Comments:New planet found in 'Habitable Zone'

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion

Comments from feedback form - "please post the latest"

please post the latest

180.191.224.147 (talk)10:58, 15 January 2013

Other Scientists Disagree!

It has been known for just as long that the method of "extrapolating" this new planet,
by using a new algorithm and patched together data, has been contested by other authoritative scientists!
WHY is this missing from the article??
The one sidedness of the article makes it deceptive.

24.79.40.48 (talk)18:21, 25 October 2011

♦ Erroneous data analysis ♦

In December 2010, a methodological error has been revealed in the data analysis that lead to the "discovery" of Gliese 581 f and g.[13] The team around Steven Vogt inferred the number of exoplanets by using a reduced chi-square, although the orbital models are nonlinear in the model parameters. Therefore, reduced chi-square is not a trustworthy diagnostic. In fact, an investigation of the fit residuals showed that the data used by Vogt's team actually prefers a model with four planets, not six, in agreement with the results of Francesco Pepe's team.

[edit] Further analyses of HIRES/HARPS dataAnother re-analysis found no clear evidence for a fifth planetary signal in the combined HIRES/HARPS data set.[14] The claim was made that the HARPS data only provided some evidence for 5 planet signals, while incorporation of both data sets actually degraded the evidence for more than four planets (i.e., none for 581 f or 581 g).

"I have studied [the paper] in detail and do not agree with his conclusions,"[15] Steven Vogt said in reply, concerned that Gregory has considered the HIRES data as more uncertain.[16] The question of Gliese 581g's existence won't be settled definitively until researchers gather more high-precision radial velocity data, Vogt said.
♦(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_g#Erroneous_data_analysis )

24.79.40.48 (talk)18:30, 25 October 2011
 

Comments from feedback form - "is there any bigger pics of th..."

is there any bigger pics of this planet?

212.219.81.171 (talk)09:58, 4 February 2011

Comments from feedback form - "no or yas no"

no or yas no

124.107.145.57 (talk)07:13, 17 December 2010

GOD DAMNIT FINNALY

AFTER ALL THESE YEARS OF WAITING WE MIGHT HAVE FOUND A PLANET THAT MIGHT BE INHABITABLE! YIPPY!

68.5.254.133 (talk)22:10, 30 October 2010

Comments from feedback form - "would like to see a close-up a..."

would like to see a close-up artists rendition of planet also. But the orbit picture is good also. Thank you wikipeople.

98.247.110.15 (talk)22:11, 28 October 2010

Comments from feedback form - "Interesting, but abstract."

Interesting, but abstract.

92.234.206.12 (talk)09:45, 18 October 2010

" Travel to Gliese 581 g' "

Scientist's should get on trying to travel to the new discovered "habitable zone" on Gliese 581 g', even if it aint livible for us. there has to be life. It has what our earth has, water, atmosphere, and from the pictures you can see plantation all over it. who cares if it would take them 20 years to travel there. do it, cause it will be worth the travel!

68.69.85.2 (talk)22:52, 12 October 2010

Comments from feedback form - "i think if their life on that ..."

i think if their life on that planet and other life forms we shoud just not go because it diésel not belong to us

209.237.109.212 (talk)18:06, 1 October 2010

if there is life on the planet, it will probably be microbial or lichen...But i agreed with there are societies (NO MATTER HOW "PRIMITIVE"), we should just observe.

165.228.245.201 (talk)23:02, 1 October 2010

I have to agree with 209 here. Just because we think the only life forms are microbes does not mean that the only life forms are microbes. Just because tossing 100 heads in a row is unlikely does not mean that we cannot toss 100 heads in a row. If I were an alien on that planet I'm not sure I want civilisations of equal (or even lower!) intelligence to intervere. Besides, we should stop dreaming about going to another planet because we don't have enough time to do that. We're messing of the Earth so much drastic action must be taken now.

Kayau (talk · contribs)00:13, 2 October 2010

this is just amazing,but why do people always say there can't be any similar life form to ours out there,the universe is far beyond big and complex than we will ever understand,how can we say theres NO ONE out there,in trillions of other places

189.58.31.9 (talk)01:25, 4 October 2010

I agree with you.

Kayau (talk · contribs)12:51, 5 October 2010
 
 
 

There was an article in a recent new scientist that said by judging the pace with which these type of discoveries have occurred (ie if you could plot each discovery on a graph of discovery event significance over time and extrapolate) there was a 50% chance that a 'life friendly' planet would be discovered in the next couple of years and 95% over the next 100 years or so. Looks like they were right haha. Although I think that discussions regarding the ethics of interfering with alien cultures (prime directive) is a tad premature haha

Mcchino64 (talk)09:04, 3 October 2010
 

Comments from feedback form - "good job."

good job.

97.82.36.136 (talk)22:53, 7 October 2010

Comments from feedback form - "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa+_"

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa+_

87.38.44.2 (talk)09:43, 7 October 2010

Comments from feedback form - "It's an exciting subject."

It's an exciting subject.

98.244.231.117 (talk)05:39, 4 October 2010

Comments from feedback form - "aaaggghhh . im so exited"

aaaggghhh . im so exited

65.117.158.231 (talk)19:34, 1 October 2010

Comments from feedback form - "i like this page alot cause i ..."

i like this page alot cause i like knowing about the thing that our scientists find out there and they let us know about it.

12.68.223.254 (talk)13:42, 1 October 2010

Comments from feedback form - "que lo que"

que lo que

216.214.188.34 (talk)12:13, 1 October 2010