Talk:HD 181433

Correction needed

This article appears incorrect. HD 181433 contains 2 planets and is not the star in the Doradus and Pictor constellation.

149.32.192.33 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it will be corrected, note the article did not mention it was in these constellations but near them, and that is verified, I have admitted the mistake on three planets and that has been corrected. Argentium (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No data suggested 181433 b is Earth-like

There are two overall catagories for planet size, terrestrial and gas giant.
The mear fact that this is not a gas giant does not implicate an Earth twin,
so please refrain from trying to write any entries here about a new Earth, it is not funny. GabrielVelasquez (talk)
There is no Semi-Major axis data which would be need to even begin to guess at the temperature:
so far it could be a ball(s) of magma or a ball(s) of ice. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is referenced, and I can find about 1000 more news articles saying about the super-earths. Argentium (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, Super-genius: Super-Earth, New Earth... SUPER difference there.
The size is not in question here (that's mathematics), do you get that?
the beach resort with hot tubs is! - so save your frequent flyer miles for someplace else.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not acually interested in a disussion about this with you,
I only added the section to show why this phrase was removed from the article
"and alleged to have earthlike conditions"
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category Listing

Why is it listed as a Subgiant? It's a dwarf with a radius smaller than the Sun. These category mistakes are causing a lot of confusion.--UltimateDarkloid (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellar dust?

Possibility of absorption by interstellar dust isn't accounted-for in the formula for absolute magnitude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.3.107.203 (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but the star is located relatively nearby so the effects should be fairly minor. Icalanise (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HD 181433. 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://web.archive.org/web/20081007085709/http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2008/pr-19-08.html to http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2008/pr-19-08.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) 06:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research Notes

{{reflist|group="note"|refs= <ref name="absmag">Calculated from apparent magnitude and parallax (assuming negligible absorption due to interstellar dust): <math>\textstyle M_{\mathrm{V}} = m_{\mathrm{V}} - 5\log_{10} \left(\frac{100}{\mathrm{parallax\ in\ milliarcseconds}}\right)</math></ref> <ref name=parallax>Calculated from parallax: <math>\textstyle \mathrm{Distance\ in\ parsecs}=\frac{1000}{\mathrm{parallax\ in\ milliarcseconds}}</math></ref> }}

Can someone explain why this is not considered Original Research, and if there is a list of these formulas on Wikipedia that one can refer to? 50.70.236.24 (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

$f_{p}={\frac {((0.38\times 6.955\times 10^{8})^{2})\times (5.67051\times 10^{-8})\times (4902^{4})}{((0.073-(0.073\times 0.16))\times 149597876600)^{2}}}$
Found this and consider it usable. 50.70.236.24 (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

$R_{s}=({L}/{(T)^{2}})^{(}0.5)$