Talk:Sun/Archive 1

message: can someone add info about estimates on how much longer the sun will exist before it dies? thanks! Kingturtle 03:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem!!! I was just wondering this. You want a thing done right you gotta do it yrself, holmes =) Yeago 22:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately the naive rate is off by about an order of magnitude (depending on what you are looking for): the core of the Sun is not convective, so there is little mixing with the other parts of the star.  The core will exhaust its hydrogen long before a naive calculation would suggest, causing the core to collapse and increase in temperature until the helium begins to fuse.  When that happens, the outer layers will expand, making the star a red giant -- even though the outer envelope will still be primarily composed of hydrogen.  zowie 04:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  time left for the sun 

message: We've been trying to work out solar fusion numbers over at Nuclear fusion and Talk:Nuclear fusion - see the "Check these numbers?" section.  I'm hoping that some of you folks know more about the solar fusion process than what we were able to piece together and can double-check what we (I) came up with.   Thanks.   SMesser 21:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar fusion 

message: All we have here are two SOHO pictures using the same special color filter. Can we not use a "normal light" picture on the top, possibly with a couple of sun spots? Awolf002 15:51, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, our main source of PD solar system images is NASA/JPL, and they don't seem to have any boring yellow-light images of the Sun. -- Curps 20:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, I found one. -- Curps 20:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better picture? 

message: I'd like to see the symbol for the Sun in the article. --FlockofPidgeons 24:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbol 

message: 4.26 million tonnes per second??? Drop the million and you have the correct figure. This can be checked by the famous E = Mc^2
:Indeed it can be checked, and if you do that carefully you'll find it really is 4.26 million tonnes per second, giving the solar luminosity of 3.8×1026W. Worldtraveller 02:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matter - Energy Conversion 

message: I put the bold sentences in there to highlight the key information in each paragraph.  If they offend anyone, please feel free to remove the boldness -- but please also edit the text to highlight those sentences in some other way.  The point is to draw the eye to the main point of the paragraph, without resorting to a BIG RED BOX!!! (see above).zowie 20:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bold passages in Sun and Eye Damage

message: There is a big list at the bottom of the article, "See Also". Isn't this what categories are for? Should there be a Sun category? Ebeisher 16:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also 

message: Are we supposed to put new posts at the top or bottom? Sorry if I'm doing something wrong, this is my first ever post on a talk page. Anyway. I feel that this article is biased. It comes across as saying that the Nuclear Fusion Theory of the Sun is fact. It isn't fact, it's just the most commonly accepted mainstream Theory. It totally neglects to say any of this, much less mention that the info is based on a theory, it just goes on like it is fact (something that I have seen in other encyclopedia's, website articles, spoken word etc). There is no mention of the Electric Star, (The Electric Universe Theory), which is quickly becoming another popular theory, and one that makes more sense IMHO. FistOfFury 30 June 2005 23:56 (UTC)
: So if Electric Star makes more sense, you've done the math and found that the proposed energies can affect 99% of a solar system's mass in the methods claimed?  I don't know what specifically you're referring to; I've heard of several concepts, and the one I just found in Google was at a minimum ignoring magnetohydrodynamics, as well as referring to a lack of neutrinos which is now known to be due to detectors having been sensitive to only some types of neutrinos.  There also was mention of little variability in the visible spectrum, ignoring that much of solar variability is hidden because our atmosphere absorbs energetic light; our eyes adapted to use the type of light which reaches the surface so it is hardly surprising that "visible light" has certain characteristics.  (SEWilco 1 July 2005 02:39 (UTC))
:: Which webpage from Google are you referring to? FistOfFury 1 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)
::: Doesn't matter, if your sources do not have such omissions.  (SEWilco 1 July 2005 06:53 (UTC))
: Nuclear fusion is the only currently accepted physical theory that explains the solar neutrinos, the long duration of the solar luminosity, and the difference between the principal solar abundances and the universal abundances of light elements. Nuclear fusion has the additional advantage that it rests on physics that is verified daily by undergraduate students in classroom laboratories around the globe.   The electric universe theory, to my knowledge, currently falls short both in the prediction-of-solar-behavior and in the verification-in-the-lab categories.  If/when the electric universe theory is proven (a) correct and (b) more useful than the standard theory of nuclear fusion, then we can consider including it in encyclopediae.  But for now it should really be considered original research and hence not part of Wikipedia's scope. zowie 1 July 2005 04:47 (UTC)
:: Yes, and all of that addresses the obvious slant of the article how? Really, I do not wish to turn this into a fusion vs electric universe topic, this isn't the place. I'm sure that if I really wanted to, I could spend some time and find holes in the fusion theory if I really wanted, like you guys are trying to do with the electric theory. There's holes in both, that is why they are theories. I'm not an expert on everything, as I'm still reading up on both theories, and to me, I feel that the electric universe is pointing in the right direction. But the point of why I started this thread is, there is no mention in the Sun article that all the info is based on a theory (I don't care if there's been tests done, it's still a theory). The only time I saw the word theory was in the section called the nuetrino problem, and it was talking about something else. As long as the theory has become mainstream then it's okay to write the article as fact and ignore that it's a theory, is this the normal way of doing things on Wikipedia? Just wondering, as I am new here. FistOfFury 1 July 2005 06:21 (UTC)
:::If its the well supported dominant scientific theory, then the answer is yes; and hence the article is not biased. Here's a link (Plasma_cosmology#The_Electric_Universe) you can use for a one/few sentence caveat if you guys agree on the content; but for the record if there was something fundamentally wrong with fusion theory they would have come across it in the fusion test reactor. - RoyBoy 800 1 July 2005 06:36 (UTC)
::: "It's only a theory": One wonders what convincing proof can be produced when a cup of fusing solar hydrogen is not a practical goal.  Fusion by the megaton doesn't prove that is what happens in the Sun.  But then, "lightning" doesn't well describe what is visible on the Sun.  (SEWilco 1 July 2005 06:53 (UTC))
::: "As long as the theory has become mainstream then it's okay to write the article as fact and ignore that it's a theory, is this the normal way of doing things on Wikipedia?"  Yes, for many things.  We don't mention in Automobile or Horse that they are physical representations of clouds of quantum probabilities, or entangled strings.  See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  (SEWilco 1 July 2005 07:02 (UTC))
:: RoyBoy's got it right as far as the Wiki guidelines. The "electric universe theory" may or may not prove to be a correct description of the world (and many of us have opinions one way or the other), but the overwhelming body of academic work points to a general acceptence of conventional physical theory.  The job of an encyclopedia is not to present all theories about each subject, it is to present the best representation of accepted fact.  A good place to write about the "electric universe theory" would be in its own article, describing it as an alternative theory of the cosmos.  It could be listed in the List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories, which appears to be on course to survive the latest attack. zowie 1 July 2005 17:58 (UTC)
On a side note from the Electric Sun theory (I think), can we have a section that mentions the claims by Dr Manuel Oliver that the Sun is in fact made mostly of Iron, not Hydrogen? I came across this today and it makes sense to me, as well as appearing to have appeared in a fair number of peer reviewed mainstream journals. It is certainly NOT accepted with entirely open arms, but I would think it useful to list it under the Problems section. Some links:
*http://web.umr.edu/~newsinfo/ironsun.html (Dr Oliver's main Sun page)
*http://www.thesunisiron.com/ (obviously all about the theory)
*http://www.haltonarp.com/?c=view_topic.include.cfm&view_topic_id=228 (Dr Oliver responds to questions on a forum thread)
*http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/23/sun.iron/ (CNN briefly mentions other astronomers problems with the theory)\
*http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20031002191731data_trunc_sys.shtml
*http://www.springerlink.com/(cwx3cd5530fxrnf1iugjafj4)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,5,9;journal,11,30;linkingpublicationresults,1:105722,1
--User:Falkayn
:My first impression is, it shows all the signs of fringe science. You know, revolutionary new theory, established science has it all wrong, oppressed, lonely fighter for the truth. The review system is censored, you publish anyway, it's not the fault of the theory that it isn't accepted by peers, putting things on a website will sure fix that, if not, put up another one, etc. There are other things that should go first in an encyclopedia. Femto 13:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for asking.  The answer is, No, we absolutely cannot.  Oliver's claims are complete crap.  In particular, he claims that the Sun has a solid interface layer somewhere just under the surface.  That has been disproven by the helioseismology data from GONG and MDI.  It has definitely not appeared in a fair number of peer reviewed mainstream journals devoted to solar physics and astrophysics -- in fact he appears to have had some difficulty getting them published (as evidenced by the "CENSORED" stamp he posts on the front page of thesunisiron.com).  (But then, I got my PhD in solar astrophysics from Stanford, and spent four years working on the SOHO/MDI project, so I'm clearly part of the establishment on this one). zowie 21:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased Article

message: Taking a cursory look at this; it would appear to me that a newcomer was biten and Wikipolicy could have been explained along with a short answer to the question(s) on this page and 84's talk page, regardless of wether they were in good faith. Furthermore, isn't the Wikipedia:Reference_desk a viable option? Unless I'm missing some backstory here. - RoyBoy 800 01:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While the article addresses the future outlook for the Sun I think the anon's questions were of broader issues that came to mind as a result of reading it. I would suggest an apology and help with further questions; and a reminder profanity is frowned upon; even in edit summaries. - RoyBoy 800 08:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I would also recommend creating a user page to help with what I hope will be continued editing on your part zowie; and it will give vandals something to sink their teeth into. :"D RoyBoy 800 08:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rv('s) of anon 84.47.101.40 

message: I removed a claim that was at best misleading -- that atoms can exist in the convection zone, but the Sun is composed of plasma everywhere else.  While some hydrogen is neutral in the outer part of the convection zone, it is mixed with a much larger percentage of ionized hydrogen -- and the material is best called "plasma" everywhere in the Sun, including the photosphere.   (The temperature at the base of the convection zone is about 2,000,000 K; hydrogen becomes fully ionized somewhere around 160,000 K.) zowie 08:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  atoms in the convection zone 

message: Can we have an image similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Earth-Moon.jpg?  I know that the size difference and space would be massive, but I'm trying to explain the size differences to my daughter, and she's just not grasping it.  I think a similar image would be helpful.
:Good suggestion - I've added a size comparison image which I hope is what you were after! Worldtraveller 08:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar image to earth 

message: I have to dispute this edit, for now (and will remove it). Can you provide a reference for this, since I am pretty sure it still is radioactivity that provides the largest amount of energy to geothermal heat. Awolf002 18:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recant and apologize; I figured Earth was in the same vein as Io, etc. Sorry for the pre-research edit. !mAtt 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidal forces responsible for geothermal heat 

message: I do not believe this article follows the NPOV policy of wikipedia I quote: "...the star at the center of our Solar system..." that is a very earth centric view and I believe the 'our' should be taken out. There are outsiders living here too you know. --128.227.34.184 12:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is only the English language Wikipedia, after all. See http://alien.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_minor_invasion_target_systems#Section_ZZ9_Plural_Z_Alpha which follows a more neutral view. ... What do you mean the page doesn't load? Oops, my bad, it's not yet availabe in this millennium. But it will be created in the future. Trust me, I've been there. Femto 13:07, 15 February 3006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, Femto, that was awesome! Motorneuron 19:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth centric 

message: I eliminated a clause that the "heliospheric current sheet is the largest structure in the solar system".  It's not.  The heliopause is.  It has to be -- it is large enough to contain the heliospheric current sheet. zowie 22:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heliospheric current sheet

message: Does anyone else think this article could be ready for one?  Any thoughts on what else it needs, if anything? Worldtraveller 23:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That part is probably my only concern about the article - I merged the three sections because they were all very short, so maybe those bits could be expanded? Worldtraveller 18:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's probably OK the way it is.  The article is so long, expanding the stuff out would be more of a problem than a solution -- I think you made the right choice. zowie 06:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I'll nominate it and see what happens!  Worldtraveller 12:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hurrah, so far a very positive response it would seem.  --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 22:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible FAC nomination

message: Please add a reference for this new section. All I saw was a Reuters news item, not any source that would satisfy the reliable sources policy for this type of article. Thanks! Awolf002 22:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: oops, thanks for the reminder. zowie 22:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predicting the solar cycle - Ref please 

message: Quote-"more than 99% of the solar system's mass is contained in it."
How can more than 99% of the solar system's mass be contained in the Sun? Wouldn't that have to mean that all of the mass of the solar system is contained in the Sun (which is certainly not true)? 64.192.107.242 13:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sun has something like 99.8% of the mass in the solar system, which is a number >99% but less than 100%.  You, me, the planets, and everything else in the solar system are just a little bit of fluff around the edges of the sun.  Dragons flight 13:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More than 99% of the solar system's mass is contained in the Sun

message: Isnt't the intro a violation of the NPOV policy? "Our solar system" is clearly a reflection of a Terrestrian point of view. Kpalion 18:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's consider changing it as soon as Sirian or Alpha-Centaurian posts an objection. zowie 18:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: XD Saved to go in forum randosig. You just made me laugh. 194.66.200.1 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Now, is our Sun the only Sun? I mean, I hear astronomers say "there may be other planets revolving around other Suns". I mean, is "Sun" a pronoun? Or is "Sun" a word to describe a star around which planets revolve? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:67.165.87.40]|67.165.87.40]]] ([[User talk:67.165.87.40]|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/67.165.87.40]|contribs]]) 01:08, March 20, 2006  (UTC)
:"Sun" is normally a proper noun and refers to our Sun alone.  When it is used that way it should be capitalized.  The word "sun" is also used as a general noun to refer to another star as the center of its own planetary system.  This usage is similar to "Moon" (the particular large, rocky body that orbits the Earth) vs. "moon" (any large body that orbits a planet). zowie
::How does one "sun" someone? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-20 07:14
:::Just like in NASA's Moon Mars initiative, but facing the other way? zowie 18:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''The'' Sun?

message: i'm glad this article has made featured status, it is certainly worthy. however, my only quibble is that i don't understand why the least impressive picture of the sun is the one at the top. surely the image should inspire awe in the reader; the current one is just rubbish. the opening one on the main page is dead good, should we use that instead? i'm new to the whole astrophysics thing, is there some sort of standard in place? mastodon 00:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article at the top is there because that's what the Sun actually looks like, in visible light.  The other image, which is more visually dramatic, requires the use of spacecraft and multilayer mirrors.  Using the ultraviolet image at the top would make the Sun the only solar system body whose WP lede image was actually invisible to humans.  zowie 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening image 

message: I posted the other day about how I was happy about the West Wing being featured as a fan of the show.  But dammit, I'm  proud as living being that the Sun is featured.  TKE 01:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured

message: I heard 20 billion years.  Sometimes 5.  I read it from the featured page and there's no mention of it that I can see in the article (it is really long too).  The article needs this.  206.11.112.251 01:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Second para of the article.  About 5 billion years.  That's because, paradoxically, stars get hotter as they cool off.  When the hydrogen is exhausted in the core, the Sun will collapse a bit (heating the core adiabatically) until the core is hot enough to fuse helium.  The additional heating will cause the outer layers (still rich in hydrogen, by the way) to expand until it's quite a bit larger than Earth's orbit.  So we better get off the planet (or else move it) sometime in the next 4-5 billion years or we're toast. zowie 01:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The additional heating will cause the outer layers ... to expand until it's quite a bit larger than Earth's orbit. " - are you sure about this? I've always heard that it will expand to engulf mercury and venus, but not earth - but it won't matter much to anything still alive on the surface, because the oceans and atmosphere will be boiled away into space. Raul654 03:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not entirely sure.  The exact diameter is kind of model-dependent and I can't claim to know stellar evolution well enough.  I remember working out once that the new photosphere would be out almost Mars' orbit at greatest expansion, but that used a lot of simplifying assumptions (it was a homework assignment in grad school) so I wouldn't take it as authoritative :-) zowie 04:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is the most everyone agrees that the sun will expand beyond the present orbit of the Earth, but whether or not the Earth is actually engulfed depends sensitively on what one assumes for the rate of mass loss during the red giant phase transition.  As the sun expands, the amount of gas blown away by the solar wind greatly increases.  All told, the sun might dissipate 20-30% of it's mass during the transition.  As the sun's gravity decreases, the Earth's orbit would be expected to migrate outward.  This makes it possible, though not certain, that the Earth could avoid being consumed as the Sun becomes a Red Giant.  Of course you wouldn't want to live there, regardless.  Dragons flight 04:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When is it supposed to expand/explode? 

message: I find it highly unlikely that this "sun" is notable. It doesn't even appear to have its own website, as sun.com is a link to a computer hardware company. Furthermore, I believe it may be a hoax, based on the existence of this garage band's myspace account: http://www.myspace.com/thesun . I'm unsure whether to simply add a speedy deletion tag, or use the full AfD procedure. Your thoughts? --Xyzzyplugh 01:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *... Okay, now that the beer came out my nose... TKE 02:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * Hehehe, nice to see a sense of humor around Wikipedia once in a while. Alexthe5th 02:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I already put it there :) Raul654 06:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: ) VivekM 20:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There are a tiny handful of exceptions, such as the bacteria that surround thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean. They are so far down that no light or heat from the sun reaches them. They get their energy in geothermal forms. Raul654 20:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearly Non-notable 

message: Here is what the chart says about the velocity of the sun "217 km/s relative to center of Galaxy, 20 km/s relative to average velocity of other stars in neighborhood". I thought that velocity have to have a direction, so where is the sun going 217km/s? Away from the center of the galaxy? To the center of the galaxy?  Where are we going 20 km/s relative to average velocity of other stars in neighborhood? Away from the center of the galaxy? To the center of the galaxy? North 67 degrees west? I think the direction should be indicated not assumed Pseudoanonymous 03:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it is, in the most simple minded approximation, orbiting about the center of the galaxy in roughly a circle.  I think perhaps this a case of a scientist saying something and not even realizing that they are assuming readers have some knowledge that they may not possess.  In any event, I made an edit that I hope clarifies this point, although I think it still leaves something to be desired. Grokmoo 03:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See solar apex. --arkuat (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Velocity 

message: There's no mention in this article about the primary contribution of the sun to life on Earth: a source of well-ordered light which allows the Earth to be an "entropy engine," harnessing the light and releasing thermal, mostly infrared radiation.  As you can tell me understanding of this subject is vague, but surely it's worth a mention.  In ecology textbooks the use of sun in photosynthesis et al. (enthalpy) is mentioned to the exclusion of the sun as a source of ordered, uniform light waves, thus permitting the local anti-entropic development of life in exchange for the highly disordered thermal radiation that organisms emit. Ryanluck 09:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entropy 

message: I semiprotected this article after a user request and in light of the fact that there has been a rash of recent anon vandalism.  Let me know if and when you'd like it removed.Gator (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the protection.  It is being vandalized because it is the featured article on the front page, but traditional dictates that we do not protect frontpage articles except under extraordinary circumstances and for very brief periods.  Dragons flight 16:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection 

message: There should probably at least be links to Solar deity, Solar symbol, etc...  AnonMoos 20:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No mention of cultural or symbolic significance

message: Near the top of the page, it says 36 days, but futher down says 35 days for a polar rotation. I figure it's somewhere inbetween but it should be the same throughout the article. 207.165.145.65 20:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Discrepency in Polar Rotation. 

message: Is it Scientifically correct to say that the sun will 'evolve'? --Science Lord 20:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution? 

message: If the sun is a 'yellow star' and lovely large detailed pictures seem to support it, how is it that sunlight is full spectrum? If the sun LOOKS yellow, meaning yellow light is what meets the eye/camera, then logically you conclude the sun doesn't give off any light of a non-yellow frequency, yet we know it does, because when you split sunlight in a prism, there's all the other colors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.26.169.37 (talk • contribs) 23:22, March 20, 2006  (UTC)
*It's possible for the amount of radiation of a specific frequency (color) to vary. And this is the case with the Sun. See this diagram. The Sun is more yellowish white than pure yellow. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-20 22:29
::Yah, Brian00918's got it exactly right -- the yellow portion of the spectrum is brighter than the red or the blue portion.  A complete solar spectrum is represented in the picture by the "Neutrino problem" heading -- you can see that nearly all colors of the rainbow are present in sunlight (those little dark smudges are "missing" colors that are being absorbed by specific elements in the solar atmosphere).  Remember that your eyes are not spectrographs: color vision gets you only a very rough approximation of the spectrum, which is why RGB or CMYK color schemes work.
zowie 22:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color? 

message: I wasn't expecting my earlier minor edit to be controversial.  I don't understand what purpose is served by comparision of the Sun's circumference to the Earth's diameter.  I would find it far more intuitive to do an 'apples to apples' comparison, and to say that the Sun's circumference is 109 times that of the Earth... and its diameter is 109 times that of the Earth.  It seems that this is a pointless multiplication by π, given that they're both spheres to within the three significant figures shown here.  Removal of the 'earths' comparison of the circumference entirely on the grounds that it is redundant would also make sense to me. --Noren 01:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Noren,  sorry -- didn't think it was particularly controversial either -- just noticed the ratio of pi in the original figure.  I think that whoever assembled the table (I've a terrible head for names) put it in to provide a better sense of scale.  If you prefer to switch ('109 Earth diameters' and '109 Earth circumferences') I don't have a problem with that.  Cheers, zowie 06:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why compare the Sun's circumference to the Earth's diameter? 

message: I made an edit earlier stating that the sun was of at least the third generation, which has since been (partially) reverted.  My understanding is that the earliest stars are believed to have formed from matter containing nearly no elements heavier than lithium, and thus the CNO cycle could not occur until after the core was hot enough to perform a triple-alpha process.  (A recent web site on Population III stars is here.)  I have read that these Population III stars did not, therefore, produce significant amounts of elements heavier than Zinc.  These earliest stars would create metal poor Population II stars, which in turn formed the very heavy elements in our solar system.   I am not an astronomer, but those appear to be legitimate sources in my estimation; I would like to see some references demonstrating that the Sun is of only the second generation. Failing that, I think the page should be changed back.  It's also possible that the page should instead be changed to reflect a lack of consensus in the astronomy community if that is the case currently.   --Noren 01:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The sun is a population I = third generation star.  NASA says so as well .  Dragons flight 01:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What generation is the Sun? 

message: Is the Sun ever listed in astronomical catalogues? Ardric47 04:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astronomical Catalogues