English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Arbitrariness attributed to the zero point constant of the $V$ bandbolometric corrections ($BC_V$) and its relation to "bolometric magnitude of astar ought to be brighter than its visual magnitude" and "bolometriccorrections must always be negative" was investigated. The falsehood of thesecond assertion became noticeable to us after IAU 2015 General AssemblyResolution B2, where the zero point constant of bolometric magnitude scale wasdecided to have a definite value $C_{Bol}(W)= 71.197~425~...$~. Since the zeropoint constant of the $BC_V$ scale could be written as $C_2=C_{Bol}-C_V$, where$C_V$ is the zero point constant of the visual magnitudes in the basicdefinition $BC_V=M_{Bol}-M_V=m_{bol}-m_V$, and $C_{Bol}>C_V$, the zero pointconstant ($C_2$) of the $BC_V$ scale cannot be arbitrary anymore; rather, itmust be a definite positive number obtained from the two definite positivenumbers. The two conditions $C_2>0$ and $0<BC_V<C_2$ are also sufficient for$L_V<L$, a similar case to negative $BC_V$ numbers, which means that"bolometric corrections are not always negative". In sum it becomes apparentthat the first assertion is misleading causing one to understand bolometriccorrections must always be negative, which is not necessarily true.

On the Zero Point Constant of the Bolometric Correction Scale