/sci/ - Science & Math

Do you understand three dimensional space even in the slightest?
o wait just trollin

>>2475189
1/10

Interstellar dust and gas absorbing light

>>2475195
>>2475196

What's the matter? Can't explain it?

Looks like someone just read about Olbers' Paradox.

There is a star at every point, we just don't have sensitive enough eyes. Or there's stuff in the way.

Troll harder, faggot.
One, it takes quite a long time for light to get here. Two, luminous intensity falls off as the square of the distance, so the light of just about any decently far-off star will be imperceptible. Three, interstellar space has big clouds of semi-opaque gas and dust.

Because the universe is not infinitely old, and light takes time to travel.

several reasons. their light hasnt reached us. their light is obsorbed. or the fact that space isnt uniformly arranged

>>2475211
Four, star's have not existed for all time, so that not all starlight has ever even reached us yet, given the age of the universe.

>>2475189

there's very little light coming from those galaxies and stars and said light is either undetectable to the human eye or is drowned out by light pollution

>>2475202

>>2475204

Nah I read about it like 6 years ago when I went and bought some crazy astronomy book.

>mfw everyone sages the thread

Mv = Real magnitude of the star
mv = Apparent magnitude (how bright it looks for us)
d = distance in parsecs

>>2475229
the reason everyone saged this thread is because you were an obvious troll

>>2475189

ever heard of planets...
ever heard of the speed of light...

Stars have not always existed for all time so not all starlight has reached us yet. Indeed, not all starlight will since the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate.

>>2475261
ever hear of sage

you have to remember that although intensity of light which reaches us from any one point is proportional to 1/distance^2, any 'pixel' of the night sky can be modelled as a 2d circle of area pi * r^2, where the further away you are the larger r is, so this cancels out the inverse square law of light intensity.

space is not finite and there is not a night sky forming a uniform sheet of light, because the point is that there will be areas of higher light intensity than others, ergo some bits lighter than others.
>>2475211

>>2475195
>>2475211
>>2475217
>>2475226
>>2475234
>>2475261

LOL at stupid nerds.

if you want to be a nerd then at least be good at it.

There's a reason it's called the "observable universe". Some things are so far away, ie outside of the observable universe, that their light won't ever reach us.

Matter interfering with the viewing of stars, etc.

Either way, sage.

>>2475290

I'm the guy who made that post. Thought I'd share some knowledge with you afterall.

The observable universe is not infinite, and since there are stars then matter is not uniformly distributed. That's why. Besides, stars last a finite period of time.

>>2475290
LOL at stupid troll.

if you want to be a troll then at least be good at it.

Tides go in, tides go out. Never a miscommunication.
You can't explain that.

>>2475278
I'm not sure what you mean with your circle, but your "r" has nothing to do with your "distance", so it doesn't cancel out.

Light indeed arrives from every "pixel" (actually steradian) of the sky (sky fully lit up) but, without taking into account any kind of absorption, the intensity does decrease proportionally to 1 / r^2 . You can demonstrate this using Maxwell's equations, but it's really just the conservation of energy of concentric spheres.

>>2475368
Intensity coming FROM a steradian wouldn't go down, assuming perfect vacuum and an infinitely old universe. You're covering a larger area the further you go out. The r^2's cancel.

>>2475383
(correction)
well, intensity wouldn't go down in terms of watts per steradian, is what I mean.

>>2475383
you're covering a larger area within the same solid angle, true, but the solid angle corresponding to Earth is smaller and smaller with increasing distance.

Remember just a little bit ago when they pointed the Hubble telescope at a piece of space that looked totally empty and just let it collect light for a long time?

This is what it saw.

Bitches don't know 'bout my cosmological microwave background.

HEY GUISE, THIS IS A TROLL THREAD

NO ONE RESPOND TO IT OKAY?

UNLESS OF COURSE YOU'RE GOING TO POST ABOUT HOW ITS A TROLL THREAD

BECAUSE THATS TOTALLY NOT FEEDING THE TROLL RITE GUISE EPIC WIN ROFL 0/10

protip: any response is interpreted, by the troll, as "10/10," as you apparently were affected enough by the thread to respond, which is all trolls want. Response attention, negative or positive. As even if you think they're retarded, at least you're thinking about them.

It is lit up bro, have you seen Earth during the day time?!

>>2475189
hey you're right!! there should be light everywhere!!! well, YES there is!! but its in the microwave wavelength that our eyes can't detect!!! yay!!!
"Why is the Sky Dark At Night"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFwtJC9_dXs

>>2475398

And then they did it again.

In other news, NASA has called a press conference to announce new discoveries indicating that the visible universe may be "at least as big as shit."

>>2476991
I laughed.

inverse square law, shit in the way, etcetc

0/10

Read up on Olber's paradox.
I think..
maybe you's trollin'

BECAUSE LIGHT HAVEN'T YET TRAVELED THE REQUIRED DISTANCE TO REACH EARTH CONSIDERING HOW FUCK-BIG THIS FREAKING UNIVERSE IS.

why do you respond to threads like this sci?

i will not consider this until complete sentences are used.

infinite capacity
finite