Comments on: Near and Far http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:18:33 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Aaron http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/comment-page-1/#comment-21746 Aaron Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:41:35 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/#comment-21746 Whoaaaaaaaaa! My first guess was some sort of crazy atmospheric lensing, but this is SO MUCH COOLER! Whoaaaaaaaaa! My first guess was some sort of crazy atmospheric lensing, but this is SO MUCH COOLER!

]]> By: sysrick.com » links for 2006-11-02 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/comment-page-1/#comment-21747 sysrick.com » links for 2006-11-02 Thu, 02 Nov 2006 01:22:26 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/#comment-21747 [...] Near and Far [...] [...] Near and Far [...]

]]> By: Eugene http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/comment-page-1/#comment-21748 Eugene Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:58:30 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/#comment-21748 purdy purdy

]]> By: Arun http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/comment-page-1/#comment-21749 Arun Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:56:06 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/#comment-21749 Lucky Jim, I was thinking of things like the profile of the Venusian atmosphere, better astrometry and the like. But now there's better technology than having to wait for a occultation. Lucky Jim,
I was thinking of things like the profile of the Venusian atmosphere, better astrometry and the like. But now there’s better technology than having to wait for a occultation.

]]> By: Lucky Jim http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/comment-page-1/#comment-21750 Lucky Jim Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:21:15 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/#comment-21750 <blockquote>In this era, is there anything scientifically useful extractable from the occultation of Venus by the Moon? Or is it back to being merely something beautiful?</blockquote> When wasn't it merely something beautiful? And what is the current definition of scientifically useful, can it really be defined for things at present? The calculus involved in the timing of this image would probably bring any ancient astronomer's heart to a near stop. This picture to me is not merely something beautiful - it sums up the failure of aristatilian philosophy to desribe the heavens, its a snapshot of the copernican revolution, and thank you note to newton for his calculus. What more can you extract?

In this era, is there anything scientifically useful extractable from the occultation of Venus by the Moon? Or is it back to being merely something beautiful?

When wasn’t it merely something beautiful?

And what is the current definition of scientifically useful, can it really be defined for things at present?

The calculus involved in the timing of this image would probably bring any ancient astronomer’s heart to a near stop.

This picture to me is not merely something beautiful – it sums up the failure of aristatilian philosophy to desribe the heavens, its a snapshot of the copernican revolution, and thank you note to newton for his calculus.

What more can you extract?

]]> By: Arun http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/comment-page-1/#comment-21751 Arun Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:40:56 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/#comment-21751 In this era, is there anything scientifically useful extractable from the occultation of Venus by the Moon? Or is it back to being merely something beautiful? In this era, is there anything scientifically useful extractable from the occultation of Venus by the Moon? Or is it back to being merely something beautiful?

]]> By: Troublemaker http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/comment-page-1/#comment-21752 Troublemaker Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:21:08 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/#comment-21752 <i>By the way, the Moon is near. So is Venus. Really near. I mean, really, really, really near.</i> Well, near is relative. They're far away compared to the size of a human. They're far away compared to the size of an atom. They're far away in Planck units. By the way, the Moon is near. So is Venus. Really near. I mean, really, really, really near.

Well, near is relative. They’re far away compared to the size of a human. They’re far away compared to the size of an atom. They’re far away in Planck units.

]]> By: Mark http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/comment-page-1/#comment-21753 Mark Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:10:19 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/#comment-21753 My first inclination was to blame it on an optics effect. When I read what it really was, I was impressed. Of course, I was thinking that the scale was something close to what is seen with the naked eye or with most typical cameras. My first inclination was to blame it on an optics effect. When I read what it really was, I was impressed. Of course, I was thinking that the scale was something close to what is seen with the naked eye or with most typical cameras.

]]> By: Alex R http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/comment-page-1/#comment-21754 Alex R Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:56:06 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/#comment-21754 I guessed correctly that it was the Moon and Venus, but I was a surprised by how bright Venus looked, as compared to the Moon. But then I realized: Hey, Venus is closer to the Sun, and of higher albedo than the Moon, of course its surface brightness is higher than the Moon's... I guessed correctly that it was the Moon and Venus, but I was a surprised by how bright Venus looked, as compared to the Moon.

But then I realized: Hey, Venus is closer to the Sun, and of higher albedo than the Moon, of course its surface brightness is higher than the Moon’s…

]]> By: Rob Knop http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/comment-page-1/#comment-21755 Rob Knop Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:09:50 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/30/near-and-far/#comment-21755 Awesome. I looked at it and thought, "Moon and sundog." By the way, the Moon is near. So is Venus. Really near. I mean, really, really, really near. The distance from the Earth to Venus is more than a hundred thousand times less than the distance from Earth to the nearest star... and the nearest star is so close that in any drawing you see online of the Milky Way, the Sun and the nearest star are well within the same pixel. The Moon is near. Venus is near. So, for that matter, is the Virgo Cluster. They're all part of the "local supercluster." We're gravitationally bound to the Virgo Cluster. It's near. -Rob Awesome.

I looked at it and thought, “Moon and sundog.”

By the way, the Moon is near. So is Venus. Really near. I mean, really, really, really near. The distance from the Earth to Venus is more than a hundred thousand times less than the distance from Earth to the nearest star… and the nearest star is so close that in any drawing you see online of the Milky Way, the Sun and the nearest star are well within the same pixel.

The Moon is near. Venus is near.

So, for that matter, is the Virgo Cluster. They’re all part of the “local supercluster.” We’re gravitationally bound to the Virgo Cluster. It’s near.

-Rob

]]>