Talk:PSR B1620-26c
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
PSR B1620-26c has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
If "Methuselah" is the planet's "nickname", what is the actual name? -- Wondering simply, Infrogmation 20:11 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that the current official designation would be PSR B1620-26 b. -- 212.127.141.173 00:15 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The evolutionary history is an 'educated guess'. A google search for "site:arxiv.org PSR B1620-26" or something similar and browsing through the dozens of articles popping up might help in refining the details. But grammar and spelling need revision (I'm not a native English speaker).
- -- Caid Raspa 10:01 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Article location
As 'Methuselah' is an unofficial nickname, I think this article would be better placed at PSR B1620-26 C, which is the official designation. Any objections to it being moved? Worldtraveller 16:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] WP:RM
- Talk:PSR B1620-26c : PSR B1620-26c → Methuselah (planet) — because Methuselah is the common name, and the one the press uses. 132.205.15.43 03:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- COMMENT there are several designations for a star, but the nickname is probably the easiest one to use for the planet. 132.205.15.43 04:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- NOTE: Talk:PSR B1620-26c+Talk:51 Pegasi B+Talk:Tau Boötis Ab+Talk:Osiris (planet)+Talk:70 Virginis b — these are the planets where we should come up with a consistent naming convention for. 132.205.15.43 05:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Extrasolar_Planets 132.205.15.43 05:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose this move, for reasons I've outlined at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Extrasolar_Planets Worldtraveller 12:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 22:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit] Sundman
How can the planet PSR B1620-26c remain in stable orbit around two stars for a mere day? There is definitely no computable analytical solution for the generic three body problem. That planet must have propulsion to keep its orbit or it would crash or fly off! Maybe it's the planet described in Stanislaw Lem's Solaris SF novel?
- The above comment by user:195.70.48.242 at 10:53, 4 May 2005
- How can there exist a trinary star? (ie. Alpha Centauri), wouldn't that third star have a propulsion system to keep its orbit, or it would crash or fly off! Obviously, since we can have triple star systems, we can have a planet orbit two stars, especially in a wide orbit around a close binary. Talking about three-body problems, here in the Solar System, we have 8 planets, why don't they all crash into each other or fly off then? Or rather, consider the asteroid belt, where orbits are closer together... But we live in a galaxy, and there are millions of star around us... that's not a three-body problem either... 132.205.44.128 05:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
