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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Of the 50 nearest stellar systems within 17 light-years from Earth (the closest being a red dwarf Proxima Centauri at approximately 4.2 light-years away), the Sun ranks fourth in mass.[19] The Sun orbits the center of the Milky Way at a distance of approximately 24000–26000 light-years from the Galactic Center, completing one clockwise orbit, as viewed from the galactic north pole, in about 225–250 million years. Because the Milky Way is moving with respect to the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) in the direction of the constellation Hydra with a speed of 550 km/s, the Sun's resultant velocity with respect to the CMB is about 370 km/s in the direction of Crater or Leo.[20]-- Inayity ( talk) 12:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree. In general remove quantitative material from lede-- that's primarily why we have INFOBOXs. Look at other articles on planets or even chemical elements to get the idea ( Mars, hydrogen). The lead is for summarizing the article in a way which you'd do in explaining something informally to a friend, on a walk. Perhaps 5 paragraphs of 5 sentences each. The Sun is a middle-aged star, a little larger and hotter than the average for stars in our galaxy. is fine. That puts us in context. The details, at this point, are not fine. S B H arris 03:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The Sun was formed about 4.57 billion years ago from the collapse of part of a giant molecular cloud. The Sun is roughly middle age and has not changed dramatically for four billion [a] years, and will remain fairly stable for four billion more. However after hydrogen fusion in its core has stopped, the Sun will undergo severe changes and start to turn into a red giant. It is calculated that the Sun will become sufficiently large to engulf the current orbits of the Solar System's inner planets, possibly including Earth. This can be integrated into the section of the lead covering this topic. -- Inayity ( talk) 06:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it ok to remove content? All the 13 edits so far have a red change in bytes. The articles need to have a good readability; it is not necessary to simplify paragraphs that much to make them too straight to the point Tetra quark ( talk) 18:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The sun is white. This is mentioned in the article. But the picture is orange. Can we replace it with a true color picture so as not to perpetuate the myth of an orange sun? — DanielLC 23:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Even if we don't put a true color picture in the infobox, can we at least put it somewhere on the page? I would expect one of the many pictures of the sun on the Wikipedia page for "sun" would show what the sun looks like. — DanielLC 18:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
According to this source, the sun is indeed white, although technically it is green because the sun's output is maximum in the green part of the spectrum. Indeed, the article already states "The Sun is a G-type main-sequence star (G2V) based on spectral class and it is informally designated as a yellow dwarf because its visible radiation is most intense in the yellow-green portion of the spectrum". I don't mind a picture of any color as long as the caption clarifies that point. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 18:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the boring true-color image of the Sun under "observations and effects" and clarified the lede. Others can continue to change it if they want but I'm personally fine with where we are now. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 20:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. I guess people have forgotten what "white" means -- in the psycho-physics sense. White means "all colors" or "your eyes being overwhelmed by the brightness or presentation of all colors -- thus human eyes see it as white." It is a coincidence of having eyes of a particular design that our psychophysics experience of "red", "orange", "yellow" etc. map onto particular parts of the visible spectrum. So -- no -- the Sun is not *really* white any more than any large multi-wavelength emitter of visible light is "white".
That being said -- sure, it is interesting to know that from a space-based vantage point, human eyes would see the Sun as white.
But for Wikipedia purposes -- I think more emphasis should be made about the Sun's position on the Main Sequence -- which means that it is described as a yellow-ish white star. A yellow image seems very appropriate.
IMHO this insistence on "the Sun is WHITE -- not YELLOW" is more because someone found a funny fact that they want to push in the article. Sometimes the astrophysics folks forget that the psychophysics of human experience is important, too. Or to put it this way -- if aliens had different types of eyes, would they see the Sun as "white"? Likely not, if their eyes were more discerning than ours or didn't get overwhelmed at exactly the same points of brightness or luminosity. They might well say the "real" color of the Sun from a point in space was yellowish-green. Chesspride 66.19.84.2 ( talk) 04:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to alert interested editors that I intend to work quite a bit on the (new section) entitled "Magnetism and activity". Previously, material in this section was dispersed across the article, making it hard to understand. So, work in progress. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 20:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
SUN |
"with internal convective motion that generates a magnetic field via a dynamo process."
Except that internal motion has been measured and found to be 100 times less than that required to produce those dynamo effects and support magnetic reconnection or heat transfer theories. http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.3173
So why again are we still making that claim???? Steven J White ( talk) 14:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
In several places the material of the sun is referred to as a gas. In one location it even links to the gas page, where gas is described as being something different from plasma. Surely these uses of the term gas should be replaced by something else, preferably "plasma". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.253.206 ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 21 November 2014
Simply their way of avoiding the forces active in plasma, by calling it a "neutral" gas. A gas it behaves nothing like.
/info/en/?search=Plasma_%28physics%29
"The presence of a non-negligible number of charge carriers makes plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields... Unlike gas, under the influence of a magnetic field, it may form structures such as filaments, beams and double layers.... When the charges move, they generate electrical currents with magnetic fields, and as a result, they are affected by each other’s fields."
So again, we need not consider mythical dynamos. And referring to it as a "gas" is totally misleading as to it's true behavior. Steven J White ( talk) 14:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Some scientists found that observational data and solutions through mathematics for the heat transfer from the center to outer parts. When plugging dark matter in equations problem can be resolved. For more information refer to website: [2] MansourJE ( talk) 04:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe there may be a mistake in the section Sun#Characteristics in the line "The centrifugal effect of the Sun's rotation is 18 million times weaker than the surface gravity at the Sun's equator." This is equivalent to saying the ratio of centrifugal to gravitational acceleration is ac/g = 1/(1.8x107) ≈ 5.6x10-8. However, my own calculation for the centrifugal acceleration at the photosphere and equator (based on solar data from the main page, e.g. equatorial rotational period of 25.05 days) yields ac = ω2R ≈ (2.90x10-6 rad/s)2⋅(6.96x108 m) ≈ 5.85x10-3 m/s2, and thus ac/g ≈ (5.85x10-3 m/s2)/(274 m/s2) ≈ 2.1x10-5. This differs from the stated value by over two orders of magnitude. Perhaps the article meant to read "The centrifugal effect of the Sun's rotation is only 18 millionths as strong as the surface gravity at the equator"? This would be close to the value of 21 millionths I'm coming up with. Thoughts? Marcosk496 ( talk) 05:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I mean this is not even mentioned solar calendar I would think this matters more than G-Clouds. We really need to ask "What is the Sun" not only to scientist but to people who may need to read this article and get a better complete pic.-- Inayity ( talk) 03:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
User:JorisvS, what do you mean by your edit comment "it is, because it is the proper name of the star our planet orbits"? I had added the paragraph:
The word "sun" is normally not capitalized but takes the definite article: "the sun". However, the International Astronomical Union "formally recommends" capitalizing the word (as well as "Moon" and "Earth"). [1]
Are you saying "It is normally capitalized"? Well, that's certainly not true. Maybe certain people think it should normally be capitalized, but it's not normally capitalized. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the star our planet orbits or the light in the sky. Those are the same thing. I object to having the word "sun" capitalized in this article, against normal usage. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 11:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Grammarist says that "Earth", "Moon" and "Sun" are capitalized when on their own, and lowercase when preceded by an article. [2] Interestingly, it points out that only those astronomical objects are ever preceded by "the". You never refer to "the mars", for example. — DanielLC 19:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
"The only other source of energy Earth has are the fissionable materials generated by the cataclysmic death of another star"
[surely the Earth also has kinetic energy - the Earth & Moon exert tidal forces on each other & motions within the earth's metallic core associated with the earth's rotation generate a magnetic field and thereby a protective magnetosphere] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GusMcT ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
In what constellation would the Sun ("Sol", or "Solus") be part of-- 146.111.156.100 ( talk) 18:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)? The "page" says it is closely associated with the star "Vega"; in the constellation of Lyra. This gives no indication of its stellar grouping? I've heard that our Sun orbits around the star (and therefore our solar system,) "Hyperion". As the layman knows, and is usually less informed, or taught about the basics concerning the dynamics of astronomy, questions such as this should be resolved. A greater appreciation for the stars, and less "mystery" can do much good. -- 146.111.156.100 ( talk) 18:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Veryverser
Thanks to all contributors for clarifying the subject. However, I do insist that if what you contend that the the Sun (and most stars, and other bodies viewed from Earth,)don't fall in any sort of combined elliptical pattern, then they must adhere to a geometric patter common to various cited stars in a proscribed, and measured sector of space. -- 146.111.156.100 ( talk) 20:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Veryverser
fyi, in case this article is of use to the authors: Superimposed on the Sun's 11-year cycle of maximums and minimums is a newly discovered shorter cycle with a period of just under two years. This seasonal cycle could play an important role in space weather because, depending on its phase, it could amplify active phases. http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/15037/sun-experiences-seasonal-changes-new-research-finds Jcardazzi ( talk) 12:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
According to new information from NASA, a 330-day cycle of Sun's activity has been discovered. Is this notable enough to add to the article? -- Artman40 ( talk) 22:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The Radiative zone section lists density in g/cm3, while the Convective zone lists it in g/m3. I think they should use the same scale for consistency and ease of comparison. Praemonitus ( talk) 20:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right. hi ( talk) 19:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia tag, "Earth mass|100" , produces a symbol (100 ME), that could not possibly be known by an educated layperson, who comes here for information. It is used only once in this article, with no explanation. I have removed it, and replaced it with words. If you restore it, please leave in the words. I think this comes under the Wikipedia Manual of Style explain formulae in English. Nick Beeson ( talk) 13:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reference (53): The most abundant metals are oxygen (roughly 1% of the Sun's mass), carbon (0.3%), neon (0.2%), and iron (0.2%). Is Oxygen considered a metal or a gas? Fourstake ( talk) 17:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Not done as the sentence clearly explains "All heavier elements, called metals in astronomy ..." this is a non-standard use of the word.
To answer your general question,
Oxygen is a "highly reactive nonmetallic element", so it is not a metal.
However, being a gas does not preclude an element being a metal, 91 of the 118 elements in the periodic table are metals - as an example most people know that
Mercury is a metal, but that is a liquid at room temperature. -
Arjayay (
talk)
18:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. Actually, using "metal" like that is confusing to the layman and completely unnecessary. I've reworded it where appropriate. -- JorisvS ( talk) 09:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
sun is first source of lights in our galaxy his light touch the last planet too 105.102.153.157 ( talk) 03:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Not done It isn't clear what exactly you want done. A2soup ( talk) 04:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Compared to the preceding content, the two sub-sections of 'Composition' appear much too technical for most lay readers. The obtuse technical wording disrupts the overall flow, and I believe it should be toned down and clarified. Praemonitus ( talk) 21:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Try this: User:Stigmatella_aurantiaca/sandbox/three. A great deal of the perceived technical difficulty of the article is simply that it takes so long for a reader to wade through it. I've thrown nothing away, but the article seems much shorter, and should thus be much more accessible for a reader who wants just a quick look. Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 16:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Continuing on with the theme of getting a bit of streamlining in this article, I'd like to suggest that we remove the section entitled "Theoretical problems". This would include getting rid of the subsections on the "Coronal heating problem" and the "Faint young Sun problem". We could reasonably add links to related content at the bottom of the article in "See also". I think that removing this material is acceptable given that this is an over-view article. What do people think? Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 00:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
123.239.185.175 ( talk) 06:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Not done It's not clear what you want done. Please state your request in a "change x to y" format. To do this without making a new section, change "answered=yes" to "answered=no" and enter your request between the "begin request" and "end request" lines. A2soup ( talk) 07:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The rotation velocity could be put into the same format as that of 'The Earth' which is shown as "Equatorial rotation velocity 1,674.4 km/h (465.1 m/s)"
Note that scientific notation is not used for The Earth and is not needed for The Sun either. Or it should be changed to scientific notation for The Earth, so at least it is consistent. The Earth's rotation velocity is also converted into miles/second but the Sun's is not.
Standardizing this measure makes it easier to compare Sun and Earth rotational velocities.
StreetUrchin2 ( talk) 13:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Bazj ( talk) 14:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The "Atmosphere" section begins "During a total solar eclipse, when the disk of the Sun is covered by that of the Moon, the Sun's surrounding atmosphere."
That's not a sentence. Presumably that should end "...surrounding atmosphere is visible."
Folks, I put a "white light" image in for the lead. I know that some editors might prefer something that looks, well, more exciting, but I would assert that this (or similar) image is a good representation, as it is a visible light image and, yes, even shows interesting detail (limb darkening, sunspots, granulation). Indeed, it kind of follows the tradition that is developing for the corresponding images of the planets, again, realistic visible-light images. What I do think is missing from the interior of this article is a set of images taken of the Sun at different key wavelengths. I would suggest that these be visible, ultraviolet, x-ray, and magnetogram. Ideally, these images would all be taken simultaneously, thus permitting easy comparison of features from one image to the other. I think it is important that these images capture a instance when there are both sunspots and coronal holes, both features important for discussion of the solar cycle and solar dynamo. So, that is my opinion. Others might feel differently. I know that. I haven't had a chance, lately, to figure out how to download these images from the websites of the Solar Dynamics Observatory or National Solar Observatory websites (where they should be available). Perhaps those of you interested in exciting images of the Sun can help out with this? Thanks very much! Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 15:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The sun has an apparent magnitude of -26.74. It should be added to this article that the apparent magnitude of the sun converts to 98,000 lux. [unknown author]
Agreed: the article should state the sun's brightness. Yes I know it will vary based on latitude and season, but I think everyone on planet Earth can relate to the sun as a "standard candle". So I think giving it some quantifiable value (even with a moderate variance, like 96 ~ 100 k·lux) would benefit readers to gain a perspective of luminosity. Hydradix ( talk) 06:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sun is good son is good 31.109.198.246 ( talk) 09:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)🌐🙏
In the early-mid 1990's, it was announced that the cosmic primordial radiation had an anisotropy that implied that the local group was traveling about 600km/s. I cannot find any specific calculation, only this stated result, so I do not want to add it to the main article. One reference was at http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap960205.html . Another reference was from Physics Today, June 1992, p. 17, "COBE MEASURES ANISOTROPY IN COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION", by Barbara Goss Levi. That article mentions 370 km/s for the solar system. The speed of the solar system in the local group would need to be vectorially added to that, so an angle between them would be needed. The 370 km/s would give 1 light year in 810 years, but in an unknown direction. agb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.43.206.27 ( talk) 22:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the false colour image of the Sun in the infobox (File:Sun in February.jpg) to the following image showing it in more natural colours: File:Spots July.jpg. This was the previously used image in the article, but was changed the 8th November 2015 without a valid reason. According to both the article itself and several credible sources (for example: [1] and [2]) the colour of the Sun is white, a fact the previously used image illustrated. There is also already a request for this change in the form of a template in the discussion page of the article.
With the replacement of the image, please do also change the caption under the image from "A false colour image of the Sun (Taken on February 18, 2015)" to the previously used caption "The Sun in visible wavelength with filtered white light on 8 July 2014. Characteristic limb darkening and numerous sunspots are visible.".
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Gary The Duck ( talk) 00:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Since Jupiter is so massive that the barycenter of Jupiter-Sol is above Sol's surface, shouldn't this article mention that? To an observer of our sun from outside the solar system, our sun would wobble quite a bit. 96.246.64.73 ( talk) 18:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I think this is interesting, but regarding an observed "wobble", one must take into account the relative positions of the other planets as the sun will "wobble" around a combined barycentre of all of the mass in the system: /info/en/?search=File:Solar_system_barycenter.svg 178.15.151.163 ( talk) 10:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The Sun is roughly middle aged and has not changed dramatically for four billion[b] years, and will remain fairly stable for another four billion years.
Starting after the Comma: I don't dispute the claim, because I can do math for myself regarding the rate of fuel consumption and it could easily be a billion or more beyond that.
The issue I have in this case is the number thrown around on History Channel and Science Channel programs by leading Physicists and Astronomers tends to be around 500 Million to 1.5 Billion. WadeDanielSmith ( talk) 19:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The main text of the article says the sun's mean orbital velocity is 251 km/s (156 mi/s). But the sidebar at the top right says 220 km/s. Which is correct? Can this please be corrected? Thanks. TubesUntil ( talk) 18:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Sun. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
In the Article in one place it says:
"The protostellar Sun's composition was reconstructed as 71.1% hydrogen, 27.4% helium, and 1.5% heavier elements.[50]"
Then it says:
"In the inner portions of the Sun, nuclear fusion has modified the composition by converting hydrogen into helium, so the innermost portion of the Sun is now roughly 60% helium"
If you look at the rate of fusion that is later calculated, using a figure from one of the talk entries above mine, I reached a value similar to my old calculation of 27.4 Billion years old, but instead obtained 26.97 Billion years old IF you assumed the Sun were a First Generation star, and burning continually. This is suspiciously close to a number which is exactly twice the current accepted age of the universe, being 13.7 billion to 13.8 Billion * 2 = 27.4 Billion to 27.6 Billion years. I once obtained 27.4 to 27.6 Billion years for the age of the universe, after writing a differential while studying a "Galaxy appears older than the standard model for the universe itself" problem I encountered from a science article. Namely, a galaxy appeared 11 billion years old...11 billion years ago, which meant that it must be 22 billion years old.
So I jokingly tested the notion of the Sun as a First Generation star, and it came out to being exactly twice the accepted age of the Universe. The data in this article has been updated some since then so the calculation doesn't come out to literally the exact same, but it still comes to 26.97 Billion years.
This was in VERY strong agreement with the differential I had developed to explain the "Galaxy appears older than the universe" problem.
I admit that this evidence is circumstantial, but it suggests that the universe is 27.4 to 27.6 Billion years old, and that the Sun is 27 Billion years old* and is a First Generation star. In fact, it would apparently be slightly older than that, since the Sun is supposed to be burning faster and faster with time, due to contraction of core density (Helium is denser than hydrogen) allowing the fuel to be under more pressure with time, which means that the Sun would have been burning slightly slower for the first several billion years.
This is not conjecture, it is a Hypothesis or theory, and it is ironic that both calculations agree almost exactly for the age of the Universe, if you assume the Sun is a First Generation Star. So when two calculations agree with one another, it leaves the realm of conjecture and becomes Hypothesis or Theory.
However, I should point out that all of these calculations assume that Einstein's relativity equations are correct. I have recently found what I believe to be an emergent Vector Space violation in Special Relativity, and in General Relativity, which is caused by the Lorentz Transformation. The violation is not at V=0 nor V=C. It happens apparently at any velocity under the right conditions, but the specific case I found can happen around 0.6C to 0.87C. These calculations might not be valid after all, if the vector space violation is real. Suffice it to say that the Vector Space violation is such that I can produce a scenario where observer A sees Ball 1 drop on the left end of a rocket, and observer B instead sees Ball 2 drop on the right end of the rocket, and these are not "unrelated events". These are events with the exact same cause (a common light source,) but a macroscopic vector space violation is produced, causing not just relative observations, but entire conflicting alternate time lines for each observer.
I have submitted a paper on that topic to Dr. Michio Kaku asking for advice and assistance in understanding and formalizing the problem, as I do not have a degree in physics, but I am good at finding peculiar mistakes and peculiar coincidences or relationships in equations or data. This discovery in relevant because if I am correct, our understanding of Nuclear Fusion is at least partly flawed, and our understanding of particle physics, cosmic rays, and just about everything in Astronomy/Cosmology is flawed to some degree, particularly in any case where an object is moving 0.6C or faster, and potentially even at slower velocities, because those object's data is interpreted through Einstein's equations. The Lorentz Transformation is apparently flawed at a fundamental level, if I am right, because it produces EMERGENT Vector Space Violation.
Thanks.
WadeDanielSmith ( talk) 01:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Wade Daniel Smith, 1/20/2016, 7:00pm central.
You don't understand how hard it is get a PhD level physicist to give me serious review, even though there is no logical problem with my observations. For some reason they just absolutely will not even give me a serious ear, and I need 3 to 6 PhD sponsors to be able to publish ANYTHING to a Journal. Even though I have made at least 4 or 5 Nobel Laureate level discoveries in physics in my lifetime, I keep getting the "Delete and Ban" response from everyone on the internet, and I can't even get the President nor the Supreme Court via Certified Mail, nor a News Channel to take me seriously for 5 minutes.
The next step is I'm going to get a Lawyer and sue the Supreme Court itself, because they make legal decisions based on Scientific Journals in some cases, and I can't submit to a Journal at all without 3 to 6 PhD sponsors to give a theory, with evidence and calculations, which contradicts standard models in physics. I don't have anywhere else to post other than Facebook, or maybe Amazon publishing tool, but that costs around $100 a year, and I'm not exactly rich to invest in it, as I have a physical medical disability.
They think they know everything, and most of them don't know how to do anything beyond QUOTE a text. I take data and formulas and I break them down and study them forward, backwards, inside out and upside down until I find a flaw, or a pattern, which nobody else ever found, and I show how it really works...
...and they still don't listen to me, because they don't actually understand the formulas at all themselves, and they have a degree in the field.
It's freaking ridiculous.
WadeDanielSmith ( talk) 01:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Wade Daniel Smith
I have degrees in physics. Nothing you've put forth makes any sense. What I'd recommend is you do what all of us with PhD's in physics have done. Get a bachelor's level degree in physics from an accredited university. It takes four years, but in your sophomore year, you'll see why your understanding of the Lorentz transformations is completely messed up. In your junior year, you'll learn about the constant battle between electromagnetism and gravity that creates stars. In your senior year, if you make it there, you'll have enough mathematical expertise built up, to realize physics isn't manipulating equations to see what they yield. Equations are built to match observations. We have factual observations you can learn in nuclear physics as a senior physics major about why we know the solar system is 4.6 billion years old, as is the Sun. Evidence. Finally, spend another seven years and get a PhD. Then we'll listen. By then, you'll have seen the error of your own claims. Good luck. Plenty of great universities out here looking for new physics majors. 130.111.163.179 ( talk) 23:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
In the section "Development of scientific understanding" stadia is, I beg to say, unhelpful. It should instead direct the reader to the Wikipedia entry Stadion_(unit) DaveyHume ( talk) 17:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I beleve there is an error Youngpikachu18 ( talk) 16:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The value of the solar constant has recently been updated to 1361 W/m^2. See Wikipedia's own Solar constant entry. The photosphere effective temperature also needs to be accordingly updated to 5772 K; see, for example, Professor Eric Mamajek's Star Notes. Jrdx ( talk) 10:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps related, the luminosity value seems to be incorrect. The article on solar luminosity and NASA's sun factsheet agree on 382,8 (E24) but this article has 384,6. The former value leads to the correct value for the solar constant, the latter does not. Asgrrr ( talk) 11:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Went ahead and changed the luminosity, bc. the reference given is actually the NASA sunfact sheet which has the 382,8 value. I changed only the Watts figure. Perhaps someone else will look at the values given in different units. Asgrrr ( talk) 12:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Previously, this article had a great high-resolution photo of the sun in a recognizable form: a red-orange ball of fire, just as it would appear to a regular camera (on very low exposure).
Now, it has been replaced by an extremely low-resolution, pixelated ball of white with very little detail that looks like a 50px image that has been blown up. The old image can't even be found anywhere on the page.
Please consider reverting to a better image for the infobox. 73.206.73.84 ( talk) 08:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I've read part of this article (as of Aug 27, 2016) and see several areas that, imho, need improvement.
Here are the problems/issues I encountered:
1. The lead claims that the Sun "has not changed dramatically" in the past 4 billion years. This demands the reader have some sense of what is and is not "dramatic". OK, it (probably) entered the Main Sequence well over 4 billion years ago, and since then its evolution has been fairly smooth (as far as we know). The problem I have is that many people reading the problem text will conclude that the Sun has not changed in the last 4E9 years, and that is wrong. The Sun's core is slowly changing the hydrogen found there into helium (other products are rare, at best). The Sun is emitting a enormous number of neutrinos, protons, electrons, and alpha particles. So, it is loosing mass and is slowly changing its volume and its brightness is increasing (among other changes).
2. The lead also contains the phrase "after hydrogen fusion in its core has stopped". That is nonsense, the H fusion doesn't ever stop, but it diminishes to a point at which the Sun is no longer in hydrostatic equilibrium. The core experiences a marked increase in density and temperature while the Sun's outer layers expand. The Sun leaves the Main Sequence and enters the Red Giant branch.
3.In the section Characteristics:"The Sun is a Population I, heavy-element rich, star. It seems to me that that bald statement needs a lot more clarification. What does it mean to be "rich"? What are the other classifications (extreme Population I stars, intermediate population stars, intermediary disc population stars, Population II, and Population III (hypothetical)) The Sun is an intermediate population I star. I'm not sure it is useful to mention this classification. It would be more useful, imho, to mention when the Milky Way experienced its peak star formation rate 4-6 billion years ago, and that our Sun is a relatively middle-aged star, with another 5-6 billion years on the Main Seq. This same paragraph is confusing: if the Sun formed after the formation of Population III stars, and after formation of Population II heavy-metal poor stars, why not just say so? It is NOT true that the reason it is a Population I star is due to the abundance of gold or uranium in "the Solar System". Its Pop I status is exactly the result of the abundance of those as measured in its spectra. It also could be clearly stated that we have good evidence that several supernova (probably of Population II stars) contributed to the elements making up the Sun and our Solar System. As it is, speaking about endothermic fusion and neutron absorption is far too technical for the level of treatment otherwise being expressed.
4. Also in the Characteristics section, the AU is discussed and it is implied that it is the Earth's average distance to the Sun. Well, yes and no. I recently read that the average distance was 1.0003 AU, but perhaps this is too insignificant to quibble about. (It also depends on what is meant by "average": average taken second by second (over time) or average kilometer by kilometer (over distance or orbital circumference), another quibble.)
5."in its outer parts its density decreases exponentially." Should, imho, be changed to "above the photosphere the Sun's density decreases exponentially".
6."For the purpose of measurement, however, the Sun's radius is considered to be the distance from its center to the edge of the photosphere, the apparent visible surface of the Sun." First it is the top edge, not just edge. Second, like the Sun itself, none of these zones have sharp boundaries. This is dramatically different from the surface of Earth and the rocky planets where we can determine the surface to within fractions of a millimeter.
7. In the Photosphere section:"[The Photosphere] is the layer below which the Sun becomes opaque to visible light." It's not wrong, but begs the question HOW FAR below that layer is light no longer visible? kilometers? tens of km? hundreds? thousands?
8. Same section "Above...sunlight is free to propagate into space and its energy escapes the Sun entirely." This is just plain wrong. Some (admittedly, not much) sunlight is absorbed and scattered well above the Photosphere. The word "entirely" is far too absolute and definitely wrong. How about "almost all of its energy escapes the Sun entirely"?
9. Finally, for some really bad reason the REAL center of the Solar System (geometrically speaking) is never mentioned. Nor is the fact that the Sun orbits this (moving) point - the barycenter. Granted, the barycenter is believed to be, baring discovery of some really really massive planets out beyond Pluto, 11,000 km below the Sun's photosphere, hence inside the Sun. But the center of the Sun orbits this point. (Like a paper disk being pinned to the wall near its edge and being rotated around that point.) It should at least be mentioned in this article.
173.191.76.21 (
talk)
16:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
This article declares the color of the sun as white, but the Class G section of the Stellar classification page ( /info/en/?search=Stellar_classification#Class_G) refers to Sol as yellow. And the temperature in this article also places it in the realm of yellow. Which article is correct?
I see the escape velocity is given in the box on the right at the "surface" of the Sun. Aside from the problematic concept of the Sun's "surface", I wonder if it would be useful to also include the escape velocity from an orbit at the Earth's distance from the Sun? If so it is 41.76 km/s at aphelion, 42.47 at perihelion and for the average distance of 1.50E11 m, it is 42.06 km/s. (which is only 3.7 - 3.8 times the escape velocity from Earth at Earth's surface - meaning once you've 'escaped' Earth, you still are bound to the Sun and need almost 4X more speed/energy to escape the Solar System.) 71.29.173.173 ( talk) 17:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
--
66.75.3.58 (
talk)
15:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[[Google.com|Go
Google Search
Re the colour "contradiction"; the stellar classification of low or yellow-green refers to the part of the spectrum in which the output of the sun peaks. Despite that, the sun's output at all wavelengths is powerful enough that it appears white in appearance. As an analogy, an incandescent light bulb has peak output at infrared wavelengths, and yet there is enough output at all wavelengths for it appear white or almost white to humans. At least I try ( talk) 12:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC) At least I try ( talk) 12:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
There is always only mentioned, that Earth bill be distryoed by the sun when changing to a red giant. Why not mention the possibility of changing Earth orbit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pege.founder ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
It's a good article so i don't edit it directly, but I have found this image File:Multilanguages Sun.jpg if you think is appropriate you can insert it in the paragraph.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 05:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I added a little section about the planetary system of the Sun (i.e. the Solar System) because most articles about stars include a mention of their planetary system. As there is an in-depth article about the Solar System, I kept it short with a link to the main article. If anyone thinks that there should be more included in that section, feel free to stick it in.
Titanium Dragon (
talk)
03:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Of the 50 nearest stellar systems within 17 light-years from Earth (the closest being a red dwarf Proxima Centauri at approximately 4.2 light-years away), the Sun ranks fourth in mass.[19] The Sun orbits the center of the Milky Way at a distance of approximately 24000–26000 light-years from the Galactic Center, completing one clockwise orbit, as viewed from the galactic north pole, in about 225–250 million years. Because the Milky Way is moving with respect to the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) in the direction of the constellation Hydra with a speed of 550 km/s, the Sun's resultant velocity with respect to the CMB is about 370 km/s in the direction of Crater or Leo.[20]-- Inayity ( talk) 12:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree. In general remove quantitative material from lede-- that's primarily why we have INFOBOXs. Look at other articles on planets or even chemical elements to get the idea ( Mars, hydrogen). The lead is for summarizing the article in a way which you'd do in explaining something informally to a friend, on a walk. Perhaps 5 paragraphs of 5 sentences each. The Sun is a middle-aged star, a little larger and hotter than the average for stars in our galaxy. is fine. That puts us in context. The details, at this point, are not fine. S B H arris 03:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The Sun was formed about 4.57 billion years ago from the collapse of part of a giant molecular cloud. The Sun is roughly middle age and has not changed dramatically for four billion [a] years, and will remain fairly stable for four billion more. However after hydrogen fusion in its core has stopped, the Sun will undergo severe changes and start to turn into a red giant. It is calculated that the Sun will become sufficiently large to engulf the current orbits of the Solar System's inner planets, possibly including Earth. This can be integrated into the section of the lead covering this topic. -- Inayity ( talk) 06:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it ok to remove content? All the 13 edits so far have a red change in bytes. The articles need to have a good readability; it is not necessary to simplify paragraphs that much to make them too straight to the point Tetra quark ( talk) 18:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The sun is white. This is mentioned in the article. But the picture is orange. Can we replace it with a true color picture so as not to perpetuate the myth of an orange sun? — DanielLC 23:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Even if we don't put a true color picture in the infobox, can we at least put it somewhere on the page? I would expect one of the many pictures of the sun on the Wikipedia page for "sun" would show what the sun looks like. — DanielLC 18:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
According to this source, the sun is indeed white, although technically it is green because the sun's output is maximum in the green part of the spectrum. Indeed, the article already states "The Sun is a G-type main-sequence star (G2V) based on spectral class and it is informally designated as a yellow dwarf because its visible radiation is most intense in the yellow-green portion of the spectrum". I don't mind a picture of any color as long as the caption clarifies that point. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 18:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the boring true-color image of the Sun under "observations and effects" and clarified the lede. Others can continue to change it if they want but I'm personally fine with where we are now. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 20:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. I guess people have forgotten what "white" means -- in the psycho-physics sense. White means "all colors" or "your eyes being overwhelmed by the brightness or presentation of all colors -- thus human eyes see it as white." It is a coincidence of having eyes of a particular design that our psychophysics experience of "red", "orange", "yellow" etc. map onto particular parts of the visible spectrum. So -- no -- the Sun is not *really* white any more than any large multi-wavelength emitter of visible light is "white".
That being said -- sure, it is interesting to know that from a space-based vantage point, human eyes would see the Sun as white.
But for Wikipedia purposes -- I think more emphasis should be made about the Sun's position on the Main Sequence -- which means that it is described as a yellow-ish white star. A yellow image seems very appropriate.
IMHO this insistence on "the Sun is WHITE -- not YELLOW" is more because someone found a funny fact that they want to push in the article. Sometimes the astrophysics folks forget that the psychophysics of human experience is important, too. Or to put it this way -- if aliens had different types of eyes, would they see the Sun as "white"? Likely not, if their eyes were more discerning than ours or didn't get overwhelmed at exactly the same points of brightness or luminosity. They might well say the "real" color of the Sun from a point in space was yellowish-green. Chesspride 66.19.84.2 ( talk) 04:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to alert interested editors that I intend to work quite a bit on the (new section) entitled "Magnetism and activity". Previously, material in this section was dispersed across the article, making it hard to understand. So, work in progress. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 20:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
SUN |
"with internal convective motion that generates a magnetic field via a dynamo process."
Except that internal motion has been measured and found to be 100 times less than that required to produce those dynamo effects and support magnetic reconnection or heat transfer theories. http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.3173
So why again are we still making that claim???? Steven J White ( talk) 14:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
In several places the material of the sun is referred to as a gas. In one location it even links to the gas page, where gas is described as being something different from plasma. Surely these uses of the term gas should be replaced by something else, preferably "plasma". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.253.206 ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 21 November 2014
Simply their way of avoiding the forces active in plasma, by calling it a "neutral" gas. A gas it behaves nothing like.
/info/en/?search=Plasma_%28physics%29
"The presence of a non-negligible number of charge carriers makes plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields... Unlike gas, under the influence of a magnetic field, it may form structures such as filaments, beams and double layers.... When the charges move, they generate electrical currents with magnetic fields, and as a result, they are affected by each other’s fields."
So again, we need not consider mythical dynamos. And referring to it as a "gas" is totally misleading as to it's true behavior. Steven J White ( talk) 14:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Some scientists found that observational data and solutions through mathematics for the heat transfer from the center to outer parts. When plugging dark matter in equations problem can be resolved. For more information refer to website: [2] MansourJE ( talk) 04:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe there may be a mistake in the section Sun#Characteristics in the line "The centrifugal effect of the Sun's rotation is 18 million times weaker than the surface gravity at the Sun's equator." This is equivalent to saying the ratio of centrifugal to gravitational acceleration is ac/g = 1/(1.8x107) ≈ 5.6x10-8. However, my own calculation for the centrifugal acceleration at the photosphere and equator (based on solar data from the main page, e.g. equatorial rotational period of 25.05 days) yields ac = ω2R ≈ (2.90x10-6 rad/s)2⋅(6.96x108 m) ≈ 5.85x10-3 m/s2, and thus ac/g ≈ (5.85x10-3 m/s2)/(274 m/s2) ≈ 2.1x10-5. This differs from the stated value by over two orders of magnitude. Perhaps the article meant to read "The centrifugal effect of the Sun's rotation is only 18 millionths as strong as the surface gravity at the equator"? This would be close to the value of 21 millionths I'm coming up with. Thoughts? Marcosk496 ( talk) 05:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I mean this is not even mentioned solar calendar I would think this matters more than G-Clouds. We really need to ask "What is the Sun" not only to scientist but to people who may need to read this article and get a better complete pic.-- Inayity ( talk) 03:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
User:JorisvS, what do you mean by your edit comment "it is, because it is the proper name of the star our planet orbits"? I had added the paragraph:
The word "sun" is normally not capitalized but takes the definite article: "the sun". However, the International Astronomical Union "formally recommends" capitalizing the word (as well as "Moon" and "Earth"). [1]
Are you saying "It is normally capitalized"? Well, that's certainly not true. Maybe certain people think it should normally be capitalized, but it's not normally capitalized. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the star our planet orbits or the light in the sky. Those are the same thing. I object to having the word "sun" capitalized in this article, against normal usage. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 11:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Grammarist says that "Earth", "Moon" and "Sun" are capitalized when on their own, and lowercase when preceded by an article. [2] Interestingly, it points out that only those astronomical objects are ever preceded by "the". You never refer to "the mars", for example. — DanielLC 19:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
"The only other source of energy Earth has are the fissionable materials generated by the cataclysmic death of another star"
[surely the Earth also has kinetic energy - the Earth & Moon exert tidal forces on each other & motions within the earth's metallic core associated with the earth's rotation generate a magnetic field and thereby a protective magnetosphere] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GusMcT ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
In what constellation would the Sun ("Sol", or "Solus") be part of-- 146.111.156.100 ( talk) 18:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)? The "page" says it is closely associated with the star "Vega"; in the constellation of Lyra. This gives no indication of its stellar grouping? I've heard that our Sun orbits around the star (and therefore our solar system,) "Hyperion". As the layman knows, and is usually less informed, or taught about the basics concerning the dynamics of astronomy, questions such as this should be resolved. A greater appreciation for the stars, and less "mystery" can do much good. -- 146.111.156.100 ( talk) 18:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Veryverser
Thanks to all contributors for clarifying the subject. However, I do insist that if what you contend that the the Sun (and most stars, and other bodies viewed from Earth,)don't fall in any sort of combined elliptical pattern, then they must adhere to a geometric patter common to various cited stars in a proscribed, and measured sector of space. -- 146.111.156.100 ( talk) 20:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Veryverser
fyi, in case this article is of use to the authors: Superimposed on the Sun's 11-year cycle of maximums and minimums is a newly discovered shorter cycle with a period of just under two years. This seasonal cycle could play an important role in space weather because, depending on its phase, it could amplify active phases. http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/15037/sun-experiences-seasonal-changes-new-research-finds Jcardazzi ( talk) 12:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi
According to new information from NASA, a 330-day cycle of Sun's activity has been discovered. Is this notable enough to add to the article? -- Artman40 ( talk) 22:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The Radiative zone section lists density in g/cm3, while the Convective zone lists it in g/m3. I think they should use the same scale for consistency and ease of comparison. Praemonitus ( talk) 20:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right. hi ( talk) 19:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia tag, "Earth mass|100" , produces a symbol (100 ME), that could not possibly be known by an educated layperson, who comes here for information. It is used only once in this article, with no explanation. I have removed it, and replaced it with words. If you restore it, please leave in the words. I think this comes under the Wikipedia Manual of Style explain formulae in English. Nick Beeson ( talk) 13:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reference (53): The most abundant metals are oxygen (roughly 1% of the Sun's mass), carbon (0.3%), neon (0.2%), and iron (0.2%). Is Oxygen considered a metal or a gas? Fourstake ( talk) 17:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Not done as the sentence clearly explains "All heavier elements, called metals in astronomy ..." this is a non-standard use of the word.
To answer your general question,
Oxygen is a "highly reactive nonmetallic element", so it is not a metal.
However, being a gas does not preclude an element being a metal, 91 of the 118 elements in the periodic table are metals - as an example most people know that
Mercury is a metal, but that is a liquid at room temperature. -
Arjayay (
talk)
18:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. Actually, using "metal" like that is confusing to the layman and completely unnecessary. I've reworded it where appropriate. -- JorisvS ( talk) 09:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
sun is first source of lights in our galaxy his light touch the last planet too 105.102.153.157 ( talk) 03:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Not done It isn't clear what exactly you want done. A2soup ( talk) 04:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Compared to the preceding content, the two sub-sections of 'Composition' appear much too technical for most lay readers. The obtuse technical wording disrupts the overall flow, and I believe it should be toned down and clarified. Praemonitus ( talk) 21:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Try this: User:Stigmatella_aurantiaca/sandbox/three. A great deal of the perceived technical difficulty of the article is simply that it takes so long for a reader to wade through it. I've thrown nothing away, but the article seems much shorter, and should thus be much more accessible for a reader who wants just a quick look. Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 16:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Continuing on with the theme of getting a bit of streamlining in this article, I'd like to suggest that we remove the section entitled "Theoretical problems". This would include getting rid of the subsections on the "Coronal heating problem" and the "Faint young Sun problem". We could reasonably add links to related content at the bottom of the article in "See also". I think that removing this material is acceptable given that this is an over-view article. What do people think? Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 00:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
123.239.185.175 ( talk) 06:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Not done It's not clear what you want done. Please state your request in a "change x to y" format. To do this without making a new section, change "answered=yes" to "answered=no" and enter your request between the "begin request" and "end request" lines. A2soup ( talk) 07:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The rotation velocity could be put into the same format as that of 'The Earth' which is shown as "Equatorial rotation velocity 1,674.4 km/h (465.1 m/s)"
Note that scientific notation is not used for The Earth and is not needed for The Sun either. Or it should be changed to scientific notation for The Earth, so at least it is consistent. The Earth's rotation velocity is also converted into miles/second but the Sun's is not.
Standardizing this measure makes it easier to compare Sun and Earth rotational velocities.
StreetUrchin2 ( talk) 13:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Bazj ( talk) 14:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The "Atmosphere" section begins "During a total solar eclipse, when the disk of the Sun is covered by that of the Moon, the Sun's surrounding atmosphere."
That's not a sentence. Presumably that should end "...surrounding atmosphere is visible."
Folks, I put a "white light" image in for the lead. I know that some editors might prefer something that looks, well, more exciting, but I would assert that this (or similar) image is a good representation, as it is a visible light image and, yes, even shows interesting detail (limb darkening, sunspots, granulation). Indeed, it kind of follows the tradition that is developing for the corresponding images of the planets, again, realistic visible-light images. What I do think is missing from the interior of this article is a set of images taken of the Sun at different key wavelengths. I would suggest that these be visible, ultraviolet, x-ray, and magnetogram. Ideally, these images would all be taken simultaneously, thus permitting easy comparison of features from one image to the other. I think it is important that these images capture a instance when there are both sunspots and coronal holes, both features important for discussion of the solar cycle and solar dynamo. So, that is my opinion. Others might feel differently. I know that. I haven't had a chance, lately, to figure out how to download these images from the websites of the Solar Dynamics Observatory or National Solar Observatory websites (where they should be available). Perhaps those of you interested in exciting images of the Sun can help out with this? Thanks very much! Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 15:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The sun has an apparent magnitude of -26.74. It should be added to this article that the apparent magnitude of the sun converts to 98,000 lux. [unknown author]
Agreed: the article should state the sun's brightness. Yes I know it will vary based on latitude and season, but I think everyone on planet Earth can relate to the sun as a "standard candle". So I think giving it some quantifiable value (even with a moderate variance, like 96 ~ 100 k·lux) would benefit readers to gain a perspective of luminosity. Hydradix ( talk) 06:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sun is good son is good 31.109.198.246 ( talk) 09:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)🌐🙏
In the early-mid 1990's, it was announced that the cosmic primordial radiation had an anisotropy that implied that the local group was traveling about 600km/s. I cannot find any specific calculation, only this stated result, so I do not want to add it to the main article. One reference was at http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap960205.html . Another reference was from Physics Today, June 1992, p. 17, "COBE MEASURES ANISOTROPY IN COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION", by Barbara Goss Levi. That article mentions 370 km/s for the solar system. The speed of the solar system in the local group would need to be vectorially added to that, so an angle between them would be needed. The 370 km/s would give 1 light year in 810 years, but in an unknown direction. agb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.43.206.27 ( talk) 22:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the false colour image of the Sun in the infobox (File:Sun in February.jpg) to the following image showing it in more natural colours: File:Spots July.jpg. This was the previously used image in the article, but was changed the 8th November 2015 without a valid reason. According to both the article itself and several credible sources (for example: [1] and [2]) the colour of the Sun is white, a fact the previously used image illustrated. There is also already a request for this change in the form of a template in the discussion page of the article.
With the replacement of the image, please do also change the caption under the image from "A false colour image of the Sun (Taken on February 18, 2015)" to the previously used caption "The Sun in visible wavelength with filtered white light on 8 July 2014. Characteristic limb darkening and numerous sunspots are visible.".
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Gary The Duck ( talk) 00:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Since Jupiter is so massive that the barycenter of Jupiter-Sol is above Sol's surface, shouldn't this article mention that? To an observer of our sun from outside the solar system, our sun would wobble quite a bit. 96.246.64.73 ( talk) 18:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I think this is interesting, but regarding an observed "wobble", one must take into account the relative positions of the other planets as the sun will "wobble" around a combined barycentre of all of the mass in the system: /info/en/?search=File:Solar_system_barycenter.svg 178.15.151.163 ( talk) 10:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The Sun is roughly middle aged and has not changed dramatically for four billion[b] years, and will remain fairly stable for another four billion years.
Starting after the Comma: I don't dispute the claim, because I can do math for myself regarding the rate of fuel consumption and it could easily be a billion or more beyond that.
The issue I have in this case is the number thrown around on History Channel and Science Channel programs by leading Physicists and Astronomers tends to be around 500 Million to 1.5 Billion. WadeDanielSmith ( talk) 19:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The main text of the article says the sun's mean orbital velocity is 251 km/s (156 mi/s). But the sidebar at the top right says 220 km/s. Which is correct? Can this please be corrected? Thanks. TubesUntil ( talk) 18:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Sun. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
In the Article in one place it says:
"The protostellar Sun's composition was reconstructed as 71.1% hydrogen, 27.4% helium, and 1.5% heavier elements.[50]"
Then it says:
"In the inner portions of the Sun, nuclear fusion has modified the composition by converting hydrogen into helium, so the innermost portion of the Sun is now roughly 60% helium"
If you look at the rate of fusion that is later calculated, using a figure from one of the talk entries above mine, I reached a value similar to my old calculation of 27.4 Billion years old, but instead obtained 26.97 Billion years old IF you assumed the Sun were a First Generation star, and burning continually. This is suspiciously close to a number which is exactly twice the current accepted age of the universe, being 13.7 billion to 13.8 Billion * 2 = 27.4 Billion to 27.6 Billion years. I once obtained 27.4 to 27.6 Billion years for the age of the universe, after writing a differential while studying a "Galaxy appears older than the standard model for the universe itself" problem I encountered from a science article. Namely, a galaxy appeared 11 billion years old...11 billion years ago, which meant that it must be 22 billion years old.
So I jokingly tested the notion of the Sun as a First Generation star, and it came out to being exactly twice the accepted age of the Universe. The data in this article has been updated some since then so the calculation doesn't come out to literally the exact same, but it still comes to 26.97 Billion years.
This was in VERY strong agreement with the differential I had developed to explain the "Galaxy appears older than the universe" problem.
I admit that this evidence is circumstantial, but it suggests that the universe is 27.4 to 27.6 Billion years old, and that the Sun is 27 Billion years old* and is a First Generation star. In fact, it would apparently be slightly older than that, since the Sun is supposed to be burning faster and faster with time, due to contraction of core density (Helium is denser than hydrogen) allowing the fuel to be under more pressure with time, which means that the Sun would have been burning slightly slower for the first several billion years.
This is not conjecture, it is a Hypothesis or theory, and it is ironic that both calculations agree almost exactly for the age of the Universe, if you assume the Sun is a First Generation Star. So when two calculations agree with one another, it leaves the realm of conjecture and becomes Hypothesis or Theory.
However, I should point out that all of these calculations assume that Einstein's relativity equations are correct. I have recently found what I believe to be an emergent Vector Space violation in Special Relativity, and in General Relativity, which is caused by the Lorentz Transformation. The violation is not at V=0 nor V=C. It happens apparently at any velocity under the right conditions, but the specific case I found can happen around 0.6C to 0.87C. These calculations might not be valid after all, if the vector space violation is real. Suffice it to say that the Vector Space violation is such that I can produce a scenario where observer A sees Ball 1 drop on the left end of a rocket, and observer B instead sees Ball 2 drop on the right end of the rocket, and these are not "unrelated events". These are events with the exact same cause (a common light source,) but a macroscopic vector space violation is produced, causing not just relative observations, but entire conflicting alternate time lines for each observer.
I have submitted a paper on that topic to Dr. Michio Kaku asking for advice and assistance in understanding and formalizing the problem, as I do not have a degree in physics, but I am good at finding peculiar mistakes and peculiar coincidences or relationships in equations or data. This discovery in relevant because if I am correct, our understanding of Nuclear Fusion is at least partly flawed, and our understanding of particle physics, cosmic rays, and just about everything in Astronomy/Cosmology is flawed to some degree, particularly in any case where an object is moving 0.6C or faster, and potentially even at slower velocities, because those object's data is interpreted through Einstein's equations. The Lorentz Transformation is apparently flawed at a fundamental level, if I am right, because it produces EMERGENT Vector Space Violation.
Thanks.
WadeDanielSmith ( talk) 01:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Wade Daniel Smith, 1/20/2016, 7:00pm central.
You don't understand how hard it is get a PhD level physicist to give me serious review, even though there is no logical problem with my observations. For some reason they just absolutely will not even give me a serious ear, and I need 3 to 6 PhD sponsors to be able to publish ANYTHING to a Journal. Even though I have made at least 4 or 5 Nobel Laureate level discoveries in physics in my lifetime, I keep getting the "Delete and Ban" response from everyone on the internet, and I can't even get the President nor the Supreme Court via Certified Mail, nor a News Channel to take me seriously for 5 minutes.
The next step is I'm going to get a Lawyer and sue the Supreme Court itself, because they make legal decisions based on Scientific Journals in some cases, and I can't submit to a Journal at all without 3 to 6 PhD sponsors to give a theory, with evidence and calculations, which contradicts standard models in physics. I don't have anywhere else to post other than Facebook, or maybe Amazon publishing tool, but that costs around $100 a year, and I'm not exactly rich to invest in it, as I have a physical medical disability.
They think they know everything, and most of them don't know how to do anything beyond QUOTE a text. I take data and formulas and I break them down and study them forward, backwards, inside out and upside down until I find a flaw, or a pattern, which nobody else ever found, and I show how it really works...
...and they still don't listen to me, because they don't actually understand the formulas at all themselves, and they have a degree in the field.
It's freaking ridiculous.
WadeDanielSmith ( talk) 01:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Wade Daniel Smith
I have degrees in physics. Nothing you've put forth makes any sense. What I'd recommend is you do what all of us with PhD's in physics have done. Get a bachelor's level degree in physics from an accredited university. It takes four years, but in your sophomore year, you'll see why your understanding of the Lorentz transformations is completely messed up. In your junior year, you'll learn about the constant battle between electromagnetism and gravity that creates stars. In your senior year, if you make it there, you'll have enough mathematical expertise built up, to realize physics isn't manipulating equations to see what they yield. Equations are built to match observations. We have factual observations you can learn in nuclear physics as a senior physics major about why we know the solar system is 4.6 billion years old, as is the Sun. Evidence. Finally, spend another seven years and get a PhD. Then we'll listen. By then, you'll have seen the error of your own claims. Good luck. Plenty of great universities out here looking for new physics majors. 130.111.163.179 ( talk) 23:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
In the section "Development of scientific understanding" stadia is, I beg to say, unhelpful. It should instead direct the reader to the Wikipedia entry Stadion_(unit) DaveyHume ( talk) 17:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Sun has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I beleve there is an error Youngpikachu18 ( talk) 16:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The value of the solar constant has recently been updated to 1361 W/m^2. See Wikipedia's own Solar constant entry. The photosphere effective temperature also needs to be accordingly updated to 5772 K; see, for example, Professor Eric Mamajek's Star Notes. Jrdx ( talk) 10:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps related, the luminosity value seems to be incorrect. The article on solar luminosity and NASA's sun factsheet agree on 382,8 (E24) but this article has 384,6. The former value leads to the correct value for the solar constant, the latter does not. Asgrrr ( talk) 11:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Went ahead and changed the luminosity, bc. the reference given is actually the NASA sunfact sheet which has the 382,8 value. I changed only the Watts figure. Perhaps someone else will look at the values given in different units. Asgrrr ( talk) 12:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Previously, this article had a great high-resolution photo of the sun in a recognizable form: a red-orange ball of fire, just as it would appear to a regular camera (on very low exposure).
Now, it has been replaced by an extremely low-resolution, pixelated ball of white with very little detail that looks like a 50px image that has been blown up. The old image can't even be found anywhere on the page.
Please consider reverting to a better image for the infobox. 73.206.73.84 ( talk) 08:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I've read part of this article (as of Aug 27, 2016) and see several areas that, imho, need improvement.
Here are the problems/issues I encountered:
1. The lead claims that the Sun "has not changed dramatically" in the past 4 billion years. This demands the reader have some sense of what is and is not "dramatic". OK, it (probably) entered the Main Sequence well over 4 billion years ago, and since then its evolution has been fairly smooth (as far as we know). The problem I have is that many people reading the problem text will conclude that the Sun has not changed in the last 4E9 years, and that is wrong. The Sun's core is slowly changing the hydrogen found there into helium (other products are rare, at best). The Sun is emitting a enormous number of neutrinos, protons, electrons, and alpha particles. So, it is loosing mass and is slowly changing its volume and its brightness is increasing (among other changes).
2. The lead also contains the phrase "after hydrogen fusion in its core has stopped". That is nonsense, the H fusion doesn't ever stop, but it diminishes to a point at which the Sun is no longer in hydrostatic equilibrium. The core experiences a marked increase in density and temperature while the Sun's outer layers expand. The Sun leaves the Main Sequence and enters the Red Giant branch.
3.In the section Characteristics:"The Sun is a Population I, heavy-element rich, star. It seems to me that that bald statement needs a lot more clarification. What does it mean to be "rich"? What are the other classifications (extreme Population I stars, intermediate population stars, intermediary disc population stars, Population II, and Population III (hypothetical)) The Sun is an intermediate population I star. I'm not sure it is useful to mention this classification. It would be more useful, imho, to mention when the Milky Way experienced its peak star formation rate 4-6 billion years ago, and that our Sun is a relatively middle-aged star, with another 5-6 billion years on the Main Seq. This same paragraph is confusing: if the Sun formed after the formation of Population III stars, and after formation of Population II heavy-metal poor stars, why not just say so? It is NOT true that the reason it is a Population I star is due to the abundance of gold or uranium in "the Solar System". Its Pop I status is exactly the result of the abundance of those as measured in its spectra. It also could be clearly stated that we have good evidence that several supernova (probably of Population II stars) contributed to the elements making up the Sun and our Solar System. As it is, speaking about endothermic fusion and neutron absorption is far too technical for the level of treatment otherwise being expressed.
4. Also in the Characteristics section, the AU is discussed and it is implied that it is the Earth's average distance to the Sun. Well, yes and no. I recently read that the average distance was 1.0003 AU, but perhaps this is too insignificant to quibble about. (It also depends on what is meant by "average": average taken second by second (over time) or average kilometer by kilometer (over distance or orbital circumference), another quibble.)
5."in its outer parts its density decreases exponentially." Should, imho, be changed to "above the photosphere the Sun's density decreases exponentially".
6."For the purpose of measurement, however, the Sun's radius is considered to be the distance from its center to the edge of the photosphere, the apparent visible surface of the Sun." First it is the top edge, not just edge. Second, like the Sun itself, none of these zones have sharp boundaries. This is dramatically different from the surface of Earth and the rocky planets where we can determine the surface to within fractions of a millimeter.
7. In the Photosphere section:"[The Photosphere] is the layer below which the Sun becomes opaque to visible light." It's not wrong, but begs the question HOW FAR below that layer is light no longer visible? kilometers? tens of km? hundreds? thousands?
8. Same section "Above...sunlight is free to propagate into space and its energy escapes the Sun entirely." This is just plain wrong. Some (admittedly, not much) sunlight is absorbed and scattered well above the Photosphere. The word "entirely" is far too absolute and definitely wrong. How about "almost all of its energy escapes the Sun entirely"?
9. Finally, for some really bad reason the REAL center of the Solar System (geometrically speaking) is never mentioned. Nor is the fact that the Sun orbits this (moving) point - the barycenter. Granted, the barycenter is believed to be, baring discovery of some really really massive planets out beyond Pluto, 11,000 km below the Sun's photosphere, hence inside the Sun. But the center of the Sun orbits this point. (Like a paper disk being pinned to the wall near its edge and being rotated around that point.) It should at least be mentioned in this article.
173.191.76.21 (
talk)
16:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
This article declares the color of the sun as white, but the Class G section of the Stellar classification page ( /info/en/?search=Stellar_classification#Class_G) refers to Sol as yellow. And the temperature in this article also places it in the realm of yellow. Which article is correct?
I see the escape velocity is given in the box on the right at the "surface" of the Sun. Aside from the problematic concept of the Sun's "surface", I wonder if it would be useful to also include the escape velocity from an orbit at the Earth's distance from the Sun? If so it is 41.76 km/s at aphelion, 42.47 at perihelion and for the average distance of 1.50E11 m, it is 42.06 km/s. (which is only 3.7 - 3.8 times the escape velocity from Earth at Earth's surface - meaning once you've 'escaped' Earth, you still are bound to the Sun and need almost 4X more speed/energy to escape the Solar System.) 71.29.173.173 ( talk) 17:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
--
66.75.3.58 (
talk)
15:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[[Google.com|Go
Google Search
Re the colour "contradiction"; the stellar classification of low or yellow-green refers to the part of the spectrum in which the output of the sun peaks. Despite that, the sun's output at all wavelengths is powerful enough that it appears white in appearance. As an analogy, an incandescent light bulb has peak output at infrared wavelengths, and yet there is enough output at all wavelengths for it appear white or almost white to humans. At least I try ( talk) 12:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC) At least I try ( talk) 12:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
There is always only mentioned, that Earth bill be distryoed by the sun when changing to a red giant. Why not mention the possibility of changing Earth orbit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pege.founder ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
It's a good article so i don't edit it directly, but I have found this image File:Multilanguages Sun.jpg if you think is appropriate you can insert it in the paragraph.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 05:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I added a little section about the planetary system of the Sun (i.e. the Solar System) because most articles about stars include a mention of their planetary system. As there is an in-depth article about the Solar System, I kept it short with a link to the main article. If anyone thinks that there should be more included in that section, feel free to stick it in.
Titanium Dragon (
talk)
03:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).