Tier 5 Revision

[Epyriel]

That is not my implication as we also technically would have to include the masses of a small star as shown here as they been considered “Failed Stars” due to their mass and other factors not enough to consider being an actual star

Then sorry, but what is the point of your post?

As already established, brown dwarfs range in mass between 13 JM and 78 JM, in-between the size of planets and stars.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Then sorry, but what is the point of your post?

As already established, brown dwarfs range in mass between 13 JM and 78 JM, in-between the size of planets and stars.

However, NASA did put Brown Dwarf in Types of Star. Edit: Although technically not a star as they stated there.

Types - NASA Science

Types of Stars The universe’s stars range in brightness, size, color, and behavior. Some types change into others very quickly, while others stay relatively unchanged over trillions of years. Main Sequence Stars A normal star forms from a clump of dust and gas in a stellar nursery. Over hundreds...

science.nasa.gov

Plus we have to consider Red Dwarfs which are stated as the smallest of the main sequence stars as shown here.

“Red dwarfs are the smallest main sequence stars – just a fraction of the Sun’s size and mass. ”

Which is also smaller than Our Sun as stated here

 

[Epyriel]

However, NASA did put Brown Dwarf in Types of Star.

Types - NASA Science

Types of Stars The universe’s stars range in brightness, size, color, and behavior. Some types change into others very quickly, while others stay relatively unchanged over trillions of years. Main Sequence Stars A normal star forms from a clump of dust and gas in a stellar nursery. Over hundreds...

science.nasa.gov

They also clarified in literally the first line that: “Brown dwarfs aren’t technically stars.”

Plus we have to consider Red Dwarfs which are stated as the smallest of the main sequence stars as shown here.

“Red dwarfs are the smallest main sequence stars – just a fraction of the Sun’s size and mass. ”

Which is also smaller than Our Sun as stated here

Yes, red dwarfs correspond to Tier Low 4-C. Yellow dwarfs like the Sun outline Tier 4-C.

Again, sorry but what point are you trying to make in regard to this revision?

 

[HammerStrikes219]

They also clarified in literally the first line that: “Brown dwarfs aren’t technically stars.”


Yes, red dwarfs correspond to Tier Low 4-C. Yellow dwarfs like the Sun outline Tier 4-C.

Again, sorry but what point are you trying to make with regard to this revision?

Yeah, I edit it out as I already saw that.

Also, my point was more on clarification on brown dwarfs I suppose.

Still, I feel like “Substar” might been more appropriate as Brown Dwarf objects are, by definition, blurred the lines between Large Planets and Stars as a alternative to just simply “Brown Dwarf”

 

[Epyriel]

Yeah, I edit it out as I already saw that.

Also, my point was more on clarification on brown dwarfs I suppose.

Alright.

Still, I feel like “Substar” might been more appropriate as Brown Dwarf are, by definition, blurred the lines between Large Planets and Stars as a alternative to just simply “Brown Dwarf”

Issue with that remains that ‘Substar’ can refer to far more than brown dwarfs, all the way down to small moons, thus encompassing many more tiers than the one we want to name.

And I wouldn’t call brown dwarfs “blurring the lines between Large Planets and Stars”, as they have a very precisely defined threshold that serves as a clearly defined class in-between planets and stars.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Issue with that remains that ‘Substar’ can refer to far more than brown dwarfs, all the way down to small moons, thus encompassing many more tiers than the one we want to name.

Hmm, that is odd as apparently the Wikipedia consider this different from what you brought up.

Substellar object - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Which apparently doesn’t necessarily include moons and stuff.

Also shouldn’t we address White Dwarfs as well?

Apparently it has mentioned a Brown Dwarf in the link here.

Evidence for a substellar secondary in the magnetic cataclysmic binary EF Eridani

Low-state spectrophotometry of the short-period polar EF Eridani (P_orb = 81 min) found the system at V = 18.0 with no trace of the companion (Wheatley and Ramsay 1998). We show that the lack of such spectral features implies that the companion to the white dwarf in EF Eri has a spectral type...

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

“
The substellar mass in orbit around the white dwarf is a star that lost all of its gas to the white dwarf. What remains is an object with a mass of 0.05 solar masses (M☉), or about 53 Jupiter masses (MJ), which is too small to continue fusion, and does not have the composition of a super-planet, brown dwarf, or white dwarf. There is no category for such a stellar remnant.[5]

It is theorized that 500 million years ago, the white dwarf started to cannibalize its partner, when they were separated by 7 million km. As it lost mass, the regular star spiraled inward. Today, they are separated by a mere 700,000 km for an orbital period of 81 min. The orbit is expected to continue to shrink due to gravitational radiation.[5]”

Edit: This is from a different wikipedia article on the research provided for this study


I have to look into White Dwarfs further

 

[CloverDragon03]

If you wish to have a tier with a name that is at all accurate I beg of you to support this revision. “Brown Dwarf” is the only name that is both accurate and in colloquial use. If you wish to minimize confusion and maximize accuracy, this is the only way to go.

I... don't think all this is necessary? Like, being honest, this is kinda no different from an appeal to emotion fallacy where you're basically suggesting "if you don't support this revision, you don't want accuracy." As much as I support the revision, this is absolutely not the way to go

 

[Epyriel]

Hmm, that is odd as apparently the Wikipedia consider this different from what you brought up.

Substellar object - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Which apparently doesn’t necessarily include moons and stuff.

Nope, Wikipedia says the same:

William Duncan MacMillan proposed in 1918 the classification of substellar objects into three categories based on their density and phase state: solid, transitional and dark (non-stellar) gaseous.[8] Solid objects include Earth, smaller terrestrial planets and moons; with Uranus and Neptune (as well as later mini-Neptune and Super Earth planets) as transitional objects between solid and gaseous. Saturn, Jupiter and large gas giant planets are in a fully "gaseous" state.”

Also shouldn’t we address White Dwarfs as well?

Apparently it has mentioned a Brown Dwarf in the link here.

Evidence for a substellar secondary in the magnetic cataclysmic binary EF Eridani

Low-state spectrophotometry of the short-period polar EF Eridani (P_orb = 81 min) found the system at V = 18.0 with no trace of the companion (Wheatley and Ramsay 1998). We show that the lack of such spectral features implies that the companion to the white dwarf in EF Eri has a spectral type...

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

“The substellar mass in orbit around the white dwarf is a star that lost all of its gas to the white dwarf. What remains is an object with a mass of 0.05 solar masses (M☉), or about 53 Jupiter masses (MJ), which is too small to continue fusion, and does not have the composition of a super-planet, brown dwarf, or white dwarf. There is no category for such a stellar remnant.[5]

It is theorized that 500 million years ago, the white dwarf started to cannibalize its partner, when they were separated by 7 million km. As it lost mass, the regular star spiraled inward. Today, they are separated by a mere 700,000 km for an orbital period of 81 min. The orbit is expected to continue to shrink due to gravitational radiation.[5]”

I have to look into White Dwarfs further

Off topic, but not every object in the universe needs its own tier. White dwarfs already fall into existing tiers.

 

[Epyriel]

I... don't think all this is necessary? Like, being honest, this is kinda no different from an appeal to emotion fallacy where you're basically suggesting "if you don't support this revision, you don't want accuracy." As much as I support the revision, this is absolutely not the way to go

Not my intent, I’ll just remove “only”.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Nope, Wikipedia says the same:




Off topic, but not every object in the universe needs its own tier. White dwarfs already fall into existing tiers.

Yeah, in the past, but apparently they decided to refine the definition it seems which isn’t out of the question tbf.

 

[Epyriel]

Yeah, in the past, but apparently they decided to refine the definition it seems which isn’t out of the question tbf.

There is no consensus on a widely accepted revision, and the common understanding maintains the position that ‘Subtars’ includes objects of planetary mass.

This definition includes brown dwarfs and former stars similar to EF Eridani B, and can also include objects of planetary mass, regardless of their formation mechanism and whether or not they are associated with a primary star.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

There is no consensus on a widely accepted revision, and the common understanding maintains the position that ‘Subtars’ includes objects of planetary mass.

“can also include” is the keyword here tbf.

Meaning we can just exclude especially when we trying to apply it to fictional works. Not nonfiction works mind you.

I ain’t exactly this picky about the naming of our tiering system as to me, it is still in the realm of argument of semantics.


Let’s been honest, it still is a argument of semantics regarding which naming will been quite appropriate.


Also a dead star having less mass than the Sun and being used to describe the mass using Jupiter’s measurements is something to take note of.

Edit: Corrected it to Dead Stars

 

[Epyriel]

“can also include” is the keyword here tbf.

Meaning we can just exclude especially when we trying to apply it to fictional works. Not nonfiction works mind you.

I ain’t exactly this picky about the naming of our tiering system as to me, it is still in the realm of argument of semantics.


Let’s been honest, it still is a argument of semantics regarding which naming will been quite appropriate.

Replacing the actual term of what we are describing (brown dwarfs) with a vaguer term that is defined to include a huge range of objects other than the ones we want to assign makes little sense, especially since we have already used it by its official original definition to describe all of Tier 5.

Also a White Dwarf having less mass than the Sun and being used to describe the mass using Jupiter’s measurements is something to take note of

White dwarfs are very dense (~0.6SM and 7000km radius on average), as such their GBE tends to be in the range of the Large Star Tier (High 4-C), so they don’t really have any bearing on the topic at hand.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Replacing the actual term of what we are describing (brown dwarfs) with a vaguer term that is defined to include a huge range of objects other than the ones we want to assign makes little sense, especially since we have already used it by its official original definition to describe all of Tier 5.


White dwarfs are very dense (~0.6SM and 7000km radius on average), as such their GBE tends to be in the range of the Large Star Tier (High 4-C), so they don’t really have any bearing on the topic at hand.

Fair enough on White Dwarf.

However, I probably look more into dead/deceased stars though as they are confirmed to being deceased.

 

[Epyriel]

If the reason has more to do with the fact that "Brown Dwarfs aren't actually stars, but an awkward celestial body that is in a class between a Gas Giant planet and a Dwarf Star", I could see merit for Brown Dwarf level. But I would recommend adding a foot note to our tier page to avoid confusion. Like note that we used to call it Dwarf Star level, but explain what a Brown Dwarf is and mention that further research confirming that a Brown Dwarf lacks criteria to be classified as a Star.

This sounds appropriate. Based on the note for the Striking Strength change, perhaps we could do something like this:

Note 5:

Prior to 2024, Tier High 5-A: Brown Dwarf level used to be named ‘Tier High 5-A: Dwarf Star level’, which we changed in 2024 in recognition that brown dwarfs (the class of objects whose GBE values are used to outline the tier) do not meet the criteria for being a star. Stars, including dwarf stars, are astronomical objects of sufficient mass to fuse protium (the most common isotope of hydrogen), a criteria brown dwarfs do not meet. Brown dwarfs are instead an independent class of astronomical objects larger than planets that hold enough mass to fuse deuterium (which becomes possible around 13 Jupiter masses), but not massive enough to fuse protium (which becomes possible around 78 Jupiter masses). Actual dwarf stars populate Tier 4, such as red dwarfs which outline Tier Low 4-C, and yellow dwarfs which outline Tier 4-C.

If you encounter a page that was accidentally overlooked, and still uses old name instead of the one listed above, we would appreciate the help to correct it.

Is this sufficient for you to change your vote?

 

[Antvasima]

It's brown dwarf, not brown dwarf star. And this is a major point with me. While it is accurate, it is not widely used or widely understood by a lay person. I get that accuracy is important but so is user experience.

I saw that throughout the thread, the OP had to clarify several times that "brown dwarf" is not the same as "brown dwarf star". If people here are getting confused, a 15-year old who opens a page and sees "brown dwarf level" will probably have to google again as to what is a brown dwarf. He might lose interest by that time. I am not against keeping an accurate name but I want that term to be generally understood by a lay person, something that is in colloquial use.

We want to keep things simple with our tier names, since we use these 3 words to tell people a lot about a character's strength. If someone sees "Dwarf Star level", they will get the general idea of what it is compared to our other tier names. If they want to delve deep in detail, they can use our information pages (tiering system, attack potency chart, etc.). As long as the name is simple and gives the general idea, I think it is fine to have.

Can't we just embed a link to the Wikipedia page about Brown Dwarfs in this part of our Tiering System and Attack Potency pages in order to handle this potential problem?