Talk:Gliese 581d

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gliese 581d article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 120 days

Gliese 581d has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 8, 2016. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Unsourced Facts

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

References nr. 17, 18 and 19 by Ronald Stewart et al. should be removed. They are making highly preposterous claims based on their "IMMI" method ("Infinite Microscopic to Macroscopic Imaging"), including to extract infinitely detailed information from a given photograph or telescope view. The primary images presented in their publications are extremely coarse. They may well have imaged the planet, but for any surface feature they claim to have identified - including oceans, glaciers, clouds, a moon, some asteroids and even waves at the shorelines (yes!) - they are so far unable to demonstrate that these are real features rather than some background noise. Even the "journals" they have published in - "Journals of Science" and "Pluralidade" - are dubious to say it politely. When I read the articles and looked at the journals, I thought this was a joke. These are small periodicals which presumably exist only online and which try to make a serious appearance. But the "papers" in question have been written in such a bad English with so many grammar errors, missing words, repetitive sentences and misplaced brackets that it is difficult to believe these texts have passed any kind of review at all.

Interestingly, when I looked for further publications by Dr. Stewart, I have found this one: http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=12867

There you will find the same methodology as in the Gliese-581d articles, when he makes claims about nearly invisible and totally unverified surface features on an old coin.

Please do not cite Dr. Stewart again in any serious context.

Phlogistophagos (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radius

How can we know that Gliese 581 d has a Earth radius of 2.2 if it doesn't transit the star? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinZ02 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article sufficiently reflect studies showing that the planet likely doesn't exist?

See e.g. Robertson et al. 2014, Hatzes 2016, Dodson-Robinson et al. 2021. There is a paper questioning the initial 2014 refutation (Anglada-Escudé & Tuomi 2015), published along with a paper questioning that paper (Robertson et al. 2015). The planet is treated as disproven by the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia and NASA Exoplanet Archive. Much of this is mentioned in the article, but it doesn't seem to be given sufficient weight. Much of this also applies to Gliese 581g. Thoughts? SevenSpheres (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New study show that it may exist.

I was checking exoplanet.eu's list (https://exoplanet.eu/catalog/) and marked to show only the "other" (not confirmed or candidate) planets. Then, i saw Gliese 581 g in the list (https://exoplanet.eu/catalog/gj_581_d--398/) and checked the bibliography. The most recent paper (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/ad1de4) has the name "The Once-canceled Habitable-zone Super-Earth Gliese 581d Might Indeed Exist!" InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That has already been added to the article. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]