Anyone keen to photograph some candles, for scientific experiment?

[tris_d]

Please just publish the paper. Have it peer reviewed first, of course. There are huge mistakes in your reasoning, but you don't want to, or can't see them. You can't even discuss them scientifically.

There's no conflict between asserting that the radiant energy from a star (or a candle) passing through a unit area at an observer decreases according to the inverse square law and the assertion that the brightness of a 'perfect' image does not decrease with distance. If you don't understand that you don't understand the reasoning behind Olbers' Paradox.

I asked you for your version of Olbers' Paradox because I wanted to read it in your words, with your reasoning. If you are going to write a technical paper that description will have to be in it.

You just keep repeating how I'm wrong and that I do not understand, but you fail to actually address what I say.


a.) Original treatment of Olbers' paradox regarding inverse square law concludes the night sky would be UNIFORMLY bright.
True, false?

b.) If stars appear less bright due to inverse square law, then it's inverse square law what makes the night sky NOT UNIFORMLY bright.
True, false?

 

[spacefuzz]

wait what, this is still being "discussed"?

 

[Helen B]

Please just publish the paper. Have it peer reviewed first, of course. There are huge mistakes in your reasoning, but you don't want to, or can't see them. You can't even discuss them scientifically.

There's no conflict between asserting that the radiant energy from a star (or a candle) passing through a unit area at an observer decreases according to the inverse square law and the assertion that the brightness of a 'perfect' image does not decrease with distance. If you don't understand that you don't understand the reasoning behind Olbers' Paradox.

I asked you for your version of Olbers' Paradox because I wanted to read it in your words, with your reasoning. If you are going to write a technical paper that description will have to be in it.

You just keep repeating how I'm wrong and that I do not understand, but you fail to actually address what I say.


a.) Original treatment of Olbers' paradox regarding inverse square law concludes the night sky would be UNIFORMLY bright.
True, false?

b.) If stars appear less bright due to inverse square law, then it's inverse square law what makes the night sky NOT UNIFORMLY bright.
True, false?

I have been addressing what you have said, as have others, but it hasn't been getting through. Very frustrating, and a real waste of time trying to help you. What is the point in trying?

a) True
b) False - The inverse square law is not the reason for the lack of uniform brightness. Olbers' Paradox has been explained adequately without having to misunderstand the inverse square law.

 

[tris_d]

a) True
b) False - The inverse square law is not the reason for the lack of uniform brightness.

Previously you agreed inverse square law is what defines DIFFERENCES in apparent brightness of the stars, due to distances and according to inverse square law, as Wikipedia says. And now you just said inverse square law is NOT responsible for any DIFFERENCES in apparent brightness across the night sky. Check and mate, my friend.

 

[unpopular]

Around here there is one rule that mast not be broken: don't doubt Helen. Ever.

---

seriously dude. you're not the one with a degree from RIT. She is.

 

[jake337]

 

[tris_d]

Around here there is one rule that mast not be broken: don't doubt Helen. Ever.

---

seriously dude. you're not the one with a degree from RIT. She is.

My rule is to doubt everything, myself included. C'mon, the conclusion comes off directly from this statement:

Apparent magnitude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Note that brightness varies with distance; an extremely bright object may appear quite dim, if it is far away. Brightness varies inversely with the square of the distance.

You don't need to know anything but English to realize that if inverse square laws is what defines the brightness of the stars that it is also what makes the night sky not be equally bright.

 

[Helen B]

a) True
b) False - The inverse square law is not the reason for the lack of uniform brightness.

Previously you agreed inverse square law is what defines DIFFERENCES in apparent brightness of the stars, due to distances and according to inverse square law, as Wikipedia says. And now you just said inverse square law is NOT responsible for any DIFFERENCES in apparent brightness across the night sky. Check and mate, my friend.

You haven't read what I have written (or you have read it and misunderstood it). The inverse square law can be, and is, used to find distances. I have said that. I have also explained why the inverse square law does not affect image illumination. These two statements are not contradictory. The inverse square law affects the radiant power passing through unit area at the observer (one meaning of the unscientific word 'brightness'). The distance to the object also determines image size. Image size together with the arriving power determine image illumination (another meaning of the word 'brightness'). No contradiction there. I've further explained what happens when the image size falls below the minimum receptor size.

 

[tris_d]

You haven't read what I have written (or you have read it and misunderstood it). The inverse square law can be, and is, used to find distances. I have said that. I have also explained why the inverse square law does not affect image illumination. These two statements are not contradictory. The inverse square law affects the radiant power passing through unit area at the observer (one meaning of the unscientific word 'brightness'). The distance to the object also determines image size. Image size together with the arriving power determine image illumination (another meaning of the word 'brightness'). No contradiction there. I've further explained what happens when the image size falls below the minimum receptor size.

At least you are not insulting me now, I appreciate that.

I don't see how any of that explains why would distant stars, given the same exposure time, appear as bright as closer brighter stars. It is logical that if inverse square law defines differences in brightness it would also be what defines non-uniform brightness. But then they used wrong math and destroyed their own logic, hence the "paradox". But they were not aware of such thing as "resolution" at the time, not in mathematical sense anyway, and they ignored it which gave them result that sums all the intensity into only one pixel. Do the correct math by including image resolution into the equation and the result will indicate non-uniform brightness.

 

[Derrel]

Around here there is one rule that mast not be broken: don't doubt Helen. Ever.

---

seriously dude. you're not the one with a degree from RIT. She is.

Word.

 

[amolitor]

Oh pish, I have a degree too, and just look at me.

Tris, you have zero chance of getting anything published and I think you know that. But good luck with it.

 

[Derrel]

Oh pish, I have a degree too, and just look at me.

Tris, you have zero chance of getting anything published and I think you know that. But good luck with it.

Yeah, Andrew, we know....but you see that hair Helen has in her avatar pic???? She RIPPED THAT HAIR RIGHT OUT of the scalp of some dude who crossed her in an argument and called her a dummy...

 

[Helen B]

You haven't read what I have written (or you have read it and misunderstood it). The inverse square law can be, and is, used to find distances. I have said that. I have also explained why the inverse square law does not affect image illumination. These two statements are not contradictory. The inverse square law affects the radiant power passing through unit area at the observer (one meaning of the unscientific word 'brightness'). The distance to the object also determines image size. Image size together with the arriving power determine image illumination (another meaning of the word 'brightness'). No contradiction there. I've further explained what happens when the image size falls below the minimum receptor size.

At least you are not insulting me now, I appreciate that.

I don't see how any of that explains why would distant stars, given the same exposure time, appear as bright as closer brighter stars. It is logical that if inverse square law defines differences in brightness it would also be what defines non-uniform brightness. But then they used wrong math and destroyed their own logic, hence the "paradox". But they were not aware of such thing as "resolution" at the time, not in mathematical sense anyway, and they ignored it which gave them result that sums all the intensity into only one pixel. Do the correct math by including image resolution into the equation and the result will indicate non-uniform brightness.

It would be helpful to be clearer about what you mean by brightness in the above paragraph. You seem to be using the same word to refer to two different properties. It would be much easier to read and to try to follow your reasoning. What is the 'wrong math'? You do realize that the logic behind the Paradox is resolution-independent, don't you?

 

[tris_d]

It would be helpful to be clearer about what you mean by brightness in the above paragraph.

Apparent magnitude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The apparent magnitude (m) of a celestial body is a measure of its brightness as seen by an observer on Earth


Basically, intensity is a property of light itself and brightness is a property of an image.

What is the 'wrong math'? You do realize that the logic behind the Paradox is resolution-independent, don't you?

Do you realize that without resolution you don't have pixels which brightness you need to compare in order to deduce whether their brightness is the same or not across the sensor surface area receiving the light? How do you expect to deduce whether the brightness is uniform or not if you sum all the intensity into only one variable? Of course it will be uniform when your result can only hold one value. You need an array, a matrix, that can hold multiple values related to spatial distribution of received light.

 

[unpopular]

Oh pish, I have a degree too, and just look at me.

Tris, you have zero chance of getting anything published and I think you know that. But good luck with it.

you're doing just fine. :roll: