Submitted by GullyShotta t3_ycxpjb in space
FistfulOfShit t1_itpmwyq wrote
Reply to comment by tinyurl- in Scientists discover a marshmallow-like fluffy planet in deep space | Mashable by GullyShotta
Well actually it does, marshmallows are aerated and porous so they are much less dense than if they were a compact mass of sugar
Bris2500 t1_itpnozk wrote
Leave it to scientists to ruin marshmallows for me
BackRiverAch t1_itrk509 wrote
If it makes you feel better there's a 90s Mary Kate & Ashley movie where marshmallows grow in mines in volcanoes.
rckrusekontrol t1_itsawot wrote
That’s some deep MK&A lore you got going there
Pixels222 t1_itqfa60 wrote
Well it's mostly air so you can eat as much as you want compared to pure sugar
[deleted] t1_ittblci wrote
[removed]
ainz-sama619 t1_itpoch9 wrote
tldr, scientists have no idea what a marshmallow is
Stealfur t1_itpukyb wrote
These are probably the same scientist that say "we found earth like plants!"
Mean while the plant they found has 3 times earth's gravity, has a liquid nitrogen ocean, 200 hour days, and rains glass every 3 hours. But hey, it's in a spot that could theoretically have water. EARTH-LIKE!
tinyurl- t1_itpvd7i wrote
High gravity plant? I wanna smoke that
Phlashfoto t1_itqqyhr wrote
Imagine how dense that nug would be... 🤤
[deleted] t1_itta6rf wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itrc9sa wrote
[removed]
patrickSwayzeNU t1_itq5rns wrote
You’re missing context.
Earth like as in, we can live there, no.
Can carbon based life exist there is a completely different question.
Stealfur t1_itq6p77 wrote
No I'm not missing context. That is exactly my point. Scientists are calling a planet marshmallow-like despite being not really what a layman's would define as a marshmallow. Just like how define planets as Earth-like despite the fact that a layman's would not call such an inhospitable place "earth-like."
Their definitions do not match up with are pre-conceved expectations because their metric for classification is different from ours.
rckrusekontrol t1_itsb629 wrote
Okay, but could we describe the Earth as “cake-like” cause then I’m good with relating celestial bodies to desserts
DontWorryImADr t1_itscqg9 wrote
Frankly, this is more often the issue of the publishing than the academic source.
What sounds more likely? That an astronomer is so cloistered as to forget what a marshmallow is like? Or that they brought up a new discovery (lowest density, similar to marshmallow vs slightly less than water like Saturn) and the journalist jazzed it up to catch attention?
userwhatsit t1_itsez4k wrote
Here’s the original publication. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/ac7c20 I think it may be more of an issue with science communicators. Their job is to make things more understandable/relatable and then others runaway with a line about this planet’s density to put “Marshmallow planet” in the headline
[deleted] t1_itq7451 wrote
[deleted]
Your_Agenda_Sucks t1_itt9yw3 wrote
The whole "science" thing just kinda whiffed past you, huh?
Snule t1_itpvhom wrote
Razor hail! Not so good for your life expectancy!
[deleted] t1_itqjs1b wrote
[deleted]
phunkydroid t1_itq1b1x wrote
Well actually it doesn't, marshmallows aren't gaseous.
FistfulOfShit t1_itq34gn wrote
They kinda are when you take into account they are made by 40%... Air? Which is a gas? Which makes the marshmallow low density. Gases and solids can be the same substance at the same temperature, you just have to alter the pressure.
phunkydroid t1_itq9zmn wrote
The air trapped in bubbles inside a solid does not make it not a solid.
mrmitchs t1_itqc1hx wrote
It depends on how they react with your digestive system.
[deleted] t1_itpz8uh wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itr239c wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments