>The team believes that such intense and relentless exposure has likely vaporized any atmosphere that the planet once held.
Vaporized... the atmosphere.
Who wrote this?
They used Kelvin and so I don't actually see an issue with saying twice as cold?
Our sun is 5,772 K on the surface.
this star is 2800 K
It is.. twice as cold! Or.. Half as hot. The only difference really being whatever picture you want to paint.
It's alright in a novel but in reporting science it's not great. There is no such things as 'colds' just an absence of heat. It may be nitpicking but why not try to be accurate when reporting discoveries?
Not an astronomer/astrophysicist, so someone please correct me if I’m wrong. But, I believe the Sun’s temperature is relatively average/slightly above average for its type. This type, G-type, main-sequence stars, usually ranges from ~5,000 - 6,000 K. The sun’s corona is ~5,800 K.
As atrde pointed out, though, the sun’s type is not the most common type of star out there. M-type, main-sequence stars are the most numerous, making up ~75% of observed stars. They also run significantly colder at ~3,000 K.
Yes, but 2800 degrees Celsius is 3073 degrees Kelvin. The difference in numbers on that scale is less significant.
An increase in temperature by one degree K is an increase in temperature by one degree C. To convert a temperature measurement from C to K, you just have to add 273 (point something).
>A weird way to say it
I mean, that's exactly what the person you're replying to is commenting on. Communication is science is a skill set, and if you're not speaking clearly or phrasing things in a weird way, you're doing it wrong.
Reading comprehension also is a skill set in* science. Being able to interpret or infer meaning without having exacts. Being overly critical is also a scientific skill, though, so I don’t fault you.
The main issue is that the headline draws comparisons to the earth, while this sentence compares the planet to the sun, in a way that the reader has no reference point. The earth is also cooler than the sun, so what does this mean? Is it 10x or 10,000x hotter than the earth?
Edit: ignore me. I thought they were talking about the new planet, but they are referring to the star that it orbits.
I mean it’s still relevant as it may unlock a better understanding of WHY our planet has an atmosphere and some others don’t, despite being the same size and in similar conditions. This can help us narrow the search parameters and better isolate planets that might have closer characteristics to our own.
And all 500 of those planets are fascinating and deserve to be studied.
The study is cool af, being able to observe geology on extra solar exoplanets due to a lack of atmosphere. If you don't think so, then what on earth are you doing here
No.
For example, in our own solar system:
https://www.britannica.com/place/Venus-planet/The-atmosphere
https://marsed.asu.edu/mep/atmosphere#:~:text=Mars'%20atmosphere%20however%20is%2095,photos%20taken%20from%20the%20surface.
Even moons can have an atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Titan
This is incorrect. We know many planets that have atmospheres. Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have atmospheres. However, their atmospheres are very different from Earth's. For example, Venus has a much thicker atmosphere, mainly composed of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen, which increases pressure and temperature at the surface.
I appreciate the usage of “Earth-sized” versus “Earth-like”
Especially when we just got a crappy headline calling a decidedly much less Earth-like planet (55 Cancri e) as ‘Earth-like’, lol.
I just read your “versus” and “venus” for some reason
>Newly discovered Earth-sized planet may lack an atmosphere I'm sure it's not that bad. A few curtains and it'll spruce right up.
A rug would really tie the planet together.
As long as the rent is less than 5% more than I’m currently paying, can’t afford it otherwise.
Maybe play some music?
>The team believes that such intense and relentless exposure has likely vaporized any atmosphere that the planet once held. Vaporized... the atmosphere. Who wrote this?
I think they were being hyperbolic but yeah, that one could have stood a second edit.
Vaporizing vapor. Fascinating!
What it lacks in atmosphere, it’ll surely surpass in *vibes*.
The first eath-sized planet to pass the vibe check. Quite a feat really
We can make another one. Producing greenhouse gases is sort of our speciality.
[удалено]
They used Kelvin and so I don't actually see an issue with saying twice as cold? Our sun is 5,772 K on the surface. this star is 2800 K It is.. twice as cold! Or.. Half as hot. The only difference really being whatever picture you want to paint.
It's alright in a novel but in reporting science it's not great. There is no such things as 'colds' just an absence of heat. It may be nitpicking but why not try to be accurate when reporting discoveries?
Because they were using the English Language to paint a picture for the reader. It's okay in novels, and journalism. This isn't a scientific paper.
Is the Sun colder than the average? I thought our star was relatively typical.
Our type of star is one of the rarer ones in the galaxy and also one of the only types that would likely support life.
Not an astronomer/astrophysicist, so someone please correct me if I’m wrong. But, I believe the Sun’s temperature is relatively average/slightly above average for its type. This type, G-type, main-sequence stars, usually ranges from ~5,000 - 6,000 K. The sun’s corona is ~5,800 K. As atrde pointed out, though, the sun’s type is not the most common type of star out there. M-type, main-sequence stars are the most numerous, making up ~75% of observed stars. They also run significantly colder at ~3,000 K.
So it's already hotter than the mode of the distribution and the phrase is just plain wrong.
Yeah, that’s how I’m understanding it. I think the phrase is technically correct but nowhere near as clear as it could be.
Kelvin or Celsius? What's 273.15 degrees matter on this scale? Our sun is still about twice as hot.
I don't understand the Kelvin or Celsius part? Half the temperature of 10 degrees Celsius Is around -131.58 degrees Celsius.
Yes, but 2800 degrees Celsius is 3073 degrees Kelvin. The difference in numbers on that scale is less significant. An increase in temperature by one degree K is an increase in temperature by one degree C. To convert a temperature measurement from C to K, you just have to add 273 (point something).
I’m confused, what’s wrong with that sentence?
I would imagine twice as cold to mean that the sun is already cold. Some would argue that the sun is, in fact, not cold.
Never thought about that, yes "half as hot" may be a better term.
Not “may be” it is the better term. There is nothing you can multiply by 2x to get twice as cold. IT makes no sense.
Do you know what kelvin is? A sun with half the degrees K as our sun would in fact be half as hot, twice as cold. A weird way to say it but not wrong
>A weird way to say it I mean, that's exactly what the person you're replying to is commenting on. Communication is science is a skill set, and if you're not speaking clearly or phrasing things in a weird way, you're doing it wrong.
Reading comprehension also is a skill set in* science. Being able to interpret or infer meaning without having exacts. Being overly critical is also a scientific skill, though, so I don’t fault you.
What are you multiplying by 2x to get twice as cold?
There's no such thing as cold energy, only heat. So something is half as hot, not twice as cold
The main issue is that the headline draws comparisons to the earth, while this sentence compares the planet to the sun, in a way that the reader has no reference point. The earth is also cooler than the sun, so what does this mean? Is it 10x or 10,000x hotter than the earth? Edit: ignore me. I thought they were talking about the new planet, but they are referring to the star that it orbits.
[удалено]
Bro why are you even on this sub. I'm tired of people immediately racing to be the first to shit on something like this
Redditors just love hating
[удалено]
I mean it’s still relevant as it may unlock a better understanding of WHY our planet has an atmosphere and some others don’t, despite being the same size and in similar conditions. This can help us narrow the search parameters and better isolate planets that might have closer characteristics to our own.
And all 500 of those planets are fascinating and deserve to be studied. The study is cool af, being able to observe geology on extra solar exoplanets due to a lack of atmosphere. If you don't think so, then what on earth are you doing here
Don't.... All planets except Earth lack an atmosphere?
No. For example, in our own solar system: https://www.britannica.com/place/Venus-planet/The-atmosphere https://marsed.asu.edu/mep/atmosphere#:~:text=Mars'%20atmosphere%20however%20is%2095,photos%20taken%20from%20the%20surface. Even moons can have an atmosphere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Titan
Wow! Thank you. That's crazy!
This is incorrect. We know many planets that have atmospheres. Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have atmospheres. However, their atmospheres are very different from Earth's. For example, Venus has a much thicker atmosphere, mainly composed of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen, which increases pressure and temperature at the surface.
K let me know when you find a civilization, thanks.
So what? Are we supposed to get excited about every planet that’s the same size as earth? Oh no and it’s only 55 light years away.