The dashed line is the illusion we see. It's our interpretation of the very real photons hitting our retinas.
And it creates a pillar of light that isn't really there.
I mean, this is barmy, right?
8/
When you see light pillars, like these over Pinedale, Wyoming (pic. David J. Bell), you're really seeing reflected light from ice crystals hanging in the air halfway between you & where these pillars *appear* to be.
You won't believe it at the time, though. (I wouldn't.)
9/
If you're thinking 'Does this happen with sunlight and moonlight too?' then full marks awarded!
Final point: where I haven't given credit in the thread to their original photographers and their *amazing* work here (none of these pics are mine except his one), I will be doing so fully in my upcoming newsletter.
Also: a bit off-thread, but since so many gamers are here shouting "loot boxes!", here's a plug for my favourite game, #TheLongDark, from @HinterlandGames & @RaphLife:
It'll make you feel much of the cold, glittery wonder in the photos in this thread.
And a final shout-out to @StephNx79, whose photo is at the top of this thread, which started me down this whole fascinating rabbit-hole of optical delightfulness:
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?