EVE General Discussion

Eve physics, best physics.

Don't forget EVE has very few star types, like brown and red dwarfs, yet most stars look about the same except for colour. EVE has no binary or trinary systems either. The closest star to our own is Rigel Kentaurus which is binary.

I like how people are trying to argue EVE physics and technicalities when it is all within the palms of the CCP overlords. What they whim the workings of EVE it is what we have to accept.

no one here as been arguing over EVE physics. we have been arguing over real physics. just fyi :)

yes we have all heard your frantic attempts to make sense, you keep just repeating yourself. i am enjoying your tenacity though. did you try that LED yet? or did you forget about how you told us an LED doesnt produce enough light to see by?

again another source for you cause you are just not getting it. also your math is wrong.
http://www.projectpluto.com/pluto.htm

direct quote from the above link:

"The sun would be a tiny point in the sky, 1/30 as big and 1/900 as bright as what we see from Earth. Despite being so small, though, it would still be much brighter than a full moon. It would move very slowly across the sky. The earth turns once a day, so you see the sun rise and set once a day. Pluto turns about six times more slowly, so the sun rises and sets about once a week."

and here is some more for you, note the use of the inverse square law you are so terribly convinced proves you right:

"I'm simply using the principle that illuminance obeys the inverse square law: an object twice as far away as another from a light source will be four times as dim. Looking up the distances of the planets from the sun and applying the inverse square law, I arrive at the following illuminances in lux:

Mercury 650,000
Venus 190,000
Earth 100,000
Mars 45,000
Jupiter 3,500
Saturn 1,100
Uranus 270
Neptune 110
Pluto 60

Bear in mind we're not thinking about looking at light sources, but at a surface illuminated by them.

Mercury: 6 times as bright as direct sunlight on Earth. Sounds very very bright, doesn't it? But given that the difference between broad daylight and direct sunlight is a factor of ten, such a difference at this level of brightness isn't going to be off the charts. I know of no Earthly light source capable of brightness in this order, however.

Venus: Twice as bright as direct sunlight on Earth: see above.

Earth: You're familiar.

Mars: Still a bright bright Summer's day, but whispy cloud is taking the edge off. An overcast day will give you 10,000 lux (so will a doctor's examination lamp at close range) on Earth, and you're still at 4 times that.

Jupiter: You're into artificial lighting levels, now; but still very bright. The problem now is that artificial light levels create a very different impression and possibly a sense that things are brighter than in fact they are. Imagine a small white room with sunshine streaming through the window, giving the room a bright lively appearance.

Saturn: Imagine your local supermarket. Look down at the floor beneath your feet. Saturn is this bright, but without the warmer glow of artificial lighting.

Uranus: You've bought your lunch from the supermarket and go back to work in your office. Yoy again decide to look at the floor. This is how bright Uranus is.

Neptune: A windowless stair well (again, don't be tempted to think about looking into the bright fluorescent light sources... they'll dazzle)... look at the walls and the floor. Neptune is something like this.

Pluto: You're still well within the limits of being able to see comfortably. Imagine a boiler room with a couple of broken light fittings, or a dimly but comfortably lit bar you frequent."

do i really have to keep going?


edit:ask yourself this question
"can i see pluto with a telescope?"
if you answered "yes" than you must concede that enough light reaches its surface to see.

what you just said to me:

"a brighter light is brighter than a dimmer light"

i agree.

what i dont agree witht:

"a larger bulb is defacto brighter than a smaller one"

you keep talking about the perceived size of the light source, whats important is the amount of light arriving on pluto's surface, not how big that source appears to be in the sky. that light is enough to see by. end. of. story.

mind you the sun size is never changing, just its perceived size in the sky. that perception does not influence the amount of light you are getting on the surface.

Are not binary stars more common in our galaxy that lone stars? I remember reading somewhere they were really common.

Well that is still pretty common. Be nice if there were binaries in EVE as long as it doesn't take too much time or effort.

Size matters a lot in how bright they appear. That's why there's such a plethora of photography equipment that lets you pour silly amounts of light onto a subject without blinding them with their brightness.

Actually, what we're discussing is the difference between the brightness of a point source and the illumination it provides.

…and that light changes as the distance changes (and this coincides with the apparent size of the light source). And since you brought up an article mentioning how bright the Sun would be when looking at it from very far away, it is very much part of what we're interested in.

"Rather" is a quantity we can find out. turns out that its "rather" bright on the surface of pluto. which is what this thread has become about.

also if you read any of the above posts you would know exactly how much dimmer the sun is on pluto when comparing it to earth. turns out, its bright enough to see.

again:

can you see pluto? if you answer "yes" then you need to accept the fact that light hits it.