The Nebula (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world
 

all 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 26 points 10 months ago

I'll call it... the pillar of creation.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 21 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (8 children)

    Not to burst the bubble, but i'm pretty sure that, even blocking more than 50% of the aperture, the astronomer still wouldn't be able to see the person. The astronomer would just see a significantly darker and warped version of the thing behind the person, since the person, much like the various mirror assemblies and mounts inside the telescope, are all wildly out of focus.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (5 children)

    It wouldn't really be a warped image of the background at all actually.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    As in the night sky, which is the background the telescope is focused on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Of course. What I meant by that was "oh, so the background behind the person would appear totally unobscured, and diffraction and aberration from the weird shape blocking part of the view wouldn't make it more fuzzy?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    The diffraction caused by an obstruction is hard to see in binoculars. If you stick your entire hand in front of a 6 inch telescope, the viewer won't even notice other than the dimming. For a telescope that size, you'd need a camera to even notice the dip in brightness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago

    If he turned around, the viewer would discover Uranus!

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    Classic Deathbulge. I miss it.

  • source