| Revision as of 03:43, 1 January 2008 editGabrielVelasquez (talk | contribs)2,704 editsm Abundances_of_the_elements_%28data_page%29#Sun_and_solar_system← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:44, 1 January 2008 edit undoGabrielVelasquez (talk | contribs)2,704 editsm involed > involvedNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ] (]) 00:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | ] (]) 00:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Gabriel, please see ]. Yes, the light from Gliese 581 takes 20.4 years to reach the Earth, but that doesn't mean that the star isn't there, or that the planet isn't. Gliese 581 is moving around as though it is being pulled by three planetary mass objects, therefore there are three planets around it (see ]). Now, there is a valid criticism of the radial-velocity detection method - technically it only measures minimum values for the mass of the planets. Getting the absolute values will need to wait a while, so that we can measure the perturbations the planets have on each other. But the probability is pretty good that the planets are low enough mass to be solid. ] (]) 02:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | :Gabriel, please see ]. Yes, the light from Gliese 581 takes 20.4 years to reach the Earth, but that doesn't mean that the star isn't there, or that the planet isn't. Gliese 581 is moving around as though it is being pulled by three planetary mass objects, therefore there are three planets around it (see ]). Now, there is a valid criticism of the radial-velocity detection method - technically it only measures minimum values for the mass of the planets. Getting the absolute values will need to wait a while, so that we can measure the perturbations the planets have on each other. But the probability is pretty good that the planets are low enough mass to be solid. ] (]) 02:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :: Ockham's Razor says "the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory." I can say there are many possible objects that cause the wobble of a star, objects of many possible densities, so you fail to follow this theorem that you quote when you assume a planet size. I doesn't have to be a "Super-Terrestrial" (proper term), when it can be a Gas Dwarf (100% gas for that mass), or a ball of '''].''' The use of the term "]" here is ''']''' assumption, but nevertheless not a ''']''' assumption. A major error here is the use of the term "Earth," when "Terrestrial" is less of an assumption, as per your quote of''' Ockham's Razor.''' You say "Getting the absolute values will need to wait..." which is an admission of the level of speculation |
:: Ockham's Razor says "the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory." I can say there are many possible objects that cause the wobble of a star, objects of many possible densities, so you fail to follow this theorem that you quote when you assume a planet size. I doesn't have to be a "Super-Terrestrial" (proper term), when it can be a Gas Dwarf (100% gas for that mass), or a ball of '''].''' The use of the term "]" here is ''']''' assumption, but nevertheless not a ''']''' assumption. A major error here is the use of the term "Earth," when "Terrestrial" is less of an assumption, as per your quote of''' Ockham's Razor.''' You say "Getting the absolute values will need to wait..." which is an admission of the level of speculation involved. And, as it been pointed out to me, this Encyclopedia is about fact not speculation. | ||
Revision as of 03:44, 1 January 2008
.jpg){kind=small} | Astronomy: Astronomical objects Start‑class | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
"There have been several discoveries of Super-Earths since the first discovery in 2005 by a team lead by Eugenio Rivera of Gliese 876 d."
This makes it sound like Rivera is from Gliese 876 d....--Blingice 21:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay this is only a first grade "Assesment" article but I have to insist that you follow the Encyclopia guidelines to not use spectulation as fact. No "Super-Earth" type planets have been photographed and they are all HPOs (Hypothetical Planetary Objects). The light from these stars is decades, hundred, and in some cases thousands of years old, and so the possibility of a planet still being there is pure speculation! Please refrain from refering to planets, whose signature star-wobble has been detected, as a currently present verifed object. One piece of raw data creating a long list of possible calculated attributes is still catagorically speculation. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Gabriel, please see planet detection. Yes, the light from Gliese 581 takes 20.4 years to reach the Earth, but that doesn't mean that the star isn't there, or that the planet isn't. Gliese 581 is moving around as though it is being pulled by three planetary mass objects, therefore there are three planets around it (see Ockham's razor). Now, there is a valid criticism of the radial-velocity detection method - technically it only measures minimum values for the mass of the planets. Getting the absolute values will need to wait a while, so that we can measure the perturbations the planets have on each other. But the probability is pretty good that the planets are low enough mass to be solid. Michaelbusch (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ockham's Razor says "the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory." I can say there are many possible objects that cause the wobble of a star, objects of many possible densities, so you fail to follow this theorem that you quote when you assume a planet size. I doesn't have to be a "Super-Terrestrial" (proper term), when it can be a Gas Dwarf (100% gas for that mass), or a ball of Aluminum. The use of the term "Planet" here is cogent assumption, but nevertheless not a sound assumption. A major error here is the use of the term "Earth," when "Terrestrial" is less of an assumption, as per your quote of Ockham's Razor. You say "Getting the absolute values will need to wait..." which is an admission of the level of speculation involved. And, as it been pointed out to me, this Encyclopedia is about fact not speculation.