• Eiri@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    141
    ·
    1 month ago

    There’s no way in hell we have the resolution to see continents in another star system.

    • REDACTED@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      71
      ·
      1 month ago

      These are always illustrations based on whatever data we could gather. We almost never “see” the planets themselves.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      1 month ago

      Considering we only know it’s there because it slightly dims the light from its star as it crosses during its orbit, you would be correct. At that distance, we would never see light bouncing off the actual planet. Even the star is basically a single pixel. We can estimate its size and orbit based on how quickly it crosses in front of the star and how much the light dims, and using those two numbers we can estimate its distance from Kepler 452.

      • PancakesCantKillMe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 month ago

        I thought they could also see atmospheric composition as it passes in front of the star, no? Having that info and the data you’ve just mentioned they postulate if it’s habitable or not. Obviously not seeing any detail at all about land mass shapes, but perhaps composition? I’m not a spaceologist, so I’m only musing.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yeah, but it’s still just a single pixel of light from the star. It just changes color slightly when the planet passes in front of it and the atmosphere gases absorb certain characteristic wavelengths.

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      lol. All those flyby probes we’ve sent to other planets in the system and we could’ve just pointed our interstellar telescope instead and looked for puddles.

    • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 month ago

      Kepler-452b was having a private conversation with Australia when the photographer snuck up and got the candid photo.

      Unfortunately Kepler-452b was embarrassed by having the intimate moment interrupted and left in a hurry.

      Though their conversation was pleasant, the photographer ruined the mood and numbers were not exchanged.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Because the computer-generated images that symbolize said other planets are generally done with some shitty-shit stupid noise algorithm to generate the surface rather than anything decent (well, at least it’s not uniform noise), whilst the ones for planet Earth just use existing map data for the Earth surface.

    As it so happens I’ve been working on a game that has planets, so here’s an example generated with better algorithms:

    example made up planet

    PS: also note that for game purposes, the athmosphere is unrealistically thick as a proportion of planetary radius, purelly because it looks better. A lot of choices in game making are mainly artistic freedom which at first people with a Science or Engineering background tend to shy away from “because it’s not how things are”.

    • Venat0r@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think it’s also that we choose the most photogenic angle for earth, if you pick a random angle of earth it sometimes doesn’t look as good.

      e.g. 638

      do you have an algorithm for picking a photogenic angle for your game?

      • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        do you have an algorithm for picking a photogenic angle for your game?

        Nah, the planets are just shown as 3D objects in the game.

        The little icons as the one I linked were made by a special game mode for development which I call the PlanetPhotoStudio that just lets me manually rotate the planet 3D object and take a snapshot. Since the planet surfaces are pre-generated using an external program (“Grand Designer”, highly recommended) and only some results are chosen, it’s fine to also make those icons during development time.

        It’s actually less hassle to create a “photo studio” (especially since most of the work for it is also used in the main game) and do it manually for each planet like that than to try and come up with an algorithm for “how photogenic a 2D view of a planet looks”.

  • kablez@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    Since it’s just perlin noise anyway… They should use gag landmasses for fun. See if anyone recognises Middle Earth or the Seven Kingdoms.

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    I wonder if it has plate tectonics. A big part of why our continents look like this is them. That said, yeah that’s a lot of mid continent seas/great lakes

    • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      If you didn’t have plate tectonics, you’d have a lot of problems with the atmosphere, and there’s a decent chance that life wouldn’t evolve, as the energy differentials generated by tectonic activity are those which life hangs onto, from nutrients, to oxidation, to geothermal heat.

  • Draconic NEO@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    Because one of them (Earth) is based on reality, and the other is a poorly done conceptual render because no human actually knows the shape of the landmasses on that planet on account of having never been there.

    • Psythik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      Have they considered zooming their telescope in enough until they can see for themselves firsthand?

      • Octagon9561@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        I know you’re probably joking but even the best telescopes can only directly image a planet that’s like 10 times the mass of Jupiter and even then it’s only like two pixels.

        • Psythik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Makes me wonder what a telescope the size of a solar system could see. How large of the telescope do you think it would take to be able to get a clear image of this planet?

          • Draconic NEO@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Honestly I’m not even sure it’s possible at that distance. Planets reflect very little light compared to stars, and that already minuscule amount of light gets scattered across an insanely huge area due to the inverse square law. So that tiny amount of light gets spread over an insanely huge area (light years in size).

            I feel like to get a clear picture your telescope would have to be light years across in size to get a clear image with fine details in it. The light is just too spread out to get a clear picture of it with anything you can build at a human scale.

      • Draconic NEO@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        The hard part is that the stars create so much glare and planets are so small and faint that it’s really REALLY hard to zoom in on them. Even with very powerful telescopes. It’s probably straight up impossible actually. Like you can see them and get an idea of what they’re made of (light spectrum analysis) but you’re not going to be able to make out fine details like what the landmasses look like.

  • thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Bro that’s a PRIME sailing planet if I’ve ever seen on.

    Earths oceans shores are largely extremely boring linear beaches. Especially along the Atlantic.

    This plant would be prime for small cheap hobby costal sailing

  • redbrick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Will housing be cheaper there? Will taxes be lower? Will Trump be there? What about groceries?

    • Godric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      Will you enjoy anything our universe shows you? Are there things that bring you joy in life? Will you touch grass? What about filling the void in your heart with wonder instead of worry?