Talk:Solar System

Archives
Archive_1: up to July 2006 Archive_2: July 2006 to April 2007 Archive_3: May 2007 to August 2008 Archive_4: August 2008 to January 2009 Archive_5: February to April 2009 Archive_6: May to June, 2009 Archive_7: June, 2009

Request quotation for Venus section

Two sources for Venus, give me two quotes please. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Both those sources are freely accessible. Serendi^podous 05:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Request quotation for Kuiper belt section

• Many Kuiper belt objects have multiple satellites?
• and most have orbits that take them outside the plane of the ecliptic?

HarryAlffa (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you need quotes? These aren't controversial facts. And they're sourced. So what's the big deal? Serendi^podous 05:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Heliopause

Please don't take this wrong, Serendipodous, for I consider your clarification to be an excellent edit. I'm curious about what you wrote in the edit summary: ". . . the solar wind has no upwind or downwind." In that particular context, where the "upwind" and "downwind" refers to the flow of the interstellar medium, the motion of the Solar wind is, of course, always into that medium. In other contexts, such as the effect of the Solar wind upon the magnetic field of the Earth, there is a significant "upwind" and "downwind" to the Solar wind, isn't there? (Ref.: Earth's magnetic field)

Also, a later statement is made that "Beyond the heliopause, at around 230 AU, lies the bow shock, a plasma 'wake' left by the Sun as it travels through the Milky Way." This raises questions in my mind: How can science assume that there is a "flow" to the interstellar medium, when next to nothing is known about that medium? Might that medium be immobile, and only appear to flow against the movement of the Sun and Solar system around the center of the galaxy? Isn't it incorrect to refer to the "flow" of the interstellar medium in this article as if it definitely exists? The only thing actually "flowing" could just be the Solar system through the galaxy, correct? (If I'm right about this, then there is no "upwind" or "downwind" to the interstellar medium!) It seems we are using terms (such as "flow of plasma", "upwind" and "downwind") in this article as if they truthfully apply, when, in truth, we don't know if they apply, don't you agree?
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  05:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose there is an upwind or downwind to the solar wind; towards or away from the Sun. But since both edges of the heliopause are away from the Sun, the solar wind's upwind and downwind wouldn't apply. As to the interstellar medium being immobile, that's impossible. Nothing in space is immobile, because nothing can be. Space has no gravity and no friction, so there's nothing to slow anything down. Serendi^podous 06:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You can read here or here. Ruslik_Zero 08:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That's all quite interesting, but it's still conjecture and OR. There's nothing in the literature that I know of that would support your idea that it's "impossible" for the interstellar medium to be immobile. Moreover, if the interstellar medium is flowing, who's to say it's not flowing in the same direction as the Solar system? or in a "crosswind" direction? Bottom line is nobody really knows for certain, so the "flow", "upwind" and "downwind" wording must be OR, and it ought to be removed from this encyclopedia.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  08:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruslik just provided you with two scientific sources that describe the heliopause's interaction with the motions of the interstellar wind. Serendi^podous 09:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"This current of tenuous partially ionized low density ISM has a velocity relative to the Sun of ∼26 km s−1." This is written on the page one of one of two refs that I provided. Ruslik_Zero 10:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Another paper: "At present there is no doubt that the local interstellar medium (LISM) is mainly partially ionized hydrogen gas moving with a supersonic flow relative to the solar system." Ruslik_Zero 10:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And doncha jus' luv it! when a "scientist" says "At present there is no doubt . . .". Makes me wanna jump on the next rocket goin' that way just to see if it's really correct. So for now, I shall bow to the present interpretation of data and "back off". And may we all live long enough to see if ol' Vlad is correct.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  10:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

We do have spacecraft in that region now. Rocket-launched and everything. The Voyagers have been inside the heliosheath for years and both have noticed it billow and buckle under pressure from the interstellar wind. Serendi^podous 15:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

new image File:Universe Reference Map (Location) 001.jpeg

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please change the caption. This is not a map, and it's filled with spelling mistakes.

A reference map or our location in the universe. Click to veiw more detail.

change to

A diagram of our location in the Local Supercluster. Click to view more detail.

The claim about the universe goes to far, the diagram only extends to the Virgo Supercluster.

76.66.196.139 (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done by Kheider (talk), with additional edits by...

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  09:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Images

This article is getting a bit image-crowded. I just reverted a newbie's image on the grounds that it caused two images on both sides of the text to face each other, which violated MOS, then realised that half the images in the article did that as well. I think it might be a good idea to do an image check to see which ones are truly necessary and which ones are unneeded. I'm too close to this to make an impartial judgement, so others' input would be appreciated. Serendi^podous 17:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely, the article seems structurally like it could be improved upon, but the images are a major threat to the article losing it's FA status.--Ben Harkness (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Image list:--Ben Harkness (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

1

Change. Great quality image (size, detail, accuracy). Would, however, like to links to planets from this image as some anatomy articles have.

2

Delete. Effective diagram, not easily read. Realization of size could be better understood in main image.

3

Change/Delete. Information is important but could be explained in text. If a visual is necessary, a more exact graph (line graph) could be used.

4

Delete. Orbits should be shown but this image seems ineffective. Image is too large, should be formatted as a thumbnail. Perhaps and animated .gif showing general orbits would work better.

5

Delete. Regions could be shown in main image, orbits can be shown more effectively in above image suggestion.

6

Delete. Main image for Sun. Purely artistic in the article, non informative.

7

Keep. Educational and important, wish a better image existed to better diagram the medium.

8

Delete. Again, purely artistic in the article; also a very old image, better aurora images could be found.

9

Keep... for now. excellent image, would like a page wide image showing correct scale (if that's possible, I could be very wrong).

10

Keep. Asteroid belt image is important. Does a better diagram exist? Also, not formatted as a thumbnail, therefor over sized.

11

Delete. Too close to asteroid belt image when the sections are so short. Link to Ceres gives the exact same image.

12

Change. Should be formatted the same as the inner planets image.

13

Keep. Again, purely artistic, but proves useful and keeps the article from feeling empty.

14

Delete. Not at all effective. Not formatted properly, and too difficult to read.

15

Delete. I have a feeling very few readers will have any idea what is happening in this image.

16

Change. Perhaps an image like the inner plantes and gas giants, formatted the same way, could work.

17

Delete. Another confusing image that nobody will find useful.

18

Delete. Should be included in the suggested Pluto diagram.

19

Delete. Not important to the article.

20

Change. Important diagram, poorly executed.

21

Delete. Not convinced the image is important to the article.

22

Change. Location of our system in the galaxy is important to understand but a diagram isn't very visually pleasing. I suggest a picture of our galaxy (an artist's rendering I think would work well) with our location pointed out in that image.

23

Delete. Unimportant.

24

Change. Both images 22 and 24 could be merged to show the same information. An image formatted to the same size as this image currently is could be cool.

25

Delete/Change. An image showing the same information could be useful but this particular image is completely ineffective.

26

Change. Not a very good red giant image. This image could be much more effective.