Talk:VB 10b
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Importance?
[edit]I'm not an expert on importance scales, but shouldn't this be high rather than mid, given the fact that the discovery demonstrates that planets (big ones at that) form around the smallest stars? — Aldaron • T/C 18:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree with High importance for several reasons including the ones you give but I am new to importance scales and don't know the criteria. I originally chose Mid because I thought Low was too low. Also, I think we have moved beyond Stub class as well. Aldebaran66 (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- It certainly isn't more important than Sirius or the Pleiades. I rate it a mid per the WP:ASTRO project's importance criteria.—RJH (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Radius?
[edit]Someone recently added a radius value for the planet. Where is this from? I can't any radius data in any of the usual sources, and a search fails to turn up a new paper. Was there a transit I missed? — Aldaron • T/C 17:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I also can't find a source for this figure, and since, as far as I am aware, there's been no transit (and no real likelihood of seeing one, given the orbital inclination), I'm going to remove it from the infobox. Scog (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- It reappeared, so I'm deleting it again.
Planet VB 10 b not seen in CRIRES radial velocity data (2/12)
[edit]Here a today's article written by Jacob L. Bean, Andreas Seifahrt, Henrik Hartman, Hampus Nilsson, Ansgar Reiners, Stefan Dreizler, Todd J. Henry and Guenter Wiedemann.
Our measurements rule out planets with M > 3 M_Jup and the orbital period and inclination suggested by Pravdo and Shaklan at better than 5 sigma confidence. Planets with masses down to 1 M_Jup would need to have unusually large orbital eccentricities (e > 0.7) and be phased in a very specific way to have eluded detection with our data. We conclude that the planet detection claimed by Pravdo and Shaklan is spurious on the basis of these results.
source: http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0003 Ganondolf (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Added to article. — Aldaron • T/C 20:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)