The Greatest Science Photos Of The Year

I have been reading "PopSci" for more than 70 years and it still holds my interest.
I enjoy every issue although I have been a subscriber for only the past 3 or 4 years I have always looked for it in the public library.

if i asked what exactly has TWO close ups of isects has that is so sciency to be included in the top scince photo's of the year.. but somebody would say.. well there's the drops of dew on the damsilfly's face that has the physics of the dew and the anatomy of the bug, same as the ants, theres the study of bugs and anatomy and such ..

.. well i got a great picture of my penis, i think it look really artsy and cool with the close upness detail of the wrinkles and the hair folicles and the bulging blood vessels that makes it look like the arm of the baby incredible hulk... it's very sciency to me, so much infact i demand it be included!

the arguement is such: every photo is sciency, whether it's a knuckleball, the swing of the bat at the knuckleball(.. sportsy yes, but sciency doubly yes!) , a shot of a large breasted female jumping on a trampoline, yes and yes.. lots of anatomy and physics there.. even some chemistry and biology for the at home user(is interactive!) .. a gratuitous(sp?) car crash at high speeds.. yes very sciency indeed!

there is no TOP SCIENCE PHOTO's OF THE YEAR because ALL photo's are full of science if you include things that have no actual scientific process captured in the image whatsoever ...

top science photo's of the year: we misplaced them, so here's some pictures of bugs instead.. enjoy!

redman.ca, your point is understood and appreciated. Feel free to post your own photo composition elsewhere.

redman.ca--most of us science geeks really already know this. We already generate a photo-filter for science in most things we see, hear, and, in some way, participate in. You comment is in many ways redundant and adolescent, and you might consider ditching the pron sites unless you are convinced you are learning anatomy. I must now scrub my brain to get out the images you unfortunately produced.

"ALL photo's are full of science if you include things that have no actual scientific process captured in the image whatsoever ..."

should i have put that in bold??

photo's such as: some cool filter or trick of a spinning blood cenrifuge, some nono-process in mid evolution under an electron microscope, etc .. the list goes on and on..

top photo's including some aspect of the scientific process are the top science photo's of the year

otherwise a super high-def macro shot of a guys junk in all it's glory is just as deserving on definition as the first bug shot and even more deserving(not repetitive, new subject matter) as the second bug macro shot.

.. yeesh ..