Illustrating Olbers' paradox

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by humbleteleskop, May 29, 2014.

  1. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    To see my point more clearly, replace the entire Earth with a single, giant, spherical photo-receptor. The receptor does not know nor care which specific star any given photon came from. Would you agree that all shells would then produce the same level of "brightness" on this Earth (ignoring the blockage of photons by other stars)?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    Those are arbitrary examples. That's the whole point of my question. You do not know how many shells will actually be visible. It's the only unknown variable left, which would finally define the brightness of the image and end this farce.

    It's the same number that prevents you from answering this question:
    - How much of radiative flux there is in Olbers' paradox universe?

    You do not know, because you can not know until you know that number. This 'unknown' is a probability number, it's a percentage describing a chance of a photon to reach the sensor from a star and not get occluded by some foreground star on the way, which becomes less and less the further the star is.

    Not to mention that you do not really know ANY numbers from the paradox equations. They do not consider any actual numbers, they only look at the relations and on the way forget to take exposure time, sensor area, resolution and pixel sensitivity, into account.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    Potentially infinite? We can not put "maybe" into the equation. It's either infinite or it is not, and therein lays the answer. Only infinite number of stars in the field of view can make the image instantaneously uniformly white. This is actually the conclusion of the paradox, due to one of many mistakes in its premises, it actually does assume the infinite number of stars. So the only question remains, whether is that true or false.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2014
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Yes, I picked an arbitrary number, just as you did. But to be clear about what you are implying: you do recognize that some number of shells have to be added together to produce the final image, right?
    So please answer clearly again: does what you said above mean you recognize that every line of sight ends on a star?
     
  8. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    Not potentially infinite, actually infinite. An infinite number of stars is presumed in the paradox. The "potential" of the stars being light sources depends on if they have a clear line of sight to our given photo receptor. If you say that the Olber's Paradox is false with a finite number of stars then I agree with you.
     
  9. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Ok, my morbid curiosity has gotten the better of me and since it is easy:
    Since every line of sight ends on a star like the sun, we can apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

    (5778K)^4 * 5.67E-8 w/m^2 K^-4 = 63 MW/m^2
     
  10. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    I did not pick any arbitrary numbers. If you ask specifically I will, unlike you, explain for every single number you ask about how and where it came from. -- Five pages ago I told you the only argument you have left is to claim there would be infinite number of stars in the field of view. I recognize that infinite number of stars in the field of view would make the image instantaneously uniformly bright. Furthermore, I say that for any less number than infinite, the brightness of the image and its uniformity will depend on resolution, pixels size, pixel sensitivity, and exposure time. Do you agree?


    Yes. Do you recognize the rate of incoming photons from each of those stars will be inversely proportional to their distance?
     
  11. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    100,000 photons per star: where did you get that number?

    And you didn't answer my question. Again: you do recognize that some number of shells have to be added together to produce the final image, right?
    Neither your model nor mine call for an infinite number of stars in the field of view.
    No. The image is uniform.
    No. It is inversely proportional to the square of their distance.
     
  12. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    Yes, that's what the paradox presumed. So the question is only whether is that a valid, or false premise in which case the paradox is flawed.


    Yes, I am saying the paradox is flawed with a finite number of stars contributing to the total brightness. So we agree. But beside that, consequently, I'm also saying it's flawed due to not taking exposure time, resolution, pixel size and pixel sensitivity, into account.

    I'm not saying the paradox conclusion is completely false or utterly wrong, just flawed. Maybe the paradox sky would indeed be very bright, but we can not know for sure until we perform correct calculations with valid premises. That's all I'm saying and why I insist we do make proper calculations, so we can find the real truth.
     
  13. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Correct: the thought experiment was designed to predict how an infinite and static universe would look and since what it predicts isn't what we see, that premise is proven to be false.
    No. The paradox setup is that there are an infinite number of stars, but we don't see an infinite number of them because they occult. You should know this since you posted an animation that shows them occulting each other.

    "We"? I did, you didn't. You clearly aren't interested in "real truth", otherwise you'd be making an effort to do "proper calculations".
     
  14. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    The number came from the actual stars in the real world. I could have picked any star as a reference and place it at any distance for the 1st shell. The number is arbitrary by definition in the paradox, it doesn't change the result. If I took shells distance numbers from the Wikipedia article the first shell would already start with the stars that are completely black, if it was to be realistic. So instead I picked a nice round number that would make the closest stars overexpose the image, just like in the real world.


    I did, and I was specific. I told you not only about "some" number, I told you about infinite and less than infinite numbers and how it makes a difference. On the other hand you are vague, and it is you who doesn't understand me? Don't answer that question. Anyway, the answer to your question is yes. Furthermore I add, that number of shells is not actually known, only falsely presumed to be infinite in the paradox.


    - For any number of stars in the field of view that is less than infinite, the brightness of the image and its uniformity will depend on resolution, pixels size, pixel sensitivity, and exposure time. True or false?

    The question is not how the image looks like, but what brightness of an image depends on. If you disagree, please explain how did you arrive to your conclusion.


    Yes. "Proportional", as a general term, of course describes any proportionality, including squared ones. I could have also left "inversely" from that sentence and it would still be true. Stop wasting time blabbering about irrelevant, like an old women. Focus, please.
     
  15. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    They are not at the same distance as the Sun.
     
  16. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    Infinite number of stars in the universe doesn't mean infinite number of stars would be visible and contribute to the total brightness.


    The paradox actually does presume we would see an infinite number of stars, that's why it's flawed in the first place. But it's a double-trap, it's flawed whichever way you turn it around. If you want to claim there is some finite number of visible shells/stars in the paradox simply state what that number is.


    1.) Total brightness of 1000 doesn't make even a single pixel slightly bright, yet you concluded it made the whole image white.
    2.) You never considered any photons or energy RECEIVED, only "saturation value", your phantasmal image exists before it was taken.
    3.) You considered only the stars in the 1st shell, and then wrongly concluded you calculated the TOTAL energy received.

    Please re-phrase your paragraph and make it clear exactly how each number follows and from what it follows, in relation to these three objections above.
     
  17. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    I agree that it's fine and we are now agreed that you have used arbitrary numbers, despite claiming not to.
    Thank you.
    Again, at the time it was proposed, many people thought the universe was static, infinite and homogeneous. That's why it is assumed in the paradox and that's why the paradox shows that what people thought about the universe at the time was wrong. It's almost like you've forgotten why Olbers' paradox exists!
    I don't understand why you didn't get the answer the last time: it is False. Brightness depends on resolution, pixel size, etc. Uniformity does not. Uniformity results from the assumed structure of the universe.
    If by "general term", you mean an incorrect/oversimplified/non-scientific use, I would agree that yes, people who don't understand what "proportional" means -- such as yourself -- sometimes misuse it in the way you did.
    Distance is not part of the computation.
    Correct.
    Ridiculous. Again: you posted an animation showing what would be seen. The animation at the top of the wiki. It shows stars blocking each other.
    Unnecessary: you already know it to be true because you posted an animation showing it.
    1. I said no such thing. And since you used the 1000 total brightness for a 1st shell star in your simulation in the exact same way I did, it is ridiculous for you to pretend not to know how I did it.
    2. I most certainly did: That's what I calculated that you spent days demanding I present in different units before finally recognizing that I used the proper units when I shoved the wiki article describing them in your face because you wouldn't read it when I linked it for you.
    3. Nonsense. I generated several shells - the pictures are in the post - and mathematically described the rest.
    I've already explained to you several times, in several different ways what I did and since you used the same procedure, it isn't possible for you to not understand it. Still, here's how I said it in post #119:
     
  18. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    The paradox either presumes infinite number of stars would be visible, in which case its premise is false and the paradox is flawed. Or, the paradox presumes some finite number of visible shells/stars, in which case you only have to state what number that is. Choose your destiny, what it's gonna be?


    Because you are vague and ambiguous, because you forgot to make any comment about brightness, it was unclear whether or not you simply ignored it. In any case I am glad we agree now, hopefully it will make it easier for you to realize the errors of your wicked ways.


    Which is what makes it wrong.


    I decide what is necessary for you to answer or not, you decide what is necessary for me to answer or not. For such experienced forum user as yourself you are surprisingly confused about what a debate is and how it works. I challenge you to point where in the paradox do you see it considers some finite number of visible stars, rather than assuming the number is infinite. What say you?


    You were talking about a new image, the new sensor and proper image, which you defined as: "Sony ExView ICX285AL CCD chip", with quantum efficiency of 60% and a well depth of 16,000 electrons. Yes? Then in the second paragraph you state the total image brightness is 1,000. Yes? So, do you realize then the brightness of 1,000 doesn't make even a single pixel slightly bright in that image you defined yourself and which you were talking about?


    Please point out the sentence where you are considering any other shells beside the 1st one. Please point out the sentence where you are talking about the TOTAL energy RECEIVED from the stars in the sky.
     
  19. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    There are a finite but very very large number of stars visible, a number generated by a probability function. The exact number is not important, only the fact that every line of sight ends on a star.
    No. You apparently don't understand how black body radiation works. Distance is not part of the equation because it isn't required. Radiative intensity depends only on temperature. I guess we need to add that to the list of things you don't understand or think are wrong about science.
    You edited my answer to your question out of what you quoted. You are ignoring the answer. And no, you don't get to decide what is necessary to answer because you don't understand the issue. If you were entitled, you'd be entitled to ask an endless string of unanswerable and/or irrelevant questions just to keep the argument going -- it appears that's what you are trying to do.
    No. I explicitly stated many, many times that I was using your image. For example:
    Perhaps you mean when spread out over the entire picture, as it is in the later shells. Yes, individual shells do not send enough light to the sensor to be seen on their own -- only collectively. I've told you this a number of times.
    Those are different questions, so the answers aren't in that quote I posted. Now you're asking me to go back and re-post my previous post line-by-line, which is stupid. But the answer to your second question - also already answered - is that in the simulation I did, I didn't calculate the total energy received, I stopped after I got to an amount of energy that proved you very wrong.
     
  20. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    It's funny, I'm laughing. Stop hallucinating! Everyone can see very well you were talking about YOUR sensor, "Sony ExView ICX285AL CCD chip", with quantum efficiency of about 60% and a well depth of 16,000 electrons. Look at it:

    You defined 0.000254 w/sq meter energy required to saturate the whole sensor. Then you pulled the number 1,000 out of your hat and conclude that it "works out" to 0.0010 w/sq m, which to your satisfaction was greater than 0.000254 w/sq m, while completely oblivious 1,000 pixel brightness doesn't make even a single pixel slightly bright on that new sensor of yours.


    That's right, you did not. And yet you kept claiming that you did. Awww, you have my pity.
     
  21. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    You acknowledge then the paradox conclusion is based on the premise that infinite number of stars would be visible and contribute to the total brightness? And you claim such infinite brightness is not different much than some non-infinite brightness?
     
  22. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    You're purely trolling now. I tell you one thing and you respond that I said the opposite. Enough: I'm not going to try to keep correcting your fake poor reading comprehension. I'm not getting into a did not/did too loop with someone who wants to act like a 7 year old.

    I do, however see what your confusion is with that calculation to go from .000254 to .001 w/sq m...

    That calculation gives you the watts per square meter of 1 first shell star concentrated on 1 pixel. That's all. You seem upset that I used the technique, but you did exactly the same thing in reverse to generate your recent simulation; spread the star's light out so it wouldn't saturate the detector.
     
  23. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    Considering the amount of time you spend dodging questions and talking about me, for some strange reason, I'm afraid the troll you speak of doesn't live on the other side of your computer screen, but the other side of your mirror.


    I'll pretend I didn't see what fallacious nonsense you have just said, just don't speak of that calculation ever again.
     

Share This Page