Search found 3 matches

by KKJdrunkenmonkey
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: 8573

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...
by KKJdrunkenmonkey
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: 8573

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...
by KKJdrunkenmonkey
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: 8573

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...