this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
136 points (99.3% liked)

science

14722 readers
920 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

source because I'm pretty sure that mp4 won't play here.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Plays well in Voyager

[–] AgentGrimstone@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)
[–] Mbourgon@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

It’s a great big universe And we’re all really puny We’re just tiny little specks About the size of Mickey Rooney It's big and black and inky And we are small and dinky It's a big universe, and we're not!

  • Yakko’s Universe
[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

If you haven't seen the Milky way with your own eyes, it's shrink factor is unreal. I've seen lots of panoramas and kind of saw dustiness in the sky, but I'll never forget the shock of the first time I could identify elements. I had a wide angle camera and was trying to get into astrophotography. I took just one, short, high ISO shot. Surprise to me, I got it. I caught the Milky way and could see some structures in the pic, such as the dark horse nebula (which I prefer to call the slug head). And then I looked up and the scene hit me like a ton of bricks. It's huge. Mathematically it makes sense, it's all around us and panoramas use 90+° lenses, so of course a pano on the horizon is going to be looking straight up, too. But none of that logic applied until I saw it, wrapped overhead.

We are tiny.

[–] MildlyArdvark@feddit.dk 2 points 10 months ago

Well you are quite tiny on a galactic scale ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] SteveNashFan@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Cool, makes it much easier to visualize how living on a spinning globe works.

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I was curious if this was based on a low winter sun at a polar attitude, but it's not. The location in Chile is only 24°S (Miami is 25°N) and the nightfall timing makes me think this mid-November. That puts the sun in the frame for half the span of the day frames. So instead of being a cool example of a weak sun as I thought, someone spent 3x as much effort to simulate the placement of celestial objects to exemplify how we are just a little rock spinning in space. The stars don't come out at night, the day just hides them. We're always sitting under the stars. Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2849/

And actually, given that that xkcd was posted Nov 1, I can't help but wonder if it's related.

[–] dust_accelerator@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 10 months ago
[–] m3t00@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago
[–] Gbagginsthe3rd@aussie.zone 1 points 10 months ago

Very nice, those equatorial stabilisers are great. Was it an expensive setup?