http://oklo.org/2009/12/20/m-for-all-and-all-for-m/ characterizing planetary systems Fri, 18 Nov 2011 22:27:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://oklo.org/2009/12/20/m-for-all-and-all-for-m/comment-page-1/#comment-33617 Exoplanetary Thoughts for 2010 Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:17:12 +0000 http://oklo.org/?p=841#comment-33617 [...] what I want to focus on is what Gliese 1214b implies. In the recent post, Greg goes on to say: Gliese 1214b lies at enough stellar radii from Gliese 1214 that its a-priori [...] [...] what I want to focus on is what Gliese 1214b implies. In the recent post, Greg goes on to say: Gliese 1214b lies at enough stellar radii from Gliese 1214 that its a-priori [...]

]]> http://oklo.org/2009/12/20/m-for-all-and-all-for-m/comment-page-1/#comment-33548 greg Thu, 24 Dec 2009 21:06:01 +0000 http://oklo.org/?p=841#comment-33548 The two charts are _not_ to scale with respect to each other. They are only individually to scale. I could have made everything to scale, of course, but that would have required re-doing HAT-P-7, and I was lazy... The two charts are _not_ to scale with respect to each other. They are only individually to scale. I could have made everything to scale, of course, but that would have required re-doing HAT-P-7, and I was lazy…

]]> http://oklo.org/2009/12/20/m-for-all-and-all-for-m/comment-page-1/#comment-33500 cwmagee Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:28:52 +0000 http://oklo.org/?p=841#comment-33500 Are those two charts supposed to be to scale with respect to each other? I don't understand how a smaller orbit around a more massive star can have a longer period. Are those two charts supposed to be to scale with respect to each other? I don’t understand how a smaller orbit around a more massive star can have a longer period.

]]>