1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Rossegacebes
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 1:16 pm UTC

1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Rossegacebes » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:04 pm UTC

Image

Title-text: On the other hand, the refractor's limited light-gathering means it's unable to make out shadow people or the dark god Chernabog.

Even the refractor will miss the vampires...

Edit: Drawing was updated. My comment does not apply anymore. There goes my stab to fame...
Last edited by gmalivuk on Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:06 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: added link

Raidri
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:39 am UTC
Location: Germany

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Raidri » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:08 pm UTC

Even the refractor will miss the vampires...

Yeah, this one was a bummer ....

User avatar
JGeezer
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 6:00 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby JGeezer » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:10 pm UTC

Methinks you guys didn't "get it".

Vampires do not reflect in mirrors. If there was one out there, this would in fact be true.
Image All you molpys, get off my lawn!

Thorbard9
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:42 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Thorbard9 » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:15 pm UTC

JGeezer wrote:Methinks you guys didn't "get it".

Vampires do not reflect in mirrors. If there was one out there, this would in fact be true.


There is a mirror in the eyepiece of the refractor...

User avatar
JGeezer
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 6:00 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby JGeezer » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:18 pm UTC

Thorbard9 wrote:
JGeezer wrote:Methinks you guys didn't "get it".

Vampires do not reflect in mirrors. If there was one out there, this would in fact be true.


There is a mirror in the eyepiece of the refractor...


Nope, if it's a decent refactor it's a prism.
Image All you molpys, get off my lawn!

Showsni
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:09 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Showsni » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:33 pm UTC

Are you positing that vampires can still be totally internally reflected?

Maybe it's just the silver in traditional mirrors that prevents their reflection...

speising
Posts: 2283
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby speising » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:42 pm UTC

Showsni wrote:Are you positing that vampires can still be totally internally reflected?

Maybe it's just the silver in traditional mirrors that prevents their reflection...

That's the lore in at least some stories, yes.

Anyway, the depicted refractor does seem to have a mirror, not a prism.

pebkac
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:50 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby pebkac » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:43 pm UTC

This got me wondering:
Vampires can't be seen in a mirror. But to spot a space Vampire, it must be flying, and therefore be in bat-shape.

Now, can you see a vampire in bat-shape in a mirror?

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Whizbang » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:46 pm UTC

Might there be a difference between space vampires and Earth bound vampires that is being missed? Something related to the Refractor's limitations Re: shadow people and Chernabog?

MRR
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:15 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby MRR » Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:00 pm UTC

JGeezer wrote:Nope, if it's a decent refactor it's a prism.


Isn't a prism set up like that actually reflecting, since the refraction is past the critical angle?

I wonder if vampires don't reflect in mirrors because the reflective part is a silver backing. If so, then I suppose a reflective prism would still allow their image to appear.

richP
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:28 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby richP » Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:25 pm UTC

So if we do spot a space vampire, we send up Bruce Willis and ....?

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Flumble » Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:37 pm UTC

richP wrote:So if we do spot a space vampire, we send up Bruce Willis and ....?

...he comes back with a bunch of prismatic stones. You're better off sending Wesley Snipes. Even if he doesn't succeed, at least you've solved half a problem.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4873
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby HES » Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:44 pm UTC

richP wrote:Bruce Willis and ....?

Abraham Lincoln.
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby pogrmman » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:00 pm UTC

I know this is tounge-in-cheek, but he is missing a couple drawbacks of reflectors, like coma, astigmatism, difficulty of figuring, central obstruction, and field curvature. I know those can be fixed, but with a Newtonian, you need pricy optics to do it.

EDIT: I'm very much a reflector guy though.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2993
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby orthogon » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:04 pm UTC

speising wrote:
Showsni wrote:Are you positing that vampires can still be totally internally reflected?

Maybe it's just the silver in traditional mirrors that prevents their reflection...

That's the lore in at least some stories, yes.

That raises a whole load of questions. Can they be photographed? Chemical photography uses silver compounds, so perhaps not. What about digital photographs? Do they appear in selfies? The self-view picture in a Skype or FaceTime call or a video conference? Perhaps they're visible at the remote end but not locally? In that case, you'd expect vampire selfies to be badly framed. There's something to look out for on your Facebook friends' pages.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

MikeInWI
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:54 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby MikeInWI » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:09 pm UTC

JGeezer wrote:
Thorbard9 wrote:
JGeezer wrote:Methinks you guys didn't "get it".

Vampires do not reflect in mirrors. If there was one out there, this would in fact be true.


There is a mirror in the eyepiece of the refractor...


Nope, if it's a decent refactor it's a prism.


The right angle piece at the viewing end of a refractor is called a diagonal. The eyepiece fits into the diagnonal. Astronomical refractors (as opposed to spotting scope used for terrestrial viewing) use a front surface mirror in the diagonal - not a prism.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1948
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby cellocgw » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:26 pm UTC

As long as we're picking this one apart into pieces too small for even zombie ants to eat,...

You can make a refractor as big as you want to collect as much light as you want. It'll just get very expensive, very heavy, and very crappy image quality.

But we can FixAnything(TM) with adaptive optic systems :twisted:

Now, as to how best to view photino birds...

And one last jab at vampires: the canon is that they're impure and so the purity of silver won't hold their reflection. But unless they automagically transfer impurity to their clothes, how come we can't see their outfits?


Aaaaand, while I"m at it,

Upon reflection, I think we need to refactor the reflector.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

Mutex
Posts: 1386
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Mutex » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:36 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:And one last jab at vampires: the canon is that they're impure and so the purity of silver won't hold their reflection. But unless they automagically transfer impurity to their clothes, how come we can't see their outfits?


That aspect of vampire lore has always bothered me. I know the whole concept of vampires requires suspension of belief, but I've always felt the more a vampire story decided to explore that aspect, the more holes it would pick in it until the whole thing became clearly logically impossible - I mean, impossible to even be consistent with itself. I mean, so the silver can't reflect light that came from a vampire, how does it know what colour light to replace it with? Can the silver see through vampires?

User avatar
Kalium_Puceon
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:44 pm UTC
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Contact:

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Kalium_Puceon » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:38 pm UTC

I decided to ask Randall if he made a mistake or was just nerd sniping us, got a reply now:

< Kalium> the barlow lens is a mirrored device
...
<Randall> 10:22:29 < Kalium> the barlow lens is a mirrored device
<jamesl> oh, hey
<Kalium> Randall, I realise that I meant Star Diagonal
<Randall> Hadn't really thought about that. Maybe I'll change the diagram, since that will bug me otherwise :)
<jamesl> yeah, we were wondering if that was a mirror or prism
<jamesl> you could add extra lines so it looks like a prism
<Kalium> I'll go put this on the forums so they can stop arguing about prisms

so there you have it. Made a mistake, good 2 kno.
"You never get over the desire to do stupid things. You simply have to overrule your stupid urges with an acquired sense of fear."

-Dr. Richard Weisiger

JPatten
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:39 pm UTC
Location: Southeast USA
Contact:

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby JPatten » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:40 pm UTC

Perhaps they do not appear in mirrors, and consequently not in photographs because you aren't actually seeing them at all. They are not visible in the sense of actually reflecting incident light but are only visible as manifestations in your mind. If you are not looking directly at where they are they do not manifest.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3674
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:41 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:That raises a whole load of questions. Can they be photographed? Chemical photography uses silver compounds, so perhaps not.
That's been the update of lore, certainly. Silver is mystical (or anti-mystical, see also lycanthropic aversion/vulnerability to the stuff) such that it 'ignores' a vampire (and typically their attire, though that might be an acclimatisation to their basic aura, with recently grasped items remaining visibly unsupported in a reflection of the scene - according to some Law Of Drama/Comedy/Whatever) and does not do anything with that subset of light. And somehow gets to 'see' and reflect/process the light that the vampiric form was obscuring.

If there's silver (or silver-analogue - but outside of the Cu/Ag/Au stack, because those other two are sometimes specifically capable of reflections, implicitly or through SFX oversight) in a CCTV camera system, it might be equally capable of 'ignoring a vampire'.


Alternate theorem: Vampires are invisible but emanate a 'glamour' of their image, which works to trick everyone with direct vkew of them in seeing their own projected form (possibly allowances for seeing the shadow of their form, too, although in this case maybe the truer, less-cutured, more-leathery-winged version) instead of the background light. Silver(-like) 'devices' for doing more with light than showing a shadow are impervious to the necessary overlay of the mystical image, so just don't show what the direct Mk 1 Eyeball would.

(...aaaand, slightly (doubly) ninjaed on the clothes front, but 'aura' or 'the clothes are the image the horrible bat thing also projects' answers might work well enough, if you want a sorta-consistent treatment.)

(And triply ninjaed on that point, with a good shorter version of what I'd just said... *sigh*)

Mutex
Posts: 1386
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Mutex » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:44 pm UTC

JPatten wrote:Perhaps they do not appear in mirrors, and consequently not in photographs because you aren't actually seeing them at all. They are not visible in the sense of actually reflecting incident light but are only visible as manifestations in your mind. If you are not looking directly at where they are they do not manifest.


That was a possibility that occurred to me, that light passes straight through them and the only way we can see vampires is that they implant their image in our minds. Which would mean they could turn completely invisible if they wanted to, so it's weird they don't make more use of that.

User avatar
The Chosen One
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:21 am UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby The Chosen One » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:47 pm UTC

Did you know that a vampire wearing mirrored lenses can see out the back of his head?
If you ever find yourself asking, "is the answer to the question, "is the answer to the question, "am I the only one?" no?" no?" The answer is still no, but you should probably close all those Logic Puzzles tabs and go to sleep.

JPatten
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:39 pm UTC
Location: Southeast USA
Contact:

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby JPatten » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:47 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
JPatten wrote:Perhaps they do not appear in mirrors, and consequently not in photographs because you aren't actually seeing them at all. They are not visible in the sense of actually reflecting incident light but are only visible as manifestations in your mind. If you are not looking directly at where they are they do not manifest.


That was a possibility that occurred to me, that light passes straight through them and the only way we can see vampires is that they implant their image in our minds. Which would mean they could turn completely invisible if they wanted to, so it's weird they don't make more use of that.


What if it is not a conscious thing. I mean after all, can you radically change your skin pigment by thinking about it? Perhaps it is just their Nature.

They can no more will themselves invisible than you can will your skin to be paisley or plaid.

User avatar
Kalium_Puceon
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:44 pm UTC
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Contact:

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Kalium_Puceon » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:51 pm UTC

Looks like it's been fixed so there's no reflector in the refractor anymore.
"You never get over the desire to do stupid things. You simply have to overrule your stupid urges with an acquired sense of fear."

-Dr. Richard Weisiger

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Flumble » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:56 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:That was a possibility that occurred to me, that light passes straight through them and the only way we can see vampires is that they implant their image in our minds. Which would mean they could turn completely invisible if they wanted to, so it's weird they don't make more use of that.

Unless the "implanting an image" trait was obtained during vampire evolution and they can't actually control it. Well, other than turning their image into that of a bat.

Mutex
Posts: 1386
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Mutex » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:57 pm UTC

Maybe, but you have to admit, it's getting slightly convoluted.

JPatten
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:39 pm UTC
Location: Southeast USA
Contact:

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby JPatten » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:58 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Maybe, but you have to admit, it's getting slightly convoluted.

Rationalizations often are.

But I should be careful, that statement can set off a Whole other set of internet arguments. How many electrons will be sacrificed to that discussion?

Mutex
Posts: 1386
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Mutex » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:01 pm UTC

It also introduces a problem with another part of the lore. If light passes through them, why does sunlight kill them?

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1948
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby cellocgw » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:03 pm UTC

[quote="JPatten"

What if it is not a conscious thing. I mean after all, can you radically change your skin pigment by thinking about it? Perhaps it is just their Nature.

[vampires] can no more will themselves invisible than you can will your skin to be paisley or plaid.[/quote]

Let me introduce you to my friends Chameleon and Cuttlefish.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Flumble » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:05 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Maybe, but you have to admit, it's getting slightly convoluted.

Not nearly as convoluted as quantum mechanics and that's not even fiction. :P

Mutex wrote:It also introduces a problem with another part of the lore. If light passes through them, why does sunlight kill them?

Sunlight is so bright that they overload their "image overlay" system!

In other news, the comic has indeed changed to reflect Randall's intention. But we will continue this subject, Kalium_Puceon.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Whizbang » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:07 pm UTC

New headcan(n)on: What if vampires are just metaphors for US? What if you can't see their reflection because we are blind to ourselves and each other through an impartial medium?

Nah. It's just makes for a cool and spooky story.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1596
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:08 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:Might there be a difference between space vampires and Earth bound vampires that is being missed? Something related to the Refractor's limitations Re: shadow people and Chernabog?
Clearly, space vampires have reflections, but their reflections don't.
Mutex wrote:That was a possibility that occurred to me, that light passes straight through them and the only way we can see vampires is that they implant their image in our minds. Which would mean they could turn completely invisible if they wanted to, so it's weird they don't make more use of that.
That assumes the vampire is doing it voluntarily. It might be that humans are psychic and can just sense vampires. Or, it might be that the glamour is a side effect of the vampire's willful insistence that they still exist; if the vampire stopped insisting, they'd stop being visible, but they'd also stop being.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

JPatten
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:39 pm UTC
Location: Southeast USA
Contact:

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby JPatten » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:09 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:[quote="JPatten"

What if it is not a conscious thing. I mean after all, can you radically change your skin pigment by thinking about it? Perhaps it is just their Nature.

[vampires] can no more will themselves invisible than you can will your skin to be paisley or plaid.


Let me introduce you to my friends Chameleon and Cuttlefish.[/quote]
I won't deny they can...but vampires are..or were human. Not cuttlefish..

JPatten
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:39 pm UTC
Location: Southeast USA
Contact:

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby JPatten » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:11 pm UTC

Quizatzhaderac wrote:
Whizbang wrote:Might there be a difference between space vampires and Earth bound vampires that is being missed? Something related to the Refractor's limitations Re: shadow people and Chernabog?
Clearly, space vampires have reflections, but their reflections don't.
Mutex wrote:That was a possibility that occurred to me, that light passes straight through them and the only way we can see vampires is that they implant their image in our minds. Which would mean they could turn completely invisible if they wanted to, so it's weird they don't make more use of that.
That assumes the vampire is doing it voluntarily. It might be that humans are psychic and can just sense vampires. Or, it might be that the glamour is a side effect of the vampire's willful insistence that they still exist; if the vampire stopped insisting, they'd stop being visible, but they'd also stop being.

Interesting idea..and has merit...

I think therefore I am..literally

Mutex
Posts: 1386
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Mutex » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:11 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:
Mutex wrote:It also introduces a problem with another part of the lore. If light passes through them, why does sunlight kill them?

Sunlight is so bright that they overload their "image overlay" system!


I was going to point out in recent versions of the lore, it's specifically UV light that kills them, but I guess that could mean only visible light passes through them, not UV which kills them.

richP
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:28 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby richP » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:12 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
speising wrote:
Showsni wrote:Are you positing that vampires can still be totally internally reflected?

Maybe it's just the silver in traditional mirrors that prevents their reflection...

That's the lore in at least some stories, yes.

That raises a whole load of questions. Can they be photographed? Chemical photography uses silver compounds, so perhaps not. What about digital photographs? Do they appear in selfies? The self-view picture in a Skype or FaceTime call or a video conference? Perhaps they're visible at the remote end but not locally? In that case, you'd expect vampire selfies to be badly framed. There's something to look out for on your Facebook friends' pages.


re: digital photos
Yes, but only guaranteed to work with very old digital cameras. New digital cameras, including cell phones, are highly likely to be built with RoHS compliant solder, which is likely to contain silver.

Ghyrt
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:04 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Ghyrt » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:12 pm UTC

> Chromatic Aberration

To be fair, the reflector will have some too since it still has a lens

Mutex
Posts: 1386
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Mutex » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:15 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
Flumble wrote:
Mutex wrote:It also introduces a problem with another part of the lore. If light passes through them, why does sunlight kill them?

Sunlight is so bright that they overload their "image overlay" system!


I was going to point out in recent versions of the lore, it's specifically UV light that kills them, but I guess that could mean only visible light passes through them, not UV which kills them.


This raises the question of how vampires react with the rest of the EM spectrum. Do they show up on radar? What happens if you put a vampire in a microwave?

JPatten
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:39 pm UTC
Location: Southeast USA
Contact:

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby JPatten » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:18 pm UTC

I suspect they are fairly radar transparent...and microwave as well..it is the higher energy and shorter wavelength light that is worse for them. Probably fully opaque at x-ray..and far more vulnerable to ionizing radiation than normal humans


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mscha and 30 guests