all 70 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 110 points 7 months ago

No wonder it feels more crowded

  • source
  • [–] 73 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    This helps explain why days seem shorter as we age, the Earth is spinning faster due to the conservation of angular momentum. The days are literally shorter.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    You're correct. There are more factors involved too, including climate change, since more ice melting means more water as well, moving the mass away from poles to the center to also be affected by the mind pull too.

    All the factors end up changing things by about a millisecond per century. The effect is akin to a spinning figure skater having their arms up over their head vs directly out from their body.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago*

    Fun fact: China has built such a massive dam that it has slowed down (albeit only slightly*) the Earth’s rotation

    *if i am not mistaken, it was just enough to be misured, nothing too crazy

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 62 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Well that’s what happens when you leave it out in the sun

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Good to know it’s still a flat disc

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Second picture looks smogier and more polluted

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

    Well the second pic is also at night with a high iso and long exposure plus it's digital so there's a lot more noise going on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Speaking in generic terms, film is way more forgiving of over exposure and digital is way more forgiving of under exposure. A fast lens is always king, but once you hit parity on that I would personally take digital for low light any day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    Digital should be the better for either one because both can be normalized to a normal exposure, in which case over should still be more accurate (assuming a static scene). With film, you open the shutter and then allow light to hit the single piece of film, which makes up your full data for that image. Digital could record time data with the light data and essentially keep a record of the full exposure, which can then be averaged and normalized to the length of the exposure.

    As long as no pixels get blown out by the exposure, linearly scaling brightness would handle the normalization. Though one of those "take 30 pictures real quick" would also work if you average them together, maybe add a little positional correction if the first frame and last frame are far enough apart that the spacecraft has moved significantly in that time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    By the way, speaking of changed colours of planets: if you haven't been keeping up with the latest news in space imagery and want a real mindbender, check out what has recently happened to Neptune. You may have been thinking, ooooh, what an enthralling blue planet! - bzzzzzt, turns out it's a pretty bland and boring gas giant, the colours were exaggerated on purpose because otherwise you can't see shit.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 7 months ago

    The maps were correct, New Zealand doesn’t exist.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 7 months ago

    It's getting old, I guess /s

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    I like how you can see the ring/sphere of atmosphere in the new image.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 7 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 17 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    The magnetic poles must be moving substantially. Africa has rotated almost 90 degrees in a few short decades!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago

    Also looks much more sickly (yes, its because they pumped up the brightness lol)

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago

    Where did Africa go?? 😧

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    Big if true.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    Proof that global warming is not real!!!! Read your science… if something gets HOTTER it EXPANDS!!! Those scientist cucks have cucked themselves good this time!!!!

    /s (in case it’s needed)

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    It's cold out there in space.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago

    A lot less green, as well.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Plus, that 2d image makes it look flat, like a penny.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    Aside from all else, the first image was taken on film lit by daylight, the second was shot on digital at high ISO lit by moonlight with a little sunlight at one edge

    Moonlight doesn't have the same colour rendering quality as sunlight

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (4 children)

    Thanks for the info, that's awesome! Based on the quality of the image, I'd guess this was a specialized camera designed to have a broader range of sensitivity. Do you know if that's right or did they just use a nice DSLR?

    Also, the first image has been corrected for rayleigh scattering, either algorithmically or artistically. The second image does not appear to have been corrected. It looks similar to what we get from geostationary satellites prior to performing rayleigh scattering correction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    There is a much higher quality version of the second image on NASA's website. I think the reason the second image has so much colour ranges because it was taken in log, but that's just a normal SLR camera feature. I think there's even a way of getting my phone to take pictures in log, it just uses a lot of memory so it's not on by default

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Android post processing vs Apple post processing

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    It's because we're looking at a different side of the planet in the second photo.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (4 children)

    Yet but still if you superimpose the second image over the first you’ll see the whole planet had gotten smaller.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    In this age of misinformation I realize I can no longer determine if something is a joke.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    That's because the internet made the world smaller.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    Completely different landmasses as well!

    Kubrick, we're onto you

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Jerryyyy, Earth is a planet!

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    continents seem to have moved too.. weird.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    with higher gravity it might shrink.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    Its all the fracking

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I'll need Jerry Smith's opinion on this one

    We are not a celestial dwarf. Earth is a planet.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    Must be all the oil we're drilling.

    Nah, as President Trump said, "nothing bad can happen, it can only good happen."

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    It's a conspiracy by Big Earth..

  • source