rmsgrey wrote:Depends how long it takes to resolve a given volume at a given range. If it takes longer for your sun-based telescope to analyse a target volume than it does for a mobile device to move through it, then the speed of shifting aim is wasted.
I can move faster than the speed of light in apparent motion, you can't. You are limited to orbital velocity. You did cause me to reevaluate something somebody said earlier, there is a plane where all the orbits pass through. You could count on seeing the teapot on average between 3 and 6 months after you start looking on average.
Me- You can't look everywhere at once. You-There is no reason in principle for this to be true.
Make statements about godlike behavior and I will ignore them going forward.
gmalivuk wrote:All 550 million of which would be swept through by a single detector over the course of about a year.
Would you please describe that orbit?
gmalivuk wrote:Are you back to talking about elliptical orbits? Why'd you change your mind?
Mainly to confuse you. Russell talked of elliptical orbits. I used circular ones because they're easier.
gmalivuk wrote:Sorry you don't find science fun. Seems like maybe this is the wrong place for you if that's the case though.
On the contrary, its you that sucks all the fun out. Not science.
gmalivuk wrote:How was the radar comment silly?
All it does is change the resolution. You can do the same thing with a telescope. But you still live and die by the inverse scale rule, law, or whatever. Radar is active, it requires a return, it also doesn't know the difference between a teapot and a rock the same shape. Visual data has higher bandwidth, or something like that.
gmalivuk wrote:And I still don't understand why you want to find it as quickly as possible. Yes, obviously a faster search is going to require more equipment, but that's another thing you added to the problem yourself, without anyone else having mentioned it.
As I've said pretty much continuously, I did it to simplify it. Russell set the problem up as it relates to an astronomer looking through a telescope. I don't care about finding the teapot, I care about the odds of any one astronomer doing it. Which was what I gather his point was. Setting enough telescopes at the center to see every place the teapot could be gives you the odds. You can only see it the first time once. So the odds are 1 divided by the number of places it could be. This could also work at the disc I identified in the plane. You use fewer sensors but have a higher "something or another" that encompasses the time you might have to wait to make a sighting. I don't know how to express it. What I wanted was the magnitude of that number.