non-sequitur. Temperature is a complicated mess. To make matters worse you choose an extremal temperature for Mars to compare to a non-extremal temperature of the Earth (clearly madness). Furthermore if you wanted to use a temperature proportion argument, you would need to use an absolute temperature scale (like Kelvin); in other words 100F is not twice as hot as 50F (madness again). Finally temperature comes from things other than just direct sunlight, which is what you were interested in.

another non-sequitur. First off the area of a circle is pi*r^2 not πr2. Second, the sun is not a circle/disk. Thirdly, at no point in any of my calculations did I consider the size of the sun (because it matters not). The fact that you continue to believe I used the size of the sun in the calculation (even after I pointed out that I didn't) means, well; I want to be civil so I won't say anymore.

Photons don't stop at any distance. What makes distance object appear dimmer is the further you are away, less and less of the photons emitted actually strike the surface area of your detector.

Think of it like shooting a gun. The further away something is, the harder it is to hit. Say you want to shoot something 10 feet away but your gun sight is slightly bent. No problem, a tiny deviation matters not at 10 feet. But at 1000 feet that tiny deviation will make you miss the target by a very large distance. Of course the sun does not aim at us, it just fires out photons randomly. Only a small % are fired in our direction. If we were much further away, the percent that were fired in the right direction will be considerably less (the exact reduction can be determined by the mathematics I posted earlier). The reason supernova stand out is they emit a ludicrous number of photons.

At that distance there are other much more complicated effects that can't be ignored (such as the expansion rate of the universe itself). But you are right it is just the luck of the draw. Stars emit light in all directions and only a small percentage of that light is 'aimed' at us. The further away the star is, the smaller that percentage is.

oh man, expansion rates and light, i remember spending a week trying to decipher a krauss lecture on universal expansion vs light speed, still don't get how a star can go beyond our visible scope faster than light (via expansion + travel) yet the light is somehow capable of making it back to our telescopes...if i even understand what i dont understand about that lecture.

Once an object begins to recede faster than the speed of light, you will no longer be able to receive 'new' information/light from that object. For example: let's say it collides with another object, you will never see that collision.

Paradoxically (as you pointed out) you can continue to receive 'old' information/light that was emitted before it reached this recession velocity. You will receive less and less of it as time goes by until your instruments fail. Any instrument has a minimum threshold of what it can detect and eventually you will reach this limit at which point the object will seem to disappear; but if you then make a better instrument you'll be able to detect again (for a while until that one fails as well).

see, even when I say the exact same things you, you argue over its correctness. You sound like a libertarian, are you?

pi*r^2 = πr2. nobody says the "multiply symbol" or the "raise to the power of 2", it's just pi r squared. What backwards country are you from?

wow - your just a multi aren't you - that's why you go away for awhile, I pretty much know who you are now - you really gave yourself away with the way you argue.

Tell me who your rooting for in the US President election?

This post was edited by card_sultan on Mar 10 2016 07:05pm

you were talking about the area of a circle, I was using the surface area of a sphere, those are NOT the same things.

That is false.

Save the politics for the politics section.

whether you use the area of a circle or the area of a sphere they both use the root of the same equation - pi r squared as represented by πr2 or you can also write it out as well like you have by saying pi*r^2

a X b = ab



nope, same thing.



Paultard Multi confirmed, no wonder you got so upset when I called Trump a Libertarian, does that make you mad?

This post was edited by card_sultan on Mar 10 2016 09:47pm

Sphere's don't have area, 4th grade math fail

Another 4th grade math fail.

Algebra fail. πr2 is pi * r * 2

Ask anyone in the PARD section if I'm a 'Paultard'. I have a very long history in PARD of attacking/lampooning libertarian ideals; so your accusation is, well... odd.

I have no memory of you calling him that; or of me taking issue with it (don't sound like something I'd take a stance on either way).

oh I found the post you were talking about I think:

http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=74067728&f=119&p=500748100

yeah that isn't me taking issue with believing you about Trump, that is me taking issue with believing you about anything since you are a 9/11 inside jobber.

pi*r^2 =/= pi*r*2

Quit being a dick and bringing up irrelevant shit like politics because someone is trying to teach you something.



Spheres have a surface area.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Mar 11 2016 12:55am