1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Mutex
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Mutex » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:21 pm UTC

Maybe that's why vampires are only a myth these days, they were all killed out by the hydrogen bomb testing in the 50s.

(EDIT: That's quite the page topper.)

kkt
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:37 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby kkt » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:35 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.


Most astronomers use mirrored diagonals, and they can do an excellent job:
http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm? ... visual_acc

jozwa
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: Finland

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby jozwa » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:38 pm UTC

I was gonna point out the mirror thing two hours ago when I read the comic but now it's changed. Nice.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:41 pm UTC

JPatten wrote:
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?
No more than one..?

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3059
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 5:42 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
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?

Pinker does an interesting analysis of this in How the Mind Works, where he points out that religious and supernatural concepts are essentially "human concepts with a few emendations that make them wondrous and a longer list of standard traits that make them sensible to our ordinary ways of knowing". But, he says, "Believers also avoid working out the strange logical consequences of these piecemeal revisions of ordinary things". He doesn't say so, but he seems to suggest that these strange consequences and logical inconsistencies are inevitable, rather in the way that changing a single line of code in a complicated piece of software is likely to result in something that doesn't work.

He also makes Flumble's point that the creatures of superstition are pretty unimaginative compared to stuff like Quantum Physics.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

JPatten
Posts: 95
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 5:49 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
JPatten wrote:
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?
No more than one..?


Hmm... Would that not be testable? If you could contrive a test that showed the existence of the electron at two distinct spatial point simultaneously then it couldn't be the same electron at two points temporally or am missing the logic somewhere?

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5394
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:18 pm UTC

The same electron can exist in two places simultaneously because it went back in time so now there are two of it at the same time, but it's the same electron; and that positron that also exists is ALSO the same electron, in the process of going back in time, with its "annihilation" with the first electron the act of turning back in time, and its earlier "creation" along with the second electron the second turnabout setting it forward in time again.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

wolf99
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:47 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby wolf99 » Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:20 pm UTC

Wonder if the chernabog name drop is a Neil Gaiman reference, Fantasia or Slavic mythology?

pscottdv
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:32 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby pscottdv » Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:57 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.

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


How do you figure that? I see no right-angle bends in the light path. I have some straight-through eyepieces and none of them have a mirror or prism.

JPatten
Posts: 95
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 7:00 pm UTC

pscottdv 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.

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


How do you figure that? I see no right-angle bends in the light path. I have some straight-through eyepieces and none of them have a mirror or prism.

The image has been fixed since that was posted

Gargravarr
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:34 am UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Gargravarr » Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:25 pm UTC

How do space vampires produce thrust, anyway? Bat wings aren't much use in space. Do they expel methane gas at high speed?

Also, where do they hide from sunlight? At Lagrange point 2? Not many austronauts out there to feed on...

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2046
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby cellocgw » Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:30 pm UTC

Mutex wrote: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?


I once wrote a short research paper on that subject, showing that in fact it's the gaps in sunlight (due to atmospheric absorption) wavelengths which kill vampires. Things like candles and incandescents are roughly full-black-body, and the wavelengths in those solar gaps quench the destructo-reaction from other wavelengths.

I submitted it to AIR but sadly they rejected it due to the plethora of vampire research extant. Let that be a lesson to all you research-grant-application writers: pick a new topic.
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
YellowYeti
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:05 am UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby YellowYeti » Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:31 pm UTC

JPatten wrote:
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


So will they be in focus even when I'm not wearing my contact lenses? how cool is that!

JPatten
Posts: 95
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 7:41 pm UTC

YellowYeti wrote:So will they be in focus even when I'm not wearing my contact lenses? how cool is that!


That is cool. On the other hand I think that looking at hat for any length of time would produce a terrible headache as your eyes would be struggling with focusing or not.

I know that is why I have issues with 3-D movies. My eyes want to adjust focus based on "perceived" distance, but everything is already in focus. Or depending on the shot, out of focus but refuses to come into focus so my eyes hurt from trying. I get eye-strain headaches from using it too long

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:04 pm UTC

I think it's sort of a "perceive" versus "see" thing.

One perceives a pale Romanian nobleman in evening dress and one assumes they must also see it, but all that fiddly business with the eyes isn't actually happening.

Now that I think about it, I'd say that vampires must go around naked, in the sense that there are no "real" clothes involved. That would explain (one) why their clothes don't show up in mirrors/photos and (two) why they are always in formal-wear.
Last edited by Quizatzhaderac on Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:41 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

JPatten
Posts: 95
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 8:11 pm UTC

Is that because thyy "project" formal wear, or because we expect it based off the cultural legacy of vampires?

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5929
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Angua » Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:14 pm UTC

Where did this lore about purity of silver come from? As far as I was aware, you can't see a vampire in a reflection because they don't have a soul.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
IonStorm
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:14 am UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby IonStorm » Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:23 pm UTC

Sadly this is old science. See Sandford, Dworkin, and Bernstein (2007) "The Chemical and Physical Properties of Vampires in the Gaseous State" Annals of Improbable Research 13, 20-24. (PDF) The relevant section of the manuscript is:

...Since there are multiple reports of the possibility of vampires in space (e.g., Harrington et al. 1966; Wallace et al. 1967; Nowlan, Wyckoff et al.,1980; Bohus et al. 1995), this raises the intriguing possibility of, for example, remote sensing of any space-faring vampires in some of the multi-wavelength all-sky surveys currently being conducted by NASA.
Unfortunately, we anticipate that such measurements will ultimately be very difficult to make. Again, since vampires do not produce a reflection in mirrors, they will be invisible to many of the optical elements found in devices that measure spectra5. Indeed, the lack of a reflection in mirrors may be a single manifestation of a larger problem, as there is little to no data on the detectability of vampires by a host of optical components like beam splitters, gratings, polarization filters, etc...

5A vampire’s inability to produce a reflection in a mirror has some interesting consequences. For example, a vampire could apparently be spotted from afar with a typical seaman’s spyglass, but would be invisible to the world’s most powerful Newtonian telescope.

speising
Posts: 2350
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby speising » Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:25 pm UTC

Angua wrote:Where did this lore about purity of silver come from? As far as I was aware, you can't see a vampire in a reflection because they don't have a soul.

Does that mean stones have a soul? Because they totally have a reflection.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5929
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Angua » Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:28 pm UTC

Sure, why not?
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

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 8:29 pm UTC

speising wrote:
Angua wrote:Where did this lore about purity of silver come from? As far as I was aware, you can't see a vampire in a reflection because they don't have a soul.

Does that mean stones have a soul? Because they totally have a reflection.

Only things that had a soul and then lost it lose their reflection. It's like Peter Pan's shadow. A needle and thread should take care of it.

User avatar
YellowYeti
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:05 am UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby YellowYeti » Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:42 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:
speising wrote:
Angua wrote:Where did this lore about purity of silver come from? As far as I was aware, you can't see a vampire in a reflection because they don't have a soul.

Does that mean stones have a soul? Because they totally have a reflection.

Only things that had a soul and then lost it lose their reflection. It's like Peter Pan's shadow. A needle and thread should take care of it.


If a vampire is a body without a soul, and a ghost is a soul without a body, can a vampire be haunted by it's own ghost?

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:59 pm UTC

JPatten wrote:Is that because thyy "project" formal wear, or because we expect it based off the cultural legacy of vampires?
I'd imagine they project it along with the body, but don't have deliberate control over it, with it acting like a mood-ring.
speising wrote:Does that mean stones have a soul? Because they totally have a reflection.
Not every specific stone, but the land itself does, and that stone is part of it.
YellowYeti wrote:If a vampire is a body without a soul, and a ghost is a soul without a body, can a vampire be haunted by it's own ghost?
Yes, that's why vampires are so angsty.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
Heimhenge
Posts: 359
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 11:35 pm UTC
Location: Arizona desert

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Heimhenge » Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:50 pm UTC

OK, assume a spherical and totally naked vampire placed at the center of a perfectly reflecting, perfectly evacuated, and non-silvered spherical mirror with a radius of one light year. Question: Would he really give a shit?

Mikeski
Posts: 1096
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Mikeski » Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:05 pm UTC

The comic is missing the point. Not only can the reflector not see space vampires, it cannot see terrestrial vampires. They can sneak right up on you and suck your blood while you're looking at stars. With the refractor, everything goes black if a vampire stands in front of it.

wolf99 wrote:Wonder if the chernabog name drop is a Neil Gaiman reference, Fantasia or Slavic mythology?

Mythology, of course, by the transitive property of myths. (Unless the slavs borrowed him from somewhere, then it's a reference to that.)

YellowYeti wrote:If a vampire is a body without a soul, and a ghost is a soul without a body, can a vampire be haunted by it's own ghost?

I'm pretty sure I've heard of that plot being used in D&D.

PFD Studio
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:05 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby PFD Studio » Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:49 pm UTC

Wouldn't the space vampires have to be naked to get by the reflectors?

rmsgrey
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:02 pm UTC

Didn't the Time Lords kill off all the space vampires?

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Sableagle » Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:11 pm UTC

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


Gamma rays pass through us, and can kill us.

Same goes for 7.62x57mm AP, but in a rather different way.

Hmm. Bullets are pretty much moving particles, but do they refract like waves when entering a move dense medium?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5394
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:27 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:Hmm. Bullets are pretty much moving particles, but do they refract like waves when entering a move dense medium?

Yes. And wheels rolling diagonally across a boundary between surfaces with different friction refract too. Basically anything moving across a boundary that causes a change in speed.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Vnend
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:34 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Vnend » Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:38 pm UTC

Re: Re: title text

Yeah, but point a 6 inch F/15 refractor at a good star cluster and the view is magical, diagonal or straight through. If vampires could shimmer like that they'd have a much higher public opinion.

[It was pretty confusing, coming in late in the day and seeing all the comments about a mirror in the refractor when there wasn't one in the drawing *now*. I both got over it and was reminded why I should check out the forums more often than I do.]

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby da Doctah » Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:00 am UTC

YellowYeti wrote:If a vampire is a body without a soul, and a ghost is a soul without a body, can a vampire be haunted by it's own ghost?


Only if it's double-jointed.

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby ps.02 » Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:26 am UTC

Vnend wrote:point a 6 inch F/15 refractor at a good star cluster and the view is magical, diagonal or straight through. If vampires could shimmer like that they'd have a much higher public opinion.

So, you're saying vampires would be more popular if they sparkled? But that's ridiculous. Who ever heard of such a thing?

rmsgrey
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby rmsgrey » Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:07 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
Sableagle wrote:Hmm. Bullets are pretty much moving particles, but do they refract like waves when entering a move dense medium?

Yes. And wheels rolling diagonally across a boundary between surfaces with different friction refract too. Basically anything moving across a boundary that causes a change in speed.


At Trinity College Cambridge, there's a tradition that the idea for how refraction works was arrived at by watching people walking around Great Court, which has a path around the edge which is flat-paved around the middle third or so of the path's width, with cobbles on either side. Lines of students walking abreast refract as they go around the corners...

cptjeff
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:42 am UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby cptjeff » Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:39 am UTC

JPatten wrote:Is that because thyy "project" formal wear, or because we expect it based off the cultural legacy of vampires?


If they're projecting the idea of formal wear, does their appearance change depending on what the person 'seeing' the vampire envisions formal wear to be? That is to say, would a Chinese tourist visiting Europe perceive the vampire to be wearing silk robes while the natives nearby are perceiving him in white tie and tails? Do they project an attire based on the collective expectation of the viewers, and if so, is that based on majority vote or some synthesis of the expectation of everybody in that group in proportion to their number within the group, and perhaps the strength of their expectation?

User avatar
CatCube
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:28 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby CatCube » Sat Jan 28, 2017 3:18 am UTC

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


In Bram Stoker's original novel sunlight didn't kill vampires, merely robbed them of many of their powers until nightfall.

User avatar
Old Bruce
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:27 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Old Bruce » Sat Jan 28, 2017 3:31 am 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.


I've never seen one in Google street view. On the other hand all the pictures in Google street view are taken in daylight, I wonder why that is?

RogueCynic
Posts: 401
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:23 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby RogueCynic » Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:25 am UTC

All this talk of a vampire's reflection brings to mind a question: how is an image generated? Is it light reflected from the eyes of the seer or from sunlight?

ps.02 wrote:
Vnend wrote:point a 6 inch F/15 refractor at a good star cluster and the view is magical, diagonal or straight through. If vampires could shimmer like that they'd have a much higher public opinion.

So, you're saying vampires would be more popular if they sparkled? But that's ridiculous. Who ever heard of such a thing?


See the Twilight series.
I am Lord Titanius Englesmith, Fancyman of Cornwood.
See 1 Kings 7:23 for pi.
If you put a prune in a juicer, what would you get?

User avatar
Cougar Allen
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:49 am UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Cougar Allen » Sat Jan 28, 2017 5:30 am UTC

Heimhenge wrote:OK, assume a spherical and totally naked vampire placed at the center of a perfectly reflecting, perfectly evacuated, and non-silvered spherical mirror with a radius of one light year. Question: Would he really give a shit?


If he is a Western vampire who drinks blood, yes, he will have to excrete. If he is an Eastern vampire who sucks the life energy from his victims, not necessarily.

User avatar
Cougar Allen
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:49 am UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Cougar Allen » Sat Jan 28, 2017 5:31 am UTC

Reflecting telescopes actually have two mirrors. What if the effects cancel out?

Mutex
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 1791: "Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector"

Postby Mutex » Sat Jan 28, 2017 9:51 am UTC

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


Gamma rays pass through us, and can kill us.


But some of the gamma rays are absorbed/used up in the process, if the same was true of light/vampires you'd see a shadow of a vampire in a mirror reflecting it.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: da Doctah, mscha, Pfhorrest and 40 guests