Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

slomobileAdmin t1_j6drsay wrote

Reply to comment by Inverted-pencil in Shouldn't goldilocks zones shift over time? by LaRoara42

Assume that is true. A planet of equal size farther from the sun receives fewer total rays because that is how angles work. Yet solar rays are considered effectively parallel due to the extreme distance. So is it the apparent size of the sun in the sky that makes the difference? If distance doesn"t matter, we would be heated by all the stars in the sky and there would be little difference between day and night temperature. Is there a large difference between day and night? This illustrates the problem with describing things using generalities.

2

Inverted-pencil t1_j6n66hv wrote

I did not mean that distance did not matter at all. But considered that a planet whit lots of volcanic activity and thich atmosphere could do fine at a long distance or perhaps even without a sun at all.

1

slomobileAdmin t1_j6o4zhe wrote

Ok, I didn't know where you were going with "As long you have liquids" but think I get it now.

You make a good point about the radiated energy of the sun only being converted to heat once it strikes matter. Orbiting high energy reflectors could make a planet habitable closer to a sun. On distant planets, low altitude energy absorbers which reradiate IR could raise surface temps enough to boost biology which conditions the atmosphere favorably.

It wouldn't make much difference on a cosmological scale, but to an intelligent species facing extinction, it might be something they/we would attempt at the edges of goldilocks zones to eek out a few more generations.

1