Talk:Super-Earth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Astronomy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Astronomical Objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Rivera is from Gliese 876 d

"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)

[edit] 20.4 Lightyears Ago, not present

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. GabrielVelasquez (talk)
Gabriel, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not just fact. The verified fact is that there is an object with a particular mass in orbit around Gliese 581c. The standard interpretation is that matter over there acts like matter over here and therefore something that low-mass cannot have formed a large gas envelope. That is verified by citing the relevant articles. The uncertainty inherent in that interpretation is already discussed. Adding weasel-words is not required. I referred you to Ockham so that you would accept that the planet was there because its mass is there. I'm afraid I don't see what this discussion will do to improve the article. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
(a) "Standard interpretation" I'll have to remember that one.
(b) Jupiter formed mostly of gas and I know you would not hesitate to say there is a "Super-Earth" at it's core, and yet compared to the whole mass that Super-Earth would be "Low mass." Also "cannot form" is theory.
(c) "... doesn't mean the star is not there." FALSE: I could like-wise suggest that perhaps you missed the article on "Supernova." You will not know that the star and planet is still there now until 20.4 years from now, When the light that left there now actually gets to here. If we took 20.4 years off your life you would take issue with it: there is 20.4 year difference between "relatively there" and "there now," please take due note of these facts.
(d) I am not going to get into an edit war or start vandalizing because I disagree with this media error circularly supported by popularist scientists. I respect that this is an (an attempt at an) encyclopedia: I just want you to acknowledge that "Super-Earth" is a misnomer. The use of the word Earth does not refer to soil and so it refers to our own planet Earth, and so this is false reason because you cannot prove that these planets are like our planet Earth. The may be closer in size to our planet Earth than Neptune or Uranus, but that doesn't make them like Earth. It's as nonsensical as calling Jupiter a Super-Neptune, or calling Titan a Super-Pluto. You are selling out this encyclopedia with this compromise in principle and I will have to go the way of some professional astronomers, just as Dr._Submillimeter did, and "depart Wikipedia."
PLEASE CONSIDER this alternative:
"A popular misnomer for a Terrestrial planet that is larger than Earth but smaller than Uranus."
(e) There's a lot more I'd like to say but instead I'll refer you to here [[1]]
(f) Lastly, I'll stop refering to facts and reality, I get it now, facts and reality have no place here if they don't have proper references.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Star of 10 Earth Masses?

I quote "A super-Earth is a planetary object orbiting a star, with a mass of between 2 to 5 and 10 Earth masses..." which is badly written, it can be seen as reading that the star is 10 Earth masses. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)