Timeline for How deep underwater can red photosynthesis work?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 14, 2023 at 16:41 | comment | added | ErikHall | @AtlastheWorldbuilder Water is water. Water on a different planet wont behave super differently from Earths oceans. Light is also light. If a star emits more red light, that does not change the penetration depth. | |
| Aug 14, 2023 at 16:32 | comment | added | Atlas the Worldbuilder | I just wanna add in here, I have seen these graphs before, but I take one minor issue with it that y’all might’ve forgotten: these are graphs based off of light levels from Earth’s sun. My major question, which I should prolly edit to clarify, is how deep it would penetrate based around the star I specified in the beginning of the question. Our Yellow Dwarf sun and my Orange Dwarf sun are going to have different spectra, so that might skew any numbers from here. Is it possible y’all can extrapolate how an Orange Dwarf sun would change these numbers? | |
| Aug 14, 2023 at 0:49 | history | edited | JBH | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Put in links required by the Hard-Science tag. Found problems Erik needs to deal with.
|
| Aug 14, 2023 at 0:25 | comment | added | ErikHall | @JBH , there added the link. You are still wrong, deal with it. | |
| Aug 14, 2023 at 0:24 | history | edited | ErikHall | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 218 characters in body
|
| Aug 13, 2023 at 12:58 | comment | added | ErikHall | @JBH there you go. jb6330 found the source. You are wrong. There is a huge difference between Red and Green light. | |
| Aug 13, 2023 at 3:59 | comment | added | jb6330 | For sourcing the charts, the first chart is from Wikipedia and combines data from two other papers. The second chart appears to be from NOAA. | |
| Aug 13, 2023 at 1:59 | comment | added | JBH | BTW, I'm really hoping you get all the ducks in a row to "prove me wrong." I think this will ultimately end up being a very useful bit of competition for a lot of people, because if you can prove that you're right, then the process of reconciling my claim will move on to, "how significant is 180 meters of ocean when it's an average of 3,688 meters deep?" with an analysis of the quantity of life charted by depth. You're talking about a whopping 5% variation between the two colors. Statistical irrelevancy (if I remember my statistics class well) is 3%. Can we be sure 180 meters is significant? | |
| Aug 13, 2023 at 1:53 | comment | added | JBH | hard-science Erik. I'm not promoting my answer. I'm explaining why yours fails the hard-science tag. In essence, for the benefit of the OP... prove it. Without links to credible sources, they're just pretty pictures that you could have made in Photoshop. That tag is pretty ruthless and, frankly, shouldn't be used by any OP who hasn't thoroughly thought through the tag's wiki. Think of it this way: I have cited sources that back up my claims. Until you do likewise, you're wrong regardless your opinion. (I'm trying to get you to back up your claims via the tag.) | |
| Aug 13, 2023 at 1:49 | comment | added | ErikHall | The fact the chart is on a log scale does not make your conclusion less wrong. Green like, even on the wiki graph, is 10 times less absorbed than Red light. Which lines up nice with the image of the depth charte in the last image. Where Red light terminates at ~20 meters, while Green light does at 200 | |
| Aug 13, 2023 at 1:45 | comment | added | JBH | “I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it.” - Voltaire The absorption spectra chart you found via Wikipedia is logarithmic. You're treating it as if it were not. I couldn't reconcile it with data from more credible sources. I couldn't find the image both you and the OP use in a credible paper (I looked), and I would like to know where you found your third graph. Links to all those sources are required for a hard-science answer. But cheers. | |
| Aug 12, 2023 at 23:54 | history | answered | ErikHall | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
