×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The First Moon Map, and Not By Galileo

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the dutch-trunke dept.

Moon 82

sergio80 writes in with a timely piece of history in this the International Year of Astronomy, celebrating the 400th anniversary of the invention of the telescope. "Galileo Galilei is often credited with being the first person to look through a telescope and make drawings of the celestial objects he observed. While the Italian indeed was a pioneer in this realm, he was not the first..." That honor belongs to Thomas Harriot, an Englishman, who bought his first "Dutch trunke" (i.e. telescope) shortly after its invention in the Netherlands and made a sketch of the moon as seen through it in July of 1609.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

82 comments

Dupe. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26679105)

This article was on the Firehose, what... 400 years ago?

Copyright? (1)

JickL (1398643) | more than 5 years ago | (#26679123)

Who is this Lord Egremont who apparently owns the copyright to the photographs(?) of the drawings? Surely the original drawings aren't under copyright?

Re:Copyright? (5, Funny)

mikerubin (449692) | more than 5 years ago | (#26679205)

No, the LMAA (Lunar Map Association of America) currently has the copyright, and is subpoenaing the descendants of aforementioned Lord Egremont

Re:Copyright? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26679985)

They have the full support of the LMAO (Lunar Map Association of Oman) in this endeavor.

Re:Copyright? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26679303)

the original drawings aren't copyrighted. The photograph of them is. (if you took your own photo of them, you would have the copyright to it).

Re:Copyright? (4, Informative)

Phlegethon_River (1136619) | more than 5 years ago | (#26679447)

"if you took your own photo of them, you would have the copyright to it"

Wrong (In the US).

In the US we don't give copyright for simply making a faithful reproduction of anything. You didn't add any new creative element by taking a photograph of a piece of paper. This is why Google does not hold a copyright on the scans of public domain works. (but they do limit their use based on Contracts/TOS, which is fine, you can sign away your rights in a contract)

For the court case which spells this out see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp [wikipedia.org].

Now, in the UK, what you said is probably correct. They are, in my opinion, wrongly assigning copyright to people based on "sweat of the brow" work, not creativity.

Re:Copyright? (1)

chthonicdaemon (670385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26682357)

The whole distinction between creativity and "sweat of the brow" is a bit strange to me. How is a photograph of an arrangement of fruit different in creativity from a good still-life? I think people should just get over themselves and admit that "creativity" is just uncommon skill.

Re:Copyright? (1)

atraintocry (1183485) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683045)

No, we copyright photos. Parent must be a little confused. The case cited only has to do with photos of public domain images.

Re:Copyright? (1)

Phlegethon_River (1136619) | more than 5 years ago | (#26690133)

"The case cited only has to do with photos of public domain images."

What year were those drawings, um, drawn in? Yes, no matter where in the world you are, those drawings are public domain. And if you were in America then any photo/scan of those images would also be public domain.

We don't copyright ALL photos. Only those which have some "original" creativity to them (the quote around original because that is what the law says).

Re:Copyright? (1)

atraintocry (1183485) | more than 5 years ago | (#26690727)

So a photograph of a bowl of fruit (presumably one you owned and arranged yourself) would not fall under the conditions that Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel talks about. But a photo of an image that was public domain would. Where is it that we disagree?

Re:Copyright? (1)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 5 years ago | (#26687539)

Wrong (In the US).

Luckily the story isn't about the US, and US copyright law doesn't actually bind the entire rest of the world (yet, although you're trying hard).

In most of the rest of the world such a photograph would be subject to copyright.

Re:Copyright? (1)

Phlegethon_River (1136619) | more than 5 years ago | (#26690163)

And you are arguing that that having a new copyright on those photographs of a public domain image is a Good Thing?

I wasn't arguing either way, actually. Just stating that in the US those photos would not be copyrighted.

Re:Copyright? (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 5 years ago | (#26679517)

You cannot copyright photos of works in the public domain, at least not in the states.

Re:Copyright? (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 5 years ago | (#26679669)

You can if the photo contains artistic content.....for instance if you staged a photo of a bishop holding a Gutenberg Bible. The Bible would be public domain, but you'd hold copyright to the image.

Abuse of copyright (1)

CHRONOSS2008 (1226498) | more than 5 years ago | (#26681843)

that's like these people that take Beethoven and just cause they play it and record it that somehow its there music when it isn't.

So you take a picture of my house its yours eh, i'll get you .......starts running....

Meh. (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26679215)

Pretty bad drawing. You could probably do a better job if you were a good artist, without any kind of optical device. Galileo gets the credit because his drawings [colorado.edu] actually looked good.

Re:Meh. (1)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26679341)

Did you bother to RT entire FA? There was a much more detailed drawing further below, done after further study.

Also, the FA clearly states this guy didn't really publish his works, whereas Galileo did. No wonder which one is remembered...

Re:Meh. (1)

Feanturi (99866) | more than 5 years ago | (#26679629)

I RTFA, and saw the second pic. It's really not that great of an aesthetically pleasing drawing when compared with Galileo's, however flawed that one may be in feature details.

Re:Meh. (2, Funny)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26679405)

Pretty bad drawing. You could probably do a better job if you were a good artist, without any kind of optical device. Galileo gets the credit because his drawings [colorado.edu] actually looked good.

That looks like Galileo drew the first goatse.

Galileo's contribution was different (5, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 5 years ago | (#26679407)

The difference is that this was a well off amateur drawing the Moon, which was already known to have features. Galileo's main discoveries were sunspots (i.e. sun is not perfect) and 4 Jovian moons (i.e. not everything in the Universe could rotate around the Earth.) These were groundbreaking discoveries because they destroyed the Scholastic world-view as effectively as the Theory of Relativity replaced absolute space and time.

Therefore this is all a bit of special pleading. This guy basically bought a telescope and drew a few pictures. Galileo made a telescope and changed the way we looked at the world.

Disclaimer: I'm British, I revere Newton, but Galileo is the one I really look up to.

Re:Galileo's contribution was different (1, Interesting)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#26680067)

These were groundbreaking discoveries because they destroyed the Scholastic world-view as effectively as the Theory of Relativity replaced absolute space and time.

Contrary to populer beleif, Einstein did not replace Newtons work with his spacetime/relativity work. Rather, he enhanced it.

If it were replaced, we would no longer use it, and yet Newtons work is applied on a daily basis, both in actual space operations and research. I use his (still very cool) equations in my own research.

There may be a time when Newtons aproximations are no longer used, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

There are areas for which we cannot use Newtons equations. Without application of Einsteins work satellite systems wouldn't function and our more advanced astronomy would simply fail, not to mention physics. But when it comes to the horribly complex task of geting a spacecraft from one place to another, its still Newton all the way.

Re:Galileo's contribution was different (3, Funny)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 5 years ago | (#26680269)

"Contrary to populer beleif, Einstein did not replace Newtons work with his spacetime/relativity work. Rather, he enhanced it."
Contrary to your belief that's not what the GP said, you just enhanced it.

Re:Meh. (2, Insightful)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 5 years ago | (#26681555)

Tell you what, CastrTroy, I'll give you a telescope that is the equal to what Harriot used (a telescope, by the way, that's inferior to even the cheapest toy telescope sold by Edmund Scientific.) [scientificsonline.com] a pencil and a pad of paper, and lets see YOU do a better job of mapping the Lunar surface.

Re:Meh. (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 5 years ago | (#26706451)

Don't be a troll. If I were drawing crappy pictures of the moon, I wouldn't expect to get any credit. The fact of the matter is that someone DID do a better job - Galileo. Using your "logic", we would never be able to criticize anyone who happens to be a bit better than us at something. That would take ALL the fun out of sports, entertainment, and politics.

Re:Meh. (1)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 5 years ago | (#26713819)

And you have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what the optics of the time were like.

Really, the cheapest piece of crap made in China toy telescope you can find today, is better, optically and field of view wise than the telescopes used by Galileo and Harriot. The cheap pocket telescopes sold by Edmund Scientific are much, much better than those original 'scopes used by Galileo and Harriot.

Please. Stop using the Internet. You're getting your stupid all over everything.

Re:Meh. (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 5 years ago | (#26717815)

Maybe you missed the part where Galileo did a better job using similar equipment?

Let me repeat it a third time since you seem a little slow: G-A-L-I-L-E-O D-I-D I-T B-E-T-T-E-R.

Are we clear now? Did you get it this time, or did you want me to draw you a picture? I can't promise it'll be a Picasso, but I'll do my best. And you better not criticize unless you can do better!

Re:Meh. (1)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 5 years ago | (#26719893)

And Herriot did it FIRST.

And as an amateur astronomer who began in the late 1960s, pretty much all sketches made by astronomers look crude, at first.

Looking at Herriot's sketches, I had no trouble identifying the features.

Again. Please stop using the Internet. You're getting your stupid all over everything.

Re:Meh. (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 5 years ago | (#26721015)

And Herriot did it FIRST.

Fat lot of good it did him, eh? There's a lesson there: if it's a question of doing it first or doing it well, go with the latter.

Again. Please stop using the Internet. You're getting your stupid all over everything.

Case in point: you'd rather throw the first insult than take the time to come up with a good insult. As a result you vomit up some half-formed piece of drivel which would be perfectly suited for a middle-school environment. If you don't take the time to do it right, don't be surprised when you're written off as an amateur.

Beware (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26679225)

A while ago, while browsing around the library downtown [goatse.fr], brown rope.

Re:Beware (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26679795)

I didn't see the brown rope. I looked and looked but could not find it. Please link to a brown rope next time.

more like.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26679277)

the first moon fap.

fapfapfap

captcha: mating

Unsung hero of science? (3, Insightful)

Compholio (770966) | more than 5 years ago | (#26679363)

Despite his innovative work, Harriot remains relatively unknown. Unlike Galileo, he did not publish his drawings.

"Thomas Harriot is an unsung hero of science," Chapman said.

Not a chance, Harriot cannot be a hero of science since he did not publish his work. If you don't actually take the risk of publishing and try to contribute your knowledge to the world then you are not a hero of science.

Re:Unsung hero of science? (2, Interesting)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 5 years ago | (#26679455)

That's a rather harsh thing to say - there are probably a multitude of reasons why he didn't publish his work (maybe he didn't realise the significance of his work - or he may have been at risk of religious/political persecution. It's pretty hard to say, but I bet there is a good reason why his work wasn't published/spread)

Re:Unsung hero of science? (4, Insightful)

Compholio (770966) | more than 5 years ago | (#26679547)

I don't think so, I didn't say anything about the quality or integrity of the work he did - I just said he's not a hero. If he had published his work and was persecuted for it (as Galileo was) then he could be considered a hero. This difference doesn't diminish the quality or importance of the work, but for him to be able to qualify as a hero of science (taking into account the time period) he would have to have published his work.

Re:Unsung hero of science? (1)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26682133)

Unless you're more keen on the details than I am, I would be willing to give the benifit of the doubt that publishing one's work was, and to whatever degree, still remains, an opportunity of circumstance. Maybe there was a reason he didn't publishing unrelated to his desire to do so.

Re:Unsung hero of science? (1)

FiloEleven (602040) | more than 5 years ago | (#26689881)

Unless you're more keen on the details than I am, I would be willing to give the benifit of the doubt that publishing one's work was, and to whatever degree, still remains, an opportunity of circumstance. Maybe there was a reason he didn't publishing unrelated to his desire to do so.

Lots of things are opportunities of circumstance, and that is often how heroes are made. You don't hear about the fireman who arrived two minutes too late to leap into the flames and pull the baby out unharmed, you hear about his buddy in Company C whose station was closer and got there first. Both men had the same capabilities and the same desire, but one had the opportunity of circumstance while the other was a victim of it. The act itself is what matters, and I fully agree with Compholio that while the findings are interesting, he should not be considered a hero.

There are those who are overly concerned with dates and figures who will make sure to label Thomas Harriot with the distinguished title of "First to use Optickal Aide to Chart the Moon," and there is no harm in it (though it is likely untrue; it would not surprise me if much older civilizations had moon maps whose detail matches his or Galileo's), but history books will only make a slight change to their sections about Galileo as Harriot is not otherwise noteworthy.

Re:Unsung hero of science? (2, Informative)

bornwaysouth (1138751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26679833)

Harriot was a well funded professional. However, his funds came from patrons who were politically tainted (if trying to kill your king deserves such an unharsh word.) So I agree that he may have had good reason to keep a low profile for a short while, and by then moon-maps were two a penny. Possibly an accurate term as a penny was worth something back then.

But is someone who published little and apparently avoided risk deserving of the term 'hero'

I really have no idea why he was so well funded over so many years by people who were in and out of power. I suspect he was essentially what would today be a civil servant, a senior scientific officer. ( Whatever the appropriate British term is.) On that basis, he would remain a background figure, much like the mathematician who invented the RSA algorithm before R, S & A did.

The minor bit of irony is that apparently he has a moon crater named after him, but it is on the we-don't-see-it side. (The Larson or Far Side of the moon.) And to cap it off, Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] makes no reference to Thomas Harriot at all. Truly one of the grey suits of British science.

Re:Unsung hero of science? (1)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 5 years ago | (#26680211)

And to cap it off, Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] makes no reference to Thomas Harriot at all. Truly one of the grey suits of British science.

Then What's this [wikipedia.org]? Apparently he did a whole bunch of other cool things as well.

Re:Unsung hero of science? (1)

bornwaysouth (1138751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26680603)

Yep, I bungled how I phrased that. I had read that article, and it does cover Harriot quite well. What I meant to say (since the discussion is on Harriot, moon-maps and anonymity) is that the Wikipedia article on the Harriot crater ironically makes no mention of Harriot at all.

Harriot seems to have been an 'eminence grise', a background figure. There is a college named after him, but it is in East Carolina. England does not regard him so well. He is not 'Sir Thomas' whereas Newton is Sir Issac Newton and Faraday was offered but rejected a knighthood. Harriot's continuing lack of recognition seems to be a matter of regret in the original article.

Re:Unsung hero of science? (1)

renoX (11677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26686915)

>if trying to kill your king deserves such an unharsh word

Given that a (ruling) kind is just a dictator with the support of the religion, I don't see why trying to kill a king would necessarily deserve any harsh word..

Re:Unsung hero of science? (1)

againjj (1132651) | more than 5 years ago | (#26701295)

And to cap it off, Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] makes no reference to Thomas Harriot at all.

To the right is "Crater characteristics", which has an item "Eponym", listing Thomas Harriot.

Re:Unsung hero of science? (3, Insightful)

Onymous Coward (97719) | more than 5 years ago | (#26679475)

Dogma.

If a person makes private discoveries that are later uncovered, it's still valuable.

If heroism requires personal risk, there are plenty other ways an investigator could endanger themselves in the pursuit of knowledge.

All that said, Harriot is still probably not a hero.

Re:Unsung hero of science? (1)

renoX (11677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26686825)

Valuable?

If you do a discovery but do not make it public and then it's rediscovered by other (a very common occurence), what's the value of the original discovery?

Except for bragging rights, not much..

Re:Unsung hero of science? (3, Funny)

bobdotorg (598873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26679839)

Despite his innovative work, Harriot remains relatively unknown. Unlike Galileo, he did not publish his drawings.

"Thomas Harriot is an unsung hero of science," Chapman said.

Not a chance, Harriot cannot be a hero of science since he did not publish his work. If you don't actually take the risk of publishing and try to contribute your knowledge to the world then you are not a hero of science.

Hmm. So that makes Harriot a Guitar Hero of science?

Re:Unsung hero of science? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26680677)

Harriot cannot be a hero of science since he did not publish his work.

Because of course the rules as they are now have always been there.

Re:Unsung hero of science? (1)

the donner party (1000036) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684737)

It's because science cannot advance if you don't tell enough people about your findings. Publishing is not just a way to get an ego boost, it's how future researchers are able to improve on your work.

Re:Unsung hero of science? (1)

TimSSG (1068536) | more than 5 years ago | (#26682157)

"Thomas Harriot is an unsung hero of science," Chapman said.

I do not agree with him being an unsung hero; but, maybe he was one of the first Lunatics? Tim S

Re:Unsung hero of science? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26682201)

But you can be an "unsung hero of science"

July 1609 (3, Interesting)

Psion (2244) | more than 5 years ago | (#26679601)

July 1609 ... and three hundred and sixty years later, humans walked on its surface.

Re:July 1609 (1)

Yacoby (1295064) | more than 5 years ago | (#26680313)

July 1609 ... and three hundred and sixty years later, humans walked on its surface.

Everything comes full circle in the end

Christ I'm sick of this shit. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26679825)

Drooling Nationalists hoping to feel better about themselves by convincing the rest of the world that some guy who once lived in the same area of the Earth's surface that they do was "first".

uh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26679935)

wait what? the moon is *NOT* flat? WoW

first maps "of the whole moon"? orly? (2, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26680039)

Harriot went on to produce more maps from 1610 to 1613, ... By 1613 he had created two maps of the whole moon, with many identifiable features such as lunar craters that crucially are depicted in their correct relative positions.

Last I checked, the moon is tidally locked [wikipedia.org] with the earth, meaning its orbit about equals its rotation and so we always see the same hemisphere of the moon, even from other places on the earth.

So if this guy made the first map of the "whole moon" he must have also invented space travel or received a drawing from Mars. I'm sure what they meant to say was "full map of the moon as visible from earth", but lets keep the detail level reasonable.

The far side of the Moon was not seen in its entirety until 1959, when photographs were transmitted from the Soviet spacecraft Luna 3.

ya, that.

Re:first maps "of the whole moon"? orly? (2, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26680695)

When you've finished being a total cock, perhaps you could apply some common sense as to what they meant by "the whole moon" in the context of the knowledge available at the time.

Odd... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26680143)

Does the sky not bend the light as we look towards the heavens? Is the atmosphere not a lens, a UV lens at that? So who was really the first? Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks? Well, by the way we were able to travel the globe by use of star charts, I would say the use of celestial objects in diagrams has been going on since ancient times, perhaps before the dawn of history. Maybe I'm wrong, but then the sun, the moon and stars are very bright and semi-predictable. Maybe we should think about the Egyptian pyramids. Do they not represent Orion? While the sky isn't technically a telescopic lens, it is a lens, and thus acts to magnify the interest of the many civilizations through out the our long history. Just remember, the telescope just gave us all a closer look at things we had already known to exist.

Moon seems to have rotated in the past 400 years? (4, Interesting)

TropicalCoder (898500) | more than 5 years ago | (#26680195)

If you compare the lower sketch with an image of today's full moon, it seems it has rotated clockwise about 30 degrees since the sketch was made by Thomas Harriot. Compare the sketch with this moon map [penpal.ru] (scroll down, mouse-over) and locate Mare Crisium on both - a crater on the extreme right at between 2 and 3 o'clock on the map, but between 3 and 4 o'clock on the sketch. A more dramatic difference can be seen if you imagine a humanoid figure created by Mare Serenitatis as the head, Mare Traquillitatis as the thorax, Mare Nectaris as the left leg, and Mare Fecunditatis as the right leg. In the sketch, the impression of an armless figure is stronger. Comparing this figurene in the sketch with same on today's moon shows the "rotation" far more dramatically. When I compared the sketch to some other images of the modern moon I got the impression of a rotation approaching 60 degrees. I don't think we can attribute this apparent descrepancy to the optics, which I can't imagine would be able to rotate an image like that. We could easily imagine an error in sketching which may be accounted by his notebook being somewhat askew at the time he made the sketch. The last possibility is that perhaps the moon has shifted a bit in the past 400 years?

Re:Moon seems to have rotated in the past 400 year (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26681069)

kinda like Who moved my cheese?

Re:Moon seems to have rotated in the past 400 year (1)

xPsi (851544) | more than 5 years ago | (#26681247)

The paper rotation idea is interesting, but before assuming the moon itself rotated with respect to the earth, wouldn't it just be easier to assume he sketched it at a different time of night at, at a different latitude, and/or different season then used "towards the ground as I'm looking at it" as down in the sketch? The moon's apparent orientation wrt one's line of sight on earth depends on all those things. Perhaps knowing where he sketched it and at what time of year, one could then figure out what time of night he did his work.

Re:Moon seems to have rotated in the past 400 year (1)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 5 years ago | (#26681271)

I can barely see a difference. If there is a shift, it's around 7-12 degrees, and either way it can be explained best by a slanted notepad, not a slanted moon.

Looking at a different angle (2, Insightful)

sarahbau (692647) | more than 5 years ago | (#26681341)

Isn't it possible that the observers were just looking at it from different angles? Imagine the moon is directly overhead, and you aim a camera (or telescope) at it. What is the "top" of the moon? You could rotate the camera to any angle to make any part of the moon you wanted to be on the top of the photograph.

The moon of course isn't directly overhead most of the time, so the angle someone is observing it from could depend on the time of night, where they are on earth, etc.

Re:Moon seems to have rotated in the past 400 year (1)

ofcourseyouare (965770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26683827)

When you look at the moon from New Zealand, it appears to be "upside down" compared with how it looks in the UK. I assume therefore that the moon is "a different way up" depending on where on earth you look at it from, which would make sense. The moon map you link to is presumably as seen from Russia (it's a .ru site), Harriot was I assume in the UK. This might account for the difference you mention?

However, no doubt some astronomically-aware /.er can enlighten us?

Re:Moon seems to have rotated in the past 400 year (1)

rlseaman (1420667) | more than 5 years ago | (#26685107)

Two points:

1) Astronomical telescopes are designed with the fewest possible optical elements since each surface degrades the image. Such simple telescopes invert the image, http://www.grantvillegazette.com/articles/Seeing_the_Heavens [grantvillegazette.com]. Astronomers these days will often scribble arrows on the glass of their monitors to indicate which way is North and which way is East. Some cameras even flip the images backwards, not just upside-down.

2) The Moon's orbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon [wikipedia.org]) is inclined with respect to the Earth's equator. As a result, the illumination of the terminator shifts through a large angle depending on the Moon's declination above or below the equator. Similarly, libration allows observers on Earth to see a few degrees beyond the poles or limb of the Moon.

Mooning Terminator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26680581)

This does seem to be an accurate depiction of the "Moon". Upon further reading I discovered that the sketch was of the Terminator. Skynet must have had no choice but to hunt down Sarah Connor's ancestors in the 17th Century. This armless depiction seems quite feasible considering numerous Terminator run-ins with industrial machinery.

Half moon (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 5 years ago | (#26681631)

These old guys didn't draw the whole moon. The rear of the moon wasn't observed till the 2nd half of the 20th century.

the power of inference (1)

rlseaman (1420667) | more than 5 years ago | (#26684947)

For 400 years, surely the Moon is one of the first things everybody with a telescope has pointed it at. The difference between Galileo and those before and since is the high quality of the inferences he made from the very limited glimpses he had of the sky. Harriot will remain a footnote because the race to draw the first map is secondary to its scientific interpretation.

At the other end of the human spectrum, many people don't even realize the Moon is visible during the daytime. Their world view simply equates the daylight hours with the Sun and the nighttime hours with the Moon. Even if they do happen to notice the Moon high in the sky before sunset, not a single neuron clicks. A lot of astronomy is possible even without a telescope, cf. Tycho, whose name now graces a most beautiful crater, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/clm_usgs_14.html [nasa.gov].

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...