What’s a factor of three between friends! If you told me 0.2+-0.1 a decade ago, I’d have been impressed. #EtaEarthhttps://twitter.com/aussiastronomer/status/1221982855309344768 …
U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
I think that's a bit optimistic. Bryson's paper says 0.1+0.08-0.05 but cautions that this is not measured directly, but from extrapolation. Most of the information in the model comes from mini-neptunes in 50-100 day orbits.
You mean the middle of the range (0.2) is optimistic, or the uncertainties are optimistic?
I mean saying we have constrained eta-earth to 0.2+/-0.1 is optimistic because (a) it's 100% larger than Brysons number and (b) Steve argues that we are extrapolating beyond the domain where we have information.
Is this a valid answer: "we don't know until we improve our ability to identify the rolling band noise which injected thousands of earth-sized planet-like dips in the data"?
I would say that we did a very good job of removing the rolling band tces from the catalog, but it is true that we probably threw out some good candidates in the process. So if we could correct the lightcurves for the rolling band noise, that could help.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.