Talk:Solar System/Archive 6

Hi Ckatz,

You removed a quotation placed in the notes section with the reason give "excessive quote, should be integrated in a different manner." Being new to Wiki, I couldn't find any information on what constitutes an excessive quotation, nor any definition of how to "integrate" this quotation.

Stephen G. Brush's quotation is relevant to the claim being made, and improves the Wiki article I think. He is certainly an expert in the field. Could you help me out with some Editor assistance and point me to some information on what constitutes an excessive quotation and how best to integrate this information into the article, assuming those are the only two reasons you removed the quotation.

I was unsure if I could use my own words to shorten Brush's essential point, so I quoted just enough to make clear his point. Perhaps a parapharase with less quoted material, if that would be better. Any suggestions and help are welcome.

If anyone else can suggest a good way to integrate the following, it would be greatly appreciated:

Scientist and historian Stephen G. Brush published in his Fruitful Encounters: The Origin of the Solar System and of the Moon from Chamberlin to Apollo (Cambridge series: A History of Modern Planetary Physics volume thee; Cambridge University Press; 1996.):

The origin of the Solar System is one of the oldest unsolved problems in science. It was first perceived as a scientific question distinct from the origin of the universe as a whole, in the 17th century. The introduction by Copernicus of the heliocentric theory made it meaningful to use the modern phrase “Solar System.” Astronomers began to think of the Sun as one of many stars; it became conceivable that our Solar System was one of many such systems, and that it had been affected or even created by celestial bodies from other systems. René Descartes, in the 1630s, developed a qualitative hypothesis for the development of the Solar System within a larger system, using his theory of vortexes. Thus the most fundamental question one could ask about the origin of the Solar System is: Did it develop autonomously along with the Sun itself, or did it come into existence because of the action of outside entities? (Brush 1996: 3)

Twentieth-century astronomers have argued that these two alternatives, known as the “monistic” and “dualistic” kinds of theories, lead to radically different conclusions about the probability of finding life elsewhere in the universe. If the development of our Solar System was monistic, then we may infer that planet formation is a natural consequence of star formation, and hence there are many habitable planets. But if a dualistic process like the close encounter of two stars is needed to explain the origin of the Solar System, then because of the great distance between stars, planet formation will be a rare event and the chance of life extremely small.

Sometimes people want to know the presently accepted “right answer” to a question before studying its history. Is the monistic or dualistic theory really correct? The last time I consulted the experts, they were quite convinced that the origin of the Solar System was monistic, although they disagreed about some important aspects of planetary development. But the history of planetogony during the last two centuries doesn’t give much reason for confidence that this conclusion is final. Throughout the 19th century scientists accepted the monistic Nebular Hypothesis; then they switched to a dualistic theory (close encounter of another star with the Sun). But this theory was rejected after 1935, and a monistic theory (collapse of a gasdust cloud) was revived in the 1940s. Between 1976 and 1984 the dualistic “supernova trigger” theory was accepted, then rejected. It was revived in 1995. The time scale for reversing the answer gets shorter and shorter as one approaches the present, giving us very little reason to think that today’s answer will still be considered correct tomorrow. That’s why I said that the problem is unsolved.

For the historian of science, this uncertainty about the correct answer does have one important advantage. It undermines the tendency to judge past theories as being right or wrong by modern standards. This tendency is the so-called “Whig interpretation of the history of science” that one usually finds in science textbooks and popular articles. The Whig approach is to start from the present theory, assuming it to be correct, and ask how we got there. For many scientists this is the only reason for studying history at all; Laplace remarked, “When we have at length ascertained the true cause of any phenomenon, it is an object of curiosity to look back, and see how near the hypothesis that have been framed to explain it approach towards the truth” (1966: vol. 4, 1015).

But Whiggish history is not very satisfactory if it has to be rewritten every time the “correct answer” changes. Instead, we need to look at the cosmogonies or planetogonies of earlier centuries in terms of the theories and evidence available at the time.

I think another well known scientist expressed the importance of historical perspective well when he writes:

R. A. Fisher said it well:

More attention to the history of Science is needed, as much by scientists as by historians, and especially by biologists, and this means a deliberate attempt to understand the thoughts of the great masters of the past, to see in what circumstances or intellectual milieu their ideas were formed, where they took the wrong turning or stopped short on the right track." (R. A. Fisher, 1959, cited in Wilkins, Adam S. The Evolution of Developmental Pathways. Massachusetts: Sinaur Associates; 2002; p. 3.)

The current theory is just that, and we do well to allow room for distenting views, no matter how minor they are, for it reminds us of the tentative nature some hypotheses, to wit Woolfson's comments on plantetary formation:

While having material at the right distance from the Sun is a necessary condition for a plausible theory, that by itself is not sufficient. It must also be shown that the material forms planets.

None of the monistic theories we have considered so far has even considered this problem in any detail. Laplace suggested that clumps in his rings would form by gravitational attraction and that then the clumps would combine. Actually, it is possible to show that unless his rings had masses very much greater than that of planets, the rings would have been very unstable and would have dispersed to give a disk without rings in very short time -- much shorter than the time required for clumping to take place. The end result would be a fairly structureless disk within which the planets must form -- a similar situation to that obtained with the cloud capture model. (Woolfson 2007: 88)

The floccule theory produces planets by concentrating cloud material through collisions. It is certainly true that colliding material would be compressed but it simply would not produce planetary masses in a large cloud. The turbulent streams in such a cloud would have had masses similar to the Jeans critical mass for cloud material and these would have been of stellar mass. When they collided, stellar-mass condensations would have been produced. (Woolfson 2007: 88-89)

The only theory that hints at how planets could be successfully formed is that of Jeans. The break up of filament into a set of blobs under gravitational effects is well founded theoretically and, as will be shown in Chapter 28, has also been successfully modelled. The problem with Jeans theory was not that that mechanism for producing planets was unsatisfactory but rather that it was being applied to the wrong material. It is quite possible to have material in a filament at a density and temperature that would give planetary mass blobs with greater than the Jeans critical mass. This certainly requires that the material should be at a temperature much lower than that of typical solar material -- but that requirement is also indicated by the quantities of the light elements lithium, beryllium and boron in the Earth's crust. (Woolfson, M. M. The Formation of the Solar System [Theories Old and New]. London: Imperial College Press; 2007; pp. 88-89.)

This article states, "The Solar System formed from the gravitational collapse of a giant molecular cloud 4.6 billion years ago." Yet, this is really one current hypothesis among others. It addresses some questions better than others; and others addresses some questions better than it, as Brush and Woolfson make clear. Statements like this on Wiki, with no allowance for such historical views as Brush or Woolfson, are indeed "whiggish." One would hope Wikipedia can do better than this, otherwise it will end up being little more than a "bandwagon" parroting the latest "correct" theory with a certain ahistorical blindness.

The history of science is peppered with ideas that have held sway, that were eventually found to be flawed and were then replaced by some new ideas. The lesson to be learnt from this is that no theory can every be regarded as 'true'. There are two categories of a theory -- those that are plausible and those that are implausible and therefore probably wrong. Any theory in the first category is a candidate for the second whenever new observations or theoretical analysis throw doubt upon its conclusions. There is no shame in developing a theory that is eventually refuted. Rather the generation and testing of new ideas must be regarded as an essential part of the process through which scientists gain knowledge and understanding they seek.... A seeker after knowledge and understanding must be cautious about accepting ideas because they seem 'obvious' and fit in with everyday experience.... The watchard in science is "caution". All claims must be examined critically in the light of current knowlege. Any acceptance must be that of the plausibility of an idea since the possibility of new knowlege and understanding to refute it must be kept in mind. We must be aware of bandwagons and be prepared to use our own judgements; history tells us that bandwagons do not necessarily travel in the right direction! (Woolfson, M. M. The Formation of the Solar System [Theories Old and New]. London: Imperial College Press; 2007; pp. 88-89.)

So my realy concern and question is, what is the proper way to integrate the historical perspective into Wikipedia's articles? Any and all help and suggestings welcomed. Thanks

Dogyo (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading the article History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses. As a rule, when discussing broad topics like the Solar System, Wikipedians are loath to bring in competing or older ideas about the topic, and prefer to reflect the current consensus, leaving any ambiguities for sub-articles. Serendi^podous 03:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe you missed the meaning of Brush and Woolfson. Woolfson is clearly pointing out there are competing ideas (hardly old, unless you consider 2007 old ;-) And Brush is making an historical point that gives historical context to Woolfson. This kind of ahistorical selection of the most popular theory as being "fact" while ignoring there are other hypothesis that are being currently published by reputable scientist because they are considered "old" or not "fact" sounds like a textbook definition of "whiggish" ;-) It seems if Wikipedia seeks to be actually factual it would be better to say something along the lines that "current consensus says X," and then cite the other contrary views and reference them. Otherwise it is actually not factual when there actually exists multiple working hypotheses, any one of which is currently held to be the "consensus view," but nevertheless there exists plausible alternative hypotheses.

Chamberlin's most enduring single publication was probably his Science article, "The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses," published in 1890, reprinted in many journals, and available as late as 1977 from the American Association for the Advancement of Science as a reprint. This article is a strong attack on the tyranny of dominant hypotheses. As his initial summary says, "With this method the dangers of parental affection for a favorite theory can be circumvented." Even today, one finishes reading this article with a determination to rethink one's own research to see what damage theory-induced bias has inflicted. Not better statement of the matter can be found than this passage from the second section of his article:

The moment one has offered an original explanation for a phenomenon which seems satisfactory, that moment affection for his intellectual child springs into existence; and as the explanation grows into a definite theory, his parental affections cluster about his intellectual offspring, and it grows more and more dear to him, so that, while he holds it seemingly tenative, it is still lovingly tenative, and not impartially tenative. So soon as this parental affection take possession of the mind, there is a rapid passage to the adoption of the theory .... Instinctively there is a special searching-out of phenomena that support it, for the mind is led by its desires. [Thomas C. Chamberlin, "The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses," Science, 1890, 15:92-96.] (Newman, Robert P. American Intransigence: The Rejection of Continental Drift in the Great Debates of the 1920s. Earth Sciences History. 1995; 14(1):62-83.)

What is the policy or goal of Wikipedia when there is more than one working hypothesis even if one or the other is more popular at any given time? It is one thing to bring up an "old" hypothesis when their is no plausible or verifiable citation from scientists supporting it (Brush calls that "priggish"), but one would think, according to the verifiability principle if there are scientists raissing questions or weighing the relative pros and cons of two different hypotheses, even if one was once considered "old," but is not being reconsidered. There are a number examples just such cases within various fields of the scientific community today, and there are numerous reputable, verifiable, citations in the literature addressing just such cases.

But back to my original question. Wikipedia articles most certainly present themselves as being factually and historically accurate, which would include issues like I am raising. And the article you linked to above seems to be historically oriented (and perhaps may be a better palce for this kind of material (I am seeking guidance on this issue here), but how then does this kind of historical material relate to the other entries on the same topic? It would indeed be an odd situation if one article makes a claim that is inconsistent with a fuller and more factually (i.e., historically) nuanced picture in other article. What would this say about Wikipedia as an accurate source of so-called "factual" knowledge?

I would also point out the reason given for the original edit had nothing to do with "older ideas" or "current consensus," but with a "excessive quotation" and the need for better "integration." It would be nice to have a bit more specific information on each one of these, perhaps some examples even.

So I am a bit unsure how to proceed. Would this material then be placed into a sub-article? Why not a footnote in a relevant existing article? How does the sub-article relate to other articles on the same topic?

Grateful for your suggestions and hopefully I will slowly get the hang of this Wiki thing ;-) A bit daunting and confusing at first to be honest.

Dogyo (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, any discussion on that issue is best kept to the appropriate sub article. Otherwise this article, which is mainly focused on the geography of the Solar System, will be overwhelmed. Serendi^podous 06:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So, just to be sure, is it your view the appropriate sub-article is History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses? Thanks for the pointer.

Dogyo (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That is the article for which this information is best suited.Serendi^podous 08:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Planetary Science Research Discoveries define both Volatile & Refractory in terms of vaporizing (boiling) temperatures. The reference supplied to justify the current article text is not freely available. Could someone please supply a quote from Further investigations of random models of Uranus and Neptune which justifies using "melting point' instead of 'boiling point' in a general definition. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Earth's magnetic field stops its atmosphere from being stripped away by the solar wind. Venus and Mars do not have magnetic fields, and as a result, the solar wind causes their atmospheres to gradually bleed away into space."

This part of the article uses "Erosion by the Solar Wind[1]" as a reference. It is not freely available, could someone give an apropriate quote please? HarryAlffa (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear fusion details seem incomplete. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete how? This isn't the article to go into the fine details of hydrogen/helium/carbon fusion cycles. Serendi^podous 07:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This phrase, "gives it an interior density high enough to sustain nuclear fusion", is incomplete to the point of misleading, and has no source. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Who says it is moderately large? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Sun is often described as an "average star". If a source means that much to you, I can get one. Serendi^podous 07:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. Not worth it. Serendi^podous 07:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Red dwarfs make up 85 percent of the stars in the galaxy. Is this definite, and recent? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's there in the source. "Scientists estimate that red dwarfs make up to 85 percent of the stars in our Galaxy." Ker Than, 2006.Serendi^podous 07:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

So it's not definite. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. Nothing in science ever is. Serendi^podous 05:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There are obvious claims here in error. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said when I reverted your comment, "substantial" is a relative term. Mars's atmosphere is indeed substantial when compared to those of Mercury and Europa. Serendi^podous 16:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a tenuous use of language. But there are errors - plural. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You have yet to explain what they are. Serendi^podous 05:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The source is a Powerpoint Presentation in Italian. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hiya, Harry. I can't speak nor read Italian, so here are two supportive sources for that Italian paper. I'm not experienced enough to be certain they qualify as reliable sources; however, they both back up the claims:

1. [2]
2. [3]

I also learned that, while the bright star Vega is the approx. solar apex, the bright star Sirius is the approx. solar antipex (the direction opposite of the solar apex and the direction we are traveling from).

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  09:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

New Horizons Set to Launch on 9-Year Voyage to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt, supports the third sentence of the Terminology section; where? HarryAlffa (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Pluto suddenly became the star representative of an unexplored region of the solar system, sometimes referred to as the "third zone.""Serendi^podous 05:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

{{editsemiprotected}}

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

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

change to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

Delete. Another confusing image that nobody will find useful.

18

Delete. Should be included in the suggested Pluto diagram.

19

Delete. Not important to the article.

20

Change. Important diagram, poorly executed.

21

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

22

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

23

Delete. Unimportant.

24

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

25

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

26

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

I've dealt with most of the issues you raised. I kept 4 and 22 because as of right now I can't think of an alternative. I swapped out 6 because I felt that a Solar System article without a picture of the Sun was a bit odd. I think the new image is more informative. 14 may not be the prettiest image on the planet, but it is the most accurate image of the Kuiper belt available free anywhere. I have to disagree with you on 19, I think it illustrates what would otherwise be a difficult to understand concept. As for 20, would this one be better? It was the original but got swapped out. I don't really have the image experience to rework these pictures myself. Someone else will have to do it. Serendi^podous 08:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Since this article is fairly technical and has lots of numbers, it might be easier to have the large numbers of satellites of the outer planets in digits rather than words. It might even save a line or two. E.g. "Jupiter has 63 known satellites." instead of "Jupiter has sixty-three known satellites." It might also make translations and reading by non-"English as a first language" persons easier. Facts707 (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea :) Serendi^podous 09:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggest removing the "Systems and systems science" template ... random list of unconnected topics that just happen to contain the word "system". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.242.150 (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

what two scientist believed the sun was the center of the solar system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.43.127 (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Article http://www.universetoday.com/2009/11/20/cassiniibex-data-changes-view-of-heliosphere-shape/ --Craigboy (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Bugger. Assuming this is correct I'm going to have to rewrite about 20 different articles. Serendi^podous 15:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

--Suggested change for "Farthest Regions"-- For the 3rd sentence in the "Farthest regions" section, I recommend we change the word influence to dominance. "However, the Sun's Roche sphere, the effective range of its gravitational dominance, is believed to extend up to a thousand times farther." While we believe gravitational influence to be practically infinite, using the word "dominance" instead illustrates a better understanding of the concept of the "Roche sphere" or Hill sphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xjxj324 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea Serendi^podous 00:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Request: Please add http://www.quitethehike.co.uk to the 'external links section'. The webpage http://www.quitethehike.co.uk is an interactive look at the size of the galaxy, drawing attention the the distances between the planets themselves. It has some interesting trivia about the planetary objects themselves (which mostly comes from Wikipedia, it seems).

• N Not done This addition of this link would likely be contested; please obtain consensus here through discussion for its addition. If you are having trouble getting input, ask for a third opinion. CIreland (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)