Illustrating Olbers' paradox

Put the money where your mouth is and write it down.

- How much of radiative flux there is in Olbers' paradox universe?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. This isn't necessary and comes after you've already figured out what Olbers' paradox universe looks like conceptually. You've already disagreed with some of the analysis required to do this, so that isn't going to change. You're just dodging, inventing new tasks for me to do, as part of your trolling. If you want it, do it yourself. I can guide you through it though -- but starting from the end of Olbers' paradox, not from scratch.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, it is necessary, because you made the claim and I asked you to prove it. You fail, too bad. If you want to have a debate, if you want to learn, you must answer the question or admit that you do not know. It's up to you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm the teacher and you are the student. I don't have anything to prove here because what I'm teaching you is well established. The fact that you simply refuse to understand or believe isn't my problem. But again, I'm more than willing to continue on to this separate issue as the teacher, pushing you through it. So let's start:

Starting premise: Olbers's paradox universe is uniformly as bright as the sun.

Agree? Then we can start the calculation. Also, you'll need to be more specific about what you want to solve: are you looking for the flux as viewed through the telescope and camera we've been using?

 

Actually, there is an easier way. Are you familiar with the Stefan Boltzmann equation? If not, google it. Plug the sun's surface temperature into it and tell me what you get.

 

Only in your delusion, which I encourage because it's funny.

Nice premise, you almost convinced yourself there. All right then, you keep talking to yourself and I'll continue the debate with my ashtray.

 

My delusion? The wiki on Olbers'paradox exists, doesn't it? Do you think it was made as part of a cover-up of the truth? Or do you think everyone who learned Olbers' paradox in the last hundred years is wrong and only you know the truth?

Oh, that's right, you already said you expect a Nobel prize for this!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My delusion? No, you're using your mirror backwards.

No doubt you'll declare yourself the winner when the ashtray fails to prove you wrong. Make sure you put that in your cover letter when you submit your paper!
:roflmao:

 

I can not prove you and your theory wrong if you refuse to answer the questions. Which is why in a debate not answering a question is equivalent of losing the argument. It's not about me winning, it's about you loosing and me wasting time.

Surely if you knew the answer you wouldn't be trolling but would simply write the damn number down. And just to prove that you don't know the answer I'll ask the question again and you will see you will not be able to answer it, I guarantee you, watch...

- How much of radiative flux there is in Olbers' paradox universe?

 

humbletelescop...you realize that there are 4 times more stars in the 12th shell than the 11th shell, yes? If it takes 10-ish seconds for each star from the 11th shell to emit a photon and 40-ish seconds for each star from the 12th shell to emit a photon...which contains 4 times as many stars...then each shell will be bombarding the photon receptor with the same number of photons per second. Surely you cannot write such a long thread without being able to appreciate this logic.

 

1. Not my theory. I'm explaining Olbers' paradox (among other things) to you. He owns it, not me.

2. I answered all of your questions about my explanation of it. I can't help that you ignored the answers and asked the same questions again. I can't help that things you understood a week ago you apper to no longer understand today. I won't go through it again: reread and re-learn. But...

3. We both know you already understand the answers: you used most of the answers correctly in your own simulation even while incorrectly explaining them in the context of my demonstration. Our demonstrations are very similar, you just stopped yours before completing it.

You, me and everyone else watching the thread knows your MO by now. And we all know that I have never failed to do what I said I would or could do, even in previous cases where it was a lot of work that was unnecessary/irrelevant to the issue of the thread.

I gave you instructions on how to answer your new irrelevant question. I'll even walk you through it if you make an effort to try, but fail. But you ignored that part of my response rather than answer it. This is just a game you are trying to play to see if you can make me keep jumping through more irrelevant hoops for you. I won't.

 

You made a claim, now you will either prove it by answering the question or you will admit you do not know the answer, otherwise the debate is over and you loose. It's up to you.

- How much of radiative flux there is in Olbers' paradox universe?

 

Not receptor, but receptors, each second different one and with only a single photon. Do you realize then you will not be able to see any of those stars in the 11th and 12th shell with only one second exposure time?

 

What does "each second different one and with only a single photon" mean? If you can accept the premise that the 11th and 12th shells are emitting the same number of photons per second to our *collection* of receptors then that's all the logic you need to understand this thing. During a single-second exposure a given receptor might detect a photon from any number of stars in a given shell; focusing on a single star is not productive or relevant.

 

Yes, that's in his calculation: 100,000 photons/sec per shell divided by the number of stars in the shell equals photons per star. He's never, that I've seen, gotten that wrong and was clear from the very first post that he understands it. That's part of what is so bizarre about his refusal to start adding the shells together.

 

Then what's the problem?

 

He refuses to add the shells together to assemble the final image: if each shell sends 100,000 photons, then 1,000 shells sends 100,000,000 photons, for example.

That's why I think this is all a big troll: this step is too simple to misunderstand.

 

It means per one second intervals we would receive only a single photon from only 2% of the stars in the 12th shell. It means every second these photons will arrive from different %2 of the stars. It means it takes on average 40 seconds to receive two photons from the same star. Therefore, since it takes at least 6 photons for our pixel to register the smallest increase in pixel brightness, the stars in the 12th shell will only just begin to make some imprint on the image after 4 minutes of exposure time. Post #192 contains the numbers, illustrations and explanation.

I can not explain it until you understand the answer to your question above.

 

It does not distress me for you to claim I can't answer any more than I suspect it distresses you for me to say the same about you.

 

He's right on one point, which is that while each shell emits the same number of photons per second towards us, technically, our receptors would detect fewer and fewer photons from more distant shells because these photons cannot pass through other stars (presumably). In other words, once our field of vision has been completely filled with photons, then any more light sources further away from us would be superfluous. This is of course irrelevant, though. If it weren't the case then the sky in Olber's Paradox would be lit with infinite energy due to an infinite number of shells. Rather than that, we are limited to only having every point in the Olber's sky looking exactly like we were staring at the sun.

 

Got it. You are confusing pixels with stars. That pixel has an infinite number of potential light sources all lined up from various shells. This is salami-slicing. No individual star is giving a pixel enough photons to trigger it, therefore you discard its contribution completely as if it never happened.