• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Another piece of nonsense that Michael is throwing up is the inverse square law.
This can be shown to be wrong by illustrating one of the concepts of Olber’s paradox that is hard to grasp intuitively, why the integrated brightness of the shells should equal the surface brightness of a star such as the Sun.
The use of mathematics clears up this issue.

As shown previously Olber’s paradox is built around concentric shells with an observer at the centre.
In any given shell there are a number of stars N of average luminosity L and their average number density in a volume V is n=N/V.
If the shell has a thickness dR and surface area 4ΠR², the number of stars in the shell is 4ΠR²ndR.

.......

L/a is simply the surface brightness of a star which can be the Sun.
QED
.

Emphasis mine.

Do you remember this post you made a few weeks ago sjastro? Up until yesterday you (and WIKI) were all talking about the surface brightness of *stars*, not galaxies. Now that your show got busted by those puny number of visible stars in the night sky, you've got your goalposts on overdrive and you're trying to claim that stars act like "point sources" and now you're claiming that only galaxies retain a "surface brightness" which is immune from the inverse square law. The irony of course is that galaxies are simply collections of *stars* (aka multiple 'point sources') so the inverse square laws would absolutely still apply to collections of point sources. That would also explain why we see less than 10 galaxies in the night sky too.

Bah! You can't even keep your own stories straight anymore.

L/a is simply the surface brightness of a star which can be the Sun.
QED.

So do you now admit that this statement was completely false and 'surface brightness' doesn't apply to stars as you first claimed?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Of the 10,000 objects that constitute individual stars visible to the naked eye the median distance is around 400 light years.
Being point sources they conform to the inverse square law which along with their absolute magnitudes constrains the distance limit.

L/a is simply the surface brightness of a star which can be the Sun.
QED.

So do stars act like point sources or does your surface brightness nonsense apply to stars as you were claiming it did for several *weeks* until you changed your story again only yesterday?

Make up your mind already sjastro! You can't even keep your own "surface brightness fairytale" story straight.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia

In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox, named after the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758–1840), also known as the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a dynamic universe, such as the Big Bang model. In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite number of stars, then any line of sight from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star and hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright. This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night.[1]

File:Olber's Paradox - All Points.gif - Wikipedia

Hey sjastro, maybe you should fix the WIKI page too while you're at it. According to WIKI the surface brightness issue relates to the surface of *stars*, not galaxies. Notice the GIF? It's also related to stellar surfaces not galaxy surfaces.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,340.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
As usual, you *totally dodged the tough questions*. You refuse (or can't) answer any questions about your bogus claim.



If you can't answer my basic questions about why we see so few galaxies and stars, it's because the inverse square laws, and the limits of human eyesight are the reason for those low numbers.



Since we observe less than 10 galaxies in the night sky, surface brightness is a ruse. It's a meaningless term. The only things that matter are the total luminosity of the source, the distance from Earth, and the limits of human eyesight. Thomas Digges figured that out *hundreds of years ago*, even before Olber was born!



So where are all those missing galaxies in the night sky Google man?



You've obviously just been making this up as you go. First you (and WIKI) claimed that suns retained 'surface brightness', but then you moved the goalposts to galaxies when I pointed out that we observe less than 10,000 out of hundreds of billions of stars in our own galaxy. You still can't and won't explain why we observe so few galaxies, yet you insist that they are somehow magically exempt from the inverse square laws anyway. Boloney.



Olber's paradox is made up nonsense. It is *easily* refuted by those questions that you cannot and will not answer, and the fact we see so few galaxies and stars in the night sky. If you were actually right, we'd surely see every galaxy in our own cluster and supercluster as brightly as the sun according to your claim but we don't. Your claim fails the observation test in truly *epic* fashion. End of discussion.
I see you have copped out on explaining why there are no Google references to your surface brightness definitions, no references to surface brightness meeting an inverse square law but tons of references to surface brightness being independent of distance.
That's an admission to making things up.
End of the discussion.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,340.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Emphasis mine.

Do you remember this post you made a few weeks ago sjastro? Up until yesterday you (and WIKI) were all talking about the surface brightness of *stars*, not galaxies. Now that your show got busted by those puny number of visible stars in the night sky, you've got your goalposts on overdrive and you're trying to claim that stars act like "point sources" and now you're claiming that only galaxies retain a "surface brightness" which is immune from the inverse square law. The irony of course is that galaxies are simply collections of *stars* (aka multiple 'point sources') so the inverse square laws would absolutely still apply to collections of point sources. That would also explain why we see less than 10 galaxies in the night sky too.

Bah! You can't even keep your own stories straight anymore.



So do you now admit that this statement was completely false and 'surface brightness' doesn't apply to stars as you first claimed?
Once again a lack of comprehension.
It obviously didn't occur to you that the Wiki article and my post were describing a static Universe as envisaged in Olbers' time as being occupied by stars rather than galaxies.
Did I not make it clear to you in an earlier post substituting stars for galaxies would be quantitatively different but qualitatively the same as the night sky would still be bright in a static Universe.
The reason why we don't see a bright sky is because we live in an expanding finite Universe.

This subject has been done to death.
Every other person who has participated in this thread understands Olbers' paradox perfectly well except you.
Did it ever occur to you that if Olbers' paradox is refuted by the inverse square law then dare I say people of far greater intelligence would have worked it out centuries beforehand.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,340.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So do stars act like point sources or does your surface brightness nonsense apply to stars as you were claiming it did for several *weeks* until you changed your story again only yesterday?
Make up your mind already sjastro! You can't even keep your own "surface brightness fairytale" story straight.
sjastro said:
L/a is simply the surface brightness of a star which can be the Sun.
QED
Here we have an example of you being ignorant or dishonest by cherry picking.
The L/a result is the total integrated brightness of all stars occupying a shell of radius R where the sky is completely occupied by stars in a static Universe (ref post)
It does not relate to individual stars and doesn't apply to an expanding finite Universe.
It's simply another example of you not having any understanding of the subject.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
... The L/a result is the total integrated brightness of all stars occupying a shell of radius R where the sky is completely occupied by stars in a static Universe (ref post)
It does not relate to individual stars and does apply to an expanding finite Universe.
It's simply another example of you not having any understanding of the subject.
Its become abundantly clear (to me) that Michael doesn't have a grasp of the meaning of 'integrated brightness'. In fact I think the problem is deeper. I don't think he has the concept of 'integrated' (or Integration)!
I suspect he never made it to that level of math during his 'education'.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Take a look at this thread, posted at the House of Holy Electric Horrors (aka TBolts):
Michael Mozina said:
If you're interested in learning how to destroy the Olber's paradox argument, you might want to peruse this recent thread at ChistianForums:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... e.8043450/

You don't really need to read the whole thread, just the last couple of pages. I tried a number of different approaches in that thread before I finally just asked some very basic questions about the night sky, and that's when the wheels finally fell off for the Olber's paradox proponents.

Olber's paradox proponents cannot logically explain why we see less than 10,000 stars of the hundreds of billions of stars in our own galaxy based on their "surface brightness" claims, nor can they explain why we can only observe less than 10 other galaxies if galaxy "surface brightness" is immune from the inverse square law.

If I were going to start the whole debate all over again, I'd just start by asking them why we only see such a tiny fraction of the stars and galaxies in the night sky. Sooner or later they'll have to cop to the fact that light follows the inverse square law, or they'll be forced to bail out of the conversation. Suffice to say, they're in full retreat.
In 'full retreat' eh?:
sjastro said:
The reason why we don't see a bright sky is because we live in an expanding finite Universe.
This subject has been done to death.
Every other person who has participated in this thread understands Olbers' paradox perfectly well except you.
I agree ... so much for being in 'full retreat'.

I don't believe I've ever seen a more ignorant and arrogant 'argument', or a more unethical tactic, than that presented in the above TBolts thread!

Totally disgraceful behaviour, from a totally desperate ego, (IMO)!
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,340.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Its become abundantly clear (to me) that Michael doesn't have a grasp of the meaning of 'integrated brightness'. In fact I think the problem is deeper. I don't think he has the concept of 'integrated' (or Integration)!
I suspect he never made it to that level of math during his 'education'.
We have already seen a demonstration of his maths skills elsewhere.^_^

Michael should read this excellent non mathematical treatment of Olbers' paradox which deals with subjects such a surface brightness, the use of stars or galaxies in the paradox etc.
Olbers' Paradox | Astronomy 801: Planets, Stars, Galaxies, and the Universe
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Once again a lack of comprehension.

You're projecting again I see. For a guy that completely messed up that inverse square law page, you really shouldn't be picking on anyone else's "lack of comprehension".

It obviously didn't occur to you that the Wiki article and my post were describing a static Universe as envisaged in Olbers' time as being occupied by stars rather than galaxies.

That's obviously false because I *destroyed* that whole "shells of stars" claim proposed by Olber by pointing out the fact that there aren't 4 stars in a 2AU shell, or 9 stars in a 3AU shell. In fact the next closest star is over 72 billions times less bright due to it's distance. You've been applying this "surface brightness" argument to everything from the side of a house, to stars, and to galaxies. It's a bogus argument regardless of what object(s) you pick. Even if the "surface brightness" remains constant, the angular size continues to diminish with distance so the inverse square law related to total brightness continues to apply and that's why we only a tiny fraction of the stars in our own galaxy and less than 10 galaxies total.

Did I not make it clear to you in an earlier post substituting stars for galaxies would be quantitatively different

You haven't demonstrated that, you've only *alleged* that. Why would it be different is your surface brightness argument can be applied to other objects and it fails?

but qualitatively the same as the night sky would still be bright in a static Universe.

Horse pucky. If that were actually the case, and galaxies were somehow magically immune from the inverse square laws, we'd see a lot more galaxies with our naked eyes. There's more than 10 galaxies in our local supercluster!

The reason why we don't see a bright sky is because we live in an expanding finite Universe.

No, the reason we don't see a bright sky is because we live in a unverse where the inverse square law applies and human eyesight is limited to a threshold of brightness.

This subject has been done to death.

Yep, and you're wrong every single time.

Every other person who has participated in this thread understands Olbers' paradox perfectly well except you.

No, every other person drank the dogma cool-aid. Thomas Digges figured out the real reason that we only observe a limited number of stars *hundreds of years* before Olber created 'bad dogma' related to 'stars'. Now you're admitting it doesn't *really* apply to stars as he claimed, but you still can't explain why we see so few galaxies! You just moved the goalposts and *failed* again!

Did it ever occur to you that if Olbers' paradox is refuted by the inverse square law then dare I say people of far greater intelligence would have worked it out centuries beforehand.

Thomas Digges "worked it out" centuries before Olber was born. :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Its become abundantly clear (to me) that Michael doesn't have a grasp of the meaning of 'integrated brightness'. In fact I think the problem is deeper. I don't think he has the concept of 'integrated' (or Integration)!
I suspect he never made it to that level of math during his 'education'.

Yawn. Right back the personal attack nonsense because your arguments have been blown away. Olber tried to claim this issue applies to stars, but now you admit it doesn't. Now you claim it applies to "collections of stars", but neither of you can explain why we observe so few galaxies.

FYI, I took calculus in *high school*. Sheesh. When you can't win the debate through science, you simply 'cheat' and attack the person. How sad.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
We have already seen a demonstration of his maths skills elsewhere.^_^

Pure personal attack. You two are *entirely* predicable.

Michael should read this excellent non mathematical treatment of Olbers' paradox which deals with subjects such a surface brightness, the use of stars or galaxies in the paradox etc.
Olbers' Paradox | Astronomy 801: Planets, Stars, Galaxies, and the Universe

Ok, let's see what it says, shall we?

In the left panel, what is represented is the Earth in a 3D universe with stars arranged randomly around the planet. From one particular vantage point, you can draw sight lines from Earth to every star within your field of view. If the Universe is infinite and filled with stars all at different distances from Earth, then every single sight line should land on a star. So, in the right panel this is illustrated; you should see in projection a night sky filled with stars.

I blew away that argument already. I even used your shell analogy to do it by pointing out that there isn't another star in the next 250,000 shells. You've even admitted that stars act like *point sources* so it's obviously a false analogy! You contradict yourself from one post to the next.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Take a look at this thread, posted at the House of Holy Electric Horrors (aka TBolts):

Gee, personal attacks aimed at a whole *community* now. Is there no low to which you will not stoop in debate?

In 'full retreat' eh?:

Yep, you both avoid explaining why we see so few galaxies like the plague. First you claimed the argument applies to shells of stars, and now you've moved the goalposts again. Full retreat.

I agree ... so much for being in 'full retreat'.

You both keep avoiding the less then 10 visible galaxy problem, so just keep running.

I don't believe I've ever seen a more ignorant and arrogant 'argument', or a more unethical tactic, than that presented in the above TBolts thread!

In terms of the ignorance factor, you obviously must have missed this post. He couldn't have stuffed his own foot in his mouth any further if he tried. In terms of the arrogance factor, you win that title hands down. You're really a horrible mind reader by the way.

Totally disgraceful behaviour, from a totally desperate ego, (IMO)!

Considering how you're both engaging in endless personal attacks, you're the last two individuals who should be talking about "desperate egos" and disgraceful behaviors.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Here we have an example of you being ignorant or dishonest by cherry picking.

You're still projecting. You applied your argument to *shells of stars* and I've *destroyed* that claim already. You discussed the surface brightness of *stars* too, and yet the angular distance is changing with distance, just as it does with galaxies, so the overall brightness and the total photons reaching Earth continues to diminish with distance. That's why we observe less than 10 galaxies.

The L/a result is the total integrated brightness of all stars occupying a shell of radius R where the sky is completely occupied by stars in a static Universe (ref post)

Been there, done that.

A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

That argument failed.

It does not relate to individual stars and doesn't apply to an expanding finite Universe.

It presumably does apply to shells of stars and it failed miserably. The next AU shell containing stars is over 250,000 shells away! You're whole argument is just pathetic.

It's simply another example of you not having any understanding of the subject.

Not only did I understand it, I *destroyed* it. The next closest star is 72+ billion times *less bright* than our sun. Your shells of stars argument is a failed analogy, and you change your story from post to post. You just handed me a new link which goes right back to applying the same lame argument to stars when you yourself just admitted that stars act like point sources! Could you be anymore self-conflicted in your arguments? If so, I don't know how.

Are either of you two going to deal with the fact that we see less than ten galaxies with our naked eyes? Why so few?
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,340.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You're still projecting. You applied your argument to *shells of stars* and I've *destroyed* that claim already. You discussed the surface brightness of *stars* too, and yet the angular distance is changing with distance, just as it does with galaxies, so the overall brightness and the total photons reaching Earth continues to diminish with distance. That's why we observe less than 10 galaxies.



Been there, done that.

A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

That argument failed.



It presumably does apply to shells of stars and it failed miserably. The next AU shell containing stars is over 250,000 shells away! You're whole argument is just pathetic.



Not only did I understand it, I *destroyed* it. The next closest star is 72+ billion times *less bright* than our sun. Your shells of stars argument is a failed analogy, and you change your story from post to post. You just handed me a new link which goes right back to applying the same lame argument to stars when you yourself just admitted that stars act like point sources! Could you be anymore self-conflicted in your arguments? If so, I don't know how.

Are either of you two going to deal with the fact that we see less than ten galaxies with our naked eyes? Why so few?
I’m sorry to disappoint you Mr Destroyer of Arguments but this is yet another example of your total lack of comprehension.
You don’t understand the shells also have a thickness and therefore a volume.
It is the integrated brightness of stars occupying the shell volume that is important not the specific distances of the stars to the observer.
In a static Universe we can make the thickness of the shell any value we want.

This is getting rather comical as every time the grandiose claim of destroying an argument or blowing it out of the water is made, it always end up as your lack of comprehension being the case.

Your incompetence extends to history as well.
Thomas Digges did not refute Olbers’ paradox using the inverse square law since the law was first postulated in the following century after his death.
The reason why people far smarter than you never refuted Olbers’ paradox using the inverse square law in the past 300 years is that they didn’t make things up such as claiming surface brightness is a function of an object’s physical dimensions and depends on the inverse square law.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
I’m sorry to disappoint you Mr Destroyer of Arguments but this is yet another example of your total lack of comprehension.
You don’t understand the shells also have a thickness and therefore a volume.

Ya, and your AU shells still lack even a single additional star for over 250,000 AU thickness sized shells! You're still 268,770 AU shells in the hole.

It is the integrated brightness of stars occupying the shell volume that is important not the specific distances of the stars to the observer.

Those next 268,770 AU sized shells all have volume, they just contain no stars in any of that massive empty volume. :)

In a static Universe we can make the thickness of the shell any value we want.

No you can't. You can't arbitrarily pick any volume you want because the next star over is 72+ billion times too dim to just pick any random sized shell if you're trying to compare it to the brightness of our own sun. Olber claimed they'd be as bright as the sun, so the distance between the sun and the Earth is the size of the shell.

This is getting rather comical as every time the grandiose claim of destroying an argument or blowing it out of the water is made, it always end up as your lack of comprehension being the case.

Considering that howler of error you made on the previous page I cited, you're the last person in the universe who should be complaining about other people's lack of comprehension. That was comical.

Your incompetence extends to history as well.
Thomas Digges did not refute Olbers’ paradox using the inverse square law since the law was first postulated in the following century after his death.

He knew that light go dimmer with distance and that was the whole basis of his argument. Your St. Olber totally blew that issue entirely because as you even noted, stars act like *point objects* and distance does matter which is why we only see less than 10,000 stars out of the hundreds of billions of stars in our own galaxy and less than ten measly galaxies including our own.

The reason why people far smarter than you never refuted Olbers’ paradox using the inverse square law in the past 300 years.....

You have no evidence to support such a ridiculous claim in the first place.

is that they didn’t make things up such as claiming surface brightness is a function of an object’s physical dimensions and depends on the inverse square law.

The object size *decreases* with distance, which means that your "surface brightness" argument is irrelevant because the overall light from the object still follows the inverse square law anyway. You're incapable of explaining why we see so few galaxies because their size also changes with distance, and therefore the total brightness also changes with distance.

It's *blatantly* obvious why we see so few galaxies with our naked eyes, and blatantly obvious why Hubble has to look at a 'dark area' for days on end to observe enough photons to actually "see" a galaxy in those darker regions of a shorter duration image. The number of photons from the source *decreases* with distance. With enough distance, only a very few photons from that objects (galaxy or star) arrive on Earth.

This is basic physics. You're literally in denial of very basic physics related to photons. Only lasers would not experience the inverse square law.

You're definitely whistling Dixie which is why you keep avoiding that question about why we see just a very few galaxies when there are way more than 10 galaxies in our local supercluster. Even galaxies that experience some redshift would still be visible with our naked eye if you were correct, but you're not correct. Galaxies are not immune from the inverse square laws either, so we only see a very few of them.

You're also moving the goalposts in nearly every single post. First you (and WIKI and others in this thread) talked about "stars" and the surface brightness of "shells of stars". Then you back-peddled, and now you're talking about galaxies and shells of galaxies, yet we only see a very few of them too.

You're getting more desperate by the post and you still won't explain why we see less than ten galaxies at night, including our own.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I’m sorry to disappoint you Mr Destroyer of Arguments ...
Conan/Michael the Destroyer .. :D

"Crush your enemies .. see them driven before you .. and hear the lamentations of their woman" ... Cool!

:D
(PS: Sorry .. feeling a bit silly after reading Michael's tripe ..)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HotBlack
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
That's no defence ... because of your comprehension issues.

You're projecting again. As it relates to the inverse square law, you're the one that obviously has *serious* comprehension problems:

A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

For example: demonstrate your comprehension level by explaining the physical significance of integration over a surface.

By integrating it, you end up with a volume with a number of stars and ultimately a total amount of luminosity from that area. It's a pity for you that you have zero stars and zero luminosity coming from any stars in the next 267,000 AU sized shells!

You've already admitted that Obler was wrong when you admitted that stars act like point sources over distance which is why we observe so few of them. Olber had no clue that anything other than stars existed in the first place, so his argument was dead on arrival the moment he suggested it!

Your whole "galaxy" argument is a red herring because Olber didn't even know they existed!
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Conan/Michael the Destroyer .. :D

"Crush your enemies .. see them driven before you .. and hear the lamentations of their woman" ... Cool!

Er no Conan. Unlike you two, I don't attack and destroy people, just lame and ridiculous ideas.
 
Upvote 0