Talk:Solar System/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Outer Solar System

The conventions I see used in the literature I've read still use "outer solar system" for the area outside of the asteroid belt, and use "trans-neptunian" for anything beyond neptune. Here's a source for you [1]. I'm going to need to see some kind of source for this, otherwise I'm assuming it's original research shaggy (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. All these scholarly papers refer to the Kuiper belt as the outer Solar System. Serendi^podous 22:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The nineplanets.org source is questionable at best as a reliable source; clearly, the area beyond Neptune is part of the outer Solar System. However, I don't see the term "mid Solar System" in a cursory look, and it is not in the source that was cited for the term, before my recent edit. Anyway, I think it's pretty clear what the article is talking about as it is, so further discussion of who uses what jargon isn't helpful. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand things have been hectic around here the last few weeks, and I'm not trying to step on any toes here. I've just never seen any reference to the area from jupiter to neptune being called the "mid solar system" or "middle solar system". I know this isn't conclusive, but if you search on google, you get ~470 results for "middle solar system" and ~2000 (mostly wikipedia and mirrors) for "mid solar system", while you get ~182,000 for "outer solar system". In any case, the trans-neptunian region is a subregion of the outer solar system, so we're both correct here. shaggy (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we agree; the article no longer uses the term "mid solar system". (It does use the adjective "middle".) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for cleaning up the things I missed! shaggy (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Gap in Kuiper Belt objects?

The image of the Kuiper Belt objects seems to show a fairly pronounced gap at the bottom of the image. Does anyone know what causes that? --P3d0 (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Milky Way. I asked that question too. :-) Serendi^podous 20:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Got a reference? --P3d0 (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No. I was told by a scientist online. Serendi^podous 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The image description in Commons says In the Kuiper Belt, radial "Spokes" of higher density, or gaps in particular directions are due to observational bias (i.e. where objects were searched for), rather than any real physical structure. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a ref Serendi^podous 17:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool; but in a quick scan I didn't see anything there about angular distribution. Also let me point out that the Milky Way story doesn't actually make sense: all these objects are orbiting the Sun, so there is no way a gap could stay aligned with the Milky Way, or even persist longer than 100 years or so at the very most. Looie496 (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an observational selection effect (or bias, which the article does mention, from my quick scan). Kuiper belt objects are very hard to pick out in the Milky Way. Extragalactic folks call the Milky Way the zone of avoidance for related reasons. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I get it now, thanks. Milky Way-related bias, not Milky Way-related distribution. Looie496 (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Awww, that's not as cool as I thought it was. --19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. When I asked what caused the hole, I asked whether Galactus had taken a bite out of it. When someone explained the real cause, another poster complained that the Galactus hypothesis didn't get more airtime. :-) Serendi^podous 19:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it time to split?

This article is now almost 100 k long. I've been wondering whether or not it's time to break off the "Discovery and Exploration" section into its own article. The Formation and evolution section could also be trimmed, since much of its material is already in its own article. Serendi^podous 08:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Both the Sun and formation and evolution sections in this article are relatively lengthy, even though they're summarizing featured articles, so I think both of those could probably be trimmed. I also agree that Discovery and Exploration could stand on its own. Another thing that might help is finding a more appropriate place for "Definition of planet" (another summary of a featured article, although this one is appropriately short). Having that up front, I think, makes the article read choppily and perhaps feel even longer than it is.

I'll try to get to work on this later today. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get to it until now, but I considerably shortened the summary of Formation and Evolution. The article is now down to 75 k.

The abundance of isotopes table doesn't quite belong in formation and evolution; I think it may be worth writing a paragraph or so of discussion further up and moving the table near that new paragraph. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

heliosphere extent reword suggestion

Sorry serendipity, you're right I hadn't read the rest of the article !... The scattered disc didn't sound an official term, reading from start and the grammar confused me: currently: 'known as the heliosphere, which extends out to around the scattered disc', still doesn't; but can't think right now of how to put it aptly, maybe an brief explanation of scattered disc, the actual AU of the heliosphere would help and changing 'out to around' -> 'past' would help? LeeVJ (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at rewording it. Serendi^podous 10:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

thankyou, serendipodous :) LeeVJ (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

dy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.233.180 (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Haumea

the IAU named a fifth dwarf planet: http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/release/iau0807/ I don't add to wikipedia on principle, but maybe someone else will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.30.227.33 (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's already been added. And I'm not sure what not adding to Wikipedia accomplishes. Serendi^podous 19:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Terminology section

I do not like the new terminology section that was just added. I don't think defining terms up front is helpful in this article; instead, it's better to explain unclear terms when they appear, in context, as I think was done rather well in this recent version. Wikilinks allow readers to easily get a more full description. A separate terminology section up front disturbs the flow of the narrative for readers reading the article straight through and isn't helpful for readers who are only reading a section of the article at a time.

I won't revert for now, pending discussion. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I was assuming that the paragraph would only be the first in a new terminology section. If that paragraph is going to be the only paragraph in that section, then there's not much point in having it, since a terminology section shouldn't just define one thing. Serendi^podous 15:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it even if there is more coming, for the reasons described above. If it's just defining rock, ice, and gas, it's particularly unnecessary. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, in creating the terminology section, the discussion of where rocky, gaseous, and icy materials are found was removed from the Layout and Structure section, where it more logically belongs. This is another reason why keeping the explanations of terms in context works better. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The changes have been reverted, as it is yet more of Harry's unilateral efforts to rewrite this article in what he perceives as a "simplified" version. While discussion is essential, this is a featured article, and text such as "Here we define those possibly confusing terms used in the rest of the article" does not fit. He has been warned accordingly. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

tiny mistake

Under Heliopause it says ... 80 100 AU from the Sun ... but should probably read 80-100 AU? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.11.161 (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right; well spotted :-) (probably my own mark-up illiteracy) Serendi^podous 15:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sun gets hotter to burn more fuel??

"it gets hotter in order to be able to burn the remaining fuel"

I'm sorry, but unless you can show me that the sun is alive in a sense that most people will agree with, I must ask that someone rephrase this, preferably by explaining the real reason for the sun to get hotter, namely the gravitational collapse due to the reduced outward pressure from hydrogen fusion.

--Scott McNay (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the recent edits by User:Serendipodous have addressed your concern. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

The purpose of wikipedia according to the NPOV articles is for the articles to maintain as close as NPOV as possible. "Evolution" is not NPOV as it endorses a biased hypothesis on how the universe was formed and is progressing and has not been concretely proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Even evolutionary biologist disagree on the origins and "evolution" of life and the universe. I am not suggesting to change the terms to Creationist (equally POV), but to put the terms into such terminology that would bring the article into NPOV rather than leave it in POV. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing Stellar evolution with Evolution, kinda like Kent Hovind.* There is a big difference:

• Evolution: Theory, advanced by Charles Darwin which creationists dispute and isn't part of this article.
• Stellar evolution: The cycles stars evolve through, for example the Sun which will evolve into a red giant as its hydrogen is exhausted and begins fusing helium. From there it's expected to become a white dwarf.

Also in order to actually be a WP:NPOV violation, reliable sources which back your assertion would be necessary.

* Hovind's theory isn't a reliable source for an article about astronomy. Anynobody(?) 02:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"Evolution" simply means "change over time"; it isn't unique to biology. And anyway, Darwin's theory isn't "evolution"; it's "biological evolution via natural selection." The "natural selection" bit is arguably the most important part. Creationists have taken the word "evolution" and applied it to every aspect of science that doesn't agree with a literal reading of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, which basically means all of science. But just because a bunch of morons have decided that science itself is evil doesn't mean we should accommodate them. Serendi^podous 08:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing what Creationism actually represents and asserts. As serendipitous partially pointed out, Creationists assert that God created the Universe from Genesis 1 and how the Universe will end (Revelation), which not only includes biological life but also the planets and all other things in the Universe whether biological or non-biological. Henry Morris and Hugh Ross (who disagree with Hovind) correctly sums what Creationism believes. Creationist do not necessarily espouse a literal reading or interpretation of the Bible. As the Wikipedia Creationism points out and Serendipitous errs, there are those Creationists that believe in Theistic Evolution, and the Catholic Church in its Catechism and Encyclicals do not believe that Evolution and the Bible are necessarily incompatible. Hence, Creationists do not simply apply "evolution" to those scientific theories that may appear or be incompatible with the Bible. Indeed, those who regard science as sinful are indeed morons since science helps us to understand the Universe (what some Creationists call God's General Revelation as opposed what they call Particular Revelation, the Bible). Thank goodness that not even a significant minority of Creationists think that science is sinful. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV dispute/discussion is not resolved. Per Wiki's NPOV guidelines, the tag indicates questioning NPOV regardless if it is actuall NPOV or not or if an editor is confused (which in this case, he is not). Per the NPOV tag, it is not to be removed until the dispute discussion is resolved. Hence, I replaced the tag. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The word progress, that you inserted instead of evolution, is meaningless in this context, because it implies improvement over time, not just change. Do you have any sources that state the Solar System has actually become a better place to live? This assertion is highly subjective and therefore is a violation of WP:NPOV itself. Meanwhile, if Solar System can progress, then it can degrade too. :-) Ruslik (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You can see this book (Evolution of the Airliner), which also has nothing to do with biological evolution. The word evolution is widely used in both scientific and mainstream publications meaning change over time. Ruslik (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Very good points. At the time, I was pressed for time. Indeed, I readily concede that "progress" is not a good word to use since being an engineer, I am well aquainted with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which indicates the Universe going from higher order to lower order. The one reason for initiating this discussion/dispute is to received suggestions for words if there are any suggestions. Indeed, the article should avoid the Evolution POV and the Creationist POV. Thanks for being civil in your response! :)

The use of the terminology is consistent with astronomical and cosmological usage. As noted above "evolution" here is simply referring to the development as based on astronomical evidence. It has nothing to do with biological evolution which seems to be the misunderstanding at the base of your comments. The article doesn't need to be "held hostage" to one person's POV based on their misunderstanding. Provide some sources supporting your view and suggest alternative wording based on those sources - and then we can consider your view. Further your comment concretely proven beyond a reasonable doubt... shows a basic ignorance of science. Vsmith (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"Further your comment concretely proven beyond a reasonable doubt... shows a basic ignorance of science." Your insulting comment is not true.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The comments and actions especially by the more experienced editors will not receive a reply apart from this. There is NO misunderstanding, confusion, or ignorance (which remains NOT proven beyond a reasonable doubt) on my part. I do not intend to further contribute to a discussion where editors break NPOV rules by prematurely removing tags BEFORE the dispute/discussion resolves or where editors resort to prejudical or insulting comments on the knowledge or mistaken ignorance/misunderstanding of another editor. The editors that are excepted in this reply are Ruslik0 and JoshuaZ as they have remained civil and sensical and have not resorted to prejudicial replies. You all have my agreement to close this discussion, but I still do not concede on that point (misunderstanding or ignorance) or the point of usage of "evolution". I will return at some point in the future either to continue the discussion by maintain what I have said or changing my position. As I am relatively new, I will be in discussion with a more experienced adminstrator-editor (3rd party to this particular discussion) about general NPOV and other wiki things. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

However VSmith may have phrased his reply, he was nonetheless right. Nothing can be conclusively proven in science, only disproven. Evolution is a scientific theory precisely because it can be disproven. If one were to, say, find an animal without DNA, or a fossilized dog in pre-Cambrian rock strata, evolution would be disproven overnight. Creationism, on the other hand, cannot be disproven. There is no way to show that God did not create the universe 13 billion years ago, 13 thousand years ago, or even 13 seconds ago, because God, by definition, can do anything, and any evidence you might supply to the contrary can be explained because God put it there. Because creationism cannot be disproven, it cannot be considered science, and so cannot be used within a scientific context. Serendi^podous 09:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

::You and VSmith are not right. You both misunderstand and twist Creationism and God and whether Creationism can or cannot be disproven. There is no way to prove that Creationim is myth or that theories in science can only be disproven (hence, your statement in violation of the Scientific Method). --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Evolution meaning stellar evolution is the accepted term. Any creationist concerns trigger massive undue weight issues. There is another argument that using the term "evolution" in this context might be confusing because it might further the common misunderstanding that stellar evolution and other forms of "evolution" are part of some package. But I don't see that as a compelling reason to not use the proper terminology. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd also point out that Coviepresb1647 is looking for "concretely proven beyond a reasonable doubt", which is a requirement of criminal law, not a requirement of science. Science strives only to develop falsifiable theories with predictive abilities that agree with available evidence. --P3d0 (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not necessarily looking for that. Another case of prejudicial commenting. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight

Coviepresb1647, I'm an experienced admin and editor; I understand you wanted to talk with somebody like that. Thank you for your interest in this article and other science articles. However, I think you need more information about the WP:NPOV policy than you currently seem to have (understandably, as you're a fairly new user). You are perhaps only aware of an incomplete version of the policy. Please read the "Undue weight" section carefully, as it is highly relevant to your arguments. I quote a few sentences:

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view... To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.

I hope that helps. Please don't remove the word "evolution" from Solar System or other science articles, Coviepresb, and don't add the NPOV tag to articles or sections for containing the term. Such actions amount to giving the creationist view of evolution equal weight with the scientific view. That's a violation of the NPOV policy's undue weight provision, and is not a case for "dispute resolution." In other words, any tags like that should and will be removed. Bishonen | talk 12:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for letting me know on my talk page, but I strongly disagree with you. I am convinced that it is another prejudicial comment and hence, unjust request. I am already speaking with a more experienced admin-editor and may be am not am not interested in talking with you at this point. I am disregarding your prejudicial request and comment sinceYou are making an unsubstantiated equivocation between the "scientific view" and "evolution". I am already aquainted with Undue Weight. Indeed minority views that are a "tiny-minority" should not be represented. However, Creationism is not a "tiny-minority", "small minority", or an "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" as I have given prominent adherents as does Wikipedia's Creationism article. By the principle of NPOV and Undue Weight, if Creationism was held by a "tiny-minority", it would not be in Wikipedia at all. Hence, Creationism does need to be represented in the science articles although obviously not with as much coverage as the Evolution view. Indeed, Creationist terms are unwarranted, but "life cycle", "progress", "change", and other equivalent terms are not Creationist terms but more neutral terms. Indeed "progress" is more reflective of evolution and slightly disagrees with Creationism. Removing "evolution" and substituting it with a slightly more neutral term does not give undue weight since both the Evolution view and Creationist view are represented with fair and due weight. Therefore, my questioning the use of "evolution", making the initial edits, and placing the NPOV tag is valid per NPOV and Undue Weight. Simply removing a term does not give Undue weight or POV. In a valid NPOV case such as this case, removing a tag before the resolution of a discussion/dispute is also a violation of NPOV since the purpose of a discussion/dispute is to actually determine whether or not it is in NPOV or POV, not that it IS in POV. Hence, the tag should remain until the dispute/discussion is resolved as NPOV (and the tag) says and should not be removed until a consensus is formed and therefore the discussion/dispute resolved. Your comment and request has no basis, and you are mistaken and then proceed to give the request on your own mistaken understanding. Your request is unecessarily redundant and late since for several days now, I have ceased and will keep ceasing related edits and tags. However, I will nevertheless keep ceasing, not to concede your erroneous point but to have time to talk with other admin-editor, until my discussion with the other admin-editor is done. Until you are willing to constructively criticise me and to consider the greater picture before issuing justice unlike your comment and request here, please do not talk to me as I do not desire your help nor am I willing to listen to further prejudicial statements from you. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

However, Creationism is not a "tiny-minority", "small minority", or an "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" as I have given prominent adherents as does Wikipedia's Creationism article. The creationism article quote says that one count gives 700 out of 480,000 earth and life sciences who support creationism. Tiny minority. Saros136 (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

My further participation

17:20 UTC, 20/11/08 is the end of my participation in this discussion. I will no longer be reading or comment here except to possibly reverse my position (after discussion with the more experienced admin-editor) if I am mistaken. At this point, I do not concede. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate Serendipodus apologizing for his/her offending me (specifically his "moron" comment). --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect the minute you said, "biased hypothesis" and "evolution of life", you made your POV quite clear. The evolution of the Universe is not a biological issue since the only biology we currently know is here on Earth. -- Kheider (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Point taken but not conceded (yet) on my part.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a late-comer to the discussion here, but it seems the issue is the use of one word rather than the meaning of that word? As someone pointed out earlier, the word *is* applicable. The solar system *has* evolved (changed). As a believer in Darwinian evolution (which is not the issue here) I'm still happy to use the word "creation" when it is applicable, say for a batch of cookies. And the universe *was* created, whether there was intelligent thought involved or not. Maybe the section heading could be changed from "Formation and evolution" to "Creation and evolution" if you're so worried about NPOV.

Feyrauth (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oort cloud size

It seems to be a small discrepancy, perhaps just a difference in wording, regarding the size of the Oort cloud. This article, in section Oort_cloud says:

The hypothetical Oort cloud is a great mass of up to a trillion icy objects that is believed to be the source for all long-period comets and to surround the Solar System at roughly 50,000 AU (around 1 light-year (LY)), and possibly to as far as 100,000 AU (1.87 LY).

But a little below, in section Boundaries says:

The outer extent of the Oort cloud, by contrast, may not extend farther than 50,000 AU.[67]

Take into account that the main article on Oort cloud states:

The Oort cloud is thought to occupy a vast space from somewhere between 2000 and 5000 AU[7] to as far as 50 000 AU[1] from the Sun. Some estimates place the outer edge at between 100 000 and 200 000 AU.[7]

And also that the article on Light-year states:

1.6×100 ly The Oort cloud is approximately two light-years in diameter. Its inner boundary is speculated to be at 50,000 AU, with its outer edge at 100,000 AU

Given that I'm just a reader and I don't have enough knowledge on the topic, I didn't modified the article. Could some experienced editor fix this, and unify the point of view in the sections? (and also in the related articles, if necessary) Pmronchi (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that we're dealing with something that may or may not exist. We're pretty sure it does, because the evidence suggests it's there, but any guesses as to its structure or how big it is have to be based on some pretty secondhand information. I suppose I can reword the boundaries section a bit. Serendi^podous 14:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Haumea on the pic?

hi i'v noticed Haumea isn't included on the pic at the top of the page i don't know how to fix that or change the pic to include it, could someone please help with this thanks. Hawkania (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

should exoplanets be included?

i like the article, but i just think exoplanets should be included as many are fans of them, and they are quite interesting, i just want to make this article better. Lizardsarecool (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)lizardsarecool

Exoplanets are not members of the Solar System. Ruslik (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, we also know almost nothing about exoplanets. Even the masses (and volumes) are generally assumptions, and the composition is very poorly known. Since we can not yet detect smaller bodies in these systems, these planetary systems are very poorly known. One of the he best ways to expand the solar system article is to work on the moons, asteroids, or even create an article like Gertrude (crater). -- Kheider (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

#of planets

there are 200 planets in the solar system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.222.141 (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Got a source for that? Serendi^podous 00:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

citation seems unrelated

It is believed that the Sun's position on the main sequence puts it in the "prime of life" for a star, in that it has not yet exhausted its store of hydrogen for nuclear fusion. The Sun is growing brighter; early in its history it was 75 percent as bright as it is today.

The above data and following sentence seem to have no correlation. To answer your question Serendipodous, yes I read it. That is why I removed it. I have taken the liberty of placing it below. Kindly explain how that relates to above sentence. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The possible consequences of very high carbon dioxide concentrations in the earth's early atmosphere have been investigated with a radiative-convective climate model. The early atmosphere would apparently have been stable against the onset of a runaway greenhouse (that is, the complete evaporation of the oceans) for carbon dioxide pressures up to at least 100 bars. A 10- to 20-bar carbon dioxide atmosphere, such as may have existed during the first several hundred million years of the earth's history, would have had a surface temperature of approximately 85 degrees to 110 degrees C. The early stratosphere should have been dry, thereby precluding the possibility of an oxygenic prebiotic atmosphere caused by photodissociation of water vapor followed by escape of hydrogen to space. Earth's present atmosphere also appears to be stable against a carbon dioxide-induced runaway greenhouse.

I have removed reference pending discussion. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have access to the entire document, since Nature is a subscription-only service. When I asked if you had read it, I meant the whole thing, not just the abstract. All the paper has to do is mention the initial brightness of the Sun; it doesn't have to make it its raison d'etre. Since the document involves greenhouse effects early in Earth's history, it seems highly unlikely that it would not mention the level of insolation at the time. Given that I cannot read the article in its entirety, I prefer to assume good faith on the part of its original contributor until such time as I can verify it totally. Serendi^podous 20:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_System&diff=66137236&oldid=66136694 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_System&diff=59997754&oldid=59994509 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.70.180 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Serendipodousous, the IP seems to be implicating you as the original contributor. Plus a source that we cannot verify to its conclusion is no source at all. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Well, if it was me, I must have got the original quote from the Google summation. Still, I can recheck it at the British Library on Monday. Serendi^podous 00:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There. I added a new citation. Serendi^podous 13:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I never doubted the data for a minute, just needed a better citation. This article is superb thanks to you and everyone else who contributed attention. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry I got touchy. I do that occasionally. It happens when you spend enough time around here. Serendi^podous 17:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Serendipodous the new ref is great... You don't have to spend time scanning the ref since it is mentioned right in the introduction. But since they suspect life started on Earth 3.8 Billion years ago, I still want to know if Venus was more biologically active than Earth ~2 Billion years ago. :-) Exogenesis seems to suggest that life could have started on Mars and made it to Earth, but poor Venus never seems to get a mention as a candidate even though it may have been the most habitable planet 2 billion years ago. -- Kheider (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)