Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Ethyl, Apr 15, 2007.
The Red Square Nebula. More glorious beauty from the cosmos.
Nevermind the books. That alone constitutes proof.
I bet that raised a few gasps at Palomar and Keck. Beautiful indeed.
They see us from the place that we can't see them from.
What immortal hand or eye dare frame thy fearful symmetry? Or mortal... Is that actually square, or is that from lens distortion in the optics? (I'm only asking because it looks a lot like lens flare -- but I'll trust the Ph D.s on this one.)
Stunning, anyway you look at it.
I'm totally not a fan out outer space stuff, but that's pretty neat! Watching a star die.... almost sad though.
Looks nebulous to me.
Never trust any star with a Ruskie name. Fearful indeed.
Thanks Merc, that was incredible.
That was absolutely beautiful.
Beautiful it is, indeed. However, such symmetry is no miracle. A lot of it is innated: It's physical principles that, in the absence of external forces, such as gravity, govern the patterns, and these principles tend to give things simple shapes, which hold a lot less energy than more "arbitrary" ones, and therefor are more stable.
Take that, Neal Stephenson. :wink:
You're trying to tell me I'd make a great America (!!) Shaftoe? At least I'm not into fantasy rolegames. But his books are still good.
Perfect circles, yes.
Perfect squares? Far less common.
How 'bout hexagons?
Thanks Miss Bliss. Did anyone see this link in the article? This is lovely too.
Yes, thats perfect. You would make a great America Shaftoe.
I agree with Claire that simple symmetrical shapes are probably more stable than arbitrary ones, but I have to say that squares are very unlikely. That is really amazing. If I was the first to see that thing late at night through a telescope I would be sleeping with the lights on for a week. It looks disturbingly artificial.