Strange New World Discovered: The "Mega Earth" 147
astroengine (1577233) writes "Meet 'mega-Earth' a souped-up, all-solid planet that, according to theory, should not exist. First spotted by NASA's Kepler space telescope, the planet is about 2.3 times larger than Earth. Computer models show planets that big would be more like Neptune or the other gas planets of the outer solar system since they would have the gravitational heft to collect vast amounts of hydrogen and helium from their primordial cradles. But follow-up observations of the planet, designated as Kepler-10c, show it has 17 times as much mass as Earth, meaning it must be filled with rock and other materials much heavier than hydrogen and helium. 'Kepler-10c is a big problem for the theory,' astronomer Dimitar Sasselov, director of the Harvard Origins of Life Initiative, told Discovery News. 'It's nice that we have a solid piece of evidence and measurements for it because that gives motivations to the theorists to improve the theory,' he said."
PHOTOS: Top Exoplanets for Alien Life (Score:1)
See the top locations for making your next interstellar vacation. Now 20% off!
Science Writers: Stop Causing Us Intellectual Pain (Score:1, Insightful)
Until we read further, we are left to guess whether that means 2.3 times the diameter, 2.3 times the volume, or what. A few sentences later they clarify a bit, but it's still sloppy writing.
Second, "times larger" is ambiguous in English. If Earth has diameter 1, then a diameter 2.3 times as large would be 2.3. Technically, a diameter 2.3 times larger would be 3.3 (1 + 2.3).
Call that nitpicking if you want, but it's still sloppy wr
Re:Science Writers: Stop Causing Us Intellectual P (Score:4)
The second one is not at all ambiguous. "2.3 times larger" means "multiply how large the first thing is by 2.3" to absolutely anyone. It's kinda ambiguous when you're talking percent, but not a literal multiplier.
The first one is totally ambiguous, though.
Re:Science Writers: Stop Causing Us Intellectual P (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that would 2.3 times the size. 2.3 times *larger* strongly implies the correct answer (for x=1) is 3.3, not 2.3.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Same here in Finland, it's an endless battle. One common argument for the "illogical" way is to separate the "larger" and "2.3 times" -- it's larger than the original, and it's 2.3 times the original. Of course, if you want to say "2.3 times the original" then you don't need the extra "larger" qualifier.
My usual argument for the logical way is to ask "what about 50% more". It's obviously not half of the original. The illogicians are quick to point out that the meaning changes when you go below 100%.
For
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, if you want to say "2.3 times the original" then you don't need the extra "larger" qualifier.
That doesn't work when people say things like "2.3 times smaller". So "2.3 times the size of" is ambiguous if it could be larger or smaller.
I'm not arguing it's correct. I'm arguing that I hear it, thus it's in use.
In fact, the case of "double" is interesting in that there is no ambiguity, it's always interpreted as "two times the original". However, Finnish doesn't have a direct native equivalent of "double", so we even get the confusion of someone saying "two times larger" when meaning "two times as large". Fortunately, we do have a loan of "double" ("tupla, tuplasti"), but it hasn't quite replaced the "two times" expressions.
How odd. In English, we have double, triple, treble, quadruple, quintiple, and so on. I'm not sure how far up it goes, but I can't recall hearing much past triple.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, the case of "double" is interesting in that there is no ambiguity, it's always interpreted as "two times the original". However, Finnish doesn't have a direct native equivalent of "double", so we even get the confusion of someone saying "two times larger" when meaning "two times as large". Fortunately, we do have a loan of "double" ("tupla, tuplasti"), but it hasn't quite replaced the "two times" expressions.
How odd. In English, we have double, triple, treble, quadruple, quintiple, and so on. I'm not sure how far up it goes, but I can't recall hearing much past triple.
Of course we have a construct for this, for example two is "kaksi", time (of repetition) is "kerta", so double is "kaksinkertainen". But it's a bit awkward, as it is basically just saying "two times" instead of a shorter idiom.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course we have a construct for this, for example two is "kaksi", time (of repetition) is "kerta", so double is "kaksinkertainen". But it's a bit awkward, as it is basically just saying "two times" instead of a shorter idiom.
English borrows from other languages. "Double" is the only special, then it's tri-ple, quadru-ple, quinti-ple. It's basically greek/latin roots of numbers, with "ple" on the end, even duo-ple almost works for double. We just steal smaller words to combine.
Re:Science Writers: Stop Causing Us Intellectual P (Score:4, Funny)
It's really a bad stroke of luck for humanity that English is the de facto international language. The English language is pretty messed up in more ways than one. For example, in the English language it's often impossible to know how to properly spell a word without learning it through use and experience. Unlike for example the German language, where you can practically always tell how to spell a word by how it is written.
In defense of English, I have one word: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
man, she's a real beauty, English is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
man, she's a real beauty, English is
Not the same thing at all. All other words in the sentence remain the same regardless of whether English is a she or he.
Re: (Score:2)
In defense of English, I have one word: (Score:2)
Nope. Gender doesn't really change much. (e.g. Georgian not only lacks gender, but even words like he/she/it are the same, yet it's much more complex than English)
Lack of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org] , no need to morph words depending on this and that, makes English somewhat simple..
And actually it's got where it's got historically and not because it's easier or harder to use, thanks to British Empire.
Russian is widely used in former Russian Empire, even though it's much more complex to learn. (7 cases
Re: (Score:2)
Gender. As in the blessed lack thereof.
This. It just seems fscking stupid to me to assign genders to inanimate objects and then mandate confusing, different verb forms based on that (conjugations? I'm not a language major). A barn is a barn is a barn, a house is a house, a bicycle is a bicycle. They have no genders.
Granted, English is a pretty fucked up language in other ways (there are more exceptions to the "rules" than there are rules; good luck figuring how to spell or pronounce anything if you don't know) but at least it it's not gen
Re:Science Writers: Stop Causing Us Intellectual P (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Science Writers: Stop Causing Us Intellectual P (Score:4, Interesting)
Humorist P.J. O'Rourke once wrote that English doesn't just take words from other languages; English chases other languages into dark alleys and mugs them for their words.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll have to break out my copy of the book, but I'm pretty sure O'Rourke said it first.
Re: (Score:3)
It's more then that, read some older texts, perhaps early 18th century, and you will see many words with legal but different and often variable spelling. Even now what different groups of people consider correct spelling in English varies. "The centre of the grey coloured licence devise had a strange connexion to an organisation that had its dialogue paralysed as if by diarrhoea." Is an example of a correctly spelled nonsensical sentence that could trigger spelling nazis here.
Dictionaries weren't commonly u
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"connexion" is perfectly valid British English though Google informs me it went out of style about 60 years ago. May have got carried away with devise as an alternate to device.
They were pretty strict about using proper spelling back when I was in school as it was a way to avoid being considered an American
Re: (Score:1)
No, it's because other grammars reform frequently, while English is very conservative.
Not just that (Score:2)
English pronounciation has changed over the centuries but the spelling of words hasn't kept up with this. Eg: the silent 'k' in "knight" used to be pronounced back in chaucers time.
Re: (Score:2)
Do not different Germans have different pronouncements? Or do Austrians, Swiss, North and South Germans all have the same pronouncement? Just in England there are numerous dialects with someone from the south barely able to understand someone from the north, then there are the Americans who not only have different pronouncements but even spell many words differently, as well as Canadians, Australians, various small Caribbean nations, all who have English as their first language but can barely understand eac
Re: (Score:2)
One could argue that your error is not actually an error.
I am a native English speaker, and I know that there are multiple accepted spellings to many words depending on which region you are in, what slang has recently been adopted as common usage, if it's an advertisement or whether or not the writer likes pictures of cats.
So no, in English you cannot always tell how to spell a word by how it is written.
Re: (Score:3)
Every language has its quirks. While with German you might be able to tell how to spell a word on how it's spoken, on the other hand what gender a noun has in German is completely nonsensical (and German goes one step further than the Romance languages in having a neuter gender, so now you have three possible genders to guess at!) whereas in English the gender of nouns is entirely straightforward and logical.
Re: (Score:2)
Riiiiiight! ;)
Obviously, I'm not a native English speaker myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only once in awhile.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/a-while-vs-awhile/ [dailywritingtips.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not on the internet you don't.
Re: (Score:1)
you mean: piipol tät leern tu wrait foneemik inglish vil hav trable riiding ool buuks tuu. Tink abaut tät.
Re: Science Writers: Stop Causing Us Intellectual (Score:3)
homophones are currently only confusing in speech
Their prices are pretty bewildering, too; $849 for the 5s 64GB?!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The only way that could make any sense would be if they were measuring the water that does NOT cycle through in a flush, i.e. the amount that is 'saved' between flushes. Since the idea is actually to 'flush' the system saving more in that context would be a bad thing.
They appear to be trying to say that it uses less water, as you say, but the wording is so horribly confused I dont think I would accept it as an Engl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Marketing people would much rather use the word "more" than the word "less", and bigger numbers rather than fractions. So in trying to say "uses one-eighth as much", it comes out as "saves 87% MORE than".
Re: (Score:1)
I think you hit the nail on the head, but you are being too kind. We can use fewer words and simply say "marketing lies.'
Re: Science Writers: Stop Causing Us Intellectual (Score:2)
The old standard was 1.6 lpf - does that help derive 87?
Re: (Score:2)
Is that font 2.3 times larger?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I always figured he doesn't want anyone to read his posts so I usually just skip them. Much easier then struggling with his weird choice of font.
Re: (Score:2)
I had that font selected somehow years ago, made a few posts with it, realized how attention-whoring it looked, gave it up.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Science Writers: Stop Causing Us Intellectual P (Score:5, Insightful)
The second one is not at all ambiguous.
If it's not ambiguous, then it's just wrong.
1 + 1.3 = 2.3. Thus 2.3 is 1.3 more (or larger) than 1.
Similarly, 1 + 2.3 = 3.3. I.e., 3.3 is 2.3 larger than 1.
2.3 is 2.3 times 1. But not "times larger". That confuses addition and multiplation.
If the article had said "2.3 times", and left out "larger", it would have been correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't know how to make sense of "2.3 times smaller" in any context. Except maybe... you have things A, B, and C, and B is smaller than A, as is C, and the A-C = 2.3 * A-B. But I wouldn't know what to make of it if you just said "C is 2.3 times smaller than B!" without the comparison to A. And I don't know how you would phrase that comparison... "C is 2.3 times smaller than A than B?" That's just confusing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic, if something is the same size as something else it must then be one times larger, which is just silly.
This.
Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
X is 2 times larger is X=2*Y
X is 2 times smaller is X=Y/2
X is 50% larger is X=1.5*Y
X is 1.1 times smaller is X=Y/1.1
It's unambiguous and in common use. Nobody is ever confused by it, but pedantic jackasses complain about it. Much like "American" being used to describe those from the USA. Some claim that it could apply to anyone from Th
Re: (Score:2)
X is 2 times larger is X=2*Y
I know how it works and I understand your logic.
It's just shitty English.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't about the math. It's about the English.
When something is said to be larger than something else, it is larger by a quantifiable amount. The question is: what is that amount? The amount by which it is larger is the difference between the two sizes.
So... if the amount the diameters differ (the amount it is "larger") is equivalent to 2.3 Earth diameters, then the total diameter must be 3.3.
However, 2.3 times (without the "larger") is unambiguous: 2.3
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't about the math. It's about the English.
OK, English, not the math or logic.
When something is said to be larger than something else, it is larger by a quantifiable amount. The question is: what is that amount? The amount by which it is larger is the difference between the two sizes.
OK, logic, not English
So... if the amount the diameters differ (the amount it is "larger") is equivalent to 2.3 Earth diameters, then the total diameter must be 3.3.
OK, it's the math, not the English.
I didn't invent English. Other people did.
OK, it's the English, not the math/logic.
Simply put, the English is logically inconsistent. But it is internally consistent in use. Irregardless, I could care less what you think about words and phrases. If they are used enough and are universally understood, then it's "correct" even if wrong. That's what you are missing. It's unambiguous and improper, but universally understood.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Science Writers: Stop Causing Us Intellectual P (Score:5, Informative)
"2.3 times larger" is grossly ambiguous in at least 2 different ways:
Until we read further, we are left to guess whether that means 2.3 times the diameter, 2.3 times the volume, or what. A few sentences later they clarify a bit, but it's still sloppy writing.
Second, "times larger" is ambiguous in English. If Earth has diameter 1, then a diameter 2.3 times as large would be 2.3. Technically, a diameter 2.3 times larger would be 3.3 (1 + 2.3).
Call that nitpicking if you want, but it's still sloppy writing.
Okay from the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... [wikipedia.org]
The sidebar states 17.2 +/- 1.9 M (M = Earth masses)
It also states that the Radius is aproximately 2.35 R (R = Earth radius)
Surface Gravity is a little over 3x that of Earth.
Unfortunately this probably isn't going to be a liveable world. It's only about a quarter of the distance from its sun that the Earth is. It's mean surface temperature is a whopping 400+ degrees Fahrenheit (so yes, paper would auto-ignite there).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(so yes, paper would auto-ignite there).
Ah, home sweet home.
Re: (Score:2)
"Times larger" is not ambiguous. "X is Y times larger than Z" means "X is Y times Z larger than Z. "Y times" is in relation to Z. There is no other correct way to interpret it. It's often used and interpreted incorrectly, but that doesn't make it ambiguous - it makes marketers liars and people morons.
Of course, there's the completely senseless uses as well. "X is Y times smaller than Z" where Y is greater than 1 implies a negative sieze for X, and "DSL is 10 times slower than cable" implies a negative
Re: (Score:2)
"Times larger" is not ambiguous.
Correct. In unambiguously means "X is Y times Z". The only people who think otherwise 100% understand it as written and object on pedantic grounds. Oh, and someone looked it up, in this case, they said X is 2.3 times larger than Earth, meaning X=2.3*E. So you are not only theoretically wrong, but we can verify this use with actual numbers, and you are provably wrong as well.
Re: (Score:1)
You're being pedantic.
diameter and volume would be the same since ones used to calculate the other.
"larger" is used to denote size. So it's the correct word to mean a larger diameter/volume
Re:Science Writers: Stop Causing Us Intellectual P (Score:5, Informative)
A little bit pedantic, but it certainly matters as they vary as different powers of the radius. Having 2.3 times the radius would be almost 12.2 times the volume. If the volume was only 2.3 times the Earth's volume, then the radius would only be 1.32 times larger.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm ... calculus was a very long time ago, but the volume of a sphere goes up according to 4/3 pi r^3. They are related, but not the same.
So if you double the diameter, you more than double the volume.
I would say "twice the diameter" and "twice the volume" are very different metrics. Twice the weight is also different.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically the volume expands at a rate of 4 pi r^2 with respect to the radius ( d/dr 4/3pi r^3 ). But yeah, should be obvious to people anyway based on 4/3 pi r^3 alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Your last phrase proves your point in the way that different people understand things differently. I always thought 2.3 times larger means that whatever the reference is will be multiplied by 2.3, so if reference is 1, then end result is 2.3.
So yeah, point proven: TFS should be referring to absolute numbers and then infer relative numbers from that.
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem (or interesting thing about this if you don't like "problem") with this is scaling. 2.3^3 = 12.2. If this mystery planet is 2.3 times the size of Earth, one would expect it to have 12.2 (give or take a hair) times the mass of Earth, presuming that it has a similar core structure. It is almost half again more massive. This in turn suggests that the mantel is proportionally less of the total volume of the sphere, or rather, that it has a disproportionately larger core (nickel-iron core de
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem with current planetary formation theory is the silly expectation that catastrophic formation is rare and stable systems within a specific range are the norm. Likely catastrophic impact is the norm and when analysing planetary formation theory to align measured outcome's we have to be able to exclude unusual outcomes and put them down to catastrophic impacts rather than attempt to adjust the theories.
Relative to Earth (Score:3)
The diameter is 2.3x. The mass is around 20x. The density is about 1.5x. The length of year is a shade under 1/3. The surface temperature is estimated at 10x. The gravity is around 4x. The magnetic field at Earth's current age was probably 3.375x. Tea time is a universal constant.
Remember the state of cosmology (Score:5, Insightful)
The galaxies are ACCELERATING away from each other, and we don't have a real solid answer for why.
Cosmology, the study of where all these planets and stuff came from and how, is still a young field with really big and really interesting discoveries yet to be made.
For all of those people claiming that there's nothing new to discover, point them to the stars and ask how the hell that happened.
And the state of the art is getting to the point where we don't need placeholders to conveniently fill in the gaps.
Exciting times.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The galaxies are ACCELERATING away from each other, and we don't have a real solid answer for why.
Yes we do: space is inflating. Why this is happening is the more pertinent question.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. There is a theory that time itself is multidimensional which would account for the appearance of red shift we assume is the universe expanding, but might just be the effects of time upon the light as it travels interstellar distances.
Re:Remember the state of cosmology (Score:4, Insightful)
Mathematics is inadequate to describe the universe, since mathematics is an abstraction from natural phenomena. Also, mathematics may predict things which don't exist, or are impossible in nature. - Ludovico delle Colombe
The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it... Knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient. - Dr. Alfred Velpeau
When the Paris Exhibition closes electric light will close with it and no more be heard of. - Erasmus Wilson
This `telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a practical form of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us. - Western Union internal memo, 1878
Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia. - Dr. Dionysus Lardner
That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced. - Scientific American, Jan. 2, 1909.
There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will. - Albert Einstein
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1895
There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home. - Kenneth Olsen, president and founder of Digital Equipment Corp
Re: (Score:2)
Refine our nano-scale manufacturing capabilities, build a ribbon of carbon nano-tubes that's gigapascel's in strength for 30 some thousand kilometers, build it, ship it up, lower it down, anchor it, build a climber, power the climber somehow, and have it ascend.
Yeah, that's pretty much it.
After that we can lift bulk material up into space on the cheap. It would cut the cost of getting into space from $10000/lb to $100/lb. We'd probably still need rockets if people want to go up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
A space elevator made of a simple mechanical cable may very well be impossible with normal matter. Of course, it often turns out that there are plenty of ways to cheat. I've had a nearly lifelong aversion to authoritative statements that "X is obviously absolutely impossible because of physical law Y" (you said "could" so you seem to understand). I remember reading an article back when I was 7 or 8 "proving" through math and physics that it would be impossible for a dragon (of a given size) to fly. Of cours
Re: (Score:2)
The cupola on the ISS is sort of a space patio. Also do ISS and space shuttle decks count?
17 more massive = mega earth? (Score:4, Interesting)
Shouldn't this be 1.7 decaearths?
Since the sun is about 333 kiloearths in mass, wouldn't a megaearth be about 3 solar masses? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Since the sun is about 333 kiloearths in mass, wouldn't a megaearth be about 3 solar masses? :-)
I'm trying to picture 333000 times the collective human stupidity on Earth. But assuming that population scales with the surface area (R^2) instead of mass or volume (R^3) it wouldn't be quite as bad.
Dense (Score:4, Informative)
Something that was 2.3 times the size of the earth would be only about 12 times the mass of the earth if it were the same density
since it is 17 times the mass it must be denser than the earth, presumably more iron/nickel than silicate rock.
way too much gravity for 'life as we know it, Jim'\
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The article covers this. It's thought to be more dense because, with the increased gravity which comes from a larger size, the rocks will be more compressed; thus, more dense.
Read about it Here - Big Planet (Score:3)
When did popular science articles get so bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
Other people have commented on the lousy "size of Texas"-style "2.3 times larger than Earth" bit, but there's so much more wrong with this. There's the now standard "artists representation" header artwork/slideshow teaser that doesn't even have any sort of disclaimer that it's not a representation of any kind of this planet. There's also an appalling lack of any of the figures people really want to know such as what the surface gravity would be on this planet. I'm getting about 3.3 G based on the diameter and mass they give. Surface area is about 5 times that of Earth. The year is about 1 and a half Earth months. The temperature is over 200 degrees celcius, close to the melting point of tin.
Nothing to be alarmed about. (Score:2)
At 11 billion years of age, it clearly hosts one of the oldest civilizations in the universe. At an apparent mass of 20x Earth, which is quite impossible for a planet of this vintage, it is clearly a Dyson sphere built round a black hole constructed by the stellar engineer Omega as a power source for Rassilon's space-time capsules.
The reason it is in Draco is that it was shunted from its original universe into ours during the Third Time War.
I don't get the mystery. (Score:3)
Mod parent up! (Score:2)
Exactly. Its probably just the remaining core of a gas giant that has slowly spiraled in over the eons.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, run the numbers, a gas planet will still have the bulk of its mass as helium and hydrogen. It not that close and these stars are not that hot.
Re: (Score:2)
The best discoveries in science... (Score:2)
The best discoveries in science come when someone looks at something and says "that's not right..."
Re:pffff.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not exactly. A reply I made the last time there was a slashdot article about a planet discovered by Kepler that required planet-forming models to be reevaluated is still particularly apropos.
When scientists say "This shouldn't happen according to current models", they are really saying "Holy shit, this is awesome! We get to come up with new models!".
Meanwhile, the mainstream media hears that and reports it either as "Scientists say this shouldn't happen. The universe is fucked up" or "Scientists say this shouldn't happen. Science is fucked up" depending on their political bent.
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile, the mainstream media hears that and reports it either as "Scientists say this shouldn't happen. The universe is fucked up" or "Scientists say this shouldn't happen. Science is fucked up" depending on their political bent.
Also, don't forget the ever-popular, "Scientists are flip-floppers who can't make up their minds, while my ancient religion is always the same, century after century!"
The same strain runs through all of these: the implication that scientists should feel humiliated because what they thought to be highly plausible has turned out to be much less so. So long as people believe this--that being a good Bayesian and adjusting your beliefs in the face of new evidence is somehow shameful and "unmanly"--we will be stu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's the problem with a lot of scientists, they can only think in what already has been theorized and can't look beyond that..
Except, of course, you are commenting on an article that is very literally about scientists "looking beyond" what has been theorized.
Perhaps you mean instead that scientists are rarely given to baseless imaginings that violate current theory when they have no empirical basis for doing so. That is a good thing: people who attempt to understand the world by using their imaginings of how it might be or ought to be as their primary tool are called "philosophers", and they have failed to materially advance our u
Re: (Score:2)
So in summary, you are saying that it is a scientist's job to refine and develop theories as opposed to just knowing and accepting theories as handed down from uhm... I don't know?
Re: (Score:2)
the picture of the earth from the moon clearly shows the earth is indeed flat, and also round like a plate
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I vote for the existence of unobtanium on that planet. 2.3 times the size of the Earth?
By golly! You're right. Weren't the Na'vi about 2.3 times the size of humans?
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking they had found Majipoor.