The Boring Sun

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:05 am

Sparky wrote:I assume the increased horizontal to vertical distance is what you are referring to as streaking? I think it is clear in all images, especially the last one.
The point is they're not stars. Stars would all either be the same length or all points. Its not possible to have a mixture. To be fair as these are all perfectly horizontal its more likely that they are all just lost data on transmission. Some of the point lights may be genuine objects but they're not stars. We're constantly told by NASA that you can't image stars (in visible light) in such short exposures as proven by thousands of images, yet forborn_ wants us to accept these 1-2 sec images are full of stars in the full glare of Jupiter. If however it is possible, then why arn't the 40AU images of Earth full of stars also? It's using the same camera, same filter and much much longer exposures. fosborn_ wont (cant?) explain this as he apparently needs more specifics (whatever that's supposed to mean, seems a very straightforward query to me).

Sparky wrote:For the long exposures, how do they keep everything from streaking?
They can't but then normaly they dont have to. These are mostly artifacts. The far image of Neptune etc. in the Family Portrait were unavoidably streaked because of the very long exposure (over an hour possibly).

Sparky wrote:And what makes the grainy background?... thank you
The grainy background is mainly due to me zooming in and resizing. It would be more helpful if we had a link to the full size images but fosborn_ wants to keep them secret.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby Sparky » Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:01 pm

Aardwolf, thanks for info. and the good points of argument.

An image to brighten up the thread... :D
Image
'Star-Forming Region LH 95 in the Large Magellanic Cloud
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:18 pm

GaryN wrote;
I'd avoid
using any Vidicon images to prove or disprove anything, you just
don't know what you are getting.


GaryN had one good piece of advice. I found out you need to down load the "Voyager Viewer" to see the images in higher resolution than the browsing images.

What I think I know now;

When I look at the calibration images they are pretty much at the same level of the sky images (it seems most apparent in the browsing images). I think this means that the level the vidicon would pick up stars is in the zero zone of the Vidicon ( which I think means its just not in the design limits to see large quantities of stars at once at those light levels Vs planets).
This would explain a lot to me, about how they can see earth in the pale blue dot and not stars. I need to find that image in the raw to really confirm this. I'll keep looking.

They do have a category of "Star", its usually a single star in the clear filter. Don't jump up and down on the clear filter. It is a band within the visual range, when combined with the Vidicon, limits its range to the visual. Check out the graph below and see if I interpreted it right.

I think the Voyager raw images are useful to a degree, of saying yes stars are visible because of the data to demonstrate it. I also think it takes some effort and hours of tedious comparison to train your eyes to recognize artifacts from useful data for our discussions, (comparing the calibrations to labeled sky and star images).

Thanks for generating my interest in the Voyager data.
Frank

VoyageStarImageC2000308.JPG

I cropped this in paint and converted it to a .jpg file.
/* IMAGE DESCRIPTION */
SPACECRAFT_NAME = VOYAGER_2
MISSION_PHASE_NAME = JUPITER_ENCOUNTER
TARGET_NAME = STAR
IMAGE_ID = '0221J2-022'
IMAGE_NUMBER = 20003.08 /*FLIGHT DATA SUBSYSTEM (FDS)*/
IMAGE_TIME = 1979-06-18T01:24:48Z
EARTH_RECEIVED_TIME = 1979-06-18T02:14:07Z
INSTRUMENT_NAME = WIDE_ANGLE_CAMERA
SCAN_MODE_ID = '1:1'
SHUTTER_MODE_ID = WAONLY
GAIN_MODE_ID = LOW
EDIT_MODE_ID = '1:1' /*FULL RESOLUTION*/
FILTER_NAME = CLEAR
FILTER_NUMBER = 2
EXPOSURE_DURATION = 2.8800 <SECONDS>

vg1_wa_clear.gif


reason for edit, delete a comment.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:00 pm

Hi Frank, not trying to prove anything here, I was just looking into the Star Tracker cameras
they send out on their missions, and thought you might be interested.
Here is an interesting shot from Clementine. The moon, stars, solar Corona,
and a big Venus! That is just from the star tracker camera, too! Is this a composite, or does that
camera have some amazing dynamic range?
Image
Bigger:
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk10 ... torted.jpg
I can't find any images other than those showing the Moon, planets, and the Solar corona.
Image
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegal ... e_635.html
Maybe any deep space images from the star tracker cameras are just to boring to be worth
putting up on the net, just white specks, will look some more though.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:15 am

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk10 ... torted.jpg
GaryN: Hi Frank, not trying to prove anything here, I was just looking into the Star Tracker cameras
they send out on their missions, and thought you might be interested.
Here is an interesting shot from Clementine. The moon, stars, solar Corona,
and a big Venus! That is just from the star tracker camera, too! Is this a composite, or does that
camera have some amazing dynamic range?


If we were playing fantasy astrophotography, photobucket would be the place to shop. ;)
Thanks, I like the image. When I win my trip on one of those tourist space flights, I want that camera! :D


GaryN:
Maybe any deep space images from the star tracker cameras are just to boring to be worth

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegal ... e_635.htmlThe Plane of the Ecliptic is illustrated in this Clementine star tracker camera image which reveals (from right to left) the Moon lit by Earthshine, the sun's corona rising over the Moon's dark limb and the planets Saturn, Mars and Mercury.

Wow, mars sure is bright. :twisted:
Great shot of the planets, thanks.
We all played around with the messenger star tracker photos and specs, in a previous discussion, and it was designed to see at lest 3 three stars with mercury in the frames. So it looks like they are using our old buddy the Thompson CCD. I'll look at the specs, cool. Looks like even with the glare of the sun, there might be one star there. Wonder what filter is used and what its band is?

Once again, I do have a better appreciation for your Voyager images comment. Have you any experience with the Voyager images software?
I think, if not, you would gain some serious insight with that data. You might come across Sagan's pale blue dot ( raw image and specs).
I hope to find it, for a discussion with Aardwolf. I have ignored or offered lame attemps at his question about it, until I can aquire enough actual experience and find specific information, to discuss it in an informed manor.
Other wise we are just counting angles on the head of a pin. :roll:

Reason for edit; to comment that; Highlights are added by me.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:02 am

Voyager and the Pleiades Cluster;
This was a 600kb bitmap file ( voyager software only converts to bitmap). So now its converted and downsized to 7kb. If the slider bar is present to the right, you can center it up some.
C1205218_Pleiades_sm.jpg

15 sec. exposure with clear filter with the wide angle camera.
vg1_wa_clear_sm.GIF


This is an earthling shot, armature. I thought for a comparison to get an idea of what it takes to get the eye candy Thunderbolt forum user Sparky demands; ;)
AmaturePleiades_sm.JPG

Imaging Equipment

William Optics ZS66SD Refractor
Wlliam Optics MkII Field Flattener
Canon EOS 1000D (modified)
Astronomic CLS CCD Filter
Guiding and Mount

Custom Orion Optics 250mm Reflector
LX Modified Philips SPC900NC Webcam
IR/UV Cut Filter
Celestron CGEM Mount
Exposures

31 x 6 minutes
21 x bias
21 x dark
21 x flat
The images were calibrated, aligned, stacked and processed in Pixinsight.

http://www.veryamateur.co.uk/?s=Pleiades+cluster :twisted:
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Sun Jun 19, 2011 12:06 pm

More info here on the Clemantine Star Tracker camera.
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients ... n_Glow.htm
Have you any experience with the Voyager images software?

No, but maybe I'll take a look later in the year, too much to do outside
at this time of year.
More on the Star Tracker camera.
Only broadband operation was available, and the line-transfer electronic shuttering limited imaging to dim targets such as the lunar surface illuminated by earthshine.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/masterCa ... 004A&ex=07
Star Tracker image, taken during orbit 194 on April 1, 1994, of the dark Moon lit only by Earthshine. Venus is smaller than it appears in this image, as it saturates the CCD. The field of view of the image is 28 x 42.

http://www.nrl.navy.mil/clementine2/ima ... /venus.jpg
Image
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/clementine2/ima ... none&Qis=M
The CCD is saturated by Venus, the Lunar surface seems quite bright, but
the stars are visible. So taking images of a bright object or patch does
not wash out everything else.
Voyager and the Pleiades Cluster:

I think that is about all that our eyes, under perfect conditions and
dark adapted, will ever see from space. Kubrick had it right. The little
pimple of spectrum our eyes can detect is going to make space a pretty
dull place. Mult-spectral vision would be nice!
The Pleiades are much more interesting in X-rays. Now they look like a cluster
of highly charged spheres lit up like xmas tree ornaments by the ionisation of
the elements in their ionospheres. Fluorescence.
Image
The Pleiades in X-rays, taken by ROSAT. The brightest objects in X-rays have the hottest coronas. The green squares mark the positions of the seven optically brightest stars. From [1].
UV
Image
Near I.R.
http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/galle ... satlas.jpg
Radio:
Image
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:44 pm

by GaryN: More on the Star Tracker camera.

Nice pictures no information. :? You know, like the information I provided with the Voyager images.

Only broadband operation was available, and the line-transfer electronic shuttering limited imaging to dim targets such as the lunar surface illuminated by earthshine.


So with the messenger probe, you rejected the Thompson CCD, but now if your ok with it, then the messenger picture of the stars is ok too.
TH7888A package is sealed with a specific anti-reflective window optimized in 400-700 nm spectrum bandwidth.

But I speculate our eyes would see much more, like the astronauts have described. ( counter speculation ;) ) Enough to cause them to express them, as being brighter or more intense, than we see on earth. So until I see them myself someday, I'll rely on trained observers that have actually been there and done that. :)

EarthMoonMessenger_sm.JPG

http://astrobob.areavoices.com/2010/08/ ... from-afar/

I think that is about all that our eyes, under perfect conditions and
dark adapted, will ever see from space. Kubrick had it right. The little
pimple of spectrum our eyes can detect is going to make space a pretty
dull place. Mult-spectral vision would be nice!


Well everyone loves to speculate, but I think I'll just stick to digging through the Voyager peer reviewed data sense it is so on line accessible, and keep posting what I find. The more I read about the calibration and the lengths they went to, to get the camera right, causes me to have greater confidence in this data. 8-)


The Voyager camera is really where this discussion needs to stay focused, because it is dealing with the visible range and again the data is vary accessible, IMO.
vg1_wa_clear.gif

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4579&p=53342#p53333
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:09 pm

I have cropped images of the voyager solar system portrait.
English: Original caption: This narrow-angle color image of the Earth, dubbed ‘Pale Blue Dot’, is a part of the first ever ‘portrait’ of the solar system taken by Voyager 1. The spacecraft acquired a total of 60 frames for a mosaic of the solar system from a distance of more than 4 billion miles from Earth and about 32 degrees above the ecliptic. From Voyager's great distance Earth is a mere point of light, less than the size of a picture element even in the narrow-angle camera. Earth was a crescent only 0.12 pixel in size. Coincidentally,Earth lies right in the center of one of the scattered light rays resulting from taking the image so close to the sun. This blown-up image of the Earth was taken through three color filters – violet, blue and green – and recombined to produce the color image. The background features in the image are artifacts resulting from the magnification.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planet ... traits.jpg
violet(404 nm), blue(480 nm) and green(559 nm) broad band filter center of bands.
SolarSystemVoyger.JPG

Also please explain why you think stars can be resolved in 1.92 secs near Jupiter yet when at 40AU multiple minutes in the same filter cannot pick up any at all?
Aardwolf

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4579&start=90#p53280
This Bud's for you Aardwolf.
This is the individual planets in the Narrow Angle camera and if you have the band with to go to the link, you will notice stars in the background of Jupiter and Venus. But not earth and the reason is given above in the first quote.
family_portraits_sm.JPG

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planet ... traits.jpg

http://www.nrl.navy.mil/clementine2/ima ... none&Qis=M
The CCD is saturated by Venus, the Lunar surface seems quite bright, but
the stars are visible. So taking images of a bright object or patch does
not wash out everything else.
GaryN

Quite right GaryN, but as is has been demonstrated above, there are extenuating circumstances. And comparing a Thompson CCD with an antique Slo-Scan Vidicon Tube camera, isn't a level playing field in my opinion.

My highlights in the quotes.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:51 am

A May 2011 image of the Sun from the ISS.
Image
So I wondered about images of the Moon, big and bright, must be lots of images.
Image
A zoomed-out version?
Image
From Dave Wheelock:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4131/519 ... 0592_b.jpg
Most are of the Earth and Moon:
Image
From Jaxa it looks pretty bright, just need to get close enough.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/5484 ... EPO_13.jpg
Guess the Moon is pretty boring, or just plain dull, from space too!
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby Moby » Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:14 pm

davesmith_au wrote:Gary, when you put your search terms between quotes ("search terms") it forces the search to look for the exact, complete phrase. Thus in the example I just gave, it would bring up the phrase 'search terms' but neither 'search' or 'terms' will be returned on their own. Try you searches without the quotation marks, and you'll have much more success. You'll also have much more rubbish you didn't want... ;)

Cheers, Dave.


Hi Dave,

On a slight tangent; but involving the terms "search terms"- can any body (including the programmers) explain to me in not more than a million words how the boolean logic is applied to the classification and searching for items on Ebay? It seems to morph from day to day, and bears no resemblance whatsovever to the data you put in. In fact I am sure that it is so bright, it is becoming self-aware.... Can I find my stuff though? As we say in the North "heck as like!"

Moby
Moby
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 3:09 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:33 pm

GaryN >>From Jaxa it looks pretty bright, just need to get close enough.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/5484 ... EPO_13.jpg
Guess the Moon is pretty boring, or just plain dull, from space too!

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/5484 ... EPO_13.jpg



On Earth, we never see a perfectly full Moon, since the true phase angle we see is in the order of 5 degrees. With a zero degree phase angle the Moon would be in Earth’s shadow, and we would experience a total lunar eclipse. Apollo astronauts reported that a true full Moon is about 30% (0.2 magnitudes) brighter than what we see here on Earth.
http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut26-1.htm



GaryN >>So I wondered about images of the Moon, big and bright, must be lots of images.

Today's Featured Image is the Moon as seen from the MESSENGER spacecraft on July 31, 2005, less than a year after the spacecraft's launch from Cape Canaveral. The lunar image was taken by the MESSENGER Wide Angle Camera (WAC), which is part of the Mercury Dual Imaging System (MDIS). At the time when the image was taken, the spacecraft was about 992,814 kilometers (616,906 miles) from the Earth.
531402main_031811a_MM_full.JPG

This image was not taken simply because the Moon is beautiful and inspiring; it serves to help the MESSENGER team calibrate the camera and spectrometer. The Moon is a good calibration standard because its reflectance and color have been measured with many instruments, so it is useful to make comparisons between instruments with different characteristics. In other words, it is a check on the quality of the Earth-based calibration.

GaryN's image for comparison (even if his is almost half the distance);
a comparison;
moon_nearEarth.jpg

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/m ... enger.html

Maybe as the Apollo astronauts saw it;
239px-Visible_light_camera_image_of_the_Moon_by_LCROSS.jpg

Another visible light camera image of the Moon taken by the LCROSS spacecraft during lunar swingby
https://sites.google.com/site/larrygerstman/lro-lcross


http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/m ... enger.html

Reason for edit; delete a, not that funny, comment. :|
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:17 pm

more boring moon update;

Hayabusa photographed Earth and the moon, from a distance of nearly 8.4 million miles (13.5 million km) on May 12.

Hayabusa used the CCD sensor on its star tracker device to take the portrait of Earth and the moon as they hovered between the constellations Sagittarius and Capricornus.

In the photo, the moon is clearly seen as a separate bright object to the left of Earth, which is so bright it overwhelmed Hayabusa's sensor. Many stars, which Hayabusa's star tracker also picked up, are visible and can be identified in the image.
Hayabusa_EarthMoon.JPG

http://backyardstargazing.blogspot.com/ ... ce-by.html
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Jun 27, 2011 7:23 am

fosborn_ wrote:When I look at the calibration images they are pretty much at the same level of the sky images (it seems most apparent in the browsing images). I think this means that the level the vidicon would pick up stars is in the zero zone of the Vidicon ( which I think means its just not in the design limits to see large quantities of stars at once at those light levels Vs planets).
This would explain a lot to me, about how they can see earth in the pale blue dot and not stars. I need to find that image in the raw to really confirm this. I'll keep looking.
The Family Portrait images are not necessarily in the same spot on the full Vidicon image. The 6 frame consolidation is cropped and zoomed. Earth for example was about 75% to the right of the full image.


fosborn_ wrote:They do have a category of "Star", its usually a single star in the clear filter. Don't jump up and down on the clear filter. It is a band within the visual range, when combined with the Vidicon, limits its range to the visual. Check out the graph below and see if I interpreted it right.
I suspect you haven't interpretted it correctly. If the instrument restricted to visible then why have a UV filter at all? Why arn't all the UV filter images blank? Your interpretation makes no sense.


fosborn_ wrote:This Bud's for you Aardwolf.
This is the individual planets in the Narrow Angle camera and if you have the band with to go to the link, you will notice stars in the background of Jupiter and Venus. But not earth and the reason is given above in the first quote.
family_portraits_sm.JPG

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planet ... traits.jpg
There aren't any stars in those images. The image you have linked has suffered from overcopying I suspect. It may even be scanned from an old book. If you look at the image here from the NASA Visible Earth site you will see your "stars" have gone. The caption for the image here explains;

NASA Visible Earth wrote:These blown- up images, left to right and top to bottom are Venus, Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, Uranus, Neptune. The background features in the images are artifacts resulting from the magnification.

So still no stars in the visible range only filters. Keep hunting.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sun Jul 03, 2011 1:22 pm

fosborn_ wrote:
When I look at the calibration images they are pretty much at the same level of the sky images (it seems most apparent in the browsing images). I think this means that the level the vidicon would pick up stars is in the zero zone of the Vidicon ( which I think means its just not in the design limits to see large quantities of stars at once at those light levels Vs planets).
This would explain a lot to me, about how they can see earth in the pale blue dot and not stars. I need to find that image in the raw to really confirm this. I'll keep looking.

by Aardwolf » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:23 am
The Family Portrait images are not necessarily in the same spot on the full Vidicon image. The 6 frame consolidation is cropped and zoomed. Earth for example was about 75% to the right of the full image.


Not sure what your saying, sorry. But would like to emphasis the position of earth to the Sun.
From Voyager's great distance Earth and
Venus are mere points of light, less than the size of a picture
element even in the narrow-angle camera. Earth was a crescent
only 0.12 pixel in size. Coincidentally, Earth lies right in the
center of one of the scattered light rays resulting from taking
the image so close to the sun
.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_galler ... family.txt

by Aardwolf » I suspect you haven't interpretted it correctly.

vg1_wa_clear_sm.GIF

Well, lets look at it again. The dotted line says its the filter alone. The solid line says its the Filter + Instrument.
How many ways can you interpret it?
If the instrument restricted to visible then why have a UV filter at all? Why arn't all the UV filter images blank? Your interpretation makes no sense.

Well, if its not the clear filter + instrument and its a UV filter + instrument, than its some other spec. Right?

So still no stars in the visible range only filters. Keep hunting.
Aardwolf


Not sure why your still behind the 8 ball here, but I have shown visible star images with the voyger images. Game over.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4579&p=53618#p53333
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4579&p=53618#p53311

Also why do the x ray images not show up in our atmosphere, in visible star light? (considering GaryN's, and your idea, that the earth's local environment is creating visible star light)
The squares mark the visible stars.
X-ray_image_of_the_Pleiades_sm.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:X-ray ... eiades.gif
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests