Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Zymoox t1_itpkrw4 wrote

Reply to comment by mrmitchs in Scientists discover a marshmallow-like fluffy planet in deep space | Mashable by GullyShotta

Fluffly in this context does not refer to texture, but to the low density of its hot atmosphere.

156

tinyurl- t1_itplxad wrote

That doesn't sound like a marshmallow at all

124

FistfulOfShit t1_itpmwyq wrote

Well actually it does, marshmallows are aerated and porous so they are much less dense than if they were a compact mass of sugar

68

Bris2500 t1_itpnozk wrote

Leave it to scientists to ruin marshmallows for me

75

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.

20

Pixels222 t1_itqfa60 wrote

Well it's mostly air so you can eat as much as you want compared to pure sugar

6

ainz-sama619 t1_itpoch9 wrote

tldr, scientists have no idea what a marshmallow is

32

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!

24

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.

3

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.

7

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

2

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?

2

Snule t1_itpvhom wrote

Razor hail! Not so good for your life expectancy!

2

phunkydroid t1_itq1b1x wrote

Well actually it doesn't, marshmallows aren't gaseous.

2

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.

3

mrmitchs t1_itqc1hx wrote

It depends on how they react with your digestive system.

3

grafxguy1 t1_itsq0wq wrote

My money is on the theory that the planet is made of marshmellium.

2