Because yesterday it wasn't known to have existed. Now that we have discovered it, we assign a definition to what it is. In this case, an extension of our atmosphere.
It's not as though we have always known this was here and now we suddenly decide it's part of the atmosphere, but now we're able to detect and measure it, as we already have been able to our previously known atmosphere.
Article title of "We've never left earth's atmosphere" --> Clickbait
Article title of "Earth's atmosphere extends further than we thought" --> not clickbait
I agree that it's all in the presentation, hence the difference between these two headlines. I'm not sure why you equated them as the same in previous comment, but they are telling the reader two very different things when read at a surface level
Please explain why the second article title is clickbait, because I completely agree when you said the first one is.
This isn't scope creeping though. The geocorona is being considered as an extension of earth's atmosphere.
Because yesterday it wasn't known to have existed. Now that we have discovered it, we assign a definition to what it is. In this case, an extension of our atmosphere.
It's not as though we have always known this was here and now we suddenly decide it's part of the atmosphere, but now we're able to detect and measure it, as we already have been able to our previously known atmosphere.
Well I've already explained why it isn't.
Article title of "We've never left earth's atmosphere" --> Clickbait
Article title of "Earth's atmosphere extends further than we thought" --> not clickbait
I agree that it's all in the presentation, hence the difference between these two headlines. I'm not sure why you equated them as the same in previous comment, but they are telling the reader two very different things when read at a surface level
Please explain why the second article title is clickbait, because I completely agree when you said the first one is.