Talk:1231: Habitable Zone

2013-07-01T13:46:18Z

24.72.12.221:

Even if you placed the mirror in Space, it would be incredibly obvious what is going on. I don't think this would work. [[Special:Contributions/96.251.85.48|96.251.85.48]] 06:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

:For this trick to work, the mirror would need to be placed AT LEAST two light years away and be at least 1AU big. Somehow I don't think this is worth it. Alternatively, you need more complicated optical system which would not only mirror Earth, but also create illusion it's further away. I still think such system would be more costly to build that ISS. Or ... well ... you could put an LCD display directly over the telescope. That's doable, cheap and as a bonus you can display planets from sci-fi there. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

::The mirror could be much smaller and closer if it's convex. PS. I don't know the 'rules' for posting, so apologies if I'm doing it wrong.[[Special:Contributions/24.72.12.221|24.72.12.221]] 13:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

::Under Hkmaly's initial proposal, the astronomer would have to make two observations, 4 years apart, in order to see the "other" telescope. [[User:Elsbree|Elsbree]] ([[User talk:Elsbree|talk]]) 07:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Since when do we have terrestrial telescopes that can directly resolve exoplanets? I think we're still at the stage where we get excited by troughs in light curves EDIT: TIL that there are specific techniques for exactly that: {{w|Nulling interferometry}} and {{w|Vortex coronagraph}}s. Still, they may work for hot Jupiters, but don't think we can detect Goldilocks exoplanets from the ground yet; much less see oceans and visible weather. [[Special:Contributions/220.224.246.97|220.224.246.97]] 09:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

My first thought was that you need to point the mirror so that it's aimed perfectly at the Earth. Then, I realized that you can use a corner reflector so that the aim doesn't have to be precise at all. Then, I came to the following realization: what if a significant portion of the stars we see are simply reflections of our own solar system due to a massive prank done by aliens? [[Special:Contributions/174.88.153.125|174.88.153.125]] 15:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

:Or all of them? Of course including additional variable features like red shift. So [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Universum.jpg they were right!] Forever alone... --[[User:Kronf|Kronf]] ([[User talk:Kronf|talk]]) 16:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

:: Where would these aliens reside? Either we're pranking ourselves, or there are other stars. [[Special:Contributions/220.224.246.97|220.224.246.97]] 17:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

::: What if there's a mirage-like effect in space, that causes light rays to mirror back to us with some variability, maybe different sizes, shapes, colors, and the universe is actuallly quite small? I mean, other than light, do we seriously detect gravity and other stuff out there (other than the visible effects of those properties on other stuff we see)? [[Special:Contributions/189.5.110.148|189.5.110.148]] 06:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

:::: If the universe is curved spherically, something similar to this would actually happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe [[Special:Contributions/174.88.153.125|174.88.153.125]] 16:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't reflected light make the mirror extremely bright and impossible to view directly?{{unsigned ip|49.176.71.2}}

: Depends on how far the aliens decide to put the mirror. Light gets weaker with distance, which is the same reason that distant stars (many of which are brighter than our sun) don't overwhelm us with light. Also...what if the sun is merely a reflection of something? [[Special:Contributions/174.88.153.125|174.88.153.125]] 16:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1149: Broomstick

2012-12-22T00:49:40Z

24.72.12.221:

Anyone have any thoughts on the title text? Is that intended to suggest that Toto was an annoyance that Dorothy was happy to be rid of? I'm not really sure why (if) it's supposed to be funny... [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 15:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

:I figured it was a kind of loophole closing. With a lot of movies, you have viewers that go "well if the protagonist had just done 'this', then they could have saved a lot of trouble." But in this "easier" scenario, what reason would the witch have to trust Dorothy? Collateral is often used to ensure that one party will keep up their end of a deal, so it helped to seal this one. [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 16:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

:I agree that the intention was to close a loophole, but I also was unable to fathom that Dorothy would leave Toto behind. It would be ''way'' out of character for her. If Dorothy had been a more self-centered character, then the title text would be a lot funnier. [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 11:38, 19 December 2012 (EST)

:Definitely to close a loophole. Dorothy has something the Witch wants that Dorothy doesn't need except the crazy witch wants to hurt her for them. The Wizard seems to have what she needs but won't give it except for what the witch wants. A trade seems much easier. But of course, who would trust the witch (and why would the untrusting witch start trusting)? All things considered, if you're in a strange land with freaky creatures and frighteningly perverse singalongs, you might consider a Scottish terrier a small price to pay to return to a Kansas farm which, while dull, is far superior to that crazy place. :) [[User:Chriss|Chriss]] ([[User talk:Chriss|talk]]) 16:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Chriss

:Cairn Terrier, original to the books and continued in the movie. Smaller and less feisty than a Scottie.A loyal breed, he probably escaped from the WWW after the trade, and is flying home with Dorothy and the Professor, unseen down in the bottom of the balloon basket.[[Special:Contributions/24.79.11.46|24.79.11.46]] 21:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

:Megan never struck me as much of a dog person. [[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 17:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

:Just wondering if Wizzard wants to see the broom, why not to show that to him, even let him touch that, than return it to the Witch, collect the pupy from her and merry on my way ? Kind of complicating the quest again, but retaining the all-for-friend appearance. [[User:prom|prom]] 1:13, 20.12.2012 (CET)

Since the book had {{w|Silver Shoes}} and the movie had {{w|Ruby Slippers}}, I think it's probably best to avoid discussion of the book... I've removed the reference to the Nome King - who doesn't appear in the movie or even that first Oz book. – ''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]</sup> 18:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else notice Black Hat Guy in the balloon? How do you add the tag for "Comics with Black Hat Guy"?

:I dont think that is Black Hat Guy.. This guy's hat is taller. It also wouldn't fit into Black Hat Guy's character, as Megan is essentially tricking him into thinking she's killed the witch.

Due to the absence of lyrics, I assumed it was humming or whistling, not singing. --BigMal27 // [[Special:Contributions/192.136.15.178|192.136.15.178]] 12:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The irony here is her ruby slippers have the power to take her home, but she's trading them away for a broom, in the hopes that the wizard will take her home. She says "that was easy" although it was far more effort than just clicking her heels and repeating "there's no place like home".
[[User:Twifosp|Twifosp]] ([[User talk:Twifosp|talk]]) 02:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)twifosp

I'm still confused by this one - or maybe I just don't remember the movie well enough. She has the ruby slippers which would let her fly home by clicking them - so what has she gained by exchanging them indirectly for a flight home in a balloon? Has she traded her three companions and dog for the wizard's company? I feel I'm missing something. Also, to the person above saying it would be "out of character" for Dorothy to trade in this way, isn't that the point? That a sociopath version of Dorothy would resolve the problem completely differently? [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 23:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Dorothy didn't know till near the end of the movie that the ruby slippers could get her home. I also want to point out that the Wizard never actually demanded the destruction of the witch. He just asked for her broomstick. The Tin Man suggested "But if we do that, we'd have to kill her to get it". The Wizard neither confirmed nor denied this, merely restating "Bring me her broomstick, and I'll grant your requests". So Dorothy trading for it without killing the witch is perfectly acceptable according to the terms outlined.

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1231: Habitable Zone

Talk:1149: Broomstick