Comments on: Universe Today again http://bluecollarscientist.com/2008/04/11/universe-today-again/ Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:21:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Don Ameche http://bluecollarscientist.com/2008/04/11/universe-today-again/#comment-1019 Don Ameche Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:24:01 +0000 http://bluecollarscientist.com/?p=316#comment-1019 In light of these new discoveries, the smallest planet of a sun-like star would be Mercury, wouldn't it? Call me old-fashioned, but I always thought that if someone meant "smallest exoplanet of a sun-like star," the phrase "sun-like star" could be used to alleviate the confusion that would otherwise result from just saying "smallest exoplanet." The claims being promoted are simply false. And I'm not certain it is true that the pulsar planets are "usually ignored" in "classical exoplanetology," if there is such a thing, given how widely the initial papers on them <a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-ref_query?bibcode=1994Sci...264..538W&refs=CITATIONS&db_key=AST" rel="nofollow">are cited according to ADS</a> - in papers about orbital dynamics, proplyds, planetary formation, exoplanet transits, and other topics I know little about. In light of these new discoveries, the smallest planet of a sun-like star would be Mercury, wouldn’t it? Call me old-fashioned, but I always thought that if someone meant “smallest exoplanet of a sun-like star,” the phrase “sun-like star” could be used to alleviate the confusion that would otherwise result from just saying “smallest exoplanet.” The claims being promoted are simply false.

And I’m not certain it is true that the pulsar planets are “usually ignored” in “classical exoplanetology,” if there is such a thing, given how widely the initial papers on them are cited according to ADS - in papers about orbital dynamics, proplyds, planetary formation, exoplanet transits, and other topics I know little about.

]]> By: Daniel Fischer http://bluecollarscientist.com/2008/04/11/universe-today-again/#comment-1010 Daniel Fischer Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:44:07 +0000 http://bluecollarscientist.com/?p=316#comment-1010 I think most readers understood that they were talking about the smallest planet <i>of a sun-like star</i>, which a 5 Earth-mass body may or may not be (some others announced in recent years came close); those weird pulsar planets are in a different ballpark and quite usually ignored in 'classical exoplanetology'. The <i>real</i> error here is that this news isn't news at all: The actual paper had <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.3230" rel="nofollow">been on the preprint server since January</a> which nowadays constitutes a publication. I think most readers understood that they were talking about the smallest planet of a sun-like star, which a 5 Earth-mass body may or may not be (some others announced in recent years came close); those weird pulsar planets are in a different ballpark and quite usually ignored in ‘classical exoplanetology’.

The real error here is that this news isn’t news at all: The actual paper had been on the preprint server since January which nowadays constitutes a publication.

]]>