

The most iconic scientific images - rpsubhub
http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of-the-most-important-iconic-and-or-beautiful-scientific-images

======
icefox
The Nautilus Shell does NOT have a Fibonacci Spiral.

<http://www.shallowsky.com/blog/science/fibonautilus.html>

------
monk_the_dog
Engineering and science are not the same thing. The astronaut's footprint,
earthrise, and atomic bomb are all examples of feats of engineering, not
science.

~~~
mtinkerhess
What a photograph represents (beyond the literal scene depicted) is
subjective. To you, these photographs symbolize the engineering task
accomplished; to others, they symbolize the science that underlies the
engineering, or the broader thirst for knowledge that motivates scientific
discovery.

~~~
monk_the_dog
Fair enough. Maybe Henry Petroski instilled a little too much engineering
pride in me: [http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/engineering-
is...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/engineering-is-not-
science)

Sorry if I was being a pedantic jerk.

BTW, I have these two images hanging in my office. Both are scientists
discussing science. Love them.

<http://ysfine.com/maga/feydirac.jpg>

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Niels_Boh...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Niels_Bohr_Albert_Einstein2_by_Ehrenfest.jpg)

------
makmanalp
In images like the pale blue dot image, how does one go about taking a
photograph of the earth itself and the area it's in? Is it just an artist's
representation? It could be a satellite image but it seems to far in this case
(I don't think we've ever had a craft leave the solar system). There are also
images of the milky way, which we're inside of, and that doesn't quite make
sense to me either.

~~~
RK
The Pale Blue Dot is a photograph of planet Earth taken in 1990 by Voyager 1
from 6.1 billion km away at the request of Carl Sagan.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot>

