this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
835 points (100.0% liked)
memes
13987 readers
2434 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Pedantry alert, neerrrr:
You can see the moon landing sites easily enough if you know where to look, and can match up the geography easily. What you can't do from the ground is what a lot of folks expect, which is see any of the left behind equipment, rover tracks, boot prints, flags, etc. for a couple of reasons. First, the features are too small to be physically possible for a purely optical telescope to actually resolve. And even then, the random motion of the Earth's atmosphere would distort your image too much to make out anything that small at that distance.
Are you able to elaborate on what you mean by this at all please, or possibly suggest a direction to look in to find more about what this means and the implications?
Have you ever looked at something on the horizon and it's all shimmery and wavy and won't hold still? That's because air (and moisture in the air) diffracts light. And the air is not still, either. When you're looking an incredibly small object that's extremely far away the effect is rather like trying to see through one of those pebble textured glass shower doors, except if it were moving and the object you were looking at were the size of a gnat. And also several miles past the door.
That's basically how I've always pictured it, like in my mental physics playground or whatever, the many, many particles may not be dense when you take a small sample (like a cubic foot of air or something) but through miles of atmosphere it adds up and the light has lots to bounce around and off of before it gets to you. Do I basically have that right? That comment someone added makes me think im understanding it right but maybe not explaining my understanding quite right, but maybe you get what I'm trying to say.
Yes, and also different patches of air are different densities because of temperature, or humidity, and they're neither even nor consistent nor still. Convection makes the atmosphere bubble, wind makes it shear, and all the rest of it. The air itself acts as a lens, and a very inconsistent and unpredictable one at that.
Similar just the impact of dust over a large enough distance.
Try going up to the top of, say, a 50 storey building in a moderately polluted city during a fairly still, warm, dry spell of weather and look down at the ground.
It'll likely look a lot more dusty than from street level.