Suggestion - placing referencing line as counted typical 1 jupiter size transit in comparison towards the light curve total?
Hi, would it be possible, if you could put a referencing line towards the graph image of a 1 size Jupiter in comparison to the size of the total dimension of the star light referencing?
Like on a map you have a ____ line for a "1 mile" in relative to the map size, could that be possible for the light curve for a "1 planet Jupiter " so we can anticipate a general size dimension expected when looking at a transit for a planet in typical speed ? I guess it would help cuz as a typical user, there's no info referencing any transit speed for a typical planet so it makes it's really hard to know how big the transit size will typically be for a light curve as were already guessing the transit speed and planet size to begin with. For all we know we as a typical user could be staring a transit right in front of us and we couldn't notice it cuz the relativism in terms of light curve itself is not possible for user to understand between light curves, the planet size, and the planet speed themselves. I know since this is all relatively new defining a transit speed on a average is hard considering average is changing so rapidly given the amount of planets found in ratio to the amount of already defined planets, but I think defining a average, just for the sake of clarity, would be helpful here so current/new users can get a grasp as to what they are looking at.
It would probably help significantly for users trying to find those transits in accuracy total, if anything, it would users in terms of confidence in a psychological scenario.
I'm not sure if this makes any sense, but from looking at some similar posts it seems other people have had questions in the context of the relativism which means those people have similar confusion in the context of the relativism of seeing transits in a few hours which means I wouldn't be surprised if new-comers are easily confused by this in terms of confidence.
Also in terms of opinion, I think it's fallistic to suggest that there is an already a suggested typical size for planets in assumed perspective base on prior experience since this is so new. and I think the value in terms of what we can bring in terms of planet hunters is based on our lack of perspective, as from looking at the data, we have no prior preconceive persception, allowing us to see patterns not usually recognizable in terms of research.