Talk:Gliese 581c

message: The Gliese 581 system is estimated to be from 7 to 11 billion years old.Selsis 3.4 By comparison, our Solar System is estimated to be 4.6 billion years old.
I removed the above Age section because, after finding obspm.fr a deadlink, then finding http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Gl+581 claimed 4.3 Gyr but linked to article on HD 4308, and then finding Selsis estimated 7 to 11 while W. von Bloh writes of an age at "least 2 Gyr" I suspected the age is somewhat unknown at present. I put the 7 to 11 estimate in the parent star article Gliese 581, though.
I also made these edits:
* diff add cite.php to Selsis cites to more precisely point to relevant sections in paper 
* diff merge selected media, news and external links into Further Reading
-84user (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I need you to know that this http://exoplanet.eu/ catalog you are referencing is full of errors and gaps in the data, the guy isn't even bothering with Kepler's third law, and I have been able to fill in about three dozen missing pieces of information for my own speadsheet (extrapolation) copy. If you have the planet mass and/or the semi-major axis, the period of the orbit, the star mass, then the one missing can be calculated from the other three. Same with Luminosity-Radius-Temperature of a star. This catalog is constantly changing it's values, I can show you a history of tweeks Jean has made to fix the data. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

text: your browser's cache. Nergaal (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Transclusions do not refresh in a timely manner, try using the purge action on pages with transcluded elements that have been updated. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA edit attempts 

message: I edited the Talk:Gliese 581 c/GA1 sub-article transcluded above, but the changes do not appear on this talk page until I actually edit this talk page (which is the reason for this edit\). -84user (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: your browser's cache. Nergaal (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Transclusions do not refresh in a timely manner, try using the purge action on pages with transcluded elements that have been updated. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transclusion not working? 

message: The following statement was inserted into the article by User:GabrielVelasquez and reinserted by User:198.163.53.10, who on the basis of  is the same as User:GabrielVelasquez  (I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he merely forgot to log in, rather than tried to use the IP address of a public library to try and give the illusion of more support for his viewpoint)
All temperature speculations are based on the the temperature (heat from) of the parent star, Gliese 581, and have been calculated in error as no the scientist so far that has touched on the subject has factored in the wide margin of error for the star's temperature of 3432°K to 3528 °K.
I think this is strongly POV (note for example that taking the middle of the range 3480 K, this corresponds to an error of about 1.4%) and does not belong in the article. Icalanise (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: no calculations are wrong, the man who wrote this is right and should be listened to otherwise our thoughts of finding new life and ending the sorrow of lonelyness for the human race will grow unbearable for most, thankyou and keep the world updated with the truth.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.46.179 (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calculations in error? 

message: about 581c/d:
"The inner planet is probably too hot for liquid water to exist on its surface and the outer one a bit too cold, although their temperatures would would depend on the nature of any atmosphere."
Hehe.... there's a nice reference for the "temperature debate". :)--Marhawkman (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astronomy magazine Nov 2008 

message: This "object" is not on the list of confirmed extrasolar planets, and this important fact should not be left out of the article, any "planet" article for that matter. There is confirmed and there is unconfirmed (candidate), and there shouldn't be any debate on this fact, so anyone messing with this edit should be considered to be vandalizing. 198.163.53.10 (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to who? Looking back at the edits to the cited list, it looks like there's a prejudice against anything radial velocity as a detection method. What's going on here?   — Aldaron • T/C   05:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

text: It's fairly well confirmed actually: the planet is still detected in a much larger dataset than the one available when the discovery was announced (with minimal adjustments to the parameters between the two fits), and its mass is dynamically constrained to lie in the planetary mass range. The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia lists it in the main section, not the unconfirmed planets section. If anything the list of extrasolar planets article is at fault here, the entire system can be pretty safely moved into the confirmed section. Icalanise (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. Pleas contribute your views to the general discussion of this issue.   — Aldaron • T/C   20:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''[[List_of_stars_with_confirmed_extrasolar_planets#Candidate_extrasolar_planets |Unconfirmed]]''' extrasolar "planet"

message: Is this really a reasonable statement to have in the lede? The dynamically-determined upper limit on the mass means this planet could potentially be in the Neptune-mass regime. Furthermore there is no knowledge of whether this planet is terrestrial, an icy (ocean) planet, a small ice giant (Neptune-analogue), or something else. Icalanise (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The general perception in the literature seems to be that it's a rocky planet. However, the aspect that it could be a gas dwarf is covered later in the article. If I understand it correctly, while this method can't get the upper limit of mass, if it was much larger the orbits would be different, wouldn't they? -- Logical Premise Ergo? 13:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True the orbits would change as the inclination decreased, however the radial velocity curve would remain the same (because the orbital periods would remain the same). The radial velocity method gives you the orbital period, the velocity semi-amplitude, the eccentricity, the argument of periastron and the time of periastron. You have to calculate the semimajor axis from those and that depends on the true masses, and hence the inclination. In any case, if you read the Selsis et al. paper, they mention that accretion of significant gas envelopes can be a factor as low as ~6 Earth masses, only ~20% higher than the minimum mass for this planet (if you do the maths, you find there's a probability of about 45% that the mass exceeds 6 Earth masses, and roughly 15% that it exceeds 10 Earth masses, assuming random inclinations). Plus the other possibilities (e.g. volatile-rich planets, carbon planets) are mentioned in the paper, though admittedly these scenarios aren't thoroughly investigated. The point is that the planet's composition is totally unknown, so asserting that it is a terrestrial in the lede is probably misleading. Icalanise (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to be the one to do this to you all the time, but everywhere this planet is refered to as a "Super-Earth" and at that article is states in exactly the same way that this means a "large terrestial planet". Not disagreeing with you on your points, just pointing out that is the reasoning behind not calling it a "Super-venus" or any of the other possibilities. If you want to move the Sara Seager quote to the intro, I wouldn't complain, but keep in mind that the majority of references scientific and popular media refer to it as a "Super-Earth." though that's a term I myself dislike being used in this case. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  *laughs* This is why astronomy amateurs like me shouldn't ask questions. Took me a bit to follow all that. Would it be fair to say that the general scientific consensus is that it is likely / may be / is considered to be a terrestrial planet? I can read all the literature, of course, but since you've already done so, it seems redundant. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 16:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that saying a planet is a "super-Earth" implies that it is a "large terrestrial planet". For example, this paper defines super-Earths in the first paragraph of the introduction to be planets "with masses between about 1 and 10 Earth masses". It then goes on to consider the possibility that some super-Earths would retain massive hydrogen atmospheres. According to this paper, "Super-Earths, includes ocean planets and massive terrestrial planets as a subclass in this mass range" (emphasis mine). Super-Earth appears therefore to be primarily a mass classification, sometimes with the caveat that a hydrogen atmosphere is not present, sometimes without this restriction. Making the equivalence between "super-Earth" and "large terrestrial planet" is not supported in the literature. Icalanise (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the Super-earth article needs to be changed, then, since in the lead of that article, it basically describes a super earth as just that -- a large terrestrial planet. That would seem to suggest that all super-earths are telluric.  -- Logical Premise Ergo? 17:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A large terrestrial planet? 

message: I cannot find any source for this claim in section 5. Possible Contact.
"At approximately 20:45 UTC on 17 March 2009 faint radio signals were detected by SETI, coming from the direction of the Gliese 581 system. Although no language as we know it is present, the transmission features complex patterns of noise."
98.247.91.216 (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communication from Gliese at SETI 

message: Isn't the newly discovered 'Gliese 581 e' placing the whole planetary system more to scale?
I think the image of the habitable zone is as of today outdated.
What about it? 83.136.195.130 (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct. There is a good one on Space.com here which would be a good replacement, or basis for creating a replacement depending on availability. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated, from the original source with a CC image.   — Aldaron • T/C   15:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Companion E 

message: The discovery site of this astronomical body was not Switzerland but the IV Region of Chile. The team who worked on the project included scientists from Switzerland but also from France and other countries. 
::A team of scientists from France, Switzerland and Portugal discovered the planets using the ESO 3.6-m telescope from the High Accuracy Radial Velocity Planet Searcher or HARPS, located at the European Southern Observatory (ESO) in La Silla, Chile.
Unless La Silla in the Atacama desert is an extraterritorial claim of ESO or of Switzerland?
Moshe-paz (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct. According the the template definition, "discovery site" should be the observatory where it was discovered. I've changed the page to reflect that.   — Aldaron • T/C   18:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discovery site: Switzerland?

message: I'm gong to break this up for readability. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph 

message: I saw on here that it says the planet may lie outside the habitable zone, yet in this National Geography article it says it lies inside the Habitable zone and it has liquid water.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090421-most-earthlike-planet.html
i didnt look much into it, just thought i might share and see if you guys think we should change it. I dont know how to change it myself so if needed someone else should  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.104.138 (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This encyclopedia doesn't need people who don't read the article trying to change it to say what they want. Pitting National Geographic against multiple teams of astrophysicists who say it is out of the habitable zone is wasting peoples time and effort. National Geographic is regurgitating the same discovery team errors or you are reading wrong and the article is about 581 g not 581 c. "...it could have surface temperatures ranging from 700 K to 1000 K (430 to 730 °C)."... Read the article! 24.78.166.69 (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: National Geographic is generally considered a reliable source as per WP:RS. The question seems to be about whether the theory put forward by that source is fringe as per WP:FRINGE. If that is the concern, then I would think that filing a request for outside opinion either through an RfC as per WP:RFC or asking for input on the possible "fringe" status of the opinion at WP:FTN would probably be the best ways to proceed. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is inside the habitable zone? Has liquid water? 

message: The artist's conception image should be removed or at least taken out of the planet's infobox and placed as "decoration" in the text of the article. There's nothing encyclopedic (and a lot that's misleading or just fanciful) about this (and most "impression") images.   — Aldaron • T/C   23:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artist's conception image should be removed 

message: The article claims that COROT-7b is the smallest confirmed extrasolar planet.  The article at COROT-7b says it was the smallest until the discovery of Kepler-10b (1.4 Earth radii) in 2011, but there is no mention of being the smallest in Kepler's article.  Furthermore, other discovered planets like PSR B1257+12 A (discovered in 2005) are claimed to be of sizes much smaller than Earth--one-fifth the size of Pluto as claimed in this reference.  Now more recently in a January 2012 article here it is claimed that the three smallest extra solar planets ever found (the smallest of which was roughly Mars-sized), had just been discovered. Can anyone shed light on these discrepancies?  Possibly something to do with the definition of what a planet is?  Zujua (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallest planet? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gliese 581c. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68uUsn7yC?url=http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Gl%20581 to http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Gl+581
*Added  tag to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Technology/Bebos-A-Message-from-Earth-Project-Beams-Celebrity-Faces-Into-Space/Article/200810215117103?lpos=Technology_First_Technology_Article_Teaser_Region__3&lid=ARTICLE_15117103_Bebos_A_Message_from_Earth_Project_Beams_Celebrity_Faces_Into_Space
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gliese 581c. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Gl+581
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070427014548/http://www.dailyindia.com/show/135806.php/First-habitable-Earth-like-planet-outside-Solar-System-discovered to http://www.dailyindia.com/show/135806.php/First-habitable-Earth-like-planet-outside-Solar-System-discovered
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071227124513/http://www.geochemsoc.org/publications/geochemicalnews/gn131apr07/theneighborgliese581c.htm to http://www.geochemsoc.org/publications/geochemicalnews/gn131apr07/theneighborgliese581c.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)