Talk:Solar radius

message: Since the unit is based on the current radius of the Sun, isn't it a bit like the basis of the kilogram? Does the change in the Sun's size play a role in defining (or redefining) the unit? Could someone with more knowledge than I please address the issue (as to whether or not the unit's defined measurement changes) in the article? Coinmanj (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in size 

message: There seems to be a widespread misconception about what this article is about. I don't think the lede is adequate in its explanation that the nominal solar radius is a unit of distance which was historically derived based on the Sun's radius, but is no longer dependent on it. That is, the Sun's radius varies, the nominal solar radius does not. Clearly, the lede fails to indicate that this article is about a unit of distance (the nominal solar radius) and not about a physical dimension of the Sun (which varies over time and is generally increasing).
 It might also be useful to mention that the optical depth of 2/3 was chosen because it greatly simplified some of the equations involved in modeling the optical characteristics of a luminous ball of gas. (Using the Eddington approximation, it reduces (T/Te)^4 = (3/4)(τ+2/3) to (T/Te)^4 = 1 ��so T/Te = 1. Where T is the Temperature of the emitting surface and Te is the temperature of a black body emitting the same amount of energy.)173.184.23.223 (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistaken explanation 

message: These comments are based upon -- (they are as of) -- the "Latest revision as of 16:18, 17 January 2020" version of this article. 
The first two sentences of the "Examples" section of [that version of] this article say:Solar radii as a unit are popular when talking about spacecraft moving close to the sun. Two spacecraft in the 2010s.Actually, maybe we should call that "second" one a sentence "fragment" instead of a "sentence" (at least for now ... until someone fixes it).
 
My guess is: that the intended meaning was probably:Two spacecraft did so in the 2010s. ...which, in context (right after the preceding sentence [q.v.]) would if I got it right mean something like this:Two spacecraft moved close enough to the sun during the 2010s to be considered as -- that is, to "count" as -- [good] examples of venturing so close to the sun that their missions would tend to popularize the topic of solar radii ("") as a unit.
Now, that guess could be wrong. (If I'd had more confidence in how "educated" that guess was, then I would probably have edited the article promptly, instead of requesting comments here [on this "Talk:" page] first.) 
Any comments? (e.g., about [a] whether or not the intended meaning was what I guessed ...OR about [b] whether or not the above [stab at a] translation is a correct [and useful] translation of the meaning of the two words ["did so"] that I think should probably get added to the sentence [fragment] we are discussing) -- ? --  
Thanks for any help or advice.--Mike Schwartz (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A sentence "fragment" (which should probably be fixed)  

message: Equatorial and polar radius are different due to rotation. Equatorial radius is largqer than polar radius about 10 km. This information must be present. Voproshatel (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equatorial and polar radius