I want that hat.
It’s his hair :)
I like to imagine it’s the yarmulke if the year 3000, when we’ve finally begun traveling to outer space.
If he turned around, the viewer would discover Uranus!
Classic Deathbulge. I miss it.
I’ll call it… the pillar of creation.
Not to burst the bubble, but i’m pretty sure that, even blocking more than 50% of the aperture, the astronomer still wouldn’t be able to see the person. The astronomer would just see a significantly darker and warped version of the thing behind the person, since the person, much like the various mirror assemblies and mounts inside the telescope, are all wildly out of focus.
“Analyzing humor is a bit like dissecting a frog: You learn how it works but you end up with a dead frog.” - E. B. White
This is an excellent quote.
It wouldn’t really be a warped image of the background at all actually.
Just regular background?
As in the night sky, which is the background the telescope is focused on.
Of course. What I meant by that was “oh, so the background behind the person would appear totally unobscured, and diffraction and aberration from the weird shape blocking part of the view wouldn’t make it more fuzzy?”
The diffraction caused by an obstruction is hard to see in binoculars. If you stick your entire hand in front of a 6 inch telescope, the viewer won’t even notice other than the dimming. For a telescope that size, you’d need a camera to even notice the dip in brightness.
Thanks for the clarification!
