I saw this 'wording' listed as "Tomorrow's Image" for Sunday's APoD, 15Mar09, but was not able to figure out what it meant/stood for then, or now - even after seeing the image for today. Anybody able to translate?
Thank in advance!
![Mr. Green :mrgreen:](./images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
I think it's an anagram:Indigo_Sunrise wrote: smaismrmilmepoetaleumibunenugttauiras ?????????
I saw this 'wording' listed as "Tomorrow's Image" for Sunday's APoD, 15Mar09, but was not able to figure out what it meant/stood for then, or now - even after seeing the image for today. Anybody able to translate?
Eventually It became this: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090316.htmlIndigo_Sunrise wrote: smaismrmilmepoetaleumibunenugttauiras ?????????
I saw this 'wording' listed as "Tomorrow's Image" for Sunday's APoD, 15Mar09, but was not able to figure out what it meant/stood for then, or now - even after seeing the image for today. Anybody able to translate?
Thank in advance!
Reminds me of an unripe strawberry (Fragaria Rosaceae):orin stepanek wrote: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090316.html
The moon looks almost like it's made of glass.
Kepler provided testable hypotheses based upon the assumptionwatch24 wrote:I found the hyperlink for 'Kepler's prediction' particularly interesting. I'd heard that the moons were predicted long before they were actually discovered but was disappointed to find out why--and I always thought so much of Kepler!
bystander wrote:See the 16Mar09 APOD link Kepler's prediction. It means Altissimum planetam tergeminum observavi.
--------------------------------------http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_Mars wrote: <<The astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) even predicted their number correctly, although with faulty logic:
he wrote that since Jupiter had four known moons and Earth had one, it was only natural that Mars should have two.
Perhaps inspired by Kepler, Jonathan Swift's novel Gulliver's Travels (1726) refers to two moons in part 3, chapter 3 (the "Voyage to Laputa"), in which the astronomers of Laputa are described as having discovered two satellites of Mars orbiting at distances of 3 and 5 Martian diameters, and periods of 10 and 21.5 hours, respectively.
[/b]Code: Select all
"Titus/Bode : Fibonacci assumption?" Fibonacci Jupiter diameters km. actual -------------------------------------- _3 __415,038 __421,700 Io _5 __691,730 __671,034 Europa _8 1,106,768 1,070,412 Ganymede 13 1,798,498 1,882,709 Callisto -----------------------------------------
Phobos and Deimos are in fact about 1.4 and 3.5 diameters from Mars' centre, and their periods are 7.7 and 30.3 hours, respectively. A similar discovery was described by Voltaire in his interplanetary romance Micromegas, published in 1752.
- They [the Laputan astronomers] have likewise discovered two lesser stars, or 'satellites', which revolve about Mars, whereof the innermost is distant from the centre of the primary planet exactly three of his diameters, and the outermost five; the former revolves in the space of ten hours, and the latter in twenty-one and a half; so that the squares of their periodical times are very near in the same proportion with the cubes of their distance from the centre of Mars, which evidently shows them to be governed by the same law of gravitation, that influences the other heavenly bodies...
In recognition of these 'predictions', two craters on Deimos are named Swift and Voltaire.
>>
... or the green eyed god Consensus.watch24 wrote: Thing is, these guys were no dumber than we are--maybe smarter in terms of deductive reasoning, but they were blinded to new truth by intellectual pride and arrogance. Surely none of this goes on in today's scientific community! And most assuredly no scientific conclusions are influenced by recognition, acceptance, or grant money!
Excellent Wiki article on Diemos including animation of the orbits of Phobos and Diemos around Mars.orin stepanek wrote: The moon looks almost like it's made of glass. Or is that just a product of the photography used? Orin
You may call them natural satellites if you prefer.DavidACaruso wrote:Re: APOD, March 16, 2009
Why call Deimos a moon? We usually think of moons as something spherical, and probably relatively significant in size. Common sense (which may be incorrect) tells us Deimos is an asteroid caught in Mars orbit. Following the logic of categorizing Deimos as a moon, then perhaps categorize even the smallest rocks that fit in your hand that orbit a planet as "moons". Deimos even looks like your stereotypical asteroid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_satellite wrote:
<<A natural satellite or moon is a celestial body that orbits a planet or smaller body, which is called the primary. The first known natural satellite was the Moon (luna in Latin). Until the discovery of the Galilean satellites in 1610, however, there was no opportunity for referring to such objects as a class. Galileo chose to refer to his discoveries as Planetæ ("planets"), but later discoverers chose other terms to distinguish them from the objects they orbited.
Christiaan Huygens, the discoverer of Titan, was the first to use the term moon for such objects, calling Titan Luna Saturni or Luna Saturnia – "Saturn's moon" or "The Saturnian moon", because it stood in the same relation to Saturn as the Moon did to the Earth.
As additional moons of Saturn were discovered, however, this term was abandoned. Giovanni Domenico Cassini sometimes referred to his discoveries as planètes in French, but more often as satellites, using a term derived from the Latin satelles, meaning "guard", "attendant", or "companion", because the satellites accompanied their primary planet in their journey through the heavens.
The term satellite thus became the normal one for referring to an object orbiting a planet, as it avoided the ambiguity of "moon". In 1957, however, the launching of the artificial object Sputnik created a need for new terminology. The terms man-made satellite or artificial moon were very quickly abandoned in favor of the simpler satellite, and as a consequence, the term has come to be linked primarily with artificial objects flown in space – including, sometimes, even those which are not in orbit around a planet.
As a consequence of this shift in meaning, the term moon, which had continued to be used in a generic sense in works of popular science and in fiction, has regained respectability and is now used interchangeably with satellite, even in scientific articles. When it is necessary to avoid both the ambiguity of confusion with the Earth's moon on the one hand, and artificial satellites on the other, the term natural satellite (using "natural" in a sense opposed to "artificial") is used.
There is no established lower limit on what should be considered a moon. Every body with an identified orbit, some as small as a kilometer across, has been identified as a moon, though objects a tenth that size within Saturn's rings, which have not been directly observed, have been called moonlets. Small asteroid moons, such as Dactyl, have also been called moonlets.
The upper limit is also vague. When the masses of two orbiting bodies are similar enough that one cannot be said to orbit the other, they are described as a double body rather than primary and satellite. Asteroids such as 90 Antiope are considered double asteroids, but they have not forced a clear definition as to what constitutes a moon. Some authors consider the Pluto-Charon system to be a double (dwarf) planet. The most common dividing line on what is considered a moon rests upon whether the barycentre is below the surface of the larger body, though this is somewhat arbitrary, as it relies on distance as well as relative mass.
As of September 2008, 335 bodies are formally classified as moons. They include 167 orbiting six of the eight planets, 6 orbiting three of the five dwarf planets, 104 asteroid moons, and 58 satellites of Trans-Neptunian objects, some of which will likely turn out to be dwarf planets. Some 150 additional small bodies were observed within Saturn's ring system, but they were not tracked long enough to establish orbits. Other stars and their planets are likely to have natural satellites as well, although none have been observed.>>
Probably not: Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter gets 3.5 times closerJohnD wrote:Phobos is markedly 'grooved', or has long, clear crater chains, depending on which church you belong to.
Deimos here looks as smoothly cheeked as a girl.
Is the photograph resolution enough to show up similar markings on Deimos?
This should really be "at least 100 centimeters thick."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon) wrote:Recent images from Mars Global Surveyor indicate that
Phobos is covered with a layer of fine-grained regolith at least 100 meters thick.
Below, I mistyped "u" instead of "v," and since I'm short on time, let's say the rocket ship travels with velocity "u" relative to Earth.neufer wrote:I can remember a sophomore year physics quiz question from M.I.T. (1964):
A rocket ship travels with velocity v (vis a vis the earth) in direction x.
The rocket ship sends a laser beam out the side of the ship in direction y.
What angle does the laser beam make with the y axis as observed from earth?
The teachers who posed this question got the answer wrong!
The quiz was scored as follows:
1) If you got the right answer with the right (or no) reasoning you got it right.
2) If you got their wrong answer with their wrong reasoning you got it right
3) If you got their wrong answer using some other (or no) reasoning you got it wrong.
4) If you got the right answer with the wrong reasoning you got it wrong.
(So what is the right answer?)
Very good, Pete, you got their wrong answer with their wrong reasoning...so you got it right!Pete wrote:sin theta = v_y / c.neufer wrote:I can remember a sophomore year physics quiz question from M.I.T. (1964):
A rocket ship travels with velocity v (vis a vis the earth) in direction x.
The rocket ship sends a laser beam out the side of the ship in direction y.
What angle does the laser beam make with the y axis as observed from earth?
The teachers who posed this question got the answer wrong!
I'll take it!neufer wrote:Very good, Pete, you got their wrong answer with their wrong reasoning...so you got it right!Pete wrote:sin theta = v_y / c.neufer wrote:I can remember a sophomore year physics quiz question from M.I.T. (1964):
A rocket ship travels with velocity v (vis a vis the earth) in direction x.
The rocket ship sends a laser beam out the side of the ship in direction y.
What angle does the laser beam make with the y axis as observed from earth?
The teachers who posed this question got the answer wrong!
neufer wrote:I can remember a sophomore year physics quiz question from M.I.T. (1964):
A rocket ship travels with velocity v (vis a vis the earth) in direction x.
The rocket ship sends a laser beam out the side of the ship in direction y.
What angle does the laser beam make with the y axis as observed from earth?
The teachers who posed this question got the answer wrong!
--------------------------------------------------Pete wrote:I'll take it!neufer wrote:Very good, Pete, you got their wrong answer with their wrong reasoning...so you got it right!Pete wrote:sin theta = v_y / c.Okay, you went to MIT; what's the "right" answer?
Only one that I can be sure of, you. Don't know what the man and his wives, sacks, cats, and kits were doing.neufer wrote:
- As I was going to St Ives
I met a man with seven wives
And every wife had seven sacks
And every sack had seven cats
And every cat had seven kits
Kits, cats, sacks, wives
How many were going to St Ives?
bystander wrote:Only one that I can be sure of, you. Don't know what the man and his wives, sacks, cats, and kits were doing.neufer wrote:
- As I was going to St Ives
I met a man with seven wives
And every wife had seven sacks
And every sack had seven cats
And every cat had seven kits
Kits, cats, sacks, wives
How many were going to St Ives?
neufer wrote:I can remember a sophomore year physics quiz question from M.I.T. (1964)
In 1964, I dreamed of going to MIT. In 1965, I entered the 7th grade. My 7th grade teacher was substandard, but he gave us one valuable assignment: write to the college of your choice to request an application and a catalog of courses. This was intended as practice for the real thing a few years later. So I sent my request to MIT and they quickly sent me an application and a catalog. I enjoyed having the catalog which showed me what I could expect for coursework in various major fields of study. Four and a half years later, after accumulating impressive academic credentials, when it came time to do it for real, I sent virtually the exact same letter (with more mature handwriting) to MIT. In return I got not an application nor a catalog. Instead I got a letter with a pre-application. The letter explained that catalogs were expensive to print and mail, and they couldn't send them to just anyone. The letter also explained that they couldn't waste their time reviewing just anyone's application, so I would have to fill out the pre-application and send it in with the hope that they would send me a real application. They treated me worse than they had treated a 7th-grader. They showed themselves to be incapable of responding correctly to a simple request. I tossed their letter and pre-application in the garbage and never looked back.Pete wrote:Okay, you went to MIT
Why virtually the exact same letter? Were you trying to prove something?apodman wrote:Four and a half years later, after accumulating impressive academic credentials, when it came time to do it for real, I sent virtually the exact same letter (with more mature handwriting) to MIT.