![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Last I checked we did not have enough data to conclude that Venus is non-habitable. There are possible habitats (atmosphere) that could be as habitable for life as we know it as some extreme habitats on Earth. Again, it looks like another Star Wars inspired article that assumes an anthropocentric view of habitable.-- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 02:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Quoted as 8.2 here which is different figure to the 8.5 quoted in the citation. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 05:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that this page have copyright problems where Habitable Zone Distance (HZD) and other methodology from [1]. -- Honeplus ( talk) 16:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Editing previous statement to correct a human-read error: The license given by the source page is NOT Wikipedia-compatible (CC-By-NC-SA, in this case - given at bottom of page). To continue using the quarantined text, additional permissions will need to be sought according to the instructions found at [2]. I would suggest in the meantime simply using a note of reference in the article and visible link to the original source, at least until either appropriate permission or a non-infringing variant of the data can be generated.
The "combined" statistic is not found in the cited reference, nor is it explained here. Can anyone shed light on this? -- Lasunncty ( talk) 06:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
What other scientific criteria on habitability is there? The moon may play a big part in advanced life on Earth. Tides are believed to have provided small pools of water for life to get started. The Earth's large moon helps stabilize the axis from wobbling too much. This reduces big climate changes that stunt evolutionary progress beyond simple one celled organizations. The gravity of a large outer planet like Jupiter attracts objects that might impact a planet's surface. 22yearswothanks ( talk) 16:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The HEC website does list this object as #5 on its list of confirmed PHEs, with an ESI of 0.73. However, when I go to the database file that lists all the other parameters (SPH, HZD, HZC, and HZA), it is not so high on the list. There it has a ESI of only 0.39. This file was updated 9/22/12, but the site says it was updated 9/17/12. Since I'm not sure which data is correct, I'm leaving it out of the table for now. -- Lasunncty ( talk) 09:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Both those terms redirect here, and both those terms are used here, but there is no definition here. The same is true of mesoplanet. Can someone please provide definitions of the terms used. Based on the root "psychro", I expected it to mean "cold", but everything in the table listed here is "warm", even the "psychroplanets". What the heck? 74.82.132.35 ( talk) 22:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The big copyright notice looks terrible. If such a notice is to be used then any such investigation should be swift and either the content removed or the notice removed within a few days. It appears to have been there for over 2 months which is far too long for such an investigation. Just give the benefit of the doubt unless the copyright holder has complained and unless Wikipedia feels they would pursue a law suit or succeed in one. Stop messing about.-- ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 16:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog/methods. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Darkwind ( talk) 08:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess the List of habitable planet candidates is about the same exoplanets as this one. -- 4th-otaku ( talk) 12:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
There's another list at List of nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates that should also be merged here. -- thechuck ( talk) 16:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.147.51 ( talk)
The HEC entries seem to differ from those on this article's list. I found the following unmatched entries:
Only on HEC:
Only on Wikipedia:
What gives? -- Waldir talk 20:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I personally think deleting pages was a terrible idea, should be more info on wikipedia about this and not less Armchairphysicist ( talk) 12:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Just looking at the last one KOI-438.02 it is now confirmed to be Kepler-155c and indeed it meets the criteria for being habitable (<2.5Re, >173 K, <373 K) I don't know why it is not included. See for yourself here. Davidbuddy9 ( talk) 17:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
We can use
User:DrTrigonBot/Subster to automatically extract latest data from the catalog *.csv.zip files. Python programmer is needed (see formatedlist_frommatrix
postproc). --
4th-otaku (
talk)
15:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
CDH31211811 posted this comment on 18 May 2013 ( view all feedback).
I think it would be better if there is a picture of the planet next to the list.
Should we add some more images, as in the List of nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates? -- 4th-otaku ( talk) 01:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be better if this article recieved a higher importance rating and attention by an expert! Armchairphysicist ( talk) 12:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The source given says 0.82. Please explain where 0.79 comes from ... -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 05:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody explain what do the colors really mean? Nergaal ( talk) 04:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
No informations about Kepler-69c
The article states Earth as a so called "mesoplanet". According to the definition of the term "mesoplanet" it's an object smaller than Mercury but larger than Ceres. The term "psycroplanet" is not a scientific term. It however refers to a cold planet but is here used in combination with "warm subterranean", which is very inconsistent. Mercury's classification on the list is "non-habitable" which is not only inconsistent to the rest of the list, but its very presence on the list could and should be questions as it's supposed to be a list over potentially habitable exoplanets. Also is Mercury not an exoplanet and neither is Venus, Earth or Mars. There have only been found eight possibly habitable exoplanets of which one is HD 85512b but that is not featured on the list.
There's so much incorrect and inconsistent information in this article that it's surprising that it hasn't been flagged or edited yet. Cesium137 ( talk) 17:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The expressions "mesoplanet" and "psycroplanet" are not scientific terms to begin with, but that's relatively unimportant. Concerning that the article is based on the HEC, who lists only 20 potential habitable exoplanets (plus 49 unverified Kepler candidates), it should be questioned why the list of this article also contains unverified planets (shouldn't it be more proper to wait till they're verified?) I admit to have missed that the non-exo planets are stated as examples of comparison but concerning the inconsistence of Mercury being "non-habitable" is that then also Mars should be listed as "non-habitable" as its clearly outside the habitable zone. Concerning whether Venus is on the verge of, or outside the habitable zone is not really relevant as a significant part of the definition of habitable zone is the possibility for liquid water to exist on the surface, which is not the case with Venus or Mars (or Mercury, obviously). There are theories that the dense atmosphere of Venus in fact comes from vaporized ocean and if that would be true, that would mean that Venus was once within the habitable zone, but at the same time the oceans would not have vaporized if the planet remained within the habitable zone.
Cesium137 (
talk)
22:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The information may be taken from the HEC but that does unfortunately not prevent this article from being inconsistent, poorly structured and contain errors. I definitely don't mean to be rude, I merely want to suggest that the page would become better it it was completed with more details and information and "cleaned up" from inconsistent information (as mentioned above. Cesium137 ( talk) 12:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
On the table it says "confirmed", wich I take it means it's confirmed that it exist. At the planet page, however, it says it has been confirmed that it doesn't exist. And the same goes for Gliese 667 Ce.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.3.149 ( talk) 14:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The data in the list of planets looks incorrect, especially for Kepler-186f. According to http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog/data, its ESI is 0.64 and is a psychroplanet yet in the list here, it has an ESI of 0.96 and is a mesoplanet...-- Omega13a ( talk) 05:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
This is in response to the recent move from "List of potential habitable exoplanets" to "List of potentially habitable exoplanets". I wondered about this myself, but it could be rationalized either way. Is the word in question modifying habitable or exoplanets? I.e., are we talking about potential exoplanets that are habitable, or exoplanets that are potentially habitable? Maybe this is splitting hairs, but I thought it could use some discussion. -- Lasunncty ( talk) 10:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
So I've just updated the table, and the new data leaves many of the previously listed Kepler candidates (and also two confirmed planets) with HZAs of more than 1. The mouseover states "Values above +1 represent bodies likely with thick hydrogen atmospheres (e.g gas giants)", which makes these of… questionable value for this list. What do you think of having an upper limit for HZAs for planets included in this table? Is 1 a meaningful limit? ShellfaceTheStrange ( talk) 22:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
There are several problems with the table, even if you discount the fact that it's outdated.
Firstly: several of the terms are more jargon than actual astronomy. For instance: psychroplanet is a term that is not used by NASA or any other reputable sources ( see NASA's glossary). If you Google it, the only major hits are Wikipedia and University of Puerto Rico. Very few serious astronomers (if any) use the terms that the Planetary Habitability Laboratory use. This makes this table border on WP:Original research.
Secondly: pClass and hClass are very strangely defined. The definitions are also not from a standard glossary. It's even stated in the text that the source is the Habitable Exoplanets Catalog, but no other organisations use those definitions.
Thirdly: Several of the planets are listed as both "warm superterran" and "psychroplanet". This means that they are both warm and cold at the same time.
Fourthly: The status column mixes "Unconfirmed" and "dubious", for the same thing.
Fifthly: The discovery column is very loosely defined. For instance, was Earth discovered? When was Mars discovered? Was it when it was first spotted by the naked eye, or when it was observed and catalogued by Galileo?
(I am not an expert in these matter, but I have consulted with two expert astronomers.)
What do you suggest to correct these problems?// Hannibal ( talk) 16:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I've considered for a while and would like to make this idea public for discussion. Saturn and Jupiter are both gas giants, like our Sun. They both have small collections of orbiting material. We call this material a 'ring'. Both also have 'moons', a few of which recent research has shown to be habitable (i.e. Europa, Titan). In our table in this article, Titan and Europa are not included in the list of habitable exoplanets. I understand they may not be considered part of our "solar system" but I believe our concept of the "solar system" is slightly skewed. After all, for an individual standing on the surface of Titan, or the surface of Europa, would not the main source of light be either Saturn or Jupiter, respectively? If I am misinformed, please correct me. Perhaps its past time for us to redraw the map of our solar system to show that the asteroid belt of our sun, Sol, may actually appear to be a set of rings from farther afield. Haerdt ( talk) 13:46, 06 November 2014 (UTC)
Why the venus has here an ESI of 0.78?? In the source the venus has an ESI of 0.444.
data_solar_ESI.txt refered in http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/dec/05/habitable-exoplanets-catalogue-alien-life. 91.52.22.185 ( talk) 17:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Since people forgot the difference; False Positive: Occurs from a machine failure, or miscalculation from a bot (Such as a Kepler false positive). Dubious: Of questionable value, usually a miscalculation by Humans however is a more broad word than False Positive.
Its really annoying when people change things around when the original information was correct. Davidbuddy9 ( talk) 01:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
New data proves that Gliese 581 d exists, no word on GJ 581 g. [1] Davidbuddy9 ( talk) 01:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
References
The recent edit deleting a second mention of Kepler-452b raised an issue: what is the correct esi value? This edit puts one at 0.69 & one at 0.862... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
as today, the NASA official Kepler web site does not report the mass of the planet http://kepler.nasa.gov/Mission/discoveries/ so while the planet radius is know with good approximation, the density is unknown. Many speculating web site report values from 5 EM to <1. So the ESI index for 452b reported in the article is completely arbitrary, remove it from an enciclopedia-- Efa ( talk) 20:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I see there are people here updating with HZA/B/C/etc., but the section is presently marked as "unreferenced", and ... how can Earth have these weird values? I mean, to look at that table you'd think Mars is in the better location! I know the Sun was supposed to be fainter in former times, but (a) Faint young sun paradox isn't really properly explained, and (b) we'd expect as an "overall measure" for other life to have been around roughly the same time as on Earth, right? I just can't help but think that Earth is, by definition, the best place for life in the Solar system and the cosmos, until some other option is proven. And when that table seems to be inconsistent with that, it makes me wonder if it is meaningful at all. Wnt ( talk) 20:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
A study title The Host Stars of Keplers Habitable Exoplanets: Superflares, Rotation and Activity was done on habitable exoplanets. [1]
References
Too soon? Kortoso ( talk) 20:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The new table that me and a few other editors have been working on is now finished and can be found here. However I am not sure if I should implement it now or wait for things to settle first? Davidbuddy9 Talk 20:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
This edit removes a lot of values that are the sole provenance of a single website. As has been acknowledged at Talk:Earth Similarity Index, the precise "ESI" values are not relevant. Also the qualitative description of the "type" of planet are not found in reliable sources.
The equilibrium temperature is a value that is calculated on the basis of flux alone so is redundant with the flux value. I also think we need to refer to the discovery papers for each planet directly to quote the mass/radii. Most of the transiting exoplanets have no validated mass measurements. Conversely, radial velocity detected ones have no radius measurements.
Thanks.
jps ( talk) 15:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I read an interesting article today about some earth-ish massed planets around a small red "ultra cool" dwarf:
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1615/
http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=2MASS+J23062928-0502285
I originally posted this in the exoplanet talk. I don't know if these planets are "confirmed" or not. The article seems to suggest that this is the dimmest(?) star we have found potential habitable planets around though. I'm not going to add it myself because I don't know the criteria here. Autumn Wind ( talk) 18:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Update: Sorry, it said ultra cool dwarf. So I'm guessing that despite all the pictures out there, its a brown dwarf.-- Autumn Wind ( talk) 14:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Although the high uncertainties, it could be inside or outside the habitable zone of the star. See this. And of course PHL made a statement on it too, which you can checkout the archive here if it had been removed by the time you are reading this. Davidbuddy9 Talk 05:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Having these images under the Previous candidates section seems a bit odd to me (although it may just be me). I think maybe it should be moved up above the list probably where readers are more likely to see it. It may also be confusing to have an image portraying Kepler's most notable potentially habitable exoplanets in the "Previous candidates" section. Thoughts? Davidbuddy9 Talk 21:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
What do the table columns Flux and Teq mean? - not even I, who knows quite a lot about physics, has any clue ... (Edit - I have added links.) And what is the initial sort criterion for the list? - I (think that I) could not return to the original list by clicking on any header. -- User:Haraldmmueller 08:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Many of the values in the mass and radius columns of the exoplanet tables list three values separated by dashes. What are those values? Upper limit, best estimate, lower limit? It would be good if this were clarified somewhere in the text above the tables. These values appear to come from the PHL website, but I can't find an explanation of the numbers there, either. Inositol ( talk) 23:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The ESI was a useful metric for evaluating how similar an exoplanet was to Earth, and reintroduction of an ESI section in the table would provide valuable and relevant information to the article. Synapticrelay ( talk) 23:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Last I checked we did not have enough data to conclude that Venus is non-habitable. There are possible habitats (atmosphere) that could be as habitable for life as we know it as some extreme habitats on Earth. Again, it looks like another Star Wars inspired article that assumes an anthropocentric view of habitable.-- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 02:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Quoted as 8.2 here which is different figure to the 8.5 quoted in the citation. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 05:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that this page have copyright problems where Habitable Zone Distance (HZD) and other methodology from [1]. -- Honeplus ( talk) 16:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Editing previous statement to correct a human-read error: The license given by the source page is NOT Wikipedia-compatible (CC-By-NC-SA, in this case - given at bottom of page). To continue using the quarantined text, additional permissions will need to be sought according to the instructions found at [2]. I would suggest in the meantime simply using a note of reference in the article and visible link to the original source, at least until either appropriate permission or a non-infringing variant of the data can be generated.
The "combined" statistic is not found in the cited reference, nor is it explained here. Can anyone shed light on this? -- Lasunncty ( talk) 06:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
What other scientific criteria on habitability is there? The moon may play a big part in advanced life on Earth. Tides are believed to have provided small pools of water for life to get started. The Earth's large moon helps stabilize the axis from wobbling too much. This reduces big climate changes that stunt evolutionary progress beyond simple one celled organizations. The gravity of a large outer planet like Jupiter attracts objects that might impact a planet's surface. 22yearswothanks ( talk) 16:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The HEC website does list this object as #5 on its list of confirmed PHEs, with an ESI of 0.73. However, when I go to the database file that lists all the other parameters (SPH, HZD, HZC, and HZA), it is not so high on the list. There it has a ESI of only 0.39. This file was updated 9/22/12, but the site says it was updated 9/17/12. Since I'm not sure which data is correct, I'm leaving it out of the table for now. -- Lasunncty ( talk) 09:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Both those terms redirect here, and both those terms are used here, but there is no definition here. The same is true of mesoplanet. Can someone please provide definitions of the terms used. Based on the root "psychro", I expected it to mean "cold", but everything in the table listed here is "warm", even the "psychroplanets". What the heck? 74.82.132.35 ( talk) 22:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The big copyright notice looks terrible. If such a notice is to be used then any such investigation should be swift and either the content removed or the notice removed within a few days. It appears to have been there for over 2 months which is far too long for such an investigation. Just give the benefit of the doubt unless the copyright holder has complained and unless Wikipedia feels they would pursue a law suit or succeed in one. Stop messing about.-- ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 16:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog/methods. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Darkwind ( talk) 08:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess the List of habitable planet candidates is about the same exoplanets as this one. -- 4th-otaku ( talk) 12:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
There's another list at List of nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates that should also be merged here. -- thechuck ( talk) 16:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.147.51 ( talk)
The HEC entries seem to differ from those on this article's list. I found the following unmatched entries:
Only on HEC:
Only on Wikipedia:
What gives? -- Waldir talk 20:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I personally think deleting pages was a terrible idea, should be more info on wikipedia about this and not less Armchairphysicist ( talk) 12:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Just looking at the last one KOI-438.02 it is now confirmed to be Kepler-155c and indeed it meets the criteria for being habitable (<2.5Re, >173 K, <373 K) I don't know why it is not included. See for yourself here. Davidbuddy9 ( talk) 17:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
We can use
User:DrTrigonBot/Subster to automatically extract latest data from the catalog *.csv.zip files. Python programmer is needed (see formatedlist_frommatrix
postproc). --
4th-otaku (
talk)
15:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
CDH31211811 posted this comment on 18 May 2013 ( view all feedback).
I think it would be better if there is a picture of the planet next to the list.
Should we add some more images, as in the List of nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates? -- 4th-otaku ( talk) 01:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be better if this article recieved a higher importance rating and attention by an expert! Armchairphysicist ( talk) 12:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The source given says 0.82. Please explain where 0.79 comes from ... -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 05:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody explain what do the colors really mean? Nergaal ( talk) 04:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
No informations about Kepler-69c
The article states Earth as a so called "mesoplanet". According to the definition of the term "mesoplanet" it's an object smaller than Mercury but larger than Ceres. The term "psycroplanet" is not a scientific term. It however refers to a cold planet but is here used in combination with "warm subterranean", which is very inconsistent. Mercury's classification on the list is "non-habitable" which is not only inconsistent to the rest of the list, but its very presence on the list could and should be questions as it's supposed to be a list over potentially habitable exoplanets. Also is Mercury not an exoplanet and neither is Venus, Earth or Mars. There have only been found eight possibly habitable exoplanets of which one is HD 85512b but that is not featured on the list.
There's so much incorrect and inconsistent information in this article that it's surprising that it hasn't been flagged or edited yet. Cesium137 ( talk) 17:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The expressions "mesoplanet" and "psycroplanet" are not scientific terms to begin with, but that's relatively unimportant. Concerning that the article is based on the HEC, who lists only 20 potential habitable exoplanets (plus 49 unverified Kepler candidates), it should be questioned why the list of this article also contains unverified planets (shouldn't it be more proper to wait till they're verified?) I admit to have missed that the non-exo planets are stated as examples of comparison but concerning the inconsistence of Mercury being "non-habitable" is that then also Mars should be listed as "non-habitable" as its clearly outside the habitable zone. Concerning whether Venus is on the verge of, or outside the habitable zone is not really relevant as a significant part of the definition of habitable zone is the possibility for liquid water to exist on the surface, which is not the case with Venus or Mars (or Mercury, obviously). There are theories that the dense atmosphere of Venus in fact comes from vaporized ocean and if that would be true, that would mean that Venus was once within the habitable zone, but at the same time the oceans would not have vaporized if the planet remained within the habitable zone.
Cesium137 (
talk)
22:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The information may be taken from the HEC but that does unfortunately not prevent this article from being inconsistent, poorly structured and contain errors. I definitely don't mean to be rude, I merely want to suggest that the page would become better it it was completed with more details and information and "cleaned up" from inconsistent information (as mentioned above. Cesium137 ( talk) 12:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
On the table it says "confirmed", wich I take it means it's confirmed that it exist. At the planet page, however, it says it has been confirmed that it doesn't exist. And the same goes for Gliese 667 Ce.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.3.149 ( talk) 14:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The data in the list of planets looks incorrect, especially for Kepler-186f. According to http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog/data, its ESI is 0.64 and is a psychroplanet yet in the list here, it has an ESI of 0.96 and is a mesoplanet...-- Omega13a ( talk) 05:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
This is in response to the recent move from "List of potential habitable exoplanets" to "List of potentially habitable exoplanets". I wondered about this myself, but it could be rationalized either way. Is the word in question modifying habitable or exoplanets? I.e., are we talking about potential exoplanets that are habitable, or exoplanets that are potentially habitable? Maybe this is splitting hairs, but I thought it could use some discussion. -- Lasunncty ( talk) 10:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
So I've just updated the table, and the new data leaves many of the previously listed Kepler candidates (and also two confirmed planets) with HZAs of more than 1. The mouseover states "Values above +1 represent bodies likely with thick hydrogen atmospheres (e.g gas giants)", which makes these of… questionable value for this list. What do you think of having an upper limit for HZAs for planets included in this table? Is 1 a meaningful limit? ShellfaceTheStrange ( talk) 22:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
There are several problems with the table, even if you discount the fact that it's outdated.
Firstly: several of the terms are more jargon than actual astronomy. For instance: psychroplanet is a term that is not used by NASA or any other reputable sources ( see NASA's glossary). If you Google it, the only major hits are Wikipedia and University of Puerto Rico. Very few serious astronomers (if any) use the terms that the Planetary Habitability Laboratory use. This makes this table border on WP:Original research.
Secondly: pClass and hClass are very strangely defined. The definitions are also not from a standard glossary. It's even stated in the text that the source is the Habitable Exoplanets Catalog, but no other organisations use those definitions.
Thirdly: Several of the planets are listed as both "warm superterran" and "psychroplanet". This means that they are both warm and cold at the same time.
Fourthly: The status column mixes "Unconfirmed" and "dubious", for the same thing.
Fifthly: The discovery column is very loosely defined. For instance, was Earth discovered? When was Mars discovered? Was it when it was first spotted by the naked eye, or when it was observed and catalogued by Galileo?
(I am not an expert in these matter, but I have consulted with two expert astronomers.)
What do you suggest to correct these problems?// Hannibal ( talk) 16:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I've considered for a while and would like to make this idea public for discussion. Saturn and Jupiter are both gas giants, like our Sun. They both have small collections of orbiting material. We call this material a 'ring'. Both also have 'moons', a few of which recent research has shown to be habitable (i.e. Europa, Titan). In our table in this article, Titan and Europa are not included in the list of habitable exoplanets. I understand they may not be considered part of our "solar system" but I believe our concept of the "solar system" is slightly skewed. After all, for an individual standing on the surface of Titan, or the surface of Europa, would not the main source of light be either Saturn or Jupiter, respectively? If I am misinformed, please correct me. Perhaps its past time for us to redraw the map of our solar system to show that the asteroid belt of our sun, Sol, may actually appear to be a set of rings from farther afield. Haerdt ( talk) 13:46, 06 November 2014 (UTC)
Why the venus has here an ESI of 0.78?? In the source the venus has an ESI of 0.444.
data_solar_ESI.txt refered in http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/dec/05/habitable-exoplanets-catalogue-alien-life. 91.52.22.185 ( talk) 17:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Since people forgot the difference; False Positive: Occurs from a machine failure, or miscalculation from a bot (Such as a Kepler false positive). Dubious: Of questionable value, usually a miscalculation by Humans however is a more broad word than False Positive.
Its really annoying when people change things around when the original information was correct. Davidbuddy9 ( talk) 01:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
New data proves that Gliese 581 d exists, no word on GJ 581 g. [1] Davidbuddy9 ( talk) 01:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
References
The recent edit deleting a second mention of Kepler-452b raised an issue: what is the correct esi value? This edit puts one at 0.69 & one at 0.862... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
as today, the NASA official Kepler web site does not report the mass of the planet http://kepler.nasa.gov/Mission/discoveries/ so while the planet radius is know with good approximation, the density is unknown. Many speculating web site report values from 5 EM to <1. So the ESI index for 452b reported in the article is completely arbitrary, remove it from an enciclopedia-- Efa ( talk) 20:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I see there are people here updating with HZA/B/C/etc., but the section is presently marked as "unreferenced", and ... how can Earth have these weird values? I mean, to look at that table you'd think Mars is in the better location! I know the Sun was supposed to be fainter in former times, but (a) Faint young sun paradox isn't really properly explained, and (b) we'd expect as an "overall measure" for other life to have been around roughly the same time as on Earth, right? I just can't help but think that Earth is, by definition, the best place for life in the Solar system and the cosmos, until some other option is proven. And when that table seems to be inconsistent with that, it makes me wonder if it is meaningful at all. Wnt ( talk) 20:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
A study title The Host Stars of Keplers Habitable Exoplanets: Superflares, Rotation and Activity was done on habitable exoplanets. [1]
References
Too soon? Kortoso ( talk) 20:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The new table that me and a few other editors have been working on is now finished and can be found here. However I am not sure if I should implement it now or wait for things to settle first? Davidbuddy9 Talk 20:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
This edit removes a lot of values that are the sole provenance of a single website. As has been acknowledged at Talk:Earth Similarity Index, the precise "ESI" values are not relevant. Also the qualitative description of the "type" of planet are not found in reliable sources.
The equilibrium temperature is a value that is calculated on the basis of flux alone so is redundant with the flux value. I also think we need to refer to the discovery papers for each planet directly to quote the mass/radii. Most of the transiting exoplanets have no validated mass measurements. Conversely, radial velocity detected ones have no radius measurements.
Thanks.
jps ( talk) 15:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I read an interesting article today about some earth-ish massed planets around a small red "ultra cool" dwarf:
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1615/
http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=2MASS+J23062928-0502285
I originally posted this in the exoplanet talk. I don't know if these planets are "confirmed" or not. The article seems to suggest that this is the dimmest(?) star we have found potential habitable planets around though. I'm not going to add it myself because I don't know the criteria here. Autumn Wind ( talk) 18:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Update: Sorry, it said ultra cool dwarf. So I'm guessing that despite all the pictures out there, its a brown dwarf.-- Autumn Wind ( talk) 14:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Although the high uncertainties, it could be inside or outside the habitable zone of the star. See this. And of course PHL made a statement on it too, which you can checkout the archive here if it had been removed by the time you are reading this. Davidbuddy9 Talk 05:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Having these images under the Previous candidates section seems a bit odd to me (although it may just be me). I think maybe it should be moved up above the list probably where readers are more likely to see it. It may also be confusing to have an image portraying Kepler's most notable potentially habitable exoplanets in the "Previous candidates" section. Thoughts? Davidbuddy9 Talk 21:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
What do the table columns Flux and Teq mean? - not even I, who knows quite a lot about physics, has any clue ... (Edit - I have added links.) And what is the initial sort criterion for the list? - I (think that I) could not return to the original list by clicking on any header. -- User:Haraldmmueller 08:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Many of the values in the mass and radius columns of the exoplanet tables list three values separated by dashes. What are those values? Upper limit, best estimate, lower limit? It would be good if this were clarified somewhere in the text above the tables. These values appear to come from the PHL website, but I can't find an explanation of the numbers there, either. Inositol ( talk) 23:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The ESI was a useful metric for evaluating how similar an exoplanet was to Earth, and reintroduction of an ESI section in the table would provide valuable and relevant information to the article. Synapticrelay ( talk) 23:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |