Talk:Kepler-90

Highest number of planets ...

Statement in lede "the largest number of observed exoplanets (7) in the Milky Way" is highly inaccurate. HD 10180 has 9 ...

--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

translate into Spanish, please? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.12.20.253 (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The statement can be considered correct if we consider the operative word 'observed'. The planets in HD 10180 were inferred using the radial velocity method, whereas the KOI-351 planets were determined from transit photometry and subsequently confirmed by transit curve modeling. RV methods can never be as precise as direct transit observation and modeling. 67.188.151.78 (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Only seven planets are confirmed at HD 10180. --mfb (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Distance

"G-type main sequence star located about 2,545 light-years (780 pc) from Earth" maybe 25,45 light-years?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.93.20.108 (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC) 

No, 2545 light years away. English uses a comma as separator for large number. The decimal dot is used for fractional numbers, e.g. 1/2 = 0.5. --mfb (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, one should write (780 ± 100) pc or (2,54 ± 0,33) × 10³ ly, to avoid false precision. --V1adis1av (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Absolute Magnitude?

Hi, apparent magnitude and distance do not fit the absolute magintude, which is given as -0.5 With the provided values, absolute magnitude should be around +5.0. A misprint? 5.0 would also fit better the given radius and temperature.

Conflicting information

These two lines are in conflict and need to be corrected: "The penultimate known planet orbits its host star at about the same distance as Earth from the Sun." "All of the eight known planet candidates orbit within 1 AU from Kepler-90." 104.254.71.132 (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

That was probably meant in the sense of being "less than or equal to"; one meaning of "within" is "inclusion within the scope of". WolfmanSF (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

That statement is fine, but the other one is not, see table. I removed it. --mfb (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Spectral type G0V?

Based on a temperature of 6,080 K, Kepler-90 should be an F type star. 79.167.191.174 (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It is generally best not to second-guess professional astronomers unless you really really know your stuff. Even then, Wikipedia requires reliable sources for its information. Working it out for yourself isn't allowed, partly just for Wikipedia to cover its ass, and partly because you and I do not have all the information. In this case, one source happens to come up with an effective temperature right on the dividing line between what you might expect from a normal F- or G-type star. Other reliable sources come up with lower temperature (eg. Gaia DR3). Having said all that, the G0V spectral class has no reference so it needs to be fixed one way or another. It might have been in Simbad at some point, although I suspect not, or it might just have been made up by someone who thought it matched the properties of the star as shown at the time. I can't find any reference giving that spectral class for this star, but I can find one for F9, so how 'bout them apples. Lithopsian (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This edit seems to have removed a large amount of content, including all mention of the eighth planet, possibly due to accidentally editing an old revision instead of the then-current revision. If there are no objections, I'll revert and then re-add the cited spectral type. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably what I did. I was searching the history to try and see where G0 came from and might have edited directly from there. Lithopsian (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)