query: What are sunspots?

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: planetary movement, how far we can rely on our senses in making judgements about the world, and how we make intelligent use of evidence. It drew together all his findings and recapitulated arguments made in earlier years on specific topics. For this reason, there is no 'section on sunspots' in the "Dialogue". Rather, they are referred to at various points in arguments about other topics. In the "Dialogue", that sunspots are on the surface of the sun and not planets was taken as established fact. The discussion concerned what inferences could be drawn about the universe from their rotation. Galileo

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: World Systems in 1632 to demonstrate that the earth tilted on its axis as it orbited the sun. In his work "Phaenomenon singulare" (1609) Kepler had described what he took to be the transit of Mercury, observed on 29 May 1607. However, after Michael Maestlin pointed out Galileo's work to him, he corrected himself in 1617 in his "Ephemerides", recognising long after the event that what he had seen was sunspots. Welser sent Kepler a copy of Scheiner's first three Apelles letters, and Kepler replied before Galileo, arguing, like him, that Sunspots must be on the surface of the sun

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: of both. He concluded that sunspots are definitely on or near the sun, and not a phenomenon of the earth's atmosphere; that it is only thanks to the telescope that they can be studied, but that they are not a new phenomenon; and that whether they are on the surface of the sun or move around it is a question to which there is no reliable answer. The French churchman Jean Tarde visited Rome in 1615, and he also met Galileo in Florence and discussed sunspots with him, as well as Galileo's other work. He did not agree with Galileo's

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: view that the sunspots were on or near the surface of the sun, and held rather that they were small planets. On his return to France in 1615 he built an observatory at La Roque-Gageac where he studied sunspots further. In 1620 he published "Borbonia Sidera", dedicated to Louis XIII, in which he declared the spots to be the 'Bourbon planets'. The Belgian Jesuit Charles Malapert agreed with Tarde that the apparent sunspots were in fact planets. His book, published in 1633, was dedicated to Philip IV of Spain and christened them 'Austrian stars' in honour of the house of

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: publish views on the ideas in Galileo's "Letters on Sunspots". Most scholars with an interest in the topic divided into those who supported Scheiner's view that sunspots were planets or other bodies above the surface of the sun, or Galileo's that they were on or very near its surface. From the middle of the seventeenth century the debate about whether Scheiner or Galileo was right died down, partly because the number of sunspots was drastically reduced for several decades in the Maunder Minimum, making observation harder. After the Paris Observatory was built in 1667, Jean-Dominique Cassini instituted a programme of

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: was based on three observable celestial movements, and was accordingly preferable. Athanasius Kircher succeeded Scheiner in the Chair of Mathematics at the Collegio Romano. In "Mundus Subterraneus" (1664), he rejected the views of both Scheiner and Galileo, reviving an earlier idea of Kepler's and arguing that sunspots were in fact smoke emanating from fires on the surface of the sun, and that the surface of the sun was therefore indeed perfect as the Aristotelians believed, although apparently disfigured by blemishes. Sunspots, he argued, just like the planets in astrology, had a profound influence on the earth. In "Il Saggiatore" ("The

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: Habsburg. Pierre Gassendi made his own observations of sunspots between 1618 and 1638. He agreed with Galileo that the spots were on the surface of the sun, not satellites orbiting it. Like Galileo, he used observation of the spots to estimate the speed of the sun's rotation, which he gave as 25–26 days. Most of his observations were not published however and his notes were not kept systematically. He did however discuss his findings with Descartes. Rene Descartes was interested in sunspots and his correspondence shows that he was actively gathering information about them when he was working on "Le

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: contention that some take 16, and others 9. Having disproved Apelles' arguments on sunspots, Galileo addresses a number of his other errors. He briefly responds to Apelles' views on extraterrestrial life; then disposes of the idea that the moon is translucent. He then returns to Apelles' analogy between sunspots and the moons of Jupiter, where he notes that Apelles has subtly moved from arguing that sunspots are like planets, to arguing that planets are like sunspots. 'Carried away by the desire to maintain what he had originally said, and unable to accommodate the spots exactly to the properties once associated

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: of the world in His sight'. If spots are found in the suns of the just, do you think they will be found in the moons of the unjust?' The second sermon against sunspots was on 8 December 1615, when the "Letters on Sunspots" had already been referred to the Inquisition for review. The sermon was delivered in Florence cathedral on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. 'an ingenious academic took for his device a mirror in the face of the sun with the motto 'it shows what is received'. That means he had carved in his spirit I do

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: time was that the heavens beyond the moon were both perfect and unchanging. Many of the arguments between Scheiner and Galileo were about things observed in the skies that appeared to be changing, and what the nature and significance of that change was. Although the behaviour of sunspots was the main topic of their debate, they also touched on other disputes, such as the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter. In a letter to Federico Cesi, Galileo said: 'I have finally concluded, and I believe I can demonstrate necessarily, that they [i.e. the sunspots] are contiguous to the

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: sunspots is found, by Theophrastus. There were reports from Islamic and European astronomers of sunspots in the early ninth century; those occurring in 1129 were recorded by both Averroes and John of Worcester, whose drawings of the phenomenon are the earliest surviving today. Johannes Kepler observed a sunspot in 1607 but, like some earlier observers, believed he was watching the transit of Mercury. The sunspot activity of December 1610 was the first to be observed using the newly invented telescope, by Thomas Harriot, who sketched what he saw but did not publish it. In 1611 Johannes Fabricius saw them, and

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: meant that when Galileo published "Il Saggiatore" in 1623, which accused Scheiner of plagiarism, Scheiner was unaware of this until he happened to visit Rome the following year. Most readers of the time did not have a telescope, so could not see sunspots for themselves - they relied on descriptions and illustrations to make clear what they looked like. For this reason the quality and number of illustrations was essential in building public understanding. Scheiner's book of letters had contained illustrations of sunspots which were mostly 2.5 cm in diameter, leaving little space for detail and portraying sunspots as solid,

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: did not argue that the existence of sunspots conclusively proved that the Copernican model was correct and the Aristotelian model wrong; he explained how the rotation of sunspots could be explained in both models, but that the Aristotelian explanation was much more complicated and suppositional. Day 1 The discussion opens with Salviati arguing that two key Aristotelian arguments are incompatible; either the heavens are perfect and unchanging, or that the evidence of the senses is preferable to argument and reasoning; either we should rely on the evidence of our senses when they tell us changes (such as sunspots) take place,

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: he was describing Averroes's observations. Only with the invention of the telescope was it possible for sunspots to be systematically observed. Many who had never seen them found the idea of them morally and philosophically repugnant. Those who could see them, like Scheiner, wanted to find an explanation for them within the Aristotelian system. Galileo's arguments in "Letters on Sunspots" were intended to demonstrate these claims as false; and if they were false, Aristotelian assumptions about the universe could not be true. Galileo had discovered the moons of Jupiter in 1609. Scheiner argued that what appeared to be spots on

title: Sunspots (economics)

text: Sunspots (economics) In economics, the term sunspots (or sometimes "a sunspot") usually refers to an "extrinsic" random variable, that is, a random variable that does not affect economic fundamentals (such as endowments, preferences, or technology). "Sunspots" can also refer to the related concept of extrinsic uncertainty, that is, economic uncertainty that does not come from variation in economic fundamentals. David Cass and Karl Shell coined the term "sunspots" as a suggestive and less technical way of saying "extrinsic random variable". The idea that arbitrary changes in expectations might influence the economy, even if they bear no relation to fundamentals, is

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: Monde". He was aware of Scheiner's "Rosa Ursine" published in 1630, which conceded Galileo's point that sunspots are actually on the face of the sun. Whether he knew of Galileo's ideas primarily through Scheiner or whether he read "Letters on Sunspots" directly is not known, but in his Principles of Philosophy (1644) he refers to ‘spots which appear on the sun's surface also revolve around it in planes inclined to that of the ecliptic’, which appears to indicate at least a knowledge of Galileo's argument. Descartes used sunspots as an illustration of his Vortex Theory. In his 1651 work "Almagestum

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: of the Inquisition, the Congregation of the Index placed Copernicus' "De Revolutionibus" on the Index. "Letters on Sunspots" was however not banned or required to undergo corrections. This meant that while Catholic scholars could no longer discuss heliocentrism, they could discuss the nature and origin of sunspots freely. In 1611, before the "Letters on Sunspots" appeared, Francesco Sizzi had published "Dianoia Astronomica", attacking the ideas of Galileo's earlier work, "Siderius Nuncius". In 1612 he went to Paris and devoted himself to the study of sunspots. In 1613 he wrote to Galileo's friend Orazio Morandi, confirming that his circle of colleagues

title: Sunspots (economics)

text: from various types of extrinsic uncertainty. The sunspot equilibrium framework supplies a basis for rational expectations modeling of excess volatility (volatility resulting from sources other than randomness in the economic fundamentals). Proper sunspot equilibria can exist in a number of economic situations, including asymmetric information, externalities in consumption or production, imperfect competition, incomplete markets, and restrictions on market participation. Sunspots (economics) In economics, the term sunspots (or sometimes "a sunspot") usually refers to an "extrinsic" random variable, that is, a random variable that does not affect economic fundamentals (such as endowments, preferences, or technology). "Sunspots" can also refer to the

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: of the Dialogue. Letters on Sunspots " Letters on Sunspots " ("Istoria e Dimostrazioni intorno alle Macchie Solari") was a pamphlet written by Galileo Galilei in 1612 and published in Rome by the Accademia dei Lincei in 1613. "The Letters on Sunspots", was a continuation of "Sidereus Nunicus," Galileo's first work where he publicly declared that he believed that the Copernican system was correct. This was the first work where Galileo used a ship, which would later become famous in "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" ("Dialogo sopra i due Massimi Sistemi del Mondo")"." Galileo often mentions how does

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: in France agreed with Galileo that sunspots were not freshly generated with each revolution of the sun, but could be observed passing round it several times. Furthermore, Sizzi drew to Galileo's attention something he had not yet noticed - that the inclination of the path travelled by sunspots varied with the seasons. Thus in one part of the year the sunspots appeared to be travelling upwards across the face of the sun; in another part of the year they appeared to be travelling downward. Galileo was to adopt this observation and deploy it in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: systematic observations, but he and his colleagues could find little pattern in the appearance of sunspots after many years of observation. However Cassini's observation did bear out Galileo's argument that sunspots indicated that the sun was rotating, and Cassini did discover the rotation of Mars and Jupiter, which supported Galileo's contention that both the earth and the sun rotated. As Cesi had feared, the hostile tone of the "Letters on Sunspots" towards Scheiner helped turn the Jesuits against Galileo. In 1619, Mario Guiducci published "A Discourse on Comets", which was actually mostly written by Galileo, and which included an attack

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: co-wrote with Mario Guiducci, "Discourse on Comets", mocked Scheiner for the 'badly colours and poorly-drawn images' in his work on Sunspots. In modern science falsifiability is generally considered important. In "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" Copernicus had published both a theoretical description of the universe and a set of tables and calculating methods for working out the future positions of the planets. In "Letters on Sunspots" Galileo did as Copernicus had done - he elaborated his ideas on the form and substance of sunspots, and accompanied this with tables of predictions for the position of the moons of Jupiter. In part

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: not planets but a much more transient and nebulous phenomenon, he needed illustrations which were larger, more detailed, more nuanced, and more 'natural.' "Letters on Sunspots" carried 38 engravings of sunspots, providing a visual narrative of the sun's appearance from 2 June – 8 July 1612, with some additional illustrations from August. This extensive visual representation, with its large scale and high-quality reproduction, allowed readers to see for themselves how sunspots waxed and waned as the sun rotated. The impact of this series of illustrations was to create a near-photographic sense of reality. This sense undermined the claims made by

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: the sun were in fact clusters of small moons, thereby trying to deploy one of Galileo's own discoveries as an argument for the Aristotelian model. In his "Letters on Sunspots" Galileo showed how sunspots were nothing like the moons of Jupiter, and the comparison was false. Scheiner claimed that the sunspots, with their irregular movements, were like the moons of Jupiter whose positions were similarly hard to predict. To counter this argument, Galileo published tables of predictions for the future position of the moons of Jupiter, so that astronomers could easily distinguish between the regular, predictable movements they followed with

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: faith. With these amendments Galileo was authorised to take his book to print. Half of the printed edition of 1400 copies of "Letters on Sunspots" contained both the Apelles Letters and Scheiner's illustrations as well as Galileo's replies. The other half contained Galileo's work only. The total cost of the book was 258.70 scudi, of which 44 scudi was the cost of the illustrations and tables and 6 scudi was the cost of engraving the frontespiece. Galileo describes how he has observed sunspots for eighteen months. His key conclusions was that sunspots were real and not merely optical illusions; and

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: Letters on Sunspots " Letters on Sunspots " ("Istoria e Dimostrazioni intorno alle Macchie Solari") was a pamphlet written by Galileo Galilei in 1612 and published in Rome by the Accademia dei Lincei in 1613. "The Letters on Sunspots", was a continuation of "Sidereus Nunicus," Galileo's first work where he publicly declared that he believed that the Copernican system was correct. This was the first work where Galileo used a ship, which would later become famous in "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" ("Dialogo sopra i due Massimi Sistemi del Mondo")"." Galileo often mentions how does not know or

title: Sunspots (economics)

text: Cass and Shell's 1983 paper defined the term sunspot in the context of general equilibrium, their use of the term sunspot (a term originally used in astronomy) alludes to the earlier econometric work of William Stanley Jevons, who explored the correlation between the degree of sunspot activity and the price of corn. In Jevons' work, uncertainty about sunspots could be considered intrinsic, for example, if sunspots have some demonstrable effect on agricultural productivity, or some other relevant variable. In modern economics, the term does not indicate any relationship with solar phenomena, and is instead used to describe random variables that

title: Sunspots (economics)

text: controversial but has been widespread in many areas of economics. For example, in the words of Arthur C. Pigou, 'Sunspots' have been included in economic models as a way of capturing these 'extrinsic' fluctuations, in fields like asset pricing, financial crises, business cycles, economic growth, and monetary policy. Experimental economics researchers have demonstrated how sunspots could affect economic activity. The name is a whimsical reference to 19th-century economist William Stanley Jevons, who attempted to correlate business cycle patterns with sunspot counts (on the actual sun) on the grounds that they might cause variations in weather and thus agricultural output. Subsequent

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: Assayer") (1623) Galileo was mostly concerned with faults in Orazio Grassi's arguments about comets, but in the introductory section he wrote : 'How many men attacked my Letters on Sunspots, and under what disguises! The material contained therein ought to have opened to the minds eye much room for admirable speculation; instead it met with scorn and derision. Many people disbelieved it or failed to appreciate it. Others, not wanting to agree with my ideas, advanced ridiculous and impossible opinions against me; and some, overwhelmed and convinced by my arguments, attempted to rob me of that glory which was mine,

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: in 1633, and indeed that Scheiner may have worked behind the scenes to bring the trial about. As a result of pursuing this dispute with Galileo and the years of research it entailed, Scheiner eventually became the world's leading expert on sunspots. Together with Niccolò Lorini and Tommaso Caccini, delle Colombe was one of three Florentine Dominicans who opposed Galileo. Along with Raffaelo's brother Lodovico delle Colombe they formed what Galileo called the 'Pigeon League'. Caccini and delle Colombe both used the pulpit to preach against Galileo and the ideas of Copernicus, but only delle Colombe is known to have

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: into Latin so he could read them. This was not the first time Galileo had published in Italian, and Galileo was not the first natural philosopher to publish in Italian (for example Lodovico delle Colombe's account of the 1604 supernova was in Italian, as was Galileo's reply). However "Letters on Sunspots" was the first book the Accademia dei Lincei published in Italian. Galileo later said of his preference for Italian over Latin: 'I wrote in Italian because I wished everyone to be able to read what I wrote... I see young men... who, although furnished... with a decent set of

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: Novum", Giovanni Battista Riccioli set out 126 arguments against the Copernican model of the universe. In his 43rd argument, Riccioli considered the points Galileo had made in his "Letters on Sunspots", and asserted that a heliocentric (Copernican) explanation of the phenomenon was more speculative, while a geocentric model allowed for a more parsimonious explanation and was thus more satisfactory (ref: Occam's Razor). As Riccioli explained it, whether the sun went round the earth or the earth round the sun, three movements were necessary to explain the movement of sunspots. If the earth moves around the sun, the necessary movements were

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: and not satellites. Kepler reached this conclusion only by studying the evidence Scheiner's had provided, without making any direct observations of his own. Kepler did not however engage with the claims of Galileo in "Letters on Sunspots" or have further involvement in public discussion on the question. In his treatise on the comet of 1618, "Astronomischer Discurs von dem Cometen, so in Anno 1618", Michael Maestlin made reference to the work of Fabricius and cited sunspots as evidence of the mutability of the heavens. He made no reference to the work of either Scheiner or Galileo, although he was aware

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: without spot, from where Jesus is born.' On 25 November 1615, the Inquisition decided to investigate the "Letters on Sunspots" because it had been mentioned by Tommaso Caccini and Gianozzo Attavanti in their complaint about Galileo. Copies of the text were issued to the Inquisition's theological experts on 19 February 1616. On the morning of 23 February they met and agreed two propositions to be censured (that the sun is the centre of the world, and that the earth is not the centre of the world, but moves). Neither proposition is contained in "Letters on Sunspots". Shortly after the decision

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: realistic as possible. Galileo drew sunspots by projecting an image of the sun through his helioscope onto a large piece of white paper, on which he had already used a compass to draw a circle. He then sketched the sunspots in as they appeared projected onto his sheet. To make his illustrations as realistic as possible, Greuter reproduced them at full size, even with the mark of the compass point from Galileo's original. Greuter worked from Galileo's original drawings, with the verso on the copperplate and the image traced through and etched. The cost of the thirty-eight copperplates was significant,

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: dark entities. Scheiner himself had described them as 'not terribly exact' and 'drawn without precise measurement'. He also indicated that his drawings were not to scale, and the spots in his illustration had been drawn disproportionately large 'so that they would be more conspicuous.'A reader looking at these illustrations might be inclined to agree with Scheiner's view that sunspots were probably planets. Since the sunspots were consistently changing positions, Scheiner wanted to present this in his drawings. To do this, he had one page dedicated to observations. This page appeared as a fold out plate with over six weeks of

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: that they were not static, but they moved. The sunspots had one single motion: they moved across the Sun in a uniform fashion. Galileo argued that the sun was a perfect sphere and that it moves by itself on its own center. The sun carries these spots until they disappear in about one lunar month. Scheiner's view that the spots were satellites prompts Galileo to comment on the phases of Venus and how they supported a heliocentric view. He develops his argument to show that sunspots were not permanent and did not have a regular pattern of movement as they

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: aggressive or polemical tone in his letters, to avoid antagonising the Jesuits (Scheiner's identity behind the pseudonym 'Apelles' was already suspected), but having read Scheiner's apparent accusations of bad faith in his later letters, Galileo did not heed his advice. Indeed, the published version of his "Letters on Sunspots" contained a preface by Angelo de Filiis which uncompromisingly asserted Galileo's primacy in discovering sunspots. The text was presented for censorship to the Roman Inquisition in order to obtain permission to print. The censors assigned were Cesare Fidelis, Luigi Ystella, Tommaso Pallavicini and Antonio Bucci. Ensuring the book was ready to

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: published a pamphlet entitled " De Maculis in Sole Observatis", which Galileo was not aware of before he wrote the "Letters on Sunspots." When Jesuit Christoph Scheiner first observed sunspots in March 1611, he ignored them until he saw them again in October. When he saw them again, he attributed the sightings to either a defect in the eye, problems with the lens of the telescope, or a possible disturbance in the atmosphere, but he rejected all three hypotheses. He rejected the hypothesis that he had a defect in his eye because others also observed the spots. He used eight

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: are offered as jokes, they are nice and pleasing... but if someone, perhaps because he had consumed all his studies in a similar style of painting, then wanted to draw the general conclusion that every other method of imitating was imperfect and blameworthy, surely Cigoli and other celebrated painters would laugh at him.' Galileo takes up once again the question of whether there is any relation between the transit of Venus and sunspots. He criticises 'Apelles' for setting out a long and complex demonstration of the movement of Venus across the face of the Sun, when it was superfluous to

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: preached, on two separate occasions, against Galileo's ideas about sunspots. The first occasion was 26 February 1613, when his sermon concluded with these words: 'That ingenious Florentine mathematician of ours [i.e. Galileo] laughs at the ancients who made the sun the most clear and clean of even the smallest spot, whence they formed the proverb 'to seek a spot on the sun.' But he, with the instrument called by him a telescope makes visible that it has regular spots, as by observation of days and months he had demonstrated. But this more truly God does, because 'the heavens are not

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: observations. All of his figures are small. except for the observations in the top left corner. Since his drawings were not drawn to scale, he admitted that it a shortcoming, possibly due to inconsistent weather, lack of time, or impediments. However, these small figures could have been confused as satilites orbiting the sun. Scheiner also showed the formation of spots in different orientations. Sometimes the configurations of the spots were linear following consecutive days, but the orientations became more complex over time that there was a lack of an obvious pattern. For Galileo to persuade his readers that sunspots were

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: Apelles is simply wrong, and it is not possible for one spot to traverse the sun in sixteen days, while another takes only fourteen. Now Galileo turns to Apelles' illustrations of sunspots, and begins to use them to show how his arguments about sunspot motion are false. He and recalls how Apelles depicts them coming into view, foreshortened, before appearing at their full width. He then demonstrates that for the spots Apelles had observed to change in apparent size as they did, they would need to be on the face of the Sun, because if they were even a short

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: his purpose. He criticises him further for giving an estimate of Venus's size as it crosses the Sun which is wrong, and for supporting this estimate with learned authorities from the past who did not have telescopes. Furthermore, Galileo argues, some of the ancient astronomers, including Ptolemy, made more cogent arguments than 'Apelles' suggests. Galileo notes that 'Apelles' has shifted his view on sunspots since his first letter. At first he insisted they were all spherical, like little moons; now he says they are irregular in shape, forming and dissolving. He previously said that the spots were at various distances

title: What Are Records?

text: What Are Records? What Are Records? (or W.A.R.?) is an independent record label located in Boulder, Colorado. Founded in New York City in 1991 by owner Rob Gordon, former director of A&R at EMI, the company moved to Boulder in 1994. W.A.R.? has released over 100 records by Frank Black (of the Pixies), Bill Burr, Stephen Lynch, The Samples, Maceo Parker, Melissa Ferrick, and Whitest Kids U' Know. What Are Records? was founded in Gordon’s New York City loft in 1991. From the beginning, it fostered a direct-to-stores and direct-to-consumers distribution strategy Friend of Gordon and The Samples then-manager, Ted

title: We Are What We Are (2010 film)

text: We Are What We Are (2010 film) We Are What We Are () is a 2010 Mexican horror film directed by Jorge Michel Grau. The movie is about a family who, after the death of the father, try to continue on with a disturbing, ritualistic tradition. The film stars Paulina Gaitán and Daniel Giménez Cacho. In the opening scene, Dad dies on the sidewalk at a local shopping mall. At home, his family is wondering what has become of him. Dad is a watchmaker who repairs watches at the local street market, and the family's sole means of support. As

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: or we should not. Holding both positions is not tenable. Day 2: Salviati argues that sunspots prove the rotation of the sun on its axis. Aristotelians had previously held that it was impossible for a heavenly body to have more than one natural motion. Aristotelians must therefore choose between their determination that only one natural movement is possible (in which case the sun is static, as Copernicus argued); or they must explain how a second natural motion occurs if they wish to maintain that the sun makes a daily orbit of the earth. This argument is resumed on Day 3

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: pretending not to have seen my writings and trying to represent themselves as the original discoverers of these impressive marvels.' Christoph Scheiner took this to be an attack on him. He therefore used "Rosa Ursina" to mount a bitter riposte to Galileo, although he also conceded Galileo's main point, that sunspots exist on the Sun's surface or just above it, and thus that the Sun is not flawless. In 1632 Galileo published "Dialogo sopra i due Massimi Sistemi del Mondo" ("Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems"), a fictitious four day-long discussion about natural philosophy between the characters Salviati (who

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: the annual motion of the earth, the diurnal motion of the earth, and the rotation of the sun. However, if the sun moved around the earth, this accounted for the same movement as both the annual and diurnal motions in the Copernican model. In addition, the annual gyration of the sun at its poles, and the rotation of the sun had to be added to completely account for the movement of sunspots. While both models required three movements, the heliocentric model required the earth to make two movements (annual and diurnal) which could not be demonstrated, while the geocentric model

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: on Scheiner, although its focus was the work of another Jesuit, Orazio Grassi. In 1623, Galileo wrote "Il Saggiatore" ("The Assayer"), which accused Scheiner of trying to steal Galileo's ideas. In 1624, on a visit to Rome, Scheiner discovered that in "The Assayer", Galileo had accused him of plagiarism. Furious, he decided to stay in Rome and devote himself to proving his own expertise in sunspots. His major work on the topic was "Rosa Ursina" (1626–1630). It is widely believed, though there is no direct evidence, that the bitter dispute with Scheiner was a factor in bringing Galileo to trial

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: this was to demonstrate that Scheiner was wrong in comparing sunspots with the moons. More generally, Galileo was using his predictions to establish the validity of his ideas - if he could be demonstrably right about the complex movements of many small moons, his readers could take that as a token of his wider credibility. This approach was the opposite of the method of Aristotelian astronomers, who did not build theoretical models based on data, but looked for ways of explaining how the available data could be accommodated within existing theory. Some astronomers and philosophers, such as Kepler, did not

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: amounting to fully half of the production costs of the edition. Because half the copies of the "Letters" also contained the "Apelles" Letters, Greuter reproduced the illustrations that Alexander Mair had done for Scheiner's book, allowing Galileo's readers to compare two distinct views of the sunspots. He reduced Mair's drawings further in size, and converted nine of the twelve from etchings or engravings into woodcuts, which lacked the subtlety of Mair's originals. Scheiner was evidently impressed by Greuter's work, as he commissioned him to create the illustrations for his own magnum opus "Rosa Ursina" in 1626. The 1619 work Galileo

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: of Venus, which were an important question in the astronomy of the time. There were different schools of thought about whether Venus had phases at all - to the naked eye, none were visible. In 1610, using his telescope, Galileo had discovered in that Venus, like the moon, had a full set of phases, but only in "Letters on Sunspots" did he commit this finding to publication. The fact that there was a full phase of Venus, (similar to a full moon) when Venus was in the same direction in the sky as the Sun meant that at a certain

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: was not in permanent daylight, and the other in permanent darkness, as it completed its annual motion around the sun. This explanation was that the earth rotated on its own axis once every day. However it was very difficult to prove that the earth was rotating, so to show that the sun rotated made the Copernican model at least more plausible. While the rotation of the sun did not prove Copernicus right, it proved his opponents wrong and made his ideas more likely to be true. In the "Letters on Sunspots" Galileo responded to claims by Scheiner about the phases

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: the ephemeral and irregular sunspots. Showing that the sun rotated had two effects. Firstly, it showed that the traditional Aristotelian model of the universe must be wrong, because that model assumed that the sun had only a diurnal (daily) motion around the earth, and not a rotation on its own axis. Secondly, it showed that there was nothing necessarily unusual about rotation of a body in space. In the Aristotelian system, night and day were explained by the sun moving round a static earth. For Copernicus' system to work, there had to be an explanation for why half the earth

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: 807 A.D. there was a sunspot that was large, and it was seen for 8 days. The records in this period stated that Mercury caused this spot. Since Mercury is the closest planet to the sun, its location was unclear, and many argued that Mars could be anywhere. In earlier writings, Ptolemy discussions on sunspots referred to the transit movement of Mercury and Venus. in the twelfth century, Muslim philosopher Averroes's interpretation also discussed the transit of Mercury and Venus. In "De constitutione mundi", Giovanni described a similar phenomenon that his father saw, but it may have been possible that

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: shape, and never will. Now, he agrees, it has changed shape. He does not try to prove his earlier views right in spite of new facts, but makes cautious predictions about how its appearance may change in future. Galileo concludes his remarks by criticising those who doggedly adhere to Aristotle's views, and then, drawing together all he has said about sunspots, the moons of Jupiter, and Saturn, ends with the first explicit endorsement of Copernicus in his writings: "I think it is not the act of a true philosopher to persist - if I may say so - with such

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: two different sunspot trajectories at two different latitudes produce lines which maintain a constant proportion with each other at any point in the rotation. Next he shows that the larger the sphere on which sunspots appear, the less differential there is in their transit times at the same two latitudes. Finally, he shows that for a spot to move along the diameter of the Sun in a period 1⅐ as long as another spot at a latitude 30° higher, the diameter of the sun would need to be more than twice as great as observed. From this he concludes that

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: that they were. A large portion of the Third Letter is taken up with disproving Apelles' assertion that he had observed spots passing across the Sun at different speeds - one, on the diameter, taking sixteen days, and another, at a lower latitude, in just fourteen. (If sunspots moved at differential speeds, this tended to suggest they were moons moving independently of the Sun itself). Galileo says that in his own observations he has never seen this differential rate of movement, but that spots always move at a constant speed relative to each other. First Galileo demonstrates that points on

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: about the uniform motion of the sunspots within a specific band around the Sun's surface. He asks, in passing, 'is there not still a controversy over whether the Earth itself remains immobile, or wanders?', which is an oblique reference to the idea, required by Copernicus' model of the universe, that the earth must rotate on its own axis every day. Lastly, he humorously compares scholars who insist that every detail of Aristotle's writing must be true, whether it corresponds with reality or not, with those artists who draw portraits of people in fruit and vegetables. 'As long as these oddities

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: falsehood of Scheiner's assertion that the moons of Jupiter were 'wandering stars', unpredictable in their movement, as well as to display his own clear superiority in observation and calculation of celestial movements, Galileo appended a complete set of Ephemerides for the Jovian moons to his third letter. Galileo shows the critical flaws in Scheiner's geometry, his understanding of the authorities he cites, his reasoning, his observations and indeed his own drawings. Galileo says there is no point in speculating about the 'essence' of sunspots, or indeed of other things, but since writing his last letter he has spent time thinking

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: would if they were heavenly bodies - they were nothing like the moons of Jupiter that he had himself discovered and described in "Siderius Nuncius". 'The sun, turning on its axis, carries them around without necessarily showing us the same spots, or in the same order, or having the same shape.' He noted the parallels between sunspots and clouds over the earth, but did not assert that they were made of the same material. His comment on 'Apelles' (the pseudonym of Scheiner) was:'It seems to me therefore that Apelles has a free, and not a servile mind; he is well

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: print was a collaborative process involving the censors, Galileo, Cesi and others in working on the text until it was acceptable to the Inquisition, and the censors were well acquainted with the leading figures of the Accademia. Antonio Bucci, for example, was a physician who had previously been involved in reviewing work by Giambattista della Porta, also published by Cesi. In the case of "Letters on Sunspots" his critical support appears to have been helpful in ensuring that publication was not prevented by influential Dominicans of the Sacred Palace. Indeed, in his comments Bucci praised Galileo's work, with which he

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: the illustrations Galileo wanted. Publishing the "Letters on Sunspots" was a major financial and intellectual venture for the Accademia dei Lincei, and it was only the fourth title it had decided to issue. Federico Cesi paid for the publication himself, and wanted to strike a careful balance between introducing extraordinary new ideas and avoiding causing offence to people who might find those views problematic. This was consistent with the Accademia's project of acting as a centre for the dissemination of radical new scientific ideas, issued with the agreement of the Church authorities. Cesi tried to persuade Galileo to avoid an

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: allow him to avoid Aristotle's belief that the sun was a perfect celestial being. Then, under the pseudonym "Apelles latens post tabulam" (Apelles hiding behind the painting), he presented his description and conclusions about them in three letters to the Augsburg banker and scholar Mark Welser. Scheiner wanted to remain anonymous, because he believed in order to not dishonor the order and the church Welser published them on his own presses, sent copies to astronomers around Europe, and invited them to reply. It was Welser's invitation which prompted Galileo to reply with two letters, arguing that the sunspots were not

title: Letters on Sunspots

text: instance in one of his works where he mentioned the concept of inertia, which would later become Newton's First Law of Motion. In it, Galileo outlined his recent observation of dark spots on the face of the sun. His claims were significant in undermining the traditional Aristotelian view that the sun was both unflawed and unmoving. Galileo was not the first person to observe sunspots. The earliest apparent reference to them appears in the I Ching of ancient China, while the earliest recorded observation is also Chinese, dating to 364 BC. Around the same time, the first European mention of

title: What Are Words (album)

text: What Are Words (album) What Are Words is the debut album of the American singer Chris Medina. The album was released by Sony Music contains 11 pop-rock songs, some of them sensitive ballads, others more energetic and rocking. Album included the title track "What Are Words", a touching track inspired by Chris Medina's fiancé who had a serious brain injury after a car accident in 2009. Although "What Are Words" was only a minor hit in the United States, it was a big hit in Scandinavian countries topping both Norwegian "VG-lista" Singles Chart and the Swedish "Sverigetopplistan" Singles Chart. It

title: Become What You Are

text: "My Sister," and "Spin the Bottle", stating that "her talents are strong enough to carry the album over the weak spots." The album was ranked No. 9 in "NME"s Albums of the Year list for 1993. Credits are adapted from the album's liner notes. Album Singles Become What You Are Become What You Are is the debut studio album by the American alternative rock band the Juliana Hatfield Three, released on August 3, 1993, by Mammoth Records. The album includes the hit singles "My Sister" and "Spin the Bottle". The singer and guitarist, Juliana Hatfield, recorded "Become What You Are"

title: What Are Records?

text: Wilcox Everything Fancey Felicia Michaels Figurine Frank Black Glenn Tilbrook Hazard House of Large Sizes The Innocence Mission Jeep Joseph Brenna Le Concorde Lir Lloyd Cole Luce Maceo Parker Melissa Ferrick Munly The Ocean Blue The Poppy Family Primitive Radio Gods The Radiators Sally Taylor The Samples Sean Kelly Stuart Matthewman Sungha Jung The Swayback 24-7 Spyz Tim Finn Tony Furtado Ugly Americans What Are Records? What Are Records? (or W.A.R.?) is an independent record label located in Boulder, Colorado. Founded in New York City in 1991 by owner Rob Gordon, former director of A&R at EMI, the company moved

title: What Are Words

text: went number one in Sweden on July 1, 2011 and remained for 8 straight weeks. It was awarded a 2X platinum certification in Sweden on September 20, 2011. What Are Words "What Are Words" is a hit song written by Rodney Jerkins, Andre Lindal and Lauren Christy, and performed by American singer Chris Medina. It was released on February 25, 2011, the day after his surprising elimination on the reality TV show American Idol. The song is a tribute to his fiancée who suffered a brain injury as the result of a car wreck and is about promises, commitment and

title: What Are Words

text: What Are Words "What Are Words" is a hit song written by Rodney Jerkins, Andre Lindal and Lauren Christy, and performed by American singer Chris Medina. It was released on February 25, 2011, the day after his surprising elimination on the reality TV show American Idol. The song is a tribute to his fiancée who suffered a brain injury as the result of a car wreck and is about promises, commitment and keeping your word. The music video was shot at Atlantis studios in Hollywood and was released days after the single. The video depicts Medina in the actual recording

title: We Are What We Are (2010 film)

text: Film4 FrightFest 2010. IFC Film will release the film in the United States as Video-on-demand. Artificial Eye released "We Are What We Are" in the UK on 12 November 2010. The score was composed by Odd Crew. Deborah Young of "Reuters" said, that "We Are What We Are" "is perhaps too dark and relentlessly humorless to find wide international audiences." Young stated that "another limiting factor is the difficulty of identifying with any of the characters, who are played expressively but still remain abstract and alien, distant from the viewer." Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a score of

title: Become What You Are

text: Become What You Are Become What You Are is the debut studio album by the American alternative rock band the Juliana Hatfield Three, released on August 3, 1993, by Mammoth Records. The album includes the hit singles "My Sister" and "Spin the Bottle". The singer and guitarist, Juliana Hatfield, recorded "Become What You Are" with drummer Todd Philips, formerly of Moving Targets and Bullet LaVolta, and bassist Dean Fisher, who she met during high school in Duxbury, Massachusetts. Unlike her previous album "Hey Babe", which deals with personal topics, Hatfield decided to write songs about other things and make them

title: What Are The Theosophists?

text: What Are The Theosophists? "What Are The Theosophists?" is an editorial published in October 1879 in the theosophical magazine "The Theosophist." It was compiled by Helena Blavatsky and it was included the 2nd volume of the "Blavatsky Collected Writings." Arnold Kalnitsky wrote in his thesis that in this article "we find a rather expansive statement of... [Blavatsky's] thoughts at that moment about the status of the movement, the Theosophical Society, its objectives, and the issues it was confronting." He wrote that the article begins with a question whether the Theosophists "are they what they claim to be": researchers of the

title: What Are Words (album)

text: stayed at #1 for 11 weeks in Norway and for 8 weeks in Sweden. The follow up single from the album is "One More Time" written by Medina. The album "What Are Words" was released in Sweden on 26 November 2011 and entered the Swedish Albums Chart straight in at #7 on Week 47 dated 2 December 2011. What Are Words (album) What Are Words is the debut album of the American singer Chris Medina. The album was released by Sony Music contains 11 pop-rock songs, some of them sensitive ballads, others more energetic and rocking. Album included the title

title: We Are What We Are (2013 film)

text: Gierson of Screen Daily called it "a tense, unsettling experience that offers very little gore but nonetheless knows how to turn the stomach." Ryan Daley of Bloody Disgusting rated it 3.5/5 stars and wrote that the film "lacks any real surprises" but "has a lot to say and it says it well." Drew Tinnin of Dread Central rated it 2.5/5 stars and wrote that the payoff is much better than the slow-paced buildup. We Are What We Are (2013 film) We Are What We Are is a 2013 American horror film directed by Jim Mickle. It was screened at the

title: We Are What We Are (2013 film)

text: limited release in New York City and Los Angeles on September 27, 2013, it opened nationally on October 4, 2013. It was released on home video January 7, 2014. "We Are What We Are" has a Metacritic rating of 71 out of 100 based on 28 reviews, indicating "generally favorable reviews". Review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reports that 86% of 83 surveyed critics gave the film a positive review, and the average rating was 7/10; the site's consensus states: "A compelling story cleverly told, "We Are What We Are" quenches horror buffs' thirst for gore while serving up serious-minded filmmaking

title: We Are What We Are (2013 film)

text: We Are What We Are (2013 film) We Are What We Are is a 2013 American horror film directed by Jim Mickle. It was screened at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival and in the Directors' Fortnight section at the 2013 Cannes Film Festival. It is a remake of the 2010 Mexican film of the same name. Both a sequel and prequel have been announced. During a torrential downpour, a woman, later identified as Emma Parker, confusedly staggers into a store as the butcher receives a delivery. After several attempts to address her, she finally responds and explains that the foul

title: We Are What We Are (2010 film)

text: 72% based on 43 reviews from critics, with a "Certified Fresh" rating. Fantastic Fest Fantasia International Film Festival Expresión en Corto International Film Festival Chicago International Film Festival Festival international du film fantastique de Gérardmer Memento Films International optioned the rights for an English-language remake starring Julia Garner and Ambyr Childers, directed by Jim Mickle and written by Mickle and Nick Damici, who previously worked together on "Mulberry Street" and "Stake Land". We Are What We Are (2010 film) We Are What We Are () is a 2010 Mexican horror film directed by Jorge Michel Grau. The movie is about

title: What Are Little Boys Made Of?

text: by Roud number What Are Little Boys Made Of? "What Are Little Boys Made Of?" is a popular nursery rhyme dating from the early 19th century. It has a Roud Folk Song Index number of 821. The author of the rhyme is uncertain, but may be English poet Robert Southey (1774–1843). Here is a representative modern version of the lyrics: <poem> What are little boys made of? What are little boys made of? That's what little boys are made of What are little girls made of? What are little girls made of? That's what little girls are made of</poem> The

title: What Are Little Boys Made Of?

text: What Are Little Boys Made Of? "What Are Little Boys Made Of?" is a popular nursery rhyme dating from the early 19th century. It has a Roud Folk Song Index number of 821. The author of the rhyme is uncertain, but may be English poet Robert Southey (1774–1843). Here is a representative modern version of the lyrics: <poem> What are little boys made of? What are little boys made of? That's what little boys are made of What are little girls made of? What are little girls made of? That's what little girls are made of</poem> The rhyme appears in

title: You Are What You Eat

text: the American Association of Nutritional Consultants, a controversial organisation which seeks to enhance the reputation of Nutritional and Dietary Consultants by consolidating them into a professional organisation. It offers examination and certification, or association membership which does not require an examination but requires the payment of the $60 membership fee. "You Are What You Eat" was also the title of an American film from 1968. The phrase "You are what you eat" was first expressed by Ludwig Feuerbach in 1863 (German: "Der Mensch ist, was er iszt."). You Are What You Eat You Are What You Eat is a dieting

title: Stay What You Are

text: Your Funeral" at number seven of their 10 Best Emo Music Videos list. Tim Landers of Transit and Brandon McMaster of The Crimson Armada featured the album on their Five Albums That Changed My Life lists. Saves the Day played the album in full at FYF Fest in August 2016. All songs written by Bryan Newman, Chris Conley, David Soloway, Eben D'Amico and Ted Alexander. Personnel per sleeve. Saves the Day Additional musician Production Citations Sources Stay What You Are Stay What You Are is the third studio album from American rock band Saves the Day, released in 2001. While

title: Stay What You Are

text: By March 2002, the album had sold over 120,000 copies, becoming one of Vagrant's best-selling releases. "Stay What You Are" reached number 100 on the "Billboard" 200 albums chart. In the years since its release, "Stay What You Are" is widely regarded as a classic and a highly influential piece of music for the emo and pop punk genres. "NME" listed the album as one of "20 Emo Albums That Have Resolutely Stood The Test Of Time". Similarly, "Houston Press" included the listed the album as one of the best emo albums of 2001–2005. "Paste" included the video for "At

title: Stay What You Are

text: Stay What You Are Stay What You Are is the third studio album from American rock band Saves the Day, released in 2001. While on tour, in March 2000, the band got into a van accident that almost ended the band's career. The van accident was somewhat of an inspiration for the band's song writing. By this point, vocalist Chris Conley "really felt confident" and subsequently had "a lot more fun" while writing. Conley had a personal recording studio set-up where he would "spend the entire day" in "building songs in my own little world." In April, it was announced

title: Become What You Are

text: more universal. The title of the album was inspired by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, whom Hatfield admired. The album was recorded at Hollywood Sound, mixed at Oceanway Studios and mastered at Precision Mastering in Los Angeles. It was released on August 3, 1993, by Mammoth Records. The song "Spin the Bottle" is featured on the soundtrack of the 1994 film "Reality Bites". As of February 2010, "Become What You Are" had sold 267,000 copies in the US according to Nielsen SoundScan. "Become What You Are" received generally favorable reviews. Stephen Thomas Erlewine of AllMusic praised Hatfield's honest vocals on "Supermodel,"

title: What Are Friends For?

text: the cook-out and is glad to see his son making new friends with other children. What Are Friends For? "What Are Friends For?" is the first segment of the twenty-sixth episode (the second episode of the second season (1986–87)) of the television series "The Twilight Zone". Alex Mattingly and his young son Jeff move to a remote cabin in the woods following Alex's divorce. Jeff is lonely and unhappy because he has no one for companionship. Jeff awakens in the middle of the night and sees a boy playing in the woods, but the boy disappears before Jeff can speak

title: What Are Friends For?

text: What Are Friends For? "What Are Friends For?" is the first segment of the twenty-sixth episode (the second episode of the second season (1986–87)) of the television series "The Twilight Zone". Alex Mattingly and his young son Jeff move to a remote cabin in the woods following Alex's divorce. Jeff is lonely and unhappy because he has no one for companionship. Jeff awakens in the middle of the night and sees a boy playing in the woods, but the boy disappears before Jeff can speak to him. One day Jeff and the boy Mike meet and they become friends. Mike

title: What Are The Theosophists?

text: often attracted all sorts of neurotics, hysterics and even madmen: "All organisations which depend on enthusiasm and opposition to conventional opinion suffer from this problem to some degree; Theosophy appears to have been especially prone to it. The permanent residents at Adyar during the 1880s and '90s were typical. A quarrelsome collection of minor English aristocrats, rich American widows, German professors, Indian mystics and hangerson of every description, they were all eager to have their say, especially during Olcott's prolonged absences, and all ready to quarrel with one another." What Are The Theosophists? "What Are The Theosophists?" is an editorial

title: What Planet Are You From?

text: critics, currently holding a 42% score on Rotten Tomatoes based on 77 reviews, with an average rating of 5/10. The site's consensus states: "Though "What Planet Are You From?" has some laughs, it's too inconsistent and bland for critics to give it their recommendations." Metacritic reports a 41 out of 100 rating based on 32 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews". What Planet Are You From? What Planet Are You From? is a 2000 American science fiction comedy film directed by Mike Nichols and written by Michael Leeson, Garry Shandling, Ed Solomon, and Peter Tolan based on a story by

title: You Are What You Eat

text: You Are What You Eat You Are What You Eat is a dieting programme aired in various forms between 2004 and 2007 on British broadcasting company Channel 4, and presented by Gillian McKeith. The fourth series was called "You Are What You Eat: Gillian Moves In". The show often uses shock tactics to get the participants to lose weight. In each episode, all food eaten in one week by the person(s) taking part is placed on a table to highlight problem areas of their diet. Another technique is the analysis of the participant's faeces by McKeith to detect certain problems

title: That's What Friends Are For

text: Dayne, Michael Douglas, Exposé, Whoopi Goldberg, Melanie Griffith, Hall & Oates, Jennifer Holliday, Whitney Houston, Alan Jackson, Kenny G, Melissa Manchester, Barry Manilow, Milli Vanilli, Jeffrey Osborne, Carly Simon, Patti Smith, Lisa Stansfield, The Four Tops, and Dionne Warwick. "That's What Friends Are For" was the finale song sung by Warwick and cousin Houston before being joined on the stage by the other guests of the event. Over $2.5 million was raised that night for the Arista Foundation which gave the proceeds to various AIDS organizations. That's What Friends Are For "That's What Friends Are For" is a song written

title: What Are They Doing in Heaven?

text: in a wide variety of styles, including gospel and bluegrass; sometimes attributed to Phillips or to "anonymous" or to "traditional". What Are They Doing in Heaven? "What Are They Doing in Heaven?" is a Christian hymn written in 1901 by American Methodist minister Charles Albert Tindley. , it has become popular enough to have been included in 16 hymnals. The song has sometimes been recorded under the titles "What Are They Doing?" and "What Are They Doing in Heaven Today?". The question mark is often omitted. The song may also be known by its first line, "I am thinking of

title: What Are They Doing in Heaven?

text: What Are They Doing in Heaven? "What Are They Doing in Heaven?" is a Christian hymn written in 1901 by American Methodist minister Charles Albert Tindley. , it has become popular enough to have been included in 16 hymnals. The song has sometimes been recorded under the titles "What Are They Doing?" and "What Are They Doing in Heaven Today?". The question mark is often omitted. The song may also be known by its first line, "I am thinking of friends whom I used to know". The song consists of four verses and a refrain, each four lines long. In

title: Are Years What? (for Marianne Moore)

text: mind. It is a gift to the city and all who visit." "Are Years What?" is considered by some to be di Suvero's "breakthrough work." Are Years What? (for Marianne Moore) Are Years What? (for Marianne Moore) is a sculpture by American artist Mark di Suvero. It is in the collection of the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, in Washington, D.C., United States. The sculpture is named after poet Marianne Moore's "What Are Years". From May 22, 2013 through May 26, 2014, the sculpture resided temporarily in San Francisco, as part of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art's Mark

title: Are You Thinking What I'm Thinking?

text: Are You Thinking What I'm Thinking? Are You Thinking What I'm Thinking? is the debut album by rock band The Like, released by Geffen in 2005 in the United States and 2006 in selected international markets including the United Kingdom. It features the singles "What I Say and What I Mean" and "June Gloom". In some markets the music video for "What I Say and What I Mean" is included on the album, and in others a cover of Split Enz's "One Step Ahead" (1981) is included as a bonus track. All tracks written by Z Berg unless otherwise noted.

title: Are You Thinking What I'm Thinking?

title: We Are What We Are (2010 film)

text: body is discovered in a playground, beaten to death. At the end of the film, Sabina escapes from the hospital and is seen watching a young man in the local market, intent on her next meal. The director Jorge Michel Grau himself narrated his film on the 2010 Cannes Film Festival. "We Are What We Are" was completely shot in Mexico City. Daniel Giménez Cacho reprised his role as Tito the Coroner, a character from the horror movie Cronos from 1993, directed by Guillermo del Toro. Some characters are also played by Paulina Gaitán and Francisco Barreiro who won with

title: What Are You So Scared Of?

text: A behind-the-scenes video was also released. In October and November, the band supported Pierce the Veil on their Collide with the Sky Tour in the US. The "Let It Land" EP is the accompanying disc to "What Are You So Scared Of?", available on CD. "What Are You So Scared Of?" features 10 pre-gap hidden acoustic tracks in addition to the 14-track album; the additional acoustic tracks that were unable to fit on the album make up the majority of "Let It Land". Also included on the EP is a new song, "Welcome". What Are You So Scared Of? What

title: What Are Words

text: show "Stolthetsprisen", where the organisation awarded a prize to a disabled person for helping other people in the same situation to improve their way of living. Medina, as well as other artists performed at the show. Medina also performed the song during the President's Star Charity show in Singapore on 31 July 2011 to raise funds for the handicapped. In the wake of the 2011 Norway terrorist attacks, Medina was contacted by the family of Monica Iselin Didriksen, a victim of the massacre whose favorite song was "What Are Words," and was subsequently invited to Norway to sing at her