Nah the ratio would be the same. Radius is simply half the diameter so the ratio of earths radius to this planets radius would be the same as the ratio of diameters.

Actually, you missed my point. You confused the term radius with diameter in your original post. In the photo, it's listed as > 2.7 D(e) ... and you said it was > 2.7 r(e) ... when properly extrapolated out, a 2.7 radius is 5.4 diameter.

Huh? It's simply a ratio it doesn't matter if you're using radii or diameter. Let me show.

Earth's radius is 6,378 km and this planets radius is 17,231 km and then 17,231/6,378 is 2.7016 Er which is the same as the ratio of diameters which is 2.7016 Ed.

ps. I use radius more often since I mod for orbiter

(On my laptop 0.97.1 is the last version that can run so this is actually 0971 stuff)

Travelling to site of colliding galaxies NGC 3537, the galaxies aren't rendered..(despite not scientific already).. very smoothly, they sometimes don't overlap and sometimes they do.

and an anomaly:

I found this: An Giant-Main Sequence binary pair with such numerically close stellar masses and diameters! matter transfer? There might be some classification issues here right

Because you divide it by another thing that's doubled. If you compare a sphere with radius 1 with a sphere of radius 5, the second is 5 times bigger. If you compare diameters instead, you compare diameter 2 with diamater 10, which is still a difference of a factor 5.

To say it a different way: if you divide the various instances of r in that formula away against each other, you get 2/2=1/1

That does not follow ... how can something that's 2r = r?

It doesn't say that. Remember the division signs -- it's not equating 2r with r, but the ratio 2r/2r to the ratio r/r. In other words, the 2's cancel.

You could also rearrange the formula to obtain 2rr=2rr, which is clearly a true statement.

That's why I chose to answer this with a formula. In a very compact form, it completely expresses the idea which was causing the confusion: that although diameter does not equal radius, the ratio of diameters does equal the ratio of the radii. So in comparing two planet sizes, it doesn't matter whether you use radius or diameter. The ratios are the same either way.

I've found a binary planet in a planetary nebula that have a very odd orbit: Their orbital plane around eachother is almost exactly 90 degrees tilted from their orbital plane around the star. This seems to give their nebulae weird epicycloid shapes that rotate and flow through the poles.

These were taken at exposure 10 because they are an AU away from the system's single cool white dwarf star.

The second brightest and second hottest body in the system (after the white dwarf) is a tidally heated moon orbiting the largest gas giant. The same gas giant has two moons with ring systems, but has no ring system itself.

What mod are you using that adds that "Discovery Method" and "Discovery Date" info? I'd love to have that!

Anyways, I'm not too sure if this counts as an anomaly or not, but it's intriguing nevertheless. I was taking some pictures of a custom solar system I just recently created, but I noticed that one of the stars in the sky had a ring around it. Further inspection showed that the ring was a planet so distant from the parent star I could see it's orbit!

All you need in life are space games and typhlosions.