You might find this xkcd blog entry interesting, if you have not yet seen it:
Joel Send a noteboard - 15/02/2013 04:09:05 PM
It bears tangentially on this question:
Isaac already covered this pretty exhaustively, but consider 1) the naked eye can see many (though by no means all) stars from light years away and 2) they twinkle. Light pollution is often the biggest barrier: Obviously, few stars are visible by day beside Sol, and soon after acquiring my telescope I learned that whether one views the moon and planets or stars usually depends on whether the moon is nearly full or nearly dark; a full moon washes out much of the nearby sky, just like the sun. There is a reason naval ships have smoking lamps: Absent all other light sources, and perfectly skylined by the ocean, a lit cigarette is frequently visible all the way to the horizon.
I pause here, again tangentially, for my standard lunar observation warning: Telescopes with apertures >2-3" (5-8 cm ) should NOT on full or nearly full moons at low magnification. The quantity of light gathered and small surface area of exposed retina make the experience painful after 10-20 seconds, and dangerous after that.
3. If you were in a place that was completely flat, by which I mean a plane, not even on a curved surface such as the Earth, what limits would be placed on how far you could see? If there was nothing in your way, no buildings or anything, would you be able to see something big, say an Olympus Mons sized mountain, that was a thousand miles away? More? Or would dust, atmosphere, pollution, or whatever else combine to blur the sight of distant objects?
Isaac already covered this pretty exhaustively, but consider 1) the naked eye can see many (though by no means all) stars from light years away and 2) they twinkle. Light pollution is often the biggest barrier: Obviously, few stars are visible by day beside Sol, and soon after acquiring my telescope I learned that whether one views the moon and planets or stars usually depends on whether the moon is nearly full or nearly dark; a full moon washes out much of the nearby sky, just like the sun. There is a reason naval ships have smoking lamps: Absent all other light sources, and perfectly skylined by the ocean, a lit cigarette is frequently visible all the way to the horizon.
I pause here, again tangentially, for my standard lunar observation warning: Telescopes with apertures >2-3" (5-8 cm ) should NOT on full or nearly full moons at low magnification. The quantity of light gathered and small surface area of exposed retina make the experience painful after 10-20 seconds, and dangerous after that.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 15/02/2013 at 05:19:58 PM
I have some strange questions.
- 14/02/2013 04:45:04 PM
890 Views
Some strange answers
- 14/02/2013 05:14:36 PM
627 Views
Re: Some strange answers
- 14/02/2013 06:16:59 PM
561 Views
More strange answers
- 14/02/2013 08:28:39 PM
522 Views
A tidally locked world would be horrifying. I'm pretty sure you'd get more than a breeze. *NM*
- 14/02/2013 07:07:41 PM
195 Views
I never run the numbers but I wouldn't expect it to gust
- 14/02/2013 08:51:21 PM
427 Views
I remember a series of books about a planet that was almost tidal locked
- 14/02/2013 11:45:43 PM
418 Views
Re: I remember a series of books about a planet that was almost tidal locked
- 15/02/2013 12:17:43 AM
416 Views
I haven't read it, but that sounds like what I've heard of West of January.
- 15/02/2013 08:20:57 PM
480 Views
You might find this xkcd blog entry interesting, if you have not yet seen it:
- 15/02/2013 04:09:05 PM
661 Views