Talk:Gliese 667 C

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon Gliese 667 C is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This redirect is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
 

Stellar orbit[edit]

Can someone add the correct version of visbin to the starbox? The version I removed was about A/B orbit, not the C orbit around A+B -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Gliese 667 Ch[edit]

Gliese 667 Ch should redirect here, as it's where the information is located -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

redirects[edit]

142 G. Scorpii C, Gliese 667C, Gl 667 C, GJ 667 C, Gl667 C, GJ667 C, Gl 667C, GJ 667C, Gl667C, GJ667C, HD 156384 C, HD 156384C, HD156384 C, HD156384C, HIP 84709 C, HIP 84709C, HIP84709 C, HIP84709C, HR 6426 C, HR 6426C, HR6426 C, HR6426C, LHS 443, LHS-443, LHS443, should all redirect here -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Map is a bit inaccurate[edit]

The given coordinates don't quite match the centre of the red circle on the map drawn. The circle needs to be shifted up and to the right, more or less to two o'clock, about two diameters. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I've moved it, but it might need finer tweaking. -84user (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

6 or 5 planets[edit]

In The News says 6, article says 5. ????? PumpkinSky talk 13:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Five. Planet Cg is likely but unconfirmed, leading some sources to say "six planets". It should be five, and ITN changed accordingly. Wer900talk 18:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
ITN on the main page still says six. I did a refresh too.PumpkinSky talk 23:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Jargon[edit]

The repeated use of the word "solution" is jargon. There is no previous mention of what the "problem" is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesD'Alexander (talkcontribs) 14:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A "solution" is a possible planetary configuration given specific radial velocity readings. Wer900talk 17:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Habitable zone[edit]

The most recent definitions of a habitable zone inner edge are found in articles " How close is Earth to a runaway greenhouse?"( Ramirez) for planets with Earth-like atmospheric compositions and pressure and " Towards the Minimum Inner Edge Distance of the Habitable Zone" (zsom et al.) with different atmospheric compositions and pressure. Should habitable zone inner edge be adjested to Gliese667C system in this article? --Artman40 (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert - I just quoted (and in some cases nonetheless misunderstood) the recent source on the seven planet solution. I was thinking that pulling out my own habitable zone definitions and applying them would be impermissible original research, because (for example) I don't know how the greater proportion of IR light in a red dwarf interacts with the potential of high levels of CO2 to warm a planet. However, if you can find a source that applies these sources, or any other habitable zone definitions, old or new, to the system, please, by all means add it! Wnt (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Neither paper is yet submitted, so no. We'll have to use Kopparapu (which I assume the discoverers did). Wer900talk 19:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Where do these papers need to be submitted to before they can be taken seriously? --Artman40 (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
My bad; they were submitted to reputable astrophysics journals but are awaiting acceptance. Wer900talk 23:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Response to reader feedback[edit]

I attempted to respond to this reader feedback for this article as follows:

  • A reader asked: "Just wondering what scientist are doing now since making these discoveries. What steps are they taking to find life on these planets? How far is this from Earth? Is this a possible refuge if there was an extinction level event?"
    I expanded the abbreviation ly to help clarify how far these Gliese 667 planets are from Earth, so the lede now contains "Located 6.8 parsecs (22 light-years) away from the Solar System ...". I am unsure whether we should explicitly state that "Earth" is in the Solar System; but some readers may not be aware of this. I have no idea about the other questions, which could be asked at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science.
  • A reader commented: "A greater explanation of the charts."
    I expanded the captions of the star chart and the oribital video, is this what was meant? -84user (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
What you did seems largely okay. However, there aren't many steps being taken beyond computer modelling and orbital observation to determine planetary habitability; our equipment is not advanced enough at this point to reliably locate biosignatures or technosignatures. So seeing city lights on GJ 667 Cc will have to wait. Wer900talk 18:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Just wondering what scientis...[edit]

209.50.114.6 posted this comment on 2 July 2013 (view all feedback).

Just wondering what scientist are doing now since making these discoveries. What steps are they taking to find life on these planets? How far is this from Earth? Is this a possible refuge if there was an extinction level event?

Any thoughts?

I'm not sure this is the correct place to discuss this issue, but:
  • The James Webb Space Telescope should be able to make a spectroscopic analysis of the atmosphere of these planets, thus detecting any life-specific gazes if there are some ;
  • As specified in the article, this star is about 22-light-years away ;
  • 22-light-years away is out of reach for any space propulsion system currently known.
In any case, those considerations are a bit off-topic in the article, which should focus on describing what Gliese 667 C is, without expanding on its very speculative importance for mankind. That would be a PoV, I think.
--Grondilu (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Red noise[edit]

Goodbye to most of the planets? Accounting for correlated noise seems to drastically change the conclusions about the number of planets: [1] 77.56.99.228 (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This paper: [2] arrives at a similar conclusion based on orbital stability of the system. They can find up to 4 planets in the RV-data, but the system only remains stable with only the planets b and c. Sirius3100 (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge 04 May 2014[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Articles merged. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I propose that the articles Gliese 667 Cd, Gliese 667 Ce, Gliese 667 Cf, Gliese 667 Cg and Gliese 667 Ch are merged into this one. The claim for these objects to exist is not secure because of the erroneous assumption of white noise when making the detection claim [3]. As such, it gives undue weight to the planet claims to give each their own separate article, and at present they are little more than stubs anyway. The articles for the two confirmed planets (Gliese 667 Cb and Gliese 667 Cc) should remain in place, though. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Support. In addition I suggest including GJ 667Cb, GJ 667Cc and Gliese 667 in the merge. What is notable is the claimed planetary system around GJ 667C.

Qemist (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd actually have to disagree with including Gliese 667 Cb, Gliese 667 Cc and Gliese 667, there's enough there for them to stand on their own: the stars are a fairly well-studied nearby system, and there have been a few follow-up studies on the confirmed planets to flesh-out the articles. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Attempted to perform the merge, only to be blocked by automated filter. Pages Gliese 667 Cd and Gliese 667 Ce are now redirected, the remaining ones (Gliese 667 Cf, Gliese 667 Cg, Gliese 667 Ch) are not. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I've redirected them now, so that's done. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.