On 16-3-2017 9:53, clipka wrote:
> Am 16.03.2017 um 08:36 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 15-3-2017 19:09, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 15.03.2017 um 13:23 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>>
>>>> Yes indeed. I intend to add some brighter stars. Otherwise, the idea is
>>>> that we are in a part of the galaxy much brighter than our own and that
>>>> star clusters are also visible in daylight, like in this image. The
>>>> 'moon' is intended to be in a much earlier phase of development with
>>>> lava fields and impacts highlighted.
>>>
>>> Fun fact: Contrary to popular belief, celestial structures whose
>>> apparent size exceeds the resolution of an image sensor (eye, camera or
>>> whatever) do /not/ exhibit an increase in "pixel brightness" as you get
>>> closer(*). They just exhibit an increase in apparent size.
>>>
>>> (*Unless you traverse dust clouds as you approach.)
>>>
>>
>> Hmmm... that makes sense somehow. So, I should correct what I wrote
>> earlier about a 'brighter' part of the galaxy. Still, I suppose that
>> with a sky filled with star clusters rather than individual stars, those
>> clusters could be visible by day. Like some comets for instance do.
>
> Certainly not in the way you've depicted it: The average brightness of
> the [night] sky shouldn't exceed that of the galaxy's brightest place,
> the core.
>
> If the stars in the core were arranged into hyper-dense clusters (which
> they most likely aren't, since the core is such a busy place that the
> clusters would keep ripping each other apart), then you might see /some/
> isolated blotches of light at daytime, being the few clusters nearby
> enough to cover a noticeable area of the sky while still being far away
> enough to not being visible as individual stars.
>
> Also, presuming the planet's sun is part of a cluster itself, the sky
> would be riddled day and night with other stars from the "home cluster",
> some of which would be much closer than our nearest neighbors, and thus
> also much brighter, possibly even so bright as to drown out the still
> comparatively dim blotches that are the neighboring clusters.
>
>
> For giggles, you might want to try some calculations to see how dense a
> star cluster would have to be in order for it to have a per-area
> brightness comparative to that of the moon, which is probably a good
> benchmark for the minimum brightness of an object to be seen at daytime.
>

Ok. Fair enough. I am KO now ;-)

I just go for the SF view and not for realism.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message