Talk:Formation and evolution of the Solar System/Archive 1

message: I have created an outline for the completed artcile.  It is embedded in the article as comments.  As the various sections are ready to be fleshed out, they can be uncommented.  The outline itself is:
* Initial Formation
** The solar nebula
** Problems with the solar nebula model
* Subsequent evolution
** The inner solar system
** The asteroid belt
** The outer planets
** The Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud
--EMS | Talk 19:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outline created 

message: I have done some reorganizing on this article to enable the overall outline that I had for it.  Hopefully this will guide the future development of this article (or at least the current merge effort).
I don't like the "Future of the solar system" being here.  Much of that belongs in the Sun article IMO since that is what is being discussed.  The rest is the antithesis of the "Formation" part of this.  (Perhaps we should rename this article "History of the solar system"?  Then its name and focus would better match, but I still would like much of the "Future ..." stuff placed in the "Sun" article.) --EMS | Talk 15:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit ironic that you think that, really, because the "Sun" article seems to think it can leave explaining its "Origin" to this article. :=) I can understand your desire not to have the "Future" section, but given how chaotic the "Sun" article is I think the info is safer here. Still, I'd agree to switch it over if you honestly felt it was interfering with the structure of the piece. Perhaps focusing more on the fates of the various planets and explaining how the Sun's weakened gravity would shift their orbits, and what would happen when they ran out of heat, would make it more topical? Serendipodous 17:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that you should refrain from doing too much with the "Future" section for the time being, but do retain it until we have figured out what to do with it.  As I see it, we need to either move it elsewhere or rename this article.  However, I also think that we should refrain from making big decisions until things settle back down a bit.  This is one case where there are several (potentially) "right" answers. --EMS | Talk 18:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current edits 

message: Well, I did it. I hope you don't mind EMS, but it seemed the right thing to do. I've also shifted some refs and a nice image over from the "Sun" article to here. Serendipodous 10:26, 27 July 2006 
(UTC)
Also, I've copied and pasted a section from the Sun article on the faint young sun paradox; it probably should be reworded, but for now the information is here Serendipodous 10:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually on second reading it doesn't have much to do with the nebula model itself. Dropped it. Serendipodous 19:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an awful lot of repetition in this article, so I deleted some paragraphs and moved others around to make the narrative smoother. Serendipodous 22:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Serendipodous - You did not do the move of this article properly!  Each article has a "Move" tab.  When you use the "Move" tab to change the name of an article, the article history will also be moved and (unless you explicitly choose not to do so) the talk page and its history will also follow, as well as a redirect being left behind.  For a "young" article like this not much harm was done, but please in the future use the "Move" tab so that everything is moved and not just the article content.  (It also does not help that you failed to put a "copied from" remark in the comments for the original version of this article.) --EMS | Talk 13:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry; I was afraid if I did that, that all the redirects I'd made would have to be redone. Serendipodous 14:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For previous redirects, you get double-redirects.  They do need to be fixed, but that is an issue either way. --EMS | Talk 17:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad move 

message: The oldish theory of primary (primordial) atmospheres being replaced by secondary ones - for the terrestrials - is now somewhat obsolete. There are some arguments telling us that current atmospheres are direct derivatives from the primary atmospheres, without need of any novel secondary atmosphere formation. The most important argument is:
* Earth [H²O:HDO] isotope signature says: the water comes from the vicinity of Earth's formation place, not from comets (who would be the source of the 2ndary atms).
Quaþ tomas.kindahl@comhem.se --83.250.61.193 12:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary/2ndary atmospheres?? 

message: "One of these regions of collapsing gas (known as the solar nebula) would form what became the Sun. This region had a diameter of between 7000 and 20,000 AU[2][4] and a mass just over that of the Sun (by between 0.1 and 0.001 solar masses).[5] "
What the hell? How could a region containing 0.1 Solar Mass form a star of 1 solar mass?
Headbomb 21:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The crucial bit is 'just over that of the Sun'; i.e. 1.1 - 1.001 solar masses total, with the disc being the extra 0.1 - 0.001 (though that's a slight simplification, because the protosun was still accreting the disc and was a little less than 1 solar mass to begin with). Spiral Wave 22:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Solar Nebula having a mass of 0.1-0.001 solar Mass?

message: See this diff for some edits relating to the angular momentum problem that I reverted.  They did not impress me as being quite right, but I do want the feedback of other editors on this.  --EMS | Talk 20:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of those ideas seem taken from the Binary Research Institute webpage, which is basically a group of amateurs, boffins and outright cranks trying to make a case for a binary companion for the Sun. I have no idea whether to consider their opinions "legitimate", but regardless, unless the contributor sources his comments they are original research.Serendipodous 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The idea of a companion for the Sun is one that comes and goes over time, and while it's possibly worthy of a mention, without a reputable source it's simply OR. Spiral Wave 01:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting edits 

message: "In one billion years time, it will claim its first casualty: the Earth."
Well, apart from Mercury and Venus, unless I'm missing something fundamental in this rather overly dramatic phrase ... Daen 16:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could stand to be made clearer; whether it is overly dramatic is a matter of opinion. Serendipodous 17:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The confusion is because there's a difference between the Sun's expansion swallowing planets, and the increased heat destroying the necessary conditions for life. I've had a go at making the distinction explicit. Spiral Wave 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it takes 2 hydrogen atoms to make one helium atom, and then three helium atoms to make one carbon atom. This means that even if all the hydrogen in the core is transmuted into helium, the Sun only has a sixth the useful fuel it had initially. Serendipodous 14:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it takes four hydrogen ions (ie protons) to make a helium atom (see Proton-proton chain), so you can half your estimates again. But as the pressure at the core increases, from all the extra helium being dumped there, the resulting reactions speed up. It's all down at Stellar evolution#Mid-sized stars and Helium flash. Spiral Wave 15:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great links; added them to the article and clarified. Serendipodous 15:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarified the clarification(!): for future edits, remember that the core is a plasma. Spiral Wave 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar Evolution 

message: I'm not knowledgeable enough to edit this piece. But the end para struck me as a little odd. Firstly the Capture Theory is definitely not new, this I know - I remember it being mentioned at school in the 1960s (that dates me). As I understand it, it was dubious in the first place because the physical dynamics of such an encounter would not create a sufficiently massive and stable cloud of matter orbiting the Sun that could account for our entire system.
But more importantly, if this (or the exploding companion star hypothesis, which I suppose ought to be mentioned historically, it was well popular and even more unlikely) were true, then solar systems should be very very rare indeed - since the odds against such an encounter are, ahem, astronomically rare given interstellar distances. But the discovery of more and more exoplanets surely obviates this whole approach, even without a detailed critique of the dynamics - solar systems are very common indeed. So how can it be revived, or am I missing something? Tarquin Binary 05:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capture theory reference near the end... 

message: This article states: "The oldest rocks on Earth are approximately 3.9 billion years old."
However, Age of the Earth states:Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.567 billion years
Which one is right? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually: the figure 4.567 is the age of the Solar System. Earth is  younger by maybe 10-30 million years. Otherwise correct. Said: Rursus ☻ 07:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age 

message: The article currently states: "As it does so, conservation of angular momentum causes Earth's rotation to slow, making the days longer by roughly one second every 60,000 years. In roughly 2 billion years, the Moon's orbit will reach a point known as "spin-orbit resonance", and both the Earth and the Moon will become tidally locked."  Now, if Earth's day is lengthening by 1 second ever 60,000 years, then in 2 billion years Earth's day will be a little over 33 hours long.  How, then, can the Earth ever present only one side to the moon, if the moon completes an orbit in 28 days?  Zelmerszoetrop 17:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And to make it worse, the Moons orbital period will get longer as it receeds from the Earth.  I took a look at the reference, and it is small paperback FAQ written by an amateur astronomer such that I would not consider it to be reliable source for predictions involving lunar dynamics.  Therefore I have removed the section on the Moon.  (Although maybe a section on how moons and their orbits will evolve in general is germane.) --EMS | Talk 16:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future of moon 

message: The caption on the Saturn pic states:
 (brightness has been exaggerated in this image)
This implies the brightness has been altered artificially, which is incorrect.  The brightness comes from Saturn being infornt of the sun from this perpective. PseudoEdit (yak) (track) 03:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption on Saturn pic 

message: At some point information (apparently found here: http://curezone.com/blogs/m.asp?f=1207&i=2) was edited (rather crudely) into the SaGDEG article which suggests that our Solar System was originally part of SaGDEG and that we're currently settling into the Milky Way (after circling it for 2 billion years) as the Milky Way, being a cannibalistic galaxy, is absorbing SaGDEG. i figure that if this theory holds any weight, it should probably be included in some part of the "Origin of our Solar System" article.69.215.235.20 04:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an interesting speculation, but the source that you give for it is far from being a reliable source.  If you can find articlea in scientific journals that supports this idea then it could be included.  Otherwise there is no evidence that this is being taken seriously in the scientific community. --EMS | Talk 16:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy

message: The future of our solar system actually goes by this:
===In 1.1 Gyrs===
Sun will get slightly bigger, all land life on Earth is gone
Diameter: 5 current factors
===In 3 Gyrs===
Acually in 3 billion years our solar system will truly start to change, on Earth all oceans will boil,life known are completely impossible, and it's atmosphere will cause greenhouse effect. Sun's diameter will roughly be 60 times curretn factors. Only Mars surface will be flood of vast ocean levels, could possibly support marine lifes. 
===In 4 Gyrs===
Sun is roughly 140 times current factor on diameter,it is about subgiant branch. 
===In 5 Gyrs===
Sun's diameter reaches factor of 170, into RGB slightly past Venus orbit. However due to loss of sun's mass Earth and Venus' orbit will move further out to prevent it from being engulfed, However on Earth oceans and atmosphere will has been driven off into space, Earth is a scorch cinder. Even Venus will just be a molten wasteland with nothing on the surface.  Mercury is certainly swallowed up. However Saturn's and Jupiter's moon-Europa and Titan when temperatures warm up beautiful ocean worlds can send some better atmospheres create for some descent life. 
Suns diameter: 170 current factors - roughly 0.79 AU
* Venus moves to 1.0 AU - current orbit of Earth
* Earth moves to 1.4 AU - almost as big as current Mars orbit
* Mars moves to 2.0 AU - nearly to asteroid belts position
===In 7.5 Gyrs===
Sun reach Asympotic Giant Branch swells again. It almost reaches current Earth orbit. however Venus and Earth moves even further out again failing engulfments. 
Suns diameter reach 210 current factors - roughly 0.99 AU
* Venus moves to 1.2 AU - two fifths between current Earth and Mars' orbit
* Earth moves to 1.7 AU - two fifths between current Mars orbit and asteroid belt
* Mars moves to 2.5 AU - orbit times 1.5
===In 8 Gyrs===
Sun forms planetary nebula and evolves rapidly into white dwarf sun
Sun is over 10,000 times smaller after planetary nebula. Al the planets will move further out. 
* Venus reach 1.35 AU - between current Earth and Mars' orbits
* Earth reaches 1.85 AU - between Mars and asteroid belt orbits
* Mars reaches 2.8 AU - orbits nearly double—Preceding unsigned comment added by Freewayguy (talk • contribs) 
::The information on the timescale for the Sun's future was taken from this source: . It is quite possible there are other hypotheses out there. Perhaps they should be discussed for their relative merits. Serendipodous 08:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: our Solar System's Fture

message: Sun forms planetary nebula and evolves rapidly into white dwarf sun
Sun is over 10,000 times smaller after planetary nebula. Al the planets will move further out. 
* Venus reach 1.35 AU - between current Earth and Mars' orbits
* Earth reaches 1.85 AU - between Mars and asteroid belt orbits
* Mars reaches 2.8 AU - orbits nearly double—Preceding unsigned comment added by Freewayguy (talk • contribs) 
::The information on the timescale for the Sun's future was taken from this source: . It is quite possible there are other hypotheses out there. Perhaps they should be discussed for their relative merits. Serendipodous 08:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In 8 Gyrs

message: I want to get this article included in the Solar System series. That means I have to get it up to GA, which means this article needs to fix its most glaring issue: Sources. This article's number of citations needs to double. I'd appreciate any help in tracking sources for this information down. Thank you. Serendipodous 06:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources, sources, sources

message: See this source  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.0.30 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: This article still needs alot of work. Only the "future" section is okay. Most I post orange tag a while ago. Still this artilce needs about 30 or 40 more oline source the beginning part and the body part is still in poor shape. --Freewayguy (Meet) 02:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a lot on my plate right now, but I still intend to return to this page eventually. Serendipodous 03:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Status 

message: :1. Well written?: Almost pass
:2. Factually accurate and verifiable?: Almost pass
:3. Broad in coverage?: So-so
:4. Neutral point of view?: Pass (but see issue re nebular hypothesis)
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images?: Pass
This is a promising article. Things that can be tweaked (and i will do a little bit of it, esp. refs) are:
:*Improve the referencing. Many of the references are to web-based articles and the references show only a title. If the links ever go dead, there is no additional information to help the reader re-locate and verify a source.
:*The article opens with a couple of phrases: "...theories concerning the formation and evolution of the Solar System are complex and varied, interweaving various scientific disciplines, from astronomy and physics to geology and planetary science. Over the centuries, many theories have been advanced...". However, the history section moves straight to "the" current hypothesis, leaving the reader without a clear sense of them being either varied, or of many of them having been advanced. This suggests the "History" section is incomplete.
:*A slight restructure to get some material in a more logical order may help (a proposal is below). This also relates to my other point...
:*I think it may benefit from a more thorough treatment of alternatives to, and problems with, the nebular hypothesis, particularly given the "hot Jupiter" issue. Currently the article leads with the phrase "The current hypothesis of the Solar System's formation is the nebular hypothesis..." and goes on from there, giving the impression that this is fairly settled. The subsection that deals with problems with the hypothesis is in a later section, and the challenges to the hypothesis presented by exoplanet discoveries are not mentioned in that later section (though they do get mentioned in the first section!). Not much weight appears to be given to alternative hypotheses. If that is because they are minor and not widely supported then that is fair enough: Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight. I'm open to other opinions on this, but think it needs to be more carefully addressed.
:*My suggestion for structure overall is:
:: 1. Statement about the age of the solar system and general views about its likely longevity, and then some "tasters" re how it has not always been the same, as a way of introducing the idea that it has an origin and an evolutionary path.
:: 2. History of ideas about solar system origins pre-nebular hypothesis
:: 3. Statement of the nebular hypothesis without any of the criticisms
:: 4. Description of origins and early evolution consistent with this hypothesis (the stuff in the "Pre-solar nebula" and "Formation of planets" sub-sections and most material in the "Subsequent evolution" section).
:: 5. Section called something like "Limitations and challenges to the nebular hypothesis". Aggregate such material here from "History of solar system formation hypotheses" and "Problems with the nebular hypothesis". Deal with capture theory. If appropriate, have an "alternative hypotheses" sub-head.
:: 6. "Future" pretty much as-is.
:* I think there may need to be a more thorough treatment of the subject of moons, including naming of specific examples of moons that fall into different categories, including retro-orbiting (not explicitly mentioned at present). I admit that the "moons" heading is tricky to fit in to the above schema, because one of the key features of moons as a class is that they did not all evolve at the same stage in the solar system's development. Just slot it in wherever at this stage.
:*Bearing in mind I'm not an expert in the field, I'd have thought this article would then be GA and well on the way to FA.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated, and I hope that'll be soon!  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed.  Thank you for your work so far. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Good article" nomination - not quite there

message: Hi Serendipodous - I was fixing the references when I hit an edit conflict with you. I managed to patch them up, but noticed the article had shrunk. I am not sure whether I've done something inadvertent, or you're holding material at a sandbox while you work things over. Hopefully nothing has been lost. Chat on my talk page if you want, but I will do nothing further on this article today (well, tonight - I don't know where you live, but it's midnight here). I'll drop back in another day and see where it's at. Cheers and apologies for any inconvenience. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit conflict and hopefully nothing worse

message: At the end of that section, the article says that up to 90% of the original mass of the star will be crystallized in the evolution of the white dwarf.  However, previously in the same section, it is said that the Sun will have lost up to 40% of its mass.  It can't be down to 60% at one point, and still have 90% at some later point.
I'm guessing that, based on the discussion of crystallization in the White dwarf article, that this article should state that up to 90% of the mass in the Sun's white dwarf could be crystalline, which is some fraction (50-60%?) of the Sun's original mass. I'm hesitant to change it myself, be cause I don't know what the right answer is.  But as it sits, there's a logical inconsistency. Aerodave (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistake in mass numbers, under "Evolution of the Sun and planetary environments"

message: Would this article be the appropriate topic page for including the following information?:
Is the earth theorized to be in a declining orbit?  Why is there no detected decline in orbit?  What's the theory behind why the planets weren't aborbed into the sun a long time ago? Could we add something to this article about the gravitational balance of the solar system, and a calculation as to how much mass outside the sun in our solar system could be vaporized before we would expect an upset in that balance?  69.215.156.229 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to remember Stephen Hawking mentioning it in A Brief History of Time, but as I recall, the amount of energy lost by the Earth per second was so minute that the Sun would have long since faded to black before Earth ever collided with it. According to Wikipedia, the laws of probability dictate that all planets would have been ejected from their orbits by the gravity of passing stars within one quadrillion years, which is far before the time Hawking mentioned. I don't have a copy with me, but if someone wants to check it, that would be good. Serendipodous 07:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Declining Orbit?

message: Ove years Earth fate is still vague. First sun is thouhgt to get to 0.9 AU and Earth will just stay in the same orbit and just be semi-molten. Then a little later, Earth was thought because sun will lose 40% of gravitation pull Earth might escape to 1.6 AU when sun gets to almost 1 AU. Now we say because sun will get about 280 times raii; this bulges sun to 1.3 AU. I thought Earth will be able to escpae a little bit but the strong gravitation pull will still be too strong Earth may not be able to escape soon enough to avoid engulfment. Previously we thouhgt Earth might be able to escape fast enough avoiding engulfment. But now Earth's hope to survive is not to big to my display. Earth now has about a 70% to be swallow up. Now we will just have to say Earth will possibly be swallow up when sun dies. Anyways what is an Roche limit between sun and Earth. I thouhgt is due to expansion. Anyways Mercury and Venus is almost certainly swallow up at this time.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 22:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth's fate 

message: In response to Serendipodous' question to me about whether this article is ready to re-nominate for good article, here are my comments.
In summary, I think it's close to ready for nomination (and not terribly far from FA) but has a few outstanding issues. I carefully read through sections 1 and 2, but not further. The article is well written and mostly well organized (but see below). I did a bunch of copy-editing as I went.
*I might limit the table of contents; it's rather long and this article has a ton of short subsections which I'm not sure need to be in the TOC.
*I don't think the estimation of age warrants its own section; it could probably be worked into the pre-solar nebula section.
*Ref 1 (Cracraft 1982): A topical reference primarily about the solar system might be better than "Scientific responses to creationism"
*Reference issues (with the caveat that I am probably on the persnickety side about reference formatting and reliability.):
:*Several references (e. g. #29, Malhotra 1995) list the author's institution as the publisher; the journal or 'self-published' should be listed instead. (Of the ones I've checked, many actually are published papers, so they are simply poorly cited reliable sources, but personal web pages should be replaced if practical.)
:*There are also a good number of references with no author listed.
:*At least one reference (#5, Hester 2004) links to a Universe Today article by a different author. Finding the original paper by Hester would be an improvement.
:*Ref 14 (Goldreich & Ward 1973) has a dead link and no citation information; it's probably an ApJ article.
*Nebular hypothesis: I'd slightly expand the opening paragraph to give some idea what it is, rather than just where it came from. The expansion needn't be long, given that the details are right below and there's a main article link.
*The section on moons feels a bit short and lacking in detail.
That's as far as I read for now. I'll try to help with some of my suggestions if I can. ASHill (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination readiness 

message: I reorganized the refs a bit. The "General references" section has what I think are good general references on the topic (a textbook and a professional conference proceedings article with a good, broad introduction). The "Further reading" section has the papers that were cited separately before. They're all relatively narrow in focus, and I think they should either be folded in as footnotes for specific facts or removed. (I moved one of them into a footnote.) Then the footnotes are in the "Notes" section. Feel free to hack away at the organization if you have a better idea. ASHill (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a go. Looks tidier now. Serendipodous 07:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs reorganized 

message: Is the nebular hypothesis the only current hypothesis about the formation of the solar system? If not, what are some of the others, even if they are not generally accepted? Applejuicefool (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the "Other theories" section. However, the nebular hypothesis is really a very broad umbrella; there are a lot of details that vary from model to model that still have the basic idea of a molecular cloud collapsing to form the Sun, with a bit of leftover material that forms the planets and the rest of the junk. There's very little doubt about that broad picture; that's how we see star formation all over the place. ASHill (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other hypotheses? 

message: WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination.  It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please.  Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?  If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?  Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?  At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style.  Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey