724 replies to this topic

[Slave2Fate]

booNyzarC, on 29 July 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

Just to be clear, you aren't seeing the fly in such an instance.  You are merely seeing light reflected from some point on its surface.

Yes, one could argue that anything that you see is nothing more than reflected light, but the point I'm trying to make is that you wouldn't be able to differentiate this from anything else.  And this is an important distinction.  From such a distance you wouldn't notice the momentary glinting reflection and surmise "oh, look at that fly!"  No, you'd barely even consider it.  It could be a mote of dust or a water droplet 100 feet away for all you'd know.

Conversely, if you knew there was a fly there and someone could somehow increase it's luminosity (just for the sake of argument) until it could be seen at 100 miles then at a certain point you could 'see the fly'. Not literally of course, it would still be the light that you're seeing however I'm thinking that is just semantics.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Oh, and Badsekov,

I forgot to mention to you... the reason why I feel I have to go with "800 miles high" for the Topol M missile is because you told me that the Minuteman missile went that high and that "all ICBMs are about the same", (they are NOT) and if I continued to go with the stats I had posted for the Peacekeeper ICBM, you would raise strong objections.

It has to do with being "ON THE SAME PAGE", Badsekov - some common ground. So I caved in to your 800 mile altitude figure  to keep the conversation going and not hovering around that particular point ad infinitum.

I think it is safe to say now, that I - WE - are saddled with using 800 miles in altitude unless YOU change that

[booNyzarC]

Slave2Fate, on 29 July 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

Conversely, if you knew there was a fly there and someone could somehow increase it's luminosity (just for the sake of argument) until it could be seen at 100 miles then at a certain point you could 'see the fly'. Not literally of course, it would still be the light that you're seeing however I'm thinking that is just semantics.

Indeed, but it would require knowledge of the point source for such a determination.  You simply can't see a glint of light and immediately know what that glint represents in and of itself.

Hence my position that the entire question and line of argument being presented by Earl is total BS.  More obfuscation and avoidance of the core questions that are actually relevant.

[Slave2Fate]

booNyzarC, on 29 July 2012 - 01:34 AM, said:

Indeed, but it would require knowledge of the point source for such a determination.  You simply can't see a glint of light and immediately know what that glint represents in and of itself.

Hence my position that the entire question and line of argument being presented by Earl is total BS.  More obfuscation and avoidance of the core questions that are actually relevant.

Agreed. I just got caught up in the thought experiment of it.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

JimOberg, on 29 July 2012 - 01:19 AM, said:

If the fly is reflecting enough light, you could see it.

Another proof that luminosity and not angular size is the crucial characteristic.

On STS-75 the 20-km tether snapped and flew into a higher orbit, where it remained for several weeks, slowly decaying.

The tether was the thickness of a telephone cord -- in other words, as thick as the body of a fly.

Hundreds of amateur satellite observers, including me, saw the tether as it passed overhead while illuminated by the sun.

Naked eye SAW the object, 500 km away or  more, no thicker than a fly. And 20 km long.

Maybe your concept of what CAN and CANNOT be seen is based on a fundamental misunderstanding

How do you explain so many of us seeing that sunlit tether?

no "IFs"

I said the "fly in the sky"

you know how much sunlight reflects off the fly.

play your game.

there is a vanishing point for everything

see a fly from a 100 miles....  come on, Jim you CAN'T be serious.l
another stall tactic??

I posed some questions about the "spiraling missile". care to take a crack at them, which is where your strength lies, not "flies form 100 miles"

LOL

good lord.

as far as the sunlit tether is concerned, I know nothing about it. and I don't care to comment on it.

[Slave2Fate]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

as far as the sunlit tether is concerned, I know nothing about it. and I don't care to comment on it.

Maybe you should look into it as it is very relevant to this discussion.

[lost_shaman]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

there is a vanishing point for everything

Yes. And that "vanishing point" occurs when the luminosity of an object is no longer high enough for your eye's to detect. It's not about Angular size after ~1 arc minute.

[booNyzarC]

Slave2Fate, on 29 July 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

Agreed. I just got caught up in the thought experiment of it.

I tried...  but apparently I liked too many things today...




Took some effort to create that.  Anyone else want to use it?  Here is a direct link:

http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd460/booNyzarC/likequotashadow.png

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Slave2Fate, on 29 July 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

Maybe you should look into it as it is very relevant to this discussion.

maybe they should look at my fly question as relavent.

maybe they should tell the truth when they answer

I gave an example that everyone knows of, a FLY. we all know what that is. I know nothing of Jim's tether

btw, now that you stepped in it, if you can see a fly from 100 miles and a tether from 500 kms,
how could this special Topol M missile go from west Kazakhstan to East and show off its cool SPIRAL, but it we can't see it's main missile plume the whole way?

care to answer?

glad you got in?

what you don't know, slave2fate is they are trolling me.

first, a certain poster in here says my question is really retarded then later in another post, he answers the question!! -  saying you COULD see a fly from a 100 miles. but it was reatrded right?

meanwhile the truth is, you cannot see a fly in the sky from1/10th of a mile, and no, the question is not retarded, it has relevence.

your volley

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps, 29 July 2012 - 02:30 AM.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

lost_shaman, on 29 July 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

Yes. And that "vanishing point" occurs when the luminosity of an object is no longer high enough for your eye's to detect. It's not about Angular size after ~1 arc minute.

nice shaman.

can you expand on that and tell me, if you can see the SPIRAL the Topol missile makes, why can't you see the main plume of the missile all the way across the sky from west Kazakhstan to east?

is there a vanishing point problem there for the one but not the other?

I believe you know what I am driving at, in the end.

[Slave2Fate]

booNyzarC, on 29 July 2012 - 01:52 AM, said:

I tried...  but apparently I liked too many things today...




Took some effort to create that.  Anyone else want to use it?  Here is a direct link:

http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd460/booNyzarC/likequotashadow.png

I hadn't seen that before.  

Maybe it's a Russian lead conspiracy! If they lie about missile launches who knows what they're capable of! ( A joke Earl, not meant to offend )

[booNyzarC]

Slave2Fate, on 29 July 2012 - 02:19 AM, said:

I hadn't seen that before.  

Maybe it's a Russian lead conspiracy! If they lie about missile launches who knows what they're capable of! ( A joke Earl, not meant to offend )

w00t!!!  It let me like again!!!  Perhaps it literally tallies on a 24 hour basis?  I wonder how many Likes I have left now and for how long...  

[lost_shaman]

Here this video shows a signaling mirror thats 3" X 5" filmed at differing distances. This demonstrates the point of luminousity being the determining factor in whether or not you can see it. Note at 43 miles the mirror has an Angular size many times smaller than the hypothetical B767 Earl has been thinking about.

[Slave2Fate]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 02:14 AM, said:

btw, now that you stepped in it, if you can see a fly from 100 miles and a tether from 500 kms,
how could this special Topol M missile go from west Kazakhstan to East and show off its cool SPIRAL, but it we can't see it's main missile plume the whole way?

care to answer?

You understand of course that an object with a high enough altitude at night can be illuminated by the sun, so conversely an object without sufficient altitude would not be lit and as was covered just a bit ago, without light we can't see.

Edited by Slave2Fate, 29 July 2012 - 02:33 AM.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

lost_shaman, on 29 July 2012 - 02:23 AM, said:

Here this video shows a signaling mirror thats 3" X 5" filmed at differing distances. This demonstrates the point of luminousity being the determining factor in whether or not you can see it. Note at 43 miles the mirror has an Angular size many times smaller than the hypothetical B767 Earl has been thinking about.

wonderful beginning, shaman, gonna keep going?

Slave2Fate, on 29 July 2012 - 02:28 AM, said:

You understand of course that an object with a high enough altitude at night can be illuminated by the sun, so conversely an object without sufficient altitude would not be lit and as was covered just a bit ago, without light we can't see.

Slave2Fate, on 29 July 2012 - 02:28 AM, said:

You understand of course that an object with a high enough altitude at night can be illuminated by the sun, so conversely an object without sufficient altitude would not be lit and as was covered just a bit ago, without light we can't see.

so in other words, you won't answer the question

the missile plume and the missile spiral are at the same altitude at the same time

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps, 29 July 2012 - 02:36 AM.