 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Astronomy is 2012 photographer of the year ... some of the composites
are really stunning. I particularly like the ones that drive home the
point that we are just a tiny speck in the scheme of things, kind of
makes you wonder how long before we finally get over ourselves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19637073
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/09/2012 03:28 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
> Astronomy is 2012 photographer of the year ... some of the composites
> are really stunning. I particularly like the ones that drive home the
> point that we are just a tiny speck in the scheme of things, kind of
> makes you wonder how long before we finally get over ourselves.
Every time I look at something like this, I can't help thinking "if only
the resolution was higher..."
Also: In what part of the world are stars actually visible to the naked
eye at night?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Also: In what part of the world are stars actually visible to the naked
> eye at night?
http://www.darkskydiscovery.org.uk/images/darksky01.jpg
Somewhere that's not red :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
> Also: In what part of the world are stars actually visible to the naked
> eye at night?
At my yard. You're welcome to come and see.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> On 20/09/2012 03:28 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
> > Astronomy is 2012 photographer of the year ... some of the composites
> > are really stunning. I particularly like the ones that drive home the
> > point that we are just a tiny speck in the scheme of things, kind of
> > makes you wonder how long before we finally get over ourselves.
>
> Every time I look at something like this, I can't help thinking "if only
> the resolution was higher..."
>
And you could zoom in.
> Also: In what part of the world are stars actually visible to the naked
> eye at night?
Years ago I was driving in the bush in Australia. Whan I stopped the car at
night and looked up. I almost fell over backwards, the sky was so full of stars.
They looked a solid mass compaired to metropolitan European skys.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Also: In what part of the world are stars actually visible to the naked
> eye at night?
What an odd question. Even in the most lit and polluted cities you can see
at least some stars.
I'm assuming you meant to ask "in what part of the world is the milky way
visible to the naked eye at night?"
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/09/2012 04:44 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Also: In what part of the world are stars actually visible to the naked
>> eye at night?
>
> What an odd question. Even in the most lit and polluted cities you can see
> at least some stars.
Sure. Two or three isolated points of light. But that's not what these
photographs show at all.
> I'm assuming you meant to ask "in what part of the world is the milky way
> visible to the naked eye at night?"
I always assumed that "the milky way" was something you could only see
with a space-based telescope. Certainly I've never seen anything vaguely
approximating the astonishing images shown here. (Then again, some of
them probably have a 3-minute exposure or something insane like that,
which the human eye can't do.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/09/2012 04:10 PM, scott wrote:
>> Also: In what part of the world are stars actually visible to the naked
>> eye at night?
>
> http://www.darkskydiscovery.org.uk/images/darksky01.jpg
>
> Somewhere that's not red :-)
I think this one better:
http://www.darkskydiscovery.org.uk/images/darksky02.jpg
Seems to suggest that the UK has far more light pollution than anywhere
else in Europe. So I guess that'll be why then...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I always assumed that "the milky way" was something you could only see
> with a space-based telescope.
When do you think the name was invented?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/09/2012 05:32 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I always assumed that "the milky way" was something you could only see
>> with a space-based telescope.
>
> When do you think the name was invented?
I have no idea - it's not something I've ever devoted a lot of thought to.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
