Ironically mercury while being the closest planet to the sun, isn't the hottest planet in the solar system. Venus takes that title because of its atmosphere holding so much co2. Im sure its fine were putting so much of it in our atmosphere.
Too autistic for this. Why would it be unsettling? Mercury is much smaller than the sun. If it was suddenly bigger in proportion to the sun, then I'd be unsettled.
It doesn't exactly unsettle me, but pondering the mind-boggling scale of celestial bodies and the cosmos can certainly be... humbling, I guess?
I had a co-worker a while back who couldn't talk about the great scale of the universe cause he'd get freaked out. It didn't come up much, but when it did, he'd be like, "Please stop, it's stressing me out" so we'd change the subject.
It's very hard to convey the size of the sun in a photo. On earth, it isn't bigger than the moon. I don't think I've ever seen, in a real photo, just how massive the sun is. I absolutely dwarfs a planet, which is kind of chilling. I've never seen a photo that shows anything further away from the camera than a planet AND that much bigger.
Im struggling to parse this. The picture of the sun with the tiny dot when compared with the artists impression you posted. It just wont click together. How can the sun appear so big from the telescope compared to mercury but be so small from mercury's perspective?
Edit. Actually i think it clicked. Mercury is so far from us and so smalkl that it appears like a small dot through that telescope even when zoomed in enough to see the sun that closley. Its actually still really far from the sun but our perspective and that flat picture makes it seem like its about to be consumed by the sun. If it was off to the side the distance would be more clear.
If someone is struggling with it still, think about the moon.
On the surface of the moon, the sun looks basically like from the earth, small disk in the sky.
From lunar solar eclipses we know that just from 300.000km away (on earth) the moon looks just as big as the sun.
Now imagine you travel just a couple million km further away, the moon will look smaller and smaller, while the sun stays almost the same (as the distance to the moon will be 10 times bigger and the distance to the sun will increase by like 2%). If you are just 3 million km away from earth the moon will be a small-ish dot in front of the sun (it would cover about 1% of the suns disk, if my math maths out).
For context, the moon and mercury are quite comparable in size.
Wool socks are the best and I won't be entertaining assertions to the contrary. Wool is temperature regulating, not just super thick and hot, so there are wool socks you can wear in the summer. They also don't hold odor (bacteria) as much.
This reminds me of that part of that space opera I read where there was a nomadic colony on mercury which needed to always be moving at exactly the right speed to stay on the dark side of the terminator.
Wow. I was in middle school and had to do a creative writing assignment, and I wrote a science fiction short story set in a colony on that boundary of Mercury. I thought Mercury was tidal locked. I was praised for my creativity.
I was today years old when I found that Mercury is not tidal locked.
Same here. I was so going to ackchyually that guy, but I did a quick check before and turns out there is a day/night cycle.
Apparently one Mercury day takes exactly two Mercury years due to some fuckery involving "3:2 spin-orbit resonance" which is something I'm too drunk to comprehend right now.
Gonna be an interesting wikipedia binge at work tomorrow tho
That was in the Red / Green / Blue mars trilogy, one of my favorites. Though I think I've seen the concept in other works as well.
Basically the temp difference between day / night caused contraction of the rail tracks, pushing the whole city forward so it was always just ahead of dawn.
The nomadic colony got expanded on in KSR's novel 2312. I don't actually remember much about it in the Mars Trilogy.
But I've seen the concept before in an old EU Star Wars novel, one of the Solo books maybe, where Lando was operating something similar as his new venture.
And before that maybe mentioned by Sagan. And before that...
I guess because of perspective, Mercury being millions of miles closer to the camera than it is to the sun, the actual proportions would have the planet being much smaller by comparison
Mercury's apparent size in the sky when close to us is about twice the size as when mercury is in the other side of the sun from us. So mercury would appear about 75% the size it is in this photo of it were next to the sun (so about the same distance away as the sun is).
My fav sun fact is that it burns 400 million tons of hydrogen each second, and will be doing that for billions of years. That's 400 million tons of the lightest possible element there is. Just absolutely insane how gigantic the mass of the sun is.
Think of it like you being at work or home. If I check your house, either you're there, or you aren't. If you're there, you're at home, simple. If not at home, you're at work.
Same with your work: either you're there when I check - or you aren't, therefore at home.
But before I check either location (it's understood that you are only in 1 of those 2 places), you are effectively in both places, and neither place, all at once.
Same reasons for any eclipses :
.1- plane of orbits (the one for Venus and the one for the Earth) do not exactly coincide and
.2- because distances between objects are much larger than objects, including size of the sun.
The morning of my birthday party I hung out with my physics teacher (it was a Holiday from high school) who's also an astronomer and we watched mercy transit the sun.