Should Stars be invisible?

  • 33 Replies
  • 1807 Views
*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Should Stars be invisible?
« on: August 06, 2016, 06:35:27 PM »
The night sky is filled with stars, yet Scientists tell us the cosmos is 99.9999% space, but it doesn't look that way when I look up, it looks roughly 50% star, and 50% space.
Why is that?
Is it because stars are ultra bright, could ultra brightness compensate for comparative (to space) ultra smallness?
But if a thing is bright, it doesn't make it look bigger, it just means its light is more likely to impress itself upon your eyes, it doesn't change the width of the impression, merely the intensity, and stars appear trillions of times bigger relative to space than they're supposed to be according to Nasa, so what gives?
Is it because stars produce giant silhouettes around themselves, that make them look trillions of times bigger relative to space than they are, but how can you produce silhouettes without atmospheres and if light travels in a straight line?

You see it's not just the shape of the earth, Nasa is telling us all sorts of things about the heavens that seem to contradict our senses.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2016, 06:46:54 PM by Antithecyst »
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2016, 06:40:04 PM »
really? They appear trillions of times bigger than NASA claims?

How do you know? Have you measured it?
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2016, 06:40:47 PM »
really? They appear trillions of times bigger than NASA claims?

How do you know? Have you measured it?
Sorry, I edited my post, I meant much bigger relative to space than they claim.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2016, 06:41:57 PM »
My point still stands. I assume you are talking about angular distance.

Have you measured the angular size of stars?
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2016, 06:51:17 PM »
My point still stands. I assume you are talking about angular distance.

Have you measured the angular size of stars?
I'm not talking about angular distance so much as the size of stars relative to space.
A star is, according to Nasa, but a speck of white in an ocean of black, but that's not the way it looks, on the contrary, the cosmos looks to be about 50% something and 50% space.
The human eye can't detect a speck of white in a sea of black, it shouldn't even register, no matter how bright the light, the brightness of the light isn't going to make the star appear any bigger/wider.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2016, 06:58:10 PM »
Really? Because when I look up, there is a lot more space between stars than actual stars.

Angular distance is the only measurement that makes sense in this situation. It is the amount of the sky that an object takes up. The sun and moon are each about 1 degree, which means if you stacked 360 of them side to side, they would make a circle around the sky.

An arc minute is 1/60th of a degree, and an arc second is 1/60th of an arc minute. Stars angular distance is usually measured in arc seconds.

I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2016, 07:47:46 PM »
Do you know what 50% means? The sky doesn't look like a great chessboard of stars, one space with a star and one space without.

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2016, 08:30:06 PM »
The OP is not considering how far away those stars are and the space in between them.

This is rather interesting and shows you how much space there is just in our solar system.

http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html

Scroll to get things started then click on the arrow towards the top right to speed things up.

Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2016, 09:27:08 PM »
Nasa is telling us all sorts of things about the heavens that seem to contradict our senses.
Lots of things were told before NASA. Lots of things can be checked regardless fo NASA's opinion. And you missinterpret most of them on the insane lvl. How 6000 dots of light can cover 50% of the sky? When put toghether, they'd all be smaller than the Sun.

*

neutrino

  • 635
  • FET is a religion. You can't fight faith.
Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2016, 12:56:21 AM »
Unfortunately stars have small, undectectable angular size. Stars are considered points without measurable size. So based just on the observations of stars with naked eye you cannot calculate neigher their distribution in space nor their contribution to the total mass.
FET is religion. No evidence will convince a FE-er. It would be easier to convince Muslims they are wrong.

*

rabinoz

  • 26323
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2016, 01:30:20 AM »
The night sky is filled with stars, yet Scientists tell us the cosmos is 99.9999% space, but it doesn't look that way when I look up, it looks roughly 50% star, and 50% space.
Why is that?
You claim that "when I look up, it looks roughly 50% star, and 50% space."
I would suggest that you go outside and look again! To claim "50% star, and 50% space" is a gross exaggeration, unless your eyes are so bad that they are blurring the stars out to massive blurred blobs.

Quote from: Antithecyst
Is it because stars are ultra bright, could ultra brightness compensate for comparative (to space) ultra smallness?
But if a thing is bright, it doesn't make it look bigger, it just means its light is more likely to impress itself upon your eyes, it doesn't change the width of the impression, merely the intensity, and stars appear trillions of times bigger relative to space than they're supposed to be according to Nasa, so what gives?
First of all, what is this paranoia about NASA? This sort of information has been around from astronomers a few humdred years before NASA existed.

The actual angular size of stars is extremely small, in most cases much smaller that the resolving power of the best telescopes.
But when see the stars on earth the atmosphere blurs the image somewhat. In addition to that the slight motions of air cause the star image to shimmer - we say they "twinkle".

Quote from: Antithecyst
Is it because stars produce giant silhouettes around themselves, that make them look trillions of times bigger relative to space than they are, but how can you produce silhouettes without atmospheres and if light travels in a straight line?
No, not silhouettes, but a bit of blurring and twinkling as above.

Quote from: Antithecyst
You see it's not just the shape of the earth, Nasa is telling us all sorts of things about the heavens that seem to contradict our senses.
No, it is not "NASA . . . telling us all sorts of things about the heavens that seem to contradict our senses". It is astronomers that have been giving the same sort of information for centuries. Of course, with better telescopes astronomers are seeing further, but this has no effect on what we can see with the naked eye.

If you want some answers on how many stars you can see, here is one reference
Quote from: EarthSky
How many stars can you see on a clear, moonless night?
If you step outside at night from a bright room, you won’t see many stars at first. It takes up to 30 minutes for your eyes to adapt to the dark.
Suppose you had a clear, moonless night. How many stars could you see with the eye alone?

There’s really no definitive answer to this question. No one has counted all the stars in the night sky, and astronomers use different numbers as theoretical estimates.

Considering all the stars visible in all directions around Earth, the upper end on the estimates seems to be about 10,000 visible stars. Other estimates place the number of stars visible to the eye alone – surrounding the entire Earth – at more like 5,000. At any given time, half of Earth is in daylight. So only half the estimated number – say, between 5,000 and 2,500 stars – would be visible from Earth’s night side.
From How many stars can you see on a clear, moonless night?.

But if you are literally seeing half the sky filled with light, something is seriously wrong - not much I can say about that.

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2016, 10:45:24 AM »
Really? Because when I look up, there is a lot more space between stars than actual stars.

Angular distance is the only measurement that makes sense in this situation. It is the amount of the sky that an object takes up. The sun and moon are each about 1 degree, which means if you stacked 360 of them side to side, they would make a circle around the sky.

An arc minute is 1/60th of a degree, and an arc second is 1/60th of an arc minute. Stars angular distance is usually measured in arc seconds.
That's because you live in the city, if you lived in the country, you'd see a lot more stars.

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get2/I0000ALa2zdSi6m0/fit=1000x750/Farm-Country-Night-Sky.jpg

I'm not talking about there being too little space in between the stars, so much as we shouldn't be able to see any stars at all.
Forget about the relationship between stars for a moment, take any individual star, if a star represents a pixel of light, it ought to be surrounded by millions of pixels of darkness, because that's how much empty space supposedly surrounds it.
The human eye can't detect a pixel of light in the midst of that much darkness, it's too small.
Take the paint program on the computer, zoom in, paint a pixel, the color/brightness of the pixel doesn't matter, then zoom out, now color all the other pixels black, you won't be able to see the pixel of color.
The human eye can't detect a pixel of light surrounded by thousands, millions of pixels of darkness.
What I'm saying is stars should be too far and relatively small for us to see them from world earth.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2016, 10:47:47 AM by Antithecyst »
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2016, 10:50:10 AM »
Do you know what 50% means? The sky doesn't look like a great chessboard of stars, one space with a star and one space without.
Well 50% is an exaggeration, but still, there's too much star and not enough space, going by their model.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2016, 10:51:44 AM »
The OP is not considering how far away those stars are and the space in between them.

This is rather interesting and shows you how much space there is just in our solar system.

http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html

Scroll to get things started then click on the arrow towards the top right to speed things up.
On the contrary, the enormous amount of space in between the stars is the very foundation upon which my OP rests.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2016, 11:27:42 AM »
Do you know what 50% means? The sky doesn't look like a great chessboard of stars, one space with a star and one space without.
Well 50% is an exaggeration, but still, there's too much star and not enough space, going by their model.
But there IS much space. Stars have up to few light hours (red giants) in diameter but they are usually few light years apart. If the star was of your tiny fingernail size, it would occupy a cube with 10m side.

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2016, 11:53:08 AM »
Do you know what 50% means? The sky doesn't look like a great chessboard of stars, one space with a star and one space without.
Well 50% is an exaggeration, but still, there's too much star and not enough space, going by their model.

Did you miss the link I provided?  Even just in our system there is a whole lot of space.

http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html

That is a scale representation of our solar system. It is showing you only the amount of space between the Sun and planets in one direction if they were all in a straight line.

Then if you consider the nearest star is about 4 light years away that is just a lot of space.

There is more nothing than something everywhere.   Even on Earth.  Any solid object around you is made up molecules. Those molecules are formed by covalent bonding of atoms  . Those atoms are mostly empty space.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2016, 11:55:24 AM by Woody »

*

rabinoz

  • 26323
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2016, 12:15:21 PM »
Really? Because when I look up, there is a lot more space between stars than actual stars.

Angular distance is the only measurement that makes sense in this situation. It is the amount of the sky that an object takes up. The sun and moon are each about 1 degree, which means if you stacked 360 of them side to side, they would make a circle around the sky.

An arc minute is 1/60th of a degree, and an arc second is 1/60th of an arc minute. Stars angular distance is usually measured in arc seconds.
That's because you live in the city, if you lived in the country, you'd see a lot more stars.

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get2/I0000ALa2zdSi6m0/fit=1000x750/Farm-Country-Night-Sky.jpg

I'm not talking about there being too little space in between the stars, so much as we shouldn't be able to see any stars at all.
Forget about the relationship between stars for a moment, take any individual star, if a star represents a pixel of light, it ought to be surrounded by millions of pixels of darkness, because that's how much empty space supposedly surrounds it.
The human eye can't detect a pixel of light in the midst of that much darkness, it's too small.
Take the paint program on the computer, zoom in, paint a pixel, the color/brightness of the pixel doesn't matter, then zoom out, now color all the other pixels black, you won't be able to see the pixel of color.
The human eye can't detect a pixel of light surrounded by thousands, millions of pixels of darkness.
What I'm saying is stars should be too far and relatively small for us to see them from world earth.

You say that "if a star represents a pixel of light". A pixel is just the smallest size that can be shown on the photo, and that photo has fewer than 1 million, so each star in the photo cannot be surrounded by millions of pixels. That is a limitation of the photo and nothing to do with the size of the stars.

The typical resolution of the naked eye is roughly one minute of arc (1').
Anything smaller than this might be seen, but will just look like a point.
The angular sizes of even largest stars (to us) is far less than one second of arc (1"), eg:
Betelgeuse    0.05″    
Alpha Centauri A    0.007″    
Canopus    0.006″    
Sirius    0.006″    

We can see objects this small if they are bright enough, but if there are two closer together than one minute of arc (1' or 1/60 th of a degree) they will look like one object.

Many of the "stars" that we see are "binaries" (two stars orbiting each other).

When we see the stars the apparent size is further increased by the atmosphere.

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #17 on: August 08, 2016, 06:03:03 AM »
Nasa is telling us all sorts of things about the heavens that seem to contradict our senses.
Lots of things were told before NASA. Lots of things can be checked regardless fo NASA's opinion. And you missinterpret most of them on the insane lvl. How 6000 dots of light can cover 50% of the sky? When put toghether, they'd all be smaller than the Sun.
Yeah, and some of those things told by others seem awfully sketchy too.

See the link I sent, there's a lot of star versus space in that image.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #18 on: August 08, 2016, 06:06:45 AM »
Unfortunately stars have small, undectectable angular size. Stars are considered points without measurable size. So based just on the observations of stars with naked eye you cannot calculate neigher their distribution in space nor their contribution to the total mass.
There's no such thing as a point without size, every phenomenon must have a size, in order to exist, and be perceived.

And some of the stars are discernibly bigger than others.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #19 on: August 08, 2016, 06:15:31 AM »
The night sky is filled with stars, yet Scientists tell us the cosmos is 99.9999% space, but it doesn't look that way when I look up, it looks roughly 50% star, and 50% space.
Why is that?
You claim that "when I look up, it looks roughly 50% star, and 50% space."
I would suggest that you go outside and look again! To claim "50% star, and 50% space" is a gross exaggeration, unless your eyes are so bad that they are blurring the stars out to massive blurred blobs.

Quote from: Antithecyst
Is it because stars are ultra bright, could ultra brightness compensate for comparative (to space) ultra smallness?
But if a thing is bright, it doesn't make it look bigger, it just means its light is more likely to impress itself upon your eyes, it doesn't change the width of the impression, merely the intensity, and stars appear trillions of times bigger relative to space than they're supposed to be according to Nasa, so what gives?
First of all, what is this paranoia about NASA? This sort of information has been around from astronomers a few humdred years before NASA existed.

The actual angular size of stars is extremely small, in most cases much smaller that the resolving power of the best telescopes.
But when see the stars on earth the atmosphere blurs the image somewhat. In addition to that the slight motions of air cause the star image to shimmer - we say they "twinkle".

Quote from: Antithecyst
Is it because stars produce giant silhouettes around themselves, that make them look trillions of times bigger relative to space than they are, but how can you produce silhouettes without atmospheres and if light travels in a straight line?
No, not silhouettes, but a bit of blurring and twinkling as above.

Quote from: Antithecyst
You see it's not just the shape of the earth, Nasa is telling us all sorts of things about the heavens that seem to contradict our senses.
No, it is not "NASA . . . telling us all sorts of things about the heavens that seem to contradict our senses". It is astronomers that have been giving the same sort of information for centuries. Of course, with better telescopes astronomers are seeing further, but this has no effect on what we can see with the naked eye.

If you want some answers on how many stars you can see, here is one reference
Quote from: EarthSky
How many stars can you see on a clear, moonless night?
If you step outside at night from a bright room, you won’t see many stars at first. It takes up to 30 minutes for your eyes to adapt to the dark.
Suppose you had a clear, moonless night. How many stars could you see with the eye alone?

There’s really no definitive answer to this question. No one has counted all the stars in the night sky, and astronomers use different numbers as theoretical estimates.

Considering all the stars visible in all directions around Earth, the upper end on the estimates seems to be about 10,000 visible stars. Other estimates place the number of stars visible to the eye alone – surrounding the entire Earth – at more like 5,000. At any given time, half of Earth is in daylight. So only half the estimated number – say, between 5,000 and 2,500 stars – would be visible from Earth’s night side.
From How many stars can you see on a clear, moonless night?.

But if you are literally seeing half the sky filled with light, something is seriously wrong - not much I can say about that.
Why is the word twinkle in quotations, twinkle is just as good shudder, even better, let's not get overly technical, giving the false impression that what they think and say is so far beyond what the common man thinks and says.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #20 on: August 08, 2016, 06:16:58 AM »
Do you know what 50% means? The sky doesn't look like a great chessboard of stars, one space with a star and one space without.
Well 50% is an exaggeration, but still, there's too much star and not enough space, going by their model.
But there IS much space. Stars have up to few light hours (red giants) in diameter but they are usually few light years apart. If the star was of your tiny fingernail size, it would occupy a cube with 10m side.
There isn't enough space, there should be so much space stars should be invisible.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2016, 06:18:22 AM »
Do you know what 50% means? The sky doesn't look like a great chessboard of stars, one space with a star and one space without.
Well 50% is an exaggeration, but still, there's too much star and not enough space, going by their model.

Did you miss the link I provided?  Even just in our system there is a whole lot of space.

http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html

That is a scale representation of our solar system. It is showing you only the amount of space between the Sun and planets in one direction if they were all in a straight line.

Then if you consider the nearest star is about 4 light years away that is just a lot of space.

There is more nothing than something everywhere.   Even on Earth.  Any solid object around you is made up molecules. Those molecules are formed by covalent bonding of atoms  . Those atoms are mostly empty space.
Did you miss the point I was making?

You did, because if you didn't, you would see your link proves my point.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #22 on: August 08, 2016, 06:39:17 AM »
Really? Because when I look up, there is a lot more space between stars than actual stars.

Angular distance is the only measurement that makes sense in this situation. It is the amount of the sky that an object takes up. The sun and moon are each about 1 degree, which means if you stacked 360 of them side to side, they would make a circle around the sky.

An arc minute is 1/60th of a degree, and an arc second is 1/60th of an arc minute. Stars angular distance is usually measured in arc seconds.
That's because you live in the city, if you lived in the country, you'd see a lot more stars.

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get2/I0000ALa2zdSi6m0/fit=1000x750/Farm-Country-Night-Sky.jpg

I'm not talking about there being too little space in between the stars, so much as we shouldn't be able to see any stars at all.
Forget about the relationship between stars for a moment, take any individual star, if a star represents a pixel of light, it ought to be surrounded by millions of pixels of darkness, because that's how much empty space supposedly surrounds it.
The human eye can't detect a pixel of light in the midst of that much darkness, it's too small.
Take the paint program on the computer, zoom in, paint a pixel, the color/brightness of the pixel doesn't matter, then zoom out, now color all the other pixels black, you won't be able to see the pixel of color.
The human eye can't detect a pixel of light surrounded by thousands, millions of pixels of darkness.
What I'm saying is stars should be too far and relatively small for us to see them from world earth.

You say that "if a star represents a pixel of light". A pixel is just the smallest size that can be shown on the photo, and that photo has fewer than 1 million, so each star in the photo cannot be surrounded by millions of pixels. That is a limitation of the photo and nothing to do with the size of the stars.

The typical resolution of the naked eye is roughly one minute of arc (1').
Anything smaller than this might be seen, but will just look like a point.
The angular sizes of even largest stars (to us) is far less than one second of arc (1"), eg:
Betelgeuse    0.05″    
Alpha Centauri A    0.007″    
Canopus    0.006″    
Sirius    0.006″    

We can see objects this small if they are bright enough, but if there are two closer together than one minute of arc (1' or 1/60 th of a degree) they will look like one object.

Many of the "stars" that we see are "binaries" (two stars orbiting each other).

When we see the stars the apparent size is further increased by the atmosphere.
Okay, this is the only significant challenge I've received from anyone here.
You're saying the atmosphere blurs starlight, making them appear bigger relative to the space surrounding them than they actually are.

A few things.
One, I'm not sure starlight would be expanded by our atmosphere at all, perhaps it would be contracted.
Two, the atmosphere would also dim starlight as much as it expands it, if it expands it.
Three, we don't really know if this effect can compensate for their lack of relative size, how much does light get expanded while traveling through our atmosphere?
It would have to expand many, many times.
Four, since there's more atmosphere for starlight to travel through when they're near the horizon than overhead, stars should appear many, many times bigger at the horizon.
Five, does that mean objects like mountains and skyscrapers when viewed from miles away appear many, many times larger relative to the space surrounding them they actually are?
Six, that would mean the sun, moon and stars ought to appear many, many times smaller when viewed by Nasa from outer space.
Since I don't believe this is the case, that's a big problem for you.

I doubt your starlight being blurred and scattered by our atmosphere hypothesis, if that's what happens at all, can compensate for their relative smallness, relative to the space that surrounds them.
If they're really dozens, thousands, millions of lightyears apart, than the space surrounding them is so enormous, they would be but a pixel or several pixels of light, in an ocean, a sea of darkness, they would be imperceptible, which means, if I'm right, space is a lot relatively smaller than they're letting on, and Science, in addition to being metaphysically materialist in its thinking, is also nihilistic, attempting to expand nothingness/reduce somethingness for whatever purpose. This seems to be the picture of the cosmos they want to paint, that there's not a heck of a lot out there, and what is out there is virtually insurmountable.

As for twinkling, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, that it's illusory, a byproduct of something else?
And is how they change color also a hallucination?
Or is that what they're really doing, and what you're saying a misrepresentation of them?
How is this twinkling effect being produced?
Why don't all the stars twinkle then?
« Last Edit: August 08, 2016, 06:59:56 AM by Antithecyst »
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #23 on: August 08, 2016, 06:49:22 AM »
I'll get back to Rab in a bit, he's making good challenges here, the others haven't offered me anything in the way of substance yet in my estimation.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #24 on: August 08, 2016, 07:12:33 AM »
I'll try to address your other point.

"You say that "if a star represents a pixel of light". A pixel is just the smallest size that can be shown on the photo, and that photo has fewer than 1 million, so each star in the photo cannot be surrounded by millions of pixels. That is a limitation of the photo and nothing to do with the size of the stars."

I meant figuratively, the human eye isn't a computer, it perceives analogue, not digitally.
Stars shouldn't even register as pixels or the smallest things humans can see, they shouldn't register at all, because of their comparative smallness with space, just as an amoeba doesn't register to the naked eye.
Yes, and the human eye is limited, like a photo, if something is too far/relatively small, it won't register.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #25 on: August 08, 2016, 07:17:39 AM »
What if what the naked human eyes sees, is what's out there, the universe consists of many stars that're a lot smaller and closer to us and one another than Science asserts, these stars don't vary much in size, they twinkle, flicker, and they're not all that bright or hot, they may even be cool?
They're not suns, and earth is not a planet, regardless of whether the earth is round or not.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #26 on: August 08, 2016, 08:53:30 AM »
Nasa is telling us all sorts of things about the heavens that seem to contradict our senses.
Lots of things were told before NASA. Lots of things can be checked regardless fo NASA's opinion. And you missinterpret most of them on the insane lvl. How 6000 dots of light can cover 50% of the sky? When put toghether, they'd all be smaller than the Sun.
Yeah, and some of those things told by others seem awfully sketchy too.

See the link I sent, there's a lot of star versus space in that image.
What space? You see a 2D projection, not a 3D representation with distances between stars included.

Analogy: when you look at the city from distance, it seems that there are lots of lights close to each other. But when you are inside this city, you can't see them being so dense anymore.

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #27 on: August 08, 2016, 08:58:54 AM »
Nasa is telling us all sorts of things about the heavens that seem to contradict our senses.
Lots of things were told before NASA. Lots of things can be checked regardless fo NASA's opinion. And you missinterpret most of them on the insane lvl. How 6000 dots of light can cover 50% of the sky? When put toghether, they'd all be smaller than the Sun.
Yeah, and some of those things told by others seem awfully sketchy too.

See the link I sent, there's a lot of star versus space in that image.
What space? You see a 2D projection, not a 3D representation with distances between stars included.

Analogy: when you look at the city from distance, it seems that there are lots of lights close to each other. But when you are inside this city, you can't see them being so dense anymore.
It doesn't matter, one or several 2 dimension pixels amidst one or several billion other 2 dimensional pixels, should still be impossible to see.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #28 on: August 08, 2016, 09:09:39 AM »
So you completetly ignore the 3D aspect of the event. If so, then I am out of this discussion.

Re: Should Stars be invisible?
« Reply #29 on: September 12, 2016, 06:33:03 AM »
one or several 2 dimension pixels amidst one or several billion other 2 dimensional pixels, should still be impossible to see.

When we look at a bright star we are not limited by the angular size of the star which is seen against almost complete blackness.  The only limitation to seeing the star is the ability of the light to stimulate the retina.

>>But if a thing is bright, it doesn't make it look bigger,

1.  What we see for an extremely small object is a consequence of the brain recognising one cell has been stimulated so we will see a larger object than what the eye received in terms of light entering the eye. 

2.   In the case of extremely bright small objects  the light focused on one cell will also stimulate other cells.

3. The human eye is a very imperfect focuser of white light which has a 2 diopter range of focus across the entire spectrum of colour due to the large amount of chromatic aberation the eye has.  2D of defocus is a very large amount of blurr on the retina.  It is amazing we perceive such good vision with such imperfect eyes.  The brain somehow creates the image we see where we are imagining much of what we see rather than truelly seeing it as it is created on the retina.

If brightness can be infinitely increased there is no limit to how small an object can be and still be detected by the human eye in very high contrast situations.   Star gazing is an excellent example of a very high contrast situation for the eye.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2016, 06:46:46 AM by Aliveandkicking »