|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
| Level 227 Comments: Mind Blower |
OfflineSend mail to dutchderpina Block dutchderpina Invite dutchderpina to be your friend flag avatar
- Views: 80780Slendermans story
3223 273 Total: +2950
- Views: 76612Truth
2718 670 Total: +2048
- Views: 32308Sloganmaker
1413 182 Total: +1231
- Views: 15106Epic youtube comment
526 74 Total: +452
- Views: 17356Procrastinationtime with Phanact...
303 48 Total: +255
- Views: 4845How I feel when my mom wakes me up
189 15 Total: +174
- Views: 9889Rememeber you. Edited video.
29 5 Total: +24
latest user's comments
|#12 - If you look closely, she does look like it might be maybelline…||09/17/2014 on Baby Swag Swag Mode||+2|
|#7 - It has been removed, but there is a petition to bring it back.…||09/11/2014 on Fucking Metal||+1|
|#13 - My guess||09/04/2014 on (untitled)||+9|
|#2 - It's true though. I could try to explain it myself, but this s… [+] (6 new replies)||08/31/2014 on Pluto left behind||+76|
#14 - KillinTime (09/01/2014) [-]
nope. it got demoted because people found objects of similar or larger size about the same distance out so now it's part of what is the 'kuiper belt'.
fun fact: we've had the same thing happen before with the asteroid belt. used to have 2 "planets" in it until scientists of the time realized it was actually just a bunch of asteroids.
#52 - twentyten (09/02/2014) [-]
There are a few criteria that an object must meet in order for it to be considered a planet. Size and shape is one of them. One of the other is a clear neighborhood around their orbits. The third is that the object must rotate around the Sun. It only failed one of these rules and that is the clear neighborhood orbit.
|#10 - Do you work on a chickenfarm? 'Cause you sure know how to rais…||08/30/2014 on dutchderpina's profile||0|
|#5 - Maybe they were talking about this handsome son of a bitch. [+] (5 new replies)||08/29/2014 on Hello darkness my old friend||+23|
|#4 - Source(it contains a free crotchet pattern, if you want your o…||08/25/2014 on Dancing Groot||+3|
|#3 - If aliens would have the technology to watch planets that are … [+] (45 new replies)||08/23/2014 on Bill nye the awesome guy||+395|
#46 - anonymous (08/24/2014) [-]
what if telescopes that can watch 70 million lightyears away just grow in the nature on trees and shit and aliens are dumb as fuck
#88 - anonymous (08/24/2014) [-]
That won't make the light necessary for sight get to them any faster
#16 - anonymous (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 - Fgner (08/23/2014) [-]
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 shit 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.
#57 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
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.
#79 - anonymous (08/24/2014) [-]
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 fucking sphere.
You can't fucking 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 fucking collection area. This isn't even physics, it's fucking geometry.
That telescope you referenced? It's for closer planets, we're talking 70*10^6 ly you piece of shit.
Idiots like you waste the time of real scientists.
#96 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
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 fucking distance to the Andromeda Galaxy? Why the fuck 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 shit. So why the fuck 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 - anonymous (08/24/2014) [-]
> one that's incredibly advanced will probably be easy as ****.
This is the whole fucking point asshole. These are theoretical limits, you're never going to magically do better than them. Shit's 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 fuck 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.
#59 - jukuku (08/24/2014) [-]
I never said his measurements were accurate, my point is that the size needed to view objects in that clarity is fucking 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.
#62 - Fgner (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.
#63 - jukuku (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.
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.
#66 - Fgner (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?
#65 - jukuku (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.
#24 - anonymous (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 fucking 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 fuck up. The only basis for these estimates we have is our own technology, don't make shit up to create an argument that doesn't need to exist.
#45 - Tsquared (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]
#26 - anonymous (08/23/2014) [-]
#30 - KazumaKyu (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.
#33 - Fgner (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.
#34 - KazumaKyu (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 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
#51 - KazumaKyu (08/24/2014) [-]
Comment #21: "You have abso-fucking-lutely 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 fucking 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 - Fgner (08/24/2014) [-]
Human achievements are pretty amazing, eh? Even the most rediculous claims seem to be possible once you start understanding the universe a bit.
#13 - anonymous (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.
#11 - anonymous (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.
|#45 - **dutchderpina rolled image ** Definitely this||08/19/2014 on Transvestites||0|
|#1 - Source is Silent Hill: Shattered Memories||08/19/2014 on .||+3|
Join Subscribe adventure-time
Join Subscribe adventuretime
Join Subscribe bendingtime
Join Subscribe doctor-who
Join Subscribe fallout
Join Subscribe portal