Talk:Kepler-223

Goose Sauce, Gander Sauce

If one planet appears to hang brightly and permanently in the sky of the other, then surely the same would happen in the opposite sense. Actually, it would only "hang permanently" if the two planets were tidally locked (not impossible), and even then, only from certain regions (about 120deg of longitude) of each planet. If they have rotation, then each planet would remain in approximately the same position in the sky compared to the star. Which is going to be weird enough.

SF authors are going to LOVE this system! Fixed the phrasing of the article.

I thought that when I read the referenced source, but I couldn't find a plausible and reference-able way of putting that. Kernalk (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

HALP!

Can someone else have a go at the final sentence? I've tried to rewrite it but I can't make it scan properly and say what I want... please have a go! Kernalk (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted, but as I'm not exactly sure what your problem with it was, I'm not sure if it did any good (probably not). Ajl^talk 09:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Why delete? This is the first discovery of a planet sharing the same orbit with another. This is special and a historic event within planetary discovery. If deleted my respect for wikpeida will be diminished.--Matthurricane (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing has been discovered. As the sources used already state, nothing has yet been confirmed and so it cannot satisfy notability and fails WP:CRYSTAL. ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see the previous related AfD which discussed this in depth, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI 701.03. ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The very reason for the notoriety for this candidate - two planets sharing a common orbit - is now in doubt. See Sky and Telescope —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.149.202.2 (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If deleted, KOI's with unconfirmed planets may be an appropriate place to move the information present in this article Nstock (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

contradictory

The current state of the article is contradictory. If two of planets are trojan with each other, then the resonance relationship 8:6:4:3 is impossible, since two of the planets should have the exact same orbital period. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed in this diff. According to the ArXiv report, the 8:6:4:3 resonance is an "alternative interpretation" (in which case, this article is not as noteworthy as first thought). Ajl^talk 00:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well 8:6:4:3 would still be the first ever detection of a four-body resonance (the highest-order multiple resonances other than Trojan swarms currently known are the 3-body 1:2:4 resonances of Io-Europa-Ganymede and Gliese 876 c,b,e, and the 1:1:1 pairs Tethys-Telesto-Calypso and Dione-Helene-Polydeuces.) Icalanise (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed note tags

I boldy removed the note tags in this edit, replacing them with wikifyed versions, since all the notes did was reference the wiki pages for them. – Ajl^talk 22:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm considering removing I've removed – Ajl^talk 22:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC) the TOC, as there's no point in having it on there if this is being classified as a stub if there is no content between the TOC and the sections it links to. – Ajl^talk 22:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

In impetuous boldness, I've removed the one-source banner as now featuring 5 references and many links to other articles it doesn't seem appropriate any more. Please feel free to revert if you feel strongly. Kernalk (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Be bold! No objection from me. – Ajl^talk 02:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Star

I can't find this star in SIMBAD; in order to get any results, I had to use a 10arcmin circle around the coordinates from the February release dataset.

• http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-coo?CooDefinedFrames=none&CooEpoch=2000&Coord=%2019.88789h%2047.2795d&submit=submit%20query&Radius.unit=arcmin&CooEqui=2000&CooFrame=ICRS&Radius=10

65.95.15.144 (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

more info

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/117984/20110302/kepler-finds-strange-worlds-fastest-planet.htm
Not sure where they got their sources from, but it might be worth including part of it as well? – Ajl^talk 22:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

possible image

If you Google Image Search for KOI-730, there's a lot of the same picture. I'm not 100% sure on the image guidelines, but is it possible to snag one of them and use it in the article? Found this on NASA's website. Would it be okay to upload a resized version of it? – Ajl^talk 22:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh. I realized it's already being used. See Kepler-9. – Ajl^talk 23:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Radii confusion

Regarding: "Fabrycky et al gives the radii as 1.8, 2.1, 2.8, and 2.4 Earth radii with orbital periods of 7.4, 9.8, 14.8, and 19.7 days respectively"

What radii? The planet themselves or their orbits' (semi-major axis or average distance from the star)?

The radii are the radii of the planets themselves. http://blogs.zooniverse.org/planethunters/2011/08/21/some-more-examples/: "the depth of the transit is related to the ratio of the planet radius to the star’s radius, so bigger dips are generally due to larger planets." --Mortense (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The first source lists 1.8, 2.1, 2.8, and 2.4 and the second 0.31, 0.23, 0.25 and 0.18. Is it the same quantity? Or are one of the sources incorrect?

--Mortense (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

new update (Submitted on 27 Jul 2012)

I found newer information on KOI-730 if someone wants to try to incorporate this into the article. Just reading the summary made my head spin... sorry.

Limits on orbit crossing planetesimals in the resonant multiple planet system, KOI-730. Alexander Moore, Imran Hasan, Alice Quillen

– AJL^talk 08:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)