Talk:Ocean planet

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 26, 2012	Articles for deletion	Speedily kept

History information

The oldest edit of page Ocean world was made by editing page Ocean planet's edit of 21:36, 24 September 2017‎ by User:AnomieBOT :: the edit history has been split there. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

surface

Does the planate's surface really have to be water to be an ocean planet, or can it be any liquid? This is an important distinction since there are plenty of other liquids common enough to form oceans besides water. For instance, sulfuric acid (found in significant amounts on Venus), methane, nitrogen, molten rock (like in the Earth's early history). Pulu (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good question, I would like to have an answer to it as well.--xgmx (T | C | D | R) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.0.229 (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ocean planet concept is particularly notable due to water's capacity to facilitate the chemical reactions which support life. None of the other chemicals you mentioned satisfy this. The practice of searching for exoplanets is partially, maybe primarily, motivated due to the possibility of supporting life.VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voyager

I don't think the planet in the Voyager episode was an "ocean planet" as defined here. It was entirely water, held together in planet shape by some treknobabble. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be removed. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterworld

What about the movie "Waterworld" with Kevin Costner? Would that be considered an ocean planet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.66.122.247 (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In science fiction, it'd probably be called one... as for non-sf... 76.66.193.69 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, in movie there was an island where that girl was born. Also, depth of the ocean wasn't too large (as for definitions "hundred kilometers" and "more than on Earth"). Costner's character dives into water himself (without engines or anyth) and spends there couple of hours (at least less than day). So depth can be some kilometers, not 100. Even if we count 11 km of Mariana Trench - thats nothing.

So - "Waterworld"'s Earth is not ocean planet. May be... wet, but no more. Dendr (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ice giants & Super-Earths

In some articles and papers I've seen, there seems to be two distinct classes of Ocean Planets, one would be a terrestrial Super-Earth endowed with alot of water, the other would be an ice giant that migrated inward... Hot Neptunes and such. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the article needs fleshing out to explain the link/connection to Neptune class planets, which are a type of ocean planet. Fig (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't "ocean planets" have water 7?

By "water 7", I'm referring to the physical state where water molecules come under so much pressure that they condense from liquid into solid. Thoughts, anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.182.38 (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Ice VII, that would be possible on a melted ice giant. 70.29.211.163 (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any literature on that to add to the article? Otherwise, this is not the place to discuss that. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is literature on it. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ice-vii+ocean+planet&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on 76.66.197.17 (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? This is exactly the place to discuss that. If the information absolutely belonged in the article and he had definitive sources, he would have added it instead of using the (ironically named) discussion section 168.158.220.3 (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

Several issues with including the composition "75% H2O (and 22% MgSiO3, 3% Fe)" for GJ1214b in this article (all statements per the Rogers & Seager reference in the GJ 1214b article):

It's a quote taken out of context: you have to assume the relative proportions in that composition to constrain one parameter in it, and an infinite number of other compositions would be equally consistent with the observed exoplanet parameters. By quoting components at the level of 2 significant figures without explanation, it implies to the non-expert that this composition is reasonably well-founded as opposed to almost complete speculation.
It omits and hides the only reasonably solid conclusion in the refs for GJ 1214 b, which is that it's likely it has a thick "atmosphere".
This is misleading and non-neutral, unsuitable for an encyclopedic article. To correct it, the points above would have to be represented, which seems inappropriate in an article about ocean planets in general rather than GJ 1214 b specifically (where I added such notes yesterday as it was also slightly misleading).
The effect is to unduly sensationalize a poorly-constrained result, and that's not encyclopedic either.

"If in doubt, leave it out."

Raspw (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy you got "If in doubt, leave it out" from. The inclusion of "consistent with" makes the inclusion of one specific modeled composition entirely acceptable and within policy. I'm also not sure where you get "complete speculation" from. The cited composition is one of many potential compositions, but it is reasonably exemplary of quite a large number of similar compositions (one could perhaps say "more than 50% water and a rocky core"). — Aldaron • T/C 19:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being prepared to discuss this.

It certainly seems inconsistent with neutrality: "NPOV is the cornerstone of general policy content." and "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Here's an illustration why "the inclusion of one specific modeled composition" is POV: "Rhinos have two eyes. You have two eyes, therefore it's consistent that you're a rhino." Or imagine a Boston Globe journalist hearing of a shooting in DC and reporting that it's consistent that Dick Cheney did it.

Amusingly, I didn't get "complete speculation" from anywhere. You get it by taking "complete speculation" out of the context of "almost." I got "almost complete speculation" by reading the abstract of GJ 1214 b reference Rogers & Seager, arXiv:0912.3243: "Based on the mass and radius alone, ... we cannot infer a unique composition of the interior or the gas layer. In this paper we explore the range of possible origins and compositions for the gas layer by considering three end-member scenarios that account for the observed mass and radius: a mini Neptune, a water planet, or an outgassed super Earth." Representing these compositions "fairly, proportionately, and without bias," a watery interpretation of GJ 1214 b shouldn't be mentioned without the others: it's giving "undue weight to a minor point of view" though of course a relatively sensational one.

(Reference to yet-unpublished arXiv manuscripts is less than ideal in a science discussion, though from a very reputable research group, and personally I don't see anything wacky in the arXiv apart from a dubious analogy with Galilean moons.)

More Wikipolicy to bear in mind is "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested." where COI=Conflict of Interest. Also the advice on "campaigning" and "close relationships." I have no COI in discussing candidate ocean planets.

One could perhaps say "more than 50% water and a rocky core" but presenting that hypothesis without due weight to equivalent hypotheses is not neutral and, to me, implies OR that water is the accepted explanation. Where's all the carbon and nitrogen from the mini-Neptune hypothesis? Or how about a rocky (~25%) planet entirely covered with fish, per Douglas Adams' designer planets? That's just as consistent with the observation, and matches the nucleosynthesis abundances better. A neutral-ish statement might be "it has been proposed that the mass and radius of GJ 1214 b may be consistent with an ocean planet of ~25% rocky core and ~75% water, though many other compositions are also possible (reference)."

Come to think of it, the phrase "most likely known candidate" lacks neutrality, as "most likely" subtly implies "likely" which is POV. I suppose we could rephrase more neutrally as "least unlikely" or "only possible candidate found so far."

Really never heard the "doubt: out" quote? It's known as the Journalist's Maxim and Editor's Golden Rule, and I'm sure the IRS would like us to apply it to deductions. I believe it's originally by Confucius, as it also rhymes and scans in period Chinese. It's common sense, and that's also a Wikipedia editorial policy - e.g. see "close relationship" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raspw (talk • contribs) 19:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real ocean planets

The article currently lists only one example of a real ocean planet - "The extrasolar planet GJ 1214 b is the most likely known candidate for an ocean planet". However, the Wiki article on Gliese_581_d states that GI 581d is "the first serious Ocean planet candidate". Perhaps it also should be mentioned here?--87.96.53.104 (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Probus[reply]

Total Annihilation

Core contingency featured an ocean planet which I don't recall what it's name was exactly, someone please add it to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.164.149 (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The creation account in Genesis

According to the creation account in the Bible our earth was covered to 100% with water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.158.44.241 (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being 100% covered in water and being a ocean planet are not the same thing. Something covered in water would still be a rocky planet if the coverage is thin. And even a few km of total water coverage is very thin and would not constitute enough water to class it as an Ocean planet. HumphreyW (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also question if Genesis qualifies as a reliable source. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could a mention be OK in the "Fictional ocean planets" section? --Cyclopia ^talk 03:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an issue of a fictional "ocean planet", which Genesis isn't referring to (unless you consider Earth fictional), nor is Earth an ocen planet by def, & the RS issue remains. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(What he's saying is that Genesis is mythology and fictional) I believe the closest "scientific" analogue of the earth prior to creation in the hebrew tradition would be a body completely composed of water, which might not be a planet at all, therefore it would not be a "fictional ocean planet".VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other types of ocean

Regarding the deletion of info from the "Other types of ocean" section:

The NASA site http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_picture.asp?id=710 says "Giant Jupiter has a thin gaseous atmosphere covering a vast global ocean of liquid hydrogen." The paper http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9907402 says "Jupiter and Saturn are thought to be fluid","The division between each region is, in reality, rather vague.","there is no gas/liquid or gas/solid phase transition". i.e. there is no sharp dividing line between the gaseous layer and the liquid layer. These references were listed in Wikipedia's Jupiter article.

Evidence for the existence of sub-surface oceans on various satellites is discussed in Wikipedia's articles on those moons. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2010.02.020 says "observations can be explained if Titan has a floating, isostatically-compensated ice shell". http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.0032 says "A number of synchronous moons are thought to harbor water oceans beneath their outer ice shells. A subsurface ocean frictionally decouples the shell from the interior.". Qurq (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable statement

Page states "The oceans on such planets would be hundreds of kilometers deep, much deeper than the oceans of Earth". Why is this a necessary condition for an 'Ocean Planet'? Why wouldn't a planet entirely covered in water, though to only a shallow depth, be considered an 'ocean planet'? Article seems to imply that this is not possible but clearly we can expect to find a full range of water coverage and depths on other planets - from total coverage hundreds of kilometers deep, to partial shallow coverage.

12.77.86.2 (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)concerned reader[reply]

I removed a link because the page didn't mention any novella by Alastair Reynolds, it mentions a book by the same title, by another author. It redirects to a page about an album called "Heaven up Here" but the URL has the words "Turquoise Days". Is there really a reference to an ocean planet? There's no reference to Alastair Reynolds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turquoise_Days

In the 2002 book Turquoise Days: The Weird World of Echo & the Bunnymen, author Chris Adams said that in 1995 McCulloch had said, "That spikey edge [of the album] still stands up."[9] In relation to their style of music, in 1980 McCulloch had said, "I always say 'We're a rock band'. Because I'm proud of that." He added, "I like rock music [...] I prefer being good or great within that basic format [...] I just prefer basic songs."[10] 99.9.112.31 (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond_Dogs,_Turquoise_Days by Alastair Reynolds contains a story which takes place on an ocean planet.VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Life?

On earth's surface the fertile regions covered in ocean are all on the contintental margins where erosion and wave action carry nutrients into the waters- later on these sink to the bottom, to be carried up again only by volcanic or tectonic uplift action. We also have on the bottom various sorts of seeps and smokers where more isolated populations of specialized organisms can thrive. So imagine then an ocean planet with no dry land, and the bottom a hundred miles down. I see problems. The surface will never get fertilized (and that is where the light is from the star) so there goes photosynthesis. And the bottom is so far down that pressure kills everything, unless it can adapt to all that, and you also have tectonic recycling (water enhanced, so perhaps fast). We visit the planet and conclude its dead, never bothering to check the ocean bottom. Must be home to the aliens from 'The Abyss'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.81.78 (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're presuming life demands photosynthesis. I know of cases of chemosynthetics (hmm, learned something: correctly, chemotrophs), & I see no reason extraterrestrial evolution wouldn't permit even more exotic solutions. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about underwater supervolcanoes? The water's pressure is so high that there could be massive violent eruptions, fertilizing the water with its minerals?81.71.164.202 (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree. Mere turbulence could move nutrients upward into the photic zone, where (as I understand it) the bulk of the sea life is. (Think of the upwellings at the Grand Banks, frex.) If you're presumng chemotrophs, maybe even more so. Also, tho, volcanoes could add unhappy amounts of CO₂/SO₂, which could be poisonous. Heat input/heat shock could also be an issue. Unless this is a quite routine occurence & the sea life is adapted to it, in which case their life cycle might well depend on the eruption(s). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atmosphere/Heat Distribution

Any information related to the theoretical workings of such planets' atmospheres and how heat is distributed through the atmosphere/ocean system would seem to be highly relevant to the article. --Resplendent (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable?

Would a planet like this be sustainable beyond its early years with the mentioned greenhouse effect, which should eventually boil away the oceans?

Solid surface?

I added some info about possibility of the solid surface read it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_planet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinphoenix (talk • contribs) 15:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at fictional representations of ocean planets, humans are usually able to breathe. So I'm curious, is it possible for those planets to have enough oxygen in their atmosphere for that (and sustain it for a billion years)? Or would the water vapor always eventually drive away the oxygen? What about oxygen producing algae that send it to the surface, is that a plausible reason for humans being able to breathe there? and allowing the ocean planet to exist for long times, because the oxygen drives away the water vapor, reducing the greenhouse effect? 81.71.164.202 (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

♠"greenhouse effect, which should eventually boil away the oceans" Why? CO₂ uptake by ocean life could be much higher than Earth, stellar output could be much lower than Sol, original CO₂ output could be lower than Earth... Doesn't have to come out like Venus.

♠The second is actually more a product of film & TV writers not having a clue, or producers not being able to afford to shoot underwater. :/ TBH, IDK at all if you could get & keep a breathable atmosphere. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I also added a paragraph to the "life?" section on the talk page, 2 topics up. I would also like your input on that. 81.71.164.202 (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ice planet

Are ice planets (Earth or super-Earth-sized planets covered in layer of ice) that have subsurface oceans considered to be ocean planets? Currently, an article or section about ice planets (Planets like OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb) is missing. Are planets like this numerous enough to deserve an article? --Artman40 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have this article on Wikia, you should look it up! Planet Star 21:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be transferred to Wikipedia after many changes to make it more encyclopedia and less fictional. Some examples of probably ice planets would be nice too. --Artman40 (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. We should have that article on WP as ice planets are common and is a common term in both science and fiction. While transferring it, speculations that were on that article on PlanetStar Wikia should be removed. Planet Star 03:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Ocean Planet" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ocean Planet. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 21#Ocean Planet until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 19:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC) (message copied by Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Split from Ocean world

This page was most recently a redirect to Ocean world after that article was moved from this page per discussion at Talk:Ocean world. A previous version of the ocean world (then at Ocean planet) article has now been resurrected here via a complicated history split as requested by Florian Blaschke. First, while of course not required, I think it would have been beneficial to discuss ideas for a WP:SPLIT of the topic at the Ocean world talk page prior to going down this path. The fact that the desired content had been removed from the Ocean world article for some time indicates at least some amount of consensus against having the content, and resurrecting it in a new form (such as in a different article) merits discussion. Second, I think that it would have been appropriate and a lot less messy to simply create a new article with the desired content over the redirect and simply use a permanent link to provide attribution to the version of the article from where the content for the new article was taken. Finally, I am not sure that the term "ocean planet" is used exclusively in the exoplanet context; I feel it is more of a synonym for ocean world.

The problem now is that the requestor has not done anything to cleanup the resurrected content. For example, the lead sentence, with bolded alternative names, is the same as the current version of the ocean world article and must be fixed. There is also a maintenance tag from the old version which needs to be dealt with. While I can certainly see the potential for two articles here, perhaps one focusing on the exoplanet context here at Ocean planet, leaving Ocean world to focus on the general idea and the solar system context, both articles would need to be edited to reflect this with proper hatnotes/links, and these changes would greatly benefit from discussion. Without further editing, this is just a content fork. If no further discussion or improvements are made, I intend to blank and redirect this page back to Ocean world until consensus for a split is formed. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no edits and no discussion here, so I am proceeding to blank and redirect this page back to Ocean world until further discussion occurs. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]