Starship Asterisk*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Sunspots wrote:

[url=http://backpackersescapades.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/dinner-at-galileo-enoteca-deli/][size=150]Four cheese pizza, Galileo Restaurant, Mandaluyong[/size][/url]

---

<<Galileo was one of the first Europeans to observe sunspots, although Kepler had unwittingly observed one in 1607, but mistook it for a transit of Mercury. He also reinterpreted a sunspot observation from the time of Charlemagne, which formerly had been attributed (impossibly) to a transit of Mercury. The very existence of sunspots showed another difficulty with the unchanging perfection of the heavens posited by orthodox Aristotelian celestial physics, but their regular periodic transits also confirmed the dramatic novel prediction of Kepler's Aristotelian celestial dynamics in his 1609 Astronomia Nova that the sun rotates, which was the first successful novel prediction of post-spherist celestial physics. And the annual variations in sunspots' motions, discovered by Francesco Sizzi and others in 1612–1613, provided a powerful argument against both the Ptolemaic system and the geoheliocentric system of Tycho Brahe. A dispute over priority in the discovery of sunspots, and in their interpretation, led Galileo to a long and bitter feud with the Jesuit Christoph Scheiner; in fact, there is little doubt that both of them were beaten by David Fabricius and his son Johannes, looking for confirmation of Kepler's prediction of the sun's rotation. Scheiner quickly adopted Kepler's 1615 proposal of the modern telescope design, which gave larger magnification at the cost of inverted images; Galileo apparently never changed to Kepler's design.>>

neufer wrote:

Beyond wrote:

Stendec wrote:
Upon closer examination I concur that the area I mentioned in my previous post has some craters and is merely uncolored. I also noticed two or three other uncolored areas. I plead presbyopia. (Or I can think of some other excuse if you don't like that one.)

That excuse works well for me.

I don't have the foggiest idea what it means, and I'm tooo lazy to look it up.

And you call yourself "far-sighted."

• (Forest & Trees)

Beyond wrote:

Stendec wrote:
Upon closer examination I concur that the area I mentioned in my previous post has some craters and is merely uncolored. I also noticed two or three other uncolored areas. I plead presbyopia. (Or I can think of some other excuse if you don't like that one.)

That excuse works well for me.

I don't have the foggiest idea what it means, and I'm tooo lazy to look it up.

• (Forest & Trees)

geckzilla wrote:

Click to view full size image

Garish colors? You don't say! I hated this image so much that I downloaded the largest format available and tinkered with the individual channels. I got it looking a lot better aesthetically and gave the vegetation (red) greater depth by assigning it a color gradient and overlaying it on top of the other two which I converted to RGB with pseudogreen much like HLA processing but in the end conceded defeat because the cost was losing color distinction between water and man made structures. Geck 0, Pros 1

• Romeo and Juliet Act 3, Scene 2

• Give me my Romeo; and, when he shall die,
  Take him and cut him out in little stars,
  And he will make the face of heaven so fine
  That all the world will be in love with night
  And pay no worship to the garish sun.

geckzilla wrote:

Bill RSaturn Galaxy wrote:Is there anything showing Earth in a similar manner. I wonder what we would see if we saw Earth rendered in exaggerated colors to better contrast different surface features? Great video. I like it almost as much as the one from a few years back that showed Earth's moon shift through its phases.

It's arguable that you wouldn't want Earth's surface features exaggerated because it is already so interesting. Seeing it in its natural, unadulterated state would probably be preferable to many. Looking at mercury is sort of like looking at our moon except it doesn't even have those familiar maria which we imagine to be many things. It's no wonder someone chose to emphasize the colors to help Mercury's naturally indiscernible features pop out and become apparent.

geckzilla wrote:
It's arguable that you wouldn't want Earth's surface features exaggerated because it is already so interesting. Seeing it in its natural, unadulterated state would probably be preferable to many. Looking at mercury is sort of like looking at our moon except it doesn't even have those familiar maria which we imagine to be many things. It's no wonder someone chose to emphasize the colors to help Mercury's naturally indiscernible features pop out and become apparent.

• . http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020305.html

Bill RSaturn Galaxy wrote:Is there anything showing Earth in a similar manner. I wonder what we would see if we saw Earth rendered in exaggerated colors to better contrast different surface features? Great video. I like it almost as much as the one from a few years back that showed Earth's moon shift through its phases.

Indigo_Sunrise wrote: I found the video very interesting, if a bit fast. Is that so it mimics the actual speed that Mercury spins?

Skytreker wrote:That's great, but can we have in in normal color please?

Stendec wrote:This is interesting, but during the first 3 seconds and the last 3 seconds of the video a section comes into view at the top of the picture which shows an obvious gap in the photo montage. It seems that this video does not represent the completed mapping spoken of in the article.

Stendec wrote:This is interesting, but during the first 3 seconds and the last 3 seconds of the video a section comes into view at the top of the picture which shows an obvious gap in the photo montage. It seems that this video does not represent the completed mapping spoken of in the article.