HAT-P-5b: Hot-Jupiter in Lyra

Oriel,

Announced in 2007, this low-density hot-Jupiter requires 175 minutes
to transit its star at a depth of 13.2 mmag and requires only 67 hours
for one complete orbit about its sun (ie. a very short "year").

http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Photomet...5-20110623.htm

Anthony.

On Jun 24, 3:43*am, Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:
Oriel,

Announced in 2007, this low-density hot-Jupiter requires 175 minutes
to transit its star at a depth of 13.2 mmag and requires only 67 hours
for one complete orbit about its sun (ie. a very short "year").

http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Photomet...5-20110623.htm

Anthony.

Ah,the only Greek in history to imagine a wandering 'analemma' Sun in
the same arena as the planets which are actually self-defining
(through Greek) by virtue of their wandering nature or their apparent
retrogrades which is resolved by the Earth's own orbital motion.This
is why the word 'transit ' is specific to our own solar system as it
involves the motion of two planets around the central Sun and only
Mercury and Venus qualify by overtaking a moving Earth with the
central Sun as a backdrop.

So,what you learn today is a new word or qualifier,there is a primary
transit which is restricted to our solar system and a secondary
transit which is an inferred motion of an object around another star
with the attributes of any exoplanet a scam .Hot Jupiter indeed,I wish
you could extract the daily rotation of the Earth from the
temperature data at Athens where the proportion of rotations for 4
years equates to 365 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/70?

I come from an astronomical heritage,no nationalistic ideology
intended,which is ancient and would do all I could to protect their
achievements as I do for the Greek, English, Dutch ,Italian,
Polish,Danish heritage even if I see readers disown the links each
heritage and you especially.You want your weak applause and that is
fine and there is no outward reward for countering the toxic strain of
empiricism but that fight carries with it its own satisfaction that
stands on its own and not behind a bandwagon or consensus ideology.

I use quotes sparingly and almost always towards a positive message
whereas invariably quotes are always directed in this direction as
attempted insults but this following one I assent to as courage is not
normally associated with astronomy when I assure you that it takes the
greatest intellectual courage of all sciences to stand up in a public
way for what is essentially an individual endeavor -

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the
strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them
better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,
whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives
valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is
no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive
to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who
spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the
triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at
least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be
with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
Roosevelt

I would salute the observational guys who go outside and take in the
celestial arena at night but they insist in throwing their lot in with
people who do not diplay the slightest astronomical instincts and care
nothing for a once noble and dignified astronomical heritage and dress
this king of all sciences in conceptual rags.That is where your 'hot
jupiter' leads to and you are welcome to it.

On Jun 23, 8:40*pm, oriel36 wrote:

Ah,the only Greek in history to imagine a wandering 'analemma' Sun in
the same arena as the planets

The analemma he photographed was relative to the Earth beneath our
feet, and the regular intervals of mechanical clock time at which he
took his images.

He did not claim that the figure of the analemma would have been
visible if he could somehow have made the starry background of the sky
visible in his pictures - so he was not claiming that this apparent
"analemma" motion is of the same nature or quality as even the
apparent motions of the planets against the stars as seen from Earth,
let alone their real motions.

John Savard