User talk:Icalanise/Archive 2

COROT or CoRoT?
I find very little support anywhere outside of Wikipedia for the capitalization used here for COROT discoveries. All exoplanet databases and almost all recent papers use CoRoT rather than COROT. The closest thing to a discussion I can find here seems not to have come to any conclusion. Thoughts? If there's interest I'd propose a move from COROT to CoRoT. — Aldaron • T/C 01:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing alternative planet designations
I see that you removed alternative planet designations from the planets around 47 Ursae Majoris articles. Last night, I added a note about where alternative designations came from. Those alternative planet designations are taken from alternative star designations. According to the exoplanet nomenclature, planet designations are the extension of any star designations. For example, this parent star is most commonly referred as 47 Ursae Majoris, the most useful alternative star designations are HD 95128, HIP 53721, HR 4277, and Gliese 407, which they all included in starbox under other designations. That corresponds to the planets of 47 Ursae Majoris. For example, the alternative designations for 47 Ursae Majoris d are HD 95128 d, HIP 53721 d, HR 4277 d, and Gliese 407 d. Of all the exoplanets, some use HD, HIP, HR, and Gliese designations as the referring designations. HD designation is most commonly used for planets, such as HD 209458 b. HIP designation is sometimes used, such as HIP 14810 b. HR designation is also sometimes used, such as HR 8799 c. Gliese designation is used for several planets, such as Gliese 876 d. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 00:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dreugol system
Would you like to look at Dreugol system on NukeVac Wiki that NuclearVacuum made? You can even participate discussion about the article. First you have to create your account in order for you to have discussion. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 16:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

fossil range
No worries! I agree the issue should be revisited, maybe something you could bring up with WikiProject_Dinosaurs MMartyniuk (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary of interactions diagram: neutrinos and photons?
I agree. I had made that diagram years ago thinking it would be helpful to clarify the interactions between the various particles of the standard model. Now I feel that its is very misleading since, after all, all particles with every other particle after one takes loop effects into account. I would like to try to put this diagram up for deletion. Do you agree? TriTertButoxy (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Cold Neptune and Jupiter
I was surprised to see your deletion nomination of these articles but I thought I have a word before contributing there since I see you are in WikiProject Astronomical objects. User:BlueEarth is a prominent editor of both articles and he seems very much into exoplanets. Google scholar throws up many references (rather too primary in nature?) going back to at least 2003 where the word cold is not merely adjectival. I think the two articles could be merged with each other but merging with Gas giants would be awkward, I think, in listing discovered objects. Template:exoplanet also seems helpful. Are you really suggesting WP would be improved by deleting these articles or there is some significant breach of policy? Thincat (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It is fortunate Hot Neptune did not get deleted too., or maybe some of these are merely Warm Neptunes :-) Thincat (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HD 10180
-- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Gliese planets
You updated the orbits image for the 6-planet system. Do you have a ref? Did "d" become circular? because g was inserted? Also, could you use a frame from 2010 instead of 199 as it is now? Nergaal (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Image improvement
I would say the only way this image could be more perfect is if you added the habitable zone ring. I don't need a reply, it's just a suggestion. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. The reason I don't put habitable-zone boundaries in the orbit diagrams I make is because of the large number of different definitions out there of how to define the habitable-zone. Not all of these can be plotted easily on an orbit diagram, for example if the calculation depends on orbital eccentricity or planetary mass. Extrapolating a model developed for an Earth-mass planet orbiting a G-dwarf to the cases for 3 or 6 Earth-masses planets orbiting an M-dwarf is probably not going to give reliable results. And given the controversies that always seem to arise in discussions of planetary habitability on Wikipedia, I can't see much prospect for agreement on such matters. Icalanise (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to debate or disagree with you, but is sounds to me like you are making the irradiance of the star dependent on the size of the planet, if looked at in the most simplistic way. I'm also aware of all the dimesion that need too be looked at specifically for the status of the planet itself, but I added the chart regarding zone limits in the Habitable zone article so I right away think since that figures are there, you can just scale them for Gliese's luminosity. Plenty of independent references also exist (MH Hart - Icarus, 1979 - Elsevier)

"In our own solar system, the CHZ is thought to extend from a distance of 0.725 to 3.0 astronomical units, based on various scientific models:" I don't know if it's a linear relation so I'll leave the math to you. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think just scaling these for Gliese 581's luminosity is going to provide a good estimate of where the HZ should be. See for example Kasting et al. (1993) table 3. This shows that the habitable zone moves to lower values of the incident flux for cooler stars. Apparently tidal locking effects were not included in that table, this would again cause the boundaries to change, though I'm not sure what the precise effects would be. Table 1 in that paper shows effects of planetary mass: the reason for the effects they show is because the scale height of the atmosphere is smaller on a high-gravity planet, thus changing the greenhouse properties. On the other hand they don't seem to attempt to model the different rates of geological evolution on such planets, which is also going to be a factor. Icalanise (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yikes! hold on, we have already started talking around each other, I mean the Habitable zone, liquid water, in the most simplistic sense the term is used, not the status of the planet in the zone. I know, the there is a list of planet factors, but some of those would still make a planet habitable outside of the habitable zone. Let go of the planet factors and remember Titan could be habitable yet is technically not in our habitable zone. Do you see the distinction I am making?? Try maybe a normal Earth-like planet that people like to compare to when they get habitability happy. The simpler the better. I'm going to go read Kasting now, I may have more to say after. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Kasting uses this interesting phrase "Conservative habitable zone." Is that not enough for a start towards simplicity, a reference that includes this idea I mean? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)