I gotta say I admire the fulness of these reports who ever you are, 184.108.40.206! Outstanding!
--Dingus 05:51, 15 Oct 2004 (CEST)
note to self
Self, please edit this doc to be easier to read and more wiki-like. The content is incredible, but the layout needs work. Mmrnmhrm 22:28, 21 Oct 2004 (CEST) (don't mind me folks, I'm just leaving work now and I don't want to forget this when I get home.)
So, the article mentions that Root is a green star, and SEEMS to imply that this means the Supox have more light-energy available to use in their photosynthesis because of that fact. This is wrong; plants appear green because they take the LEAST amount of energy from green light (instead reflecting it back to an observer's eye).
Now, I may be reading to deeply into this, so I wanted to get a second opinion before changing things. Does anyone else see that implication?
Mudlock 20:46, 22 Oct 2004 (CEST)
I always thought that the color of a star was basically a heat-map, not something that indicated the actual color of the light it emits. I don't think that there are any blue or green stars in reality. -Fadookie 20:56, 22 Oct 2004 (CEST)
Blue stars certainly exist.  The information that Hayes gives about star temperature is scientifically correct. What the original author of the Supox article was trying to say was that a green star is hotter and has more energy output than a yellow star like Sol. It's not supposed to (I believe) have anything to do with the absorption spectrum of chlorophyll. Mmrnmhrm 22:13, 22 Oct 2004 (CEST)