Questions For The Scientifically Minded - Topic

Azrad

Member

Posts: 10,812

Joined: Oct 15 2009

Gold: Locked

Warn: 20%

#51

Mar 11 2016 08:29pm

Quote (http://www.space.com/16907-what-is-the-temperature-of-mars.html)

On average, the temperature on Mars is about minus 80 degrees F (minus 60 degrees C). A summer day on Mars may get up to 70 degrees F (20 degrees C) near the equator

Quote (http://quest.nasa.gov/aero/planetary/mars.html)

The temperature on Mars may reach a high of about 70 degrees Fahrenheit

You have taken a high (an extremal measurement) and are using it in a direct proportion to an average, in a scale that does not have 0 at one end. It is madness.

Azrad

Member

Posts: 10,812

Joined: Oct 15 2009

Gold: Locked

Warn: 20%

#52

Mar 11 2016 08:34pm

Quote (card_sultan @ Mar 11 2016 07:22pm)

1 degree difference = 2x the solar power? - nice assumption - did i ever say that -

Yes you did:

Quote (card_sultan @ Mar 10 2016 01:50am)

with avg summer temperatures around the equator at Noon on Mars at 70-80 degrees F while here it is like 100?.

So it must receive ~75% of the light too as well.

2/1 = 2 = 200%

75/100 = .75 = 75%

That is exactly what you did. You took the temperature of one area in Fahrenheit (75F, see my other post why even this was a bad idea) then divided it by the temperature in Fahrenheit of another area (100F).

Azrad

Member

Posts: 10,812

Joined: Oct 15 2009

Gold: Locked

Warn: 20%

#53

Mar 11 2016 08:41pm

I'll make it even more clear. Lets say we were comparing an area A that was -50F and an area B that was + 10 F.

By your logic:
-50/10 = -5 = -500%

So by your logic again:
Area A receives MINUS 500 percent as much light as area B. WTF is minus percentage? If the area received no sun light at all, it would receive 0%. HOW CAN IT RECEIVE LESS THAN 0 %?!?!?!

Your idea is madness.

card_sultan

Member

Posts: 63,097

Joined: Jan 11 2005

Gold: 9,765.00

Warn: 60%

#54

Mar 11 2016 08:56pm

Quote (Azrad @ Mar 11 2016 08:44pm)

The Hubble 'constant' is about 68 km*Mpc/s meaning a galaxy 1 Mpc away is receding at 68 km/s. So

Mpc = 3*10^19 km
RV = recession velocity (km/s)
D = distance to galaxy (km)
gives us:
RV = 68*D/(3*10^19) km/s

So lets say we want a recession velocity of 100% light speed: RV = 300,000 km/s = 3*10^5 km/s

3*10^5*3*10^19/(6.8*10^1) = D

D ≈ 1.3 * 10^23 km

a light year is about 10^13 km so thats a distance of about 1.3 * 10^10 light years or about 13 billion light years. Anything further away than that will be receding at faster than light speed.

so I am looking at this proof and the question was "have we conclusively proved the universe can expand faster than light?" Just putting in the speed of light into the formula to guesstimate the age of the universe, does not prove that expansion can happen at that speed or that our universe is expanding into already expanded space which is expanding faster than the speed of light. If you're suggesting that expansion could travel at more than the speed of light, I disagree as I just haven't heard of any proof that could verify this.

card_sultan

Member

Posts: 63,097

Joined: Jan 11 2005

Gold: 9,765.00

Warn: 60%

#55

Mar 11 2016 09:05pm

Quote (Azrad @ Mar 11 2016 09:34pm)

Yes you did:

2/1 = 2 = 200%

75/100 = .75 = 75%

That is exactly what you did. You took the temperature of one area in Fahrenheit (75F, see my other post why even this was a bad idea) then divided it by the temperature in Fahrenheit of another area (100F).

I think you have a problem with ideas in your head and confusing them with words i actually say

the entire 2/1 = 200% is totally your crazy idea. Can you see how in a few seconds you conflated this crazy idea into something I said.

Wow, there is a rather serious issue and you really need help and I don't think I can help you, but I wish you well, really dude.

dude_927

Member

Posts: 30,432

Joined: Dec 28 2010

Gold: 134.69

#56

Mar 11 2016 09:08pm

i don't even care anymore, mods can close anytime

Voyaging

Member

Posts: 63,058

Joined: Jul 15 2005

Gold: 152.00

#57

Mar 11 2016 09:39pm

Quote (card_sultan @ Mar 11 2016 08:53pm)

Heres an idea - why don't you go and correct the 274,000 times it has been used on the internet and tell them that they are all wrong, because of your assumptions.

pls giv examples ty men

you may mean pi r squared but you are saying pi times r times 2 kek

This post was edited by Voyaging on Mar 11 2016 09:41pm

Azrad

Member

Posts: 10,812

Joined: Oct 15 2009

Gold: Locked

Warn: 20%

#58

Mar 11 2016 09:58pm

Quote (card_sultan @ Mar 11 2016 08:05pm)

the entire 2/1 = 200% is totally your crazy idea. Can you see how in a few seconds you conflated this crazy idea into something I said.

It isn't what you said, it is what you did:

Quote (card_sultan @ Mar 10 2016 01:50am)

with avg summer temperatures around the equator at Noon on Mars at 70-80 degrees F while here it is like 100?.

So it must receive ~75% of the light too as well.

Thor123422

Member

Posts: 64,763

Joined: Oct 25 2006

Gold: 0.00

#59

Mar 11 2016 10:32pm

Quote (dude_927 @ Mar 11 2016 03:18pm)

hate to detract from the interesting (on topic stuff) discussion to say this, but this is not a political thread, nor is it in the political section, in fact its called "questions for the scientifically minded", can we please take the politics to PARD and discuss light? I love reading the discussion you guys are having about the usefulness of shapes to the calculation of lumens, but you're going to get this thread closed with your pointless e-rage. Thanks.

back on topic: What is stopping the odd handful of photons from travelling the distance from a regular star when they happen to not be deflect or absorbed? How does expansion play a role (aside from simply increasing distance). Why isn't "flickering" in and out of visible existence more common in far off stars?

The reason is that humans have a minimum threshold of a stimulus in order to perceive any stimulus at all. If you look at the night sky out in the country you will actually see stars flickering a bit in intensity. In order for something to be flickering in and out of sight it would require being just on the cusp of our absolute threshold, and that's very unlikely, and we're even more unlikely to notice something that dim.

card_sultan

Member

Posts: 63,097

Joined: Jan 11 2005

Gold: 9,765.00

Warn: 60%

#60

Mar 12 2016 02:37pm

Quote (Voyaging @ Mar 11 2016 10:39pm)

pls giv examples ty men

you may mean pi r squared but you are saying pi times r times 2 kek

no, you're just saying it as pi r x 2, go tell the 270k+ that it has been used on the internet to mean pi r squared that they are all wrong because you can't read, kek. Pi x r x 2 = pi d, which is just circumference, if your taking about area and say πr2 - it's pi x r squared.

Quote (Azrad @ Mar 11 2016 10:58pm)

It isn't what you said, it is what you did:

the closer you get to a heat source, the less volume it heats and the warmer it gets, the sun just doesn't give off light, if it didn't give off heat too you'd be a frozen POS too.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Mar 12 2016 02:48pm

Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List