Talk:Nebular hypothesis/Archive 1

message: People who proposed the nebular hypothesis were Tycho Bobostein, Johannes Kepler, Edmond Halley, Emanuel Swedenborg, Immanuel Kant, Johann Heinrich Lambert, Rudjer Boscovich, Pierre-Simon Laplace, William Herschel, and Maria Mitchell.Lestrade 14:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The hypothesis has been confirmed.69.6.162.160 01:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculators

message: Where did the solar nebula come from? I'd like to know. It must have come from a supernova from earlier in the history of the universe (to account for the heavy elements on earth.) Can anyone write anything about this? I think it's significant. Jolb 02:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did the solar nebula come from? 

message: Somewhat what? Serendipodous 09:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. Please don't shout so loudly; it's a bit too early. Spiral Wave 10:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry; I am a bit hard of hearing. Serendipodous 10:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Among the observed extrasolar planetary systems, the distribution of the planets in our own system may as yet be considered somewhat"

message: As explained above, I've been working on sorting out the duplicate material between this article and Formation and evolution of the solar system. It was already hovering inbetween being specific to our Solar system, and a general discussion, so I'm working on generalising it further so we have a full article leading through the process of planet formation.
I feel this article now needs renaming to reflect this change. Planet formation already links here; formation of planetary systems has also been suggested. If anyone has any opinions, or knows how to do all the necessary moving while preserving histories and (double?) redirects and so on, please speak up.
I'm also left wondering if Solar Nebula should now be a redirect somewhere else; perhaps to Formation and evolution of the solar system. It's outgrown the original title and I've already moved most of the relevant content to the appropriate section there. Spiral Wave 14:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed - planet formation links here, but planetary formation links to protoplanetary disk. That needs tidying up too. Spiral Wave 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure yet; this whole series of articles is in a bit of a mess; I just got back from "Sun" and found nothing about formation in it at all. Merging "Protoplanetary disc" wouldn't be so difficult, as it isn't very large. Serendipodous 14:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's definitely a mess. The structure I'm aiming for is one 'central' article, on planet formation, each with a short piece describing and linking to the relevant larger article - protoplanetary disc, protostar, planetesimal etc.  Kind of like how universe is attempting. So I'd rather keep protoplanetary disc separate; if we brought in everything like that, for each subsection, we'd get one huge article, which probably isn't too helpful. But I'm open to any better suggestions. Spiral Wave 16:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: (Uh, that means better than mine, not better than what you just said, BTW, That could be taken the wrong way. ) Spiral Wave 22:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
*:Solar nebula  → :Nebular hypothesis —(Discuss)— This title of this article is simply wrong. The "solar nebula" is not the nebula out of which the Sun and solar system formed. That nebula is called the "presolar nebula." The solar nebula is the residue remaining after the formation of the Sun that went on to form the planets. I can provide a number of scholarly references (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) which describe the mass of the solar nebula as far less than that of the Sun, which would be impossible if the Sun formed out of the solar nebula. Regardless, this article goes far beyond describing the solar or presolar nebulae. It is in fact an account of the nebular hypothesis of the formation of the solar system, and should be described as such. Serendipodous 06:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relying on Google hits is misleading in this case because "solar nebula" is an accepted term in planetary science. But not for the primordial nebula out of which the Solar System formed. In planetary science, the solar nebula is the remainder left over after the formation of the Sun that went on to form the planets. Thus this article's lead is incorrect. The solar nebula only existed for a fraction of the time described in this article, and indeed, by the time described in "Giant impacts" was already gone. It seems strange then, that it is the article's title. Serendipodous 16:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 07:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming of article to [[Planet formation]]? 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
*:Solar nebula  → :Nebular hypothesis —(Discuss)— This title of this article is simply wrong. The "solar nebula" is not the nebula out of which the Sun and solar system formed. That nebula is called the "presolar nebula." The solar nebula is the residue remaining after the formation of the Sun that went on to form the planets. I can provide a number of scholarly references (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) which describe the mass of the solar nebula as far less than that of the Sun, which would be impossible if the Sun formed out of the solar nebula. Regardless, this article goes far beyond describing the solar or presolar nebulae. It is in fact an account of the nebular hypothesis of the formation of the solar system, and should be described as such. Serendipodous 06:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relying on Google hits is misleading in this case because "solar nebula" is an accepted term in planetary science. But not for the primordial nebula out of which the Solar System formed. In planetary science, the solar nebula is the remainder left over after the formation of the Sun that went on to form the planets. Thus this article's lead is incorrect. The solar nebula only existed for a fraction of the time described in this article, and indeed, by the time described in "Giant impacts" was already gone. It seems strange then, that it is the article's title. Serendipodous 16:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 07:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move request

message: *Object — Then the article needs to be clarified. But discussion of the formation of the Sun seems necessary as a precursor to discussion of the "solar nebula". "Solar nebula" gets many more ghits, so I take it to be the more common term. I also get 7633 matches on NASA ADS for "solar nebula" compared to 1027 for "nebular hypothesis". The former seems the more scientific term, whereas the later is more historical. — RJH (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relying on Google hits is misleading in this case because "solar nebula" is an accepted term in planetary science. But not for the primordial nebula out of which the Solar System formed. In planetary science, the solar nebula is the remainder left over after the formation of the Sun that went on to form the planets. Thus this article's lead is incorrect. The solar nebula only existed for a fraction of the time described in this article, and indeed, by the time described in "Giant impacts" was already gone. It seems strange then, that it is the article's title. Serendipodous 16:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 07:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: What the heck is with that ALL CAPS link? It doesn't point to anything valid. I'm deleting it, but here's the original:
INJECTION OF RADIOACTIVE NUCLIDES FROM THE STELLAR SOURCE THAT TRIGGERED THE COLLAPSE OF THE PRESOLAR CLOUD CORE
--130.157.41.169 19:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links? 

message: PS I would argue for removal of at least two of those external links.  The summary for 9th-graders with group activity is quite inaccurate.  In the PPT presentation  linked, the author claims the collapse of the solar nebula was triggered by a supernova.  While that is a possibility, its pure speculation.  I've not seen any research to support this.  Could just as likely (perhaps more so) have been a passing spiral density wave, or no particular cause. Myrrhlin 22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me. It's not like there are that many sources anyway. If you feel that they could be improved, go for it.Serendipodous 07:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: I noticed that the topic of 'Planetary formation' is linked to here. MegaHasher 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. That's an issue. The fact is, and this is a point I've made dozens of times, the solar nebula is NOT the original cloud out of which the Solar System formed. That's called the pre-solar nebula. The Solar nebula is the residue left over after the Sun formed that ultimately formed the planets. Even though I provided eight scholarly references to that effect, people still refused to move the topic, and since the topic has already been moved, I can't do it without admin approval. Serendipodous 06:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also see other references with different usages, such as  and . I don't have textbooks handy for additional checks. MegaHasher 01:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Planetary Formation

message: The Swedenborg claim is referenced only to an original work of Swedenborg. I have no access to it and there is an obvious worry that this is an unpublished synthesis. There is no mention of Swedenborg in the (2001) Encyclopaedia Britannica article on "Solar system:Origin of the solar system" though it mentions Kant and Laplace, going so far as to talk about the "Kant-Laplace nebular hypothesis". Can we have a citation to some secondary interpretation please? Cutler 23:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedenborg 

message: I prepared this text, which I want to insert into the article.
Talk:Uranus/new_subpage. Ruslik 11:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite of the article

message: I would like to suggest adding this template to help interlink all of the articles based on star formation. I would do it myself but I don't know how to without upsetting the formatting of the article.Coffeeassured (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Star formation

message: Coagulation, isn't that when proteins change form by heat or by chemical processes to form some kind of soft but solid matter, common for frying or cooking eggs and other food processing? Funny that the planets were formed in this way. Said: Rursus (☻) 13:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Coagulation has several meanings. Ruslik (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then Wiktionary needs updating, since it doesn't even mentions eggs, but only blood and tofu. And Wikipedia concentrates on eggs, blood and proteins. I instead propose "accretion", which is more like a conventional term regarding planet creation. Although coagulation is an attractive term, when I'm hungry, and might consider fried eggs. Said: Rursus (☻) 17:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Coagulation is used in the literature fairly frequently. See  and . Coagulation is just a process when particles stick to each other forming larger particles. This works for proteins as well. Ruslik (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, noted and accepted. Thank you for the links. The articles on coagulation in Wiktionary and in Wikipedia maybe needs some enhancement though. Said: Rursus (☻) 08:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Coagulation (disambiguation). Ruslik (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Coagulation - eggs?

message: The article could use some editing for style and minor typographical errors.
Schaffman (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs some editing 

message: I think Swedenborg's theory should be downplayed: it is not enough if a person claims it first, the person should have good arguments to propose it, and there should also be some remembrance, continuity and acceptance of the claim via later scientists to the current state of science. Wegener is regarded the original proposer of continental drift, not because he was first, but because he was the first to provide arguments based on fossils and geology, not just saying that the Americas and the Africas split apart based on the similarity of their coast lines. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Swedenborg