![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | A news item involving Alpha Centauri Bb was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 October 2012. | ![]() |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alpha Centauri Bb 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 |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 120 days ![]() |
Some websites appear to state that Alpha Centauri Bb is confirmed and some state that it is still awaiting confirmation. With this in mind, i would like to know the false detection probability of this planet. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My removal of style faux-pas such as "wobble method" were reverted with the note that Google sources turn up - without such a source being added. I removed it again, it's still bad style regardless of Google sources and sounds childish. The comparison with "the speed of a baby's crawl" that follows is in the given source but still silly in contrast with the very precise number of 51 cm/s given. Letting the fact speak for itself makes for better style. Hekerui (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Artie Hatzes has put a paper on the arXiv which suggests this detection should be treated with caution. [1] 46.126.77.137 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My count is 3 (unlabeled) Merge votes in the upper text, and 5 labeled Opposes in the lower area. I have discounted Davidbuddy9's bad faith attempt to vote & sock-close. I have also discounted the IP vote as unreliable. I have concrete evidence supporting that conclusion, but I decline to explain further per BEANS and policy reasons. Alsee (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The paper "Ghost in the time series: no planet for Alpha Cen B" http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.05598 Accepted for publication in MNRAS Letters, says that it almost certainly is a spurious data artifact, so suggest merge this article with parent star article. Fdfexoex (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be settle yet until there is more data on it with for example the ESPRESSO instrument coming online next year. ESPRESSO should be able to give a definitive answer .Quantanew (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a couple more news refs for this
Fdfexoex (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've redirected to the star page. Fdfexoex (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree there was a rush to do this no debate disregarding objections. ShamefulQuantanew (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.