Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SolomonBlack t1_j9vb94g wrote

Reply to comment by Brickleberried in Massive 'forbidden planet' orbits a strangely tiny star only 4 times its size. by Rifletree

Well the objection isn’t any size relation but that under current models a Jupiter-type planet that close to this type of star “should” have boiled away before properly forming.

Ergo begs the question is this some Goldilocks scenario that is astronomically rare… or are we going to start finding these by the dozens and need to update our models.

Headline still very clickbait but the actual naming tracks with science’s bad habit of bad names getting out into the public sphere minus context.

97

Brickleberried t1_j9vc09x wrote

My first sentence is just my general complaint about space journalism that the word "size" is not clear because it could mean several things that are very different.

The paper itself admits that this could be the extreme end of our current models given known uncertainties and variabilities and therefore not "forbidden", but yeah, if they find a bunch of them, then we'll have to start tweaking models more.

In other words, good paper, bad headline and slightly hyperbolic article, as is typical for science journalism.

33

CromulentDucky t1_j9wv50w wrote

There was a meteorite this week that was 'the size of a Corgi and three times the weight of an elephant.' I still don't know what that means.

https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/117zuci/corgisized_meteor_as_heavy_as_4_baby_elephants/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

6

Mialayy t1_j9xzfo1 wrote

4 BABY elephants bro. Please if you cite someone do it properly. God damn it’s baby elephants aren’t they cute tho?

5