Talk:Gliese 581c/Archive 2

Planet's accurate location

Where is this planet? It says its in the Libra constellation; but that is just a group of stars. As far as I know, its outside the Solar System and maybe in the Milky Way. --MicroX 23:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is surely in the Milky Way. To be precise, it is around the star Gliese 581. I think you can't get more precise than this. You can look on the net for the celestial coordinates of that star. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20.4 Light years is within our Galaxy, and the precise location is in the article, you have to look in the star characteristics box (Parent Star), but you have to know what Right ascension (hours, minutes, seconds) means and what Declination (degrees, minutes, seconds) means, though here to start you off I'll tell you it's from the Earth's equator at zero hour and zero latitude. Those three coordinates give you it's precise location in space.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step 2: CHECKLIST of falsified information and assumptions in this article.

(1) the false effective temperature calculations mean it may be habitable (Sol per AUs squared?)
(2) the false effective temperature calculations means anything at all (-17/-20 Celcius Earth = Nuclear Winter)
(3) this calculation is falsifying a perspective by using various (atmosphere's) Albedos on an assumed black body which requires zero atmosphere (Mercury??).
(4) the planet is Earth-like, and we would not burn to death if went sunbathing there (6,912.915 Watts/m^2, 504.62% of Earth).
(5) the elemental compostion is not known, but we know the radius range anyway, because its Earth-like of course.
(6) the use of the term "Puffy Planet" needs to be suppressed and discouraged (this possibility contradicts habitiability)
(7) the planet is for 100% certain tidally locked at a 1:1 ratio, and therefore at least habitable at the stable twilight zone.
(8) there is no greenhouse gas effect, and even still the 462 celsius temperature of Venus with its lower insolation means nothing.
(9) This planet has a surface, and is not 99.9% gaseous (GasDwarf).
(10) This planet has an atmosphere and is not a solid ball of rock (see Mercury) or Aluminum (Element abundancy).
(11) the term "Super-Venus" is included in the idea and parameters of a "Super-Earth" So it must be habitable.
(12) It takes 20.4 years for the light to get here. "Discovered in 2007" the planet could have been destroyed (2008) 19.4 years ago.
(13) [if you can think of more, edit this.]

205.200.11.201 (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good grief.... Who did this? I'm tempted to delete it simply on principle. It's rambling list of crap that people who actually pay attention to the article will not beleive. Seriously. this reads like it's author barely skipped over the article.--Marhawkman (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And we should all be glad you know how to dictate peoples beliefs to them.
204.9.14.20 (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snide comments aside, this list is more erroneus than the article itself. The Article does NOT say that the planet IS habitable, it says that it COULD BE habitable. Seriously, this list is garbage somebody made up because they don't like the article. The only actual assumption in the article are things actually used by actual researchers in the field. Ya know I'm gonna do my own version:

1 What is wrong with it?
2 The article says outright that the effective temperature calculation is nothing but a vague estimate.
3 doesn't even make sense.... Is it some sort of criticism of the analysis of possibilities other than an airless planet?
4 We don't know either way. And the calculation that it gets 500% the radiation that earth does is even worse. the article states several times that we don't know how much radiation the planet gets.
5 The article says the opposite, it lists several possibilities as to what the radius might be given certain compositions.
6 What's a puffy planet? It's not an astronomical term.
7 The article says that it is probably tidally locked, not that it is, and mentions that tidal lock may or may not be 1:1.
8 It doesn't say that. It even specifically mentions that the planet might be like Venus.
9 Gas dwarf? Never heard of it. and apparently Wikipedia hasn't either.
10 Once again, the article specifically mentions that it might just be that.
11 What gave you that idea? It wasn't the article.
12 is something completely pointless to include.
13 = waste of space

Anybody got a reason not to "archive" this list of garbage?--Marhawkman (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"COULD BE HABITABLE" is bad enough Mr.MarHAWkMAN, in light of the fact that the reverences are proving to have been abused. Case in point: "Results: The super-Earth Gl 581c is clearly outside the habitable zone, since it is too close to the star."
[1]

Lets go over the list for you since it does need a little claification for your shoty/lazy research (Qualified below). By the way, I for one prefer the sarcastim rahter than Bolding use in this criticism, it's refreshing :

You like to use the phrase "Is that astronomical." Well "Sol per AUs squared" is not astronomical.
It doesn't say it's a vauge estimate: it actually violates synthesis policy, Wiki:SYN
if it is a Chthonian planet, being outside the habitable zone, then it has no atmosphere.
The calculations given then give the deception of habitability. Not even could be, just deception.
Again, you have deliberately ignored data to state your POV. Two users have shown calculations that say it gets too much heat, and references to articles that say the same are being ignored as well.
"It is not possible to measure the radius of an exoplanet using Radial Velocity. The real value may be anything between the two extremes" - the point is, it's Venus like and has no water, so this is just another part of the habitability fraud.
If you don't know about it, it doesn't exist, is that the reasoning?? Puffy planet, please applogize.
"probably tidally locked" is not astronomical, when the masses are all you need for that calculation.
They are keeping false hopes of habitability with a twilight zone, and no complete outgassing.
Exactly, but that's sarcastic, the insolation is ignored: Using an Earth Albedo is then is a deception.
If Gliese 581 d has a volume that is rocky by 50% or more, then it's not a gas giant. See the photos there, and, nb an article on that would be useful, thanks.
Once again, that seems to be sarcastic, the article "says just that" becuase Mercury is not habitable.
That's cute, you don't see the term or the valid POV included with all the others: Please see the section on Balancing Views then tell me why Super-earth is used instead of Super-venus, in light of (NPI) the Venus-like attributes.
"Useless to include" is a POV.
It has been mention a few times aleady, but you are intited to your biased POV, but not to act on it.

Part of the point you've missed is that only the Habitable zone possibility is expounded on here (not Cythonian, not Puffy planet, minimize the Venus-like aspects, please), and the planet is not even in the habitable zone, as was pointed out above with this copy of a reference:[2]
205.200.11.201 (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About point 3: if it's Chtonian, it doesn't mean it has NO atmosphere, in my opinion: heavier gases could well have been kept while lighter have been stripped away (this hasn't anything to do with habitability, but just wanted to point things are not black-and-white). 7 is also not sure: you need masses, eccentricity, and assume that eccentricity does not vary in time. Mercury in our solar system is not completely tidally locked (it is 3:2) because of its eccentricity and because its eccentricity tends to oscillate in time. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was ASKING what you thought was wrong with it. And then you made the mistaken assumption I was mocking you?

How?

You're using an "if" as a foundation for the article. That goes under WP:Crystal. The calculations are for general reference, not a specific POV.

Okay fix it and add proper references.

we don't know that it is Venus like. We know that it probably is. We also don't know that it lacks water completely. IF it is similar to Venus then it probably doesn't have liquid water, it could however have a large amount of water vapor.

Sorry... I though I did a search for that... I guess not. Regardless, this planet has around 5 times the mass of Earth. Puffy planets are a subclass of Gas Giant, too large to apply here.

Um seriously, If you think it's incorrect fix it.

You really need to use plain english. I am. Your lack of it makes you extremely difficult to understand.

Um d? At any rate you'll need to provide a WP:reliable source stating that it could be a gaseous planet.

see 8 I can't understand this comment of yours either.

Super-Earth is used because of real world impact. It's been called that repeatedly by various media. That and the phrase really has nothing to do with habitability. I can see how it might confuse people, but it has more to do with a planet's size than anything else. Yes it'd be best to limit use of the term, but we can't exclude it from the article.

WP:Crystal it is useless because it is SPECULATIVE. Sure it's not guaranteed to be erroneus speculation. But it's WP:OR and Speculation all the same.

Um really.... I know this is a talk page but the entire list, even the list's name, is bashing the article, not constructive criticism on what needs fixed. Adding a line at the end asking others to make in longer sounds like inviting more people to bash it.

Remember the old saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it"? The reverse is true as well. If it's broke, fix it don't just gripe.--Marhawkman (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed paragraph / Leave paragraph

I removed the following paragraph.

All things being equal, the current presence of this body around the star Gliese 581 is only hopeful popularist speculation as a simple deduction of current year minus the discovery year should equal the distance in lightyears before a conclusive declaration is made: The light that arrives at the Earth has taken 20.4 years to get here and the possibilies of rogue planet impact event or other disaster could make this all moot if the planet's orbit is disrupted or the planet destroyed within 20.4 years of its first indirect microlensing measurement.

If this caveat applies to Gliese 581 c, it applies just as much to any astronomical object. Astronomers say Pluto "has" a mass of 1.31×10²² kg although it may have been destroyed a few hours ago; they say S Doradus "has" an absolute magnitude as low as -10 although it may have been destroyed any time in the last 150,000 years. These statements are not "hopeful popularist speculation" and neither is the assumption that Gliese 581 c still exists.

Likewise we talk about things that will happen in the next 20 years on Earth—solar eclipses, or young people buying life insurance—without worrying about the possibility that a rogue planet will destroy the Earth or the far more likely (but still minuscule) possibility that a smaller object will disrupt the Earth-Moon system or extirpate humanity in that time.

Speaking of probabilities, it's hard to calculate a probability for the destruction of a planet by a rogue planet since no one knows of a planet that has been destroyed and no one has confirmed that rogue planets exist! But the article says the Gliese 581 system is over 4 billion years old. From its beginning to the time of the latest observations, the planet was not destroyed. The probability that it was destroyed in the 20 years since then is negligible. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept some of the critizism of that paragraph, and your passion on this minuscule part of the whole BIASED article, but you're still using the word assumption, and this is an Encyclopepia. Pluto is a false example, it has a record, it has been proven to be there (present year MINUS discovery year GREATER THAN time for light to get here)(-you are a math teacher, right?). I really don't care about light a hundred and fifty thousand years old reaching here now, but it is a fact: You can not prove it is there at this very moment nor 19 years from now April. It is a fact that something of that mass was there 20.4 years ago, I accept that. Now as to the assumptions, there are far too many in the article as it is... "If we assume the planet is in thermodynamic equilibrium." "if we assume an Earth-Like albedo."...etc, etc, and other assumptions. I'm undoing your deletion but I am going to soften the paragraph in view of your comments, but you can not prove and will not prove the planet is there now. And so this fact deserves its place in the article. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As JerryFriedman correctly pointed out, what you say theorically holds not only for the planet, but also for almost every astronomical object. You cannot be sure they have not been destroyed: in fact, we are almost for sure observing stars in distant galaxies that already have vanished as supernovae. However, no one talks about stars and galaxies as "possibly there": we know that we see past images of them and that anything could be happened in reality to them, but since the only thing we can see is their photons, i.e. their astronomical image, the only sensible thing to talk about their existence as astronomical objects. Moreover, special relativity invalidates any physical concept of absolute simultaneity, so it is, rigorously, impossible to talk about "now" when we talk of us vs distant objects.

What I want to say is: IMHO the "fact" does not deserve a place in the article, no more as any article on astronomical objects needs something like "it can only be seen if looking in the sky". Being true for every astronomical object, it would be just redundant. You can move your argument to articles talking about speed of light or astronomical objects in general. This very specific article is not the place to put it. (However, since I don't want an edit war, I wait for other editors' opinion).

As for assumptions, every article on WP has some kind of assumptions. We assume the external world exists; we assume reliable sources are, indeed, reliable; we assume scientists are not cheating unless proven the contrary (hey, what if we're discussing about a fake planet invented by an Astronomical Conspiracy?) and so on. I guess the odds of Gliese being an invention of human scientists are very low, but still higher than the odds of it being destroyed by a rogue planet. My guess indeed, but ...--Cyclopia (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I correctly pointed out (and you ignored) Pluto is a false example. 2-2=0. This math is as simple as the formula I have provided above. "No one talks about..." is not Encyclopedic. If you stick to the facts, instead of biased opinions you would not be contradicting me. I don't claim any "conspiracy," but simple calculations evidence the popularizing of the biased perspective of habitability for much needed publicity and funding. I'm not saying the planet is an invention, again, I admit 20.4 years ago it was there. The microlensing shows some mass is there, the rest is calculations with error margins and assumptions for popularization (not encyclopedic). "Every article has assumptions..." is a ridiculous generalization and a self contradiction. The planet being there 19.4 years ago April 2007 is a fact, but that it is there now is not a fact; this is self-evident and should not need to be debated. You circle this issue with tangent distractions but this fact remains. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Also your "IMHO" means nothing to me, I haven't found it anywhere, doesn't come up on searches.GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Pluto is not a false example. Pluto is a very real example: if your generalization is encyclopedic, we should write in the Pluto article something like: "The fact Pluto exists in every moment is hopeful inference: in truth, in every moment we see it, we only know it existed until 15 hours from now". More so for every distant star: can we really say that Deneb is there, or can we just say it was there 3000 years ago? We can technically only say the second: it is an undisputable fact, of course. But is it encyclopedic? I don't think so: it adds nothing to the article than a tautologic consequence of the finite speed of light. I am not circling any issue: I recognize what you say is a truth. I don't recognize it deserves place in an encyclopedia. And yes: "No one talks about..." IS encyclopedic. We build not only on facts, but on common consensus on facts, on what include and what not, and it seems (in this discussion) that agreement is arising about the paragraph being not encyclopedic. If you feel the general issue on the contemporary existence of distant objects needs clarification, you can move the discussion on the articles on light year, speed of light , astronomy and so on. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "IMHO" is short for "in my humble opinion". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why the paragraph was even inserted in the first place. I mean, sure, there's no proof that this planet has been in place and not destroyed in the past 20 years. There's also no proof of the current existence of the Andromeda galaxy, or galaxy M87, or any other distant object. For that matter, I read recently that the Milky Way Galaxy could have had a Gamma radiation event in its core at any time in the past 13,000 years and we wouldn't know about it until it suddenly wipied us all out (if then). If you want to point out that the existence is based on calculation rather than empirical evidence, then say that, but there's no real point in mentioning that it could have been destroyed any time in the past 20 years and we wouldn't know about it because that's how long light takes to get here. That's definitely speculation. BobGreenwade (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As BobGreenwade points out, the speed of light limits our ability to say for certain whether something exists at any given moment. Just as we can't be certain that some sort of impact event didn't destroy Gliese 581 c on May 25, 1988--and that'd be one HELL of an impact event to completely obliterate a planet of that size; we'd certainly have seen additional fluctuations due to the other body involved--we can't be certain that the sun didn't suddenly have its fusion reaction inexplicably halt seven and a half minutes ago, that the Moon didn't randomly explode three-quarters of a second ago, or that my computer's monitor didn't have a bizarre coincidence of quantum fluctuations and cease to exist 0.75 nanoseconds ago, because of the speed of light. Just as Gliese 581 c is 20.4 light-years away, and "anything" could have happened to it in the time it took for the light from Gliese 581 to get to Earth, the sun is eight light-minutes away, the Moon is just over one light-second away, and my eyes are currently about one light-nanosecond (11.78496 inches) away from my monitor. While "anything" could have happened to the sun, the Moon, or my monitor in the time it takes for light to reach my eyes from them, we don't say in an encyclopedic article that we don't know for sure that they're there, because the probability that they're no longer there is so vanishingly small as to be statistically insignificant. My monitor's been in the same place on my desk for four years now; the odds of it mysteriously vanishing in the nanosecond since the light left the screen are incalculably small. Gliese 581's been there for about five billion years; the odds that 581 c would vanish in any given 20.4-year span of that are slightly better than that of my monitor having poofed out of existance, but of a similar order of magnitude. Rdfox 76 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to repeat what I and others have said, Gabriel, but let me see whether I understand your argument. You're saying that 20.4 years after the detection of the planet, we'll be able to say it exists "now"? That is, in 2027 we'll be able to say, "The planet currently exists," because the duration of the observations will equal the length of time for light to get here from there? This doesn't follow—there's no connection between the length of time it's been observed for and the justification for saying "it exists" in the present tense. As soon as it was discovered, its presumed age was over 4 billion years, the same as its star. Thus my analogy to Pluto is a good one.

And no, the encyclopedia should not mention possibilities with negligible probability. For instance it is a fact that Queen Elizabeth I of England may have been "chromosomally male" (XY) with androgen insensitivity syndrome. No one can prove she wasn't, and the probability is greater than 1/20,000. Yet this unfounded speculation does not belong in Wikipedia. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I keep reading the words "presumed" and "assumed" here. If I had a weak short term memory I might forget we were talking about a planet, or a binary planet, or a twin magma ball binary planet... I could have, would have used the same reasoning as [Rdfox 76] that my monitor has been on my desk for 4 years, that is, it has a four year history of being monitored/observed. Pluto again, presumed to be a planet, then a dwarf planet, now a dwarf binary planet (observed for 77 years past its light-time). Whatever. I don't like picking fights with people, I get to passionate about what I believe still anyway, and I think my issue is really with the encyclopedic policy here. Despite the fact that the majority of 10th graders reading the article are not relativity physicists, and would benefit from being made to think twice about it (as I was about the distinction between dye color and lightwave color - turned reality inside out for me), you can go ahead and delete the paragraph, but you can not prove the so-called magma-ball binary-planet is there at this minute, you are of course free to make yourselves feel better about that fact anyway you like. Oh, and not to be too nit picky but in the presumed to 4 billion years old comment, you are failing to note that there is a long time between protostar ignition and final planet accretion, and theories about planet formation say they have the illusion of stability and are in reality quite chaotic, One simulation showing that mercury could smash into Venus (Oct-Nov Sci.Amer.) in the long term. Anyway, I see I need to take the issue higher, so kill it if you wish, I'll be the one laughing if it's gone (or calculated out) 19.15 years from now.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the factual value of that paragraph outweights the ruffled feathers of these few. Especially when they have all been so condescending in the tone of their word choice. And to top it all of, calling you a fringer violates the WP:NPA policy so tacklessly.
Dr Henry Draper (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what is the real value of the paragraph? In court they have a phrase called "probitive value": does it really help in understanding the question? I really don't see how it does. It is frankly just a waste of space. I don't see similar pharagraphs in articles on Neptune, Messier 87, or anything else; do they have them and I'm just not noticing, or does Gliese 581c get special treatment for some reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobGreenwade (talk • contribs) 18:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading a scientific paper on planet detection. What it described was a process where they have, obviously not a photograph of the planet, but a signature of light, and they take that jubbled harmonic and try to decode it using what ever algorithms they can make up that seems to fit, and that's how they figure out how many planets there may be there. Nice, so if someone comes up with a more likely algorithm then this planet could be calculated out. I think that is noteworthy, considering some of the talk on this page has been about going there because of the skewed perception that has being insinutated using false interpretations of scientific paper to the opposite conclusion in the paper, saying it is habitable when it is not. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is really more of a point to make on a general article on extrasolar planets, then, or on their detection, not on one specific planet.BobGreenwade (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this article needs to stick with things that deal specifically with this (hypothetical)planet. Any connection to this planet would be best addressed on an article about that type of extrasolar planet detection.--Marhawkman (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way special relativity works, 20.4 years ago IS NOW. This is literally like seeing a person momentarily walk behind a building column for half a second and considering the possibility of nothing coming out, due to person death. Anybody who knows anything about astronomy finds this ridiculous. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, Another self-nominated spokesperson of everybody. So you think 20.4 years is the same as half a second, that's very astronomy wise. You clearly have no idea how relativity works("The speed of light in a vacuum is an important physical constant"), misinterpreting what was written about distance to refer to time. I hope you enjoy your trip past the building column. 198.163.53.11 (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planet's accurate location

Step 2: CHECKLIST of falsified information and assumptions in this article.

Other Language Copies of the Article:

Removed paragraph / Leave paragraph