# Talk:Kepler-10b

"the smallest TRANSITTING exoplanet?  Isn't it the smallest exoplanet?  Which exoplanet is smaller? -- IceDragon64 (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Several non-transiting planets have slightly lower minimum masses, two (Gl 581 e and PSR B1257+12 A) have significantly lower minimum masses. As these are non-transiting, their actual masses could be larger, but their diameters are unknown. So the correct claim (despite a few early press releases) is that this is the smallest transiting exoplanet. It may well also be the smallest exoplanet around a "normal" star. And: that's what the paper says: "Kepler-10b is the smallest transiting exoplanet discovered to date."   — Aldaron • T/C   16:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Kepler-10b is 1.4 times the size of the Earth"
It's diameter is 1.4 times the volume of the Earth, but not it's volume. Someone could missunderstand that.80.121.90.183 (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a public use encyclopedia, not a clubby little journal for the scientific in-crowd. Editors of science articles should have the courtesy to include temperatures in Farenheit and Celsius so as many (non-scientist) readers as possible can understand the article. -- Telemachus.forward (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

IMHO the average reader will not understand the difference between 1600 K, 1300 C, and 2400 F.  It is not like the average person has any experience with these extreme temperatures even when using a self cleaning oven.  Also keep in mind that the surface temperature is a generic mathematical estimate, it has not been directly measured.  I did add that 1600 K is more than the melting point of gold. -- Kheider (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
a reader unfamiliar with either C/F degrees would still be inconvenienced if only one them were used and so Kelvin would be the most common culturally-neutral scale if you want to put a single number (and one learns the concept of absolute zero in the process). Trivial note to Kheider: why use the melting point of gold (1337.73 K) and not the more familiar copper (1357.75 K, a bit closer to 1600 and the last calibration point for ITS-90)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.158.186 (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Either is fine.  What I remember is hesitating because the wiki-article shows a surface temperature of 1600K, yet the Kepler reference shows a equilibrium temperature of 1833 K.  I have switched over to Kepler referenced 1833 K figure. -- Kheider (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

"Kepler-10b is the first definitively rocky planet." I would have to say that Earth might have beaten it to the punch there, followed by Mars, Venus, and Mercury. Kaldari (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it! Kaldari (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It states that Kepler-10b is 1.4 times the size of Earth. The article then states in the next section that it is approximately the size of our sun. Last time I checked our sun is not 1.4 times the size of Earth but rather approximately 109 times larger in diameter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.232.238 (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 

Kepler-10 is the star (type GV), Kepler-10b is the planet. -- Kheider (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The current gravitational acceleration listed is used for values present in the paper at source [3]. However, the planet's mass has been updated in a 2016 paper (source [4]) since then, rendering the acceleration useless. OboeKade (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Should come out to around 16.83 m/s^2 or 1.7g. OboeKade (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)