Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16545
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 01:21:00 -
[91] - Quote
Ciaphas Cyne wrote:"Instead, take a a 62cm-¦ bulb emitting 1000 lux. Then compare it with a 1cm-¦ diode emitting 2000 lux. Which one will illuminate more? "
the diode. all day. next question? Wrong, and you already have the next question(s]. Why did you skip over them? 2000 lux emitted from a 1cm-¦ surface means an output of 0.2 lm. At, say, 10m, this translates into an illuminance of 0.00016 lux. 1000 lux emitted from a 62cm-¦ surface means an output of 6.2 lm. At, say, 10m, this translates into an illuminance of 0.0049 lux.
GǪthen maybe it wasn't making quite the point you were hoping, now was it?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Ciaphas Cyne
Turalyon Plus Turalyon Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 01:23:00 -
[92] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ciaphas Cyne wrote:"Instead, take a a 62cm-¦ bulb emitting 1000 lux. Then compare it with a 1cm-¦ diode emitting 2000 lux. Which one will illuminate more? "
the diode. all day. next question? Wrong, and you already have the next question(s]. Why did you skip over them? 2000 lux emitted from a 1cm-¦ surface means an output of 0.2 lm. At, say, 10m, this translates into an illuminance of 0.00016 lux. 1000 lux emitted from a 62cm-¦ surface means an output of 6.2 lm. At, say, 10m, this translates into an illuminance of 0.0049 lux. GǪthen maybe it wasn't making quite the point you were hoping, now was it?
you understand how a light bulb works yes?
you understand the glass bulb isn't the object emitting the light, yes? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16545
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 01:25:00 -
[93] - Quote
Ciaphas Cyne wrote:you understand how a light bulb works yes?
you understand the glass bulb isn't the object emitting the light, yes? You understand that we're talking about how bright a diffuse light-source looks in relation to how much it illuminates its surrounding, yes?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Ciaphas Cyne
Turalyon Plus Turalyon Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 01:25:00 -
[94] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Ciaphas Cyne wrote:
cant argue with that! i never made any assumptions about stars that weren't our sun. so anything you wanna talk about in-game with in-game stars is fine with me. my interest is in our own system, with our sun. never intended to talk about anything else :)
do you see my point with the twilight photo though? how its the placement of the light source that is making you see the foreground as darker than it really is?
With regards to the photo, that could well be the case. I've actually done a bit more digging, turns out my numbers were a bit off [source]. White dwarves are upperbound at 1% of Sol illumination and lowerbound at 0.1% Illumination. So at best, a 100 Au white dwarf system would have an illumination of 0.25 Lux on the outer celestials. and at worst 0.025 Lux, which may as well be pitch black, and we definitely wouldn't see our hulls without additional illumination. So, space in eve should be much darker than it is in a great many systems. Cases where we wouldn't "see" our hulls would actually be somewhat plentiful. Mildly interesting.
so know that we all know we could read a book on pluto, and that photography can be misleading...i wonder what other things we can learn from this thread? |
Ciaphas Cyne
Turalyon Plus Turalyon Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 01:27:00 -
[95] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ciaphas Cyne wrote:you understand how a light bulb works yes?
you understand the glass bulb isn't the object emitting the light, yes? You understand that we're talking about how bright a diffuse light-source looks in relation to how much it illuminates its surrounding, yes?
as far as i can recall we were talking about how you can see on pluto....
and some how we got on the subject of how you seem to think that big objects are brighter than small ones. seriously go get two light bulbs of different watts and tell me all about how their size is responsible for that.
a sun burns at its center. just like a light bulb. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16545
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 01:35:00 -
[96] - Quote
Ciaphas Cyne wrote:as far as i can recall we were talking about how you can see on pluto.... GǪand you started to claim that the surface area of the light source had no impact on perceived brightness or illumination, which generated the bulb vs. diode comparison.
Quote:a sun burns at its center. GǪand elsewhere, but the (visible) light it emits comes from the photosphere and above. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
149
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 01:40:00 -
[97] - Quote
Ciaphas Cyne wrote:Tippia wrote:Ciaphas Cyne wrote:"Instead, take a a 62cm-¦ bulb emitting 1000 lux. Then compare it with a 1cm-¦ diode emitting 2000 lux. Which one will illuminate more? "
the diode. all day. next question? Wrong, and you already have the next question(s]. Why did you skip over them? 2000 lux emitted from a 1cm-¦ surface means an output of 0.2 lm. At, say, 10m, this translates into an illuminance of 0.00016 lux. 1000 lux emitted from a 62cm-¦ surface means an output of 6.2 lm. At, say, 10m, this translates into an illuminance of 0.0049 lux. GǪthen maybe it wasn't making quite the point you were hoping, now was it? you understand how a light bulb works yes? you understand the glass bulb isn't the object emitting the light, yes? You're both communicating poorly tbh.
First line in the definition of Lux says it is a unit of flux.
Think of it this way, you have Pluto and a 1 m^2 piece of sheet metal orbiting our sun, both at 50 Au. Let's say both have 100 Lux incident. You would be able to see Pluto with relative ease via simple telescope. Good luck seeing the sheet metal.
Now let's say you have a piece of sheet metal that is 1 Au^2 orbiting at 50 Au. It would be much easier to see the gigantic piece of sheet metal as opposed to Pluto. Could probably do it with the naked eye.
Tippia is correct if you're using one of these lightbulbs, and you measure the 1000 lux at the surface of the lightbulb, which makes sense as you can't measure it at the filament. (To Tippia's credit, the fact that it was measured at the surface was stated.)
On the other hand, if you were looking at one of these, and you measured the light flux at the filament, Ciaphas Cyne would be correct in favoring the 2000 lux LED. |
Ciaphas Cyne
Turalyon Plus Turalyon Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 01:45:00 -
[98] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ciaphas Cyne wrote:as far as i can recall we were talking about how you can see on pluto.... GǪand you started to claim that the surface area of the light source had no impact on perceived brightness or illumination, which generated the bulb vs. diode comparison. Quote:a sun burns at its center. GǪand elsewhere, but the (visible) light it emits comes from the photosphere and above.
and this is where we are coming to grief. i dont care about perceived brightness. I care about the amount of light in and around pluto. where that light came from, or the size of the object it came from DOES NOT MATTER or even what it came from is totally irrelevant once we know the light levels in the space that Pluto occupies. what the star in the sky looks like from the surface is anecdotal!!
a sun, just like a light bulb, burns at its center, the energy from that then makes the sun glow! very similar to how a lightbulb burns at its center and then is diffused by the glass around it. The amount of light being created never changes. it just gets diffused by the glass. place a bulb around that LED diode and boom, the room now "appears" more illuminated. but nothing has changed, just the direction of the light. the sun, however, doesnt change size on a time scale that is relevant to this discussion. so the direction of the light doesnt change. I think our argument is pretty semantic and if ive used scientific terms like "brightness" casually and in a confusing manner, i am sorry!
honestly as long as you understand that we could see just fine on pluto, i dont think we really have an issue here.
you do understand that stars being brighter when they are bigger is a function of the life cycle of the star and what its burning, though correct? |
PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
150
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 01:50:00 -
[99] - Quote
Ciaphas Cyne wrote:Tippia wrote:Ciaphas Cyne wrote:as far as i can recall we were talking about how you can see on pluto.... GǪand you started to claim that the surface area of the light source had no impact on perceived brightness or illumination, which generated the bulb vs. diode comparison. Quote:a sun burns at its center. GǪand elsewhere, but the (visible) light it emits comes from the photosphere and above. and this is where we are coming to grief. i dont care about perceived brightness. I care about the amount of light in and around pluto. where that light came from, or the size of the object it came from DOES NOT MATTER or even what it came from is totally irrelevant once we know the light levels in the space that Pluto occupies. what the star in the sky looks like from the surface is anecdotal!! a sun, just like a light bulb, burns at its center, the energy from that then makes the sun glow! very similar to how a lightbulb burns at its center and then is diffused by the glass around it. The amount of light being created never changes. it just gets diffused by the glass. place a bulb around that LED diode and boom, the room now "appears" more illuminated. but nothing has changed, just the direction of the light. the sun, however, doesnt change size on a time scale that is relevant to this discussion. so the direction of the light doesnt change. I think our argument is pretty semantic and if ive used scientific terms like "brightness" casually and in a confusing manner, i am sorry! honestly as long as you understand that we could see just fine on pluto, i dont think we really have an issue here. you do understand that stars being brighter when they are bigger is a function of the life cycle of the star and what its burning, though correct? Reread my post and Tippias.
Tippia states that the light flux was measured at the surface:
"2000 lux emitted from a 1cm-¦ surface means an output of 0.2 lm. At, say, 10m, this translates into an illuminance of 0.00016 lux. 1000 lux emitted from a 62cm-¦ surface means an output of 6.2 lm. At, say, 10m, this translates into an illuminance of 0.0049 lux."
Flux can be measured anywhere, and where it is measured is almost always very important.
Also, while the Sun does 'burn' at the center, we never actually see that light. The energy from that fusion stimulates material in the photosphere, and that is what we see.
If we could see light coming from the very center of a star, through spectroscopy we would be able to know the precise composition, lifetimes, and processes that occur in all stars, and our knowledge of the universe would be far closer to completion.
Neither of you are horribly wrong in your general points, you're just not communicating well. |
PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
150
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 02:00:00 -
[100] - Quote
Ciaphas Cyne wrote:
you do understand that stars being brighter when they are bigger is a function of the life cycle of the star and what its burning, though correct?
This is not strictly correct.
"Despite the lower energy density of their envelope, red giants are many times more luminous than the Sun because of their great size. " [source: sentence 4 under characteristics] |
|
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
2624
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 02:13:00 -
[101] - Quote
Please do not feed the trolls.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16546
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 02:20:00 -
[102] - Quote
Ciaphas Cyne wrote:i dont care about perceived brightness. I care about the amount of light in and around pluto. GǪwhich leads us back to the point about how you chose poorly when picking an article that was about perceived brightness. Oh, and as the article points out, there's nothing really anecdotal about what the Sun looks like from other parts of space since we can trivially simulate it on earth.
The other point is that, yes, you've been very fuzzy about the concept of GÇ£brightnessGÇ¥, which can describe almost any of the photo- and radiometric measurements.
Quote:a sun, just like a light bulb, burns at its center GǪand elsewhere. And no, the energy transfer through a long and cumbersome mix of conduction, convection and radiation within the Sun is pretty significantly different from how light is being diffused by the glass of a light bulb. There's a reason why sunlight has a colour temperature of 5500:ish -¦K rather than several million: because the light we see is produced very close to the surface (the layers below being pretty much completely opaque) through significantly different mechanisms than what's going on in the core.
Either way, the point was that a diffuse light source and a point source produces light of radically different qualities.
Quote:The amount of light being created never changes. it just gets diffused by the glass. place a bulb around that LED diode and boom, the room now "appears" more illuminated. Not unless you put out more light, no, but the light source appears less harsh to look at. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Ciaphas Cyne
Turalyon Plus Turalyon Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 02:27:00 -
[103] - Quote
Quote:The amount of light being created never changes. it just gets diffused by the glass. place a bulb around that LED diode and boom, the room now "appears" more illuminated. Not unless you put out more light, no, but the light source appears less harsh to look at.[/quote]
im fine with that! definitely appears less harsh to look at. |
Ciaphas Cyne
Turalyon Plus Turalyon Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 02:29:00 -
[104] - Quote
does it suck being so incredibly wrong? |
Johann Rascali
Crunchy Crunchy Zero Hour Alliance
46
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 03:23:00 -
[105] - Quote
Terh Rumnatarn wrote:What you hear and what you see in EVE is a simulation made by your ship`s computer. Wasn't it established rather recently in the lore that we use a camera drone? |
Johan Civire
The Lyran Empire
639
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 03:46:00 -
[106] - Quote
There is no light in space lol. You people watch to many movies
You can see light because its bounce of a object in space moon dust particles rock and son and so on.
THe Hubble telescope show you nice pictures right? But that's because it "traps the light between it"
So you want space. Its possible just make everything black and your done. (even black is no light but it is light) |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
1322
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 05:25:00 -
[107] - Quote
This thread is rapidly becoming, whose ego shines the brightest?
My money is on Tippia. This is not a signature. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
4341
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 06:33:00 -
[108] - Quote
I love EvE, because unlike the other MMOs there's always some gold nuggets to learn like this. Even on GD. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4660
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 14:00:00 -
[109] - Quote
Johann Rascali wrote:Terh Rumnatarn wrote:What you hear and what you see in EVE is a simulation made by your ship`s computer. Wasn't it established rather recently in the lore that we use a camera drone? Well, the lore concerning camera drones (and their advanced sensor suits allowing us to see far more than the naked eye) has been in place since the beginning.
The only thing that is simulated by our ship computers is audio, to allow the human brain to more intuitively be aware of what is happening around the ship. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4660
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 14:04:00 -
[110] - Quote
Johan Civire wrote:There is no light in space lol. You people watch to many movies You can see light because its bounce of a object in space moon dust particles rock and son and so on. THe Hubble telescope show you nice pictures right? But that's because it "traps the light between it" So you want space. Its possible just make everything black and your done. (even black is no light but it is light) Johan, if there was no light in space there would be nothing to bounce off of an object.
Yes, light needs something to bounce off to be visible unless you are looking directly at the source, but that isn't the same thing as there being no light in space. Fortunately space is chock full of things for light to bounce off, as well as light sources. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
Johan Civire
The Lyran Empire
642
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 16:02:00 -
[111] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Johan Civire wrote:There is no light in space lol. You people watch to many movies You can see light because its bounce of a object in space moon dust particles rock and son and so on. THe Hubble telescope show you nice pictures right? But that's because it "traps the light between it" So you want space. Its possible just make everything black and your done. (even black is no light but it is light) Johan, if there was no light in space there would be nothing to bounce off of an object. Yes, light needs something to bounce off to be visible unless you are looking directly at the source, but that isn't the same thing as there being no light in space. Fortunately space is chock full of things for light to bounce off, as well as light sources.
The sources off light is not visible in or eyes it needs to be bounce of or you can not see it. Or it needs to be direct of you like the stars you see now on earth but the are different in space. I can not explain it because poor English. Go search google for real space pictures made with or own eyes. You be surprise how dark space is and how "uninteresting space is" yes its black very black. The light you see on earth or stars is defriend in "open space" The light you mean is to far away this will fade so there is practical no light in space even its a big open space with many stuff in it. |
Zaxix
Long Jump.
250
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 16:58:00 -
[112] - Quote
Leto Hallick wrote:This has been the one visual oddity driving me nuts since I started playing. The size/brightness of the stars based on the distance travelled never seems to change (unless you warp directly to the star).
Our Sun from Neptune (~30 AU), for example, is practically a small dot in the sky.
Yet anywhere you seem to warp within a system in EVE, the star is always the same. It would add such a tremendous sense of scope/distance to warp away from a star and see it shrink to just a burning dot in the sky.
(And for that matter, where are the double binary systems and red-colored stars and brown dwarfs and other fun stuff? Screw the science I want to feel like I'm zipping through exotic solar systems of all types and colors.) If they did that, you wouldn't be able to see much of anything, because there would be insufficient light.
edit: i see someone else mentions this! sorry for reiterating! Bokononist
-á |
Ciaphas Cyne
Turalyon Plus Turalyon Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 17:01:00 -
[113] - Quote
Johan Civire wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Johan Civire wrote:There is no light in space lol. You people watch to many movies You can see light because its bounce of a object in space moon dust particles rock and son and so on. THe Hubble telescope show you nice pictures right? But that's because it "traps the light between it" So you want space. Its possible just make everything black and your done. (even black is no light but it is light) Johan, if there was no light in space there would be nothing to bounce off of an object. Yes, light needs something to bounce off to be visible unless you are looking directly at the source, but that isn't the same thing as there being no light in space. Fortunately space is chock full of things for light to bounce off, as well as light sources. The sources off light is not visible in or eyes it needs to be bounce of or you can not see it. Or it needs to be direct of you like the stars you see now on earth but the are different in space. I can not explain it because poor English. Go search google for real space pictures made with or own eyes. You be surprise how dark space is and how "uninteresting space is" yes its black very black. The light you see on earth or stars is defriend in "open space" The light you mean is to far away this will fade so there is practical no light in space even its a big open space with many stuff in it.
truth. every word. |
Ciaphas Cyne
Turalyon Plus Turalyon Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 17:03:00 -
[114] - Quote
Zaxix wrote:Leto Hallick wrote:This has been the one visual oddity driving me nuts since I started playing. The size/brightness of the stars based on the distance travelled never seems to change (unless you warp directly to the star).
Our Sun from Neptune (~30 AU), for example, is practically a small dot in the sky.
Yet anywhere you seem to warp within a system in EVE, the star is always the same. It would add such a tremendous sense of scope/distance to warp away from a star and see it shrink to just a burning dot in the sky.
(And for that matter, where are the double binary systems and red-colored stars and brown dwarfs and other fun stuff? Screw the science I want to feel like I'm zipping through exotic solar systems of all types and colors.) If they did that, you wouldn't be able to see much of anything, because there would be insufficient light. edit: i see someone else mentions this! sorry for reiterating!
not only was it mentioned but the general consensus was achieved that distances under 250AU are actually quite bright when using our sun as a model. |
Ezslider
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 17:08:00 -
[115] - Quote
Holy Christ this thread.
It is no wonder :CCP: doesn't take us seriously. |
Zaxix
Long Jump.
250
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 17:56:00 -
[116] - Quote
Ciaphas Cyne wrote:not only was it mentioned but the general consensus was achieved that distances under 250AU are actually quite bright when using our sun as a model. I found this nice comparison chart of illuminance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight#Daylight_intensity_in_different_conditions
The Pluto brightness math works out to ~60 lux (using the article's 250x measure in his actual calculations). On that chart, total overcast at dusk is the closest comparison. This link provides some really nice daylight condition comparisons for those who want more than just words (check the Dusk category, last picture in that section). http://www.itchy-animation.co.uk/tutorials/light03.htm. Definitely brighter than I would have thought.
The better question is: why don't planets orbit the sun, moons orbit the planets, and both rotate on their axes. Let's not forget the POCOs, which are also supposed to orbit. Bokononist
-á |
Ciaphas Cyne
Turalyon Plus Turalyon Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 23:00:00 -
[117] - Quote
Zaxix wrote:Ciaphas Cyne wrote:not only was it mentioned but the general consensus was achieved that distances under 250AU are actually quite bright when using our sun as a model. I found this nice comparison chart of illuminance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight#Daylight_intensity_in_different_conditionsThe Pluto brightness math works out to ~60 lux (using the article's 250x measure in his actual calculations). On that chart, total overcast at dusk is the closest comparison. This link provides some really nice daylight condition comparisons for those who want more than just words (check the Dusk category, last picture in that section). http://www.itchy-animation.co.uk/tutorials/light03.htm. Definitely brighter than I would have thought. The better question is: why don't planets orbit the sun, moons orbit the planets, and both rotate on their axes. Let's not forget the POCOs, which are also supposed to orbit.
thanks for links !
sadly i think CCP has said they cant implement orbiting celestials due to performance concerns. if stationary planets means less lag im ok with that. but i really wouldn't be surprised if alot of the suggestions on this thread get implemented one day when the technology improves. thats the great thing about playing a vibrant living game thats been around for 10 years. we can all sit around and daydream about what EVE 2023 will look like! |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
202
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 23:29:00 -
[118] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:SCIENCE!!!!!1
Hey for some reason you guys like blinding people with your overbright sun blooms, and retina searing gas clouds in certain missions. Is that science?
Or how about new mandatory jump gate graphics that cause nausea in many players. Is that a "science" experiment?
What would be wrong with toning down some of the sensory overload graphics currently in the game? |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |