Why do we see distant stars?

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I was simply trying state things we do know to be facts. As we have tested and applied the knowledge in the real world ie. The probes that have passed harmlessly turough these regions, without fear of anything hitting anything.
:-)

What probes have left our Solar System to pass through any regions that aren't essentially in our own tiny backyard? Voyager I just left the sphere, as I understand it and it's the first (known) human object to ever leave our own home turf. So.....everything beyond that is still based on observation, assumption based upon what that shows, and presumption based only upon what has been observed within our own solar system, right?

* BTW .. Nothing is personal. I hope it's not seen that way. I reply to topics, not people ..even if it is a bit energetic regarding the topic at times.


Wrabbit, imho you are one of the most valued members of this forum, I may at times disagree with you or even act a little butt hurt by your response, but I do not take any of it too personal. Folks are bound to disagree, it is the nature of the beast, and none of your responses to me have ever been personal in nature.

Your correct about a lot of it being observatinal evidence, but that doesn't make it wrong or inaccurate.

If I observe a dog, does that make it true I have no prof a dog was present?

Of course not, observational evidense is some of the best evidense. As one can see it, so one knows that it is real.

We use things just like we humans use in everyday life. We take a measurement of location at say march, then again in september, so we have a wide spaced dual shot of a distant object to use to judge distance, the same way humans and almost all predators vision is based to judge distance in 3d.

On top of many other methods, that in concert give us a very good idea of actual distance to target on distant objects.

Noone is telling you what you must beieve, just don't try and tell us that time tested ane proven concepts are not so, as they have terrabytes of scientific method and data to back it up, under heavy scrutiny, vs you don't believe it based on nothing proven or solid.

Science isn't about what you like or think, it is based off of what is, like it or not.




posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


Indeed. You're right and I'll defer to you.

Good chatting with ya on it.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Wow I just sort of made a thread about many of the bad science posts here and "constructing disinformation". Where do people come up with these "old-wives tale" sort of ideas?



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 



We also have a distance measure to check these guesses, which have proved very accurate, thus we have learned to use more than one method to determine distances.

It is called a standard candle. It based on the ract right here on earth I can guess your distance quite accurately, with nothing but a light source of known power.

A type 1A supernova is this standard candle, it always explodes with the exact same strength and luminosity. So it is possible check our assumptions against a known quantity, to double check and if necessary revise our figures.


The red/blue shift thing is still not settled by any means, and plasma around a star, or even a very strong electric field has to be considered too. The standard candles have also been shown not to be foolproof.

Cosmology Standard Candle not so Standard After All
www.nasa.gov...

'Standard candle' flickers too brightly
physicsworld.com...



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 



We also have a distance measure to check these guesses, which have proved very accurate, thus we have learned to use more than one method to determine distances.

It is called a standard candle. It based on the ract right here on earth I can guess your distance quite accurately, with nothing but a light source of known power.

A type 1A supernova is this standard candle, it always explodes with the exact same strength and luminosity. So it is possible check our assumptions against a known quantity, to double check and if necessary revise our figures.


The red/blue shift thing is still not settled by any means, and plasma around a star, or even a very strong electric field has to be considered too. The standard candles have also been shown not to be foolproof.

Cosmology Standard Candle not so Standard After All
www.nasa.gov...

'Standard candle' flickers too brightly
physicsworld.com...




Quite correct, as I already stated, but when combined with several other methods, we do get a pretty good idea.

What else would you have astrophysicists do? Not try to figure it out at all? All knowledge is earned through trial and error, it is only through our errors we learn they are wrong, so we might learn what is right.

Are you saying we as a race should just give it up and say" meh, there are stars up there, some close, others far, we will never know which is next door and which is on the other side of the galaxy."?

We do know the distance to within a few light minutes of the next closest star, without a doubt. We do know the distance to our sun, exactly. We will learn a foolproof method of determining distances of any stretch at some point.

It isn't like it really matters if star X is exactly 200,000 light years away, compared to 180,000 light years away. We are more than close enough to be of use in science.

The standard candle argument you linked is like saying I cant be exactly sure what distance you are at because the wind made the flame of you candle dance a little.

I don't need to be exact to the cm, I just need to be within a few yards to be considered extremely accurate over a couple of miles of distance.

We are getting quite close to this number even now, soon we will be even better, through development of new methods and technologies that don't suffer the limitations of the first steps we took in the opening stages of the concept.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Because we look at them at night.

We take long exposures so as many photons can strike the camera imager as possible.

Of course stars are really bright and that helps.




posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Well here's the thing, firstly, light from those stars in most cases is being bent around stuff with high amounts of mass, galactic lens might be the term i'm searching for.

Secondly... are you watching the thing 24/7? didn't think so.

But, it's a good question, something i never pondered.

And i guess the other side to that coin is most of the photons have spread out, that's what they do, the light we get is nothing compared to the light that was actually produced at the time.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
First of all, ALL the STARS you can see in the night sky with your eyes, binoculars and telescopes are in our own galaxy that fact seems to have escaped a few on this thread!!!

The only objects not in our galaxy are Large & Small Magellanic clouds and other Galaxies, other objects like star clusters , nebula etc are all in our Galaxy.
edit on 2-4-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
One point which I would like to interject here.
The light from a star moves out from it in all directions. Think of it as small straight wires from the surface of the star which are so close they are all touching when the leave and diverge with their increased length. Of course, these wires are infinitely small and there is never any space between them, regardless of their length.
Now, the earth is moving, as is everything else in the universe, and as we do so we continually intersect these wires. Even if something were large enough and in the right place to block out the the wires which we cross, we would hardly notice as we rapidly move along our own path.
We are observing the light which left these other stars many many years ago, and we are just now intersecting the lines which of the wires which began the moment the left the star.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
They say the human eye can detect a candle at a distance of 30 miles (48km) in the dark.

Stars are very large compared to planets and very very large compared to a dust cloud. Dust clouds in space block the stars behind from us and theres trillions of particles in that cloud covering a FAR greater area than a star.

Now think about the candle, 30 miles away, with objects smaller than the flame dotting very infrequently all around, the chances one of those dots in the 30 mile sphere getting exactly in the way.

Now think about that same candle on a foggy night, you'd barely be able to see it even if it was very close.

Theres more stars than dust clouds, so nearly all the light from those stars is free to travel the thousands and millions of years uninterrupted and land on us, the planets and asteroids are mostly irrelevant.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   


Why do we see distant stars?,


Because over Billions of years, light reaches us.

There is still more that has not reached us yet.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
I.e. Hipparcos 5926 in Cassiopeia is 16,308 light-years away. One light year is 9.4607 × 10*12 km. How come we can see that star without any major flickering? Seeing a star means that the light traveled an almost unimaginable distance without being absorbed, or blocked along the way. I feel the photons should have hit something along the way, i.e. planets, gasses, suns, space debris, etc.. The universe is full of moving objects. Yet, we see that star continuously shinning at night?


There is virtually NOTHING there. And while you may think you know what that means, your question shows that you don't. So here are two facts about the density of outer space compared to the density of air.


- There are one million, trillion atoms in one cubic centimeter of air at sea level.

- There is only one atom per cubic centimeter in the void (the vacuum) between stars.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
yeah quite simply, your statement that the universe is full of objects is incorrect.

The universe is full of nothingness.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Thanks for all your enlightening answers. I appreciate it.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

There may be a lot of "stuff" out in space, but there is a lot more space out there for the stars to shine through.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Im a Marty
 


HUH?


Can You See Stars in Space? Is it true that in space a person is not able to see stars all around them like we do here on Earth? No, I hear that in space the stars look wonderful, bright (although not twinkling) and very clear. What has probably caused some of this confusion is that in the typical photo or video image from space, there aren't any stars. This is because the stars are much dimmer than the astronaut, Moon, space station, or whatever the image is been taken of. It is extremely hard to get the exposure correct to show the stars. Luckily, the human eye handles the different light levels much better than a camera does.


Link to NASA site



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Trying to find a relevant thread to post this in, and this thread kinda fits the bill - apologies if it is a little off tangent to what the OP is asking:

In thinking why Luna shots of the Moons sky are so dark with no stars I searched and came across a rare video of the late and great Neil Armstrong talking to the also late an great Sir Patrick Moore, where he clearly states, very clearly, that you cannot see stars from on the Moon or in 'cisluna space', i.e. the area of space between the Moon and the Earth.

This contradicts what people in the thread state, and even what NASA say! that the Earth's atmosphere is blurring the visibility of stars..so in space and on the Moon they would be super Bright and clear...but Neil Armstrong who has been there says otherwise.

______beforeitsnews/space/2012/12/astronomy-question-visibility-of-stars-from-the-moon-2-2450802.html

helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Anyway my question is - can we (with our eyes not a camera) see distant stars in space or can't we?



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

First of all, ALL the STARS you can see in the night sky with your eyes, binoculars and telescopes are in our own galaxy that fact seems to have escaped a few on this thread!!!

The only objects not in our galaxy are Large & Small Magellanic clouds and other Galaxies, other objects like star clusters , nebula etc are all in our Galaxy.
edit on 2-4-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


And not just in our own Galaxy, but only our half of it, we can't see the stars past the Galactic Centre even.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I've wondered for awhile now if someday we're going to find out that looking out from Earth will end up being like a side view mirror in a car. "Objects may be closer than they appear". That would be both exciting and real sobering, wouldn't it?


reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I've had that idea for a while too. This may be closer to the truth than we would ever think:



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
I.e. Hipparcos 5926 in Cassiopeia is 16,308 light-years away. One light year is 9.4607 × 10*12 km. How come we can see that star without any major flickering? Seeing a star means that the light traveled an almost unimaginable distance without being absorbed, or blocked along the way. I feel the photons should have hit something along the way, i.e. planets, gasses, suns, space debris, etc.. The universe is full of moving objects. Yet, we see that star continuously shinning at night?


dont know.

i say..... there s a relation with the analogy of the present cosmos...and the neuronpaths in our brain

as in ' fractal'

The problem with "using telescopes" is.... that we get dependent onto another consciousness [ who "explains" to us whát we "see" through that Tool - the telescope]

..?

remember "...and the sky will recede Back like a Scroll"..?

so - who knóws that which what we Think we see now.... is even clóse to the truth ?

thanks for posing the question
that is where we start : How Do We Know What We See



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join