Guess this guy never played orbiter

[Hielor]

Yes, but if there are infinitely many of them, they all add up, hence this point (from the article):

Except that the "Collective brightness" thing is easy to disprove. Let the "set" of stars be the set: {Our Sun}. We know for a fact that the brightness of the sun decreases with distance.

 

[tblaxland]

Except that the "Collective brightness" thing is easy to disprove. Let the "set" of stars be the set: {Our Sun}. We know for a fact that the brightness of the sun decreases with distance.

Yes, but so does its angular size. I believe that part of the article is poorly written: "Set of stars" should read "solid angle".

 

[Tommy]

1. The collective brightness received from a set of stars at a given distance is independent of that distance;

What Hielor said. The above statement from WP is false and is contrary to known scientific fact. Once again Wikipedia proves that it isn't always right and can't be completely relied upon.

I think the article's author was working on the premise that if there are an infinite number of stars, then there are an infinite number of stars in any given direction, one behind the other, etc. Two problems with that. Stars aren't transparent so the closer stars will block the light from the farther ones. Also, most of those stars will be so far away that we may only receive one photon every few thousand years. Although the number of stars may be infinite, the number of photons emitted by each over a set period of time is finite.

 

[Hielor]

Yes, but so does its angular size. I believe that part of the article is poorly written: "Set of stars" should read "solid angle".

Ah, because the number of stars in any given "angular area" increases as the square of the distance, and the brightness of a given star decreases as the square of the distance. Makes sense. Would be nice if the article said that.

 

[Kyle]

I met someone on Youtube once who was convinced the Space Shuttle was fake. When I told him I have seen a shuttle launch, he says they are simply unmanned missiles that detonate at high altitude, and Challenger was an error where it detonated too early. I asked him to explain the landings many people see every time, and he says they are released from the 747, much like in the Enteprise tests, then glide to the runway. I say "But in all the landing videos, the 747 is nowhere to be found." He replies "Well dumb@$$, if you'd just stopped to think that maybe it's at high altitude, you wouldn't be making such stupid comments." Seriosly, ಠ_ಠ

I met the exact same idiot on youtube myself, here is my original message.
"Really? A 747? What about all those people who worked for NASA including my grandfather who recently passed away, how were they even able to keep that secret? And what about the big star that flys by over my head at the exact same time as NASA says it is suppose too?"
I had one of the most offensive replys yet.
"your grandfather was a **** smoking idiot and nasa killed him. that star every other night is a ufo that NASA knows about."

 

[Eagle]

Don't bother to feed the trolls. They grow fast enough as it is. Use fire against them if you must fight, it interferes with their accelerated healing and does double damage.

 

[Rathelm]

I met the exact same idiot on youtube myself, here is my original message.
"Really? A 747? What about all those people who worked for NASA including my grandfather who recently passed away, how were they even able to keep that secret? And what about the big star that flys by over my head at the exact same time as NASA says it is suppose too?"
I had one of the most offensive replys yet.
"your grandfather was a **** smoking idiot and nasa killed him. that star every other night is a ufo that NASA knows about."

I find it ironic that guy is more willing to believe in UFOs capable of interstellar travel over our ability to get a craft in orbit.

 

[Andy44]

I find it ironic that guy is more willing to believe in UFOs capable of interstellar travel over our ability to get a craft in orbit.

Yes, and I always wondered what Occam's theory had to do with a razor, and then I realized it must be what these people cut their brains out with.

 

[Linguofreak]

I think the article's author was working on the premise that if there are an infinite number of stars, then there are an infinite number of stars in any given direction, one behind the other, etc.

There are, but you will see the same effect with a finite number of stars if there is at least one star in any given direction. The only difference is that with an infinite number of stars, you get that effect wherever you go in the universe.

Two problems with that. Stars aren't transparent so the closer stars will block the light from the farther ones.

What they absorb will make them hotter, and thus brighter.

Also, most of those stars will be so far away that we may only receive one photon every few thousand years. Although the number of stars may be infinite, the number of photons emitted by each over a set period of time is finite.

As long as there is at least one star in any given direction, this does not matter. The number of stars at a given distance in any given patch of sky increases with distance in exact proportion to the amount by which the amount of light from each star decreases. So the two effects cancel.

 

[Tommy]

What they absorb will make them hotter, and thus brighter.

The inverse square law still applies, just because a photon is absorbed doesn't mean any extra photon emitted will come our way.

As long as there is at least one star in any given direction, this does not matter. The number of stars at a given distance in any given patch of sky increases with distance in exact proportion to the amount by which the amount of light from each star decreases. So the two effects cancel.

The key word there is "at a GIVEN distance". In reality, all the stars are at different distances. While some laboratory equipment may register light intensity in a perfectly linear fashion, the human eye does not. There is a "threshhold" under which a light source is undetectable by the human eye. I strongly suspect that even our best lab equipment suffers the same limitation. Time matters, and if we only receive one photon every day even our best lab equipment won't accurately register it.

In the end, the math says you are right. But our math is limited by our understanding, and even the best math has been shown to be wrong on occasion. Pythagoras and Aristotle were surpassed by Newton, Newton has been surpassed by Einstien, and in turn Einstien will be surpassed by a new theory, such as Super Strings. Even barring that, the fact that space isn't perfectly transparent (nothing is perfectly anything) puts paid to the whole "infinite stars means the sky should be bright" theory anyway.

Besides, in math a "given direction" means an infinitely small angle, and only stars in perfect alignment would matter. Remember that a line has no width or height, only a length.

 

[Kozak]

Guys, don't you seem to yourself like the discussed "theorist" freaks?.. They reject the science the same way. Just a friendly reminder

 

[T.Neo]

"your grandfather was a **** smoking idiot and nasa killed him. that star every other night is a ufo that NASA knows about."

When you get stuff like this, the appropriate response is to step back from the computer, and think to yourself, wow, this guy is a moron.
Then don't bother with him any more.

And I'm sure that the UFO that regularly flys over is actually a UFO, not a space station, which would be the obviously logical answer. :dry:

 

[Tommy]

Guys, don't you seem to yourself like the discussed "theorist" freaks?.. They reject the science the same way. Just a friendly reminder

But in our case our theories are based on scientific fact, not mental illness.

When you get stuff like this, the appropriate response is to step back from the computer, and think to yourself, wow, this guy is a moron.
Then don't bother with him any more.

But everyone needs hobbies, and trolling idiots is one of mine!

 

[jgrillo2002]

God. yet another stupid hoax topic. LOCK

 

[tblaxland]

While some laboratory equipment may register light intensity in a perfectly linear fashion, the human eye does not. There is a "threshhold" under which a light source is undetectable by the human eye. I strongly suspect that even our best lab equipment suffers the same limitation. Time matters, and if we only receive one photon every day even our best lab equipment won't accurately register it.

Single photon counters are not hard to find:
http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/DTS_SPCMAQRH.pdf

In any case, it is important to understand that the eye measures brightness (or more scientifically, luminous intensity) as power per solid angle. Hence my clarification earlier. The further you move from a given bunch of stars, the more stars that will be included the same solid angle and hence the luminous intensity stays the same.

Just to be clear, I am discussing a hypothetical infinite static universe here, not the finite dynamic one we actually live in.

Guys, don't you seem to yourself like the discussed "theorist" freaks?.. They reject the science the same way. Just a friendly reminder

Who here is rejecting science? What I see here is the scientific method at work - more specifically, a thought experiment. Thought experiments are valid ways of exploring a hypothesis since they lead to new ways to test the limits of it. It is just as important to understand how different our universe is from a static infinite universe as it is to understand how different 2 is from 1.

 

[Kozak]

But in our case our theories are based on scientific fact, not mental illness.

Every one of the "mystification busters" will tell you the same. Even this one:

I've warned

 

[movieman]

The inverse square law still applies, just because a photon is absorbed doesn't mean any extra photon emitted will come our way.

You don't care whether a photon is absorbed by a star between you and the more distant star, because if there's a star between you and the more distant star, you're already looking directly at a star.

In addition, the photon emitted later after that photon is absorbed will eventually hit another star or other object, where it will be absorbed, making it warmer, releasing another photon, etc. So overall the effect can be ignored, if the universe is infinitely old so the photons have had an infinite amount of time to travel.

Besides, in math a "given direction" means an infinitely small angle, and only stars in perfect alignment would matter. Remember that a line has no width or height, only a length.

And in an infinite universe with a constant density of stars, there will always be a star in perfect alignment: that's the whole point.

 

[Andy44]

God. yet another stupid hoax topic. LOCK

Or...you could just ignore this thread.

 

[doggie015]

Or...you could just ignore this thread.

:hesaid:

 

[jalexb88]

Hey wait a second it really is a hoax!! If they really went to the moon the astronauts would of became werewolves!! :lol::lol::lol:
(I`ve been up 30 hours straight)