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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
This article has changed immensely since it was designated an FA. The lead, in particular, has gotten thick to the point of near-unreadability by the average person. There's simply too much detail for a lead. And yet, the lead also seems to be missing some stuff that it needs per the WP:LEAD requirement to be a summary of the whole article. I'm going to see what I can do in the next hour, but I doubt I can finish it in that time. Un sch ool 03:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The article gives some fairly precise detail on the chemical composition of the photosphere and some sketch information about the chemical composition of the core of the sun, but it would be nice to also include some information on the _overall_ chemical composition of the sun. I have no access to either journals or textbooks, but this NASA source suggests some values: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961112a.html. Perhaps someone could compare with some published authoritative source and add the information.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.38.136 ( talk) 12:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It is unclear whether the distance from the sun to the earth (149.6 units) is taken from the center of the sun or the surface of the sun. If from the center, the distance from the surface would be 148.9 units since the sun radius is 0.7 units. If from the surface, then one would have to add 0.7 to 149.6 yielding 150.4 units. This matter affects all planetary distances, not just earth-sun, but it needs to be clarified somewhere. 69.108.2.81 ( talk) 21:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
A moderately interesting theorem that computes how far Sol's light dominion spreads out into the universe in a spherical formation, is to be found on these links [1] [2]. My two cents of new wiki stuff for this morning, if you like to add it to the wiki page. Cheers to all.
The sun's radius is introduced indirectly a long way into the article with the phrase "200,000 km or 70% of the solar radius." If the solar radius is 280,000 km the article should say so early on.
Bukovets ( talk) 12:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be named Sol or Sol (star)? UNIT A4B1 ( talk) 02:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
In the November 2009 issue of Scientific American, Zwart (a theoretical astrophysicist) lists the sun's orbital parameters differently. I don't know where the ones in this Wiki article came from, so I can't vouch for their accuracy. Should we upgrade to the following numbers?
The relevant passage:
"At the moment, we are located about 30,000 light-years from the center and about 15 light-years above the plane of the disk [of the galaxy], orbiting at a speed of 234 kilometers per second. At this rate, the sun has done 27 circuits since its formation."
APA citation:
Zwart, S. F. P (2009, November). The Long-Lost Sibliings of the Sun. Scientific American. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.120.250.205 (
talk) 18:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
I have trouble reading the Corona section of page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun. There may be a numeric error by a factor of 10 or others smaller. And a sentence with arithmetic seem out of order. Here is a replica of some of the text with my comments imbeded in square brackets. … the Sun releases energy at the matter–energy conversion rate of 4.26 million metric tons per second… Power density is about 194 µW/kg of matter, though since most fusion occurs in the relatively small core the plasma power density there is about 150 times bigger. [Last phrase not clear. Why is the arithmetic done a sentence later, or is it?] For comparison, the human body produces heat at approximately the rate 1.3 W/kg, roughly 600 times greater per unit mass. [But 1.3/194µ = 6701, not 600] [per unit mass of the sun as a whole or of the core?] Assuming core density 150 times higher than average, this corresponds to a surprisingly low rate of energy production in the Sun's core—about 0.272 W/m3. [But 150(194 µW/kg) = 0.029 not 0.272] This power is much less than generated by a single candle... Edtakken ( talk) 02:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Done Welcome and thanks for contributing. That portion appears to be a pseudo-scientific editorial against fusion power. The cited NASA source does not contain those numbers, nor does the paper characterizing a candle include that figure for power. All of the fusion occurs in the dense core yet the figures try to distribute the power across the entire mass, with a nod to "the plasma power density [in the core] is about 150 times bigger". Thanks again, Celestra ( talk) 16:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The page is inconsistent. Kilometers is used five times. Kilometres is used once. Ckatz undid my change toward consistency and I'm changing it back to consistent. If someone wants to give me evidence that kilometres is the correct wiki standard, I'll change them all to kilometres but for now, I'm going with the majority standard inside THIS article. Friedlad ( talk) 04:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
While reviewing this article, I noticed that the diagram "Motion of Barycenter of solar system relative to the Sun" was a relatively poor quality gif file, the source URL was to a PhotoBucket account that is now disabled, and it was for the years 1945-1996. Therefore I created two new diagrams and uploaded them to Wikimedia for you: 1) File:Solar System Barycenter 1944-1997.png is a complete recreation of the diagram in the article with the same years and path to verify validity of my algorithms, and 2) File:Solar System Barycenter 2000-2050.png which is a more "current" diagram for the years 2000-2050. Feel free to use one or both of these public domain png files if you want to replace the older diagram. Larry McNish, Calgary Centre of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_System_Barycenter_2000-2050.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_System_Barycenter_1944-1997.png 68.144.133.105 ( talk) 12:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The title, Theoretical problems, strikes me as very strange. They're more like inconsistencies; the theories are wrong, the sun is right. Any ideas for changing the title? Friedlad ( talk) 13:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
'Theoretical incongruencies' seems appropriate. It suggests the disagreement between theory and reality. 'Inconsistencies' strikes me as just as strange as 'problems.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.85.157.42 ( talk) 16:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is unclear as to the source of visible light emitted from the Sun. In the subheading Core, it states "After a final trip through the convective outer layer to the transparent "surface" of the photosphere, the photons escape as visible light. Each gamma ray in the Sun's core is converted into several million visible light photons before escaping into space."
However, in the Photosphere section, it says "The visible surface of the Sun, the photosphere, is the layer below which the Sun becomes opaque to visible light.[45] Above the photosphere visible sunlight is free to propagate into space, and its energy escapes the Sun entirely. The change in opacity is due to the decreasing amount of H− ions, which absorb visible light easily.[45] Conversely, the visible light we see is produced as electrons react with hydrogen atoms to produce H− ions.[46][47]"
The way I understand it, heat is transferred from the core to the photosphere, where the temperature is 5700K. The resulting blackbody spectrum at this temperature results in the visible light we see. How does the gamma rays get converted into visible photons (I'm guessing they are absorbed/knock off electrons and transfer heat that way), and how do "electrons react with hydrogen atoms to produce H− ions."? Can someone who knows this topic clear this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kykw ( talk • contribs) 06:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Under Life Cycle, it is noted "the Sun is gradually becoming more luminous (about 10% every 1 billion years), and its surface temperature is slowly rising. The Sun used to be fainter in the past, which is possibly the reason why life on Earth has only existed for about 1 billion years on land."
I am having some troubles understanding this...
As far as I can tell, for the most recent 4 billion years or so, the sun's luminosity has been fairly constant, and the earth's surface temperature has either been relatively stable, or slowly cooling.
So, if this is a predicted change from a past steady state to future warming trends, it should be noted as such.-- Keelec ( talk) 08:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The issue over where The Sun should redirect has been reopened. The original discussion in July 2009 led to a consensus to redirect The Sun to Sun. The new discussion can be found here. -- Ckatz chat spy 21:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
...with this bit at least.
The apparent magnitude of the Sun as seen from Earth is –26.74, which is of course the brightest object in the sky. The Sun is what lights up the daytime sky. citation needed Although the absolute magnitude of the Sun, which is the apparent magnitude as it is viewed from 10 parsecs away is +4.83.
Deleting the whole lot seems simplest (as both magnitudes are mentioned in the infobox), but most articles of bright or important Solar System objects indicate apparent magnitudes somewhere else as well. In my admittedly exceedingly humble opinion the Sun, on any Solar System scale, qualifies as both bright and important. The bit about absolute magnitude might also be worth keeping, as it helps in comparing the Sun with other stars.
I think this should be moved to the Observation and effects section after heavy rephrasing, but figured I'd seek consensus (and someone courageous enough to approach that mess and put it into words more neatly). Sideways713 ( talk) 20:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 21:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)"The absolute magnitude of the Sun is +4.83. However, as the closest star to Earth, the Sun is the brightest object in the sky with an apparent magnitude of –26.74.
Matter is loosely defined, but often thought of as fermionic particles like electrons and quarks. Almost everyone, by contrast, agrees that photons and other guage bosons are not "matter." Using this definition, matter can be converted to non-matter, or energy in the form of photons (such as electron-positron annihilation producing two gamma photons). Also, kinetic energy can be converted to pairs of stable particles, as happens in accelerators.
Alas! This fact has caused some people to misunderstand E=mc2 to think that MASS can be converted to energy in the same way. It can't. You can get rid of "matter" but not mass. Mass is not "converted". It is conserved, just like energy, because the two are the same thing, and neither appears without the other. Thus, matter is converted to light in the Sun, but MASS is not. The light has the same mass-- it's just mass moving away. One kind of energy is converted to another, and one kind of mass is converted to another. But both are separately conserved. There is no conversion for any given observer. Loss of either mass or energy only means they left the system and you didn't keep track.
Incidentally, even in the Sun, "matter" is not converted to energy in the sense of some "matter" as fermions disappearing and reappearing as photons. The "matter" destroyed in the sun is not atoms, baryons, or even fermions like quarks, but rather nuclear fields. It has mass, but that 4 million tons is not "real particles" (as field it is virtual pions or something). So although matter can be "converted" to energy, that's not what's happening in the Sun, either, unless you're talking about the part of "matter" which isn't identifiable real particles. So let us avoid the word "converted," unless to say that rest mass is "converted" to the mass of a system of moving massless particles (here photons). The mass and energy move from the Sun out into space, but that's all. The mass stays the same if you consider the whole system. S B H arris 02:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and BTW, the source talking about "conversion" may simply be wrong. I think E = mc2 is the most well-known equation in physics, and probably the most popularly misunderstood. You'll find endless sources that tell you it means mass can be converted to energy, and they're all wrong! A good physics text on special relativity like Taylor and Wheeler puts it straight. S B H arris 17:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
If someone puts in 'The Sun' into the search box, they are more likely to be looking for the newspaper of that name not the celestial body. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I read at topic: Present anomalies
There is no reference ... sounds a bit bold, I would suppose the heliosphere keeps on expanding as long as the sun keeps shining? Michel_sharp ( talk) 21:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Why cant I edit this page?I logged in. Easterndarksunrise ( talk) 02:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This here is information, for which i'am not so sure if it's included in the article, at least check the image http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/12mar_conveyorbelt.htm There is also a link to the report on Science. ThorX 11:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorX13 ( talk • contribs)
Isaac Asimov wrote a book stating that our Sun is fourth- or fifth-generation. In other words, our Sun has gone nova, maybe even supernova once. Does that fit in the scope of the article? 75.243.68.250 ( talk) 06:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
In which book did Asimov say this? I doubt that Asimov meant that the sun had gone nova three times when he said it was fourth generation. Each generation is made from the discarded remnants of the previous generation. So a forth generation star would be made up of bits from third generation stars. The sun pretty well wouldn't exist if it had ever gone super-nova. -- Salocin-yel ( talk) 12:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
article indicates the age of the sun is 3.8-2.5billion years old. Recent Data suggests it is closer to 4.6billion years which is consistent with other measurements on the earth,moon,and meteorites. See "Standard Solar Model" wiki which references "^ Sackmann, I.-Juliana; Boothroyd, Arnold I.; Kraemer, Kathleen E. (November 1993). "Our Sun. III. Present and Future". Astrophysical Journal 418: 457–468. doi:10.1086/173407." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.186.72 ( talk) 00:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Noticed while reviewing, that the density given for the top of the Convective zone (Photosphere) of 0.2 g/cm3 and the following parathetical statement(1/10000 of sea level density) didn't jive. These values are not equal. Checked reference (NASA1) and made minor correction. GeoPopID ( talk) 13:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
My mistake. Gram per cubic meter (g/m3) is a funny unit, and it got me! If I were God I would make the SI Committee change the name for the base unit of mass to something you can use the prefixes with. That would ameliorate a lot of these kind of errors. GeoPopID ( talk) 19:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The second paragraph currently [3] says "and is informally designated a yellow star, because the majority of its radiation is in the yellow-green portion of the visible spectrum.[12]", where 12 is [4]. No. Well, "informally" is border line, because stellar classification isn't, and G class is often called "yellow". But definitely not "because the majority" (cite supports "majority" but not "because") - it's yellow relative to the blue spectroscopic reference star Vega (see stellar classification#Conventional_and_apparent_colors, currently [5] ok, though the table with colors above it has become variously bogus). The article is now semi-protected, so fyi. (The Sun is also yellow relative to the blue non-reference muppet Cookie Monster, but that isn't causal. And is blue relative to yellow Big Bird, purple relative to green frog Kermit, and green relative to purple dinosaur Barney.) 98.216.110.149 ( talk) 20:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_free_images/0124-0610-2618-0055_setting_sun_and_earths_horizon_from_space_o.jpg Sun from space
http://www.edge.org/documents/images/newrings_cassini1000.gif Saturn and the Sun
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/26/article-1231118-0755BEBD000005DC-829_964x641.jpg Sun from space again
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/sun/images/Space_sun_Eclipse.gif Sun from space during an eclipse. Green-blue hits white making yellow.
The temperature at the core is listed as 15.7x10^6. Shouldn't this be written 1.57x10^7? Thanks. Rhcathal ( talk) 11:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Is our sun part of a binary, where the other has since died? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.203 ( talk) 11:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
An interesting hypothesis. It may also be possible that our solar system is binary, however we are too far away from the other star to notice it.-- 24.171.1.195 ( talk) 01:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It is a hypotheses that is debated very seriously in the scientific community and there are a couple of major star surveys underway working to resolve the issue (most stars in our neighborhood have never had their distance from the Sun calculated, because this previously required labor-intensive parallax measurements). However newer technology is speeding this up and the search for the Sun's possible companion star is now underway through a couple of major star studies. See the Wikipedia article
Nemesis (star) for more details.
By the way, the prospect of the Sun possibly having a small companion star in co-orbit around it (a Red or Brown Dwarf) is taken seriously enough in the scientific community that a small section on the theory merits addition to this article. The fact that two major astronomical star surveys are currently underway to prove or disprove the theory certainly rates at least a mention in this article.
75.166.179.110 ( talk) 18:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Until there is greater evidence than there is now that a companion star exists in the Solar System there is no need to mention it in a encyclopedia article like this. We are presenting verifiable, referenced facts, not the speculative possibilities of science fiction.
Anyway, there is some real trouble with that hypothesis: first of all, in order to define this as a binary star system, the companion by definition would have to be a star. That eliminates brown dwarfs or substars like that from consideration. Such a body in orbit around the Sun would be considered a planet, if not, any of the four gas-giant planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune could be considered a "companion star" of a multi-system.
Second, in order for a companion to be "stellar" it would necessitate a large mass, again by definition. The smallest know "normal" star is 93 times as massive as Jupiter (see Wikipedia article, "Star", under subsection "Mass"). Again, if the body was much smaller, so that it couldn't sustain nuclear fusion, it would be considered a planet. It is a bit hard to imagine a star as massive as that, located, say, within 0.5 - 1.0 parsec distance (where it wouldn't be perterbed away by nearby systems) having not already been discovered. Remember, the search for additional planets has been going on for centuries. Since the orbital barycenter of the Sun lies under its surface and much of this perturbation is explained by the existance of the known planets, it is hard to believe something else is out there.
Third, a main-sequence star, no matter how dim of a red dwarf, that close must have already of been detected. A more exotic object even if invisible in the visible light would likely radiate at other wavelengths. Even if it didn't radiate at all, seems to me its mass would have been detected by its gravitational effects.
I don't mean to take away from the research being made to verify this one way or the other, but obviously there is nothing to report yet. I see no need to publish it. GeoPopID ( talk) 15:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The second sentence of the first paragraph reads "It has a diameter of about 1,392,000 kilometers (865,000 mi) (about 109 Earths), and its mass (about 2 × 1030 kilograms, 330,000 times that of Earth) accounts for about 99.86% of the Solar System's;..." and I find this a bit confusing. I feel it would be better to reword it to read "... and its mass accounts for about 99.86% of the Solar System's total mass; ..." or "... its mass accounts for about 99.86% of the Solar System ..." The reason that I find this confusing is it makes me ask "Solar System's what?" when I get to the semicolon. 74.131.104.227 ( talk) 15:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
These two lines are in the text right now not cited. there is obviously a big discrepency between 4 and 430-600....
Smitty1337 ( talk) 04:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Replace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yohkohimage.gif with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TheSun.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgnort4guort ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs). That's an old and archived RfC, but the point is still valid. Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. I searched the page history, and found 7 edits by Jagged 85 in June 2009 and 12 more edits in March 2010. Tobby72 ( talk) 21:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The Sun is shining today with an Orange glow instead of its usual White. What does this mean? -- Arima ( talk) 23:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the article could use something like this? -- 82.171.70.54 ( talk) 14:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The articles says the density is 0.2 g/m^3, which is 1/6,000 that of Earth at 1200 g/m^3, not 1/10,000. I've changed it. Later this is said to represent 10^23 particles per m^3 which would be about 1/6th mole/m^3. For Earth at 25 C, the molar density is about 1200 g/m^3/29 g/mole = 41 moles/m^3, so the molar ratio here is 1/240th, and the implied mean molar mass in the photosphere is 29/240 = 0.12 g/mole. This isn't quite right, as even H plasma is 0.5 g/mole. However, the factor of 0.5/.12 = 4 is the right order of magnitude. The particle density at sea level on Earth is 41 moles/m^3 x 6e23 particles/mole = 2.46e25 particles/m^3. A figure of 1% of this would be 2.4 e 23 particles/m^3, so this comes out about right. If the photosphere is H, it's 0.5% of the particles/volume, and if H plasma, very close to 1%. As in the edit note, the easy way to estimate this is 1/6000th of the density of Earth air, multiplied by particle mean mass ratio of 58 (assuming air at 29 and H plasma at 0.5). Multiplying one by the other gives a ratio of particle densities of 58/6000 = about .01 = 1%. S B H arris 22:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The article shows it for: 1H (74.9%), 2He (23.8%), 6C (0.3%0, 10Ne (0.2%), and 26Fe (0.2%), and goes on to say that internally, the 2He constituency rises to 60%. Does that mean that there can't be any significant amount of Deuterium (1H2 or 1D2) within the sun? WFPM ( talk) 20:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Besides the 6C12, is the Sun supposed to have (fusion) created the 10Ne and 26Fe? Or merely accumulated it? And the Nucleosynthesis article shows the existence of 3Li and 5B as fusion created by Nucleosynthesis. WFPM ( talk) 05:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Also see Solar surface fusion re surface 1D2 production in the Sun. WFPM ( talk) 05:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Sun be categorized with other similar yellow stars in a category with that name? -- Zaurus ( talk) 10:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The value of the metallicity give in the table on the right is wrong. I dont mean that the source cited is false, but the value depicted is not the metallicity (Z) but the ratio Z/X which is not the metals mass fraction over total mass (definition of Z) but the metals mass fraction over the hydrogens mass fraction! The value given by the article that's cited is 0.0133. 90.40.241.68 ( talk) 20:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Panos_Strasbg
This word is used nine times in the lead (and fifty seven times in the article), can anything be done to cut a few of them out?-- NYMFan69-86 ( talk) 05:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC) you all know maybe a lies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.241.208 ( talk) 20:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
It would be great if someone has time to add a section on the solar abundance problem which, I think it is fair to say, has replaced the neutrino problem as THE unsolved problem in solar physics. Timb66 ( talk) 12:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Important info needs to be added in that the Sun's surface has finally been mapped. No CGI here. How as well. Simply south.... .. 12:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I really think its important that we focus on these two things a bit more in the article. Not that I think sections need to be erected, but that certain wordings need to be altered.
First of all, I don't believe that 'white' is a color. Black and white are essentially the 'off' and 'on' state of rods and cones. Black is the lack of light and white is a perception overflow of light. Open and closed, they are only the representation of light & according to modern physics, photons are not color. Photons become entangled with other particles and CARRY the color along with them. Therefore, 'white' isn't a 'color' and the sun is actually YELLOW - GREEN 7 NOT WHITE.
Secondly, I do not believe there is enough emphasis put on the fact that the surface observations of the sun are not advanced enough to determine what lies beneath. If the sun emits photons, it is entirely possible that the photons generate the heat observed from the sun and the fusion is actually cold. We speak of the sun as though it is a burning ball of fire, but the oxygen content is lacking, thought it could be that it is burnt away, it still doesn't change the fact that you would need to penetrate the corona in order to get accurate readings. It very well could be that underneath a fusion layer we could find an condensate ocean, surrounding a ball of ice, that encases a super cooled gas sphere. But, we can not know this for sure, and that is my point. Lawstubes ( talk) 02:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The sound wave and neutrino observations show that the temperature inside the Sun increases from the surface to the core. That would indicate there is not any condensed material deep in the Sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.183.170.189 ( talk) 17:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I've already tried to fix this. The sun doesn't 'emit' light, nor does it have color. Get it right! The sun is technically a 'dark body'! All it does is interact with the surroundings and create waveforms/frequencies that take on the appearance of what we call 'light' or 'color'. The sun does this with friction/heat. In actuality, it is the suns manipulation of the space/time around it that creates the valleys in space/time that allow the pathway light occupies. It is nothing but the suns own mass & the vastness of the rabbit hole (aka the universe) that generate this phenomena, the sun emits nothing but super massive clouds of matter, mostly hydrogen & helium. It's (the sun) TRUE color is most likely BLACK or CLEAR because it does not 'create' light or color, but is part of their INDUCTION from space/time. Pure white light is simply the polar opposite of 'dark/matter' which is something like 'light/in-matter'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 ( talk) 19:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Folks! Please do not feed the trolls, nor argue with the mentally disturbed. I'm going to erase this section in a day or two, unless somebody gives me a good reason why it should stay. It does not advance our work here. S B H arris 22:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
What I'm trying to get across is that there are a few major things that should be incorporated into the page. Most of these tidbits have everything to do with a restructuring of most (IMO) scientific wikipedia pages, but that is a different story. The things that are obvious are that the origin of light in the universe is as yet undefined & the sun is so vast & so far away that the behavior of light and the observation of the sun itself is flawed due to the fact that from our perspective, there is no way to know if our readings are distorted by layers and layers of solar activity.
Simply put, for all we know, the sun could be cold on the surface & only appears to be hot because there are billions or trillions or more layers of fictive activity surrounding the sun, thus making it impossible to tell what the actual temperature is. Furthermore, the behavior of light itself could be a problem, as solar bodies as bright as the sun may only 'appear' to be at the distance they seem to be because of the nature of light & since the sun is the only object like the sun that we are able to observe, questions must naturally arise pertaining the physical location of the sun and how accurate our measurements are.
I do not imply that I believe our entire perception of the sun is wrong, but it is obvious that the wording of this and many other scientific wikipedia pages is far from skeptical. IT is not our duty as editors to promote onesidedness.
furthermore, light itself is an elementary particle. Photons are without mass and charge. Photons only spin. Current physics is telling us that light is not 'emitted' by anything and only exists in all space & all time at once. It is like the classic Einstein interpretation. If you were to accelerate to the speed of light, your mass would become infinite. Light packets knows as 'photons' are simply a 3d interpretation of what light really is & in the case of the sun, are not a product of a celestial body, but are created by an act of perception. That is, that the observation of a particle creates what we call light, and the light itself is simply some kind of cosmic foundation. If we imagine the quantum strong force as a kind of micro-gravity, it is easy to see why 'light' exists. Where the strong force compresses all matter, light escapes and appears to illuminate the darkness that was compressed... This is just my interpretation, but I only present it as a means to an end.
Some pages require polarization.
Fight the urge to attack me like an enemy. There seems to be a lot of that here. To many 'free' workers acting like they deserve some kind of respect they haven't earned & can't earn, not here at least. We're all equals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 ( talk) 16:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I know I may come off like a troll, I'm going to try to keep this as little like a forum as possible. I mean, if someone wants to put a forum code in here for discussion, that would be appreciated, I will if no one has by my next update. I'm going to try to post as much relevant info as I can, but please don't just shrug me off as some kind of nut. I'm not a troll & I'm not going to edit the page until I've presented actual usable citations and we have worked together on how to best present the most recent scientific information pertaining to the sun & light and physics in general. I don't want to give people seizures over all this. It's supposed to be interesting. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
173.218.85.222 (
talk) 16:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the parenthesised remark
from the paragraph on observation with optical assistance in the interests of accuracy. The difference in illuminance between binoculars and unassisted viewing is highly variable, but the maximum would be e.g. 7x50s and fully dilated pupils where they are approximately equal. In daylight, or with higher power, or with smaller aperture, the illuminance is always going to be lower than the unassisted view.
I've also commented out the Marsh quote from JBAA. That is a very relevant paper to this article but it does not actually make the point that it is supposed to be reinforcing - it does not even mention binoculars for example. I've only commented it out because hopefully a new home can be found for it but its current placement is misleading. Crispmuncher ( talk) 11:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
the numbers on the diffusion time of photons within the solar radiative zone are wrong.
they were derived from a wrong assumption.
yes that even happens in physics.
have a look to the references and to
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l256u14247171u67/
someone with the authority, please change it.
thanks
morten
132.230.90.122 ( talk) 18:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Spacepotato ( talk) 22:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Since energy transport in the Sun is a process which involves photons in thermodynamic equilibrium with matter, the time scale of energy transport in the Sun is longer, on the order of 30,000,000 years. This is the time it would take the Sun to return to a stable state if the rate of energy generation in its core were suddenly to be changed. (reference: doi: 10.1023/A:1022952621810)
It doesn't help that some people DEFINE "photon diffusion time" in the sun as total thermal energy in the sun, divided by luminosity (total energy output). A ratio that does give something like the Kelvin-Helmholtz time of 30 million years (and is something like how THEY derived it), but I do not think it automatically the mean time for diffusion of an average photon from core to photosphere. At best it gives the THERMAL ENERGY diffusion time, but that is given by the physical size of the Sun and something like the diffusivity-- a function of both thermal diffusion (whether by radiation or not) and heat capacity. The later is the limiting factor, as there's something like 1000 times more total "heat" (thermal energy) than light in the core of the sun (my back of the envelope calculations show something like 10^16 J/m^3 thermal energy at the core but only 10^13 J/m^3 from pure photon gas at 15 million K). So most of the Sun's energy is stored as kinetic energy of plasma particles, not photons. That vast heat capacity buffers any changes in energy output on a 30 million year time scale, so in a sense it doesn't matter how fast photons get out (even if they were the same photons, which as has been pointed out, they are not). S B H arris 05:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
"The most abundant metal is oxygen (1%)..." I thought the oxygen was not a metal. Witchunter ( talk) 17:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Can we add in that this knowledge about the sun is only today's knowledge of astronomy and space and is not confirmed? There is no reason to get children scared about living in the current world and they shouldn't feel they are living on a ticking time bomb. The current knowledge of stellar evolution will more likely change over their lifetime. Sunshinekind ( talk) 03:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Only at one time will anything in the universe be open to the title of 'fact' This is when or if a unified field theory paired with several thousand years of research yet to come, Reveal the infinite chain of cause and effect on the smallest and largest magnitudes of any perceived force, object or indeed concept. That is to say 'we know it inside and out' And fortunately I for one don't believe this is possible given our fallible, restricted perceptions bore down by our beautifully flawed biology. I'd rather wonder about the cosmos in all it's possibilities than tediously recite its details. peace.
(TheGarden1988 07:57 30/5/2011) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TheGarden1988 (
talk •
contribs) 06:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The sentence is meaningless as it stands, and has bad grammar to boot. It may be intended to state that there are a large number of absorption lines. If so, the sentence should read something like, "There are on the order of X absorption lines in the visible part of the Solar spectrum." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmicjay ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Nothing is mentioned on the age of the Sun or when it is going to die —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.255.157 ( talk) 02:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
It is in there. Re read the article's section "life cycle", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle. 98.112.76.201 ( talk) 14:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Age of sun is left is only 4,24,969 years. as per cycle done . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.89.69.179 ( talk) 01:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Refer to Template_talk:Solar_System_Infobox/Sun#Replaced_the_false_color_image_of_sun. talk section of info box . Dave3457 ( talk) 00:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
There is, what I feel to be a very important debate going on about what the lede image of the sun should be in this article. The present image is very misleading. Please go to the above link and give your input. Dave3457 ( talk) 04:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Please remove the erroneous final period from the image caption
in section Motion and location within the galaxy, in accordance with WP:CAPTIONS. Thank you! -- 213.168.116.136 ( talk) 21:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
(Also, while you're at it, you may want to improve the wording of the caption as well, maybe along the lines of
-- 213.168.116.136 ( talk) 21:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC))
User:Materialscientist you wrote "the value is way off and is of unclear relation to the lead of this article" [6]. Light particles part of SUN are traveling at 186,413.22 miles per second while sun is expanding. You can compare it to a balloon traveling while its blown. The edit made by me was well referenced "The velocity of sun by Sayan a thirteen century (died 1387) commentator of Rigveda cited to be 186,413.22 miles per second "tatha ca smaryate yojananam. sahasre dve dve sate dve ca yojane ekena nimishardhena kramaman" and its translation is "[O Sun,] bow to you, you who traverse 2,202 yojanas in half a nimes.". As per Prof Kak the velocity comes to "186,413.22 miles per second" http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/sayana.pdf, (accessed 15 Feb 2011), the referenced information is accessed from Indian Journal of History of Science, vol. 33, 1998, pp. 31-3". Please explain why you reverted the same? Ganesh J. Acharya ( talk) 04:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
How would you explain "A Matter Expands" scientifically? Ganesh J. Acharya ( talk) 06:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
It says the sun is 'almost perfectly spherical' is there a technical word to describe the suns shape for example the earth is geoid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Gaon ( talk • contribs) 10:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The distance from earth is 1 AU (149.60×10^6 km) not 1.496×10^8 km. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.58.71.236 ( talk) 13:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
dear friends i appreciate your work but some very little bits of detail can be seen as deliberate identity attack specially in a featured article like this. Persians do not consider themselves as Arabs and you yourself in many of your articles have accepted it as a fact. to Persians Avicenna is a national hero and putting his name under Arab scientist here in Iran is observed as an insult. please correct it.
regards
behzad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.98.90.76 ( talk) 09:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thanks a lot; i appreciate that. i guess it was a great idea to split it, changing Arab to Islamic could also do.
i wish you success
behzad — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
91.99.175.6 (
talk) 18:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a typo in the first sentence. someone fix it, it doesnt make sense Glennnnelg ( talk) 17:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The article includes the sentence
During this era, known as the Maunder minimum or Little Ice Age, Europe experienced unusually cold temperatures.[84]
However, as the two linked articles make clear, the Maunder Minimum was a period of decades while the Little Ice Age lasted centuries. It's misleading to speak of these two historical periods as "an era."
I suggest removing the words, "or Little Ice Age."
Henrodon ( talk) 12:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
This section (or another) should include the fact that, because of his huge radius, photographs of the sun are not simultaneous on all of his points, as intuition should suggest. The center of the sun is 2 seconds light nearer to the camera than the borders, so a photograph shows the borders 2 second older than the center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.137.14.198 ( talk) 22:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this section ought to have the new visible light sunspot image taken by the NST at the Big Bear observatory featured here: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=39004
The article begins by stating that "The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System" — this is not true. The center of the Solar System lies somewhere outside the surface of the star. The Sun is not a fixed object in our star system, it too is affected by the gravity of the planets and it wobbles (orbits) around the center of the Solar System. I've changed the article to say "approximately at the center". -- Diego_pmc Talk 18:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Although it wobbles, averaged over time, it is at the center. I agree with Ckatz that, for the opening of the article, saying it is "at the center" is perfectly reasonable in conformance with the straightforward tone of the first paragraph. Similarly, the Observational Data says that light takes 8 minutes 19 seconds to reach the earth although, as pointed out elsewhere, this is also an average, with light from the edge taking longer due to its greater distance from the earth. Henrodon ( talk) 04:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
This section (or another) should include the fact that, because of his huge radius, photographs of the sun are not simultaneous on all of his points, as intuition should suggest. The center of the sun is 2 seconds light nearer to the camera than the borders, so a photograph shows the borders 2 second older than the center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.137.14.198 ( talk) 22:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this section ought to have the new visible light sunspot image taken by the NST at the Big Bear observatory featured here: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=39004
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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
This article has changed immensely since it was designated an FA. The lead, in particular, has gotten thick to the point of near-unreadability by the average person. There's simply too much detail for a lead. And yet, the lead also seems to be missing some stuff that it needs per the WP:LEAD requirement to be a summary of the whole article. I'm going to see what I can do in the next hour, but I doubt I can finish it in that time. Un sch ool 03:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The article gives some fairly precise detail on the chemical composition of the photosphere and some sketch information about the chemical composition of the core of the sun, but it would be nice to also include some information on the _overall_ chemical composition of the sun. I have no access to either journals or textbooks, but this NASA source suggests some values: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961112a.html. Perhaps someone could compare with some published authoritative source and add the information.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.38.136 ( talk) 12:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It is unclear whether the distance from the sun to the earth (149.6 units) is taken from the center of the sun or the surface of the sun. If from the center, the distance from the surface would be 148.9 units since the sun radius is 0.7 units. If from the surface, then one would have to add 0.7 to 149.6 yielding 150.4 units. This matter affects all planetary distances, not just earth-sun, but it needs to be clarified somewhere. 69.108.2.81 ( talk) 21:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
A moderately interesting theorem that computes how far Sol's light dominion spreads out into the universe in a spherical formation, is to be found on these links [1] [2]. My two cents of new wiki stuff for this morning, if you like to add it to the wiki page. Cheers to all.
The sun's radius is introduced indirectly a long way into the article with the phrase "200,000 km or 70% of the solar radius." If the solar radius is 280,000 km the article should say so early on.
Bukovets ( talk) 12:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be named Sol or Sol (star)? UNIT A4B1 ( talk) 02:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
In the November 2009 issue of Scientific American, Zwart (a theoretical astrophysicist) lists the sun's orbital parameters differently. I don't know where the ones in this Wiki article came from, so I can't vouch for their accuracy. Should we upgrade to the following numbers?
The relevant passage:
"At the moment, we are located about 30,000 light-years from the center and about 15 light-years above the plane of the disk [of the galaxy], orbiting at a speed of 234 kilometers per second. At this rate, the sun has done 27 circuits since its formation."
APA citation:
Zwart, S. F. P (2009, November). The Long-Lost Sibliings of the Sun. Scientific American. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.120.250.205 (
talk) 18:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
I have trouble reading the Corona section of page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun. There may be a numeric error by a factor of 10 or others smaller. And a sentence with arithmetic seem out of order. Here is a replica of some of the text with my comments imbeded in square brackets. … the Sun releases energy at the matter–energy conversion rate of 4.26 million metric tons per second… Power density is about 194 µW/kg of matter, though since most fusion occurs in the relatively small core the plasma power density there is about 150 times bigger. [Last phrase not clear. Why is the arithmetic done a sentence later, or is it?] For comparison, the human body produces heat at approximately the rate 1.3 W/kg, roughly 600 times greater per unit mass. [But 1.3/194µ = 6701, not 600] [per unit mass of the sun as a whole or of the core?] Assuming core density 150 times higher than average, this corresponds to a surprisingly low rate of energy production in the Sun's core—about 0.272 W/m3. [But 150(194 µW/kg) = 0.029 not 0.272] This power is much less than generated by a single candle... Edtakken ( talk) 02:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Done Welcome and thanks for contributing. That portion appears to be a pseudo-scientific editorial against fusion power. The cited NASA source does not contain those numbers, nor does the paper characterizing a candle include that figure for power. All of the fusion occurs in the dense core yet the figures try to distribute the power across the entire mass, with a nod to "the plasma power density [in the core] is about 150 times bigger". Thanks again, Celestra ( talk) 16:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The page is inconsistent. Kilometers is used five times. Kilometres is used once. Ckatz undid my change toward consistency and I'm changing it back to consistent. If someone wants to give me evidence that kilometres is the correct wiki standard, I'll change them all to kilometres but for now, I'm going with the majority standard inside THIS article. Friedlad ( talk) 04:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
While reviewing this article, I noticed that the diagram "Motion of Barycenter of solar system relative to the Sun" was a relatively poor quality gif file, the source URL was to a PhotoBucket account that is now disabled, and it was for the years 1945-1996. Therefore I created two new diagrams and uploaded them to Wikimedia for you: 1) File:Solar System Barycenter 1944-1997.png is a complete recreation of the diagram in the article with the same years and path to verify validity of my algorithms, and 2) File:Solar System Barycenter 2000-2050.png which is a more "current" diagram for the years 2000-2050. Feel free to use one or both of these public domain png files if you want to replace the older diagram. Larry McNish, Calgary Centre of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_System_Barycenter_2000-2050.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_System_Barycenter_1944-1997.png 68.144.133.105 ( talk) 12:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The title, Theoretical problems, strikes me as very strange. They're more like inconsistencies; the theories are wrong, the sun is right. Any ideas for changing the title? Friedlad ( talk) 13:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
'Theoretical incongruencies' seems appropriate. It suggests the disagreement between theory and reality. 'Inconsistencies' strikes me as just as strange as 'problems.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.85.157.42 ( talk) 16:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is unclear as to the source of visible light emitted from the Sun. In the subheading Core, it states "After a final trip through the convective outer layer to the transparent "surface" of the photosphere, the photons escape as visible light. Each gamma ray in the Sun's core is converted into several million visible light photons before escaping into space."
However, in the Photosphere section, it says "The visible surface of the Sun, the photosphere, is the layer below which the Sun becomes opaque to visible light.[45] Above the photosphere visible sunlight is free to propagate into space, and its energy escapes the Sun entirely. The change in opacity is due to the decreasing amount of H− ions, which absorb visible light easily.[45] Conversely, the visible light we see is produced as electrons react with hydrogen atoms to produce H− ions.[46][47]"
The way I understand it, heat is transferred from the core to the photosphere, where the temperature is 5700K. The resulting blackbody spectrum at this temperature results in the visible light we see. How does the gamma rays get converted into visible photons (I'm guessing they are absorbed/knock off electrons and transfer heat that way), and how do "electrons react with hydrogen atoms to produce H− ions."? Can someone who knows this topic clear this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kykw ( talk • contribs) 06:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Under Life Cycle, it is noted "the Sun is gradually becoming more luminous (about 10% every 1 billion years), and its surface temperature is slowly rising. The Sun used to be fainter in the past, which is possibly the reason why life on Earth has only existed for about 1 billion years on land."
I am having some troubles understanding this...
As far as I can tell, for the most recent 4 billion years or so, the sun's luminosity has been fairly constant, and the earth's surface temperature has either been relatively stable, or slowly cooling.
So, if this is a predicted change from a past steady state to future warming trends, it should be noted as such.-- Keelec ( talk) 08:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The issue over where The Sun should redirect has been reopened. The original discussion in July 2009 led to a consensus to redirect The Sun to Sun. The new discussion can be found here. -- Ckatz chat spy 21:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
...with this bit at least.
The apparent magnitude of the Sun as seen from Earth is –26.74, which is of course the brightest object in the sky. The Sun is what lights up the daytime sky. citation needed Although the absolute magnitude of the Sun, which is the apparent magnitude as it is viewed from 10 parsecs away is +4.83.
Deleting the whole lot seems simplest (as both magnitudes are mentioned in the infobox), but most articles of bright or important Solar System objects indicate apparent magnitudes somewhere else as well. In my admittedly exceedingly humble opinion the Sun, on any Solar System scale, qualifies as both bright and important. The bit about absolute magnitude might also be worth keeping, as it helps in comparing the Sun with other stars.
I think this should be moved to the Observation and effects section after heavy rephrasing, but figured I'd seek consensus (and someone courageous enough to approach that mess and put it into words more neatly). Sideways713 ( talk) 20:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 21:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)"The absolute magnitude of the Sun is +4.83. However, as the closest star to Earth, the Sun is the brightest object in the sky with an apparent magnitude of –26.74.
Matter is loosely defined, but often thought of as fermionic particles like electrons and quarks. Almost everyone, by contrast, agrees that photons and other guage bosons are not "matter." Using this definition, matter can be converted to non-matter, or energy in the form of photons (such as electron-positron annihilation producing two gamma photons). Also, kinetic energy can be converted to pairs of stable particles, as happens in accelerators.
Alas! This fact has caused some people to misunderstand E=mc2 to think that MASS can be converted to energy in the same way. It can't. You can get rid of "matter" but not mass. Mass is not "converted". It is conserved, just like energy, because the two are the same thing, and neither appears without the other. Thus, matter is converted to light in the Sun, but MASS is not. The light has the same mass-- it's just mass moving away. One kind of energy is converted to another, and one kind of mass is converted to another. But both are separately conserved. There is no conversion for any given observer. Loss of either mass or energy only means they left the system and you didn't keep track.
Incidentally, even in the Sun, "matter" is not converted to energy in the sense of some "matter" as fermions disappearing and reappearing as photons. The "matter" destroyed in the sun is not atoms, baryons, or even fermions like quarks, but rather nuclear fields. It has mass, but that 4 million tons is not "real particles" (as field it is virtual pions or something). So although matter can be "converted" to energy, that's not what's happening in the Sun, either, unless you're talking about the part of "matter" which isn't identifiable real particles. So let us avoid the word "converted," unless to say that rest mass is "converted" to the mass of a system of moving massless particles (here photons). The mass and energy move from the Sun out into space, but that's all. The mass stays the same if you consider the whole system. S B H arris 02:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and BTW, the source talking about "conversion" may simply be wrong. I think E = mc2 is the most well-known equation in physics, and probably the most popularly misunderstood. You'll find endless sources that tell you it means mass can be converted to energy, and they're all wrong! A good physics text on special relativity like Taylor and Wheeler puts it straight. S B H arris 17:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
If someone puts in 'The Sun' into the search box, they are more likely to be looking for the newspaper of that name not the celestial body. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I read at topic: Present anomalies
There is no reference ... sounds a bit bold, I would suppose the heliosphere keeps on expanding as long as the sun keeps shining? Michel_sharp ( talk) 21:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Why cant I edit this page?I logged in. Easterndarksunrise ( talk) 02:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This here is information, for which i'am not so sure if it's included in the article, at least check the image http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/12mar_conveyorbelt.htm There is also a link to the report on Science. ThorX 11:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorX13 ( talk • contribs)
Isaac Asimov wrote a book stating that our Sun is fourth- or fifth-generation. In other words, our Sun has gone nova, maybe even supernova once. Does that fit in the scope of the article? 75.243.68.250 ( talk) 06:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
In which book did Asimov say this? I doubt that Asimov meant that the sun had gone nova three times when he said it was fourth generation. Each generation is made from the discarded remnants of the previous generation. So a forth generation star would be made up of bits from third generation stars. The sun pretty well wouldn't exist if it had ever gone super-nova. -- Salocin-yel ( talk) 12:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
article indicates the age of the sun is 3.8-2.5billion years old. Recent Data suggests it is closer to 4.6billion years which is consistent with other measurements on the earth,moon,and meteorites. See "Standard Solar Model" wiki which references "^ Sackmann, I.-Juliana; Boothroyd, Arnold I.; Kraemer, Kathleen E. (November 1993). "Our Sun. III. Present and Future". Astrophysical Journal 418: 457–468. doi:10.1086/173407." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.186.72 ( talk) 00:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Noticed while reviewing, that the density given for the top of the Convective zone (Photosphere) of 0.2 g/cm3 and the following parathetical statement(1/10000 of sea level density) didn't jive. These values are not equal. Checked reference (NASA1) and made minor correction. GeoPopID ( talk) 13:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
My mistake. Gram per cubic meter (g/m3) is a funny unit, and it got me! If I were God I would make the SI Committee change the name for the base unit of mass to something you can use the prefixes with. That would ameliorate a lot of these kind of errors. GeoPopID ( talk) 19:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The second paragraph currently [3] says "and is informally designated a yellow star, because the majority of its radiation is in the yellow-green portion of the visible spectrum.[12]", where 12 is [4]. No. Well, "informally" is border line, because stellar classification isn't, and G class is often called "yellow". But definitely not "because the majority" (cite supports "majority" but not "because") - it's yellow relative to the blue spectroscopic reference star Vega (see stellar classification#Conventional_and_apparent_colors, currently [5] ok, though the table with colors above it has become variously bogus). The article is now semi-protected, so fyi. (The Sun is also yellow relative to the blue non-reference muppet Cookie Monster, but that isn't causal. And is blue relative to yellow Big Bird, purple relative to green frog Kermit, and green relative to purple dinosaur Barney.) 98.216.110.149 ( talk) 20:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_free_images/0124-0610-2618-0055_setting_sun_and_earths_horizon_from_space_o.jpg Sun from space
http://www.edge.org/documents/images/newrings_cassini1000.gif Saturn and the Sun
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/26/article-1231118-0755BEBD000005DC-829_964x641.jpg Sun from space again
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/sun/images/Space_sun_Eclipse.gif Sun from space during an eclipse. Green-blue hits white making yellow.
The temperature at the core is listed as 15.7x10^6. Shouldn't this be written 1.57x10^7? Thanks. Rhcathal ( talk) 11:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Is our sun part of a binary, where the other has since died? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.203 ( talk) 11:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
An interesting hypothesis. It may also be possible that our solar system is binary, however we are too far away from the other star to notice it.-- 24.171.1.195 ( talk) 01:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It is a hypotheses that is debated very seriously in the scientific community and there are a couple of major star surveys underway working to resolve the issue (most stars in our neighborhood have never had their distance from the Sun calculated, because this previously required labor-intensive parallax measurements). However newer technology is speeding this up and the search for the Sun's possible companion star is now underway through a couple of major star studies. See the Wikipedia article
Nemesis (star) for more details.
By the way, the prospect of the Sun possibly having a small companion star in co-orbit around it (a Red or Brown Dwarf) is taken seriously enough in the scientific community that a small section on the theory merits addition to this article. The fact that two major astronomical star surveys are currently underway to prove or disprove the theory certainly rates at least a mention in this article.
75.166.179.110 ( talk) 18:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Until there is greater evidence than there is now that a companion star exists in the Solar System there is no need to mention it in a encyclopedia article like this. We are presenting verifiable, referenced facts, not the speculative possibilities of science fiction.
Anyway, there is some real trouble with that hypothesis: first of all, in order to define this as a binary star system, the companion by definition would have to be a star. That eliminates brown dwarfs or substars like that from consideration. Such a body in orbit around the Sun would be considered a planet, if not, any of the four gas-giant planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune could be considered a "companion star" of a multi-system.
Second, in order for a companion to be "stellar" it would necessitate a large mass, again by definition. The smallest know "normal" star is 93 times as massive as Jupiter (see Wikipedia article, "Star", under subsection "Mass"). Again, if the body was much smaller, so that it couldn't sustain nuclear fusion, it would be considered a planet. It is a bit hard to imagine a star as massive as that, located, say, within 0.5 - 1.0 parsec distance (where it wouldn't be perterbed away by nearby systems) having not already been discovered. Remember, the search for additional planets has been going on for centuries. Since the orbital barycenter of the Sun lies under its surface and much of this perturbation is explained by the existance of the known planets, it is hard to believe something else is out there.
Third, a main-sequence star, no matter how dim of a red dwarf, that close must have already of been detected. A more exotic object even if invisible in the visible light would likely radiate at other wavelengths. Even if it didn't radiate at all, seems to me its mass would have been detected by its gravitational effects.
I don't mean to take away from the research being made to verify this one way or the other, but obviously there is nothing to report yet. I see no need to publish it. GeoPopID ( talk) 15:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The second sentence of the first paragraph reads "It has a diameter of about 1,392,000 kilometers (865,000 mi) (about 109 Earths), and its mass (about 2 × 1030 kilograms, 330,000 times that of Earth) accounts for about 99.86% of the Solar System's;..." and I find this a bit confusing. I feel it would be better to reword it to read "... and its mass accounts for about 99.86% of the Solar System's total mass; ..." or "... its mass accounts for about 99.86% of the Solar System ..." The reason that I find this confusing is it makes me ask "Solar System's what?" when I get to the semicolon. 74.131.104.227 ( talk) 15:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
These two lines are in the text right now not cited. there is obviously a big discrepency between 4 and 430-600....
Smitty1337 ( talk) 04:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Replace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yohkohimage.gif with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TheSun.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgnort4guort ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs). That's an old and archived RfC, but the point is still valid. Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. I searched the page history, and found 7 edits by Jagged 85 in June 2009 and 12 more edits in March 2010. Tobby72 ( talk) 21:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The Sun is shining today with an Orange glow instead of its usual White. What does this mean? -- Arima ( talk) 23:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the article could use something like this? -- 82.171.70.54 ( talk) 14:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The articles says the density is 0.2 g/m^3, which is 1/6,000 that of Earth at 1200 g/m^3, not 1/10,000. I've changed it. Later this is said to represent 10^23 particles per m^3 which would be about 1/6th mole/m^3. For Earth at 25 C, the molar density is about 1200 g/m^3/29 g/mole = 41 moles/m^3, so the molar ratio here is 1/240th, and the implied mean molar mass in the photosphere is 29/240 = 0.12 g/mole. This isn't quite right, as even H plasma is 0.5 g/mole. However, the factor of 0.5/.12 = 4 is the right order of magnitude. The particle density at sea level on Earth is 41 moles/m^3 x 6e23 particles/mole = 2.46e25 particles/m^3. A figure of 1% of this would be 2.4 e 23 particles/m^3, so this comes out about right. If the photosphere is H, it's 0.5% of the particles/volume, and if H plasma, very close to 1%. As in the edit note, the easy way to estimate this is 1/6000th of the density of Earth air, multiplied by particle mean mass ratio of 58 (assuming air at 29 and H plasma at 0.5). Multiplying one by the other gives a ratio of particle densities of 58/6000 = about .01 = 1%. S B H arris 22:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The article shows it for: 1H (74.9%), 2He (23.8%), 6C (0.3%0, 10Ne (0.2%), and 26Fe (0.2%), and goes on to say that internally, the 2He constituency rises to 60%. Does that mean that there can't be any significant amount of Deuterium (1H2 or 1D2) within the sun? WFPM ( talk) 20:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Besides the 6C12, is the Sun supposed to have (fusion) created the 10Ne and 26Fe? Or merely accumulated it? And the Nucleosynthesis article shows the existence of 3Li and 5B as fusion created by Nucleosynthesis. WFPM ( talk) 05:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Also see Solar surface fusion re surface 1D2 production in the Sun. WFPM ( talk) 05:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Sun be categorized with other similar yellow stars in a category with that name? -- Zaurus ( talk) 10:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The value of the metallicity give in the table on the right is wrong. I dont mean that the source cited is false, but the value depicted is not the metallicity (Z) but the ratio Z/X which is not the metals mass fraction over total mass (definition of Z) but the metals mass fraction over the hydrogens mass fraction! The value given by the article that's cited is 0.0133. 90.40.241.68 ( talk) 20:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Panos_Strasbg
This word is used nine times in the lead (and fifty seven times in the article), can anything be done to cut a few of them out?-- NYMFan69-86 ( talk) 05:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC) you all know maybe a lies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.241.208 ( talk) 20:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
It would be great if someone has time to add a section on the solar abundance problem which, I think it is fair to say, has replaced the neutrino problem as THE unsolved problem in solar physics. Timb66 ( talk) 12:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Important info needs to be added in that the Sun's surface has finally been mapped. No CGI here. How as well. Simply south.... .. 12:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I really think its important that we focus on these two things a bit more in the article. Not that I think sections need to be erected, but that certain wordings need to be altered.
First of all, I don't believe that 'white' is a color. Black and white are essentially the 'off' and 'on' state of rods and cones. Black is the lack of light and white is a perception overflow of light. Open and closed, they are only the representation of light & according to modern physics, photons are not color. Photons become entangled with other particles and CARRY the color along with them. Therefore, 'white' isn't a 'color' and the sun is actually YELLOW - GREEN 7 NOT WHITE.
Secondly, I do not believe there is enough emphasis put on the fact that the surface observations of the sun are not advanced enough to determine what lies beneath. If the sun emits photons, it is entirely possible that the photons generate the heat observed from the sun and the fusion is actually cold. We speak of the sun as though it is a burning ball of fire, but the oxygen content is lacking, thought it could be that it is burnt away, it still doesn't change the fact that you would need to penetrate the corona in order to get accurate readings. It very well could be that underneath a fusion layer we could find an condensate ocean, surrounding a ball of ice, that encases a super cooled gas sphere. But, we can not know this for sure, and that is my point. Lawstubes ( talk) 02:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The sound wave and neutrino observations show that the temperature inside the Sun increases from the surface to the core. That would indicate there is not any condensed material deep in the Sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.183.170.189 ( talk) 17:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I've already tried to fix this. The sun doesn't 'emit' light, nor does it have color. Get it right! The sun is technically a 'dark body'! All it does is interact with the surroundings and create waveforms/frequencies that take on the appearance of what we call 'light' or 'color'. The sun does this with friction/heat. In actuality, it is the suns manipulation of the space/time around it that creates the valleys in space/time that allow the pathway light occupies. It is nothing but the suns own mass & the vastness of the rabbit hole (aka the universe) that generate this phenomena, the sun emits nothing but super massive clouds of matter, mostly hydrogen & helium. It's (the sun) TRUE color is most likely BLACK or CLEAR because it does not 'create' light or color, but is part of their INDUCTION from space/time. Pure white light is simply the polar opposite of 'dark/matter' which is something like 'light/in-matter'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 ( talk) 19:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Folks! Please do not feed the trolls, nor argue with the mentally disturbed. I'm going to erase this section in a day or two, unless somebody gives me a good reason why it should stay. It does not advance our work here. S B H arris 22:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
What I'm trying to get across is that there are a few major things that should be incorporated into the page. Most of these tidbits have everything to do with a restructuring of most (IMO) scientific wikipedia pages, but that is a different story. The things that are obvious are that the origin of light in the universe is as yet undefined & the sun is so vast & so far away that the behavior of light and the observation of the sun itself is flawed due to the fact that from our perspective, there is no way to know if our readings are distorted by layers and layers of solar activity.
Simply put, for all we know, the sun could be cold on the surface & only appears to be hot because there are billions or trillions or more layers of fictive activity surrounding the sun, thus making it impossible to tell what the actual temperature is. Furthermore, the behavior of light itself could be a problem, as solar bodies as bright as the sun may only 'appear' to be at the distance they seem to be because of the nature of light & since the sun is the only object like the sun that we are able to observe, questions must naturally arise pertaining the physical location of the sun and how accurate our measurements are.
I do not imply that I believe our entire perception of the sun is wrong, but it is obvious that the wording of this and many other scientific wikipedia pages is far from skeptical. IT is not our duty as editors to promote onesidedness.
furthermore, light itself is an elementary particle. Photons are without mass and charge. Photons only spin. Current physics is telling us that light is not 'emitted' by anything and only exists in all space & all time at once. It is like the classic Einstein interpretation. If you were to accelerate to the speed of light, your mass would become infinite. Light packets knows as 'photons' are simply a 3d interpretation of what light really is & in the case of the sun, are not a product of a celestial body, but are created by an act of perception. That is, that the observation of a particle creates what we call light, and the light itself is simply some kind of cosmic foundation. If we imagine the quantum strong force as a kind of micro-gravity, it is easy to see why 'light' exists. Where the strong force compresses all matter, light escapes and appears to illuminate the darkness that was compressed... This is just my interpretation, but I only present it as a means to an end.
Some pages require polarization.
Fight the urge to attack me like an enemy. There seems to be a lot of that here. To many 'free' workers acting like they deserve some kind of respect they haven't earned & can't earn, not here at least. We're all equals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 ( talk) 16:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I know I may come off like a troll, I'm going to try to keep this as little like a forum as possible. I mean, if someone wants to put a forum code in here for discussion, that would be appreciated, I will if no one has by my next update. I'm going to try to post as much relevant info as I can, but please don't just shrug me off as some kind of nut. I'm not a troll & I'm not going to edit the page until I've presented actual usable citations and we have worked together on how to best present the most recent scientific information pertaining to the sun & light and physics in general. I don't want to give people seizures over all this. It's supposed to be interesting. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
173.218.85.222 (
talk) 16:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the parenthesised remark
from the paragraph on observation with optical assistance in the interests of accuracy. The difference in illuminance between binoculars and unassisted viewing is highly variable, but the maximum would be e.g. 7x50s and fully dilated pupils where they are approximately equal. In daylight, or with higher power, or with smaller aperture, the illuminance is always going to be lower than the unassisted view.
I've also commented out the Marsh quote from JBAA. That is a very relevant paper to this article but it does not actually make the point that it is supposed to be reinforcing - it does not even mention binoculars for example. I've only commented it out because hopefully a new home can be found for it but its current placement is misleading. Crispmuncher ( talk) 11:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
the numbers on the diffusion time of photons within the solar radiative zone are wrong.
they were derived from a wrong assumption.
yes that even happens in physics.
have a look to the references and to
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l256u14247171u67/
someone with the authority, please change it.
thanks
morten
132.230.90.122 ( talk) 18:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Spacepotato ( talk) 22:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Since energy transport in the Sun is a process which involves photons in thermodynamic equilibrium with matter, the time scale of energy transport in the Sun is longer, on the order of 30,000,000 years. This is the time it would take the Sun to return to a stable state if the rate of energy generation in its core were suddenly to be changed. (reference: doi: 10.1023/A:1022952621810)
It doesn't help that some people DEFINE "photon diffusion time" in the sun as total thermal energy in the sun, divided by luminosity (total energy output). A ratio that does give something like the Kelvin-Helmholtz time of 30 million years (and is something like how THEY derived it), but I do not think it automatically the mean time for diffusion of an average photon from core to photosphere. At best it gives the THERMAL ENERGY diffusion time, but that is given by the physical size of the Sun and something like the diffusivity-- a function of both thermal diffusion (whether by radiation or not) and heat capacity. The later is the limiting factor, as there's something like 1000 times more total "heat" (thermal energy) than light in the core of the sun (my back of the envelope calculations show something like 10^16 J/m^3 thermal energy at the core but only 10^13 J/m^3 from pure photon gas at 15 million K). So most of the Sun's energy is stored as kinetic energy of plasma particles, not photons. That vast heat capacity buffers any changes in energy output on a 30 million year time scale, so in a sense it doesn't matter how fast photons get out (even if they were the same photons, which as has been pointed out, they are not). S B H arris 05:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
"The most abundant metal is oxygen (1%)..." I thought the oxygen was not a metal. Witchunter ( talk) 17:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Can we add in that this knowledge about the sun is only today's knowledge of astronomy and space and is not confirmed? There is no reason to get children scared about living in the current world and they shouldn't feel they are living on a ticking time bomb. The current knowledge of stellar evolution will more likely change over their lifetime. Sunshinekind ( talk) 03:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Only at one time will anything in the universe be open to the title of 'fact' This is when or if a unified field theory paired with several thousand years of research yet to come, Reveal the infinite chain of cause and effect on the smallest and largest magnitudes of any perceived force, object or indeed concept. That is to say 'we know it inside and out' And fortunately I for one don't believe this is possible given our fallible, restricted perceptions bore down by our beautifully flawed biology. I'd rather wonder about the cosmos in all it's possibilities than tediously recite its details. peace.
(TheGarden1988 07:57 30/5/2011) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TheGarden1988 (
talk •
contribs) 06:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The sentence is meaningless as it stands, and has bad grammar to boot. It may be intended to state that there are a large number of absorption lines. If so, the sentence should read something like, "There are on the order of X absorption lines in the visible part of the Solar spectrum." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmicjay ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Nothing is mentioned on the age of the Sun or when it is going to die —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.255.157 ( talk) 02:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
It is in there. Re read the article's section "life cycle", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle. 98.112.76.201 ( talk) 14:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Age of sun is left is only 4,24,969 years. as per cycle done . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.89.69.179 ( talk) 01:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Refer to Template_talk:Solar_System_Infobox/Sun#Replaced_the_false_color_image_of_sun. talk section of info box . Dave3457 ( talk) 00:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
There is, what I feel to be a very important debate going on about what the lede image of the sun should be in this article. The present image is very misleading. Please go to the above link and give your input. Dave3457 ( talk) 04:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Please remove the erroneous final period from the image caption
in section Motion and location within the galaxy, in accordance with WP:CAPTIONS. Thank you! -- 213.168.116.136 ( talk) 21:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
(Also, while you're at it, you may want to improve the wording of the caption as well, maybe along the lines of
-- 213.168.116.136 ( talk) 21:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC))
User:Materialscientist you wrote "the value is way off and is of unclear relation to the lead of this article" [6]. Light particles part of SUN are traveling at 186,413.22 miles per second while sun is expanding. You can compare it to a balloon traveling while its blown. The edit made by me was well referenced "The velocity of sun by Sayan a thirteen century (died 1387) commentator of Rigveda cited to be 186,413.22 miles per second "tatha ca smaryate yojananam. sahasre dve dve sate dve ca yojane ekena nimishardhena kramaman" and its translation is "[O Sun,] bow to you, you who traverse 2,202 yojanas in half a nimes.". As per Prof Kak the velocity comes to "186,413.22 miles per second" http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/sayana.pdf, (accessed 15 Feb 2011), the referenced information is accessed from Indian Journal of History of Science, vol. 33, 1998, pp. 31-3". Please explain why you reverted the same? Ganesh J. Acharya ( talk) 04:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
How would you explain "A Matter Expands" scientifically? Ganesh J. Acharya ( talk) 06:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
It says the sun is 'almost perfectly spherical' is there a technical word to describe the suns shape for example the earth is geoid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Gaon ( talk • contribs) 10:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The distance from earth is 1 AU (149.60×10^6 km) not 1.496×10^8 km. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.58.71.236 ( talk) 13:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
dear friends i appreciate your work but some very little bits of detail can be seen as deliberate identity attack specially in a featured article like this. Persians do not consider themselves as Arabs and you yourself in many of your articles have accepted it as a fact. to Persians Avicenna is a national hero and putting his name under Arab scientist here in Iran is observed as an insult. please correct it.
regards
behzad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.98.90.76 ( talk) 09:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thanks a lot; i appreciate that. i guess it was a great idea to split it, changing Arab to Islamic could also do.
i wish you success
behzad — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
91.99.175.6 (
talk) 18:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a typo in the first sentence. someone fix it, it doesnt make sense Glennnnelg ( talk) 17:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The article includes the sentence
During this era, known as the Maunder minimum or Little Ice Age, Europe experienced unusually cold temperatures.[84]
However, as the two linked articles make clear, the Maunder Minimum was a period of decades while the Little Ice Age lasted centuries. It's misleading to speak of these two historical periods as "an era."
I suggest removing the words, "or Little Ice Age."
Henrodon ( talk) 12:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
This section (or another) should include the fact that, because of his huge radius, photographs of the sun are not simultaneous on all of his points, as intuition should suggest. The center of the sun is 2 seconds light nearer to the camera than the borders, so a photograph shows the borders 2 second older than the center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.137.14.198 ( talk) 22:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this section ought to have the new visible light sunspot image taken by the NST at the Big Bear observatory featured here: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=39004
The article begins by stating that "The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System" — this is not true. The center of the Solar System lies somewhere outside the surface of the star. The Sun is not a fixed object in our star system, it too is affected by the gravity of the planets and it wobbles (orbits) around the center of the Solar System. I've changed the article to say "approximately at the center". -- Diego_pmc Talk 18:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Although it wobbles, averaged over time, it is at the center. I agree with Ckatz that, for the opening of the article, saying it is "at the center" is perfectly reasonable in conformance with the straightforward tone of the first paragraph. Similarly, the Observational Data says that light takes 8 minutes 19 seconds to reach the earth although, as pointed out elsewhere, this is also an average, with light from the edge taking longer due to its greater distance from the earth. Henrodon ( talk) 04:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
This section (or another) should include the fact that, because of his huge radius, photographs of the sun are not simultaneous on all of his points, as intuition should suggest. The center of the sun is 2 seconds light nearer to the camera than the borders, so a photograph shows the borders 2 second older than the center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.137.14.198 ( talk) 22:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this section ought to have the new visible light sunspot image taken by the NST at the Big Bear observatory featured here: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=39004