----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: <SKadneU2TLOjnmj5nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@supernews.com>
2e44992e
@REPLY: 1@paganini.bofh.team>
0a645447
@REPLYADDR Bob Campbell <nunya@none.none>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Bob Campbell
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-References:
<8aosdil9slmahjiapje6ko7k8df0s4f0sn@4ax.com> 1@paganini.bofh.team>
@RFC-Message-ID:
<SKadneU2TLOjnmj5nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@supernews.com>
@TZUTC: 0000
@PID: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
Astronaughty <
astronaughty@anonymous.invalid> wrote:
> Let`s reduce it simplistically. When you double the distance you
> quadruple the reduction. When you triple the distance you increase the
> reduction nine times. Each reduction decreases radiance the square of
> the distance.
Let`s increase it simplistically. Stars are incredibly huge, massively
bright objects. So the inverse square law makes them appear as tiny
pinpoints at the vast distances we are talking about.
> The spread and diffusion of radiance is exponential. Each new doubling
> of distance squares the prior diffusion and exponentially decreases
> visible radiance.
Correct. So?
If you believe that stars are the size of the moon, you might have a point.
That the sun and moon appear to us as roughly the same size in the sky is
sheer coincidence. So you have no point.
> With such vast distances provided by NASA, not even a single wavelet of
> the star`s light would directly reach your eye for 999 out of 1000
> stars.
NASA does not "provide these vast distances". Many were worked out long
before NASA existed. By actual scientists. Not goofballs making youtube
cartoons.
--- NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
* Origin: usenet.network (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441