I bumped into an unseasonal aurora borealis while driving through Canada one summer. It was the most beautiful thing I've ever seen. Photos really can't do it justice. Sat and watched it for hours, lost track of time and had to sleep in my car at the Canada/Alaska border until it reopened in the morning.
Gorgeous, but at least inform us when the photos are 6 months old or more... according to the NSF site, at least a few if not all of these were taken back in June 2008.
@vuffiraa: I'll promote your comment to address a couple things.
1) In the science community lots of data is taken and it takes years to analyze it. Which means photos taken in 2008 get analyzed in 2009 and finally sent to the public/scientific community at large to be reviewed.
2) Regardless of if 1) is true, I agree with you, because I really like scientific accuracy.
If any of us actually get to space and see some of the things we've seen pictures of, we'll be most likely disappointed that everything is not colorized like the photos we've seen. Not that I wouldn't take my chances...
@Gearhead_42: So you credit the variation to non-universal laws of physics, instead of the mundane possibility that each planet has unique conditions that lead to different results but follow the same universal rules?
@Gearhead_42: Nothing more depressing than a joke you have to explain...
A Universal Law (of physics, in this case) is one that, regardless of the position in the universe at which it is applied, has a similar (if not identical) effect. Yes?
To apply the term to a Law of Physics implies that the physics in question are universal and therefore unaffected by location or conditions.
If, then, you (meaning the scientist quoted above) state that the physics of a situation are unique to that location in space they can not, by definition, be universal.
@Gearhead_42: You are correct in saying that scientist's statement implies non-universal physics. I wouldn't though, "throw the statement in the face of those who insist that physics is universal". You are also correct in that a universal law has the same effect regardless of position, but you are confusing effect with result. The law of gravity has the same effect everywhere in the universe we have observed, but will have a drastically different result depending on if you are standing in chicago, or a black hole.
08/19/09
08/18/09
08/18/09
1) In the science community lots of data is taken and it takes years to analyze it. Which means photos taken in 2008 get analyzed in 2009 and finally sent to the public/scientific community at large to be reviewed.
2) Regardless of if 1) is true, I agree with you, because I really like scientific accuracy.
08/18/09
08/18/09
08/18/09
11/15/08
11/14/08
11/14/08
[en.wikipedia.org]
11/14/08
11/14/08
11/14/08
11/15/08
11/14/08
I so want to throw this statement in the face of those who insist that physics is universal...
11/14/08
11/14/08
11/14/08
11/14/08
I think it's the EM shroud for an alien base. Screw physics! (not really).
11/14/08
11/14/08
A Universal Law (of physics, in this case) is one that, regardless of the position in the universe at which it is applied, has a similar (if not identical) effect. Yes?
To apply the term to a Law of Physics implies that the physics in question are universal and therefore unaffected by location or conditions.
If, then, you (meaning the scientist quoted above) state that the physics of a situation are unique to that location in space they can not, by definition, be universal.
Or is my logic hopelessly flawed?
11/14/08
11/14/08
I resign.
11/14/08
11/15/08