![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I concur with the GA reviewer's comment that the isotope table is out of place. It probably belongs on Solar System rather than here, as it's not explicitly connected to the formation and evolution here (and I don't really think it should be). Therefore, I deleted the table; it's below for archival purposes. ASHill ( talk) 03:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There's an excellent article in the latest Scientific American about the formation of the Solar System's planets. The editors of this article might want to check that out for further details. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 15:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Very good, this article has been up to 101 sources, expect last section with light blue tag; is still under construction. Shold this be listy on feature article? This article is well-writen and provides well enough citations.-- Freewayguy ( talk) 00:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's time this article was split into two. I'm contemplating creating a new article out of the history section called History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses. Serendi pod ous 09:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm confuse right now. First sun will loss 33% of mass, and maximum diam of 1.2 AU. That means Venus and Earth would be able to escape envelopment leaving it at 1.3 and 1.75 Aus. Anyways, I dont see Earth getting closer to sun. What is a tidal force tugging Earth in and vansih it actually means. I thought Earth might escape a little bit; but too slow, sun still pick it up and swallow it up.-- Freewayguy ( talk) 01:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry; i don't understan any term above; first why will Earth shrink orbit when sun loss gravity and mass.-- Freewayguy ( talkApril 27 2008 (UTC)
I should note that the Earth will die near the tip of the RGB branch, not in AGB phase, as the article now states. This is clearly written in the Schroder's article. Ruslik ( talk) 11:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone just posted a massive "alternative explanation" for Solar System formation that was, effectively, the same explanation given in the article. This suggests to me that this article is not getting its point across. Serendi pod ous 13:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This article doesn't really cover anything after the Late Heavy Bombardment; it just skips from there into the future. Did anything of note happen between then and now? Serendi pod ous 17:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This clause in section 2.1 concerned me: "the Hubble Space Telescope has observed protoplanetary discs up to 1000 AU in star-forming regions such as the Orion Nebula". The cited paper ( Smith et al 1999) refers to a very massive, highly luminous post-main sequence binary (RY Scuti), not a star-forming region in the Orion Nebula that's at all comparable to the Sun. The claim itself is not outrageous, but I can't find a citation for it, and I'm not sure it helps the point (protoplanetary discs extend to several hundred AU) much anyway. Therefore, I deleted the clause. ASHill ( talk) 15:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The citation (including Harvard citation) and cite xxx templates can not be used together per Wikipedia:CITE#Citation_templates. If the article is to go to FAC, this issue should be resolved. I encountered this problem when Nebular Hypothesis was in FAC (see comments of Ealdgyth). Ruslik ( talk) 09:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Was it only the inner planets that were affected by the LHB? I thought similar cratering was found on Callisto and the smaller moons of Saturn. Serendi pod ous 14:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
We need to choose a consistent format standard for the authors in references, as it's currently a messy hodge-podge. (sp?) My suggestion:
or
(Using full given names optionally, when available.) I am in no way wedded to this idea; it's just what the citation templates use when you specify first= and last= parameters, which is rarely done in this article. ASHill ( talk | contribs) 15:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
A minor manual of style point: The boldfacing of the title has gone back and forth. WP:MOSBOLD says "If the article topic does not have a commonly accepted name, but is merely descriptive, the title does not need to appear in the first sentence, and is not bolded if it does." I think that applies here; 'formation and evolution of the Solar System' is a descriptive phrase, not a term per se. Therefore, I've unbolded the title. ASHill ( talk | contribs) 14:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This article ought to be re-organised chronologically with new sections styled as:
Such a narration would help the readers grasp the dynamic context of evolution and also filter out minor from major trend shifts. Such a style would be similar to logarithmic scale and help retain the gist of the argument. Else, the article would risk meandering away into too many directions. Anwar ( talk) 10:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that reorganizing the whole article in that format would be helpful; organizing by physical process makes more sense, particularly because the exact relative timeframe of all the events isn't known perfectly, and many of the events described in this article aren't strictly related to each other. However, a single place where the timeline of the events is consolidated might be useful. I've taken a stab of creating a table with that info at User:Ashill/Sandbox/chronology; if that might be a good thing to include, please hack away at it, as it still needs some work.
I do worry, however, that including such a table will lead readers to read just the table, even though it can only be an inaccurate/incomplete shorthand for reality. ASHill ( talk | contribs) 13:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruslik ( talk) 14:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've given it a slight reworking. If I might suggest (I have no idea how to do this) to avoid confusion, it might be a good idea to colour-code the various time periods; one colour for events that occurred before Solar System formation; one for events that occurred before the present; one for the present and one for the future. Serendi pod ous 14:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Alex your table looks great! The fact that all of us occasionally subtract incorrectly might prove that a table like this is useful.
1) Maybe the sentence about the Sun after 1 trillion years should be dropped down onto its own line? It's a big jump from several billion to a trillion.
2) Should we include when the habitable zone will encompass Mars? --
Kheider (
talk)
16:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've had a go at expanding the end, but I can't seem to make it work. Any ideas how I can fix it? Thanks. Serendi pod ous 16:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the progress this table has made. I'm concerned about saying that the Sun goes through the AGB and HB phases 11.1 billion years after it's formed—we sure don't have three significant figures for that number! We do know that those phases will last one or a few hundred million years, though. Perhaps the clock should be reset with each color-coded section? Have the 'timeframe' column for those events just say "100 million years later"? Other ideas? ASHill ( talk | contribs) 16:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this is almost over. All that's required now is some explanation in the chronology section of how the future timeline for the Solar System's evolution was determined. Serendi pod ous 05:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, we need to sort this out. The Sun will start to become a red giant in 4.5 billion years. It will have become a red giant within 7.5 billion years, and will remain a red giant for 1 billion years. That, at least, is how I am reading the text. So should the first part of the post- main-sequence chronology read "9-12 billion years" and the second read "13 billion years"?
Actually I think this table is really helping this article; it's showing up the issues in timing we still haven't resolved. Serendi pod ous 07:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Does this reference
give a timeframe for the Sun's arrival on the main sequence? I don't have access to the ref, and the 100 Myr number sounded rather high and is higher than what my textbooks say, so I switched the number to 20 Myr with a different ref. ASHill ( talk | contribs) 15:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Should this article contain maybe a paragraph or two on the HR diagram? It mentions the main sequence and the asymtotic giant branch but doesn't really explain what they are. I don't know enough about astrophysics to write it myself, but I thought someone else might have a go. Serendi pod ous 13:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It is funny that people are questioning the estimated time line of 30-80 million years that Michael Busch put into the Phobos article on 29 October 2006. Someone just replaced the ref over at Phobos with an ETA of 11 million years. Is that a reliable source?
Highlights:
-- Kheider ( talk) 21:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
When I cited that Desdemona may collide with a neighboring moon, I played it safe and went with the high estimate of "within a 100 million years" even though the ref suggests as little as 4 million years. We need to accurately measure the decent rate of Phobos. Sharma2008 suggests a range of 8 to 11 million years which is a lot less than the previous 30-80 (50) million year estimate. -- Kheider ( talk) 23:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I changed the reference to this one. It clearly says that within 30-50 million years Phobos will collide with Mars. However this number should be treated only as an upper limit. Real lifetime will be shorter because of the difficulties in modeling of later stages of the orbital evolution. Ruslik ( talk) 09:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking for a figure but I can't find one. Plus, at some point the Earth is going to become tidally locked to the Sun, so what will happen to the Moon then? Serendi pod ous 08:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to be a stickler or anything, but evolution in the scientific context applies only to living things, specifically, reproducing populations of organisms. The cosmos are not alive and thus cannot Evolve. Busboy ( talk) 01:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Request page be moved to Formation of the solar system as better NPOV title. Andycjp ( talk) 02:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I support moving the article. I know Wikipedia is based on voting, but I wish I could make my vote count for more. Seriously, I cannot emphasize enough how much this article _NEEDS_ to be moved. The current title will only serve to worsen misconceptions people have about Science (as evidenced by some of the comments on this talk page). Please, Wikipedia. Move this article. 63.245.164.72 ( talk) 02:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with renaming the article. One of the definitions of evolution is gradual development (of anything) and thus it is used correctly here. I've seen evolution of the galaxy/solar system etc. used in numerous print sources- scientific, not creationist. Cadence3 ( talk) 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a load of trash. Creationism did this, there's no other explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.88.35 ( talk) 00:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah and it all formed in 6,000 years and a magical bearded Jesus slept on the 7th day because he was tired. Right. Even your own 'logic' makes no sense. How the hell does God get tired? Where is the logic in that?
Obvious troll is obvious, stop feeding him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.117.171 ( talk) 03:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey people, I'm just wondering when this 'formation and evolution of the solar system' became fact. I thought that wikipedia was supposed to be unbiased and such... having this as their feature article seems oddly biased towards this point of view. I tried even changing the first line to "Some believe that..." and it was marked as vandalism. Seems like rubbish to me. What about the billions of other people in this world that believe differently than this article? Honestly Wikieditors... seems oddly hypocritical to say you're unbiased and then publish this as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.121.122 ( talk) 08:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Part of science is noticing patterns. One pattern you'd have to be blind not to notice is that no matter what the commonly-accepted scientific theory is at the moment, it'll be something else in a short time. Ergo, this article should not be treated as fact, but as the current hypothesis. It's currently written way too matter-of-factly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 ( talk) 16:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that red giants start form all of the elements in the universe. The sun will become a red giant, and it will not form any elements beyond oxygen in the periodic table. Heavier elements are formed in Type II supernovas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.105.192 ( talk) 00:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is the article's title different to the talk page title? Ben ( talk) 02:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Creationists have this lie that the "theory of evolution" involves the entire creation of the universe, form the Big Bang onward. There was a tract that Jack Chick did containing this common straw man used by the creationist movement.
So please, for the love of God, change the title. Find something better than the word "evolution". This will play right into their misconceptions of science.
Wonderful article, by the way. Wonderful encycolpedia, too. Keep up the good work! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.164.72 ( talk) 02:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Given the heat and presuppositions surrounding the word 'evolution' surely development is more neutral? Andycjp ( talk) 03:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There are a least 4 editors on my side here, on this and other talk pages. Please stop misrepresenting my position. Andycjp ( talk) 03:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"Development" really does sound better. I couldn't think of a better term earlier, but, whether evolution is a valid term for this sort of thing or not (and I'm actually beginning to think it is), I think "development" is still a much better term. 63.245.164.72 ( talk) 04:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
What I think "Andycjp" meant by "heat and presuppositions surrounding the word 'evolution'" was the overall controversy sorounding evolution, not "A single user's (me) concern". Development is a lot more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.164.72 ( talk) 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I give up. I've clearly begun grasping at straws now. but I just now some creationist out there is gonna get the wrong idea and it's gonna make it all the harder for me the next time I argue with one. :( *sighs* —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
63.245.164.72 (
talk)
04:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This argument is insane. The word "evolution" can be applied to more than just the evolution of life. This word had meaning well before the "theory of evolution" was ever dreamed of. Look it up in any dictionary and you will see many definitions outside the realm of biology. Arguing that the word evolution only has meaning to biologists and creationists is like arguing that a swastika only has meaning to Nazis and is a form of reductio ad hitlerum. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 11:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"Evolution" means " A gradual process of development, formation, or growth", so it's entirely appropriate as a title here. "History" and "Development" have incorrect connotations (since we're talking about things that pre-date prehistory and aging isn't the same as development). If there are people who have an aversion to a word because of another unrelated phrase that it occurs in (evolution of species by natural selection) then it's not the job of an encyclopedia to change article titles for their sake. MartinPoulter ( talk) 13:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a sentence fragment in Section "Moons": "A percentage of the impactor's mantle kicked up by the collision ending up in orbit and coalescing into a moon." Not only is it not a sentence, I don't know what it means. I hope somebody reading this will know and fix it. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 03:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've clarified the sentence, I hope. ASHill ( talk | contribs) 06:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The UNIVERSE was formed? That must be a typo...
I'd change it myself, but I don't have a source (and for those who don't know, 4.6 billion years is outrageously shorter than what it actually took) 96.238.244.134 ( talk) 09:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems odd to include Swedenborg as the equal of Laplace. That is, it seems to equate coming up with an interesting idea with actually doing the math. I wonder about Kant for the same reason. Any experts in the field want to weigh in on that? Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Currently, the lead starts with:
"The formation and evolution[1] of the Solar System began 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud. Most of the collapsing mass collected in the centre, forming the Sun, while the rest flattened into a protoplanetary disc out of which the planets, moons, asteroids, and other small Solar System bodies formed."
and then segues into a discussion of the nebular hypothesis. As I see it, this is rather a POV way to open the article; as mentioned in the nebular hypothesis article, there are some significant problems with that model, and I request that the lead be changed to reflect that there are other theories or at least just to be more neutral.
I'm not going to get involved with editing this article, as I find it impossible to bring a neutral point of view to the table, but I do hope that someone else will make a few changes.
Cerebellum ( talk) 13:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This "Water delivered to Earth." seems a bit weird as a standalone statement. I realise there's a ref, but ... •Jim62sch• dissera! 14:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe by adding "by comets and asteroids" or something like that. The bearded man scares me. :)
•Jim62sch•
dissera!
15:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I almost made a change to the following text, but I wondered if it would have been too nit-picky at the expense of brevity:
When I read the Big Bang nucleosynthesis article, it points out that simple hydrogen (H1) has a nucleus that is just a single proton, so arguably nucleosynthesis does not pertain to it. Another consideration is that small amounts of lithium are also thought to have been produced by the Big Bang. While only a small part of the mass, someone reading the above text might think that lithium was produced only by stars. Finally, seeing mention of "98% of the mass" might be better worded as "98% of observable mass", due to the missing mass problem and theories that explain the missing mass like dark matter and dark energy. So my question is, in the editorial judgment of others here, where do we draw the line between being a "good enough" summary and being extremely precise and complete? CosineKitty ( talk) 14:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I reworded it slightly, but I think the current summary is 'good enough' for this context; 98% of the mass in the Solar System is hydrogen and helium (because there's no dark matter or dark energy in the Solar System). We could say "98% of the baryonic mass", but then we would have to explain what "baryonic mass" means, which is completely off topic for this article. ASHill ( talk | contribs) 15:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I like the edits that were made to this section. It was exactly what I wanted to say, only I couldn't figure out a non-awkward way to say it. By adding "... of the collapsing cloud" we increase precision while side-stepping a distracting, tangential discussion of the missing mass problem. I also like the way hydrogen was set apart as not being created by nucleosynthesis, without having to break the sentence up, which would have spoiled the flow. The inclusion of lithium is important, because even some fairly well-educated people who are not experts will find that surprising and interesting. CosineKitty ( talk) 16:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: "I do not consider" is not a NPOV, and "is said" would be "is believed". You are free to believe what you want. When it comes to the Solar System I like to see supporting scientific evidence, and that is what this article is about. I could state that Pluto is larger than the Sun, but I would miss-representing their Angular diameters as seen from Charon. -- Kheider ( talk) 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I concur with the GA reviewer's comment that the isotope table is out of place. It probably belongs on Solar System rather than here, as it's not explicitly connected to the formation and evolution here (and I don't really think it should be). Therefore, I deleted the table; it's below for archival purposes. ASHill ( talk) 03:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There's an excellent article in the latest Scientific American about the formation of the Solar System's planets. The editors of this article might want to check that out for further details. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 15:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Very good, this article has been up to 101 sources, expect last section with light blue tag; is still under construction. Shold this be listy on feature article? This article is well-writen and provides well enough citations.-- Freewayguy ( talk) 00:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's time this article was split into two. I'm contemplating creating a new article out of the history section called History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses. Serendi pod ous 09:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm confuse right now. First sun will loss 33% of mass, and maximum diam of 1.2 AU. That means Venus and Earth would be able to escape envelopment leaving it at 1.3 and 1.75 Aus. Anyways, I dont see Earth getting closer to sun. What is a tidal force tugging Earth in and vansih it actually means. I thought Earth might escape a little bit; but too slow, sun still pick it up and swallow it up.-- Freewayguy ( talk) 01:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry; i don't understan any term above; first why will Earth shrink orbit when sun loss gravity and mass.-- Freewayguy ( talkApril 27 2008 (UTC)
I should note that the Earth will die near the tip of the RGB branch, not in AGB phase, as the article now states. This is clearly written in the Schroder's article. Ruslik ( talk) 11:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone just posted a massive "alternative explanation" for Solar System formation that was, effectively, the same explanation given in the article. This suggests to me that this article is not getting its point across. Serendi pod ous 13:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This article doesn't really cover anything after the Late Heavy Bombardment; it just skips from there into the future. Did anything of note happen between then and now? Serendi pod ous 17:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This clause in section 2.1 concerned me: "the Hubble Space Telescope has observed protoplanetary discs up to 1000 AU in star-forming regions such as the Orion Nebula". The cited paper ( Smith et al 1999) refers to a very massive, highly luminous post-main sequence binary (RY Scuti), not a star-forming region in the Orion Nebula that's at all comparable to the Sun. The claim itself is not outrageous, but I can't find a citation for it, and I'm not sure it helps the point (protoplanetary discs extend to several hundred AU) much anyway. Therefore, I deleted the clause. ASHill ( talk) 15:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The citation (including Harvard citation) and cite xxx templates can not be used together per Wikipedia:CITE#Citation_templates. If the article is to go to FAC, this issue should be resolved. I encountered this problem when Nebular Hypothesis was in FAC (see comments of Ealdgyth). Ruslik ( talk) 09:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Was it only the inner planets that were affected by the LHB? I thought similar cratering was found on Callisto and the smaller moons of Saturn. Serendi pod ous 14:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
We need to choose a consistent format standard for the authors in references, as it's currently a messy hodge-podge. (sp?) My suggestion:
or
(Using full given names optionally, when available.) I am in no way wedded to this idea; it's just what the citation templates use when you specify first= and last= parameters, which is rarely done in this article. ASHill ( talk | contribs) 15:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
A minor manual of style point: The boldfacing of the title has gone back and forth. WP:MOSBOLD says "If the article topic does not have a commonly accepted name, but is merely descriptive, the title does not need to appear in the first sentence, and is not bolded if it does." I think that applies here; 'formation and evolution of the Solar System' is a descriptive phrase, not a term per se. Therefore, I've unbolded the title. ASHill ( talk | contribs) 14:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This article ought to be re-organised chronologically with new sections styled as:
Such a narration would help the readers grasp the dynamic context of evolution and also filter out minor from major trend shifts. Such a style would be similar to logarithmic scale and help retain the gist of the argument. Else, the article would risk meandering away into too many directions. Anwar ( talk) 10:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that reorganizing the whole article in that format would be helpful; organizing by physical process makes more sense, particularly because the exact relative timeframe of all the events isn't known perfectly, and many of the events described in this article aren't strictly related to each other. However, a single place where the timeline of the events is consolidated might be useful. I've taken a stab of creating a table with that info at User:Ashill/Sandbox/chronology; if that might be a good thing to include, please hack away at it, as it still needs some work.
I do worry, however, that including such a table will lead readers to read just the table, even though it can only be an inaccurate/incomplete shorthand for reality. ASHill ( talk | contribs) 13:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruslik ( talk) 14:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've given it a slight reworking. If I might suggest (I have no idea how to do this) to avoid confusion, it might be a good idea to colour-code the various time periods; one colour for events that occurred before Solar System formation; one for events that occurred before the present; one for the present and one for the future. Serendi pod ous 14:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Alex your table looks great! The fact that all of us occasionally subtract incorrectly might prove that a table like this is useful.
1) Maybe the sentence about the Sun after 1 trillion years should be dropped down onto its own line? It's a big jump from several billion to a trillion.
2) Should we include when the habitable zone will encompass Mars? --
Kheider (
talk)
16:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've had a go at expanding the end, but I can't seem to make it work. Any ideas how I can fix it? Thanks. Serendi pod ous 16:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the progress this table has made. I'm concerned about saying that the Sun goes through the AGB and HB phases 11.1 billion years after it's formed—we sure don't have three significant figures for that number! We do know that those phases will last one or a few hundred million years, though. Perhaps the clock should be reset with each color-coded section? Have the 'timeframe' column for those events just say "100 million years later"? Other ideas? ASHill ( talk | contribs) 16:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this is almost over. All that's required now is some explanation in the chronology section of how the future timeline for the Solar System's evolution was determined. Serendi pod ous 05:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, we need to sort this out. The Sun will start to become a red giant in 4.5 billion years. It will have become a red giant within 7.5 billion years, and will remain a red giant for 1 billion years. That, at least, is how I am reading the text. So should the first part of the post- main-sequence chronology read "9-12 billion years" and the second read "13 billion years"?
Actually I think this table is really helping this article; it's showing up the issues in timing we still haven't resolved. Serendi pod ous 07:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Does this reference
give a timeframe for the Sun's arrival on the main sequence? I don't have access to the ref, and the 100 Myr number sounded rather high and is higher than what my textbooks say, so I switched the number to 20 Myr with a different ref. ASHill ( talk | contribs) 15:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Should this article contain maybe a paragraph or two on the HR diagram? It mentions the main sequence and the asymtotic giant branch but doesn't really explain what they are. I don't know enough about astrophysics to write it myself, but I thought someone else might have a go. Serendi pod ous 13:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It is funny that people are questioning the estimated time line of 30-80 million years that Michael Busch put into the Phobos article on 29 October 2006. Someone just replaced the ref over at Phobos with an ETA of 11 million years. Is that a reliable source?
Highlights:
-- Kheider ( talk) 21:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
When I cited that Desdemona may collide with a neighboring moon, I played it safe and went with the high estimate of "within a 100 million years" even though the ref suggests as little as 4 million years. We need to accurately measure the decent rate of Phobos. Sharma2008 suggests a range of 8 to 11 million years which is a lot less than the previous 30-80 (50) million year estimate. -- Kheider ( talk) 23:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I changed the reference to this one. It clearly says that within 30-50 million years Phobos will collide with Mars. However this number should be treated only as an upper limit. Real lifetime will be shorter because of the difficulties in modeling of later stages of the orbital evolution. Ruslik ( talk) 09:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking for a figure but I can't find one. Plus, at some point the Earth is going to become tidally locked to the Sun, so what will happen to the Moon then? Serendi pod ous 08:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to be a stickler or anything, but evolution in the scientific context applies only to living things, specifically, reproducing populations of organisms. The cosmos are not alive and thus cannot Evolve. Busboy ( talk) 01:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Request page be moved to Formation of the solar system as better NPOV title. Andycjp ( talk) 02:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I support moving the article. I know Wikipedia is based on voting, but I wish I could make my vote count for more. Seriously, I cannot emphasize enough how much this article _NEEDS_ to be moved. The current title will only serve to worsen misconceptions people have about Science (as evidenced by some of the comments on this talk page). Please, Wikipedia. Move this article. 63.245.164.72 ( talk) 02:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with renaming the article. One of the definitions of evolution is gradual development (of anything) and thus it is used correctly here. I've seen evolution of the galaxy/solar system etc. used in numerous print sources- scientific, not creationist. Cadence3 ( talk) 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a load of trash. Creationism did this, there's no other explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.88.35 ( talk) 00:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah and it all formed in 6,000 years and a magical bearded Jesus slept on the 7th day because he was tired. Right. Even your own 'logic' makes no sense. How the hell does God get tired? Where is the logic in that?
Obvious troll is obvious, stop feeding him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.117.171 ( talk) 03:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey people, I'm just wondering when this 'formation and evolution of the solar system' became fact. I thought that wikipedia was supposed to be unbiased and such... having this as their feature article seems oddly biased towards this point of view. I tried even changing the first line to "Some believe that..." and it was marked as vandalism. Seems like rubbish to me. What about the billions of other people in this world that believe differently than this article? Honestly Wikieditors... seems oddly hypocritical to say you're unbiased and then publish this as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.121.122 ( talk) 08:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Part of science is noticing patterns. One pattern you'd have to be blind not to notice is that no matter what the commonly-accepted scientific theory is at the moment, it'll be something else in a short time. Ergo, this article should not be treated as fact, but as the current hypothesis. It's currently written way too matter-of-factly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 ( talk) 16:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that red giants start form all of the elements in the universe. The sun will become a red giant, and it will not form any elements beyond oxygen in the periodic table. Heavier elements are formed in Type II supernovas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.105.192 ( talk) 00:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is the article's title different to the talk page title? Ben ( talk) 02:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Creationists have this lie that the "theory of evolution" involves the entire creation of the universe, form the Big Bang onward. There was a tract that Jack Chick did containing this common straw man used by the creationist movement.
So please, for the love of God, change the title. Find something better than the word "evolution". This will play right into their misconceptions of science.
Wonderful article, by the way. Wonderful encycolpedia, too. Keep up the good work! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.164.72 ( talk) 02:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Given the heat and presuppositions surrounding the word 'evolution' surely development is more neutral? Andycjp ( talk) 03:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There are a least 4 editors on my side here, on this and other talk pages. Please stop misrepresenting my position. Andycjp ( talk) 03:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"Development" really does sound better. I couldn't think of a better term earlier, but, whether evolution is a valid term for this sort of thing or not (and I'm actually beginning to think it is), I think "development" is still a much better term. 63.245.164.72 ( talk) 04:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
What I think "Andycjp" meant by "heat and presuppositions surrounding the word 'evolution'" was the overall controversy sorounding evolution, not "A single user's (me) concern". Development is a lot more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.164.72 ( talk) 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I give up. I've clearly begun grasping at straws now. but I just now some creationist out there is gonna get the wrong idea and it's gonna make it all the harder for me the next time I argue with one. :( *sighs* —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
63.245.164.72 (
talk)
04:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This argument is insane. The word "evolution" can be applied to more than just the evolution of life. This word had meaning well before the "theory of evolution" was ever dreamed of. Look it up in any dictionary and you will see many definitions outside the realm of biology. Arguing that the word evolution only has meaning to biologists and creationists is like arguing that a swastika only has meaning to Nazis and is a form of reductio ad hitlerum. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 11:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"Evolution" means " A gradual process of development, formation, or growth", so it's entirely appropriate as a title here. "History" and "Development" have incorrect connotations (since we're talking about things that pre-date prehistory and aging isn't the same as development). If there are people who have an aversion to a word because of another unrelated phrase that it occurs in (evolution of species by natural selection) then it's not the job of an encyclopedia to change article titles for their sake. MartinPoulter ( talk) 13:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a sentence fragment in Section "Moons": "A percentage of the impactor's mantle kicked up by the collision ending up in orbit and coalescing into a moon." Not only is it not a sentence, I don't know what it means. I hope somebody reading this will know and fix it. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 03:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've clarified the sentence, I hope. ASHill ( talk | contribs) 06:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The UNIVERSE was formed? That must be a typo...
I'd change it myself, but I don't have a source (and for those who don't know, 4.6 billion years is outrageously shorter than what it actually took) 96.238.244.134 ( talk) 09:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems odd to include Swedenborg as the equal of Laplace. That is, it seems to equate coming up with an interesting idea with actually doing the math. I wonder about Kant for the same reason. Any experts in the field want to weigh in on that? Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Currently, the lead starts with:
"The formation and evolution[1] of the Solar System began 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud. Most of the collapsing mass collected in the centre, forming the Sun, while the rest flattened into a protoplanetary disc out of which the planets, moons, asteroids, and other small Solar System bodies formed."
and then segues into a discussion of the nebular hypothesis. As I see it, this is rather a POV way to open the article; as mentioned in the nebular hypothesis article, there are some significant problems with that model, and I request that the lead be changed to reflect that there are other theories or at least just to be more neutral.
I'm not going to get involved with editing this article, as I find it impossible to bring a neutral point of view to the table, but I do hope that someone else will make a few changes.
Cerebellum ( talk) 13:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This "Water delivered to Earth." seems a bit weird as a standalone statement. I realise there's a ref, but ... •Jim62sch• dissera! 14:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe by adding "by comets and asteroids" or something like that. The bearded man scares me. :)
•Jim62sch•
dissera!
15:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I almost made a change to the following text, but I wondered if it would have been too nit-picky at the expense of brevity:
When I read the Big Bang nucleosynthesis article, it points out that simple hydrogen (H1) has a nucleus that is just a single proton, so arguably nucleosynthesis does not pertain to it. Another consideration is that small amounts of lithium are also thought to have been produced by the Big Bang. While only a small part of the mass, someone reading the above text might think that lithium was produced only by stars. Finally, seeing mention of "98% of the mass" might be better worded as "98% of observable mass", due to the missing mass problem and theories that explain the missing mass like dark matter and dark energy. So my question is, in the editorial judgment of others here, where do we draw the line between being a "good enough" summary and being extremely precise and complete? CosineKitty ( talk) 14:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I reworded it slightly, but I think the current summary is 'good enough' for this context; 98% of the mass in the Solar System is hydrogen and helium (because there's no dark matter or dark energy in the Solar System). We could say "98% of the baryonic mass", but then we would have to explain what "baryonic mass" means, which is completely off topic for this article. ASHill ( talk | contribs) 15:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I like the edits that were made to this section. It was exactly what I wanted to say, only I couldn't figure out a non-awkward way to say it. By adding "... of the collapsing cloud" we increase precision while side-stepping a distracting, tangential discussion of the missing mass problem. I also like the way hydrogen was set apart as not being created by nucleosynthesis, without having to break the sentence up, which would have spoiled the flow. The inclusion of lithium is important, because even some fairly well-educated people who are not experts will find that surprising and interesting. CosineKitty ( talk) 16:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: "I do not consider" is not a NPOV, and "is said" would be "is believed". You are free to believe what you want. When it comes to the Solar System I like to see supporting scientific evidence, and that is what this article is about. I could state that Pluto is larger than the Sun, but I would miss-representing their Angular diameters as seen from Charon. -- Kheider ( talk) 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)