Talk:Solar System/Archive 4

message: The conventions I see used in the literature I've read still use "outer solar system" for the area outside of the asteroid belt, and use "trans-neptunian" for anything beyond neptune. Here's a source for you . I'm going to need to see some kind of source for this, otherwise I'm assuming it's original research shaggy (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: , , , , , , . All these scholarly papers refer to the Kuiper belt as the outer Solar System. Serendipodous 22:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The nineplanets.org source is questionable at best as a reliable source; clearly, the area beyond Neptune is part of the outer Solar System. However, I don't see the term "mid Solar System" in a cursory look, and it is not in the source that was cited for the term, before my recent edit. Anyway, I think it's pretty clear what the article is talking about as it is, so further discussion of who uses what jargon isn't helpful. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand things have been hectic around here the last few weeks, and I'm not trying to step on any toes here. I've just never seen any reference to the area from jupiter to neptune being called the "mid solar system" or "middle solar system". I know this isn't conclusive, but if you search on google, you get ~470 results for "middle solar system" and ~2000 (mostly wikipedia and mirrors) for "mid solar system", while you get ~182,000 for "outer solar system". In any case, the trans-neptunian region is a subregion of the outer solar system, so we're both correct here. shaggy (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we agree; the article no longer uses the term "mid solar system". (It does use the adjective "middle".) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Thanks for cleaning up the things I missed! shaggy (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outer Solar System 

message: The image of the Kuiper Belt objects seems to show a fairly pronounced gap at the bottom of the image.  Does anyone know what causes that?  --Doradus (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Milky Way. I asked that question too. :-) Serendipodous 20:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool!  Got a reference?  --Doradus (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I was told by a scientist online. Serendipodous 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The image description in Commons says In the Kuiper Belt, radial "Spokes" of higher density, or gaps in particular directions are due to observational bias (i.e. where objects were searched for), rather than any real physical structure. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a ref Serendipodous 17:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool; but in a quick scan I didn't see anything there about angular distribution.  Also let me point out that the Milky Way story doesn't actually make sense:  all these objects are orbiting the Sun, so there is no way a gap could stay aligned with the Milky Way, or even persist longer than 100 years or so at the very most. Looie496 (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an observational selection effect (or bias, which the article does mention, from my quick scan). Kuiper belt objects are very hard to pick out in the Milky Way. Extragalactic folks call the Milky Way the zone of avoidance for related reasons. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I get it now, thanks.  Milky Way-related bias, not Milky Way-related distribution. Looie496 (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Awww, that's not as cool as I thought it was.  --19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know what you mean. When I asked what caused the hole, I asked whether Galactus had taken a bite out of it. When someone explained the real cause, another poster complained that the Galactus hypothesis didn't get more airtime. :-) Serendipodous 19:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gap in Kuiper Belt objects? 

message: Sorry serendipity, you're right I hadn't read the rest of the article !... The scattered disc didn't sound an official term, reading from start and the grammar confused me: currently: 'known as the heliosphere, which extends out to around the scattered disc', still doesn't; but can't think right now of how to put it aptly, maybe an brief explanation of scattered disc, the actual AU of the heliosphere would help and changing 'out to around' -> 'past' would help? LeeVJ (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a go at rewording it. Serendipodous 10:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  thankyou, serendipodous :) LeeVJ (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  heliosphere extent reword suggestion 

message: the IAU named a fifth dwarf planet:
http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/release/iau0807/
I don't add to wikipedia on principle, but maybe someone else will.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.30.227.33 (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been added. And I'm not sure what not adding to Wikipedia accomplishes. Serendipodous 19:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haumea 

message: I do not like the new terminology section that was just added. I don't think defining terms up front is helpful in this article; instead, it's better to explain unclear terms when they appear, in context, as I think was done rather well in this recent version. Wikilinks allow readers to easily get a more full description. A separate terminology section up front disturbs the flow of the narrative for readers reading the article straight through and isn't helpful for readers who are only reading a section of the article at a time.
I won't revert for now, pending discussion. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was assuming that the paragraph would only be the first in a new terminology section. If that paragraph is going to be the only paragraph in that section, then there's not much point in having it, since a terminology section shouldn't just define one thing. Serendipodous 15:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it even if there is more coming, for the reasons described above. If it's just defining rock, ice, and gas, it's particularly unnecessary. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, in creating the terminology section, the discussion of where rocky, gaseous, and icy materials are found was removed from the Layout and Structure section, where it more logically belongs. This is another reason why keeping the explanations of terms in context works better. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes have been reverted, as it is yet more of Harry's unilateral efforts to rewrite this article in what he perceives as a "simplified" version. While discussion is essential, this is a featured article, and text such as "Here we define those possibly confusing terms used in the rest of the article" does not fit. He has been warned accordingly. --Ckatzchatspy 20:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology section 

message: Under Heliopause it says ... 80 100 AU from the Sun ... but should probably read 80-100 AU?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.11.161 (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right; well spotted :-) (probably my own mark-up illiteracy) Serendipodous 15:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  tiny mistake 

message: "it gets hotter in order to be able to burn the remaining fuel"
I'm sorry, but unless you can show me that the sun is alive in a sense that most people will agree with, I must ask that someone rephrase this, preferably by explaining the real reason for the sun to get hotter, namely the gravitational collapse due to the reduced outward pressure from hydrogen fusion.
--Scott McNay (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the recent edits by User:Serendipodous have addressed your concern. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sun gets hotter to burn more fuel?? 

message: Coviepresb1647, I'm an experienced admin and editor; I understand you wanted to talk with somebody like that. Thank you for your interest in this article and other science articles. However, I think you need more information about the WP:NPOV policy than you currently seem to have (understandably, as you're a fairly new user). You are perhaps only aware of an incomplete version of the policy.  Please read the "Undue weight" section carefully, as it is highly relevant to your arguments. I quote a few sentences:
: We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view... To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.
I hope that helps. Please don't remove the word "evolution" from Solar System or other science articles, Coviepresb, and don't add the NPOV tag to articles or sections for containing the term. Such actions amount to giving the creationist view of evolution equal weight with the scientific view. That's a violation of the NPOV policy's undue weight provision, and is not a case for "dispute resolution." In other words, any tags like that should and will be removed. Bishonen | talk 12:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for letting me know on my talk page, but I strongly disagree with you.   I am convinced that it is another prejudicial comment and hence, unjust request.   I am already speaking with a more experienced admin-editor and may be am not am not interested in talking with you at this point.  I am disregarding your prejudicial request and comment sinceYou are making an unsubstantiated equivocation between the "scientific view" and "evolution".   I am already aquainted with Undue Weight.  Indeed minority views that are a "tiny-minority" should not be represented.   However, Creationism is not a "tiny-minority", "small minority", or an "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" as I have given prominent adherents as does Wikipedia's Creationism article.   By the principle of NPOV and Undue Weight, if Creationism was held by a "tiny-minority", it would not be in Wikipedia at all.  Hence, Creationism does need to be represented in the science articles although obviously not with as much coverage as the Evolution view.  Indeed, Creationist terms are unwarranted, but "life cycle", "progress", "change", and other equivalent terms are not Creationist terms but more neutral terms.  Indeed "progress" is more reflective of evolution and slightly disagrees with Creationism.  Removing "evolution" and substituting it with a slightly more neutral term does not give undue weight since both the Evolution view and Creationist view are represented with fair and due weight.   Therefore, my questioning the use of "evolution", making the initial edits, and placing the NPOV tag is valid per NPOV and Undue Weight.     Simply removing a term does not give Undue weight or POV.  In a valid NPOV case such as this case, removing a tag before the resolution of a discussion/dispute is also a violation of NPOV since the purpose of a discussion/dispute is to actually determine whether or not it is in NPOV or POV, not that it IS in POV.   Hence, the tag should remain until the dispute/discussion is resolved as NPOV (and the tag) says and should not be removed until a consensus is formed and therefore the discussion/dispute resolved.  Your comment and request has no basis, and you are mistaken and then proceed to give the request on your own mistaken understanding.  Your request is unecessarily redundant and late since for several days now, I have ceased and will keep ceasing related edits and tags.   However, I will nevertheless keep ceasing, not to concede your erroneous point but to have time to talk with other admin-editor, until my discussion with the other admin-editor is done.   Until you are willing to constructively criticise me and to consider the greater picture before issuing justice unlike your comment and request here, please do not talk to me as I do not desire your help nor am I willing to listen to further prejudicial statements from you. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  However, Creationism is not a "tiny-minority", "small minority", or an "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" as I have given prominent adherents as does Wikipedia's Creationism article. The creationism article quote says that one  count gives 700 out of 480,000 earth and life sciences who support creationism. Tiny minority. Saros136 (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight

message: 17:20 UTC, 20/11/08 is the end of my participation in this discussion.  I will no longer be reading or comment here except to possibly reverse my position (after discussion with the more experienced admin-editor) if I am mistaken.  At this point, I do not concede. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect the minute you said, "biased hypothesis" and "evolution of life", you made your POV quite clear.  The evolution of the Universe is not a biological issue since the only biology we currently know is here on Earth. -- Kheider (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken but not conceded (yet) on my part.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a late-comer to the discussion here, but it seems the issue is the use of one word rather than the meaning of that word? As someone pointed out earlier, the word *is* applicable. The solar system *has* evolved (changed). As a believer in Darwinian evolution (which is not the issue here) I'm still happy to use the word "creation" when it is applicable, say for a batch of cookies. And the universe *was* created, whether there was intelligent thought involved or not. Maybe the section heading could be changed from "Formation and evolution" to "Creation and evolution" if you're so worried about NPOV.
Feyrauth (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: My further participation

message: It seems to be a small discrepancy, perhaps just a difference in wording, regarding the size of the Oort cloud. This article, in section Oort_cloud says:
The hypothetical Oort cloud is a great mass of up to a trillion icy objects that is believed to be the source for all long-period comets and to surround the Solar System at roughly 50,000 AU (around 1 light-year (LY)), and possibly to as far as 100,000 AU (1.87 LY).
But a little below, in section Boundaries says:
The outer extent of the Oort cloud, by contrast, may not extend farther than 50,000 AU.[67]
Take into account that the main article on Oort cloud states:
The Oort cloud is thought to occupy a vast space from somewhere between 2000 and 5000 AU[7] to as far as 50 000 AU[1] from the Sun. Some estimates place the outer edge at between 100 000 and 200 000 AU.[7]
And also that the article on Light-year states:
1.6×100 ly 	The Oort cloud is approximately two light-years in diameter. Its inner boundary is speculated to be at 50,000 AU, with its outer edge at 100,000 AU
Given that I'm just a reader and I don't have enough knowledge on the topic, I didn't modified the article. Could some experienced editor fix this, and unify the point of view in the sections? (and also in the related articles, if necessary) Pmronchi (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that we're dealing with something that may or may not exist. We're pretty sure it does, because the evidence suggests it's there, but any guesses as to its structure or how big it is have to be based on some pretty secondhand information. I suppose I can reword the boundaries section a bit. Serendipodous 14:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oort cloud size 

message: hi i'v noticed Haumea isn't included on the pic at the top of the page i don't know how to fix that or change the pic to include it, could someone please help with this thanks.
Hawkania (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haumea on the pic? 

message: i like the article, but i just think exoplanets should be included as many are fans of them, and they are quite interesting, i just want to make this article better. Lizardsarecool (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Exoplanets are not members of the Solar System. Ruslik (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, we also know almost nothing about exoplanets.  Even the masses (and volumes) are generally assumptions, and the composition is very poorly known.  Since we can not yet detect smaller bodies in these systems, these planetary systems are very poorly known.  One of the he best ways to expand the solar system article is to work on the moons, asteroids, or even create an article like Gertrude (crater). -- Kheider (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  should exoplanets be included? 

message: there are 200 planets in the solar system  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.222.141 (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a source for that? Serendipodous 00:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  #of planets 

message: It is believed that the Sun's position on the main sequence puts it in the "prime of life" for a star, in that it has not yet exhausted its store of hydrogen for nuclear fusion. The Sun is growing brighter; early in its history it was 75 percent as bright as it is today.
The above data and following sentence seem to have no correlation.
To answer your question Serendipodous, yes I read it.  That is why I removed it.  I have taken the liberty of placing it below.  Kindly explain how that relates to above sentence. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have access to the entire document, since Nature is a subscription-only service. When I asked if you had read it, I meant the whole thing, not just the abstract. All the paper has to do is mention the initial brightness of the Sun; it doesn't have to make it its raison d'etre. Since the document involves greenhouse effects early in Earth's history, it seems highly unlikely that it would not mention the level of insolation at the time. Given that I cannot read the article in its entirety, I prefer to assume good faith on the part of its original contributor until such time as I can verify it totally. Serendipodous 20:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Hm. Well, if it was me, I must have got the original quote from the Google summation. Still, I can recheck it at the British Library on Monday. Serendipodous 00:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

text: There. I added a new citation. Serendipodous 13:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent.  I never doubted the data for a minute, just needed a better citation.  This article is superb thanks to you and everyone else who contributed attention. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Sorry I got touchy. I do that occasionally. It happens when you spend enough time around here. Serendipodous 17:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Serendipodous the new ref is great... You don't have to spend time scanning the ref since it is mentioned right in the introduction.  But since they suspect life started on Earth 3.8 Billion years ago, I still want to know if Venus was more biologically active than Earth ~2 Billion years ago. :-)  Exogenesis seems to suggest that life could have started on Mars and made it to Earth, but poor Venus never seems to get a mention as a candidate even though it may have been the most habitable planet 2 billion years ago. -- Kheider (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation seems unrelated 

message: Shouldn't this article really be called "The Solar System", because there isn't any other solar system, is there? --Ediug (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct in that there is only the one "Solar System", namely our star system. However, the "t" is not capitalized (except of course at the start of a sentence), and even if it was, Wikipedia articles generally do not incorporate "the" (with limited exceptions.) Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 05:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is okay for me! :) --Ediug (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Solar System 

message: This article needs a chart (like a spreadsheet) of information about the planets, dwarf planets, and moons. Radius, Radius of orbit, mass, gravity, and a few other things should be included. Any objections, offers to make it, or questions? Williamrmck (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one: List of Solar System objects in hydrostatic equilibrium Serendipodous 17:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I added a template link to the page. Serendipodous 17:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: S., sorry, but I've had to remove the template and restore the links. Unfortunately, the layout was affected too much by the template, and I don't see a way around it. Thianks for trying, though. --Ckatzchatspy 09:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That chart also has Pluto as a planet, and other smaller objects as dwarf planets, and some have not been defined as dwarf planets yet. Thanks for trying to help. Williamrmck (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It has Pluto as a dwarf planet, not a planet, and a number of objects which are almost certainly dwarf planets but have not yet been formally classified. Serendipodous 11:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: You're right, sorry, I'm a noob. But why was the link removed, more specifically? I can't find it and Ckatz says he removed it, so I'm assuming you put it on, Serendipodous. I couldn't find it in the past histories of the page, but I didn't want to look through every one of them. Williamrmck (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is at the bottom of the page, under the title, "Physical and orbital data on the Sun, planets, dwarf planets, and moons." Serendipodous 18:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, it's a little bit out of the way, not many people will stumble across it, but it's still great that it's in the article. Thanks for helping! Williamrmck (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing chart 

message: Heliopause Solar wind speed should be 400 km/h not 40,000 km/h
--Suslik666 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? Actually, it's 40,000 kilometers per second. Serendipodous 21:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I think you may be right. I'll swap it. Serendipodous 10:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Solar_wind#Emission mentions 400 km/s (at the Earth orbit) to 750 km/s Ref: On the sources of fast and slow solar wind -- Kheider (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar wind speed 

message: The IAU resolution adopting the definition explicitly lists the 8 planets. Peter jackson (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet the definition itself is not worded such that it excludes the Moon from being a planet.   .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  02:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It specifically excludes satellites. And the Moon is a satellite, as its barycentre lies within the Earth. It orbits the Earth as its primary, regardless of its orbit around the Sun. Ergo, it is a satellite and, according to the definition, ineligible for consideration. Serendipodous 17:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a gentle reminder, Mr. S, that "satellite" has no official definition in planetary astronomy as yet.  It suffers the same issue that "planet" suffered before the last IAU meeting.  This fact just means that the Moon is thus far only vaguely classified as a satellite.  As for the placement of the barycenter, the best argument I've heard so far is that, while the Sun-Jupiter barycenter is the only planet barycenter that lies outside the Sun's surface, this does not in and of itself make Jupiter a star.  Therefore, just because the Earth-Moon barycenter lies a mere 1/8th of Earth's diameter below the surface, this does not in and of itself make the Moon a satellite.   .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  02:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion could go on forever. But the point is, however we parse the definition, it manifestly states that the Solar System contains eight planets. Since this is an article about the Solar System, not an article about the ambiguities inherent in the definition of planet, such debate does not belong here. Serendipodous 10:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The IAU resolution

message: Since the Martian satellites were mentioned, I wonder how appropriate (or not) would it be to mention the rotational velocity anomaly?  I.e., when the Martian day is compared with Earth's day one finds that they're about the same, right around 24 hours.  Now, Earth's day has been lengthened over the eons by the close proximity of an enormous object, the Moon.  Since neither Phobos nor Deimos are nearly as large as the Moon, and since the day on Mars has lengthened at about the same rate as the day on Earth, the question arises as to what caused Mars to slow its rotation over the eons?   .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  02:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point; not really relevant to this article. Might be a good addition to Tidal acceleration, assuming you could find the right sources to back it up. Serendipodous 13:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, I'm out of luck on the backup sources on this issue.  It probably constitutes original research, for I've never seen anything written about it.  Astronomers make the logical assumption that the isochronous rotation rates (near the bottom of that page) of the asteroids and the spin rates of the outer planets mean that the inner planets also rotated much faster 4 billion years ago.  As you know, the tidal action between Earth and Moon resulted in a transfer of angular momentum from Earth to Moon.  And the two main results were the Moon's proximity growing farther away and the Earth's spin rate slowing.  Mercury and Venus are probably undergoing a tidal-locking process with the Sun.  Astronomers seem to think that Mercury is already locked in a weird 3:2 relationship with the Sun, but I think that if the Mercurial spin is studied more closely, we'll find that it is changing, that Mercury is slowly headed for a 1:1 tidal lock.  Venus, which presently rotates in a direction opposite to most other planets, also probably has a changing spin rate, as the locking process causes it to oscillate past the 1:1 lock point a few times.  Earth is close enough to the Sun for there to be a possible tidal-locking effect with the Sun, but by far the thing that's slowed Earth's rotation to 24 hours was the proximity of the Moon.  I've never seen anything in print about it, but I've always questioned what might have caused Mars to slow its rotation so dramatically.  Certainly not the Sun for Mars is too far away for the Sun's tidal effect to have caused that much slowing.  Certainly not Phobos and Deimos, for they are way too small to have slowed Mars' rotation that dramatically.  And yet, there it is, our mysterious red neighbor Mars.  It's spin rate is actually a tad slower than Earth's.  So what in the name of "heaven" could have robbed it of its initial angular momentum?  Perhaps a series of collisions?  I don't know.   .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  14:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mars' Rotational Momentum Anomaly