Timeline for What issues as a result of square-cube law would a human scaled to the size of an ant face?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 26, 2014 at 4:30 | comment | added | JDługosz | My DSLR exhibits difraction visible at f/8 or smaller. So how do you figure such a tiny puple would not? I think calculations are in order; I think you would have problems focusing and having pixels small enough to discern an image. | |
| Dec 25, 2014 at 1:26 | history | edited | user3082 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Dec 25, 2014 at 0:37 | history | edited | user3082 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1065 characters in body
|
| Dec 24, 2014 at 22:24 | comment | added | March Ho | The pupil size of 5-8mm would be shrunk down to 15-25 microns in diameter, which should still be sufficient to let in light of all visible wavelenths without causing significant amounts of diffraction. | |
| Dec 24, 2014 at 20:37 | comment | added | dsollen | that's..interesting. It can't just be accepting the electromagnetic waves themselves, that's easy. Is the issue one of processing the data? or possibly insufficient depth perception with only two points so close together? I'd be interested in a link or more specifics so I know what to look up. | |
| Dec 24, 2014 at 20:33 | history | answered | user3082 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |