Talk:Gliese 581 d

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"The earliest possible arrival for a response, should there be one, would be in 2049." - so we got some time to improve our weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.217.156.135 (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Gliese 581 d is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
 

Unsourced Facts[edit]

Figures shown for radius and density are purely speculative. All we really know from the data is mass and period, unless a reliable source for these figures can be found this data should be removed. Rich.lewis 21:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I calculated the radius and density of the planet when the star's radius, semi-major axis, and planet mass are known. See talk:Gliese 581 c/Archive 1#Radius for my equation. BlueEarth 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

On which note, the surface gravity is greater than 2g, if you use the figures currently supplied (M>7.7M_E, R=1.96R_E). Given those figures come with health warnings, I'm not adding that calculated gravity figure to the article. But it may be useful in case the figure gets tied down later. Wooster (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Blue Earth, I'm afraid that the equations you refer to are both original research and incorrect. As such, they can't be used in a wikipedia article. J. Langton (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Should d have a significantly sized moon or moons, their masses would be included in the mass of d so the mass of d itself may be less and thus more earth-like. More specific data needs more refined observations, so definitely not for calculating here without more data.75.67.80.68 (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


Interesting, what is the mass of our moon in relation to Earth?

Sean7phil (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The mass of our moon in relation to Earth is 1/81.3 or 0.0123. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 02:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

New orbit estimates[edit]

The BBC reports that new estimates were announced at the 2009 JENAM conference. The orbit is now estimated to be 66.8 days. According to Stephane Udry, Geneva Observatory, it would be the first serious 'water world' candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon kare (talkcontribs) 13:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Temperature?[edit]

I noticed that the article states that the temperature of Gliese 581d is 3580*K, yet in the article, it states that liquid water probably exists on it's surface. Should the temperature say 358*K, and the '0' was a typo? 216.137.228.91 (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

3480K is the temp of the host star Gliese 581. -- Kheider (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

More unsourced facts[edit]

Under the "Messages from Earth" section, then entire first paragraph is not properly sourced. There is a link associated with it, but the link to a page which aggregates articles for Gliese 581 c, not d. Furthermore, this is merely a constantly-updating list of articles, not an article. Long story short, unless anybody can come up with some proper cites, this needs to go.11:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)66.56.63.233 (talk)

Artist's conception image should be removed[edit]

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. AldaronT/C 23:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

New temperature estimations[edit]

This paper has been released as a pre-print. It speculates that for most reasonable atmospheres the surface temperature will be above 0°C. It also gives the spectrographs expected, for other teams to look for. CS Miller (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This paper has been picked up and reported on in the general press BBC News. Sawatts (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation Process[edit]

The article mentions that it is the first confirmed exoplanet in the habitable zone. However the article only mentions its discovery by HARPS and not the process in which it was confirmed to be an exoplanet. For instance Gliese 581g article details quite extensively the process as it is in dispute. But this article does not. I'm interested in who confirmed it and how. And I don't mean the team that "confirmed" (media terminology) it to be "habitable". --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This question has an answer - the planet "d" is NOT confirmed, or at least if it had been "confirmed" Roman Baluev has thrown it back between the 2nd and 3rd sigma's of doubt.--Zimriel (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah - the original topic is on the process. Hmm. Well, as it currently stands, Baluev is the last word. So, to confirm this planet, someone is going to have to refute Baluev's work specifically, in a peer-reviewed journal or at least an attempt at peer-review in the arXiv. (94.197.219.53, say, might be an astronomer or he might be the Pope himself; but his pronouncements are no use by themselves.) Once we get a reference for this, I'll be happy to consider this planet "confirmed" like b, c, and e. --Zimriel (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Bayesian analysis gets 4 planets (b,c,d,e): [1] - also claims Baluev got a decreased significance for planet d because of inconsistencies in their periodogram analysis. 84.73.25.195 (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"Planet Dike"[edit]

I found this (Reverted) edit this morning, by one "Tcgriffin" -

The International Astronomical Union does not officially assign names to extrasolar planets, but W. Lyra of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy has proposed the name Dike for Gliese 581 d based on the mythological associations of the constellation Libra.
ref:Lyra, W. (2009). "Naming the extrasolar planets". arXiv:0910.3989v3 [astro-ph.EP].

I agree that it is not appropriate to mention unofficial names especially not for possible phantoms. But I'll leave it here in the Talk page. --Zimriel (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no end of unofficial planet naming schemes, and no end of planets. Such schemes are best discussed in the general article on planet naming, where it should be made clear that all (including the one cited) are simply made-up by individuals. You could even make up your own if you wanted. AldaronT/C 21:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I propose to call it Planet Aldaron. Especially if it Baluev has indeed exploded it --Zimriel (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Closest[edit]

The article says 'also the closest in proximity.' - given the discovery of a planet around Alpha Centauri B, this is no longer the case. I don't want to edit it though in case I've misinterpreted the sentence. Tom walker (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. One thing Alpha Centauri Bb (and Epsilon Eridani b - everyone's forgotten that one) have in common with GJ 581 d: they're all probable planets. We should be limiting speculations here. So, I've killed that section except for the bare "similarity index". If planet d gets fully validated, something like that can be brought back. --Zimriel (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Malware Link Removal[edit]

--Gary Dee 18:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)