor to the AAP, has promised their shareholders will be a blockbuster and that announced its approval in children as young as 12 just days prior to the publication of the guidelines.) Let's look at the efficacy of the drugs they are recommending:MetforminAdverse effects include bloating, nausea, flatulence, and diarrhea and lactic acidosis which they characterize as “serious but very rare.” The guidelines describe the evidence of metformin for weight loss in pediatric populations as “conflicting” They evaluated 16 studies, about two-thirds of which showed a “modest BMI reduction” and one-third showed “no benefit.” Also, this drug is not approved for weight loss. They recommend that due to the “modest and inconsistent effectiveness, metformin may be considered as an adjunct to intensive health behavior and lifestyle treatment (IHBLT) and when other indications for use of metformin are present.”Orlistat:This drug is currently approved for ages 12 and up. Orlistat is sold under the name alli by GlaxoSmithKline and as Xenical by Genentech (both GlaxoSmithKline and Genentech are donors to the AAP.) The guidelines point out that the side effects (including fecal urgency, flatulence and oily stool) “greatly limit tolerability” but do say that “Orlistat is FDA approved for long-term treatment of ob*sity in children 12 years and older.” They cite two studies from 2005. One (Behzat et al., Addition of orlistat to conventional treatment in adolescents with severe ob*sity) started with 22 adolescents, 7 of whom dropped out within the first month due to drug side effects. The remaining 15 subjects were followed for 5-15 months with an average of 11.7 months of follow up. Those 15 patients lost 6.27 +/- 5.4 kg within the study time.The other (Chanoine JP et al, 2005, Effect of orlistat on weight and body composition in ob*se adolescents) was a one-year study with 357 adolescents (age 12-15) in the Orlistat group. They lost weight initially but the weight loss stopped at week 12 and by the end of the study the weight of those in the Orlistat group had increased by .53kg.Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonistsThese are drugs that are type 2 diabetes medications that were found to have a side effect of weight loss. In some cases they have been rebranded specifically for weight loss and, in others, are prescribed off-label.ExenatideThis drug is currently approved in kids ages 10 to 17 years of age. The guidelines point out that a small weight loss was shown in two small studies but with “significant adverse effects.”LiraglutideThe study they cite for liraglutide (Kelly et al, Trial Investigators. A randomized, controlled trial of liraglutide for adolescents with ob*sity.) was a 56 week study with a 26-week follow-up period. Participants lost weight initially, but after 42 weeks began to regain weight (though they were still on the drug) at 56 weeks weight gain became more rapid and at the end of the 26-week follow up they were nearing baseline. The guidelines characterize this as “A recent randomized controlled trial found liraglutide (daily injection) more effective than placebo in weight loss at 1 year among patients 12 years and older with ob*sity who did not respond to lifestyle treatment.” They do not make it clear that participants experienced near total weight regain (see graphic below.) In addition to the near total lack of weight loss (and remember that it's pretty likely that subjects continued to regain weight after the tracking stopped at 82 weeks,) side effects included nausea and vomiting, and among patients with a family history of multiple endocrine neoplasia, a slightly increased risk of medullary thyroid cancer. Liraglutide is sold as Victoza and Saxenda by Novo Nordisk. This study was a clinical trial funded by Novo Nordisk, multiple study authors work for, are employees of, take payments from and/or own stock in Novo Nordisk (see disclosures below) and Novo Nordisk provides funding directly to the American Academy of Pediatrics, and has paid thousands of dollars to authors of these guidelines.Just for funsies I checked the disclosures: Dr. Kelly reports receiving donated drugs from AstraZeneca and travel support from Novo Nordisk and serving as an unpaid consultant for Novo Nordisk, Orexigen Therapeutics, VIVUS, and WW (formerly Weight Watchers); Dr. Auerbach, being employed by and owning stock in Novo Nordisk; Dr. Barrientos-Perez, receiving advisory-board fees from Novo Nordisk; Dr. Gies, receiving advisory-board fees from Novo Nordisk; Dr. Hale, being employed by and owning stock in Novo Nordisk; Dr. Marcus, receiving consulting fees from Itrim and owning stock in Health Support Sweden; Dr. Mastrandrea, receiving grant support from AstraZeneca and Sanofi US and grant support and fees for serving on a writing group from Novo Nordisk; Ms. Prabhu, being employed by and owning stock in Novo Nordisk; and Dr. Arslanian, receiving fees for serving on a data monitoring committee from AstraZeneca, fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board from Boehringer Ingelheim, grant support, paid to University of Pittsburgh, and advisory-board fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, and consulting fees from Rhythm Pharmaceuticals. Melanocortin 4 receptor (MC4R) agonistsThese are specialty drugs that are only FDA approved for patients 6 years and older with proopiomelanocortin deficiency, proprotein subtilisin or kexin type 1 deficiency and leptin receptor deficiency confirmed by genetic testing. They site a small, uncontrolled study in which patients experience weight loss of 12-25% over 1 year. PhenterminePhentermine is a controlled substance chemically similar to amphetamine which carries a risk of dependence as well as side effects including elevated blood pressure, dizziness, and tremor. These are FDA approved for a 3-month course of therapy for adolescents 16 or older. I'm not clear what good could come out of giving a teenager a drug with these kinds of risk for 3 months?TopiramateThis is a drug that is used to treat seizures and migraines that happens to have a side effect of making people not want to eat through what the guidelines admit are “largely unknown mechanisms.” These drugs cause cognitive slowing and can cause embryo malformation. It's approved for children 2 years and older with epilepsy and 6 and older for headaches and I cannot for the life of me imagine how it could possibly be ethical to cause cognitive slowing in a child (who is going to school!) in order to disrupt their bodies hunger signals.Phentermine/TopiramateYou read that right, those last two drugs with the dangerous, quality-of-life impacting side effects? The guidelines discuss the option of prescribing them together. To children. This is based on a 56-week study (Kelly et al, 2022, Phentermine/topiramate for the treatment of adolescent ob*sity.) In the study, 54 subjects were given a mild dose, 15 of them dropped out. 113 were given the “top dose” 44 of them dropped out. As we've seen in other studies, weight loss had leveled off and begun to rise slightly by week 56 and there is no reason to believe it wouldn't go back up, but we'll never know because they didn't do any more follow-up. By the way, like most of the other studies, these subjects were also undergoing a “lifestyle modification program.” Also, like the other drugs, I think it's important to note that this was FDA-approved for “chronic treatment” based on the results of a study that only lasted 56 weeks. That is a common situation with weight loss drugs.Finally, the guidelines don't mention that side effects of this drug include increased heart rate, suicidal behavior and ideation, slowing of linear growth, acute myopia, secondary angle closure glaucoma, visual problems; mood and sleep disorders; cognitive impairment; metabolic acidosis; and decrease in renal function.  As I was looking this up, I noticed that the lead author of this study is the same lead author of the liraglutide study. Phentermine/Topiramate is sold under the brand name Qysmia by Vivus. I had to do some digging to get to the disclosures on this one and what do you know, Dr. Kelly has received grant consideration and consults for Vivus. In fact, with the exception of Megan Oberle, every author of this study either receives funding from/consults for Vivus, or is an employee of Vivus. Megan Oberle lists no conflicts of interest in this 2022 study but, interestingly, in a 2019 study (It is Time to Consider Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Youth) the disclosure states “MO serves as site PI [principal investigator] for study through Vivus Pharmaceuticals” so we know they're not strangers. LisdexamfetamineThis is a stimulant that is approved for kids 6 and older who have ADHD, in those 18 and up for Binge Eating Disorder, and while it is sometimes prescribed off-label for higher-weight kids, the guidelines note that “no evidence available at the time of this review to demonstrate safety or efficacy for the indication of ob*sity in children.”Summing up, there are significant risks of side effects (some life threatending) and not a drug among them has shown anything approaching long-term efficacy. Let's look at the last of the recommendations.RECOMMENDATION: Weight Loss SurgeryThis is the last bit I'll write about today. This section beginsIt is widely accepted that the most severe forms of pediatric ob*sity (ie, class 2 ob*sity; BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2, or 120% of the 95th percentile for age and sex, whichever is lower) represent an “epidemic within an epidemic.”Remember, for a moment, that this phrasing is from authors who swear up and down that they are working to end weight stigma. One wonders what they would have written if they were trying to stigmatize higher-weight children. (Just fyi, if anyone is confused, you can't usefear-mongering language, describing a group of people simply existing in the world at a higher-weight as an “epidemic” without stigmatizing them.)The KAS here (for me the most horrifying of those offered,) isPediatricians and other PHCPs should offer referral for adolescents 13y and older with severe ob*sity (BMI ≥ 120% of the 95th percentile for age and sex) for evaluation for metabolic and bariatric surgery to local or regional comprehensive multidisciplinary pediatric metabolic and bariatric surgery centers. [I'll note here that at least one of the authors of these guidelines runs just such a facility.]Before we get too far into this, let's be clear about what these surgeries do. They take a child's perfectly functioning digestive system, and put it into a (typically irreversible) disease state forcing, restriction and/or malabsorption (for an explanation of the various surgeries, check out this post.) If this state happens to a child because of disease or accident, it is considered a tragedy. If the child is higher-weight, it is considered, at least by the authors of these guidelines, healthcare.They make the claim “Large contemporary and well-designed prospective observational studies have compared adolescent cohorts undergoing bariatric surgical treatment versus intensive ob*sity treatment or nonsurgical controls. These studies suggest that weight loss surgery is safe and effective for pediatric patients in comprehensive metabolic and bariatric surgery settings that have experience working with youth and their families”To support this, they cite a single study. The study (Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in adolescents with severe ob*sity (AMOS): a prospective, 5-year, Swedish nationwide study) included 81 subjects who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.The average weight loss was 36·8 kg over five years, but 11% of those who had the surgery lost less than 10% of their body weight.A full 25%  had to have additional abdominal surgery for complications from the original surgery or rapid weight loss and 72% showed some type of nutritional deficiency. And that's just in five years. Remember that the damage done to the digestive system is permanent. They are recommending this as young as 13, so a five year follow-up only gets these kids to 18. Then what?By the look of their own graph, what comes next may well be more weight gain, since the surgery survivors' weight loss leveled off after year one and started to steadily climb after year two. There's also the impact of those nutrient deficiencies. They also claim that these surgeries lead to a “durable reduction of BMI.” Let's take a look at the studies they cite to prove that.Inge et al., 2018 Comparison of Surgical and Medical Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes in Severely Ob*se AdolescentsThis study lasted two years. It looked at data from 30 adolescents who had weight loss surgery. They averaged 29% weight loss over 2 years and 23% of the subjects had to have a second surgery during those two years.Göthberg et al., 2014, Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in adolescents with morbid ob*sity--surgical aspects and clinical outcomeThis study just rehashes information from the Olbers study above.O'Brien et al. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding in severely ob*se adolescents: a randomized trialThis study is about gastric banding and I'm not sure why they included it because in the paragraph above it they point out that these surgeries are “approved by the FDA only for patients 18 years and older, have declined in use in both adults and youth because of worse long-term effects as well as higher-than expected complication rates” (they cite 18 studies to back up this particular claim.)Olbers et al., 2012 Two-year outcome of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in adolescents with severe ob*sity: results from a Swedish Nationwide Study (AMOS)These are just the two-year outcomes from the five-year Olbers study aboveOlbers et al. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in adolescents with severe ob*sity (AMOS): a prospective, 5-year, Swedish nationwide study.This is the exact same 5-year Olbers study from above, just given a different citation number.Ryder et al., 2018 Factors associated with long-term weight-loss maintenance following bariatric surgery in adolescents with severe ob*sityThis study included 50 subjects who had Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and had a follow-up at year one and another follow-up sometime between years 5 and 12. They were then divided into “regainers” and “maintainers” though by their criteria, “maintainer” subjects could regain, they just couldn't regain more than 20% of the weight they lost prior to their follow-up. Though the study is called “Factors associated with long-term weight-loss maintenance” they were not able to identify any factors that were predictors of “regaining” or “maintaining.” You'll note in the graph below that weight was still trending upward when they stopped following up.So let's recap: They cite 7 studies to back up their recommendation of referrals for these surgeries for kids ages 13 and up. Four of the seven are the same study. One is a study for a surgery that they themselves have said is declining in use, so I'm excluding it. Combined, the rest of the studies followed a grand total of 161 people. The longest follow-up is “5+ years” and the studies consistently showed weight regain that was trending up when follow-up ended, as well as high rates of additional surgery and nutrient deficiencies. This, to me, doesn't come close to justifying a blanket recommendation that every kid 13 and older whose BMI ≥ 120% of the 95th percentile for age and sex be referred for evaluation for weight loss surgery.And when it comes to their criteria for these surgeries, they predicate risk on size. Those with “class 2 ob*sity” are required to have “clinically significant disease” which doesn't make the surgery ethical but, in comparison; children with “class 3 ob*sity” simply have to exist in the world to meet the criteria to have their digestive system put into a permanent disease state. One thing they do point out is that recent data showing multiple micronutrient deficiencies following metabolic and bariatric surgery serve to highlight the need for routine and long-term monitoring. Here we see a serious issue with giving this surgery to adolescents. First of all, they are rarely in control of their access to food. If their parents don't buy them what they need, if a parent loses their job and can no longer afford the supplements they require, if they experience hunger and/or homelessness… there are so many things that could impact a 13-year-old's ability to eat in the very specific ways they need to after the surgery for the rest of their life. Also, these surgeries are going to change the ways that these kids eat - at every school lunch, birthday party, family holiday. Anytime food is served, it is going to become clear that they are different, and if they aren't in charge of preparing the food, there is no guarantee that they will be able to get what they need. And that's if they want to do that. Let's not forget, these are humans who are/will be exploring their independence, including through rebellion, they are humans whose prefrontal cortex is not fully developed, meaning that they can literally lack the ability to fully recognize the consequences of their choices. (Of course, given that we only have five years of follow-up data, I would argue that their doctors and surgical teams also lack the ability to fully recognize the consequences of their choices.)The authors end the section with a fairly shameless plug for insurance coverage of these surgeries. This is another long-time goal of the weight loss industry that has made its way into these guidelines.I think this is a good time for a reminder that thin kids get the same health issues for which higher-weight kids are referred to these surgeries and thin kids are NOT asked to take the risks of these surgeries or to have their digestive systems permanently altered. They just get the ethical, evidence-based treatment for the health issue they actually have. Also, remember that the authors' research methodology specifically excluded research about weight-neutral intervention to see if any health benefits that the surgeries might create could be achieved without the significant (and, from a long-term perspective, largely unknown) risks of these surgeries, and perhaps be more lasting?But there is more to this in terms of informed consent. There are many of the same issues that we see with adults (which I wrote about here). With kids, there is another layer. In the state of California, for example, it is illegal to give a tattoo to someone under the age of 18, even with parental permission. But an eighth grader can make the decision to have their digestive system permanently altered, impacting their life and quality of life in myriad ways, many of which are unknown, and with no prognostics? Given all of this, is informed consent even possible for these kids? I would argue that it is not.Even worse, how many kids' parents, in some combination of weight stigma, concern for their child, and acquiescence to a doctor who may be pressuring them, will make this decision for their child?While I'm sure that there are adolescents who had the surgery and are happy with their outcome, I'm equally sure that there are adolescents who had terrible outcomes and would give anything to not have had the surgery (I know because I hear from them). And I know that the research can't tell us why anyone has the outcome they have. When you combine that with the total lack of long-term follow-up (I'm completely unwilling to consider 5 years “long term” for a lifelong intervention,) I think what we have here are, at best, experimental procedures, not procedures that should receive the kind of blanket recommendations that these guidelines provide for kids as young as 13.Ok, there's a lot more to discuss in these guidelines but I will save that for another newsletter. I hope that the outcry against these guidelines is loud, sustained, and successful in getting them rescinded. Kids deserve far better than this.Finally, I just want to give a quick shout-out to my paid subscribers (I know not everyone can/wants to have a paid subscription and that's totally fine - absolutely no shame at all if you are reading this for free as a subscriber or randomly!) those who are able to pay are allowed me to spend HOURS this week going through these guidelines and creating Thursday's post and this post, I'm just super grateful for the support.I'll be posting additional deep-dives into the research they cite and I'll keep a list here:“New insights about how to make an intervention in children and adolescents with metabolic syndrome” Pérez et al.Did you find this post helpful? You can subscribe for free to get future posts delivered direct to your inbox, or choose a paid subscription to support the newsletter and get special benefits! Click the Subscribe button below for details:Liked this piece? Share this piece:More research and resources:https://haeshealthsheets.com/resources/*Note on language: I use “fat” as a neutral descriptor as used by the fat activist community, I use “ob*se” and “overw*ight” to acknowledge that these are terms that were created to medicalize and pathologize fat bodies, with roots in racism and specifically anti-Blackness. Please read Sabrina Strings Fearing the Black Body – the Racial Origins of Fat Phobia and Da'Shaun Harrison Belly of the Beast: The Politics of Anti-Fatness as Anti-Blackness for more on this. Get full access to Weight and Healthcare at weightandhealthcare.substack.com/subscribe

Hosted by Chris Beckett & Shane Ludtke, two amateur astronomers in Saskatchewan. actualastronomy@gmail.com   In this episode we'll talk about the Moon pairing up with Venus & Saturn then Jupiter and it gets so close to to Mars and Uranus it passes over them for some lucky observers. Just not Shane and I. Oh and just to let those listening on the 365 Days of Astronomy you can catch all 8 Actual Astronomy Podcasts by subscribing in Apple Podcasts, Spotify or any podcatching app.   January 8th - Pallas at opposition: When discovered by the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Matthäus Olbers on 28 March 1802, Pallas was considered to be a planet but in actuality turned out to be the second asteroid to have been discovered, after Ceres. Pallas is the 3rd largest asteroid and has a mineral composition similar to carbonaceous chondrite meteorites, like Ceres. Like Vesta and Ceres Pallas appears to be one of only 3 intact bodies from the early stage of planetary formation to survive within the inner solar system.   We've added a new way to donate to 365 Days of Astronomy to support editing, hosting, and production costs.  Just visit: https://www.patreon.com/365DaysOfAstronomy and donate as much as you can! Share the podcast with your friends and send the Patreon link to them too!  Every bit helps! Thank you! ------------------------------------ Do go visit http://www.redbubble.com/people/CosmoQuestX/shop for cool Astronomy Cast and CosmoQuest t-shirts, coffee mugs and other awesomeness! http://cosmoquest.org/Donate This show is made possible through your donations.  Thank you! (Haven't donated? It's not too late! Just click!) ------------------------------------ The 365 Days of Astronomy Podcast is produced by the Planetary Science Institute. http://www.psi.edu Visit us on the web at 365DaysOfAstronomy.org or email us at info@365DaysOfAstronomy.org.

När började vi behandla inredning som mode? Som något som ska bytas ut, uppdateras och förändras med säsongerna? Vem har ens råd med det? Och vilka effekter får det på vår planet?För att prata hållbar inredning vände jag mig till Emma Olbers, hon formger både möbler och sjukhus, och allt möjligt där emellan. Hon är också en av Sveriges mest prisbelönta designers på senare år, och hyllad av den samlade inredningspressen.Det blev ett samtal om yta och djup, om problemlösning och hantverksskicklighet och lite om hur du borde inreda ditt hem just nu för på ett tidlöst, hållbart sätt.Bokrekommendationer:Jorden : vår planets historia och framtid - Johan Rockström, Owen Gaffney. A frame for life - llse Crawford. Solution - Anders Lendager, Esben Pedersen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Richard Easther is a scientist, teacher, and communicator. He has been a Professor of Physics at the University of Auckland for over the last 10 years and was previously a professor of physics at Yale University. As a scientist, Richard covers ground that crosses particle physics, cosmology, astrophysics and astronomy, and in particular, focuses on the physics of the very early universe and the ways in which the universe changes between the Big Bang and the present day. In this episode, Richard and I discuss the details of cosmology at large, both technically and historically. We dive into Einstein's equations from general relativity and see what implications they have for an expanding universe alongside a discussion of the cast of characters involved in 20th century cosmology (Einstein, Hubble, Friedmann, Lemaitre, and others). We also discuss inflation, gravitational waves, the story behind Brian Keating's book Losing the Nobel Prize, and the current state of experiments and cosmology as a field.   Originally published on May 3, 2022 on YouTube:  https://youtu.be/DiXyZgukRmE Timestamps: 00:00:00 : Introduction 00:02:42 : Astronomy must have been one of the earliest sciences 00:03:57 : Eric Weinstein and Geometric Unity 00:13:47 : Outline of podcast 00:15:10 : Brian Keating, Losing the Nobel Prize, Geometric Unity 00:16:38 : Big Bang and General Relativity 00:21:07 : Einstein's equations 00:26:27 : Einstein and Hilbert 00:27:47 : Schwarzschild solution (typo in video) 00:33:07 : Hubble 00:35:54 : One galaxy versus infinitely many 00:36:16 : Olbers' paradox 00:39:55 : Friedmann and FRLW metric 00:41:53 : Friedmann metric was audacious? 00:46:05 : Friedmann equation 00:48:36 : How to start a fight in physics: West coast vs East coast metric and sign conventions. 00:50:05 : Flat vs spherical vs hyperbolic space 00:51:40 : Stress energy tensor terms 00:54:15 : Conversation laws and stress energy tensor 00:58:28 : Acceleration of the universe 01:05:12 : Derivation of a(t) ~ t^2/3 from preceding computations 01:05:37 : a = 0 is the Big Bang. How seriously can we take this? 01:07:09 : Lemaitre 01:11:51 : Was Hubble's observation of an expanding universe in 1929 a fresh observation? 01:13:45 : Without Einstein, no General Relativity? 01:14:45 : Two questions: General Relativity vs Quantum Mechanics and how to understand time and universe's expansion velocity (which can exceed the speed of light!) 01:17:58 : How much of the universe is observable 01:24:54 : Planck length 01:26:33 : Physics down to the Big Bang singularity 01:28:07 : Density of photons vs matter 01:33:41 : Inflation and Alan Guth 01:36:49 : No magnetic monopoles? 01:38:30 : Constant density requires negative pressure 01:42:42 : Is negative pressure contrived? 01:49:29 : Marrying General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics 01:51:58 : Symmetry breaking 01:53:50 : How to corroborate inflation? 01:56:21 : Sabine Hossenfelder's criticisms 02:00:19 : Gravitational waves 02:01:31 : LIGO 02:04:13 : CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) 02:11:27 : Relationship between detecting gravitational waves and inflation 02:16:37 : BICEP2 02:19:06 : Brian Keating's Losing the Nobel Prize and the problem of dust 02:24:40 : BICEP3 02:26:26 : Wrap up: current state of cosmology Notes: Easther's blogpost on Eric Weinstein: http://excursionset.com/blog/2013/5/25/trainwrecks-i-have-seen Vice article on Eric Weinstein and Geometric Unity: https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3xbz4/eric-weinstein-says-he-solved-the-universes-mysteries-scientists-disagree   Further learning: Matts Roos. "Introduction to Cosmology" Barbara Ryden. "Introduction to Cosmology" Our Cosmic Mistake About Gravitational Waves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0D-COVodzY

Agradece a este podcast tantas horas de entretenimiento y disfruta de episodios exclusivos como éste. ¡Apóyale en iVoox! SMEQRE20 - La paradoja de Olbers, también conocida como la paradoja del cielo nocturno oscuro, es un argumento en astrofísica y cosmología física que dice que la oscuridad del cielo nocturno entra en conflicto con la suposición de un universo estático infinito y eterno . En el caso hipotético de que el universo sea estático, homogéneo a gran escala y poblado por un número infinito de estrellas, cualquier línea de visión desde la Tierra debe terminar en la superficie de una estrella y, por lo tanto, el cielo nocturno debe estar completamente iluminado y muy brillante. Esto contradice la oscuridad observada y la falta de uniformidad de la noche. Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

My name is Maanvinder Pilania ( https://twitter.com/maanvinderp ). I'm a student, writer and the host of Astrophysics: Deep In The Space With Maanvinder Pilania podcast. Looking up at the night sky, have you ever wondered why the night sky appears dark? Any explanation, I've got two explanations for you.  Maybe you have never thought about that because what most of the peoples thinks about the darkness of night is that the Sun has set so there's no brightness in the sky.  But is it the right explanation behind the darkness of night sky or there might be another explanation? I used to think what most of the common peoples thinks about the darkness of night sky until I came to know the exact reason behind the darkness.    We've added a new way to donate to 365 Days of Astronomy to support editing, hosting, and production costs.  Just visit: https://www.patreon.com/365DaysOfAstronomy and donate as much as you can! Share the podcast with your friends and send the Patreon link to them too!  Every bit helps! Thank you! ------------------------------------ Do go visit http://www.redbubble.com/people/CosmoQuestX/shop for cool Astronomy Cast and CosmoQuest t-shirts, coffee mugs and other awesomeness! http://cosmoquest.org/Donate This show is made possible through your donations.  Thank you! (Haven't donated? It's not too late! Just click!) ------------------------------------ The 365 Days of Astronomy Podcast is produced by the Planetary Science Institute. http://www.psi.edu Visit us on the web at 365DaysOfAstronomy.org or email us at info@365DaysOfAstronomy.org.

Olbers' Paradox - A familiar constellation in the dark night sky.

This one was difficult for me. The ontological argument for the existence of God is abstract and very broad. Take a listen and let me know what you think. I pray I did well enough that you might take from the episode something that edifies and informs.    Here is the link to the article I reference: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/     Here is the link to a very good documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HErmp5Pzqw   Here is the link to my episode on Olbers' Paradox: https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-9whds-117c1a3   Be sure to check out the website for the mission work. Remember, it is still under construction: www.maritimemission.org   If you want to support our mission work:   Tony Brewer,   DIGITAL SUPPORT: www.patreon.com/nearchurches www.buymeacoffee.com/cogitations PAYPAL: nearchurches@gmail.com   CHECK SUPPORT: Riverview church of Christ c/o Tony mission fund 365 Pine Glen Road Riverview N.B. Canada E1B 4J8      

This one is about the Cosmological argument for the existence of God. I really enjoyed recording this episode and I pray I communicated it clearly enough for folk to be edified.  Here is the link to the video I reference in the episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HErmp5Pzqw   Here is the link to my episode on Olbers' Paradox: https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-9whds-117c1a3     Be sure to check out the website for the mission work. Remember, it is still under construction: www.maritimemission.org   If you want to support our mission work:   Tony Brewer,   DIGITAL SUPPORT: www.patreon.com/nearchurches www.buymeacoffee.com/cogitations PAYPAL: nearchurches@gmail.com   CHECK SUPPORT: Riverview church of Christ c/o Tony mission fund 365 Pine Glen Road Riverview N.B. Canada E1B 4J8  

Dr Karl and cosmologist professor Paul Davies discuss what we are still learning about the Universe.  Antigravity, inflation, Olbers' paradox, extraterrestial life - have been eternal puzzles. Piece by piece we are assembling a bigger picture ... but is it getting any clearer ? https://drkarl.com/ https://beyond.asu.edu/ deepthought@asu.edu

Jimmy takes weird and wacky questions, answering from a Catholic perspective. Questions Covered: 03:20 – How would someone participate in the Resurrection at the Second Coming if they were to have fallen into a black hole or gone near enough to one that time stopped for them, relative to everyone else? It has been my impression that the Resurrection is supposed to happen for everyone simultaneously (maybe I am wrong), but how can this be given that time is relative?  11:24 – What would have happened if Adam and Eve had children before they fell?  14:25 – In the season finale of a popular TV show, a philosophical paradox known as “The Ship of Theseus” was alluded to. Having never heard of this, I did a web search. From what I can gather, it goes something like this: If you take the ship of Theseus and you begin replacing its parts, piece by piece, wooden board by wooden board, by the time you’ve replaced the entire ship, is it still the same ship? Is there a particular way the well-formed Catholic would approach this question with our understanding of form, nature, and the soul? I understand that our physical bodies undergo a similar, ongoing process. Shedding and recycling out old, dead cells and replacing them with new and better cells, yet I’m still me.  20:10 – I’ve been pondering a question and I suspect only you are equipped to answer in a way I can understand. Recently, on an episode, you explained Olbers’ paradox. Since I first read about this idea several years ago in one of Stephen Hawking’s books, I cannot help but think that it is in error. Mr. Akin, please tell me where I’ve gone wrong. It would seem to me that if the universe was of infinite size, and had no beginning, and the concentration of light sources throughout the universe is the same as we observe in our visible universe, then the night sky would look the same or very similar to what we see now. This would be due to the fact that, as more and more stars exist, further and further away from us, the light from those distant stars is increasingly dim. Ultimately, the light reaching us from those stars becomes infinitesimally small and imperceivable to the human eye. The rate of light reaching us on a nightly basis would be only marginally changed from what we see now, as distant stars could have rates of light sent to the earth at 1 photon/year, decade, century, etc. I have trouble believing that I’m right about this and that you, Steven Hawking, and Heinrich Olbers are wrong about this. I also don’t believe we live in an infinite physical universe with no beginning, I just don’t see how Olbers’ paradox lends any support to that belief.  29:04 – Not being an expert on Thomas Aquinas this one caught me off guard. I was asked if Thomas views God as being “outside of time” and therefore if there is time in heaven. I wasn’t quite sure where to find the answer, but the question is basically if the conclusion of Thomas’ belief about motion, meant that heaven would be an eternal moment, so I guess everyone would be sitting around in front of God frozen like statues. Is this anywhere close to what can reasonably be understood from his writings? Also, if there’s no time (or movement) in heaven, how can the saints hear our prayers or intercede for us. Is this just a big misunderstanding?  39:35 – If I discovered that someone has an object that can be spiritually dangerous to someone would it be a sin to secretly take it and dispose of it without that someone’s consent, if it can be done without his notice and if it can be presumed that he wouldn’t give that object up if informed about its danger. I’m talking primarily about objects that don’t have much morally acceptable uses. For example, let’s say my friend got a bunch of old books and magazines and asked for help in sorting them. In doing that, I found pornographic material and, because I know my friend, I know it may be dan…

Heute vor hundert Jahren beobachtete eine Gruppe von Astronomie-Interessierten erst die Sichel der strahlend hellen Venus und wandte sich dann den Planeten Jupiter und Saturn zu, die Seite an Seite im Löwen standen. Von Dirk Lorenzen www.deutschlandfunk.de, Sternzeit Hören bis: 19.01.2038 04:14 Direkter Link zur Audiodatei

Por que, quando cai a noite, o céu não é mais azul e escurece, mesmo havendo bilhões de trilhões de estrelas no universo?E por que você não se perguntou isso até hoje?Confira no papo entre o leigo curioso, Ken Fujioka, e o cientista PhD, Altay de Souza.OUÇA (47min 59s)*Naruhodo! é o podcast pra quem tem fome de aprender. Ciência, senso comum, curiosidades, desafios e muito mais. Com o leigo curioso, Ken Fujioka, e o cientista PhD, Altay de Souza.Edição: Reginaldo Cursino.http://naruhodo.b9.com.br*PARCERIA: ALURAA Alura tem mais de 1.000 cursos de diversas áreas e é a maior plataforma de cursos online do Brasil -- e você tem acesso a todos com uma única assinatura.Aproveite o desconto de R$100 para ouvintes Naruhodo no link:https://www.alura.com.br/promocao/naruhodo *REFERÊNCIASChange and Transformation: Voyaging with Poe and Alexander von Humboldthttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.sci-hub.st/doi/full/10.1111/j.1754-6095.2011.00038.xThe real reason the night sky is darkhttps://cutt.ly/8j5qy5oThe Dark Night Sky Riddle, "Olbers's Paradox"https://cutt.ly/ij5qhERGoogle Skyhttps://www.google.com/sky/Podcasts das #Minas: ENTRELAÇADAShttps://www.instagram.com/podcastentrelacadas/#MulheresPodcasters*APOIE O NARUHODO!Você sabia que pode ajudar a manter o Naruhodo no ar?Ao contribuir, você pode ter acesso ao grupo fechado no Telegram, receber conteúdos exclusivos e ter vantagens especiais.Assine o apoio mensal pelo PicPay: https://picpay.me/naruhodopodcast

The year was 1838, and 181 Saxon Lutherans set sail from Bremerhaven on board the steamship Olbers. The reading for today comes from C.F. W Walther's older brother, a pastor named Otto Walther. — FULL TRANSCRIPTS available: https://www.1517.org/podcasts/the-christian-history-almanac GIVE BACK: Support the work of 1517 today CONTACT: CHA@1517.org SUBSCRIBE: Apple Podcasts Spotify Stitcher Overcast Google Play FOLLOW US: Facebook Twitter Audio production by Christopher Gillespie (gillespie.media).

Olbers' Paradox tells us that the night sky shouldn't be dark—it should be as bright as the surface of the sun in all directions! Why isn't it? TRANSCRIPT: https://quickanddirtytips.com/education/science/night-sky-dark | Check out all the Quick and Dirty Tips shows: quickanddirtytips.com/podcasts JOIN THE CONVERSATION: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/qdteinstein | Twitter: https://twitter.com/qdteinstein

In episode 5 of the GEMMA Podcast, GEMMA intern Chance Spencer interviews Ethan Siegel, a theoretical astrophysicist and author for the blog “Starts With A Bang” which is featured in Forbes and Medium. Starting their conversation by unravelling Olbers' Paradox, they discuss the four predictions the Big Bang model implies, Einstein's "biggest blunder", how gravitational waves can let humanity peer past the cosmic microwave background, and how the matter that we interact with everyday is only 4.9% of what makes up the universe.

Héctor Rago ¿Qué afirmación puede ser más evidente que decir que la noche es oscura? Sin embargo, tras la inocencia de esa frase se esconde una verdad de profundas consecuencias cosmológicas.

Aprendemos más de economía con la responsable de productos y servicios Self Bank Victoria Torre y su "Educación financiera", que trata hoy sobre fondos de inversión. Continuamos hablando con Rafa Abdón, uno de los últimos sopladores de vidrio, un oficio con más de 2.000 años de historia. Después, nos adentramos en la física con nuestro colaborador David Perezagua en "Radio al cuadrado". Hoy tratamos la paradoja de Olbers, aquella que dice que si el universo es estático e infinito, deberíamos ver el cielo completamente estrellado. Cerramos la hora con el mito de Marta Pérez, que nos adentra en la historia de "Narciso" de Jean Cossiers.  Escuchar audio

Cosmic Microwave Background: A Brief History of its Discovery Music Night Owl – Broke for Free Super Sloppy Space Junk – Milkshake Daddy Sources 1. Where is the centre of the universe?(ucr.edu) 2. Where is the center of the universe?(wtamu.edu) 3. The Early History of the Universe(man.ac.uk) 4. The Big Bang(ucsd.edu) 5. Early Universe II(fnal.gov) […]

Dnes sa nám nahromadilo trochu viac tém než obvykle - podarilo sa nám dosiahnuť rekordné úrovne CO2 v atmosfére, projekt Blue Moon sa hotuje na Mesiac, prečo nie je celá nočná obloha pokrytá hviezdami, našlo sa veľké archeologické nálezisko v Číne a v seriály Mind Field predvádzali detektor lži. Pseudocast 399 na YouTube Zdroje CO2 Greenhouse EffectGoing to Space to Benefit Earth (Full Event Replay)Fossil Treasure Trove of Ancient Animals Unearthed in ChinaPaleozoikumEvaluation of P300 based Lie Detection AlgorithmLie Detection Using fNIRS Monitoring of Inhibition-Related Brain Regions Discriminates Infrequent but not Frequent LiarsWhat is Olbers' Paradox?Olbers' paradox

Waarom is de nachtelijke hemel donker, en niet helder verlicht? Als het oneindige heelal helemaal gevuld is met sterren, moet de hemel toch verlicht worden? Hens Zimmerman praat u bij over de Olbers' paradox en de redenen waarom de sterrenhemel 's nachts donker is.

Den här veckan träffar jag Emma Olbers, inredningsvärldens Pippi Långstrump som vågar gå sin egen väg som designer och formgivare av hållbar design och miljövänlig inredning. Hon har tilldelats tidningen Residence pris som årets miljöprofil 2018, hon är nominerad till årets designer 2019 av tidningen RUM. Hon är också aktuell med att ha formgivit och … Fortsätt läsa Inredningspodden möter Emma Olbers → Inlägget Inredningspodden möter Emma Olbers dök först upp på Inredningspodden.

Eva Olbers is the co-founder of STEMgem, a smart-device company dedicated to engaging young women in the STEM fields. Eva is a student at the Harvard Kennedy School, and a winner of the 2018 Harvard President's Innovation Challenge. Prior to her degree, she worked in the strategy consulting, technology and venture capital space in over 15 countries across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. On this episode, learn from Eva about the exciting new apps girls are making through STEMgem, how friends and connections reappear in your life in surprising ways, and how Eva has managed to learn 7 languages!

Waarom is de nachtelijke hemel donker, en niet helder verlicht? Als het oneindige heelal helemaal gevuld is met sterren, moet de hemel toch verlicht worden? Hens Zimmerman praat u bij over de Olbers' paradox en de redenen waarom de sterrenhemel 's nachts donker is.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Sabemos que el Sol se pone por el Oeste, siendo así ¿cómo es posible que un oyente de CienciaEs, que miraba en dirección opuesta, hacia el Este, pudiera tomar la fotografía que hoy os mostramos?. También os invito a escuchar el sonido de los arrecifes de coral cuando están llenos de vida y el sombrío silencio que los envuelve cuando mueren. Viajamos hasta el delta del Nilo porque un estudio ha puesto en evidencia que se está reduciendo en tamaño, algo que puede estar sucediendo en muchos otros deltas de la Tierra. Astronomía al Aire habla de la noche oscura y la paradoja de Olbers. La investigadora Mónica Solórzano comenta un estudio sobre animales atrapados en ámbar y la biodiversidad cuando el ámbar se formó. Y, para terminar, explicamos el extraño falso Sol cuya fotografía fue tomada por Fernando Gómez Zarazúa.

Contradições lógicas são lógicas? Neste episódio, resolvemos problemas literalmente impossíveis de resolver. Sem ironia. Curte o VB? Ajude-nos a mantê-lo no ar; seja nosso padrinho(a) a partir de R$1 por mês. Contate-nos por nosso WhatsApp (19-98908-1238) e/ou email: vejabem@vejabempodcast.com.br Encontre-nos também no: Facebook, Twitter e YouTube Referências: Paradoxos de Zenão Paradoxo do avô *Errata: quanta mais próximo da velocidade da luz, mais lentamente o tempo passa por você em relação àqueles em uma velocidade menor –ver Teoria da Relatividade Primer (filme) Paradoxo(?) do Ônibus (YouTube) Paradoxo de sorites (“do monte de areia”) Navio de Teseu Paradoxo de Olbers

Contradições lógicas são lógicas? Neste episódio, resolvemos problemas literalmente impossíveis de resolver. Sem ironia. Curte o VB? Ajude-nos a mantê-lo no ar; seja nosso padrinho(a) a partir de R$1 por mês. Contate-nos por nosso WhatsApp (19-98908-1238) e/ou email: vejabem@vejabempodcast.com.br Encontre-nos também no: Facebook, Twitter e YouTube Referências: Paradoxos de Zenão Paradoxo do avô *Errata: quanta mais próximo da velocidade da luz, mais lentamente o tempo passa por você em relação àqueles em uma velocidade menor –ver Teoria da Relatividade Primer (filme) Paradoxo(?) do Ônibus (YouTube) Paradoxo de sorites (“do monte de areia”) Navio de Teseu Paradoxo de Olbers

Fetmaoperationer är en vanlig behandling mot sjuklig övervikt hos vuxna. Torsten Olbers vill ta reda på om det fungerar på samma sätt med barn och ungdomar. Varför är det kontroversiellt med fetmaoperationer? En av förklaringarna kan ligga i synen på fetma. Trots att sjukdomen till 80% beror på gener är den allmänna uppfattningen att ens vikt beror på hur bra eller dåligt man "sköter sig". Liveinspelning från Vetenskapsfestivalen i Göteborg 12 maj 2017. Torsten Olbers är docent vid Sahlgrenska akademin och överläkare på Sahlgrenska Universitetssjukhuset. Akademiliv är en podcast från Sahlgrenska akademin, Göteborgs universitet. Kontakt oss gärna på akademiliv@gu.se · http://sahlgrenska.gu.se

In this episode we examine the fates of Phaeton, Vulcan and Pluto as they were thought of by Olbers, Le Verrier and Clyde Tombaugh.  We also examine the observations of James Craig Watson, introduce William Henry Pickering and follow the work of Percival Lowell.

La tertulia semanal en la que nos echamos unas risas mientras repasamos las últimas noticias de la actualidad científica. En el episodio de hoy: Problemas en el espacio: Exomars, Schiaparelli y Juno; Sección Tabby: La Anomalía y sus probabilidades; Anuncian el hallazgo de ¡234 civilizaciones extraterrestres! ¿Será cierto?; ¿Por qué ordena Obama que el país se prepare para una catástrofe solar?; Recuento galáctico: La paradoja de Olbers y los problemas de ver atrás en el tiempo; Adiós a "Desde el Sur Explorando el Cosmos". En la foto, de izquierda a derecha: Héctor Socas, Ángel López-Sánchez (por videoconferencia), Ignacio Trujillo. Todos los comentarios vertidos durante la tertulia representan únicamente la opinión de quien los hace… y a veces ni eso.

La tertulia semanal en la que nos echamos unas risas mientras repasamos las últimas noticias de la actualidad científica. En el episodio de hoy: Problemas en el espacio: Exomars, Schiaparelli y Juno; Sección Tabby: La Anomalía y sus probabilidades; Anuncian el hallazgo de ¡234 civilizaciones extraterrestres! ¿Será cierto?; ¿Por qué ordena Obama que el país se prepare para una catástrofe solar?; Recuento galáctico: La paradoja de Olbers y los problemas de ver atrás en el tiempo; Adiós a "Desde el Sur Explorando el Cosmos". En la foto, de izquierda a derecha: Héctor Socas, Ángel López-Sánchez (por videoconferencia), Ignacio Trujillo. Todos los comentarios vertidos durante la tertulia representan únicamente la opinión de quien los hace… y a veces ni eso.

Forskerne svarer på lytterspørsmål om tomatmodning, klasetomater, Olbers paradoks, Corioliseffekten og regnskogen og CO2. Tårnvert: Torkild Jemterud.

Die Frage klingt unglaublich einfach und war doch lange Zeit physikalisch nicht zu beantworten: Warum wird es in der Nacht dunkel? Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers brachte den seltsamen Befund auf den Punkt. Am 02. März 1840 ist er gestorben. Erst hundert Jahre später war sein Rätsel gelöst. Autor: Florian Hildebrand

Roberto Pascua nos habla del médico y astrónomo alemán, Heinrich Olbers, conocido por la paradoja de Olbers.

Olbers' ParadoxDetailing how the universe, if infinite, should be as bright as the surface of the sun, Andrew and I also talk about whether or not if theory is ahead of testability and the feasibility thereof. Sorry about the overlap between Andrew and I's speaking, it was a latency error with the recording program used. It gets annoying, but just listen to what Andrew has to say.I only realized at the last possible second that I needed some sort of July 4th theme music, and due to the fact I was lacking some 1812 Overture, I tossed in the most patriotic song that wasn't a Hans Zimmer work. Fight For Freedom is by Manowar.