Talk:55 Cancri f

message: I read this in the Daily Mail and wondered if this is new info. As i'm not really into science maybe one of you guys could field this one! See this article for me to see if i'm right, thanks! And please get back to me. From Pafcool2 20:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks just like the fictional Pandora from the 2009 film Avatar. 200.168.20.215 (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth like planet? 

message: I'm confused about something.  The 55 Cancri article says that the star's luminosity is .63 solar.    If the average distance is .781 AU, that should make the average insolation slightly higher than Earth (.63/.781² = 1.033), yet this article says that it receives considerably less insolation, even at perastron. Nik42 (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't even think that the insolation chart belongs in the article.  It's original research (see discussion at Talk:Gliese 581 c, and it also has a bunch of extraneous information unrelated to 55 Cancri f.  Deleting it now. J. Langton (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insolation 

message: === Insolation received by 55 Cancri f ===
Main articles: thermodynamic equilibrium & Climate modeling
Planet Distance            	Insolation (W/m2)                                                                                                                                                      	% of Earth's
Mars' Aphelion Flux        	494.00                                                                                                                                                                 	36.06%
Mars' Average Flux         	590.589                                                                                                                                                                	43.11%
Mars' Perihelion Flux      	718.545                                                                                                                                                                	52.45%
Earth's Aphelion Flux      	1325.277                                                                                                                                                               		93.74%
Earth's Average Flux       	1366.078                                                                                                                                                               		100.00%
55 Cancri f   Apastron Flux	1396.446                                                                                                                                                               	102.22%
Earth's Perihelion Flux    	1416.896                                                                                                                                                               		103.43%
55 Cancri f   Average Flux 	2010.882                                                                                                                                                               	147.20%
Venus' Aphelion Flux       	2,585.411                                                                                                                                                              	188.72%
Venus' Average Flux        	2,620.693                                                                                                                                                              	191.30%
Venus' Perihelion Flux     	2,656.700                                                                                                                                                              	193.93%
55 Cancri f Periastron Flux	3142.004 f_p= \frac{( (1.15\times 6.955 \times 10^8 )^2 ) \times (5.67051 \times 10^{-8}) \times (5243^4)} { ( ( 0.781- ( 0.781\times 0.2 ) ) \times 149597876600 )^2 }	230.00%
::This seems incorrect - working from the stellar radius and temperature in the 55 Cancri article gives a bolometric luminosity of \textstyle\frac{L}{L_{\odot}}=\left(\frac{0.96\ \mathrm{R_{\odot}}}{\mathrm{R_{\odot}}}\right)^2\left(\frac{5243\ \mathrm{K}}{5780\ \mathrm{K}}\right)^4=0.62
::Applying the inverse square law gives \textstyle\frac{f}{f_{\oplus}}=\left(\frac{L}{L_{\odot}}\right)\left(\frac{d}{1\ \mathrm{AU}}\right)^{-2} which for apastron gives 71% and for periastron gives 160%. However note that the eccentricity of 55 Cnc f is not well constrained - it is consistent with zero (which would give a factor of 102%) and indeed in the Newtonian fit taking planet-planet interactions into account (table 4 in Fischer et al. 2008 "Five planets orbiting 55 Cancri") the eccentricity is a very low 0.0002. Icalanise (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, before anyone who thinks they are really smart mentions it, the Insolation article says Flux is a synonym. Second, if you are going to critisize the eccentricity used in the formula then why haven't you changed it (still 0.2) in the article itself? Thirdly, I think the formula in  "FUNDAMENTALS OF ASTRONOMY" (QB43.3.B37 2006) by Dr.Cesare Barbieri, professor of Astronomy at the university of Pauda, Italy is the best planet (complete/unsimplified) Equilibium Temperature formula I have found yet.GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Or you can stick with your fantacy eccentricity and uselessly more complicated formulation when the simple L=4piR2aT4 and L=4pid2f  will do just fine to find f=R2aT4/d2. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea why you are calling the eccentricity a fantasy - it is what is written in the discovery paper. How is my formulation I posted above any more complicated than yours, after doing some basic algebra it is exactly the same as what you have written! Icalanise (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, and you don't even recognise when you have contradicted yourself: "This seems in error" you said of that formula, now when pointed out how simple it is you change your tune to say your formula is "exactly the same as you have written." The eccentricity in this article is 0.2 and it is referenced, and still in the article, so it is your 0.002 that is fantacy. In essesnce you give the same formula you critisized and no reason why it is incorrect.  GabrielVelasquez (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was criticising the results of the formula. You appear to be getting incorrect numbers out of the formula, I don't know why, perhaps you are putting incorrect numbers in. I also provided a reference for the value 0.0002 is also referenced in this article. I suggest you read the paper in question, particularly section 4.4 and table 4.  Icalanise (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: from the text

message: Main articles: thermodynamic equilibrium & Climate modeling
Planet Distance            	Insolation (W/m2)                                                                                                                                                      	% of Earth's
Mars' Aphelion Flux        	494.00                                                                                                                                                                 	36.06%
Mars' Average Flux         	590.589                                                                                                                                                                	43.11%
Mars' Perihelion Flux      	718.545                                                                                                                                                                	52.45%
Earth's Aphelion Flux      	1325.277                                                                                                                                                               		93.74%
Earth's Average Flux       	1366.078                                                                                                                                                               		100.00%
55 Cancri f   Apastron Flux	1396.446                                                                                                                                                               	102.22%
Earth's Perihelion Flux    	1416.896                                                                                                                                                               		103.43%
55 Cancri f   Average Flux 	2010.882                                                                                                                                                               	147.20%
Venus' Aphelion Flux       	2,585.411                                                                                                                                                              	188.72%
Venus' Average Flux        	2,620.693                                                                                                                                                              	191.30%
Venus' Perihelion Flux     	2,656.700                                                                                                                                                              	193.93%
55 Cancri f Periastron Flux	3142.004 f_p= \frac{( (1.15\times 6.955 \times 10^8 )^2 ) \times (5.67051 \times 10^{-8}) \times (5243^4)} { ( ( 0.781- ( 0.781\times 0.2 ) ) \times 149597876600 )^2 }	230.00%
::This seems incorrect - working from the stellar radius and temperature in the 55 Cancri article gives a bolometric luminosity of \textstyle\frac{L}{L_{\odot}}=\left(\frac{0.96\ \mathrm{R_{\odot}}}{\mathrm{R_{\odot}}}\right)^2\left(\frac{5243\ \mathrm{K}}{5780\ \mathrm{K}}\right)^4=0.62
::Applying the inverse square law gives \textstyle\frac{f}{f_{\oplus}}=\left(\frac{L}{L_{\odot}}\right)\left(\frac{d}{1\ \mathrm{AU}}\right)^{-2} which for apastron gives 71% and for periastron gives 160%. However note that the eccentricity of 55 Cnc f is not well constrained - it is consistent with zero (which would give a factor of 102%) and indeed in the Newtonian fit taking planet-planet interactions into account (table 4 in Fischer et al. 2008 "Five planets orbiting 55 Cancri") the eccentricity is a very low 0.0002. Icalanise (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, before anyone who thinks they are really smart mentions it, the Insolation article says Flux is a synonym. Second, if you are going to critisize the eccentricity used in the formula then why haven't you changed it (still 0.2) in the article itself? Thirdly, I think the formula in  "FUNDAMENTALS OF ASTRONOMY" (QB43.3.B37 2006) by Dr.Cesare Barbieri, professor of Astronomy at the university of Pauda, Italy is the best planet (complete/unsimplified) Equilibium Temperature formula I have found yet.GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Or you can stick with your fantacy eccentricity and uselessly more complicated formulation when the simple L=4piR2aT4 and L=4pid2f  will do just fine to find f=R2aT4/d2. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea why you are calling the eccentricity a fantasy - it is what is written in the discovery paper. How is my formulation I posted above any more complicated than yours, after doing some basic algebra it is exactly the same as what you have written! Icalanise (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, and you don't even recognise when you have contradicted yourself: "This seems in error" you said of that formula, now when pointed out how simple it is you change your tune to say your formula is "exactly the same as you have written." The eccentricity in this article is 0.2 and it is referenced, and still in the article, so it is your 0.002 that is fantacy. In essesnce you give the same formula you critisized and no reason why it is incorrect.  GabrielVelasquez (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was criticising the results of the formula. You appear to be getting incorrect numbers out of the formula, I don't know why, perhaps you are putting incorrect numbers in. I also provided a reference for the value 0.0002 is also referenced in this article. I suggest you read the paper in question, particularly section 4.4 and table 4.  Icalanise (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insolation received by 55 Cancri f 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Upsilon Andromedae d which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 02:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: The image in the infobox should not be used as it does not follow the usage guide for the template:
 This template is part of a group of templates that are used to display information about a specific extrasolar planet.
 Images of published planetary properties are preferred where available, especially when they are available from cited publications.
 Artist's conception, regardless of the source, should be avoided.
 Examples of acceptable images include
 * direct images, such as one used for GJ 758 b, in the rare cases where these are available;
 * output of a model that is integral to a cited paper, such as the image used in HD 80606 b;
 * user-generated images that clearly illustrate published properties, such as the size comparisons currently used in GJ 1214 b or Gliese 436 b.
My edits followed these guidelines but were revered by User:MarioProtIV. I'm opening discussion as to why ...
--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like if the discussion was held here, rather then on all of the other pages. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 11:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Planetbox usage 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 55 Cancri f. 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://web.archive.org/web/20080916211923/http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/researchers-identify-first-five-planet-extrasolar-system/ to http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/researchers-identify-first-five-planet-extrasolar-system/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071110000646/http://starrymirror.com/5thplanetorbitingstar.htm to http://starrymirror.com/5thplanetorbitingstar.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) 00:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)