Talk:Conplanet/Space/Stars

What on (con)Earth?!
"Systems that have more than one sun have very great fluctuations in temperature. Little to no life can survive."

Systems structured a la the Nemesis "hypothesis" or binary systems where the two stars have sufficiently low semimajor axes are not only theoretically possible but are actually observed. For the former case the binary can be placed sufficiently far away or made very small. For the latter, the proximity and consequent low period would make any temperature fluctuations negligible. Depending on your definition of "small", even the Alpha Centauri system is an example of this.

The second point makes absolutely no sense. Having two stars slightly less massive than the sun (say about 0.8 solar masses) would emit as much radiation as our own sun and thus the temperature would be the same.

The third point, aside from relying on the other points and thus also being wrong, also implies it such a mass difference is rare. A binary system with a small M-type and large A-type, a very plausible system, would have such a large mass difference. Additionally, Red Giants are no more massive than their main-sequence counterparts, and white dwarfs can also be quite massive (even moreso than the sun), which makes the choice of stars in the example extremely odd.

The fourth point leads me to question whether the author of this list has any clue what they're talking about. The N-body problem has nothing at all to do with the realism of anything climactic, astronomical, etc. The N-body problem is the problem of computing orbits of 3+ body systems, something mentioned in the very first sentence of the article. I would like to point out that this applies to any con-verse where there are more than two objects.

And then quite possibly the most ridiculous claim I have ever seen:

"Note that there are very few planets found orbiting star systems."

By definition, every planet orbits a star system. Here're a few examples off the top of my head: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars...

And if it is referring to multiple star systems, it is still wrong. There are thousands of known exoplanets orbiting multiple-star systems. In fact, it may even be that every multiple star system has a planet (of course, this can never be proven, but the idea still applies).

That is not even touching on the numerous problems with the vocabulary of the page. If this page is going to be concerned with the scientific realism of conworlds, I would think it to be reasonable for the page to be scientifically accurate.

In sum, a shocking number of statements, I would easily estimate a vast majority, are misleading and/or wrong. I would edit this myself, but I don't want to be accused of blanking the page, which is the only way I can conceive of fixing the above issues. - Mocha2007 (discuss • contribs) 03:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)