Search found 3 matches
- Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:57 pm
- Forum: The Bridge: Discuss an Astronomy Picture of the Day
- Topic: APOD: Goldilocks Zones and Stars (2020 Jan 31)
- Replies: 24
- Views: 9728
Re: Disappointed in NASA's math
According to Wikipedia ... The numbers on Wikipedia have a tag on them indicating that they know they aren't accurate. Hovering over the superscript e at the end of any of the sentences claiming a percentage reveals this: "These proportions are fractions of stars brighter than absolute magnitu...
- Sun Feb 02, 2020 6:55 pm
- Forum: The Bridge: Discuss an Astronomy Picture of the Day
- Topic: APOD: Goldilocks Zones and Stars (2020 Jan 31)
- Replies: 24
- Views: 9728
Re: Disappointed in NASA's math
The problem here may not be the graphic at all, but a disconnect between the caption and the graphic. The numbers in the caption did not come from the release text accompanying the graphic. Indeed, the only number offered in the release is that K stars are three times more abundant than G stars- wh...
- Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:05 am
- Forum: The Bridge: Discuss an Astronomy Picture of the Day
- Topic: APOD: Goldilocks Zones and Stars (2020 Jan 31)
- Replies: 24
- Views: 9728
Disappointed in NASA's math
Wow guys, inflate numbers to make your point much? If M stars are 73%, K are 13%, and G are 6%, then assuming that we're talking about ratios of common they are the graphic should only have 1 G (to set the standard), 2 K (not 3, since Ks are about twice as common as Gs), and 12 M (not 10). Even if y...