All you have demonstrated is providing a specific example of why the subject matter is beyond your level of comprehension.
Irony overload.
You obviously don’t the understand the meaning of the statement,
“When we take away the wall, more of the screen is illuminated, but the brightness remains the same.”
Oh yes I do. It means you're dead wrong.
What exactly do you think the underlined term means?
It means that the brightness level on the screen (at a reduced inverse square law level) remains exactly the same, wall or no wall. Removing the screen doesn't increase the brightness on the screen as would be required for you to actually ignore the inverse square law, it simply increases the surface area of the screen that is lit at a *reduced* level of brightness.
The answer is the brightness remains the same at any distance hence the inverse square law isn’t applicable.
LOL! And to think you have the nerve to lecture me about comprehension problems. What a riot.
If it meant anything else as you seem to believe then you are faced with the ridiculous conundrum of explaining how illumination does not increase the brightness level on the screen as attested to your nonsensical spin doctoring that illumination and brightness are different.
What?
But the light passing through the hole on its way to the screen `had no idea' that the wall was there, so it produces the same brightness on the screen no matter what. When we take away the wall, more of the screen is illuminated, but the brightness remains the same.
Removing the wall does *not* increase the brightness, it increased the area of the screen that was lit at a *reduced* brightness. Holy cow. You really do have serious comprehension problems. Show me the specific math formula on that page that supports your claim sjastro.
If the wall is removed and the screen moved away from the light bulb, the flux will decrease according to the inverse square law
and spread out,
Meaning that the further away that the screen is from from the source, the *dimmer* the light is that reaches the screen, and the smaller the number of photons that reach the observer on Earth! Wow!
but the surface area of the bulb over which the light is emitted is also decreasing relative to distance by the same inverse square law.
No it's not. The *actual* surface of the bulb never changes, only the *apparent* size from the perspective of the observer! The bulb itself doesn't get bigger or smaller! Nobody ever made such a claim to begin with.
Astrophile has described the same concept in his post.
True, but unlike you he didn't ignore the inverse square law or botch the hell out of the description on the page in question. I therefore trust him more than I trust you.
Hence the surface brightness which is flux/surface area “remains the same”
The bulb never changes it's flux to begin with, so *of course* that's true. The bulb doesn't get bigger or smaller, only the *apparent* size from the perspective of the observer. That reduced "flux" as you call it however is *changing with the distance* meaning that less photons reach the observers eyes and they follow the inverse square law.
as described in the link and the inverse square law doesn’t apply for the millionth time.
Wow. You totally botched the meaning of that whole page. You therefore cannot cite the specific math formula on that page that supports any of your claims. Show us that formula sjastro on that page that supports your claims.
If you have a wall and a hole much smaller than the lamp
The hole is only there to illustrate the mathematical aspects of the inverse square law in action. Removing the wall entirely doesn't increase or decrease the brightness on the screen, just the surface area of the screen that is illuminated at a *reduced* (inverse square law) level of brightness. It would be like increasing the area *around* the Earth (away from the observer) that still receives light at a *reduced* level of brightness! How can you muck this up so badly?
the inverse square law does apply as the brightness changes accordingly with distance
Bingo! Therefore two identical stars at different distances will *absolutely* have different levels of brightness, blowing your Olber's paradox claim completely out of the water.
but there is no dimensional change in the surface area of the lamp
The size of lamp is always fixed just like the size of the star is always fixed. Only the *apparent* size changes, just as the brightness changes, not the actual bulb or the actual flux from the bulb itself. The luminosity of the source remains constant, as does the size, but the brightness at the screen (observer) changes with distance, just like the "observed" size changes with distance.
as it is obscured by the wall as explained in the link.
You really didn't grasp any of that explanation correctly, not a single part of it.
What is so ridiculous about your posts is that all you have to do is to find a single reference from a reputable source that explicitly states “Surface Brightness follows the inverse square law”.
Why would I bother trying to do that when I never claimed that the source changed in any way to begin with? That doesn't mean that the same amount of light that reaches the Earth never changes regardless of distance.
You can’t even do that along with denying the physical evidence presented,
You didn't present any real physical evidence to start with, at least nothing that involved measured photon counts related to distance. The photon counts reaching the screen change with distance. With enough distance, the photon counts fall below the threshold of human eyesight, hence the perception of relative "darkness" to a human eye.
the references that state otherwise, and most idiotic of all the use of science fiction ala Dyson spheres to justify changing the laws of physics.
Oh for crying out loud! You've got four science fictional elements all stuffed into one pathetic LCMD model and you're complaining about me introducing a simple "thought experiment" into the discussion. Give it a rest already.