 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> My education didn't include this information.
Did your education include anything?
> Also, I have no idea how many centimeters there are in one mile.
Nobody is expected to remember factors and numbers, but you are expected
to be able to do the conversion when you know the factors involved.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I just noticed the other night that as I passed under a sign telling me
>> the motorway exit was in 1 mile, I could already see the green traffic
>> lights beyond the exit. And those lights can't be much more than 24cm
>> across...
>
> Lights can be seen much easier than other details.
This is what I'm interested in. Are the lights visible from this
distance because they glow? Or would any old object be visible from such
a distance? (Assuming it wasn't the middle of the night, obviously.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> My education didn't include this information.
>
> Did your education include anything?
Long division?
Lots and lots of long division?
Like, for years on end?
Let's face it, I went to a school for stupid people, after all. My exam
results are apparently unprecidentedly high for somebody at that school
- and I only got a B and two Cs.
>> Also, I have no idea how many centimeters there are in one mile.
>
> Nobody is expected to remember factors and numbers, but you are expected
> to be able to do the conversion when you know the factors involved.
Trouble is, while it's easy enough to look up some numbers and do a
calculation, it's somewhat more tricky to figure out whether your answer
is actually right (or total gibberish). Hence I asked for assistence. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
> > This is basic trigonometry which is taught in high schools in most places.
>
> My education didn't include this information.
If you sat GCSEs, it did. Of course, if you haven't really used it since then
it's easily forgotten :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> This is what I'm interested in. Are the lights visible from this
> distance because they glow? Or would any old object be visible from such
> a distance? (Assuming it wasn't the middle of the night, obviously.)
Would you still be able to see it if you intentionally blurred your vision?
Sure, because the blur makes it bigger, not smaller.
The question is whether you can tell two lights on the same pole apart.
You can see stars that are millions (or more) light years away. That doesn't
mean you can tell whether it's a binary star or not.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
You know the kamikaze monsters in Serious Sam
with the bombs for hands, that go AAAAAHHHHHHHH!
I want that for a ring tone.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> This is what I'm interested in. Are the lights visible from this
>> distance because they glow? Or would any old object be visible from
>> such a distance? (Assuming it wasn't the middle of the night, obviously.)
>
> Would you still be able to see it if you intentionally blurred your
> vision? Sure, because the blur makes it bigger, not smaller.
And fainter.
> You can see stars that are millions (or more) light years away. That
> doesn't mean you can tell whether it's a binary star or not.
Sure, they're quite far away (!!), but they're also rather large (!!!),
and absurdly bright. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > You can see stars that are millions (or more) light years away. That
> > doesn't mean you can tell whether it's a binary star or not.
> Sure, they're quite far away (!!), but they're also rather large (!!!),
Try to calculate how many arc-seconds large the farthest visible stars are.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Try to calculate how many arc-seconds large the farthest visible stars are.
If my math is right, the closest star would have to have a diameter of about
4100 times as big as our sun to look the same size as a 24cm street light
does one mile away. (Am I the only one that wonders how we managed to mix
cm with miles?) And that's the *closest* star.
No, I don't remember why I started calculating that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
You know the kamikaze monsters in Serious Sam
with the bombs for hands, that go AAAAAHHHHHHHH!
I want that for a ring tone.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Sure, they're quite far away (!!), but they're also rather large (!!!),
> and absurdly bright. ;-)
Yep. It would be interesting to figure out how big vs how far away it would
have to be. I mean, the moon is much smaller, the sun is much larger, but
they both look the same size. Actually, I guess it's linear, so it isn't too
hard to calculate.
By the way, I'm pretty sure stars aren't all that bright. I think it's just
because they're large that they seem bright. I.e., per square inch, I don't
think they're a lot brighter than what you can build on earth easily.
(Brighter than street lights, certainly.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
You know the kamikaze monsters in Serious Sam
with the bombs for hands, that go AAAAAHHHHHHHH!
I want that for a ring tone.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> By the way, I'm pretty sure stars aren't all that bright. I think it's just
> because they're large that they seem bright. I.e., per square inch, I don't
> think they're a lot brighter than what you can build on earth easily.
> (Brighter than street lights, certainly.)
I think that getting something to be 6 million times brighter than the
Sun can be pretty hard...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_OB2-12
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
