Dark side of the sun

Back of the sun.jpg (92 KB)

  • Leave a comment ?

    21 Responses to Dark side of the sun

    1. My brother in law showed me this a few weeks ago, and I thought about it, how does the sun have a “dark” side? Any help?

      Reply

    2. @DavidtheLast:
      it’s from NASA’s solar observer and is just a different lense. Nothing more 😉

      Reply

    3. Only dream I ever have… is it the surface of the sun? Everytime I shut my eyes… it’s always the same.

      Reply

    4. Hey baby, nice magnetic field lines.

      Reply

    5. @Puulaahi: Sunshine!

      Calling it the “dark side” is slightly complicated. The term originates from first being used to describe the far side of the moon, which always faces away from the earth.

      The sun, however, has a rotation, and so all parts of it eventually face the earth. The sun also has a constantly-changing surface.

      Recently, a satellite has started sending us images from the far side of the sun. Some people, for whatever reason, have started calling it the “dark side” of the sun, because it’s the side facing away from us.

      The term has no true meaning, it’s only a play on an old phrase.

      Reply

    6. I will never get tired of these kinds of pics.

      Reply

    7. @Phyreblade: second that!

      the sun has been oddly quiet- for its eleven year cycle- an explosion of gamma radiation is due.
      This will be awsome. you’ll know when it happens.

      Reply

    8. Anyone else think of the Modeselektor Song?

      Reply

    9. @nyokki: Saw it. I’m still on the fence. The idea was good. The execution… Meh.

      It felt to me like it was trying to be a cross between “Armageddon” and “Event Horizon” with a touch of “2010” thrown in, but lacking much of what made those movies worth watching… To me anyway.

      Reply

    10. @Phyreblade: It’s so difficult (apparently) to make really good scifi movies. I’m not sure why though.

      Reply

    11. @Phyreblade: Well I think Sunshine made a lot of mistakes. The characters were either too over the top or had no depth, and while there were some great special fx, but also a *lot* really unnecessary/bad use of Special fx that just made no sense within the context of the movie. Sometimes less is more.

      And yes, it’s sci-fi, so the science doesn’t necessarily have to accurate, but when the movie violates the laws physics/science it has already established, it kinda makes it hard to suspend your disbelief long enough for the movie to remain engaging.

      I suppose that’s the tough thing about making Sci-fi flicks. Not only do you have to have a contend with the pitfalls of traditional action movies, wrt acting, depth and believability, people these days are much more science/technology aware, that you also have to avoid letting the fictional science trip up the rest of the movie…

      Reply

    12. @nyokki: ROFL… that’s the second time this week…

      You have no idea… Some of the best conversations I’ve ever had have been with myself…

      Reply

    Leave a Comment




    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Movie posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Visual Tricks Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas