Things you often Wonder

[Mark Albrighton]

1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

We can see millions of stars from Earth. One appears relatively massive.   The others are tiny dots of light. Why aren’t there any stars that appear somewhere in the middle of those 2 extremes?  

Is it just coincidence or are all stars similarly distant from one another? 

 

28 minutes ago, brommy said:

The 'relatively massive' light you perceive as a star is probably the sun's light reflecting off a planet. For example, Jupiter has been visibly bright in the recent night sky. 

As you noted, the actual stars typically visible by the naked eye are fairly dim and can. appear very similar. In reality, some stars will be bigger (and brighter) but being much further away, appear similar to smaller stars that are closer.

Don't forget, in thinking there's nothing in between, you're comparing a planet (much, much closer than stars reflecting a much closer star, the sun) with the thousands of stars you can barely see. You're ignoring the trillions of stars that, in theory, should be visible from earth, but the combination of their size and distance means their light isn't enough to be registered by the limitations of the naked eye by the time it has passed through earth's atmosphere with its air and light pollution.

Unless I’m very much mistaken, the “relatively massive” star Mandy is referring to is the sun. 

I think what’s being mused is why isn’t there a star that’s kinda “halfway” between the sun and all the little twinkly stars light years away. 

So this theoretical star would appear to us to be kinda half the size of the sun, but appearing at night.

At least, I think that’s what is being put forward.

I suspect with this post I’ve pissed off the ghost of Patrick Moore to no end.
 

[limpid]

13 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

 

Unless I’m very much mistaken, the “relatively massive” star Mandy is referring to is the sun. 

I think what’s being mused is why isn’t there a star that’s kinda “halfway” between the sun and all the little twinkly stars light years away. 

So this theoretical star would appear to us to be kinda half the size of the sun, but appearing at night.

At least, I think that’s what is being put forward.

I suspect with this post I’ve pissed off the ghost of Patrick Moore to no end.
 

Evolution didn't develop monkey eyes to discriminate between point sources of light.

Regardless of how big a star or galaxy is, it is so far away that it appears to be a dot. Our eyes simply do not have enough fidelity to see any more than that. You can only see the dot because it is so bright compared to what surrounds it.

[mjmooney]

7 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

Why are British dramas by and large really depressing? People with just miserable lives, having terrible luck, making bad choices in shitty situations.

Then crime dramas are always absolutely horrific! Even the hero is always completely flawed and lives is squalor i.e. Luther I'm not saying everything should be Disney+ but I watched some of "Happy Valley" the other day and good lord those folks are miserable.

I remember years ago somebody analysing the differences between UK and US soap operas. The most popular American ones (Dallas, Dynasty) tended to be about the lives of middle class - or even downright rich - people, while the British ones (Coronation Street, East Enders) were mostly about struggling working class types. The theory was that the UK audiences were downtrodden 'know your place' types, who appreciated seeing their own difficult lives reflected on the screen, while the US viewers were more aspirational, and wanted to believe that this TV fantasy lifestyle was somehow within their grasp if they could just get a lucky break. 

I rather like Happy Valley, btw, always preferred gritty crime dramas to (say) comedy. 

Edited December 28, 2022 by mjmooney

[Paddywhack]

7 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

Why are British dramas by and large really depressing? People with just miserable lives, having terrible luck, making bad choices in shitty situations.

Then crime dramas are always absolutely horrific! Even the hero is always completely flawed and lives is squalor i.e. Luther I'm not saying everything should be Disney+ but I watched some of "Happy Valley" the other day and good lord those folks are miserable.

Yeah, they're all grey and bleak.

I heard it being discussed on a podcast where they were basically saying TV producers/execs/whoever will get one successful TV show and then only commission another 5 new shows that look the same and follow the same format, rather than risk anything new.

Same reason we get 100 super hero films every year I guess.

[bannedfromHandV]

British TV is just shite in general. Awful acting, casting and scripting. Terrible lighting, silly plotlines 

[brommy]

1 hour ago, Mark Albrighton said:

 

Unless I’m very much mistaken, the “relatively massive” star Mandy is referring to is the sun. 

I think what’s being mused is why isn’t there a star that’s kinda “halfway” between the sun and all the little twinkly stars light years away. 

So this theoretical star would appear to us to be kinda half the size of the sun, but appearing at night.

At least, I think that’s what is being put forward.

I suspect with this post I’ve pissed off the ghost of Patrick Moore to no end.
 

I'll be surprised if @Mandy Lifeboats was referring to our sun. Working nights outdoors for 8 of the past 10 years with a varying group of people, I've often heard people say - look at that star - it's really bright (obviously in comparison to the other stars). It's always been that the really bright 'star' was a planet.

In any case, @limpid reply covered it. Effectively, all the stars, other than our sun, are so far away (and from each other) that the light that reaches the earth is very dim.

If anyone is wondering why all the stars are a similar brightness and therefore appear a similar size and distance away, go somewhere without much light pollution and give your eyes time to adjust to the darkness. You'll start seeing more and more stars. Then think of the very dimmest stars that you can barely see, as those that are further away (or smaller) than the stars you can see well, but closer (or bigger) than the stars that are so dim you can't quite see them (but they are still there!).

 

[brommy]

37 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

British TV is just shite in general. Awful acting, casting and scripting. Terrible lighting, silly plotlines 

Soaps - I'd tend to agree with you. As there's so much British made TV that isn't soaps, your broad statement isn't one I'm on board with.

I tend to find much more ridiculous plotlines, poor acting, unrealistic lighting (light flairs, faces lit by two sun's?!), unrealistic casting (significantly above average looking actors, unless they're a 'baddie' of course) and poor script wording (especially annoying when extremely exasperated adults say something like 'god damn it' when in reality there would be some expletives) in the over censored U.S. TV.

I appreciate it's very subjective though.

[Chindie]

On the stars thing.

Bear in mind a couple of things. Firstly, remember that picture from a month's back, from NASA's latest telescope, which showed an image of deep space about the size of a grain of sand pictured in the highest detail ever? This one.

The night sky is literally riddled with stuff. We just can't see most of it. Its not bright enough to be seen with the naked eye because it's so far away. If you go to dark places, you'll see more, because there's less light interference, but you still won't see the sheer amount of stuff out there.

Secondly, bear in mind our solar system is massive and revolves around a fairly average star. Our solar system is so big that the biggest planet in it, which is pretty bloody big, appears in the sky as just another star from the reflected light of the sun. And that planet isn't the furthest from us in the solar system, there's things unfathomably further away that are still orbiting our sun. When you consider that, you realise that any other star must be exceedingly far away, at which point the ability to differentiate between a small star relatively close, and an enormous star very, very far away, on the scale of things, is negligible. As a result the stars we can see all look roughly the same to the naked eye, because the differences are so small due to the distances involved that our eyes can't tell the difference (because evolutionarily that ability is useless to us).

[bickster]

16 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Why do people have a break from drinking instead of just not drinking and have a break now and then from not drinking to have a drink?

Some people do do just that, I've had very litle to drink since October until a few days before Xmas

I suspect you see more people announcing they are having a break from drinking than people announcing that they are having a break from not drinking. But don't asssume that because people don't annouce the later that it isn't happening

[bickster]

5 hours ago, Seat68 said:

They are from Yorkshire. They spend their days talking about sheep dip and there nights correcting peoples posts on forums. 

You did that on porpoise didn't you?

[Talldarkandransome]

I love staring at the sky, I'll get my telescope out again one day

[bickster]

16 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

Common sense is not worrying about a how a goldfish is gonna be treated by some random guy on a forum, when there are more important, maybe closer to home things to worry about. 

Spoken like a true non-goldfish

[Chindie]

In respect of US v UK TV, the brilliant (and sadly departed) Charlie Brooker series Screenwipe did a US special which has a section where they get a bunch of Yanks to watch examples of UK TV (Bullseye, Countdown, the Bill, EastEnders...) and comment. Which basically reveals the US audience wants production values, excitement, and overblown drama.

Screenwipe, and Newswipe, were **** brilliant. So disappointing he doesn't do it anymore. The asides and remarks from him were peak biting comedic analysis.

[Vive_La_Villa]

18 minutes ago, bickster said:

Some people do do just that, I've had very litle to drink since October until a few days before Xmas

I suspect you see more people announcing they are having a break from drinking than people announcing that they are having a break from not drinking. But don't asssume that because people don't annouce the later that it isn't happening

Very true mate. I think it’s more the people I surround myself with. Drinking is part of everything! I need some new friends. 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

3 hours ago, Mark Albrighton said:

 

Unless I’m very much mistaken, the “relatively massive” star Mandy is referring to is the sun. 

I think what’s being mused is why isn’t there a star that’s kinda “halfway” between the sun and all the little twinkly stars light years away. 

So this theoretical star would appear to us to be kinda half the size of the sun, but appearing at night.

At least, I think that’s what is being put forward.

I suspect with this post I’ve pissed off the ghost of Patrick Moore to no end.
 

Exactly.  

[Mandy Lifeboats]

Back to the stars thing.....

We have one star (The Sun) that is reasonably large to the naked eye.  

Every other star (regardless of brightness) is tiny.  

Why isn't there a star that looks half the size of the sun?  Or a quarter of the size of the sun? 

Is it coincidence or is it physically impossible for stars to co- exist in close enough proximity? 

[Chindie]

3 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Back to the stars thing.....

We have one star (The Sun) that is reasonably large to the naked eye.  

Every other star (regardless of brightness) is tiny.  

Why isn't there a star that looks half the size of the sun?  Or a quarter of the size of the sun? 

Is it coincidence or is it physically impossible for stars to co- exist in close enough proximity? 

Gravity. Our solar system only has a single star and the system is so enormous that even our closest neighbouring star is so far away it looks the same as any other we can see.

It is possible for systems to have multiple stars, where it may be possible for a planet to be close enough to see differential sizes in the stars, or it may be the case that there are smaller systems that are close enough to their neighbouring systems that you could see the size differences, but for us we're so far from any other star you can't see the difference.

[Talldarkandransome]

1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Back to the stars thing.....

We have one star (The Sun) that is reasonably large to the naked eye.  

Every other star (regardless of brightness) is tiny.  

Why isn't there a star that looks half the size of the sun?  Or a quarter of the size of the sun? 

Is it coincidence or is it physically impossible for stars to co- exist in close enough proximity? 

Yes if there was another star that kind of size in that kind of proximity we would probably not exist, or at least our solar system would look very different

[foreveryoung]

12 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

Why are British dramas by and large really depressing? People with just miserable lives, having terrible luck, making bad choices in shitty situations.

Then crime dramas are always absolutely horrific! Even the hero is always completely flawed and lives is squalor i.e. Luther I'm not saying everything should be Disney+ but I watched some of "Happy Valley" the other day and good lord those folks are miserable.

You wanna watch Christmas 24 or Movies 24, Mrs loves emm. Mostly Canadian movies, and all start with pretty girl has great life but single, meets perfect handsome guy, falls out with guy, makes up with guy, ends up with guy, live happily ever after. I stick to mostly sport personally.

[TheAuthority]

2 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

You wanna watch Christmas 24 or Movies 24, Mrs loves emm. Mostly Canadian movies, and all start with pretty girl has great life but single, meets perfect handsome guy, falls out with guy, makes up with guy, ends up with guy, live happily ever after. I stick to mostly sport personally.

I can see how that would be the polar opposite of watching Villa tbh.