Life is short. It's fun to have opinions if you are willing to be wrong :)

I'm glad this had a happy ending! :D

Sometimes I feel bad piling on a downvote train -- especially considering the psychology research showing that people usually just dig in further in such situations...

Honestly I feel like we shouldn't be down voting opposing opinions. Those should be the ones rising to the top, because that's the best way to cross reference, and get a different perspective.

I think the only things that should sink to the bottom are distasteful or rude comments.

To be honest, it would have been better to explain how they do the spectroscopy than to just say "you don't understand" and downvote. I should have raised a question instead of making a statement, the response should have been an explanation, instead of basically "you're an idiot" (which still no one has done as of this time). They are making the same error I did. The article posted didn't explain, the paper costs $9 to read. I wouldn't call this a productive discussion at this point.

Edit: someone just attempted to explain the technology behind it, thanks amluto

Respect for recognizing that you started things off on the wrong foot. Not everyone is willing to take ownership like that.

You are totally right, the best response is a clear, calm explanation. Unfortunately, the time, energy, and expertise to do so is not always available. It's in moments like those where I hesitate between ignoring the comment entirely and downvoting.

As for transit spectroscopy, I'm going off memory/rederivation/speculation here (not sure how much of each), but I believe it works by first taking the spectrum of the parent star by itself, then observing the spectrum of the starlight travelling through the transiting planet's atmosphere, and then diffing the two results to isolate the spectrum of the planet's atmosphere.

It works basically like that. The spectrum of the star will be an absorption spectrum. The star produces a continuous spectrum and then the atoms in its atmosphere absorb specific wavelengths. The light then travels through the planet's atmosphere where other atoms and molecules absorb other wavelengths; the signatures of which are known, telling scientists the makeup of the atmosphere.

Ah yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying!

Email the authors. There's a 50-50 chance they'll just give you the paper.

Though I wouldn't lead with calling BS ...

Totally agree with you anecdotally. When I am heavily downvoted on any site, I instantly believe my own dogma more, whether it is right or wrong, because now it is "mine" and it's under attack like a poor little defenseless puppy.