EnderAndrew Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 I know the forums have been quieter on the whole since the NWN:2 boards went by the wayside, but this place is absolutely silent tonight. What should we discuss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 According to Google, today is the anniversary of Apollo 11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted July 20, 2005 Author Share Posted July 20, 2005 Fire up the conspiracy thread again. Did we land on the moon, or didn't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 I'm gonna say we did, cause Google says so. I could argue for it...but I have a feeling I'd be preaching to the choir (the choir being you) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveThaiBinh Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 This cricket apparently uses its chirp to estimate the temperature. I use BBC Weather myself. Is the flag still on the moon? If so, shouldn't it be possible to see it with a telescope? "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted July 20, 2005 Author Share Posted July 20, 2005 I've heard conspiracy theorists who claim you can see all the landing spots with a powerful telescope, but you can't see anything from the Apollo 11 landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted July 20, 2005 Author Share Posted July 20, 2005 I don't enough about telescopes really to contribute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Seeing anything fine from the earth would probably be tough, given the atmosphere getting in the way. Hubble would be able to spot it I bet...but it'd probably be too expensive to reposition it just to take a picture of the flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reveilled Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 This cricket apparently uses its chirp to estimate the temperature. I use BBC Weather myself. Is the flag still on the moon? If so, shouldn't it be possible to see it with a telescope? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sadly, no. Telescopes manufactured today are either too weak to pick it up, or are so strong it would be too out of focus to see. Hubble, for instance would not be able to spot it, because it is too close. Besides, the government could easily rig up a telescope they claimed would show it by removing the lenses and placing a small sprojecter inside that was linked to a supercomputer that created a realistic simulated image that depicted the moon with a flag on it when in fact there was no flag there at all. ...No, really. " Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveThaiBinh Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 It all seems a bit fishy to me. There ought to be some telescopes built at some time capable of showing it. It would be interesting to see. Did they land on the dark side or on the Earth-facing side? "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Basically, there's an absolute maximum resolution from the surface of the planet, because of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is also why the stars twinkle, which makes them much more noticable. Stars in space are just mere points of light. Coupled with a very bright moon, I don't know why anyone is really surprised that there aren't stars in the sky in the moon photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted July 20, 2005 Author Share Posted July 20, 2005 I've always been told that stars 'twinkle' because the light passes through an area of heat. It's the same effect why the back of a jet looks so washed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 I'm pretty sure it's all the same, because it's all about moving air particles. Although it does look like temperature has something to do with it (which would cause airflow as well) Why do stars twinkle - I'm feeling lucky Google hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musopticon? Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 A thread which is uncabable of being on-topic from the very start. Count me in. kirottu said: I was raised by polar bears. I had to fight against blood thirsty wolves and rabid penguins to get my food. Those who were too weak to survive were sent to Sweden. It has made me the man I am today. A man who craves furry hentai. So let us go and embrace the rustling smells of unseen worlds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reveilled Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 It all seems a bit fishy to me. There ought to be some telescopes built at some time capable of showing it. It would be interesting to see. Did they land on the dark side or on the Earth-facing side? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> On the Earth-facing side. As Alan said, the atmoshpere creates a problem for Earth-bound telescopes, and the telescopes in space are designed to look at distant huge objects, not small close ones. And even if the telescopes in space could look at the moon and see the flag, since the images would have to be transmitted electronically to Earth, if you believe that US Government is capable of a successfully covered-up conspiracy larger than Watergate or Iran-Contra, then you should certainly be able to believe that the US Government could intercept and edit the images anyway. Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 It is neat that no matter where Hubble points, it finds clusters of galaxies. It'll point in one area, find a cluster of galaxies. It'll then take that same area, and look between galaxies in that cluster, and find another cluster. No matter how many times they repeat, they'll still find clusters of galaxies. Universe is BIIIG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted July 20, 2005 Author Share Posted July 20, 2005 Man definitely landed on the moon, because when Superman went there, the flag was there. You can't beat that logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaguars4ever Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 A thread which is uncabable of being on-topic from the very start. Count me in. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Yet what's it's worth without me." :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveThaiBinh Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 I don't believe in the conspiracy theories at all - I just found the telescope explanation a little odd. I've heard that there are now more powerful telescope on Earth, such that they achieve better results through the atmosphere than Hubble does/did from space. However, the problem of having a telescope designed to observe distant objects refocus on a nearby target does make sense. "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Man definitely landed on the moon, because when Superman went there, the flag was there. You can't beat that logic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Heck, in Superman 2 you can see the Super Criminals attacking the guys on the moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musopticon? Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 A thread which is uncabable of being on-topic from the very start. Count me in. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Yet what's it's worth without me." :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Somebody had to do it. kirottu said: I was raised by polar bears. I had to fight against blood thirsty wolves and rabid penguins to get my food. Those who were too weak to survive were sent to Sweden. It has made me the man I am today. A man who craves furry hentai. So let us go and embrace the rustling smells of unseen worlds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reveilled Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 I don't believe in the conspiracy theories at all - I just found the telescope explanation a little odd. I've heard that there are now more powerful telescope on Earth, such that they achieve better results through the atmosphere than Hubble does/did from space. However, the problem of having a telescope designed to observe distant objects refocus on a nearby target does make sense. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Luckily, there is one instumet designed specifically for taking pictrues of small objects on extraterrestial bodies: NASA's camera. :D We have plenty of pictures of the flag with that instrument. " Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 I don't believe in the conspiracy theories at all - I just found the telescope explanation a little odd. I've heard that there are now more powerful telescope on Earth, such that they achieve better results through the atmosphere than Hubble does/did from space. However, the problem of having a telescope designed to observe distant objects refocus on a nearby target does make sense. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have heard no such thing...at least not optically. You can have really, really, really huge "telescopes" by having an array of many dishes scanning the sky for radar waves. While you can't have a single dish that big (it gets crushed under it's own weight), but you can create an array of many telescopes that, when arranged correctly, perfectly simulate a telescope with much larger aperture. These telescopes check for radio waves, which have a much lower frequency and are not really affected by the atmosphere at all. As far as I know though, the Hubble Space Telescope is the biggest telescope that checks in the visual spectrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted July 20, 2005 Author Share Posted July 20, 2005 My digital camera has a zoom feature. Then I can blow the picture up even more in Photoshop. Photoshop can do everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 I'll agree. I've seen some people do some absolutely insane things with Photoshop. Some of my favourites are animated gifs of this guy that kills himself. Basically he'll be sitting at the computer screen or something, and suddenly another version of himself will come in and snap the original's neck. He'll then sit down and look at the computer screen, and the process repeats. They look damn funny. On a side note, I always love how no matter what, in TV and movies its always possible for them to use a computer to increase the resolution so that they can see that defining trait on the bad guy or the piece of the license plate to give them the big lead they're looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now