Talk:Gliese 667

Merge from Gliese 667 Cb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"

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)

I agree with Jersey John, "sunlight" (lowercase) can refer to the light of another star from some point around it. It's used frequently that way in fiction. There is no contradiction with astronomical nomenclature (but even if there was, that doesn't matter, because it is a common sense English language definition, not a technical one), and no possibility of generating ambiguity or confusion, so I don't think there is any issue with it. I would accept both, but it is worth noting that "starlight" actually does generate ambiguity, whereas "sunlight" does not. "Starlight" on another planet - what am I referring to? The light at night on that planet, or the light during it's day? It is impossible for you to tell. This type of ambiguity does not arise in a normal sentence with "sunlight", but it does with "starlight"; hence, I guarantee people will casually use a common sense "sunlight" instead of a hyper-technical "starlight". The question is whether you want an online encyclopaedia to produce ambiguity and jargon, or resolve it. -- 203.26.125.101 (talk) 06:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I would add that if you are taking a strictly technical approach and buying the IAU approach to linguistics, your comment is nonsensical anyway - what do you mean "any star with a planet"? Surely you know there are only 8 confirmed planets in the universe. Other stars have no planets, by IAU definition. 203.26.125.101 (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Chart labelling

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

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

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

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

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gliese 667. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6630AbtJZ?url=http%3A%2F%2Foutreach.atnf.csiro.au%2Feducation%2Fsenior%2Fastrophysics%2Fphotometry_colour.html to http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/photometry_colour.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gliese 667. 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://archive.is/20121212011550/http://people.bridgewater.edu/~rbowman/ISAW/KeplerCalc.html to http://people.bridgewater.edu/~rbowman/ISAW/KeplerCalc.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/photometry_colour.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Gliese 667Cf/Ce confirmed?

I'm really an amateur, but when I looked on the Habitable Exoplanets catalog today I was surprised to see GJ 667Ce and GJ 667Cf on the list. This was surprising to me since I had thought the five additional GJ 667C planets disproven/dubious. Furthermore, when I clikced on the link for 667Cf, both the web address and the page listed it as confirmed. This is the same of 667Ce and 667Cg. I since realized that on the host page they are flagged as controversial, but I'm still surprised as to why they appeared on the HEC, as they weren't there before, and if they were Cf definitely didn't have an ESI of anywhere near 0.87. There must have been some new paper out or something. Any ideas? Ardenau4 (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Extra Planets

I was just wondering whether Cd, Ce, Cf, Cg, and Ch have been cast more into doubt recently, considering the recent edits that were made that cast the former four as dubious and unconfirmed. Considering that one of the references manages to detect Cd, perhaps that could be added as a confirmed planet. TheWhistleGag (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

They were cast into doubt in 2014, by the Feroz & Hobson and Robertson & Mahadevan papers; in fact the article said that before you edited it to claim they're confirmed. The Tuomi et al. paper does detect Cd, but it was never actually published (except as a preprint on arXiv) and the NASA Exoplanet Archive doesn't list Cd, so I think it should remain listed as an unconfirmed planet for now. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I would remove Ce-Ch from the article and have Cb and Cc as confirmed planets, with Cd as an unconfirmed planet, based on the sources we've seen so far. Ardenau4 (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd be fine with removing h, but e-g are listed as controversial planets in the Exoplanet Archive, so I'm not sure about those. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The Feroz et. al. paper describes the claims of the planets as "erroneous" so I think it would be best to remove them for now. They do find some evidence for the 91 day signal so it's best to remove e-h and leave d as unconfirmed. Ardenau4 (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You can remove them from the planetbox if you'd like, it's just that they are still listed in the Exoplanet Archive, so if they're not listed here there's a chance that someone will think they're confirmed and add them back in as confirmed planets (like TheWhistleGag did). SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I still am optimistic about the existence of e-g, so I would most likely still leave them unconfirmed. TheWhistleGag (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)