Yes; I was under the impression that from context it was clear what I was talking about. In astrophysics, to avoid precisely this confusion, the convention is to use the adjective 'massive' when comparing, well, masses, and 'largest'/'smallest' for the dimension of length and its higher powers (radius/diameter/area/volume). For instance:
reply> the Sun is 3.33e5 as massive as Earth.
But... he literally said in the following sentence that adding more mass does not change size, implying that he is talking about diameter, not mass.
replyCorrect, but the link for "super jupiter" also goes to something that astronomers are fairly sure is 1.38x the diameter of Jupiter. Much less massive of course. Meaning Jupiter's diameter is not an absolute hard limit nothing can be larger than.
replyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAT-P-1b
It also orbits its star in only under 5 days, so a few theoretical visualization/renderings of it would probably be quite spectacular.
Nobody said it was, he said it was "pretty much". Y'all can't read anymore.
replyWho uses the word size to mean mass? The typical colloquial analogue to mass is "weight" - which nobody would ever conflate with "size".
reply