Talk:Kepler-37b

Dwarf exoplanet?
Is it really a full planet? Has it cleared the neighbourhood? Ribbet32 (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Still bitter about Pluto?. Anyway of course we can't say for certain. For that we'd probably have to go there. But since
 * most objects in our solar system HAVE cleared their neighbourhood, let's assume exoplanets have as well. Garadur (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the IAU definition no exoplanet can be considered a planet as they don't orbit the Sun. Obviously this will have to be revised again at some point. AstroMark (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert and don't know who is wrong here, but Wikipedia articles currently define an extrasolar planet, or exoplanet, as "a planet outside the Solar System", and a planet as "an astronomical object orbiting a star or stellar remnant [i.e., not necessarily the Sun] that is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity, is not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion, and has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals." — Kpalion(talk) 17:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I wasn't suggesting we actually rigorously stick to the IAU definition, just pointing out that the IAU definition doesn't apply to exoplanets and so we shouldn't yet start worrying about whether to use the term dwarf exoplanet. The definitions you cite are the working definitions used in the astronomical literature and so are perfectly fine. AstroMark (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a different IAU proposal for exoplanets. (It was proposed before the one that demoted Pluto) (IAU Working Group on Extrasolar Planets Defintion of a "Planet") -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Units of measurement
A science article in which the first quoted temperature is in Fahrenheit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srn (talk • contribs) 09:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've gone through the article and changed everything to metric, with Imperial measurements in brackets for citizens of the United States and Myanmar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 09:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure temprature has anything to do with the metre so is non-metric I think you mean SI units. Anyway a few million km or a few million miles do people really know the difference at these scales, surely better to use a unit scientist use like AU.130.160.100.75 (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * User Newzild meant 'metric' as in short for Metric system, which in common use, is synonymous with International System of Units. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  20:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Asteroseismology
The article lists asteroseismology as the means of detection, and claims the planet's size is known with "extreme accuracy". Am I wrong, or does asteroseismology just measure the size of the star? This would be necessary, but maybe not sufficient, to determine the planet's size. The asteroseismology article isn't very helpful in explaining how this science would apply to an exoplanet. Gaohoyt (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I reworded it and used a different reference. Greengreengreen  red  20:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Titius-Bode Law
Do the planets around Kepler obey the guesstimated Titius-Bode Law? --139.80.3.29 (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Irradiance & Temperature
I'm not suggesting these figures be put in the article, I would just rather users were not ignorant of how HOT these planets are, so they aren't inserting silly ideas about habitability where they don't belong. Hopfully someone will find references for any published missing temperatures. thanks. 24.79.38.15 (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not for the article nor is it original research. It's a pretty simple formula to calculate irradiance from Star Temperature & Radius, and the semi-major axis of the planet.

Discovery date
one should read the sources better (ref 1): Feb 20, 2013 was just the publishing date in Nature. But Thomas Barclay et al send the paper already on Sep 20, 2012 and if someone read the Supplementary Infos he will see, that the important signals were received between March 2010 and June 2011 (p.2 of the Supplementary Infos for example) -- Hartmann Schedel  cheers  21:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"around a main sequence star" qualifier not needed?
The article states that this is the smallest known planet orbiting a main sequence star, which Is correct as far as I know, but it seems to also be smaller than the smallest known pulsar planet, which should make it simply "the smallest known extrasolar planet". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaurea (talk • contribs) 11:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * AFAIK the sizes of the pulsar planets are not known, they might be smaller. So 37b is the planet with the smallest measured size unconditionally. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kepler-37b. 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/20140209185644/http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/kepler-37b/ to http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/kepler-37b/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)