Obvious joke. It's clearly from a movie.
Obvious joke. It's clearly from a movie.
Chinese alien invasion
The fair called, they want their ride back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
http://troll.me/images/futurama-fry/...-sarcastic.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
if these aren't aliens then...
That's a hoax. You can tell the UFO was digitally added in later.
If they aren't aliens... then they are something else.
It's really hard to take a source seriously when they spell their name with numbers in place of letters, like some 10 year old on AOL.
He's TRYING to be unique and hip so he can relate to teen youth. Guess it isn't working.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsaken
I think that there may indeed be Aliens, because of the argument there are billions of stars and billions of theoretical planets. But then you reverse the argument: If there are billions of stars and even more planets, it is just as likely for aliens to find us then for us to find aliens. (A very low chance, considering we haven't found any proof of aliens on any planet but our own)
Billions of planets? i doubt it. Stars? sure, you see tens of thousands, or more in the sky through the naked eye. There is probably a 100-1 ratio of stars compared to planets. I'm just guessing though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neoquestmoo
Just curious, what kind of lense for hubble do we need to zoom into planets? all i know is it's not possible atm.
Your guess makes no sense whatsoever, and flies in the face of the nebular theory of star formation. Ask any modern astronomer, and they'll give you a figure closer to 5-10 planets per star.Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidFlanders
Zoom in how far?Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidFlanders
The highest resolution is 1pixel per metre for the moon.
Lol, was gonna say the same thing. Do not understand how he came to that conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Zoom in far enough to see anything on the planets surface. As for the other part, i don't know anything about space, that's why i said i'm just guessing. I figured life is pretty rare so there would not be that many planets.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Anything on the surface? You mean like a building or something? Or an animal?
Well, you'd need to get at LEAST one pixel per metre.
So we can get one pixel per metre on the moon. That is 384,401.47km away from Earth
If you wanted to view this planet which is 600 light years away....
I guess.... 384,401.47 x 5.67631704x10^15 = the amount of km per pixel
So to get that resolution down to one metre per pixel, you'd need a lense like the size of Earth.
Or an interferometer composed of several strategically placed satellites.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
He asked what size lense you would need.
Equally ridiculous would be asking what size microscope you need. Wrong tool for the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Observatory telescopes have no lenses and no "zoom" (although some of their imaging instruments have different fields of view).
Besides the point people. I was just pointing out how ridiculous the question was.
http://files-cdn.formspring.me/photo...044e_large.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by tommo
wtf have you done?
I dunno, I'm not a math genius. Care to figure it out for me?
I was basically showing, given that 1 pixel = 1 metre on the moon, at the highest resolution we can achieve,
For a planet 600 light years away, the resolution would be 5.67631704x10^15 times bigger per pixel.
This is clearly wrong... our naked eyes get better resolution than that! 5*10^15 m is about 0.5 lightyears. At 600 ly distance, this would correspond to an angular diameter of about 0.048 degrees, or about 2.9' (arcminutes). Wikipedia lists the average nighttime human eye resolution as 3', but in the daytime that rises to 2' for 20/20 vision, and 1.2' for the best human. So your calculation got wonky somewhere. I'll attempt it:Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
The moon is ~3.97x10^8 m away. 1 m at that distance corresponds to an angular resolution of arctan(1/3.97e8) = 2.51e-9 degrees. This is about a million times sharper than the eye.
At 600 ly, this would give 1.51e-6 ly, or about 1.4e7 km (14,000,000 km). This is similar to the orbital radius of mercury (same order of magnitude, anyway).