Debunked: Telescope Distances of Billions of Light Years are impossible

Mick West said:

The effective exposure time of the human eye is under 0.1 seconds (try opening and closing your eyes within 0.1 seconds, you can still see stars). The longest Hubble UDF exposure was effectively ~350,000 seconds. So the exposure multiplication is (conservatively) 3.5 million.

So if we accept the OPs figure of 127,551, that means the Hubble gets 450 billion times as much light as the human eye during the combined exposure.

Click to expand...

Aha, here it is. 0.1 seconds.

While I'm at it, what was the point of the original post? Astronomers are simply wrong in their distance estimates or they're intentionally misleading the public about what they see?

Me2 said:

Aha, here it is. 0.1 seconds.

Click to expand...

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-11/1006763147.Ns.r.html
Not sure where the 0.1 second figure came from, but this source gives it quite a bit faster. Our eyes don't really work that way, it's very kludgy applying camera terminology to biological eyes so depending on how and what you measure you can get pretty wide variations.

Me2 said:

While I'm at it, what was the point of the original post? Astronomers are simply wrong in their distance estimates or they're intentionally misleading the public about what they see?

Click to expand...

Sounds like the implication is that it's intentional, but it was a rare post of that "flavor" that stuck to the "claims of evidence" rule and didn't go off into the weeds too much.

The 0.1 seconds was just me ballparking an upper end to the effective exposure time. I said it is under 0.1 seconds. I verified it by opening and closing my eyes for about 0.1 seconds and observing that I could still see stars.

As Hevach noted, our eyes don't really work that way (you can't see much more in the dark with a "long exposure" of looking at the same thing). However it's was just part of a comparison of the amount of light entering your eye to form an image vs. the amount of light entering the Hubble.

Hevach said:

it's very kludgy applying camera terminology to biological eyes

Click to expand...

Klooj, Kloog, Kludge (Klugdgy)... You're showing your age Hevach, dont know many ppl that still use that term anymore outside of old school engineer/network types and uber nerds (like me).. apt description though. Its really difficult to explain the workings of the human eye in comparison to anything humans have created.