Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2018
- Messages
- 953
Was this a dense version of the famous "I know" ?
Tonikaku Kawaii - Vol. 12 Ch. 117 - Love is a lot better in a dark, narrow space
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Supporter
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2019
- Messages
- 1,182
something troubled me about Nasa's saying.
like i get it's meant to poetic and not necessarily scientifically accurate, but it still nagged at me.
even if there were an infinite amount of stars, it doesn't mean we would necessarily see the light from them all.
depending on their distance, light could diffuse to an amount where it is negligible.
not to mention that light takes time to travel, and since the universe has a specific age from when it was... created? born? it means that it's possible that there are more stars out there whose light has not traveled far enough yet.
though someone will probably step in here and point out that since we have a certain age of the universe, we might also be able to get a rough idea of the number of stars which have formed and i don't even know where i'm going with this anymore
like i get it's meant to poetic and not necessarily scientifically accurate, but it still nagged at me.
even if there were an infinite amount of stars, it doesn't mean we would necessarily see the light from them all.
depending on their distance, light could diffuse to an amount where it is negligible.
not to mention that light takes time to travel, and since the universe has a specific age from when it was... created? born? it means that it's possible that there are more stars out there whose light has not traveled far enough yet.
though someone will probably step in here and point out that since we have a certain age of the universe, we might also be able to get a rough idea of the number of stars which have formed and i don't even know where i'm going with this anymore
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2018
- Messages
- 118
@quagzlor Yeah, as others have mentioned, this is just Olbers' paradox.
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2019
- Messages
- 587
@quagzlor
If you consider it, a lifetime of a star would be much longer than how long it takes for the light to reach us.
So if you take the furthest observable star as a reference, its light will always reach us along with every single other stars' not matter how you put the timing.
Though what i think Nasa is saying applies only for Laymen, like the student. He doesnt expect her to fully understand heavier concepts like light decay
If you consider it, a lifetime of a star would be much longer than how long it takes for the light to reach us.
So if you take the furthest observable star as a reference, its light will always reach us along with every single other stars' not matter how you put the timing.
Though what i think Nasa is saying applies only for Laymen, like the student. He doesnt expect her to fully understand heavier concepts like light decay
@quagzlor I believe you underestimate what "infinite" means.
Writing an infinite number of letters following each others in a random order would mean that, at some point, you'd have a sequence of letter recreating exactly what is written in the last book you've read 1000000 times in a row. Why? Because the probability of this happening is not 0. So in an infinite sequence of number, you'll eventually get that last read book x 1000000 sequence.
Now what Nasa said is a bit difficult to understand, the sense of his sentence I mean. Universe =/= numbers of stars, and while it would be hypothetically possible to have an expanding universe, you can't have an infinite number of stars and a finite but expanding universe. So I believe he used the same "infinite" for both, and in this case your point would be right.
Writing an infinite number of letters following each others in a random order would mean that, at some point, you'd have a sequence of letter recreating exactly what is written in the last book you've read 1000000 times in a row. Why? Because the probability of this happening is not 0. So in an infinite sequence of number, you'll eventually get that last read book x 1000000 sequence.
Now what Nasa said is a bit difficult to understand, the sense of his sentence I mean. Universe =/= numbers of stars, and while it would be hypothetically possible to have an expanding universe, you can't have an infinite number of stars and a finite but expanding universe. So I believe he used the same "infinite" for both, and in this case your point would be right.
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2018
- Messages
- 474
aww poor girl...
I wonder if she become a big stalker after this
I wonder if she become a big stalker after this
