Bill nye the awesome guy. tight as . ithought i g hts: When aliens in galaxies 70 million light years away legit through a telescope at Earth. they see . GET IN bill nye
Upload
Login or register

Bill nye the awesome guy

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
Tags: bill nye
ithought
i g hts:
When aliens in galaxies 70 million light years away legit
through a telescope at Earth. they see .
GET IN LOSERS #WE' RE DOING SCIENCE
iall
ami r. icant ( theta the
itll'
is that why there has been no alien contact? Because as tar as aliens
are concerned. there is legitimately no intelligent lite on earth?
shit sen there still isn' t intelligent life on earth
...
+1237
Views: 39188 Submitted: 08/23/2014
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (98)
[ 98 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
User avatar #3 - dutchderpina
Reply +395 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [+] (45 replies)
stickied by cann
If aliens would have the technology to watch planets that are 70 million lightyears away, with a telescope that is even able to observe the organisms on it, I think they would be intelligent enough to understand that whatever life they can see has had 70 million years to evolve.
#11 to #3 - anon id: 2b9a2d10
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
But they may not be able to get here, or dont want to losem energy for a trip to a planet where possible may be intelligent life.
#13 to #3 - anon id: b6f42a4c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
There is a possiblity that life on our planet could be all stupid.
Im pretty sure if that meteor didnt hit our planet, there would still be dumb dinosaurs walking around everywhere today.
#16 to #3 - anon id: a02bf12d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
It's more reasonable to believe that no one would bother building a telescope like that. It would need to be ridiculously large (it would need a collection area - ie lens - roughly the size of our solar system, even assuming there was no dispersion of the light over that 70mly which is impossible in and of itself).

The entire concept is hyperbole and annoying. We need to teach children that science isn't magic, that though there are seemingly unlikely things we learn to do with science, it also has steadfast rules that need to be considered.
#32 to #16 - Fgner
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
In he 40s and 50s we thought we would have flying firefighters and cars, space would be a normal thing, we would be in the Jetsons world. But they were wrong because we cannot imagine what we have not discovered. There world view was limited, their understanding of science still primitive. And nothing has changed.

When it comes to science on the scale of the cosmos or smaller than an atom - we're still babies fumbling around in the dark trying to learn how to walk. We haven't the slighest clue what's going on in the universe and we've only just began actually dipping our toes in the water.

Your claim is rediculous and untrue with modern science anyway. If you wanted to provide a reason we couldn't do it, how about you point out we have never directly observed a planet before - we have to use some clever tricks to figure it out since the parent star is so bright and the planet so dim the planet is pretty much invisible (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_detecting_exoplanets). However, even that point is losing ground, since we're building a telescope on the mountains in Chile that will be able to take images for faster than anything we have now, and at great enough accuracies and resolutions as to directly view planets themselves, and be able to determine if they are vegetated. Will this be a solar system (9.09 TRILLION meters) in diameter? No. A mere 8.2. And 12mm thick.

So stop talking about **** you don't know about. You're not even a baby fumbling around and learning; you're just sitting there eating your own feet and telling everyone else "don't even try, walking isn't real" just because we can't do it now.
User avatar #49 to #32 - jukuku
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
"Things that were once thought to be impossible are no possible therefore everything is possible."

No. Maybe if you had the slightest concept of how optics worked you wouldn't be saying that.
#57 to #49 - Fgner
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
What the Hell are you talking about? I proved that his one example point was entirely wrong, by the damned twelfth order of magnitude even! And he said even hundreds of millions of years of more technological advancement wouldn't change that - except it's already ******* done.

And his point is basically "teach people that science has these set limits and they shouldn't even try to push the bounds", which is nothing but self-destructive. We can't do everything - but we can do so much. Look what we've done so far, with almost no knowledge at all. The perverbial sky is the limit, because we cannot even fathom what we may find. So why tell people that we can never get above a certain altitude? If we hit a limit, let us hit it and push it as hard as we can. But what if we don't? Isn't that something to dream about, even if it never comes?

P.S. Nope, don't know about optics. I'm a computer scientist not a physist. But that doesn't matter, because there are physists out there who do know - and proved you wrong.
User avatar #59 to #57 - jukuku
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
I never said his measurements were accurate, my point is that the size needed to view objects in that clarity is ******* gigantic.

Unless we find some new way to bend light we're going to have a lot of trouble seeing objects at extreme distance in extreme detail. It will probably happen eventually but I seriously doubt it will happen anytime soon. And by the way the only way around the limit of size of the telescope is interferometry but that only works for infrared light.
User avatar #62 to #59 - Fgner
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
No, you don't understand. We are building a telescope capable of clearly observing planets. The European Extremely Large Telescope. It's a thing. No, it isn't at the level of clarity we are discussing, but it's getting incredibly close. And it may very well be able to show if a planet is vegetated or not (AKA the clarity we're discussing). And it's still just one building on a mountain. A trillion times smaller than what his number said it would have to be. We have mini sats with the goal of miniaturizing telescope tech such as BRITE and MOST.

He, and by extension you, are simpy wrong. No armchair physics needed here - the big boys already finished the discussion.

www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/20/spot-alien-life-european-extremely-large-telescope-chilean
User avatar #63 to #62 - jukuku
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Yes but it's capabilities follow the established equations for focusing light. If you want to have a higher magnification you need a bigger telescope. If you want to see something the size of a truck on a planet 20 lights years away the telescope would be absolutely massive, impractical due to it's size and the huge risk of being damaged by orbiting debris.

Again, my point isn't that we cannot identify planets in other solar systems or something like that, I'm saying that you won't see a truck on the surface of a planet because it would have to be a couple kilometers in diameter.

This link explains it in further detail.

www.rocketmime.com/astronomy/Telescope/Magnification.html

And I understand how telescopes work, not a single one of your examples is disproving what I'm saying, those telescopes are no where near accomplishing what we're talking about.
User avatar #64 to #63 - jukuku
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Equations for a Schmidt Cassegrain telescope: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassegrain_reflector
User avatar #66 to #63 - Fgner
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Why would we need that level of detail? Aren't we just talking about identifying if there is any significant life? Seeing organisms themselves would be useless, since like already stated it would be millons of years ago and such. I was arguing for identifying life - not observing individuals.

But still, who knows what the future holds. Why limit our imagination proactively?
User avatar #68 to #66 - jukuku
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
I'm not saying to abandon the possibility of new imaging technology but saying it will happen is just speculation.
#69 to #68 - Fgner
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
I can agree to that. Nice talking, buddy; have some thumbs.
User avatar #70 to #69 - jukuku
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Ditto.
#79 to #57 - anon id: d51f3655
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Listen you uneducated faggot, let me try to explain this in terms your tiny brain can understand.

Photons travel in wave packets (you know, the whole quantum thing? No? Ok fine queer, quantum physics is named such because we discovered particles are quantized despite their wave-like properties. ie, a photon is a little tiny sphere and a finite number of them are reflected/emitted off a celestial body like the earth. They radiate and spread apart (you said you're a computer scientists right?) at O(r^2) because ******* sphere.

You can't ******* magic up a technology to generate a picture without a sufficient number of photons (just like you can't magic up extra resolution like the dumb CSI shows). You can't collect a sufficient number of photons without a huge ******* collection area. This isn't even physics, it's ******* geometry.

That telescope you referenced? It's for closer planets, we're talking 70*10^6 ly you piece of ****.

Idiots like you waste the time of real scientists.
#96 to #79 - Fgner
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
God I ******* hate you armchair physists. "Real" scientists, holy ******* **** you're head is far up your ass.

The first part is elementary. I get that, everyone gets that.

The second part is just stupid. 7,000,000 light years? Really? You mean twice the ******* distance to the Andromeda Galaxy? Why the **** would we be looking there first? There are 400 BILLION stars in the Milky Way - a galaxy only 2,000 light years in diameter. There are even more planets. And a good percent are habitable. Even at a lovingly small 50 BILLION habitable planets and a generous 1 observation a week, it would take ~1 billion years to see them all. So why are you going so far out?

No, in reality we'll be looking close; for planets that we may be able to reach or communicate with. It'll takes us decades upon decades to observe all the planets within even 100 light years. You're 5 and a half orders of magnitude off again, but at least that number is going down. It will most likely be countless thousands, perhaps even millions, of years before we even glance at Andromeda Galaxy itself in hopes to find life. By then we'll have more advanced technology than we can even dream to fathom, a giant telescope or one that's incredibly advanced will probably be easy as ****. So why the **** would you think we would be looking twice as far as there now instead of in our own neighborhood? Oh that's right, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

Just stop trying to sound smart. You're clueless. Admit you're wrong and move on.

P.S. What did "you said your a computer scientist" even mean? It wasn't even in a place to make it offensive. But yeah, since you asked, computer scientist.
#97 to #96 - anon id: d51f3655
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
> one that's incredibly advanced will probably be easy as ****.

This is the whole ******* point asshole. These are theoretical limits, you're never going to magically do better than them. ****** like saying you're gonna find a free lunch or solve the halting problem. You can argue that it's possible to use self-replication or whatever the **** science fiction to actually build a telescope that large, but it still has to be ridiculously sized.

> So why the **** would you think we would be looking twice as far as there now instead of in our own neighborhood?

The whole god damned premise was "when aliens in galaxies 70 million light years away" asshole.

> P.S. What did "you said your a computer scientist" even mean?
I asked before using big-O notation, because physicists use something similar when we're more interested in scaling. The fact that this confused you suggests that you're more likely IT than a scientist. Also, don't misquote me with your bitch-ass grammar mistakes.
#21 to #16 - toostonedtopost
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
You have ******************* no idea whether or not a telescope of that power would need to be that large, or whether it could be capable with something the size of your ******* iPhone.
User avatar #65 to #21 - jukuku
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
A telescope works by refracting or reflecting light to a focal point where the secondary lens then focuses the light.

This means that the magnification of an object is limited by the size of those lenses. The light needs to be bent in order for the point of focus to be magnified more and the only way we have EVER done so is by bending light with lenses and mirrors.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassegrain_reflector
www.rocketmime.com/astronomy/Telescope/Magnification.html
#24 to #21 - anon id: bd6432d3
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
A telescope would indeed need to be that large to provide the resolution and magnification necessary to observe individual dinosaurs on Earth when our own largest telescopes wouldn't be able to do that on the planets in the closest ******* planetary system.

Don't be a cunt. "But they're super advanced aliens guys! They could totally do it with a really small telescope!" Shut the **** up. The only basis for these estimates we have is our own technology, don't make **** up to create an argument that doesn't need to exist.
User avatar #40 to #24 - jewbob
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Tsquared mother ******, it wouldn't be a traditional telescope. It's retarded to even consider that.
User avatar #41 to #40 - Tsquared
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Who you calling a mother ******, jewbob
User avatar #42 to #41 - jewbob
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Hahaha, how in the hell? I don't know the ucode for exponents so I just typed it out.
User avatar #45 to #42 - Tsquared
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
just use the upside-down v thing (is it a carrot? i don't know. this stupid thing ^) that way you can just do T^2 instead and avoid unnecessarily insulting me and my honor

also, no, I'm not that Tsquared, same initials, same nickname [spoiler] god i hope T^2 isn't someone's username, that would just make things annoying and difficult [/spoiler]

#25 to #24 - toostonedtopost
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
The possibility of inventing a new element that would supercede the need for a large glass lense is far too possible. You obviously have no grasp on our realm of advancement. You literally have no idea.

Good night. Cunt.
#26 to #25 - anon id: bd6432d3
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
Oh boy. Have a good one.
Oh boy. Have a good one.
#27 to #26 - toostonedtopost
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
If only you would sign in and say it like a man, would I give a **** what you think.
User avatar #30 to #27 - KazumaKyu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
Nah, you can't expect him to log in when his original comment was anonymous. He didn't log out to heckle from behind a wall of anonymity, he just posted his thoughts and couldn't be arsed to log in. Now if the original comment you replied to was posted by someone who was logged in and then you started getting suspiciously quick replies from an anon I'd agree with you.

More importantly, what he says makes sense when considering the technology available to us. Sure it's extremely likely that there are alien races somewhere in the universe that are millions of years ahead of us in terms of technology, but without a sample of that technology to base our understanding on we can do little more than speculate as to the possibilities. Better to keep things realistic to what we know is real than to begin throwing around wildly fantastical ideas for no reason other than that we can't prove they aren't necessarily possible.
User avatar #33 to #30 - Fgner
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Except even by today's technology he is vastly wrong. He's about a trillion times to high in the size of the needed telescope. The one we're builing now that will observe planets directly and with enough accuracy as to determine if the planet is vegetated is 8.2m in diameter and 12mm thick (lens); not 9 TRILLION meters like he said.

He's just a stupid anon. Don't listen to him. Read my comment.
User avatar #34 to #33 - KazumaKyu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
I actually didn't even consider the size of the telescope he was talking about, I was just siding with him on the idea of not going overboard with fantasizing things. Yeah maybe one day we'll be able to hold our cellphones up to the sky and take an ultra- high-definition 3D picture of a moon rock... but it will not be this day, so why bother speculating randomly?
#50 to #34 - Fgner
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Except nobody is making that stupidly impossible claim which is impossible by all known physics. All we're claiming is the ability to see if a planet contained life after ******* millions of years of technological development from where we are, when we are merely years from the facility that can do exactly that being built.
Except nobody is making that stupidly impossible claim which is impossible by all known physics. All we're claiming is the ability to see if a planet contained life after ******* millions of years of technological development from where we are, when we are merely years from the facility that can do exactly that being built.
User avatar #51 to #50 - KazumaKyu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Comment #21: "You have ******************* no idea whether or not a telescope of that power would need to be that large, or whether it could be capable with something_ the size of your ******* iPhone_."

This is where I got the thing about the cellphone. I altered the actual insinuation to be slightly more ridiculous to give it more weight, which is probably why there is confusion.

Again, I'm not arguing with you. I am not all that well versed on this subject, nor do I pretend to be. All I was saying was that it helps to stay realistic.
#58 to #51 - Fgner
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Micro satellites are a thing. Look up BRITE, MOST, and various other micro sats. Sure, they aren't fighting to be something like the James Webb, but they almost meet the iPhone size requirement. Truly miniscule. And available today.

Human achievements are pretty amazing, eh? Even the most rediculous claims seem to be possible once you start understanding the universe a bit.
User avatar #52 to #51 - KazumaKyu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
*sigh* It's **** like this that makes me want an edit button. Those failed underscores are driving me bonkers.
#60 to #52 - Fgner
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
**** man, it's cool.
User avatar #22 to #3 - asasqw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
Or 70 million years to go extinct
User avatar #29 to #3 - sumerfag
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
But they don't know if it's become intelligent yet
#39 to #3 - xcoreyx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Or they've just found a way to break the speed of light
#88 to #39 - anon id: a3819474
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
That won't make the light necessary for sight get to them any faster
#46 to #3 - anon id: 02abe6e1
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
what if telescopes that can watch 70 million lightyears away just grow in the nature on trees and **** and aliens are dumb as ****
User avatar #12 to #3 - propanex
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
140 million years ago there was still dinosaurs. To assume in just 70 million years a planet's species would evolve intelligence and become self aware is dumb.
User avatar #18 to #12 - blbrian
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
The only dumb thing would be to exclude the possibility
#20 to #18 - StewieGGriffin
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
#54 to #18 - tomowrath
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#61 to #3 - irishlawyer
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
But 70 million years of evolution may not be enough to create intelligent life. Dinosaurs existed for hundreds of millions of years, and bacteria was the dominant life on earth for billions of year before that.
#1 - wcpapier
Reply +127 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [+] (2 replies)
stickied by cann
Comment Picture
User avatar #82 to #1 - cann [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
still loling
User avatar #98 to #1 - ajarofpickels
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/27/2014) [-]
i sat through the entire debate and bill's counters were great
www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI
#17 - include
Reply +56 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [+] (1 reply)
stickied by cann
Comment Picture
#28 to #17 - huzibizi
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#81 - bluenebula
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
stickied by cann
Comment Picture
#6 - epicscorpion
Reply +83 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
Wait, so maybe when we look at extrasolar planets, we might be looking at a planet that has intelligent life we can't see.
#14 to #6 - anon id: a02bf12d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
Extra-solar planets we look at with Keplar are ~500ly away so no.
#44 to #6 - anon id: af7c1e58
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
does this mean, telescopes are time machine?
does this mean, telescopes are time machine?
#53 to #6 - mca
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
The furthest away extra solar planet observed is merely ~21,000 light years away, not enough to merit any real relevant evolutionary progress so not really no Science makes dreams THEN BREAKS THEM INTO DUST
User avatar #55 to #6 - xplosevdiarrhea
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Even if they had intelligent life on them long enough ago that it would counteract the time difference, I don't think we could see them. I don't think our images of extrasolar(cool word btw) planets would be clear enough for us to tell.
#77 to #55 - shamadruu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
It's not really a problem of resolution so much as it's a problem of brightness. Generally planets are outshined by their parent star, so we cannot use optical telescopes to directly observe their surfaces. A device called a starshade ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Worlds_Mission ) could potentially block out the light from those stars, so the optical telescope wouldn't be blinded.
User avatar #73 to #6 - Mahazama
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Just like us, any intelligent life as advanced as us is also just as capable of annihilating itself (nuclear weapons). If we ever do receive an electromagnetic signal from of these star systems, they will have been long dead, simply because of the self-destructive nature of intelligent life.
#36 to #6 - jdizzleoffthehizzl
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
***** that is some heavy ****
User avatar #74 to #6 - checkandmate
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Yeah but all exoplanets we know so far are only thousands of light years away, not millions. We'll be looking back 3-4000 years max. Most of them are around a thousand light years away.
#31 to #6 - GetOnMyHorse
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
Although what the guy below me says makes a lot of sense
Although what the guy below me says makes a lot of sense
User avatar #7 to #6 - ieatbengay
Reply +23 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
now you're thinking with science
User avatar #5 - HarvietheDinkle
Reply +22 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
Realistically, if aliens were viewing the earth, they wouldn't see humans. We've been around for a relative split second, compared to the dinosaurs' hundreds of millions, and life's billions.
User avatar #43 to #5 - meganinja
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Aliens within tens of thousands of light years would be able to see humans. And any aliens within about five thousand light years would be able to see human culture and intelligence begin to display itself.
#35 - roegath
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Relevant
Relevant
#8 - alphagex
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
#23 to #8 - alphagex
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/23/2014) [-]
God I'm i retarded i ment to post this pic
#86 - doctorprofessornv
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
I think I'd be more impressed about the fact that they built a telescope so precise that at 70 million light years away it has enough focus to see individual organisms on a planet.
User avatar #92 to #86 - pillows
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
I'd be impressed that they built a telescope that can see 70 million light years away period.
User avatar #93 to #92 - pillows
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Cuz damn son that's far.
#67 - Digitalphear
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/24/2014) [-]
Comment Picture