@nwname: Take this as my last reply since you don't know physics and talking about it is futile here.
Apart from being irrelevant, as a galaxy is noting like a physical surface spread over an area and is instead a collection of celestial bodies and gas etc,
Why are you even saying this when I never mentioned anything about a galaxy's structure.(although in the bigger picture a galaxy is a system that emits energy , matter etc and under suitable conditions it can be treated as a point source or a planar structure or any other structure suitable for a problem.
you just added another object ie the black body screen so now the totality is the sphere and the cover screen. Neither the screen nor the sphere radiate more than their sum.
Again stupidity at its peak , I said the setup is a system the observer can only observe what is happening outside it not inside , so for him power generated by the system would be Q meaning he will measure the power output of the system as Q and not the sum of individual components of the system(LMFAO have you ever solved even a single thermodynamics problem). "it was for your misconception that individual bodies can't have power greater than than the entire system it is residing in"
Again a star will never output more than itself and another star combined.
Why not LMFAO I just now showed you a very simple setup if you really understood how it works you will understand why you are wrong here.
And i told you no, it isnt. Sun's output of ~4x10^26 multiplied by estimated number of stars at 1-4x10^11 gives 4x10^37-1.6x10^38. This is higher than the value mentioned, because most stars aren't as luminous as the Sun.
In your first internet article it was directly the product of number of stars to the power of the sun now I see the second one it is less than that ,ok but I don't remember why this is a part of the conversation.
Feat in question has a small and static star.
So
I also didn't say BB radiation equations fail,
LOl when you don't understand something you won't even realize when you make a mistake , I explain it for you , I said before "assuming stefan - boltzmann law is applicable star should emit this much"
you said"a star can't emit more than mass" so it can't emit 10^48+JThen I gave you many examples how this is paradoxical (observer in a moving frame) and what you said above implies stefan - Boltzmann law fails for the star at that temperature.
simply that something like trillion K doesn't last at all
No temperature lasts for a body radiating heat until it reaches a steady state. What are you even saying here.
and idea of 10^48+J being absurd.
output in wavelengths arent that close and out eyes do see the hottest stars as blue. I posted a gif of how visible wavelengths combined look based on temperatures. Just look again.
I would have easily proven how difference in intensity for blue light and red light is very minute at high temp using some math and graph but considering you won't understand nothing I will go the easy way.
However, there's another angle to this and that's that if you are to imagine actually being in the star system with the star (i.e. at planetary distance), then actually if you looked straight at any star, it would, indeed, appear white in terms of its observable surface color, no matter the temperature
And this is what I was saying for a long time but....nevermind .
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/433017/are-there-stars-that-wouldnt-look-white-to-the-naked-eye
What physics source did you ever see with a neutron star radiating more than 10^48 joules?
I don't rely on wikipedia articles also rn I am in HS so there is no reason for me to find information about a neutron star also when you never done even basic physics why are you asking me this stupid question , nowhere have I seen a 6000K neutron star as well lol.
That higher temps neutron star loses heat (in KE of neutrons) by ejecting neutrons so its power at this stage would be given by n*(average KE of neutrons) where n is number of neutrons ejected in 1 second since this is unquantifiable due to various reasons so stefan boltzmann law is the only option left to quantify this high end feat.
already said why 10^6 is not a low end at all and why its an extremely unlikely high end instead. Only the ones hot and bright enough to be observed from earth are that hot. Marojity is over 1 Gyr old thus at temperatures equal to or below the Sun.
Show me mathematical proof for this instead of repeating this again and again like a kid.
@ichinisanji: don't know how don't get any notifications.
Your math is how they end up perpetual motion machines where you make energy out of nothing.
What are you trying to say speak clearly.
The black body shell you used to enclose your source has 2 surfaces. The outer shell will not recieve Q energy, it'd get Q/2 energy while the inner shell swaps q/2 energy inside itself
What you are saying is incorrect at steady state outermost shell will receive 2Q heat of which Q gets transmitted as measured by the observer and Q (not Q/2) gets reflected inside towards the inner shell proof is simple if you want then ask.
At equilibrium the outer shell will emit Q as well.
At equilibrium outer shell emits 2Q (2 surfaces) Q outside and Q inside.
Log in to comment