Seeing the Northern Lights is one thing - but have you ever seen a *city* up there?
Yes, like that scene in ep. 1 of 'His Dark Materials'.
Because here's the weird thing: they exist. You can indeed see cities in the sky. There's actual science on this.
Stay with me. 🧵(1/)
That’s what Jesuit priest Father Domenico Giardina saw on August 14, 1643. Looking across the Strait of Messina (Sicily), he beheld “a city all floating in the air...so splendid, so adorned with magnificent buildings, all of which was found on a base of a luminous crystal.”
2/
If his record is to be believed - as he watched, the city shimmered and became a garden.
And then a forest.
And finally a landscape of vast armies, locked in combat over the ruins of buildings...
Before the whole thing disappeared completely.
Blimey.
3/
"DRUGS!" predictably scream modern critics of this account. Was he high?
It's true that by the 17thC, Jesuits had started drinking the tea of a psychoactive plant from Ecuador called Guayasa (similar to Yerba Mate).
But not priests. And no evidence of *him* doing it.
4/
BTW, his analysis of this was amazingly scientific: he guessed that minerals and salts “rise up in hot weather in vapours from the sea to form clouds, which then condense...to become a moving, polyhedrical mirror.”
This, 61 years before Newton's "Opticks". Dead impressive.
5/
Still, it's easy to write this off as delusion or fabrication.
Except - these floating cities keep appearing.
Here's one above Yantai City in East China, in 2019:
6/
And here's a REALLY eerie one from 2015, again in China:
I've been fascinated with this effect ever since I learned of it in @NaturalNav's magnificent "Walker's Guide To Outdoor Clues And Signs": uk.bookshop.org/books/the-walk…
(One paragraph --> many hours of obsessive reading-about. Excellent value for curious people, this book.)
11/
(And you can skip to the chase here by reading this newsletter, in which I nerd out wildly and perhaps incoherently on this topic in many directions:
As Robert Macfarlane notes in 'Landmarks', a single globe-encircling duct could bend light indefinitely - so if your eyes were strong enough, you could "gaze around the whole earth and witness your own back and shoulders.”
15/
And of course it can happen to distant city lights when it gets dark.
Can you imagine your reaction to seeing something like this in the dead of night? Can you imagine it if you didn't have a clue what it really was?
16/
For more on all this, and for light-bending illusions on a vastly bigger scale (pictured), please have a read of this thing I wrote:
And it's because I was looking for it. A little knowledge sharpens your attention marvellously...
And more of it here seen, I think? Look how the buildings along the shoreline at Ardrossan are 'doubled up', with copies of themselves that are upside-down...
So great to see this in person.
And this is a gorgeously freaky-looking example of the floating-ship variety from @GrantBlackNZ:
On the 21st July 1976, NASA released the very first colour image taken by the Viking 1 lander from the surface of Mars.
And....wait, what?
The Martian sky is BLUE?
1/
This is obviously not what anyone was expecting. Mars is...
Well, you can see it for yourself on a clear night, with your naked eye. It's noticeably red - about as red as Betelgeuse, tenth-brightest star in our night sky.
No blue. So - what? WHAT?
2/
The Martian atmosphere just isn't thick enough to be blue - just 600 pascals, vs the Earth's 101,000.
That scene in "The Martian" where the rocket's in danger of being blown over? No, sir. Not enough punch to it: space.com/30663-the-mart…
You know the BEST thing about ancient history? All that pristine grey-white stone! SO CLASSY AND REGAL.
Look at this gorgeously monochrome scene from 'Gladiator'. Just look at how *right* it looks.
Yeah. Except - no. Get ready for a shock.
1/
In the middle of the Parthenon in Athens, the ancient Greek sculptor Phidias (480 – 430 BC) built a gigantic statue of Athena Parthenosos, about 11 metres high.
Alas, nothing remains of it today. But there are enough accounts of its construction to make a replica...
2/
...so someone did that: sculptor Alan Le Quire, in (of all places) Nashville.
Not quite what you were expecting, mayhaps?
Well, it was built around a core of cypress wood, and then panelled with gold and ivory plates. That's the description. That's what they did.
When my Zanclean Megaflood thread went nuts in February, some folk said "look into a thing called Atlantropa! It's just as mindblowing!"
They weren't wrong. And now I can't get *this* story out my head either.
So, once more, here we go.
1/
It's 1928.
This is German architect Herman Sörgel. Horrified by the First World War, keen to see everyone put down their weapons & actually, properly work together for a change, he's just had a idea that would solve *everything*.
He's going to drain the Mediterranean.
2/
No, really. It's simple!
All it would take is a series of dams:
- Across the Gibraltar Strait
- Across the Dardanelles to hold back the Black Sea
- Between Sicily and Tunisia, road-linking Europe & Africa
- At the Suez Canal.
There's a vast patch of seagrass off the coast of Australia (3 x the size of Manhattan) - and now genetic testing has discovered it's a *single plant* around 4,500 years old:
OK, I lied. It's only really here can you walk along it: the Þingvellir National Park, where, geologically speaking, North America & Europe are slowly drifting apart.
Enjoy the sunshine! There's none where we're going.
2/
If we went southeast into the water, it gets deep really quickly - maybe 2,000 metres, same as the Black Sea. About the depth of a Russian battleship.
*cough*
But we're following the Mid-Atlantic Ridge - so southwest it is.
Off of the news that Twitter is banning advertisements that contradict the scientific consensus on climate change (washingtonpost.com/technology/202…) and the inevitable kerfuffle, a distinction worth noting:
Denialism is not the same as healthy, questioning criticism. Not at all.
1/
This gets incredibly complicated and tangled, but - whenever something is contradicting the consensus with *absolute certainty*, it's probably bullshit. Utter certainty is the smoking gun there.
No curiosity, no interested questions, no willingness to be proven wrong.
2/
I guess it's the effect of "one man against the world" narratives, but - the thing about the consensus is it's where basically the weight of all the evidence is.
To overturn one, you need to try to overturn the other. If you're not, while claiming utter certainty?