Talk:Gliese 667

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Gliese 667 is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-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.
 

Merge from Gliese 667 Cb[edit]

I merged the content from Gliese 667 Cb to here. It's been almost a year since the press release and there is still no discovery paper, and since this article is essentially a stub, splitting out a subtopic into its own stub seems pointless. Icalanise (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Semimajor axis of Gliese 667 Cc[edit]

The quoted value of 0.28 AU is inconsistent with Kepler's laws. The correct value for a 28.1 day planet would be 0.12 AU, this value is also used on the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia. (In addition the value of 0.12 AU is consistent with the assertion in the paper that this planet receives ~90% of Earth insolation, while the value of 0.28 AU is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.126.76.193 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomenclature[edit]

Aren't Gliese 667 A and B supposed to be Aa and Ab, because collectively they form one component of the system, with another (star C or more properly in this case B) orbiting around the two and hence distinct? Wer900 (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


"142 G. Scorpii" doesn't look right. Does the G. stand for "Gliese"? That isn't how Gliese catalog stars are designated, are they? 99.9.112.31 (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)NotWillDecker

Suggest expanding Gliese 667 Cc entry[edit]

I found this article today due to the recent news about habitable planets. It would have been nice to have more information about Gliese 667 Cc available in the article because a search on that term directs to this page. Gliese 667 Cc is currently the most likely candidate for habitable planets identified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.226.123.82 (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What further information do you have in mind? We already have what is available from Anglada-Escude et al. (2012). Regards, RJH (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Now there is more out. Also, the planet is said to be over four times as massive as the earth, contra our statement of three point something. Here is a source in lieu of the forth-coming technical article: www.portaltotheuniverse.org/rview/192023, http://www.youris.com/Environment/Space/EarthLike_Planet_Discovery.kl. Kdammers (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I definitely feel this is warranted that given it is still the most Earth-like of all exoplanets according to the now well established Earth Similarity Index (ESI) criteria, it meets the notability criteria. It is certainly more interesting IMHO than many planets which have attracted media interest that have their own articles. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

candidate for a diagram[edit]

A diagram of the system would be a win. It’s hard to visualize from the descriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.118.94.188 (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean a mobile diagram like the one on the Beta Scorpii article? Regards, RJH (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Another drive-by comment. Shrug. RJH (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Current diagram is wrong for the C subsystem. The planets should probably be at the same level of hierarchy as the star, currently it looks like C is a binary consisting of components Cb and Cc. 46.126.76.193 (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking something like this is a better representation: 46.126.76.193 (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  ┌───┴───┐
┌─┴─┐     ├─┬─┐
A   B     C b c
Yes it looks like the pro's diagram it as "Ca Cb Cc", which is similar but not the same. I'll work on fixing it. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I updated the image, but it may not show up right away because of caching. I tried flushing my browser cache but the old scaled image still shows up. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, new image looks good but I am also experiencing cache issues. 46.126.76.193 (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Map[edit]

As far as I can see the map shows the constellation of Scorpio, but there is no indication of where Gliese 667 lies within that. Can anyone provide a map with the location marked? Failing that, should the caption be changed? 87.114.175.185 (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not know...isn't it the little red circle? Lectonar (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


Planet Irradiance for user ref, not for use in article[edit]

I did some calculating and came up with Planet Gliese 667 Cc having an irradiance similar to Venus,
Then I included the eccentricity and noticed that because of such a short period of 28.155 days, it turns out that this planet,
depending on the overall Albedo, because the irradiance varies from Venus-like to Earth-like, could have a "habitable" temperatures.
(f, flux, irradiance, solar constant)

Planet semi-major
axis
f f (e) f
periastron
fp (e) f
apastron
fa (e) mass (e )
b 0.049 16876.36 1235.39% 5.68
c 0.123 2678.31 196.06% 5025.914 367.93% 1660.555 121.56% 4.54
d 0.235 733.73 53.71% 5.65
e~ 2.577 6.1 0.45% 0.25

f=((R^2)*(5.67051e-8)*(T^4))/d^2
f(e)=f/1366 watts per square meter.

24.79.38.15 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh, looks like the radius value for the star given on this page (taken from CADARS) is inconsistent with the luminosities and effective temperatures given in both Anglada-Escudé et al. (2012) [1] and Delfosse et al. (2012) [2]. The first paper uses 0.01370 solar luminosities and 3700 K, which implies 0.29 solar radii, the latter gives 0.014 solar luminosities and 3600 K, implying 0.30 solar radii. Both of these values are significantly smaller than the CADARS value of 0.42 solar radii which results in your higher insolation value (on the other hand an increased luminosity may imply an increased stellar mass and hence larger semimajor axes for the planets). Using the luminosity values and semimajor axes from the Angalada-Escudé et al. and Delfosse et al. papers directly, the first paper gives 90% Earth insolation (semimajor axis = 0.123 AU), the second gives 89% Earth insolation (semimajor axis = 0.125 AU). If anything this illustrates the perils of taking values for the stellar properties from multiple different sources... 46.126.76.193 (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually it shows the perils of taking them from any source. If multiple "reliable" sources give widely differing values then relying on one just gives a false impression of certainty. Qemist (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The radius and temperature currently in the text imply a luminosity of 3% solar, which is inconsistent with the claimed 1.4% solar luminosity. The values should be fixed or the uncertainty noted. Qemist (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"Sunlight"[edit]

My edit to replace Sunlight with Starlight has been reversed, yet Sunlight is completely incorrect. Sunlight is a type of starlight that comes from - THE SUN. I don't care what anyone says this planet is too far to be illuminated by the Sun ....

See the definition from the Sunlight article if you disagree before reversing this edit ...

Sunlight, in the broad sense, is the total frequency spectrum of electromagnetic radiation given off by the Sun, particularly infrared, visible, and ultraviolet light. On Earth, sunlight is filtered through the Earth's atmosphere, and is obvious as daylight when the Sun is above the horizon.

The Sun here means Sol - not Gliese 667. I suppose you could rename it Gliese 667light .... which is semantically more correct ... but starlight is fine. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but I replaced 'starlight' with 'sunlight', not 'Sunlight'! But I agree with your change to 'visible light', much clearer. Best to avoid both terms here. Rothorpe (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Are you people being serious or just having fun...? "Sunlight" is accurate and correct. Sol is not the only star to act as a sun in this universe, obviously, and Gliese 667 acts as a sun (well, as far as being a trinary goes anyway), so "sunlight" is correct.... Jersey John (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah sure, Sol is not the only star to "act as a sun". EVERY STAR DOES ....[roll] I assume you're suggesting that any star with a planet acts as a "sun". Well every star radiates energy ... even the ones that don't have planets that we know about. Astronomers around the world should just adopt your definition rename all those twinkling things to suns ... --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Chart labelling[edit]

I'm guessing, but only guessing, that the red circle in the chart is the position marker - the name doesn't appear in the chart. Oddly, the red circle doesn't appear in the magnified version that the illustration links to - this difference in detail between article illustration and higher res version is unique in my experience of Wikipedia grapics. Koro Neil (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

New planets[edit]

A few new planets have been discovered around Gliese 667C. Two new which may be potentially habitable. --Artman40 (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

redirects[edit]

Gliese 667 A , Gliese 667 B , Gliese 667 A+B , Gliese 667 A+B+C , Gliese 667 AB , Gliese 667 ABC and variants on that (ie. Gl and GJ) should redirect here (and their Gould, HIP, HR, HD equivalents) -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


Data[edit]

The data of these planets differs slight when comparing data from Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia and NASA's Exoplanet Archive. Which data should be used here? --Artman40 (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge 02 July 2014[edit]

I believe that the article Gliese 667 C should be merged to here. It's basically a content fork of a section of this article and the articles on its exoplanets, which are already adequately covered in the articles themselves. Any information in the Gliese 667 C article that is not already in one of the other articles can easily just be added to the appropriate place while doing the merge. I fail to see the need for an article on the single star in the system, especially since I think this is the only case on Wikipedia of a single star in a system having an article (Proxima Centauri is not confirmed as a member of the Alpha Centauri system). What is notable about the system is the planets, not the single star in the system. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  • For information, a couple of other cases I've come across are VB 10 (a.k.a. Gliese 752 B) and HD 20781/HD 20782. Recurring theme: exoplanets. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Ah, I was wrong on this being the only one then. That doesn't change the fact that I believe. it should still be merged; in fact, I think the others should be too. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the move. The star is not particularly notable outside of the context of other objects in the same system, so makes sense to deal with everything as a system. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, since there has been no objection in over 2 weeks now, I'll go ahead and perform the merge. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge done. I've taken the liberty to cut out some information about the five debunked exoplanets in the system, as the coverage given in the Gliese 667 C article gave them undue weight there. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)