4 ms·
It's not about measuring "size" by looking at width, but rather by looking at the total power emitted (for which you need essentially just the brightness and di
by PeterisP 5y ago
It's not about measuring "size" by looking at width, but rather by looking at the total power emitted (for which you need essentially just the brightness and distance) which gives you the size (mass) of the star. So the OP's point seems to be that a Sol-mass star with a Dyson sphere may have the spectrum like a brown dwarf, but it would have the total emission quantity many, many times larger than a brown dwarf can have.
- lrem 5y ago> for which you need essentially just the brightness and distance Parallax, which I mentioned, can be used for measuring the distance. I'm asking if there are better alternatives for getting the distance. For objects that are sufficiently far or slow moving, we can use Earth's natural movement to get some 2 AU of parallax base. Simply wait half a year before pointing the telescope at the object again. But, for things that move fast enough and are close enough to get some arc offset, we'll get wrong results. Which maybe isn't a problem, because we can detect such movement outright? I literally have no intuition how the math here works out. Hence asking.