Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Newbie Questions
by fairtrader. 12/05/23 14:22
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 12/04/23 11:34
Square root rule
by Smallz. 12/02/23 09:15
RTest not found error
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 21:43
neural function for Python to [Train]
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 14:47
Xor Memory Problem.
by TipmyPip. 11/28/23 14:23
Training with command line parameters
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:42
Combine USD & BTC Pairs In Asset Loop
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:30
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Tactics of World War I
Who's Online Now
4 registered members (AndrewAMD, Quad, soulman3, Ayumi), 675 guests, and 2 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
fairtrader, hus, Vurtis, Harry5, KelvinC
19019 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: cosmic mirrors ? [Re: zazang] #141652
07/18/07 13:23
07/18/07 13:23
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,967
Frankfurt
jcl Offline

Chief Engineer
jcl  Offline

Chief Engineer

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,967
Frankfurt
Quote:

Reflected light spectra can be easily changed by certain "filters" and in a star's case it could be certain gases and elements.It does not happen with moon but then maybe moon is a special object with no elements/gases that substantially alter it's spectrum.



Spectral lines are not changed by filters. Filters add absorption lines. This happens when light travels through the universe which is not a vacuum at all. The typical absorption lines of interstellar hydrogen clouds are found in distant star spectrae.

Quote:

Huge distances again will mean no reflected light only if light "tires" out while travelling.If the universe is all vaccum then I see no reason why it would not reach Earth.



Maybe you've once noticed that close lights are brighter than faraway lights? This is the 1/r^2 law and applies to any radiation emitted from a central source. It means that only a quarter of the light will arrive at any point in twice the distance. This is unrelated to whether the universe is empty or not.

Re: cosmic mirrors ? [Re: jcl] #141653
07/18/07 14:16
07/18/07 14:16
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 702
Z
zazang Offline OP
User
zazang  Offline OP
User
Z

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 702
I shouldn't have used the word filter here.The point of importance
in a stellar spectrum are these absorption lines,
which are caused due to interaction of falling light with certain elements.So the idea is that our sun's light falls on this "mirror" star and then due to the
presence of particular elements,causes these absorption lines.

The inverse square law that you say is valid for a point source of light
because in twice the distance,the energy is distributed over a larger
sphere.Although sun's light will follow this law,but not the reflected
light coming from that mirror star.

Although stellar distances are very very large,but still we don't see
lighted areas around a star.They just appear like
dots of light.This is much more possible for mirror stars than
self-illuminating stars.



I like good 'views' because they have no 'strings' attached..
Re: cosmic mirrors ? [Re: zazang] #141654
07/18/07 16:16
07/18/07 16:16
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,967
Frankfurt
jcl Offline

Chief Engineer
jcl  Offline

Chief Engineer

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,967
Frankfurt
Quote:

I shouldn't have used the word filter here.The point of importance
in a stellar spectrum are these absorption lines,
which are caused due to interaction of falling light with certain elements.So the idea is that our sun's light falls on this "mirror" star and then due to the
presence of particular elements,causes these absorption lines.



That's right. Therefore the lack of a solar spectrum is certain proof that a star's light is not reflected sun light. The absorption lines don't matter because they contain no information about the emitter. In fact the spectrae of stars can be very different to the sun spectrum, depending on their age and their composition.

Quote:

.
The inverse square law that you say is valid for a point source of light
because in twice the distance,the energy is distributed over a larger
sphere.Although sun's light will follow this law,but not the reflected
light coming from that mirror star.



Light follows the same optical laws, no matter whether it's reflected or emitted. The 1/r^2 law also applies to the reflected light from the moon or planets.

Re: cosmic mirrors ? [Re: jcl] #141655
07/18/07 22:20
07/18/07 22:20
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,305
Damocles Offline
Expert
Damocles  Offline
Expert

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,305
If the sun would have an erruption, (changing its brightness)
then all the mirror objects would have them too.
Although, you could answer, that you dont know how far the "mirror" is
away, so the light takes some time.
Another thing is, that all the stars would have the same "joggling", caused by
jupiter as massive planet. This can be measired by readshift.
So all stars would have the same joggling period, as Jupiter takes time to circle the Sun.
There is no such data.

Supernovae, Galaxies.... etc. Not explainable too.

So your theory has the diadvantage to be very easily disproovable,
but at least you think of alternative theories, wich is a basis
for progress.

Re: cosmic mirrors ? [Re: jcl] #141656
07/19/07 05:54
07/19/07 05:54
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 702
Z
zazang Offline OP
User
zazang  Offline OP
User
Z

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 702
Quote:

That's right. Therefore the lack of a solar spectrum is certain proof that a star's light is not reflected sun light. The absorption lines don't matter because they contain no information about the emitter. In fact the spectrae of stars can be very different to the sun spectrum, depending on their age and their composition.




Well,the asteroids found between Mars and Jupiter shine because of the sun's reflected light and their spectra also has differences from the solar spectrum based on chemical composition on their surface.So these "mirror" stars that have a very different spectrum than the sun,just happen to have much different chemical composition and hence the seen variation in their spectrum.Also,there are many stars with a similar spectrum as sun.

Quote:

.
Light follows the same optical laws, no matter whether it's reflected or emitted. The 1/r^2 law also applies to the reflected light from the moon or planets.




The inverse square law really only applies to a theoretical point source of light. The larger the source, the less the "law" applies. Thus, reflected light - which is a MUCH larger source than a point source - doesn't lose its intensity nearly as much as a smaller source. In addition, focussed light such as that from a flashlight with a parabolic reflector or Laser beams does not adhere to the law either.

I hate to argue with you JCL because I know my knowledge is not even a bit
compared to your gigaterabyte,but I just feel this alternate theory does not
seem to have a clear cut flaw.

Damocles :- I didnt get your idea of joggling.Could u explain it slightly more ?Thanks.


I like good 'views' because they have no 'strings' attached..
Re: cosmic mirrors ? [Re: zazang] #141657
07/19/07 08:31
07/19/07 08:31
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,967
Frankfurt
jcl Offline

Chief Engineer
jcl  Offline

Chief Engineer

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,967
Frankfurt
Damocles means the rotation of the sun about the common center of gravity of the sun and Jupiter. This would be visible as a slight 'wobbling' of the stars if they were mirrors. In fact this wobbling was used in the last decade to detect planets of around 250 stars in our galaxy.

The spectrum of reflected sun light is always the same, no matter whether the sun is reflected by asteroids or the moon. What you probably mean is absorption by the surface of a reflector, or by its atmosphere. This adds the mentioned absorption lines. Absorption can be easily distinguished from the emission lines that define the spectrum of a light emitter.

Optical laws have nothing to do with the size of a light source. Light sources are in fact always point lights - they are atoms emitting photons. If you have a large light source, like the sun, there are many atoms involved. Still, it's the same light with the same 1/r^2 law. That's the reason why on Mars the sun is remarkably less bright than on Earth. While you can focus light with lenses or parabolic reflectors, I don't think you assume stars are parabolic reflectors adjusted towards the earth, do you?

Re: cosmic mirrors ? [Re: jcl] #141658
07/19/07 11:11
07/19/07 11:11
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 702
Z
zazang Offline OP
User
zazang  Offline OP
User
Z

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 702
From what I understand,I get that wobbling is a gravitational pull.
Well,the nearest star from the sun is 4.2 light years away and not even
our sun can cause any wobbling on this star,so Jupiter is ruled out for causing
such wobbling.

I think I am fundamentally not understanding something about the spectrum.
When we receive radiation from a star and plot its spectrum,then what data
is seen in that plot that looks different than the solar spectrum ?.I can only
understand that its the absorption and emission lines that are different and
the rest is the same !

Agreed that stars are not parabolic reflectors and in nature the light
sources are essentially point sources.The mars brightness argument clearly
proves that a farther object is dimmer.
In that case,I think great distances indeed could disaprove my theory

That brings me to just one more question.We can see moonlight from earth,
but when we get closer to,it is not seen and instead we see the rocky surface.
If we are closer,then the light should be more intense or is it because our
eyes are unable to see the details at that far ?


I like good 'views' because they have no 'strings' attached..
Re: cosmic mirrors ? [Re: zazang] #141659
07/23/07 21:22
07/23/07 21:22
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,305
Damocles Offline
Expert
Damocles  Offline
Expert

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,305
You understood the argument wrong,

if the Sun-Jupiter System rotates around a point, not in the exact middle of the sun,
you can detect this from very far away. For example by frequent redshift-changes of the spectrum.
Or also by the Jupiter blocking the Sun, making it a bit less bright.
(very hard to detect, as Jupiter takes a lot of time to cirecle sun)

But since you can monitor other Planets to pass their Sun, wich take a much
shorter rotation time, and are big enough to block their sun, you can
defenitly say, that this ist not our solar system.

Re: cosmic mirrors ? [Re: Damocles] #141660
07/24/07 05:22
07/24/07 05:22
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 702
Z
zazang Offline OP
User
zazang  Offline OP
User
Z

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 702
I see no connection between the "wobbling" and "mirror" quality of
the star here.
The wobbling phenomenon is entirely due to the
mass of Jupiter and mass of the sun.A mirror star could
as well have any mass.


I like good 'views' because they have no 'strings' attached..
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1