Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: guest39538 on 23/10/2015 11:12:40
-
Hello all, as title. if the sun moved away from the earth at what radius would the sun ''vanish'' from observation?
present distance = 149.6 million km
present suns diameter = r*2= 696,000*2=1392000km
so if earth to sun = r1*2=299.2 million km
does the suns diameter r2*2/2?
-
No answer from anybody?
-
If the question is, "how far would we have to be from the sun such that we could not see it with our eyes, even though we are looking directly at it?"
I think the best way to try to calculate this is looking at the amount of light reaching the Earth now (about 1000 W/m2). We can easily see a 2W light bulb (my bike headlight) from 100 m away at night, which works out to 0.0001 W/m2 (if it's a 45° cone). Since the Sun is currently shining at 10 million (107) times stronger than that, and light spreads out 1/r2, we would have to be 103.5 times further than we are now, which would be about 4.7x1011 meters, or almost exactly 5 light years. This is a lower limit on how far away one would have to be to not see the sun, but I think it would be visible quite a bit further (I just don't know how bright our sun's neighborhood will be, which also depends on where the observation is taking place). Remember how many stars we can see by the naked eye, and many of them are quite a bit farther away than 5 ly.
-
It can't! In principle, if we can detect one photon and ascribe it to a given source, we have "seen" the source object.
Since the sun is a massive object, it cannot recede from us quicker than its photons are travelling towards us. The intensity of photon radiation decreases with the inverse square of distance, but that just means you have to wait a bit longer for another photon to come along within a given receptor area.
-
That seems a bit obtuse to the actual question, when things move away from they scale down in size by increased distance, regardless whether it produces light or not at distance x the object will vanish from sight, this can be observed with a flash light walking backwards away from the observer.
Alan says ''It can't! In principle'', that would go against the physics of distance and scaling.
Chiral says ''I think the best way to try to calculate this is looking at the amount of light reaching the Earth now (about 1000 W/m2).''
How is that the best way? once something has scaled down by increased distance it vanishes, looking at light is not quite the same.
I do not see how this answers my question?
I asked
present suns diameter = r*2= 696,000*2=1392000km
so if earth to sun = r1*2=299.2 million km
does the suns diameter r2*2/2?
If it is twice as far , does it look twice as small?
To extend why I asked the question is because if we was to observe from a star that was far way looking in at our galaxy and the sun was to small to see, it had past position x, the observer would see a black hole?
-
"Vanish" means you can't see it. We see things because the emit light. Received photon = visible, no received photon = vanished.
Just because your eye, or even a telescope, can't measure the diameter of something, doesn't mean it has vanished.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s11.htm
All but a few stars appear as mere pinpoints in even the largest telescopes. They are much too far away to derive their diameters from measuring their angular diameters and distances.
-
"Vanish" means you can't see it. We see things because the emit light. Received photon = visible, no received photon = vanished.
Just because your eye, or even a telescope, can't measure the diameter of something, doesn't mean it has vanished.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s11.htm
All but a few stars appear as mere pinpoints in even the largest telescopes. They are much too far away to derive their diameters from measuring their angular diameters and distances.
It as vanished relative to sight or observation by a telescope, yes of cause it is still there, it is just gone beyond point x, so what is the radius from the earth if the sun was to move away, would point x be?
Is twice the distance of radius of a mass from an observer , diameter of the mass divided by 2? Is that the scale?
-
To extend why I asked the question is because if we was to observe from a star that was far way looking in at our galaxy and the sun was to small to see, it had past position x, the observer would see a black hole?
If a distant sun is too small to see then we would certainly not see it as a black hole. If it had sufficient width to be seen as a hole, then we would also see its light.
I think each of the answers you received answered your question because your question was not specific enough and contained indecipherable items eg
does the suns diameter r2*2/2?
Because r2*2/2=2r=d you are asking is the sun's diameter its diameter. This sort of question puts people off answering.
-
Is twice the distance of radius of a mass from an observer , diameter of the mass divided by 2? Is that the scale?
What do you mean by this? What scale?
Why have you just introduced mass into a question about visibility.
Can you be more explicit about what you are asking?
-
Because r2*2/2=2r=d you are asking is the sun's diameter its diameter. This sort of question puts people off answering.
I wasn't saying that, r1 and r2 was like m1 and m2,
r1 being the distance between the sun and earth and r2 being the radius of the sun,
r2*2 = diameter of the sun then divided by 2.
-
Is twice the distance of radius of a mass from an observer , diameter of the mass divided by 2? Is that the scale?
What do you mean by this? What scale?
Why have you just introduced mass into a question about visibility.
Can you be more explicit about what you are asking?
an object when moving away from you scales down in size relative to sight relative to distance away, an 100ft tree looks a dot on a horizon. I was just referring to the object as mass , sorry for confusing.
What is the scaling ratio?
You can see the first line is different
present suns diameter = r*2= 696,000*2=1392000km
so if earth to sun = r1*2=299.2 million km
does the suns diameter r2*2/2?
-
This sounds more like a question of trigonometry...
The apparent size of the sun (A, measured as an angle) will be A = 2*sin–1(rsun/robs)
where A = apparent size
sin–1 is the inverse sine or arcsine function
rsun = radius of the sun in km
robs = distance of observer to the sun
when A = 0, the sun has vanished (the only problem is there is no value of robs for which the A is 0 (as long as rsun is nonzero; A will only approach 0 as robs approaches infinity)
-
This sounds more like a question of trigonometry...
The apparent size of the sun (A, measured as an angle) will be A = 2*sin–1(rsun/robs)
where A = apparent size
sin–1 is the inverse sine or arcsine function
rsun = radius of the sun in km
robs = distance of observer to the sun
when A = 0, the sun has vanished (the only problem is there is no value of robs for which the A is 0 (as long as rsun is nonzero; A will only approach 0 as robs approaches infinity)
That can't be true,
robs=y & rsun=x then +dy=-dx?
dy²=dx/^2?
-
This sounds more like a question of trigonometry...
The apparent size of the sun (A, measured as an angle) will be A = 2*sin–1(rsun/robs)
where A = apparent size
sin–1 is the inverse sine or arcsine function
rsun = radius of the sun in km
robs = distance of observer to the sun
when A = 0, the sun has vanished (the only problem is there is no value of robs for which the A is 0 (as long as rsun is nonzero; A will only approach 0 as robs approaches infinity)
That can't be true,
robs=y & rsun=x then +dy=-dx?
No. As I defined it, rsun is a constant (the actual radius of the sun), so your dx =d(rsun) = 0.
-
No. As I defined it, rsun is a constant (the actual radius of the sun), so your dx =d(rsun) = 0.
Obviously the sun does not change size, I am talking visual observation, an object relative shrinks the more distant away from it, so relatively the radius of the sun shrinks relative to distance to an observer.
At a point Z point X viewed along a Y-axis will ''vanish'' to observation, so distance must have a scaling system, that is why we have magnification is it not?
Your avoiding the actual question and coming back with something not the same as the question, my answer requires a distance of robs that rsun ''vanishes''. At what distance from the earth does 1392000km of diameter of the sun ''vanish'' if the sun was moving away?
-
No. As I defined it, rsun is a constant (the actual radius of the sun), so your dx =d(rsun) = 0.
Obviously the sun does not change size, I am talking visual observation, an object relative shrinks the more distant away from it, so relatively the radius of the sun shrinks relative to distance to an observer.
At a point Z point X viewed along a Y-axis will ''vanish'' to observation, so distance must have a scaling system, that is why we have magnification is it not?
Your avoiding the actual question and coming back with something not the same as the question, my answer requires a distance of robs that rsun ''vanishes''. At what distance from the earth does 1392000km of diameter of the sun ''vanish'' if the sun was moving away?
The apparent diameter of the sun will never be zero (as shown by the equation I gave earlier)
The distance at which the sun is no longer visible will depend on the observer and the environment more than the distance from the sun (this is why we cannot see most stars during the day, even if we can see them at night from 100s of light years away.)
As alan pointed out, the light of the sun will still be visible for distances so great that the sun appears to have no diameter (just a point of light).
-
Naked Eye Angular resolution: about 1 arcminute, approximately 0.02° or 0.0003 milliradians,[1] which corresponds to 0.3 m at a 1 km distance.
On an astronomical eye-chart, the "Sun Line" would become unreadable around the orbit of Uranus.
But the Sun is not a black letter on a white eye-chart, or even a white letter against the black backdrop of space.
Astronomers measure the visibility of a star as "Apparent Magnitude". Magnitude 7 is the faintest anyone can see with the naked eye, under excellent conditions.
Astronomers compare the brightness of different stars by "Absolute Magnitude", which is the Apparent Magnitude at a distance of 10 parsecs, or 32 light-years. The Absolute Magnitude of the Sun is 5, which is still very visible.
To reduce the Sun to magnitude 7 (ie invisible to the naked eye), you would need to be at a distance of about 80 light-years. (If I've done the calculations correctly!)
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_eye
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_magnitude
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_magnitude
-
Naked Eye Angular resolution: about 1 arcminute, approximately 0.02° or 0.0003 milliradians,[1] which corresponds to 0.3 m at a 1 km distance.
On an astronomical eye-chart, the "Sun Line" would become unreadable around the orbit of Uranus.
But the Sun is not a black letter on a white eye-chart, or even a white letter against the black backdrop of space.
Astronomers measure the visibility of a star as "Apparent Magnitude". Magnitude 7 is the faintest anyone can see with the naked eye, under excellent conditions.
Astronomers compare the brightness of different stars by "Absolute Magnitude", which is the Apparent Magnitude at a distance of 10 parsecs, or 32 light-years. The Absolute Magnitude of the Sun is 5, which is still very visible.
To reduce the Sun to magnitude 7 (ie invisible to the naked eye), you would need to be at a distance of about 80 light-years. (If I've done the calculations correctly!)
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_eye
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_magnitude
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_magnitude
Thank you, so in reverse if we was 81 light years away from the Sun, we would observe nothing of the sun?
-
Thank you, so in reverse if we was 81 light years away from the Sun, we would observe nothing of the sun?
Evan means we could not see the sun by naked eye if it was 81 ly away. With a telescope, we could easily observe the sun from this distance...
-
Thank you, so in reverse if we was 81 light years away from the Sun, we would observe nothing of the sun?
Evan means we could not see the sun by naked eye if it was 81 ly away. With a telescope, we could easily observe the sun from this distance...
Thank you for the answers, so I am presuming now that all the stars we see in the night sky by eye are much further away than 80ly, so I am presuming these stars are much bigger than our sun, would this be correct?
-
....I am presuming now that all the stars we see in the night sky by eye are much further away than 80ly.....
Why would you assume something that is incorrect when it is easy to check on the net?
-
....I am presuming now that all the stars we see in the night sky by eye are much further away than 80ly.....
Why would you assume something that is incorrect when it is easy to check on the net?
I like to consider things myself before I know what google says, I also prefer interaction and discussion, google does not answer back or tell me why I am wrong, so If my assumption is incorrect, then why please?
-
[so If my assumption is incorrect, then why please?
By the rules of logic. What you have created what is known as an excluding premise.
By assuming that the Stars we see are further away than 80ly you have automatically excluded stars which are closer but might be the same size as our sun. The rest of your sentence then becomes a circular argument based on an incorrect premise.
Logic is only as good as the assumptions it is based on, so it is always worth checking any assumptions first. Otherwise you can end up with frustrating discussions where people feel they are wasting their time and stop responding.
If you really value discussion there is a lot you can do to encourage it, for example
Your avoiding the actual question and coming back with something not the same as the question,
When people are trying hard to decider your question, or when there are a number of different angles to a question, accusations like this are not helpful and do not encourage others to join in, also people already answering can feel frustrated and give up.
If you really do value discussion there is a lot you could do to encourage it. Use plain English (which you are very capable of doing) and avoid confusing maths.
-
I am presuming now that all the stars we see in the night sky by eye are much further away than 80ly
There are many stars within 80 ly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_bright_stars). The nearest is Alpha Centauri, at 4.4 light-years.
I am presuming these stars are much bigger than our sun, would this be correct?
What do you mean by "bigger"?
There are many stars which are brighter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_luminous_known_stars) in Absolute Magnitude than the Sun.
In general, stars that are more massive will burn their fuel more rapidly, and thus be brighter during their lifetime.
However, stars tend to shrink after they burn all their fuel, and this makes them less bright, even though they still have much of their original mass.
if the sun was too small to see, ...the observer would see a black hole?
A black hole is an extreme example of an old star - it has considerable mass, but it is extremely small, and no light can escape.
According to current theories, the Sun does not have enough mass to form a black hole. This is true regardless of the distance from which you try to view it.
-
What do you mean by "bigger"?
I am a bit confused you have to ask what I mean by bigger, if you are 20 stone and I am 10 stone, you are bigger than me, if you are 6ft and I am 4ft you are bigger than me.
I will try to rephrase my question, if star had a smaller radius than our suns radius and was beyond lets say 70 ly away, we would not see it by eye, if the star was bigger and further away we would still see it?
-
I am a bit confused you have to ask what I mean by bigger, if you are 20 stone and I am 10 stone, you are bigger than me, if you are 6ft and I am 4ft you are bigger than me.
You have just provided 2 definitions of bigger. If you had asked whether one man was bigger than another Evan would quite reasonably ask what you meant by bigger.
This is a similar problem with stars as you have talked about both mass and radius.
if star had a smaller radius than our suns radius and was beyond lets say 70 ly away, we would not see it by eye, if the star was bigger and further away we would still see it?
Ok, this is better because you are being more specific. However, if you read evan's reply you will see he mentions brightness. It is this, measured as magnitude rather than diameter or mass which determines whether a star, planet, comet is visible.
You might find this chart helpful http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu/MagScale.html
-
I am a bit confused you have to ask what I mean by bigger, if you are 20 stone and I am 10 stone, you are bigger than me, if you are 6ft and I am 4ft you are bigger than me.
You have just provided 2 definitions of bigger. If you had asked whether one man was bigger than another Evan would quite reasonably ask what you meant by bigger.
This is a similar problem with stars as you have talked about both mass and radius.
if star had a smaller radius than our suns radius and was beyond lets say 70 ly away, we would not see it by eye, if the star was bigger and further away we would still see it?
Ok, this is better because you are being more specific. However, if you read evan's reply you will see he mentions brightness. It is this, measured as magnitude rather than diameter or mass which determines whether a star, planet, comet is visible.
You might find this chart helpful http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu/MagScale.html
Thank you Colin, I do want to be able to communicate properly and to be understood, the problem with messages is they can be read several ways. I consider I do have some great insight into several things, I do know though if nobody can understand them I will never be heard.
Thank you for the link.
I do have to question now why science considers light magnitude before radius of a star.
If we were to experiment using a flash light at night,
Xobs=position 1
Yfl=position 2
robs pos 1 to pos 2 = 10m
di(diameter) of fl = 10cm
if dy is increased di shrinks relative to sight, eventually it will ''vanish'' past point Z. We will neither see the light or the flash light lens. Something is seemingly not right with this.
In a matter of logic , how can anyone conclude in this diagram , which circle is near and which circle is far, which circle is small by distance and which circle is large by distance?
I do not understand how science can say something is x big when there is no background for comparison. How do we know the distance stars are not just small and close?
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
... I do want to be able to communicate properly and to be understood, the problem with messages is they can be read several ways. I consider I do have some great insight into several things, I do know though if nobody can understand them I will never be heard.
I agree, I think your ideas are often hidden by you trying too hard to use 'scientific' language but you often misuse it which leads to confusion. Again, keep the questions simple and on one topic. Avoid maths, if there can be a problem with a word like bigger then the symbols in maths can be a real problem if you don't use them the way everyone else does.
I do have to question now why science considers light magnitude before radius of a star.
Image you have 2 light bulbs one larger than the other but both of same wattage. At 2km they will both be tiny points of light and you won't be able to tell them apart. The same with stars, at distances of 2ly you can't differentiate size with the naked eye.
Now imagine the smaller bulb is twice the wattage of the larger one. In this case you will be able to see the smaller bulb from further away than the larger.
I do not understand how science can say something is x big when there is no background for comparison. How do we know the distance stars are not just small and close?
Look up parallax.
If you look at a star from two points at opposite ends of the earth's orbit, it is like seeing 3d with our 2 eyes. The difference in position tells us how far away the star is by basic trig.
-
Image you have 2 light bulbs one larger than the other but both of same wattage. At 2km they will both be tiny points of light and you won't be able to tell them apart. The same with stars, at distances of 2ly you can't differentiate size with the naked eye.
Now imagine the smaller bulb is twice the wattage of the larger one. In this case you will be able to see the smaller bulb from further away than the larger.
I am imagining the two light bulbs, except I am imagining two tiny points, however I imagine one light bulb is at 2 km and is x ''big'', and one is at 4 km and is y ''big''
So although they look like they are both at 2km, they are not.
A sort of illusion created by scaling and distance ?
each one of the A's in this diagram are a different size.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
added- The A on the left is near to you, the A on the furthest right is far away from you
-
How do we know the distance stars are not just small and close?
A very precise survey of the 3D position of stars in the Milky Way galaxy is underway at present.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft)
We will neither see the light or the flash light lens.
On a dark night, you can see the light from a flashlight from a much longer distance than you can see the diameter of the lens. At night, you can see headlights from a much longer distance than you can tell whether there is one headlight (motorbike) or two (car).
It is the same with the Sun and Stars.
We can see many stars in the sky, but only a few of them are large enough or close enough for astronomers to have constructed an image of their actual surface. It is a complex process, and more like calculating a CAT scan image than taking a traditional photograph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_with_resolved_images
if star had a smaller radius than our suns radius and was beyond lets say 70 ly away, we would not see it by eye, if the star was bigger and further away we would still see it?
There are several factors that determine how visible a star is to the human eye.
- If two stars have the same temperature, the one with the bigger radius will produce more light, and will be seen from a greater distance.
- However, if you have two stars with the same radius, the one with the higher temperature will produce more light, and will be more visible.
- If two stars have the same radius and temperature, the closer one will be more visible.
- On the other hand, if you have the same star, but at two different ages in its life cycle, it has roughly the same mass, but its radius and temperature can vary dramatically. When the Sun burns all its hydrogen and becomes a red giant, it's radius will increase from the current 0.5 million km out to nearly the radius of Earth's orbit, at 150 million km. Overall, the Sun will put out over 1000 times more light than it does at present. But its temperature will drop, making its light redder than it currently is. The Sun should still be visible to the naked eye beyond 800 light-years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution#Red-giant-branch_phase
-
So although they look like they are both at 2km, they are not.
A sort of illusion created by scaling and distance ?
each one of the A's in this diagram are a different size.
Agreed, all very obvious really.
-
Agreed, all very obvious really.
Something we agree on then lol, I am impressed that you can observe X,Z as a single X axis.