A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

Michael said:

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

Click to expand...

Michael said:

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?

Click to expand...

SelfSim said:

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 ..

Click to expand...

Michael said:

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.

Click to expand...

Michael said:

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!

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Michael said:

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.

Click to expand...

Michael said:

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 change with increasing distance *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 dim and so small 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. 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.

Click to expand...

Michael said:

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*.

Click to expand...

Michael said:

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.

Click to expand...