[guest39538]

I think that if a person was at any reference point in the Universe a human would have a spherical view, this sphere of sight has a radius limit, what is the radius of sight ratio to magnitude of light?

[Atomic-S]

I don't quite understand your question. Are you asking how far away a star can be and still be visually bright enough to be seen with the naked eye?

[guest39538]

I don't quite understand your question. Are you asking how far away a star can be and still be visually bright enough to be seen with the naked eye?

Yes and no, Imagine you are the star, how far can you see by your own light magnitude?

Then the second part, at what distance does vanishing points play a role?


added - I drew my question for you.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]


And in quantum weirdness, if you was the sun and there was nothing reflecting light or emitting light, you would observe darkness even though you were emitting light.

[alancalverd]

"Vanishing point" is an invention of artists, architects and cartographers. It is also a classic road trip film - to my mind the best ever. It has no meaning in physics.

The human eye can probably detect a single photon, though in practice we could not distinguish it from the background "noise" in our brains, so in principle there is no limit to the distance at which you could detect a single source in an otherwise empty universe, provided you can wait long enough.

As for your second point, it's nothing to do with quantum weirdness. On a really clear, dry night you can shine a laser into the sky and not see the beam if it's pointing away from you. 

[guest39538]

"Vanishing point" is an invention of artists, architects and cartographers. It is also a classic road trip film - to my mind the best ever. It has no meaning in physics.

A vanishing point has no meaning in physics?  I find that very strange when it is a fundamental aspect of relativity.

An object moving away from an observer relative decreases in size , does know one think of this?

''As for your second point, it's nothing to do with quantum weirdness. On a really clear, dry night you can shine a laser into the sky and not see the beam if it's pointing away from you. ''

Why are you changing the natural scenario to observer effect and using a laser?

If you was on the Sun looking away from the sun, and there was no other matter or stars, I assure you that you will observe only darkness.  Your Universe would be has high as you could jump.

[Colin2B]

A vanishing point has no meaning in physics?  I find that very strange when it is a fundamental aspect of relativity.

Vanishing point and perspective have no connection to relativity. Is this a New Theory?

[alancalverd]

Why are you changing the natural scenario to observer effect and using a laser?

In order to replace your hypothetical absurdity with a practical experiment that is simple enough for a moron to comprehend. I'm sorry you didn't.

[guest39538]

Why are you changing the natural scenario to observer effect and using a laser?

In order to replace your hypothetical absurdity with a practical experiment that is simple enough for a moron to comprehend. I'm sorry you didn't.

A practical experiment that only a moron would presume is anything like the nature of light. A laser is a linearity where as light from a body is isotropic. You would not see a laser beam unless there was a dense medium.

[guest39538]

A vanishing point has no meaning in physics?  I find that very strange when it is a fundamental aspect of relativity.

Vanishing point and perspective have no connection to relativity. Is this a New Theory?

Is this  a new theory?  No Colin it is discussing a definition apparently not used in science although it is very relative.

[Colin2B]

..... it is discussing a definition apparently not used in science although it is very relative.

Then it is a new theory, or more likely 'that can't be true', so don't discuss it here

[guest39538]

..... it is discussing a definition apparently not used in science although it is very relative.

Then it is a new theory, or more likely 'that can't be true', so don't discuss it here

Huh?  how is talking about perspective view, vanishing points, and objects relatively look smaller at a distance a new theory?

You obviously call vanishing points and perspective view something different.

[Colin2B]

Huh?  how is talking about perspective view, vanishing points, and objects relatively look smaller at a distance a new theory?

It is if you try to relate it to relativity, which you were doing.

[guest39538]

Huh?  how is talking about perspective view, vanishing points, and objects relatively look smaller at a distance a new theory?

It is if you try to relate it to relativity, which you were doing.

I am not trying to relate it to relativity, it is an axiom that it is related to relativity, things at a distance relative to the observer look smaller than they actually are.

Things that move away relatively to the observer decrease in visual size.

I am not relating it, it is already related, I miss your point.

[Colin2B]

... it is an axiom that it is related to relativity,

It is not an axiom, and yes you miss my point.
This is not the thread to discuss your theory of relativity and vanishing points.

[guest39538]

What radius to a human observer does light fail to give an observation?

What is the point of me asking a question if you are not willing to discuss the question?

What radius to a human observer does light fail to give an observation is the question, now if light has failed to give an observation, the objects has vanished relative to the observation, so at that very point, ''the vanishing point'', is very related to the question and not a theory.

[alancalverd]

The question was answered in reply #3. What is the point of asking a question if you intend to disagree with the answer?

[guest39538]

The question was answered in reply #3. What is the point of asking a question if you intend to disagree with the answer?

The question I asked was not answered, I will rephrase,

What is the radius from a light source where matter fails to reflect enough light to observe the object?

[alancalverd]

The answer remains the same:

In principle there is no limit to the distance at which you could detect a single source in an otherwise empty universe, provided you can wait long enough.

From the observer's point of view there is no difference between a primary source and a reflector.

[guest39538]

The answer remains the same:

In principle there is no limit to the distance at which you could detect a single source in an otherwise empty universe, provided you can wait long enough.

From the observer's point of view there is no difference between a primary source and a reflector.

HUh ? I thought light diminishes at a distance in compliance with the inverse square law?

If the light diminishes then surely any  matter receiving the diminished light reflects a lesser magnitude?

If the boundary  is limitless, why do I need a more powerful flash-light to see further?

[alancalverd]

HUh ? I thought light diminishes at a distance in compliance with the inverse square law?

Exactly. And 1/r² > 0 for all values of r, so there will always be a photon if you wait long enough.

The devil is in that last detail - if you wait long enough. As I pointed out way back in this discussion, yopu won't be able to distinguish a single photon from noise in the real world, so you need a bigger flashlight to see objects further away in the presence of air, dust, starlight, and the thermal noise in your brain, but you could use an integrating image amplifier (your mobile phone camera set to "night" mode) or a photomultiplier attached to a telescope instead.