This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kepler-70 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://kepler.nasa.gov/news/keplerinthenews/index.cfm?fuseaction=ShowNews&NewsID=178 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7378/full/nature10631.html
designations are KOI-55.01 and KOI-55.02, NOT KOI-55 b and KOI-55 c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.30.246 ( talk) 22:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
That website has known limitations in the way it handles designations. They probably can't get it to do KOI-55.01. It lists incorrect lettering for the pulsar planets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.30.246 ( talk) 23:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
203.114.146.141 ( talk) 03:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC) User Calibanu
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kepler-70. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The 2015 paper "Planetary candidates around the pulsating sdB star KIC 5807616 considered doubtful" and the 2019 paper "Analysis of putative exoplanetary signatures found in light curves of two sdBV stars observed by Kepler" (published in Astronomy and Astrophysics) cast doubt on the existence of the Kepler-70 exoplanets. The authors of the latter paper state (among other things):
"we performed this test on the F 1 and F 2 sig- nals that were observed in KIC 5807616 sdBV. Both signals have larger frequency variations than expected from the exoplanetary origin. After a careful study, we classified the F 1 and F 2 fre- quencies as resulting from a beating of intermediate-amplitude pulsating g modes."
I would like to edit this page (and the Kepler-70/70c/Subdwarf-B pages) to cite these papers and to add a note saying something like "Recent research has suggested that the Kepler-70 exoplanets may not exist, and that the apparent variations in brightness can be explained through other means".
I'm not a professional astronomer and don't know if counter-arguments to those in the papers exist, so I thought I'd post on the talk pages first and see what other editors thought. However, after looking things up further, authors including Ulrich Heber have cited the 2015 paper in their work and appear to find its arguments convincing, so I'm planning on making the edit anyway. I'm still posting on the talk page, though, as you can see!
(I'm posting near-identical messages to this one on the other three relevant talk pages. I hope it doesn't trigger any sort of automated spam-detection.)
Someone else pointed me to the 2019 paper during a Stack Exchange discussion; I don't normally keep up with this research, and hadn't known about the 2015 paper until today either.
AstridRedfern ( talk) 11:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
References
The existence of Kepler-70b and Kepler-70c is doubtful (see the references in the above section), and those articles have mostly the same information as this one. At worst, these articles misinform readers - the claim that Kepler-70b is the hottest known exoplanet is often added to other articles. SevenSpheres ( talk) 17:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kepler-70 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://kepler.nasa.gov/news/keplerinthenews/index.cfm?fuseaction=ShowNews&NewsID=178 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7378/full/nature10631.html
designations are KOI-55.01 and KOI-55.02, NOT KOI-55 b and KOI-55 c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.30.246 ( talk) 22:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
That website has known limitations in the way it handles designations. They probably can't get it to do KOI-55.01. It lists incorrect lettering for the pulsar planets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.30.246 ( talk) 23:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
203.114.146.141 ( talk) 03:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC) User Calibanu
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kepler-70. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The 2015 paper "Planetary candidates around the pulsating sdB star KIC 5807616 considered doubtful" and the 2019 paper "Analysis of putative exoplanetary signatures found in light curves of two sdBV stars observed by Kepler" (published in Astronomy and Astrophysics) cast doubt on the existence of the Kepler-70 exoplanets. The authors of the latter paper state (among other things):
"we performed this test on the F 1 and F 2 sig- nals that were observed in KIC 5807616 sdBV. Both signals have larger frequency variations than expected from the exoplanetary origin. After a careful study, we classified the F 1 and F 2 fre- quencies as resulting from a beating of intermediate-amplitude pulsating g modes."
I would like to edit this page (and the Kepler-70/70c/Subdwarf-B pages) to cite these papers and to add a note saying something like "Recent research has suggested that the Kepler-70 exoplanets may not exist, and that the apparent variations in brightness can be explained through other means".
I'm not a professional astronomer and don't know if counter-arguments to those in the papers exist, so I thought I'd post on the talk pages first and see what other editors thought. However, after looking things up further, authors including Ulrich Heber have cited the 2015 paper in their work and appear to find its arguments convincing, so I'm planning on making the edit anyway. I'm still posting on the talk page, though, as you can see!
(I'm posting near-identical messages to this one on the other three relevant talk pages. I hope it doesn't trigger any sort of automated spam-detection.)
Someone else pointed me to the 2019 paper during a Stack Exchange discussion; I don't normally keep up with this research, and hadn't known about the 2015 paper until today either.
AstridRedfern ( talk) 11:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
References
The existence of Kepler-70b and Kepler-70c is doubtful (see the references in the above section), and those articles have mostly the same information as this one. At worst, these articles misinform readers - the claim that Kepler-70b is the hottest known exoplanet is often added to other articles. SevenSpheres ( talk) 17:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)