Comments on: Diskworld http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/10/09/diskworld/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:52:03 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Astrolink [Global Edition] » Kicking up some dust | Latest astronomy news in 11 languages http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/10/09/diskworld/comment-page-1/#comment-21964 Astrolink [Global Edition] » Kicking up some dust | Latest astronomy news in 11 languages Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:42:06 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/10/09/diskworld/#comment-21964 [...] has been validated many times, and astronomers now accept it as true (I’ve written about this here, here, and here, for example). In fact, we’ve gotten pretty good at finding young stars still [...] [...] has been validated many times, and astronomers now accept it as true (I’ve written about this here, here, and here, for example). In fact, we’ve gotten pretty good at finding young stars still [...]

]]> By: Jack Hagerty http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/10/09/diskworld/comment-page-1/#comment-21959 Jack Hagerty Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:22:09 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/10/09/diskworld/#comment-21959 Kullat Nunu sez: "Firstly, FGSs are not cameras. Secondly, Hubble can’t resolve objects smaller than 100 m (IIRC) from the surface of the Moon because it is so distant. The orbital distance of Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter from Mars was less than 300 km when it photographed Opportunity. That is more than 1000 times closer. " Thanks for the response. I am aware of the various pieces of hardware you mention, and their capabilities and missions. What I was responding to (and apparently misunderstanding) was Phil's statement in the post that the pixilated image shown was somehow generated with the FGS and that it was resolving at that incredible level. If it was measuring redshift or some other spectrum changes to generate that image, than obviously it wouldn't work on an object sitting on the moon since the object and the background are moving together. What caught my eye, obviously, was the analogy to a car on the moon, which there actually are several of. - Jack PS - Sorry about ending that last sentence with a preposition... Kullat Nunu sez: “Firstly, FGSs are not cameras. Secondly, Hubble can’t resolve objects smaller than 100 m (IIRC) from the surface of the Moon because it is so distant. The orbital distance of Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter from Mars was less than 300 km when it photographed Opportunity. That is more than 1000 times closer. ”

Thanks for the response. I am aware of the various pieces of hardware you mention, and their capabilities and missions. What I was responding to (and apparently misunderstanding) was Phil’s statement in the post that the pixilated image shown was somehow generated with the FGS and that it was resolving at that incredible level. If it was measuring redshift or some other spectrum changes to generate that image, than obviously it wouldn’t work on an object sitting on the moon since the object and the background are moving together. What caught my eye, obviously, was the analogy to a car on the moon, which there actually are several of.

- Jack

PS – Sorry about ending that last sentence with a preposition…

]]> By: Nonoscience / Philosophia Naturalis Part Deux http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/10/09/diskworld/comment-page-1/#comment-21960 Nonoscience / Philosophia Naturalis Part Deux Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:05:37 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/10/09/diskworld/#comment-21960 [...] And then, we shall ask the question again: Are we living in a Flat World (Earth)? Of course not, once the Earth is seen as a “whole” - in a larger scale. But, wait, what if we increase the scale of our purview to a scale that includes the Solar System in its entirety. Now, are we living in a Flat World? Or perhaps in a Disk World? Phil Plait at the Bad Astronomy blog explains more and discusses the recent insights usign the Hubble… [...] [...] And then, we shall ask the question again: Are we living in a Flat World (Earth)? Of course not, once the Earth is seen as a “whole” – in a larger scale. But, wait, what if we increase the scale of our purview to a scale that includes the Solar System in its entirety. Now, are we living in a Flat World? Or perhaps in a Disk World? Phil Plait at the Bad Astronomy blog explains more and discusses the recent insights usign the Hubble… [...]

]]> By: Selina Morse http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/10/09/diskworld/comment-page-1/#comment-21961 Selina Morse Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:28:05 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/10/09/diskworld/#comment-21961 Fundamental Error number 1. "We still don’t know if there’s a planet around the nearest known star, which is kinda funny:" There are eight of them, now that Pluto's been relegated..... Fundamental Error number 1.

“We still don’t know if there’s a planet around the nearest known star, which is kinda funny:”

There are eight of them, now that Pluto’s been relegated…..

]]> By: Pandabear http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/10/09/diskworld/comment-page-1/#comment-21962 Pandabear Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:22:33 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/10/09/diskworld/#comment-21962 <b>Kullat Nunu</b>: Hell yeah! IMHO one of the most brilliant SciFi games ever! The astronomy there might be horrible, but Fwiffo's dialogue when you find him on Pluto makes me lose bladder control every time :P By the way, there is by the way a remake of SCII available on Sourceforge somewhere which plays more or less the same, and there's voices with it.. do a search on The Ur-Quan masters and you should have no problem finding it.. A game that should've known better is David Braben's Frontier (and First Encounters for that matter) which actually tries to be accurate in astronomy when dealing with interplanetary physics.. Alpha Centauri is a red supergiant there too.. Kullat Nunu: Hell yeah! IMHO one of the most brilliant SciFi games ever! The astronomy there might be horrible, but Fwiffo’s dialogue when you find him on Pluto makes me lose bladder control every time :P By the way, there is by the way a remake of SCII available on Sourceforge somewhere which plays more or less the same, and there’s voices with it.. do a search on The Ur-Quan masters and you should have no problem finding it..
A game that should’ve known better is David Braben’s Frontier (and First Encounters for that matter) which actually tries to be accurate in astronomy when dealing with interplanetary physics.. Alpha Centauri is a red supergiant there too..

]]> By: Phil Plait http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/10/09/diskworld/comment-page-1/#comment-21963 Phil Plait Thu, 12 Oct 2006 05:57:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/10/09/diskworld/#comment-21963 I eat a dick everyday. I eat a dick everyday.

]]> By: Kullat Nunu http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/10/09/diskworld/comment-page-1/#comment-21944 Kullat Nunu Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:35:13 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/10/09/diskworld/#comment-21944 <b>Pandabear</b>: <i>I always thought Alpha centauri was a red supergiant.. now where did I get that idea?</i> Have you ever played a computer game called <i>Star Control II</i> (Accolade, 1992)? It depicts Alpha Centauri as a red supergiant. It's astronomy is mostly the Bad variety... However, I still remember myself laughing for gas giants in the game that had temperatures over 1000 kelvins. Such planets were considered impossible--but that was before 51 Pegasi b! Alpha Centauri is the third brightest star in the sky. The only reason for this is that it is so darn close! Put it at the distance of, say, 20 light years and it wouldn't be hardly notable: It would be slightly brighter than its analogue Eta Cassiopeiae, a star between the second and third star as counted from right in Cassiopeia's W. <b>Jack Hagerty</b>: <i>Could the FGS be used to image them, like the HiRISE images of the rover on Mars last week?</i> No way. Firstly, FGSs are not cameras. Secondly, Hubble can't resolve objects smaller than 100 m (IIRC) from the surface of the Moon because it is so distant. The orbital distance of Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter from Mars was less than 300 km when it photographed Opportunity. That is more than 1000 times closer. Pandabear: I always thought Alpha centauri was a red supergiant.. now where did I get that idea?

Have you ever played a computer game called Star Control II (Accolade, 1992)? It depicts Alpha Centauri as a red supergiant. It’s astronomy is mostly the Bad variety… However, I still remember myself laughing for gas giants in the game that had temperatures over 1000 kelvins. Such planets were considered impossible–but that was before 51 Pegasi b!

Alpha Centauri is the third brightest star in the sky. The only reason for this is that it is so darn close! Put it at the distance of, say, 20 light years and it wouldn’t be hardly notable: It would be slightly brighter than its analogue Eta Cassiopeiae, a star between the second and third star as counted from right in Cassiopeia’s W.

Jack Hagerty: Could the FGS be used to image them, like the HiRISE images of the rover on Mars last week?

No way. Firstly, FGSs are not cameras. Secondly, Hubble can’t resolve objects smaller than 100 m (IIRC) from the surface of the Moon because it is so distant. The orbital distance of Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter from Mars was less than 300 km when it photographed Opportunity. That is more than 1000 times closer.

]]>