Err .. I dunno .. maybe not Conan .. but definite similarities with Arnie.
(Ie: in not having a clue about the perception he leaves in his wake).
Upvote
0
-
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
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
(Ie: in not having a clue about the perception he leaves in his wake).
Err .. I dunno .. maybe not Conan .. but definite similarities with Arnie.
(Ie: in not having a clue about the perception he leaves in his wake).
Irony overload. If you two actually stuck to the topic and stopped pretending to be mind readers, these conversations would be a lot more enjoyable. As it stands, not so much.
You'll note that there are at least two others in this thread who have also promoted Olber's argument, that have been able to participate in the thread without engaging in childish personal attacks and pretending to read minds. What's the problem with you two?
Upvote
0
They dropped out ages ago .. probably for the same reason I did .. ie: its painfully obvious that you are completely out of your depth .. and just won't admit it .. So, either stay away .. or stay in and have some fun! Its like drawing humour from the circus clown .. (that would be you, of course).
Upvote
0
After this exchange about the inverse square laws, it painfully clear that you two have no idea what you're talking about. That's why you both have to run and hide from my question about the tiny number of galaxies we observe at night (and every other questions in this post).
First you claimed that this argument applies to stars, then you backtracked and admitted that stars act like point sources and they obey the inverse square laws just as I said. When we looked at your bogus shell argument, you came up 268,770 shells short of a valid argument too. The whole galaxy claim was a red herring because Olber didn't even know that there were other galaxies in space when he proposed the idea.
You've had the goal posts on overdrive throughout this entire conversation, and your arguments are so oversimplified as to be simply absurd. Even if there was *no* scattering taking place in space at all, you'd *still* be wrong.
Out of over 250 *billion* stars in our own galaxy, we can see less than 10,000 of them because they obey the inverse square laws just as I said. Worse yet for your claim, we see less than 10 galaxies and there are way more than 10 galaxies in our own supercluster. We should even be able to see many other superclusters if your arguments were valid, but they are not valid, which is why we only see a handful of them with our naked eye.
Olber's the one wearing a big red nose, makeup and oversized shoes, and owns a clown car that seems to fit an endless number of guys all climbing out of the back seat.
Upvote
0
That, and the sheer waste of time; the arguments have been made more than once already.
As Dr. Johnson said, "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
Upvote
0
That's exactly how I feel alright. If those less then 10 thousand visible stars, and those fewer than 10 galaxies that we see at night do not convince you that Olber was absurdly and ridiculously wrong, and that Thomas Digges was right, I'll certainly never convince you.
Upvote
0
Enough of this nonsense.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.
Those next 268,770 AU sized shells all have volume, they just contain no stars in any of that massive empty volume.
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.
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.
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.
You have no evidence to support such a ridiculous claim in the first place.
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.
Refer me to any physics textbook, a single reference from reputable site or a lab experiment that shows the surface brightness depends on the inverse square law.
And before you make the idiotic response the evidence is in the sky, if that was true it would find it's way into the education medium.
You can also point out the errors in the maths in the following assuming the inverse square law holds.
Upvote
0
You're certainly welcome to stop spewing your Olber's nonsense anytime.
It does not matter one iota if what you're calling 'surface brightness' depends on the inverse square law because the angular size of various objects in space, including galaxies, certainly *does* vary based on distance, so the total/observed brightness absolutely, positively does depend on the inverse square law! That's exactly why we see so few galaxies in the night sky. Gah!
Ya right, like Birkeland's body of work found it's way into your "education medium" and Alfven's double layer paper found it's way into your classroom. Give me a break. Appeal to authority much?
There is no math error in that presentation, but the angular size of the object *does vary* based on distance, so the inverse square law applies! That's why a surface of a sun turns into a "point source" sooner or later, and it's why galaxies do the same thing with enough distance.
Give it a rest already. You *buried* yourself last Sunday when you demonstrated that you don't even understand the inverse square law in the first place.
Upvote
0
Shheessh!!
It just keeps getting worse!
Define 'total/observed brightness' ... I mean .. what are you talking about?
Do you know?
Upvote
0
Shheessh!!
It just keeps getting worse!
Define 'total/observed brightness' ... I mean .. what are you talking about?
Do you know?
Oh I know the difference between surface brightness and total/observed brightness. The question is: 'Do *you* know the difference'? Why do you think that a surface of a sun eventually turns into a "point source" and it obeys the inverse square law, if it's 'surface brightness' remains constant with distance?
Wait, why am I even bothering asking you? It's painfully clear from the howler of an error that you made last Sunday that you don't even understand the inverse square law to begin with.
Upvote
0
Congratulations by finding no fault in the maths you have admitted that SB is independent of distance and has nothing to do with the inverse square law.
So every single one of your interminable posts based on this incorrect assumption is categorically wrong.
I am glad you have finally admitted your mistake.
Upvote
0
Wow. You still missed the whole point (again). I didn't make a mistake. You did.
As Astrophile noted, the *angular size* also changes between the Earth and Mars, and *the inverse square law is therefore preserved* regardless of what you're calling "surface brightness". Surface brightness is irrelevant. It's simply the luminosity per surface area of the source which never changes.
That angular size change, and the inverse square law preservation with distance also applies to your precious galaxies. If you move a galaxy 10 times further from away from Earth, it's angular size also decreases, so the inverse square law is still preserved, and that explains why we only observe less then 10 galaxies. Galaxies (like suns) become so dim that their light drops below the threshold of human vision and that area of the sky now looks "dark" to us even when we're looking right at it. The surface brightness of the galaxy is irrelevant.
Olber simply *ignored* the inverse square law entirely, which is why his argument is pure nonsense. It doesn't matter if you try to apply it to stars or to galaxies, the inverse square law always applies! Digges was right. Olber was spewing pure nonsense.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
More incomprehensible blather.
The inverse square law is distance not time dependent and in an infinitely old Universe even in very distant galaxies photons will eventually reach the observer irrespective of distance.
All of this is immaterial because you have admitted your mistake, your not capable of critiquing the maths but you agreed with the conclusion which was written in plain English; surface brightness is independent of distance.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The only one blathering is Olber, and you believed the blathering. Olber's non-paradox was solved by Thomas Digges before Olber was even born.
True, which is why your flawed formula related to the age of the universe with respect to heat due to absorption was utterly meaningless, and highly erroneous.
Even assuming that *zero* scattering took place in space, the number of photons reaching Earth would eventually drop to one photon a day or less at some distance. Toss in even a *minimal* amount of scattering/absorption in space, and that number drops to zero. Put in a "reasonable" amount of scattering and it drops to zero much sooner.
You really must have a comprehension problem because I have admitted nothing of the sort. I admitted that the inverse square law is preserved and I pointed out *your* error related to the diminishing size of the object with distance which preserves the inverse square law regardless of so called "surface brightness". Sooner or later the object becomes so small in terms of it's angular size, and so dim that it simply acts like a "point source", including galaxies.
The whole galaxy argument was a red herring anyway because Olber didn't have a clue that other galaxies even existed when he dreamed up his absurd and bogus argument. Your stellar "shell game" was an *epic* fail before we even left the solar system, let alone the galaxy, which is why we only see a tiny fraction of the stars in our own galaxy and less than 10 galaxies with our naked eye.
Pure personal attack and it's obviously wrong since I easily found the flaw in your previous formula. The "age" of the universe is utterly irrelevant with respect to the temperature of dust in space. You're not even capable of understanding the inverse square law *qualitatively* even when it's presented to you as an experiment, so who are you to talk?
Even that claim eventually falls apart when the distance becomes great enough to turn the object into a dim "point source" that we can no longer observe, which also demonstrates that surface brightness only applies within certain boundaries, or it only relates to the *source*, not the observer. You really don't "get it" on any level.
FYI, the angular size changes with increasing distance which *ensures* that any object, including galaxies, obeys the inverse square laws just as I said. It continues to get smaller and smaller, until it becomes so small and so dim that it is no longer visible to the human eye. There's no way that you can claim that "surface brightness" is preserved in the eye of the observer at massive distances. If it was preserved at the eye of the observer we'd see every star in our galaxy, and we would observe orders of magnitude more galaxies at night. Like I said, you really don't understand the inverse square law as your howler of an error last Sunday so clearly demonstrated. You don't even qualitatively have a clue how the inverse square law actually works.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Totally irrelevant, since you admitted the maths was correct and surface brightness is independent of distance (for low z) and has nothing to do with the inverse square law.
It's the only sensible comment you have made in this thread.
Now you that have confessed you were comprehensively wrong the subject of Olbers' paradox is over.
Upvote
0
I only admitted that the math was "theoretically/technically" right, but only within certain limits. Visually speaking, surface brightness is only distance independent within a limited range of distance.
You already admitted that a star ultimately acts as a point source and it eventually becomes so dim that it can no longer even be observed by a human observer. Surface brightness is therefore only preserved at the *source* and it eventually becomes dimmer with respect to the observer which is why we see so few stars and so few galaxies with the human eye.
You only half listened to my answer however so you only heard what you wanted to hear, not what I actually said.
You're obviously having another one of your infamous comprehension problems again, like last Sunday, because that is *not* what I actually said. I "confessed" no such thing.
Oh, it's over alright, in fact it was "over" and explained by Digges before it was even written Olber.
Let's recap:
1. You have already admitted that Olber was wrong with respect to the surface brightness of stars because they eventually act like "point sources" and they eventually become too dim to be observed by a human being at some distance.
2. Your "stellar shell" argument got blown away before we even left the solar system, and it's 268,770 AU shells short of a valid argument.
3. You *completely* botched the whole meaning of the inverse square law experiment.
4. So called "surface brightness" of stars and galaxies is only distance independent within a very *limited* distance, but when the angular size gets small enough, it simply acts like a point source and then the object becomes too dim for a human being to even observe it's so called "surface brightness". Therefore surface brightness is only applicable within a *limited* distance, and then it becomes distance dependent in terms of what is observed by the *observer*.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Let me recap admitting the maths is right, is confessing the nonsense you have come up with in this thread is just that.....nonsense.I only admitted that the math was "theoretically/technically" right, but only within certain limits. Visually speaking, surface brightness is only distance independent within a limited range of distance.
You already admitted that a star ultimately acts as a point source and it eventually becomes so dim that it can no longer even be observed by a human observer. Surface brightness is therefore only preserved at the *source* and it eventually becomes dimmer with respect to the observer which is why we see so few stars and so few galaxies with the human eye.
You only half listened to my answer however so you only heard what you wanted to hear, not what I actually said.
You're obviously having another one of your infamous comprehension problems again, like last Sunday, because that is *not* what I actually said. I "confessed" no such thing.
Oh, it's over alright, in fact it was "over" and explained by Digges before it was even written Olber.
Let's recap:
1. You have already admitted that Olber was wrong with respect to the surface brightness of stars because they eventually act like "point sources" and they eventually become too dim to be observed by a human being at some distance.
2. Your "stellar shell" argument got blown away before we even left the solar system, and it's 268,770 AU shells short of a valid argument.
3. You *completely* botched the whole meaning of the inverse square law experiment.
4. So called "surface brightness" of stars and galaxies is only distance independent within a very *limited* distance, but when the angular size gets small enough, it simply acts like a point source and then the object becomes too dim for a human being to even observe it's so called "surface brightness". Therefore surface brightness is only applicable within a *limited* distance, and then it becomes distance dependent in terms of what is observed by the *observer*.
You have admitted you are incorrect now get over it.
Upvote
0
No, that's not *all* that I said. I said that the math is correct *only within a limited scope*, and within a *limited* distance. I know that you'd love to ignore that qualifier, but it simply won't fly.
You yourself admitted that stars in our own galaxy end up acting like point sources after some distance, and therefore the inverse square law applies to them, so their so called "surface brightness" as seen by the observer does in fact change over distance once the angular size gets small enough. You're completely ignoring that very important issue.
You're wrong on that point, just like you were wrong with respect to the whole meaning of the inverse square law on Sunday!
The whole moving of the goalposts with respect to galaxies was a gigantic red herring because your dear St. Olber didn't have a clue that other galaxies even existed in the first place. His original claim, as well as the one on WIKI *and your own listed link* was related to stars, not galaxies. Even the angular size of galaxies varies with distance, so they too follow the inverse square law which is why we observe so few of them in the night sky.
Your stellar shell argument also fell completely apart within the distance of our own solar system, and you're 268,770 AU shells short of a valid argument on that front too.
There's absolutely nothing left standing of your whole nonsensical claim. Furthermore, you demonstrated on Sunday quite convincingly that you don't even understand the basic concept of the inverse square law, and you're incapable of admitting your *numerous* different errors.
Surface brightness is *not* preserved forever or the suns in our galaxy would not act as "point sources" and obey the inverse square law by becoming too dim to observe after a specific distance.
There is absolutely no part of your claim that holds up to any serious scientific or observational scrutiny, including your surface brightness nonsense. If surface brightness *always* stayed the same regardless of distance, we'd see every single star in our galaxy, and we'd see orders of magnitude more galaxies in the night sky as well.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
