Should Stars be invisible?

Quote from: origamiscienceguy 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'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.

The human eye can detect a few photons so yes, we can see stars.

That's because you live in the city, if you lived in the country, you'd see a lot more stars.

I live in city.
In city you can see roughly 20-50 stars, depends on city and place in it.

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.

You still mix up just light and object which does not emit light. If amoeba would emit very bright light then we see this light even when we don't see amoeba. And we can see it in dark and quite a far away. Light moves, you know.

Quote from: Antithecyst on August 08, 2016, 07:12:33 AM

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.

You still mix up just light and object which does not emit light. If amoeba would emit very bright light then we see this light even when we don't see amoeba. And we can see it in dark and quite a far away. Light moves, you know.

It seems so obvious to us,   but when your entire belief system is hanging on various facts you created,  I suppose nothing is ever going to penetrate your brain