Talk:Formation and evolution of the Solar System/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Isotope table

I concur with the GA reviewer's comment that the isotope table is out of place. It probably belongs on Solar System rather than here, as it's not explicitly connected to the formation and evolution here (and I don't really think it should be). Therefore, I deleted the table; it's below for archival purposes. ASHill (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Moved to Solar System. Didn't want to lose it because it was such a great piece of work, but if it can have a new home, then fine. Serendi^podous 06:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

SA Article

There's an excellent article in the latest Scientific American about the formation of the Solar System's planets. The editors of this article might want to check that out for further details. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? The Color of Plants on Other Worlds? ASHill (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

He's referring to the May issue, which I haven't received through the door yet, but which features planetary formation on its cover.Serendi^podous 17:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Green plus tag

Very good, this article has been up to 101 sources, expect last section with light blue tag; is still under construction. Shold this be listy on feature article? This article is well-writen and provides well enough citations.--Freewayguy (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It got approved as a good article just this morning. I think it needs some more work and time to be nominated for featured article status, although it's not too far away. ASHill (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Splitting in two

I think it's time this article was split into two. I'm contemplating creating a new article out of the history section called History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses. Serendi^podous 09:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. Ruslik (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I got a go-ahead from Drewcifer on my talk page, so I just split the article. Serendi^podous 10:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Earth's fate

I'm confuse right now. First sun will loss 33% of mass, and maximum diam of 1.2 AU. That means Venus and Earth would be able to escape envelopment leaving it at 1.3 and 1.75 Aus. Anyways, I dont see Earth getting closer to sun. What is a tidal force tugging Earth in and vansih it actually means. I thought Earth might escape a little bit; but too slow, sun still pick it up and swallow it up.--Freewayguy (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the source cited. Seems to make sense. Serendi^podous 11:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Only Saturn' moon Titan will be habitat for solar system. Why would sun and Earth have tidal interaction anyways. I dont see Earth moving closer to sun. But I still think Earth might be swallow up but not sure how. I thought Earth will be too slow to get away from engulfment. Lumin of sun of 2700 will cause Europa Jupiter's moon to become to that of mercury's today; and mars I'm not sure. Mars may survive but will be like twice as hot as Mercury. I know inner planets would get destroy. Mercury and Venus I know will almost certainly get swallow up. --Freewayguy (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Sun and the Earth already tidally interact, because the Earth moves closer and farther away from the Sun in its orbit, creating a tiny tidal effect. The Sun also plays a role in the tides produced by the Moon. If I'm reading that article correctly, it is the Sun, not the Earth, that determines how close the Earth will get. The closest approach will be when the Sun reaches its second red giant phase, and its maximum diameter, which, apparently, will be close enough to tidally disrupt the Earth's orbit. Serendi^podous 07:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The correct explanation is that the Earth's gravity will raise tides in the Sun's vast outer envelop, which will be only weakly bound to the core. In addition, the Sun will almost stop rotating at the red giant stage due to conservation of the momentun. So the tidal bulge created by the Earth's gravity will be following the orbital motion of the Earth, but with a delay. As a result the additional gravity force from the bulge will slow the Earth causing its orbit to shrink. This effect is the same as with inner moons of giant planets now: if a moon's orbital period is less than the rotational period of the planet, the tides slow the moon and shrink its orbit. The same is true for Triton. Ruslik (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; i don't understan any term above; first why will Earth shrink orbit when sun loss gravity and mass.--Freewayguy (talkApril 27 2008 (UTC)

Currently the Sun rotates in one month. In the red giant stage it will take more than an Earth year to rotate. See: Tidal_deceleration#Tidal_deceleration -- Kheider (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I should note that the Earth will die near the tip of the RGB branch, not in AGB phase, as the article now states. This is clearly written in the Schroder's article. Ruslik (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I was working from a source I usually trust Serendi^podous 12:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarity

Someone just posted a massive "alternative explanation" for Solar System formation that was, effectively, the same explanation given in the article. This suggests to me that this article is not getting its point across. Serendi^podous 13:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the edit did have the heading "An alternative theory is this although simlair to the one above", so it strikes me more as an alternative explanation than a reader/editor not getting the point. Some of the added material is useful for clarity, I think, and I'll try to work it in. ASHill (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, the added material was directly lifted without attribution from a copyrighted source: [1]. The contributor has added copyrighted material to at least one other Wikipedia article as well. I'm therefore not at all concerned that this is indicative of a lack of clarity in the article. ASHill (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Late Heavy Bombardment until now

This article doesn't really cover anything after the Late Heavy Bombardment; it just skips from there into the future. Did anything of note happen between then and now? Serendi^podous 17:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Protoplanetary disk extent

This clause in section 2.1 concerned me: "the Hubble Space Telescope has observed protoplanetary discs up to 1000 AU in star-forming regions such as the Orion Nebula". The cited paper (Smith et al 1999) refers to a very massive, highly luminous post-main sequence binary (RY Scuti), not a star-forming region in the Orion Nebula that's at all comparable to the Sun. The claim itself is not outrageous, but I can't find a citation for it, and I'm not sure it helps the point (protoplanetary discs extend to several hundred AU) much anyway. Therefore, I deleted the clause. ASHill (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Odd. This article went from having no references at all to having lots of references that don't actually refer. Working on this article has been a lot like bomb site clearance. Serendi^podous 15:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The right reference is [2]. This one can also be interesting [3]. Ruslik (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation templates

The citation (including Harvard citation) and cite xxx templates can not be used together per Wikipedia:CITE#Citation_templates. If the article is to go to FAC, this issue should be resolved. I encountered this problem when Nebular Hypothesis was in FAC (see comments of Ealdgyth). Ruslik (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm worried about that, but I disagree that that is a problem in this case. The citation template is used exclusively in the Further reading section because it allows for Harvard citations, which are used appropriately in footnotes for large works (mostly the Zeilik and Gregory textbook) that are cited repeatedly with varying page numbers. The cite XXX templates are used exclusively in the footnotes. Therefore, there is no conflict in format within either of the two reference sections (which is the stated reason in the MOS for the preference to choose one or the other, despite Ealdgyth's statements to the contrary in the FAC review). If this becomes a problem at the FAC review, I'm willing to fight it at least a bit because I think there's a good reason to use the citation template in the Further reading section.

If an editor (hypothetically) opposes a FA promotion purely because the bottom of the page lists both template:citation and template:cite xxx without listening to an explanation, that's absurd. ASHill (talk | contribs) 13:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be, but I've seen FAs opposed for more absurd reasons. Serendi^podous 13:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I think the current format is rather functional. If it really bothers someone, we can fix it during the review, but my preference is to wait until then. ASHill (talk | contribs) 14:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Late Heavy Bombardment

Was it only the inner planets that were affected by the LHB? I thought similar cratering was found on Callisto and the smaller moons of Saturn. Serendi^podous 14:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The main evidance about LHB comes from the Moon. It is also known from the crater statistics that the bodies that struck it came from the asteroid belt. The other inner planets are more problematic. Venus due to its thick atmosphere and young surface does not presents any evidence of LHB; and little is known about Mercury. The only remaining planet is Mars. Most scientist seem to aggree that it also suffered LHB, because, if Moon's impactors came from the asteroid belt, they should have struck Mars too. However the absolute ages of Martian rock are not known, so surprises are possible.

The outer Solar System is even more problematic. There are basically two chronologies: one of Shoemaker and Zahnle and another of Neukum and Wagner. The former one assumes the more or less stable cratering rates over the age of Solar System due to mainly comets. The latter, using the similarity of the impactor size distribution, aguers that the LHB happened in the outer Solar System as well. However in the latter case the population of the impactors must come from the asteroid belt, which seems dynamically imposible.

So LHB in the outer Solar System is still a controversal hypothesis. If it took places the impactors must have been comets, not asteroids. Ruslik (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I should note here, if the LHB in the inner system was cause by the disruption of the asteroid belt by the migrating giant planets (as is said in the article), the LHB must have occured in the outer system too. However the population of the impactors must have been different from the inner system.Ruslik (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Author format

We need to choose a consistent format standard for the authors in references, as it's currently a messy hodge-podge. (sp?) My suggestion:

• Doe, Jane A.; Smith, Bill S.; Johnson, Fred; et al.

or

• Doe, J. A.; Smith, B. S.; Johnson, F.; et al.

(Using full given names optionally, when available.) I am in no way wedded to this idea; it's just what the citation templates use when you specify first= and last= parameters, which is rarely done in this article. ASHill (talk | contribs) 15:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been going through and regularising them to first-name-first order. I don't mean to sound dictatorial or anything but I added most of the refs for this article myself, and I use first-name-first, full name when available. Since most of the refs are in that format, I think any changes should follow that standard. I'm sorry; I know this is frustrating but this is just one of those things that only happens on Wikipedia, like British/American spelling conflicts. Serendi^podous 15:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I didn't notice particularly that you've been fixing them that way; I just noticed a mix and picked one more or less randomly. All I care about is that we stick a format and use it uniformly. So, the author format should be

• Jane A. Doe, Bill S. Smith, Fred Johnson, et al.

or

• J. A. Doe, B. S. Smith, F. Johnson, et al.

right? (I'm glad I asked rather than choosing a format myself and starting to implement it!) ASHill (talk | contribs) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. Serendi^podous 18:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bold title

A minor manual of style point: The boldfacing of the title has gone back and forth. WP:MOSBOLD says "If the article topic does not have a commonly accepted name, but is merely descriptive, the title does not need to appear in the first sentence, and is not bolded if it does." I think that applies here; 'formation and evolution of the Solar System' is a descriptive phrase, not a term per se. Therefore, I've unbolded the title. ASHill (talk | contribs) 14:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Chronological

This article ought to be re-organised chronologically with new sections styled as:

==5 billion years ago==

==4 billion years ago==

==3 billion years ago==

==2 billion years ago==

==1 billion years ago==

==Now==

==1 billion years from now==

Such a narration would help the readers grasp the dynamic context of evolution and also filter out minor from major trend shifts. Such a style would be similar to logarithmic scale and help retain the gist of the argument. Else, the article would risk meandering away into too many directions.Anwar (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines, but it would be difficult to do, because so many events are interrelated and cause one another to happen. Serendi^podous 11:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that reorganizing the whole article in that format would be helpful; organizing by physical process makes more sense, particularly because the exact relative timeframe of all the events isn't known perfectly, and many of the events described in this article aren't strictly related to each other. However, a single place where the timeline of the events is consolidated might be useful. I've taken a stab of creating a table with that info at User:Ashill/Sandbox/chronology; if that might be a good thing to include, please hack away at it, as it still needs some work.

I do worry, however, that including such a table will lead readers to read just the table, even though it can only be an inaccurate/incomplete shorthand for reality. ASHill (talk | contribs) 13:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

1) The Protostellar Sun is established at center at 100,000, not 50 million. The classical (accreting) T-Tauru stage 0.1-10 million years, weakly lined—10-100 million years.

2) Water was delivered during giant impacts phase (10-100 million years), not at 800 million years.

3) The oldest now rocks are 3.9 billion years old, so they formed at 700 million, not 500.

4) Colors should not be so bright! Blue text on red backgound is one of the most awful combinations.

Ruslik (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

1) Ayup. Will fix.

2) Oops; I saw the 3.8 billion number in the delivery of water section and didn't read carefully.

3) Yeah, I apparently have some subtraction issues. 4.6-3.9=0.5, apparently. ;)

4) Colors are a placeholder to decide if they're useful; I have no intent of using those particular colors. (I intend this whole table as a proof-of-concept at this point—is the concept good enough to worry about fixing these details?) ASHill (talk | contribs) 14:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've given it a slight reworking. If I might suggest (I have no idea how to do this) to avoid confusion, it might be a good idea to colour-code the various time periods; one colour for events that occurred before Solar System formation; one for events that occurred before the present; one for the present and one for the future. Serendi^podous 14:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added colors based on the life phases of the Sun (pre-formation, forming, main sequence, post-main sequence, and remnant). The colors I've chosen are extraordinarily garish, but that can be changed. I've also added a column with these phases labeled, which may be useful instead of or in addition to the colors. ASHill (talk | contribs) 14:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! I'd only recommend changing the darker colours to pastels to make the text easier to read. Serendi^podous 14:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Alex your table looks great! The fact that all of us occasionally subtract incorrectly might prove that a table like this is useful.
1) Maybe the sentence about the Sun after 1 trillion years should be dropped down onto its own line? It's a big jump from several billion to a trillion.
2) Should we include when the habitable zone will encompass Mars? -- Kheider (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at expanding the end, but I can't seem to make it work. Any ideas how I can fix it? Thanks. Serendi^podous 16:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. You need to adjust the rowspan=n parameter in the column header. ASHill (talk | contribs) 16:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Oh I see! That was driving me nuts! :) Serendi^podous 16:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the progress this table has made. I'm concerned about saying that the Sun goes through the AGB and HB phases 11.1 billion years after it's formed—we sure don't have three significant figures for that number! We do know that those phases will last one or a few hundred million years, though. Perhaps the clock should be reset with each color-coded section? Have the 'timeframe' column for those events just say "100 million years later"? Other ideas? ASHill (talk | contribs) 16:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've had another go. Serendi^podous 17:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it. When it's ready, where should the table go? Somewhere on the formation and evolution page, or should it get its own page?

Before it's moved into article space, each point will probably need to be individually referenced, although it's all just distilled from the main article. ASHill (talk | contribs) 18:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Originally, I had it put in the "Chronology" section, made Chronology a 2 "=" section and moved it to just below "History". The Chronology section would also have to be expanded to discuss how studies of other stars have led to understanding how and when the Sun will enter its later stages. Serendi^podous 18:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That might work, but the table is quite wide; would it look OK as an embedded table? What if it's placed appendix-like right at the end? That also wouldn't require expanding early sections to talk about the future evolution of the Sun and other things that are mentioned later in the article. ASHill (talk | contribs) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind it going on the bottom, but I still think it needs an intro paragraph. I've also been working on citing it. Serendi^podous 19:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is almost over. All that's required now is some explanation in the chronology section of how the future timeline for the Solar System's evolution was determined. Serendi^podous 05:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, we need to sort this out. The Sun will start to become a red giant in 4.5 billion years. It will have become a red giant within 7.5 billion years, and will remain a red giant for 1 billion years. That, at least, is how I am reading the text. So should the first part of the post- main-sequence chronology read "9-12 billion years" and the second read "13 billion years"?

Actually I think this table is really helping this article; it's showing up the issues in timing we still haven't resolved. Serendi^podous 07:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what I was getting it in saying we should reset the clock or find something else to do with each timeframe. The span of the post-main sequence phases (1-2 Gyr) is better known that precisely when it will happen (about 10 Gyr after the Sun formed, plus or minus a few) -- the entire post-main sequence life fits into the uncertainty in the actual time it will occur, but the sequence of events as a giant are better known than that. This isn't a solution, just a comment.

I agree, thinking through all this is really helping the article. ASHill (talk | contribs) 14:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure such a timeline would be advisable. The table is already quite dense (the average reader is going to have problems working out that the numbers are actually from the birth of the Sun, not from today), so I think restarting the timeline would only make things more confusing. Serendi^podous 15:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I do agree. I just hope most readers don't take the timeline too literally. ASHill (talk | contribs) 15:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Zero-age main sequence time of Sun

Does this reference

• A. Chrysostomou, P. W. Lucas (2005). "The Formation of Stars". Contemporary Physics. 46: 29.

give a timeframe for the Sun's arrival on the main sequence? I don't have access to the ref, and the 100 Myr number sounded rather high and is higher than what my textbooks say, so I switched the number to 20 Myr with a different ref. ASHill (talk | contribs) 15:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

In this ref the timeframe for the 1 solar mass star is 3.16×10⁷ years. Ruslik (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

HR diagram

Should this article contain maybe a paragraph or two on the HR diagram? It mentions the main sequence and the asymtotic giant branch but doesn't really explain what they are. I don't know enough about astrophysics to write it myself, but I thought someone else might have a go. Serendi^podous 13:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. We can't go into explaining every arcane astronomical term; we don't explain planetary nebula other than to say it's misleading, for example. We do explain what asymptotic giant branch and main sequence actually mean (post-horizontal branch red giant and hydrogen-burning star, respectively), and they're wikilinked. I think this sentence is enough explanation for this article: "Astronomers estimate that the Solar System as we know it today will not change drastically until the Sun has fused all the hydrogen fuel in its core into helium, beginning its evolution off of the main sequence of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram and into its red giant phase."

However, I know what all these terms mean, so I'm probably not the best person to answer this question. If H-R diagram does not more explanation, I can happily write it. ASHill (talk | contribs) 14:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Death of Phobos

It is funny that people are questioning the estimated time line of 30-80 million years that Michael Busch put into the Phobos article on 29 October 2006. Someone just replaced the ref over at Phobos with an ETA of 11 million years. Is that a reliable source?

Highlights:

• estimated that within 50 Myr Phobos will crash into Mars[Duxbury 2007]
• 7.6Myr Phobos will be pulverized into Saturn-like annular ring
• 10.4My from now Phobos will be destroyed
• Just submitted on 10 May 2008

-- Kheider (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it as citation needed because the cited source (Holsapple 2001) makes no mention that I see of any timescale. I still see no reliable source that mentions any timescale, including in that 2006 edit (which I was not aware of before -- I'm far too new here).

I'm not confident in the reliability of that new source (Sharma 2008), which is also used here; it's posted on astro-ph but with no indication that it's been submitted to any journal or published anywhere reliable. In fact, the source cites Wikipedia, a definite no-no for a reliable source! ASHill (talk | contribs) 22:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

When I cited that Desdemona may collide with a neighboring moon, I played it safe and went with the high estimate of "within a 100 million years" even though the ref suggests as little as 4 million years. We need to accurately measure the decent rate of Phobos. Sharma2008 suggests a range of 8 to 11 million years which is a lot less than the previous 30-80 (50) million year estimate. -- Kheider (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any citation anywhere for the 30-80 Myr estimate, and I've spent the last hour or more searching the literature. Is there one? After a more careful reading of Holsapple 2001, it does support (indirectly) a timescale of "within 10⁸ [i. e. 100 million] years", so I've used that number. Otherwise, the closest I can find is a comment that Phobos is inside the Roche limit (Lynch et al). I really don't think Sharma 2008 is currently a reliable enough source to use here, since there's no indication that it is intended for publication anywhere, and it's not in a publishable state anyway (most glaringly, the citations of Wikipedia for the orbital data of Phobos). ASHill (talk | contribs) 03:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed the reference to this one. It clearly says that within 30-50 million years Phobos will collide with Mars. However this number should be treated only as an upper limit. Real lifetime will be shorter because of the difficulties in modeling of later stages of the orbital evolution. Ruslik (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

How long will it be before the Earth and the Moon are tidally locked to one another?

I've been looking for a figure but I can't find one. Plus, at some point the Earth is going to become tidally locked to the Sun, so what will happen to the Moon then? Serendi^podous 08:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The time needed to tidally brake the Earth's rotation to match the Moon's orbital period is much longer than the expected life span of the Sun. So it doesn't really matter, except as a curiosity. What might matter, however, is a possible destabilization of the Earth's obliquity in 1.5–4.5 Gyr.[4]—RJH (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm....Evolution?

I don't want to be a stickler or anything, but evolution in the scientific context applies only to living things, specifically, reproducing populations of organisms. The cosmos are not alive and thus cannot Evolve.Busboy (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The word evolution predates Darwin and has a lot of different meanings, so I think restricting it to biology is a bit of a mistake; it was originally used in geology, then in embyology. Wikipedia already has Galaxy formation and evolution and stellar evolution, so I think the word, as you define it, is probably beyond rescue. Serendi^podous 06:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Request page be moved to Formation of the solar system as better NPOV title.Andycjp (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I support moving the article. I know Wikipedia is based on voting, but I wish I could make my vote count for more. Seriously, I cannot emphasize enough how much this article _NEEDS_ to be moved. The current title will only serve to worsen misconceptions people have about Science (as evidenced by some of the comments on this talk page). Please, Wikipedia. Move this article. 63.245.164.72 (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with renaming the article. One of the definitions of evolution is gradual development (of anything) and thus it is used correctly here. I've seen evolution of the galaxy/solar system etc. used in numerous print sources- scientific, not creationist. Cadence3 (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The term evolution is widely used in astronomy to describe the gradual change of stars and stellar systems, including the Solar System. This is certainly not the same meaning of the term as in the biological sciences, but evolution is the term used in astronomy and ought to remain here. ASHill (talk | contribs) 05:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Since When is this the Only Logical Theory?

This is a load of trash. Creationism did this, there's no other explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.88.35 (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You just used the terms "logic" and "Creationism" in the same context.

There are many explanations for any one thing. Some are more accepted than others. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and it all formed in 6,000 years and a magical bearded Jesus slept on the 7th day because he was tired. Right. Even your own 'logic' makes no sense. How the hell does God get tired? Where is the logic in that?

Obvious troll is obvious, stop feeding him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.117.171 (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey people, I'm just wondering when this 'formation and evolution of the solar system' became fact. I thought that wikipedia was supposed to be unbiased and such... having this as their feature article seems oddly biased towards this point of view. I tried even changing the first line to "Some believe that..." and it was marked as vandalism. Seems like rubbish to me. What about the billions of other people in this world that believe differently than this article? Honestly Wikieditors... seems oddly hypocritical to say you're unbiased and then publish this as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.121.122 (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you want us to do? List this theory alongside every single creation myth ever written or spoken throughout history? This is a scientific article. It discusses the universe from a scientific point of view. The preponderance of scientific evidence to date has led astronomers to this conclusion, a point which is made in the article many times, and in the history sub article. This conclusion could be wrong, but more evidence will be needed to test it before it is ever discarded. Serendi^podous 09:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? First of all, THERE IS A PAGE FOR CREATIONISM ALREADY. Secondly, the reason we don't mention non-scientific explanations is two fold: 1) 'theory' in science does NOT mean 'just a guess,' it means 'the thing which is closest to being a fact which isn't itself a fact.' Theories in science are corroborated by immense amounts of data, and, thusly, are treated as if they were facts since such an overwhelming amount of counter-evidence would be needed to overthrow them. Essentially, they ARE facts (at least, the widely held ones are). 2) When you want to find out something, you need to find out from someone who is an expert in said field. Scientists are experts in the field of astronomy (in this case), so we must adhere to their explanations. Just as you don't ask a basketball player how to ferment the sweetest wine, so too do you not ask creationists about the evolution of the universe. And on top of that, what 'billions of people' believe is not relevant, since billions of people probably also believe in ghosts, Santa Clause (or some other holiday figure), and all kinds of other superstitions. We only care about what the small minority of really intelligent, really trained, and really experienced people have to say. 96.238.244.134 (talk) 09:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Creationism aside, "We only care about what the small minority of really intelligent, really trained, and really experienced people have to say." ...excuse me? These "really intelligent, trained and experienced" people are infallible? We are people therefore every single one of us is flawed in one way or another. The majority placing their views on a very small minorities opinion is extremely dangerous. Think back to ancient Greece. The very basis of science is challenging other peoples views, or we'd still be believing Aristotle and Copernicus. One must remember that these things are entirely theorycraft, however much 'evidence' is interpreted by the scientists. All of whom have their own views and expectations. Talk to a creationist about evolution and they'll choke on their own tongue in their haste to disagree, speak to a evolutionist and they'll do exactly the same about creation. Global warming is a prime example of how peoples' interpretation of data can change the 'evidence' to argue for either side. I feel if scientists actually tried interpreting the 'evidence' on it's own merit and coming to a conclusion - even if it's "we don't entirely know" - instead of taking sides science would be closer to what it should be. TleilaxuMaster (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Science is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. 69.203.78.86 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, there's a simple solution the Creationists need to use to resolve this once and for all- PROVE IT WRONG. Science, over the centuries, has been incorrect a number of times, and instead of perpetuating the same story to be absolute truth, we have grown and changed our ideas to be correct. If the entire universe was created by an omnipotent being, then prove it, and it will become scientific fact. We have more evidence than one person could ever hope to assimilate in a lifetime- you have an old tome, translated many times by imperfect humans, that you take as the literal word of said being. I've never understood why the creationists who give religion a bad name can't assimilate it into their beliefs- look at Descartes' Meditations, primarily the 'first mover' argument- just because the 'evolution' of our universe occurred, doesn't mean it couldn't be initiated by a creator itself. (not logged in- evanfardreamer) 64.38.194.32 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The cretinist has a point: there are so many articles that would be so much simpler if we just wrote "God did it". •Jim62sch•^dissera! 14:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Part of science is noticing patterns. One pattern you'd have to be blind not to notice is that no matter what the commonly-accepted scientific theory is at the moment, it'll be something else in a short time. Ergo, this article should not be treated as fact, but as the current hypothesis. It's currently written way too matter-of-factly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that everything is unproven theory, and then expect the theory itself to behave like it is. The theory is not that maybe this or that is the case, the theory is that this or that is the case. It has to stand up straight right out in the open so we can all throw stones at it to see whether it will remain standing. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Milkbreath. It is sufficient to say a single time (as is the case in the second paragraph), that this is a "widely accepted model". Once it is established that the content is a scientific theory, ubiquitous repetition of "some people think" kind of phraseology becomes undue weight to a skeptical point of view. It no more belongs here than a point-by-point refutation of the Garden of Eden story within that article. CosineKitty (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not? that's what the Great Flood article is. All I'm asking is a few more "according to this theory.." or "the theory states that" not 'some people think' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In the article you mention, Deluge (mythology), I count at least 20 different flood myths. It is not feasible to avoid some "according to" phrases in such a context. The assertions of astronomy in this article may change a bit as more scientific observations take place in the future, but they are not merely based on a single theory or idea. These are the results of thousands of observations, mathematical derivations, and yes arguments between the brightest minds of humanity over a period of centuries. My objection to "according to this theory" is that it is an inaccurate portrayal of a huge system of thought as if it were a single theory. Furthermore, I cannot see how mythology stands on equal ground with science; if that offends people with faith, it is not my intent. CosineKitty (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE covers this. We are not going to weasel-word the article to satisfy a fringe-minority of scientists, nor are we going to treat a science article as dubious based on religious preferences. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Formation of elements

I don't think that red giants start form all of the elements in the universe. The sun will become a red giant, and it will not form any elements beyond oxygen in the periodic table. Heavier elements are formed in Type II supernovas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.105.192 (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. The only place this article makes that claim was in the history section as Hoyle's hypothesis. I've slightly changed the wording, but I don't have access to the source of the statement about Hoyle. For someone who does have the source, did he only talk about heavy elements being formed in red giants (which is a piece of the modern understanding, but not the whole thing), or did he also talk about supernova nucleosynthesis?

Both Type II and Type Ia supernovae are responsible for the heavy elements. ASHill (talk | contribs) 00:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Article / talk page title

Why is the article's title different to the talk page title? Ben (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No idea. I've moved it back. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems User:Andycjp moved the talk page (I guess the main article was protected from moves while it was on the main page). Looking at his recent contribs, it seems he has declared war on the word 'evolution'. Can someone look into this before he makes too much of a mess please. Ben (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning your use of the word "evolution".

Creationists have this lie that the "theory of evolution" involves the entire creation of the universe, form the Big Bang onward. There was a tract that Jack Chick did containing this common straw man used by the creationist movement.

So please, for the love of God, change the title. Find something better than the word "evolution". This will play right into their misconceptions of science.

Wonderful article, by the way. Wonderful encycolpedia, too. Keep up the good work! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.164.72 (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but it's probably not a good idea to work the encyclopaedia around a particular groups misconceptions either. Ben (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In the very least, maybe a quick sentence somewhere near the beginning to define the term "evolution"? The only reason I'm looking at this article is because I saw it on the front page, with this title, and my first thought was that a creationist snuck the title in. I'm aware that the ignorance of a few is not enough reason to change the title of an encyclopedia, however given that this ignorance is spread wilfully, using the lie that "the theory of evolution" has something to do with the solar system, maybe the meaning of the word should be clarified, even if briefly. 74.14.122.167 (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it could be added as a note; it doesn't really belong in the main page. Serendi^podous 10:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, that's a VERY good point. and I see what you mean. We shouldn't pander to insane minorities. However, I think that's not the only reason to change the title. The term "evolution" simply doesn't apply here. In everyday usage, "evolution" means many different things, but in scientific jargon, it means BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.164.72 (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Within biology, I'd agree with you. Within the wider scientific community though, I disagree. Check out Evolution (term) for some details. Ben (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Evolution at Wiktionary -- notice the FIRST definition. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And in particular, evolution means 'gradual change', which is more appropriate to any description of the changes undergone in the Solar System over time than alternative words like 'development' or simply 'change'. ASHill (talk | contribs) 06:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the heat and presuppositions surrounding the word 'evolution' surely development is more neutral?Andycjp (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A single user's concern is hardly 'heat'. I don't think you're looking at this from a NPOV Andycjp (see here). Might be best to sit this one out. Ben (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a least 4 editors on my side here, on this and other talk pages. Please stop misrepresenting my position.Andycjp (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're a funny person Andycjb :) Ben (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose renaming per Ben. If necessary this issue should be posted on WP:RFCsci to achieve consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Development" really does sound better. I couldn't think of a better term earlier, but, whether evolution is a valid term for this sort of thing or not (and I'm actually beginning to think it is), I think "development" is still a much better term. 63.245.164.72 (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What I think "Andycjp" meant by "heat and presuppositions surrounding the word 'evolution'" was the overall controversy sorounding evolution, not "A single user's (me) concern". Development is a lot more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.164.72 (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to how the word evolution is somehow not neutral. Can someone explain why evolution is not neutral please? Ben (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I give up. I've clearly begun grasping at straws now. but I just now some creationist out there is gonna get the wrong idea and it's gonna make it all the harder for me the next time I argue with one. :( *sighs* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.164.72 (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Creationists reject the whole concept of science. There simply is no way to reach any kind of accommodation with their position. Therefore how they respond to a single word isn't really relevant. Serendi^podous 05:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I support renaming to "development." 69.203.78.86 (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Development" is usually used in contexts that imply birth and growth. Embryonic development, cancer development, situation development. Human development. Since this article also deals with death and aging, it is less appropriate here. Serendi^podous 07:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Either that, or the "history of the solar system." 69.203.78.86 (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

History? Most of what's on this page hasn't happened yet. And besides, if we're going to be needlessly pedantic about the word "evolution," I should point out that "history" is the study of written records. Serendi^podous 07:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This argument is insane. The word "evolution" can be applied to more than just the evolution of life. This word had meaning well before the "theory of evolution" was ever dreamed of. Look it up in any dictionary and you will see many definitions outside the realm of biology. Arguing that the word evolution only has meaning to biologists and creationists is like arguing that a swastika only has meaning to Nazis and is a form of reductio ad hitlerum. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Evolution" means "A gradual process of development, formation, or growth", so it's entirely appropriate as a title here. "History" and "Development" have incorrect connotations (since we're talking about things that pre-date prehistory and aging isn't the same as development). If there are people who have an aversion to a word because of another unrelated phrase that it occurs in (evolution of species by natural selection) then it's not the job of an encyclopedia to change article titles for their sake.MartinPoulter (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Evolution is most certainly the correct word; in fact it's the only word that can or should be used. (BTW: you can't pre-date prehistory ... probably just a typo). •Jim62sch•^dissera! 14:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I second the opinion that the word evolution is perfectly acceptable here. The word evolution was in the English language long before there was a theory of natural selection. Just because some people have a knee-jerk reaction to it is no reason to water down the language in a scientific article. To do so would be akin to avoiding a phrase like chicken breast in an article about the meat-packing industry, just because it antagonizes a few anti-pornography activists. CosineKitty (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

When this whole FA thing is over we're going to have to have a chat about how you use those chicken breasts. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. What happens in my kitchen, stays in my kitchen!  :) CosineKitty (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Section "Moons"

There is a sentence fragment in Section "Moons": "A percentage of the impactor's mantle kicked up by the collision ending up in orbit and coalescing into a moon." Not only is it not a sentence, I don't know what it means. I hope somebody reading this will know and fix it. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know either, but I would guess "A percentage of the impactor's mantle kicked up by the collision ended up in orbit and coalesced into a moon." Not sure if that's what was intended, but it makes a little more sense. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Or, if you prefer: "A percentage of the impactor's mantle that was kicked up by the collision ended up in orbit, coalescing into a moon." --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've clarified the sentence, I hope. ASHill (talk | contribs) 06:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In 4.6 Billion years

The UNIVERSE was formed? That must be a typo...

I'd change it myself, but I don't have a source (and for those who don't know, 4.6 billion years is outrageously shorter than what it actually took) 96.238.244.134 (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Serendi^podous 09:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Nevermind. I'm an idiot (thought it said 4.6 billion for universe, not solar system).96.238.244.134 (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Swedenborg?

It seems odd to include Swedenborg as the equal of Laplace. That is, it seems to equate coming up with an interesting idea with actually doing the math. I wonder about Kant for the same reason. Any experts in the field want to weigh in on that? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

Currently, the lead starts with:

"The formation and evolution[1] of the Solar System began 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud. Most of the collapsing mass collected in the centre, forming the Sun, while the rest flattened into a protoplanetary disc out of which the planets, moons, asteroids, and other small Solar System bodies formed."

and then segues into a discussion of the nebular hypothesis. As I see it, this is rather a POV way to open the article; as mentioned in the nebular hypothesis article, there are some significant problems with that model, and I request that the lead be changed to reflect that there are other theories or at least just to be more neutral.

I'm not going to get involved with editing this article, as I find it impossible to bring a neutral point of view to the table, but I do hope that someone else will make a few changes.

Cerebellum (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• sigh* I feel bad for you guys today, I really do. Every creationist who sees that lead on the front page is gonna be heading over here hungry for blood and spoiling for a fight. Only trying to help, but if you don't want it, that's fine with me..... Cerebellum (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, be happy. We have billions of years yet to get it all straightened out. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Let the cretinists come -- facts are of more value than myths in increasing human knowledge and learning. Yep, that was snarky, but this article is factual and has no place for comforting millennia-old tales of the FSM or Zeus or whatever deity folks want to bow down to. The editors who got this to FA status did an excellent job and stand on firm ground. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 14:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Reword?

This "Water delivered to Earth." seems a bit weird as a standalone statement. I realise there's a ref, but ... •Jim62sch•^dissera! 14:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is rather funny. I see an old bearded guy in a white robe with a water-cooler refill on his shoulder. The matter is talked about in the article in "Asteroid belt", so this is just shorthand. I can't think of a better way of putting it. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is "water arrives to Earth" better ?Ruslik (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No. "Arrives to" is not idiomatic English. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe by adding "by comets and asteroids" or something like that. The bearded man scares me.  :) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How exact should we be talking about nucleosynthesis?

I almost made a change to the following text, but I wondered if it would have been too nit-picky at the expense of brevity:

Hydrogen and helium, which were produced by Big Bang nucleosynthesis, formed about 98% of the mass. The remaining 2% of the mass consisted of heavier elements that were created by nucleosynthesis in earlier generations of stars.

When I read the Big Bang nucleosynthesis article, it points out that simple hydrogen (H1) has a nucleus that is just a single proton, so arguably nucleosynthesis does not pertain to it. Another consideration is that small amounts of lithium are also thought to have been produced by the Big Bang. While only a small part of the mass, someone reading the above text might think that lithium was produced only by stars. Finally, seeing mention of "98% of the mass" might be better worded as "98% of observable mass", due to the missing mass problem and theories that explain the missing mass like dark matter and dark energy. So my question is, in the editorial judgment of others here, where do we draw the line between being a "good enough" summary and being extremely precise and complete? CosineKitty (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this field, but I'd say that all articles should be as correct and precise as possible. It sounds like you know what you're talking about, so I think you should change whatever you think needs to be changed. WP:BOLD. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I did a slight copyedit. Dark matter doesn't really come into it at Solar System level. Serendi^podous 14:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The fraction of metals created during Big Bang Nucleaosynthesis is something like one part in ten thousand. Similarly, the amount of Dark Matter in the Sun/Solar System is entirely negligible (Presumably one could work out upper limits from the Pioneer Anomoly, but really ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 15:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I reworded it slightly, but I think the current summary is 'good enough' for this context; 98% of the mass in the Solar System is hydrogen and helium (because there's no dark matter or dark energy in the Solar System). We could say "98% of the baryonic mass", but then we would have to explain what "baryonic mass" means, which is completely off topic for this article. ASHill (talk | contribs) 15:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, well ... "because there's no dark matter or dark energy in the Solar System". •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the edits that were made to this section. It was exactly what I wanted to say, only I couldn't figure out a non-awkward way to say it. By adding "... of the collapsing cloud" we increase precision while side-stepping a distracting, tangential discussion of the missing mass problem. I also like the way hydrogen was set apart as not being created by nucleosynthesis, without having to break the sentence up, which would have spoiled the flow. The inclusion of lithium is important, because even some fairly well-educated people who are not experts will find that surprising and interesting. CosineKitty (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Regarding this edit: "I do not consider" is not a NPOV, and "is said" would be "is believed". You are free to believe what you want. When it comes to the Solar System I like to see supporting scientific evidence, and that is what this article is about. I could state that Pluto is larger than the Sun, but I would miss-representing their Angular diameters as seen from Charon. -- Kheider (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition to inserting covert POV commentary, many of these edits (as the one Kheider cites) are screwing up the grammar, e.g. "said to have began[sic]". When editing an article in a controversial way, it does not help your case to butcher the quality of the prose itself. CosineKitty (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of these edits are from IP's and SPA's trying to push the universe is only 6000 years old POV. It's happened with other FA articles like Intelligent design and Evolution. It's part of the fun of editing Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)