Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

What Does Sunset On an Alien World Look Like?

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the forgot-my-camera dept.

Space 94

The Bad Astronomer writes "Using real data from Hubble Space Telescope of a planet orbiting another star, exoplanetary scientist Frédéric Pont created a lovely image of what sunset would look like from HD209458b, nicknamed Osiris, a planet 150 light years away. The Hubble data gave information on the atmospheric absorption of this hot Jupiter planet, and, coupled with models of how the atmosphere was layered, Pont was able to create a realistic looking sunset on the planet. The big surprise: the star looks green as it sets! Sodium absorption sucks out the red colors and blue is scattered away, leaving just the green hues to get through. It's a lovely application of hard scientific knowledge."

cancel ×

94 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And conveniently enough (1, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641218)

it's located someplace that we're not going to be able to verify the results.

Re:And conveniently enough (5, Insightful)

Ardeaem (625311) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641270)

it's located someplace that we're not going to be able to verify the results.

The laws of physics work the same way there that they do here...you don't actually have to go there to know how light will pass through the atmosphere...

Re:And conveniently enough (1)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641316)

No one knows what Pluto looks like, but somehow we know what another planet looks like from hundres/thousands of lightyears away? Makes no sense to me.

Re:And conveniently enough (4, Interesting)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641580)

We are talking about how a star (which we can clearly measure) interacts with an atmosphere (which, again, we can clearly measure). Nothing as small or dark as Pluto needs to be measured to figure out what the "sunset" looks like. Comparing the two is highly specious. Not being able to directly image a dark, tiny rock is a lot different to being able to detect the atmosphere of a planet and the output of a (relatively) very bright star.

I guess it's best to leave this stuff to the professionals ;)

Re:And conveniently enough (1, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642306)

We can barely measure the star, and we certainly can't measure the atmosphere with any degree of certainty from 150 light years away. At best we can achieve is a few spectroscopic measurements of the absorption of upper atmosphere. This work is based on suspect modeling which in turn is based on a very tiny amount of data and nothing about the surface layers of the atmosphere.

Professionals indeed.

Re:And conveniently enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38642688)

I am curious. Why can only the upper atmosphere be measured?

Re:And conveniently enough (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642898)

We don't have the technology to peek deeper.

Re:And conveniently enough (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643708)

Exactly. Any light being absorbed/reflected by the lower layers will have passed twice thru the upper layers, once on the way in, again on the way out. We have no way of telling at this distance what is really being filtered where.

Re:And conveniently enough (2)

rk (6314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643888)

Seriously, learn a little about optics, spectroscopy, and remote sensing. Conceptually, what this guy did isn't even that hard to comprehend, though actually working the problem isn't easy at all. We certainly have ways of telling (within a confidence interval) what is going on. Is it perfect? Of course not, and I'm sure it would look different in reality. But I'd bet good money (sadly, neither you nor I will live to see ground truth) that it's fairly close.

Re:And conveniently enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38648684)

Sure, who needs to verify? Theory and practice are always the same. ...At least in theory.

Re:And conveniently enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641734)

Yeah. And while we're at it, how do magnets work?

Re:And conveniently enough (2)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641760)

No one knows what Pluto looks like, but somehow we know what another planet looks like from hundres/thousands of lightyears away? Makes no sense to me.

If you'd bothered to look at the picture before posting you'd know there's no 'planet' in it.

You don't even have to read this one, just look at the picture.

Re:And conveniently enough (1)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642418)

They show a picture of a Jupiter type planet. How the hell can they tell with any amount of accuracy? There are still mysterious things about the planets in our own backyard we're not sure of.

Re:And conveniently enough (1)

avgjoe62 (558860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643300)

Maybe you should have RTFA and not just looked a the picture. The picture attached to the article shows a view of the star as seen from the planet, NOT a picture of the planet itself. They even explain that the star looks the way it does because the apparent size of the star means that it displays every color absorption at once instead of changing color gradually as Sol does here on Earth.

I can see why you would assume that was a picture of the planet, but you're wrong.

Re:And conveniently enough (0)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644068)

Maybe if you scrolled down a few more inches you would see the picture of the Planet they showed!

Re:And conveniently enough (1)

Trahloc (842734) | more than 2 years ago | (#38648084)

Dude, seriously step back a sec and think about it:

This: http://www.insu.cnrs.fr/co/univers/les-exoplanetes/un-disque-cyan-dans-un-ciel-pourpre-coucher-de-soleil-sur-osiris [insu.cnrs.fr] is the official link

This: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/09/sunset-on-an-alien-world/ [discovermagazine.com] is an article targeting laymen. It's from Discover *Magazine*. It's science entertainment, not a peer reviewed journal. The 'planet' your so upset about is an artist paid to slap together something for people to look at the pretty colors.

Re:And conveniently enough (0)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38649686)

OMG, none of this shit is real! It's either computer animation or a painting, so what! Read my original post! What part of my message do you not get? I was refering to the Planet which no one has any idea what it really looks like, and you act like you know everything!

Re:And conveniently enough (1)

Trahloc (842734) | more than 2 years ago | (#38658860)

The computer animation is based on spectrograph data we've received. There is no claim it's 100% accurate, only that it is based on *real* data. So putting the painting, which is purely an artists imagination, and the computer reproduction of the atmosphere, based on real data, on the same level is unfair. Also to answer your question did I read your original comment? "No one knows what Pluto looks like, but somehow we know what another planet looks like from hundres/thousands of lightyears away? Makes no sense to me.". Yes, yes I did, and you're wrong. http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00825 [nasa.gov] We don't have awesome photos of Pluto, but it's not some vague mystery that's totally unknown. 2015 will get us better photos. Also I'd guess that the methods we use to gather data about exoplanets isn't something we can use inside the solar system due to being blinded by Sol.

Re:And conveniently enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38643960)

No one knows what Pluto looks like, but somehow we know what another planet looks like from hundres/thousands of lightyears away? Makes no sense to me.

I am not an astronomer, but I think the explanation may be quite simple. From our point of view, Pluto never travels between us and its star. We will never see the light of the sun filtered or refracted through Pluto's potential atmosphere unless we go out beyond Pluto's orbit with the right piece of equipment. In which case of course it's easier to just go to Pluto, which they are doing.

This in contrast with some extra-solar planets who by the stroke of luck happen to transit in front of their star from our point of view.

Re:And conveniently enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38648376)

Makes no sense to me.

No surprises there... unfortunately.

Re:And conveniently enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38659400)

That's because you are a fucking idiot.

Re:And conveniently enough (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641396)

Don't get me wrong, they're probably correct, but then again because of the location we can't verify that the results are correct and that there isn't something else going on that changes the results. One thing about science is that without verification you don't know if an as yet unknown effect or situation is going to make for an unexpected result.

Re:And conveniently enough (0)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641602)

it's located someplace that we're not going to be able to verify the results.

The laws of physics work the same way there that they do here...you don't actually have to go there to know how light will pass through the atmosphere...

How do you know the laws of physics work the same way there without being able to verify the results?

Re:And conveniently enough (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38642918)

How do you know the laws of physics work the same way there without being able to verify the results?

Damn how do astronomers know that stars that are thousands, millions of light years away work the same way as our sun ? Or better how do astronomers know that those speckles of light in the night sky ARE suns ?
Franhaufer and Secchi would like to have a word with you (if they were still alive that is).

Re:And conveniently enough (1, Insightful)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641724)

> The laws of physics work the same way there that they do here...

And your proof is ... ?

Re:And conveniently enough (2)

dkf (304284) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643206)

The laws of physics work the same way there that they do here...

And your proof is ... ?

You can't draw any conclusions at all without that assumption. It's nearly as fundamental as assuming that there's an objective observable universe at all...

Re:And conveniently enough (2)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641742)

Unless vernor vinge was correct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fire_Upon_the_Deep

Re:And conveniently enough (2)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641850)

it's located someplace that we're not going to be able to verify the results.

The laws of physics work the same way there that they do here...you don't actually have to go there to know how light will pass through the atmosphere...

Not exactly... all I get are Server 500 errors. That's not what I pictured an alien sunset looking like.

Re:And conveniently enough (1)

gnapster (1401889) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642146)

Not exactly... all I get are Server 500 errors. That's not what I pictured an alien sunset looking like.

The slashdot effect works the same way there that it does here. You don't actually have to go there to know that making the slashdot front page will cripple their servers.

Re:And conveniently enough (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642334)

Click the 2nd link.

Re:And conveniently enough (2)

gnapster (1401889) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642796)

Yeah, yeah, or look up the first one in a cache [googleusercontent.com] . The second link has the same pretty pictures as the first, but the first one is actually written by the guy who did the work.

Re:And conveniently enough (4, Informative)

Brain-Fu (1274756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641896)

The laws of physics work the same way there that they do here

That is a metaphysical assumption of physics, not an observed fact. We won't know that for sure until we go there.

Of course...it is probably true.

Re:And conveniently enough (3, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642080)

Indeed; they could easily figure out what a sunset would look like on one of Jupiter's moons by sending a probe. But the picture wouldn't look like what was predicted by computer model; I've never seen two sunsets that were exactly alike. Latitude, temperature, air pressure, etc -- there are too many variables. When I was stationed in Thailand in the Air Force I saw what I would have thought were breathtakingly beautiful sunsets at a certain time of year that contained all the colors there were, including green. You don't get sunsets like that this far north.

Re:And conveniently enough (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38642756)

it's located someplace that we're not going to be able to verify the results.

The laws of physics work the same way there that they do here...you don't actually have to go there to know how light will pass through the atmosphere...

That's a baseless assumption.

Re:And conveniently enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38643222)

What the hell ? Thats not a baseless assumption. Its an assumption whose consequences have been time and again been verified. And this assumption lets use do science, real science. And it works.
The laws of physics are for all practial purposes the same in every corner of the universe and in time.
Now if you believe in the multiverse, well you're not doing science anymore so the issue is moot.

Re:And conveniently enough (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643190)

We know what the atmosphere on Earth is like VERY well, and yet we cannot get a single image that shows what a sunset always looks like, because details of the atmosphere change, every day, everywhere. I very much doubt it is that simple on any distant planet.

Re:And conveniently enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38652822)

WTF.

Re:And conveniently enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38648826)

We knew about the physics, but we have no idea about the detail composition/density distribution of the atmosphere. A lot of interaction may happen in atmosphere, taking only Rayleigh scattering + incoming spectum into account is not sufficient to accurately depict the sunset scene.

Re:And conveniently enough (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641276)

For a while. Have a little faith, we'll get there some day. Or at least our distant descendants.

Re:And conveniently enough (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641448)

It's a 150 light years away, we're not talking about a few thousand years worth of developments there. We would need to get very close to the speed of light for it to take a reasonable period of time to get there. And even at half the speed of light you're looking at having to wait 300 years for the probe to get there and an additional 150 years for the first results to come back.

In the meantime you'd have a probe operating independently and being bombarded by cosmic rays. Hopefully nothing went wrong as we'd have no way of knowing what happened without a positive result.

It's generally not wise to suggest that something is outright impossible, but this is stretching credulity quite a bit.

Re:And conveniently enough (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641952)

We would need to get very close to the speed of light for it to take a reasonable period of time to get there.

Depends on how much in a hurry you are. With a Project Orion type spacecraft you could get there in a few thousand years. And while that sounds like a long while, humanity has already build things that latest that long, i.e. the pyramids.

Re:TARDIS (1)

GargamelSpaceman (992546) | more than 2 years ago | (#38651196)

Since this planet has a green sun, the photosynthetic life there can't be green, or it would reflect away all the light. They said the blue is all scattered away, meaning the plants would likely be red.

Obviously this planet is Gallifrey complete with red fields and Timelords, and TARDISes etc.

With TARDISes, 150 light years is no obsticle at all.

Re:And conveniently enough (1)

viking099 (70446) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641372)

It should be simple enough to test his method. Use it to make illustrations for Earth, the Moon, and Mars. That should give us some indication as to its accuracy.

Re:And conveniently enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38642364)

I was hoping that coral cache would help us find it and actually see it, but its all "500 internal server error" and whatnot, and as you said "Its located someplace that we're not going to be able to verify the results."

Re:And conveniently enough (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642442)

It would be interesting for this guy to calculate the same thing on a planet/moon we *can* visit (Titan or Mars, for example), then see how his prediction stacks up to the real thing. If they match, cool. If not...well, iteration is a time-honored scientific and engineering principle, no?

Re:And conveniently enough (1)

kanguro (1237830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38646326)

Nonsense. We all saw the thing in Star Wars, A New Hope. And with two moons to boot.

Re:And conveniently enough (1)

wzzzzrd (886091) | more than 2 years ago | (#38649434)

Just wait until they discover global warming on this exoplanet, then it miraculously becomes science.

And apparently... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641254)

...they get overloaded servers there too. :P

Re:And apparently... (0)

david.emery (127135) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641308)

Someone with points Mod Parent up Funny!

Re:And apparently... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641416)

No. But I did mod you offtopic, if that helps.

Re:And apparently... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641716)

Fortunately, your posting negated your mod. Or you are full of it.

Re:And apparently... (5, Informative)

Barryke (772876) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641358)

Same here, http response 500.

Coral cache: http://www.exoclimes.com.nyud.net/paper-outlines/the-sunset-on-hd-209458-b/ [nyud.net]

Re:And apparently... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641450)

Actually, the link is working perfectly. The civilization that lives on HD209458b eventually surrounded their entire planet in orbiting solar panels for maximum clean power generation. The inside of the panels is an LCD screen that plays back a prerecorded video giving the illusion of a sun, moon and stars. However, despite all their technological advancement, the system isn't quite perfect yet, and every day at the exact moment the sun sets, the whole system crashes and kicks up an Internal Server Error until they reboot and you can see the moon. It's surprising the artist was able recreate is so faithfully.

Re:And apparently... (2)

frisket (149522) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641700)

He was using a copyrighted version dowloaded from a pwned server. Expect the goons of Hollywood to issue him a DMCA takedown notice tomorrow.

Re:And apparently... (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643072)

It's the slash-set of servers as the internet population rotates around the shiny. Give it a few hours, and the server will rise again.

Re:And apparently... (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38643384)

It's also a somewhat bloated software stack, too:

Apache mod_qos/9.69 mod_fcgid/2.3.6 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 Server at www.exoclimes.com Port 80

No lean mean page serving machine here (it can take something like that to make it through a slashdotting [wikipedia.org] .

I always hoped (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641294)

It would look something like this [abcnews.com]

Re:I always hoped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38642104)

It would look something like this [abcnews.com]

Nope, that would be on Kepler-16b [cnet.com]

Only if... (2)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641296)

Only if these aliens use the same light spectrum as we do, and use the same photo standard as we do.....and if and only if they actually SEE with the same organs as we do.

Re:Only if... (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641458)

The question wasn't "what do aliens see on a sunset on their world?", but "what would we see on a sunset on an alien world?"

Re:Only if... (0)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641846)

Nope, here is the title: "What Does Sunset On an Alien World Look Like?"
Where did you read anything about "what would we see on a sunset on an alien world?"
I realize that as a geek (whatever that means) i tend to read the question to the letter, as any normal computer would do, hence my confusion.....

Re:Only if... (1)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641950)

Nope, here is the title: "What Does Sunset On an Alien World Look Like?"

Where did you read anything about "what would we see on a sunset on an alien world?"

I realize that as a geek (whatever that means) i tend to read the question to the letter, as any normal computer would do, hence my confusion.....

Hence your not getting laid. *roll eyes*

Re:Only if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38642066)

Nope, here is the title: "What Does Sunset On an Alien World Look Like?"

Where did you read anything about "what would we see on a sunset on an alien world?"

I realize that as a geek (whatever that means) i tend to read the question to the letter, as any normal computer would do, hence my confusion.....

Where did you read anything about "what would an alien see on a sunset on an alien world?"

Re:Only if... (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642276)

"What Does Sunset On an Alien World Look Like?"

Note that it does not specifically say who is doing the seeing. As life on other planets remains entirely theoretical (while human exploration of space is historically proven possible), the logical assumption is that a human, or a human-designed camera, is doing the viewing, and thus would invalidate the need to factor for alien biologies.

Re:Only if... (4, Insightful)

Victor_0x53h (1164907) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641466)

I see what you're going for there, but the image would be of "a sunset on an alien world", not "a sunset on an alien world as observed through the eyes of an alien". I know this is Slashdot and reading articles isn't kosher, but I thought it was ok to at least read the post's title.

Re:Only if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641558)

"a sunset on an alien world as observed through the sensory input organs/devices of an alien"

Fixed that for you.

Re:Only if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641528)

Only if these aliens use the same light spectrum as we do, and use the same photo standard as we do.....and if and only if they actually SEE with the same organs as we do.

Uh? It's what a sunset on an alien *world* would look like. To us. Not what it would look like to some hypothetical aliens.

Re:Only if... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641814)

Only if these aliens use the same light spectrum as we do, and use the same photo standard as we do.....and if and only if they actually SEE with the same organs as we do.

Um, no ... since you clearly didn't read TFA, here you go:

STIS covers visible wavelengths, and HD209458 is bright enough that the precision of the spectrum is sufficient for a precise translation into colours perceived by the human eye

So, the article is showing what this would look like to human eyes.

This in no way attempts to talk about what this would look like to aliens who have different sensory organs and see in different wavelengths.

Re:Only if... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641922)

it's a hot jupiter planet, doubt there's any life there.

you'd think the guy would have started with what does sunset on jupiter look like tho

Re:Only if... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642102)

only if they actually SEE with the same organs as we do.

If they see with the same organs I do, I'm asking for my eyes back.

Looks very familar (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641298)

It looks to me like the sunset has a striking resemblance to a 500 error.

Re:Looks very familar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641518)

Nothing new. I've seen that sunset before.... Almost always after visiting here, too!

Re:Looks very familar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641526)

Slashdotted already.

Re:Looks very familar (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642180)

That's only because you don't have alien eyes to appreciate its beauty.

Sunset on another world. (1)

runner_one (455793) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641334)

Does that mean we have to be on that other world to view it?

Why do it with distant worlds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641368)

Why not model planets closer to home, ie those in our solar system?

Re:Why do it with distant worlds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38642098)

Because that's been done decades ago with data from Pioneer and Voyager probes, but this data is relatively new and exciting.

use coral cache (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641454)

I just added .nyud.net [nyud.net] to the end of the domain name and I could read the article and see the pics.

Internal Server Error (2)

nwf (25607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641510)

It looks like an Internal Server Error? I would have thought it would be more interesting than that. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

This is news? (0)

kwerle (39371) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641780)

How?

"lovely" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641840)

I don't know how often I opened the nyud mirror link to look at the picture. But I can't find something lovely about it. Actually looks kinda shitty to me. Makes me glad I am on earth. Maybe we should make a picture of our sunsets and send it to the aliens - they might come visit to see how beautiful it really is. If they just watch at their renderings they might never come.

And Mars has blue sunsets... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38642416)

No need to travel light years far for an exotic sunset. Mars has blue sunsets:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/ops/ss24_0.jpg

I suppose it's just whatever your atmosphere decides to refract. Ours is red-orange-yellow. Mars has blue. This one has green. And I suppose there are even purple sunsets somewhere.

Re:And Mars has blue sunsets... (1)

Arrepiadd (688829) | more than 2 years ago | (#38644716)

Part of the color comes from what you have on the atmosphere, as different molecules absorb at different wavelengths and, as a consequence, only let go everything else. It is also due to the light the star itself emits.

But the most important part is how thick the atmosphere is. There is a phenomenon called Rayleigh scattering [wikipedia.org] that correlates how much the light is scattered the wavelength. It basically says that the thicker the atmosphere, the more light is scattered and the more you see the reds, as opposed to the blues (that got "way too scattered" already). So, the blue sunset in Mars should be related to the small thickness of its atmosphere...

/.ed (1)

CharmElCheikh (1140197) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642446)

Aaaaaand slashdotted.

Slashdotted a planet 150 lights years away. The power of /. has no limit.

Sunset a non-event? (1)

Gordo_1 (256312) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642460)

Seeing as this alien world would be at least a handful of light years away, I imagine that the setting of our sun looks like any other distant star setting across the horizon. ;-)

Image? (2)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642624)

Sadly, the image seems to be obscured by smoke from the smoldering server.

Re:Image? (1)

paultheastronomer (2549254) | more than 2 years ago | (#38648696)

Yeah... we did not really expect the store to hit slashdot. :)

I don't know. (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642648)

I've always been too in busy in the back seat of a car with some alien babe parked at the viewpoint when they happen.

- Captain Kirk

Hmmmm, (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642716)

Hmmmm, the sun is the star that the earth revolves around. Our sun would just appear as a star in their sky. I would therefore imagine that the sunset on a distant planet would look much like the setting of any star in our sky, not too spectacular.

Gravity sucks (1)

chromaexcursion (2047080) | more than 2 years ago | (#38647916)

as any human viewer would be squashed into a fine film to possibly view this phenomena. Who cares?

HD209458b? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38652994)

I'd rather know what it looks like when twilight falls on NGC 891.

Short Version: (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38666028)

Bluish Green.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>