Talk:Gould Belt

Age

30 million years seems far too recent to move so many stars. Are we sure that pop article is correct on that fact? 300 million or 3 billion seems more likely.Mzmadmike (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the abstract of the original journal article (which I've now cited), 30 million years is correct. -- Avenue (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is also consistent with an age estimate based on the belt's 3D dynamical evolution, from C. A. Perrot and I. A. Grenier (2003), 3D dynamical evolution of the interstellar gas in the Gould Belt, Astronomy and Astrophysics 404 (2), 519-531, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030477. -- Avenue (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. I'd suggest some clarification as to what was created 30 million years ago. Did this cause stars to move to their current positions? As it reads, it seems to indicate they were created at that time.Mzmadmike (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radcliffe Wave

"It has been suggested that Radcliffe wave be merged into this article"

No! The Gould_Belt article should be merged into the Radcliffe_wave article.meregio —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the articles should be merged. The Gould Belt is a well-known observational phenomenon, and deserves its own article. -- Elphion (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strange wording

The entire first section is oddly worded, ungrammatical (e.g., “further to” for “further from”), and in places unintelligible. For instance, what is one to make of this sentence? “The dense plane of the Milky Way, looking slightly and fully tangentially, and then outward, makes luminosity and dust in forming the central axis for its course, though stays in Scorpius, not passing noticeably into Lupus and stays to one side of Orion, for instance.” Jmacwiki (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More strange and uninterpretable wording in intro:

The Sun is closest to the Orion part of its recent star-created sub-belt of the many times longer Orion Arm. This means the solar system is about 325 light-years away, though about 100 light-years further to the more extensive Radcliffe wave's stars, dust and gas in the Taurus molecular cloud, which is the nearest large star-forming region.

I don't know what the first sentence is saying, but I'm sure it tries to say far too much in too few words, and it seems irrelevant to the Gould Belt. The second sentence is completely garbled: away from what? further from what? - also trying to say too much in too few words, and mostly doesn't belong in the introduction.

I deleted this from the intro. Someone who knows more can try to replace anything of value in it. Zaslav (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have rearranged and rewritten the article to be more intelligible. The idea that the belt has been "largely superseded" by the Radcliffe Wave is misleading: the Gould Belt properly refers to the ring of stars, and is an observable phenomenon. What has been superseded is the presumption that the belt itself is a circular physical structure. -- Elphion (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]