Is it possible to see the stars in the sky?

  • Thread starter Thread starter angel 42
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stars
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether it is possible to see the stars in the sky, with a particular focus on the nature of seeing celestial objects like the Sun and stars. Participants explore concepts related to perception, the passage of light, and the implications of relativity on our understanding of "seeing." The conversation includes elements of humor and philosophical inquiry.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the nature of seeing, particularly whether looking at the Sun means one is truly seeing it, given the time it takes for light to reach the observer.
  • There are humorous exchanges about the understanding of the Sun as a star and the nature of perception.
  • One participant notes that when looking at a star, one is seeing light emitted in the past, which raises questions about the existence of those stars at the moment of observation.
  • Another participant introduces the idea that the theory of relativity complicates the notion of "right now" in relation to distant objects.
  • Concerns are raised about the limitations of human perception and whether everyone perceives celestial objects in the same way.
  • There is a discussion about the physical and psychological aspects of seeing, including the effects of atmospheric conditions on visibility.
  • One participant elaborates on the limited information collected when observing stars, emphasizing the complexities of light emission and atmospheric interference.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of seeing and perception, with no clear consensus reached. Some agree on the fundamental aspects of light travel and perception, while others challenge or question these ideas, leading to a contested discussion.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various assumptions about perception and the nature of light, as well as the effects of distance and time on observation. There are unresolved questions regarding the implications of relativity and the biological aspects of seeing.

  • #31
russ_watters said:
Wow, post 21. That's pathetic, guys.

I want to know: have you ever seen the rain?
Hey, watch who you call pathetic. At least I knew where he was going with the elapsed time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
OK so I don't really get the point of this thread, but since it is started already...

When I look in the direction of the stars I collect light that is emitted by it. This is a very small portion of all the radiation, first a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum, second ignoring all matter radiation, so I collect only a very limited amount of information. On top of that, the visible electromagnetic spectrum emitted by the star is not necessarilly the same as the one received at the level of the ground on Earth. But let us concentrate only on the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum just outside the star, ignoring the time it takes to travel and the redshift it undergoes so doing, ignoring again the diffusion it undergoes in the atmosphere of the Earth... This radiation is not strictly emitted by the entire star, but rather only the photosphere, the region where it becomes transparent to the part of the spectrum we are talking about here.

Am I getting closer to what you expect ?
 
  • #33
Evo said:
When you look at a star, you are seeing the light that it gave off in the past, how long ago depends on the distance. Some stars that we "see" today may no longer exist.

I knew about this, but I'm still lost at where this thread is going. Since if this was the complete answer it would be over by now! I really want to know the answer to this...
 
  • #34
G01 said:
I knew about this, but I'm still lost at where this thread is going. Since if this was the complete answer it would be over by now! I really want to know the answer to this...
I have no clue what he's looking for either. It's like me asking...what am I thinking of when I think of the sun? :rolleyes:
 
  • #35
chroot said:
Well, the theory of relativity abolishes the notion of absolute time. It is meaningless to ask about the state of a distant object "right now," as the concept of "right now" doesn't extend beyond your own frame of reference.
Now you're talking. :biggrin:
 
  • #36
you are seeing the past, you are seeing history. everything we see is what was , not what is. Our processing is not fast enough to see now..only then.
 
  • #37
hi, you are seeing a ""place"" or position of that star at some time from the past, which you all will agree with that. BUT CAN YOU BELIEVE that this was noted in a book that is 1400 years old?
 
  • #38
angel 42 said:
hi, you are seeing a ""place"" or position of that star at some time from the past, which you all will agree with that. BUT CAN YOU BELIEVE that this was noted in a book that is 1400 years old?
A lot of guesses and sometimes just stories that in hindsight have some truth to them, but it wasn't the result of scientific research, and no, I am not surprised. We just discussed this kind of thing in another thread.
 
  • #39
angel 42 said:
BUT CAN YOU BELIEVE that this was noted in a book that is 1400 years old?

We were supposed to get this from the original question posted?

hi, can anyone of you look and see the stars, for example, can you see the sun?
kind of a puzzle
lets see what do you think

If we were, how?
 
  • #40
angel 42 said:
hi, you are seeing a ""place"" or position of that star at some time from the past, which you all will agree with that. BUT CAN YOU BELIEVE that this was noted in a book that is 1400 years old?

Are you impressed about this bit of triviality because it is ancient? Dude, here's another one: you see what you're seeing "from another place at another time". Cool, hey? Gosh, this was time well wasted...
 
  • #42
russ_watters said:
Have you seen the bridge?


I ain't seen the bridge!

Where's that confounded bridge?
 
  • #43
at least you do agree that what you see is a postion of the star...
 
  • #44
Angel_42, you're not making much sense.

By definition, "seeing" something is sensing light coming ~directly from it. Therefore when you look at the sun you're seeing the sun. You can argue that really you're only seeing photons representing the sun in the past, and this is of course true, but that's true of EVERYTHING you see.
 
  • #45
Really now...

This kind of word play is pointless and, no offense intended, the type of thing I heard from my young children.
<flash-back theme>
Son: "Can I see that toy?"
Daughter: (holding the toy in front of her brother) "There you go, you can see it!"
Son: (exasperated) "No, I want to hold it."
Daughter: "You didn't say "hold it, you said "see it"...

If someone has the ability of sight, and the weather and time are right, if you look at the sun, you see it regardless of our distance from it, or its true relative position. Whether you see the sun as it was 8 minutes ago or in some different location is not relevant to the question "Can you see the sun?" They are just modifiers to the object we call the "sun". Let's apply the same standard to a much closer object, say... a car. You and I can be standing side by side as a blue car passes in front of us. I ask, "Did you see that car?" You reply, "Yes." It would be unreasonable for me to say, "No, you saw a Blue car." The fact that sun is 8 light minutes away or that the car was blue did not change the truth that both were observed.

...and everything under the sun is in tune
but the sun is eclipsed by the moon.
 
Last edited:
  • #46
Okay, the only thing I can figure he's looking for is that because of the delay in when you see the light from the sun vs when it was emitted from the sun, when you look in the direction you see the light coming from, it's where the sun WAS when the light was emitted, not it's actual location NOW. It might be a bigger difference for more distant stars, but really fairly inconsequential for the position of the sun relative to wherever you're standing attempting to blind yourself staring at it. :rolleyes:
 
  • #47
I thought this had been locked.

Locked now.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Help with my Polar Aligning Star Tracker please
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
Undergrad Lines of stars that we see in the sky
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
Undergrad Why on Earth do we not see older stars close to us?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad The Heavier Elements: A Question About Their Abundance
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
Films: Opening credits -- Why do they do this?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
933
High School Night Sky of Alpha Centauri: Sol as a Bright Star
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
High School How can the Universe be flat? Ridiculous
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Star maps using Blender
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
High School Who was the first person to recognize the stars as very distant suns?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Undergrad How Does the Size of Neutron Stars Compare to Black Holes?
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
6K