Starship Asterisk*

It looks like an optical effect of the lens. The swipe seems to form one arc of a circle. That is, if you continue that arc in the same general curviness, it will meet up with itself. I am betting that at the center of that circle is going to be a very bright star.

nope, seems fine here. Perhaps your browser isn't checking for a new page every time it received a request from you.

Imagine the sun directly behind you, warming your neck. Look at the far right side of the picture. (section 4) Keep your body the same direction, but look to the left. The shadows are still facing forward. (Section 3) Turn halfway around, the shadows will face towards you (the middle dark part of th...

Evidently if the star is compressing the dust in its path, it could be going 60km/s faster than the material around it is. Our Earth on the other hand, rotates together with a bunch of dust that is in our orbit. Even though we are going pretty fast, the dust is too. And so with the sun. Most of the ...

Could it have to do with the optical density of the oceans? The oceans had a certain brightness, but when it was stretched out to fit that particular earth-projection, that particular part got darker? Or maybe some of the light of the oceans is actually reflections from the light of the moon, in whi...

So wait. . . IF we assume that light has a mass, as newton might (any mass you like, it doesn't matter), then we should know the gravitational potential for the path around the sun or any other star. And if we know the speed of light (I don't know how well this was known before the 20th century), th...

But how would you explain it if you didn't know about relativity?

How could Newton have explained it?

It reminds me of this example: Shoot a proton through an electrically polarized field that is perpendicular to the path of the proton. The proton curves according to the potential of the field. Shoot a neutron through the same field, it has no effect. The proton continues on its path. The potential ...

qev: That equation comes from F=GMm/r^2, and only simplifies if we assume m (the mass of the object) is non-zero.

because

a = F/m = (GMm/r^2) / m

and you have to do some mathematical tricks to divide by 0, I think.

I didn't know that you could calculate bending of light from newton's gravitational laws. edit: that is unless you assigned light a mass. Did we decide light was massless before or because of Einstein? I don't remember. You could from his optics laws, if you assume there is a slight gas around a sta...

It might be because of the apparent width of the objects. Galaxies, even far ones have an decent width (degrees or minutes or even seconds). I'm guessing that the appart width of pluto is just less. This link shows how accurately the hubble telescope can see at different distances. http://sm3a.gsfc....

I don't know what the now accepted definition for 'dwarf planet' is, but I assume that it would have to orbit a star as opposed to a planet. That is, there is not an object other than a star that its barycenter (rotational center) resides in. The moon's orbital center resides within Earth, I believe...

If you want a chemical equation:: (I didn't feel like balancing it) CH4 (methane) + O2 (Oxygen gas) -> CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) + H2O (Water) + Energy If you are missing one of the reactants (CH4 or O2), then you will not get any of the prducts (CO2, H2O, energy) unless you can get them through some oth...

Yeah, I feel silly I know most of the greek letters, that one just boggled me. It wasn't a familiar font of it I guess. Thanks. I'm glad it helped.

. I cut the part of that png from wikipedia that corresponds to the APOD picture.

According to Kstars, it is 13 degrees directly east of Antares. (the width of your fist at arms length is around 10 degrees). So add an extra finger :-) It is in the constellation Ophiuchi. Seeing as the width of the picture is around 10 degrees, Just add another full screen to the side, and Antares...

If you put your mouse on top of it, it loads a new piture that has the outlines. The html is a OnMouseOver command. Firefox works, Does IE6?

I do see relevance in this type of post, even though I'm not sure that they mentioned it. Most of the history of astronomy, even the interest of it comes with finding the positions of the stars / sun / moon / planets over the course of the year. The position of the sun does change over the course of...

I agree, It's probably not the moon (the moon would be full), unless it is an out-of-focus moon, or perhaps an out-of-focus Venus. It looks more like a light artifact than any astrnomical phenomenon. Maybe its a light artifact from a headlight that is off-camera?