Talk:Solar System/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Solar System. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Lead needs to be rewritten

Pursuant to the FAR for this article, I believe the lead needs to be rewritten. In its current state, I don't think the article is a "concise overview of the entire article", rather it's a

Change "the" to "our" in the lead?

"The Solar System", even with the latter two words capitalized, is ambiguous in that it could mean any general "solar system"; a system with a star. But since this generic label is indeed the actual proper term for our own solar system, should we not at least open with "Our Solar System"? Thoughts?. — ^`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^` 06:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no official "generic" term for "Solar System". There is only one Solar System, so there is no need to specify that it is "our" Solar System. Serendi ^podous 08:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There is only one solar system since SOL means the Sun. But there are other star systems and planetary systems. The Sun is the center of the solar system and the giver of life. -- Kheider (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should stay away from using the possessive "our" when describing astronomical objects. First, it implies ownership; second the language seems less encyclopedic, and third because applying "solar systems" to stellar planetary systems other than the Sun's is improper.—RJH (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but I've even heard astronomers let "solar system" slip when talking of exoplanetary systems. So it might not be that big a deal. Most seem to use either "star system" or "stellar system" when discussing exoplanets. My take on the "Our Solar System" idea is that "The" gives more emphasis (oomph) than "Our", which sounds a bit wishy-washy (as in "Our li'l kitty-cat Solar System"). ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 04:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that happen as well. Still, I think it's good practice to be a little more precise in word usage for the purposes of an encyclopedia than it might be in casual discussions.—RJH (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The

Is a proper way to put it.

Our

I think it belongs to life on Earth. Who else is entitled to claim possession of it?

Relax

Either way works!

Style

The start of the article should be properly proper, as it were. Later in the article usage can be relaxed! HarryAlffa (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Layout and images

I've made a few tweaks to image layout - hope no-one minds. Could someone add a footnote to this image? I have absolutely no idea what it shows and the article doesn't seem to mention it either. Thanks Smartse (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The present caption looks okay, and readers can click on the image for details. There is another similar image just above this one on the left. Are both really needed? If I had to choose which to stay, I would opt for this one. ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 21:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Gas, Ice, Rock

The reference about gases, ices and rock was added in some haste during a previous dispute with HarryAlffa, and I can't remember who added it or where he got the information from. If that person could come back and say where he got it I would be very grateful. Serendi ^podous 11:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I only added information about ices, you added information about rock (which was wrong), and ASHill included gases. Referring to melting points instead of boiling points is unique, therefore highly questionable. To mix both is just plain dumb, it's not self-consistent, I corrected that again recently, but someone reverted it. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Under no circumstances this classification can be based on boiling points. This is simply meaningless. Boiling points strongly depend on pressure, while melting points do not. What pressure do you assume, when you talk about boiling points? In the vacuum the liquid phase does not exist at all, so, what are you going to boil? Ruslik (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the inconsistency. This issue needs to be resolved somehow. It can't simply be deleted, because the Solar System article, and indeed all Solar System articles, use these terms continuously, precisely because the scientific papers we rely on for sourcing use these terms continuously. It might be that the IAU has no say in this issue, and that these terms are established by geologists. It might also be that there is no established definition for these terms, and we're just going to have to muddle through, like we do with terms like "asteroid" and "other solar systems". Serendi ^podous 17:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A typical phase diagram. The dotted line gives the anomalous behaviour of water. The green lines mark the freezing point and the blue line the boiling point, showing how they vary with pressure.

Talking about the melting point of H and He just grates. The diagram shows melting point & boiling point varies with pressure. Maybe standard pressure is what Planetary Science Research Discoveries presumes when defining volatiles using boiling point. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

this astronomy page suggests that the terms "gas" "ice" and "rock" are shorthand for specific compounds. Hydrogen and helium are gas, water and ammonia are ice, and silicates are rock. Serendi ^podous 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. And once again, Ruslik comes in with a source. Well that's sorted. :-) Serendi ^podous 13:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Plasma

I was reading the recent edit that changed "atomic hydrogen" to "molecular hydrogen", and it made me wonder... should hydrogen plasma also be mentioned in this section? It is the plasma of the Solar wind that is present. Is it too small an amount to be mentioned? ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 19:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The solar wind is mentioned later on, so I don't think it needs to be mentioned there. Besides I don't think the solar wind really qualifies as "hydrogen", since it's mostly (I think) just protons and electrons.Serendi ^podous 21:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, protons and electrons make up the Solar wind. It's in plasma form, though, the "fourth state of matter". So if I'm not mistaken, the plasma of the Solar wind is ionized hydrogen. I'm not sure, though, what the concentration is. Only that it spreads out beyond the planets to form the "heliosphere", a plasma bubble around the Solar system. The paragraph in which the recent edit occurred begins, "Planetary scientists use the terms gas, ice, and rock to describe the various classes of substances found throughout the Solar System." I'm just wondering if this would be improved by making it read ". . . use the terms gas, ice, rock and plasma to describe . . .", and then like the others, just a very brief explanation about plasma? It would need an expert's fine tuning, which unfortunately, I am not. ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 04:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Plasma is a formal scientific state of matter, alongside solid, liquid and gas. The terms gas, ice and rock are largely informal shorthand for substances in the solar system. To mix the two would be potentially misleading. Serendi ^podous 07:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Except gas, a 'formal state of matter', is already mixed with ice and rock which are not. I don't see why including plasma would be misleading - are people really that likely to conclude that ice or rock is a state of matter because it appears on a list with plasma? Olaf Davis (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The classification into gas/ice/rock is only about chemical composition, and nothing more. The phase of the matter is irrelevant. The plasma can be made of gas/ice/rock too. Ruslik (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My experience is that 'rock' and 'ice' are only ever used to refer to solid matter - indeed, I wouldn't really know what a 'rock plasma' would be. A plasma whose ionic abundances are similar to elemental abundances in rock? I'd be very surprised to come across it used to mean that, but perhaps that's down to my ignorance. Is that what you mean? Olaf Davis (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the plasma with rock abundances will be rock plasma. Meanwhile iron in the Earth core is not solid. Ruslik (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And would a planetary scientist call the iron in the core a 'rock' too? (After this I promise I'll stop indulging my curiosity on the talk page!) Olaf Davis (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

See definition of 'rock' in the article. Ruslik (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Earth

What's the "" note supposed to accomplish? Olaf Davis (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we replace the above line by referencing Is there life elsewhere?? -- Kheider (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Lets. Serendi ^podous 15:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It accomplished exactly what it was supposed to - prevent mindless reversion. Why did Serendipodous remove it and leave an edit note of, "Earth: You don't need to justify yourself with that, Harry. It's a bit grandiose, but it's not wrong"? Who needs to make these kind of snide comments? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mostly you, it seems. Serendi ^podous 21:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Skip to TOC

I added the {{skiptotoctalk}} template for those editors who like to "get right down to it". ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 23:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Solar System lead is terrible

This Featured Article (!!) lead could be used in the MoS in "How not to write a lead". The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, it should not give one sentence for every single component! HarryAlffa (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked YellowMonkey how he passed the lead at a recent FA review, but he didn't reply. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually he did, on his talk page. Serendi ^podous 17:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I knew you would say that. But "Your first point is very misleading." is not a reply. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't realise you'd already got into an argument with him. Serendi ^podous 18:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You've been to his talk page and seen the extent and nature of it, don't you think the misrepresentation of "argument" is tantamount to out-right lying? HarryAlffa (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually no. I thought your initial response to him was remarkably uncivil. But then you obviously have a very different definition of civility than anyone here. Serendi ^podous 11:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As usual, exaggerated, deliberate, dishonest misrepresentation unworthy of a Wikipeadian, tantamount to out-right lying. See YellowMonkey HarryAlffa (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You obviously have an issue distinguishing stating a fact from stating an opinion. I was not stating a fact. I was stating my opinion of your behaviour. Take it as you will. Serendi ^podous 14:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Move to close this - it has become disruptive in nature. This is the second (third? fourth?) attempt by the same editor to rewrite the lead per his preferences, despite receiving little or no support for his proposals. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Typical, deceptive misrepresentation. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Close this RFC as forum shopping. Ruslik (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to laugh at RfC=Forum Shopping :) HarryAlffa (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, why be afraid of a wider audience? I said this previous lead was no good, but you swore blind it was fine, over time it became even worse, as soon as I took it for a FA review it was changed, so how right were you? Not very. The article has been controlled by the same 3 or 4 editors for the last year or so (two, three, four?). The FA Review only had one or two additional editors from the usual suspects and they were critical of the lead as it was - hence the (not very good) change. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is self-evident that the lead falls down, but would like a MUCH wider audience to assess this, which I hope will result in a better article. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Harry, no-one here is "afraid" (as you put it) of having fresh eyes look at the article. What is tiresome is your insistence that yours is the only correct viewpoint. You've argued here, through your "summary" articles, and at the FA review pages, only to find that there isn't support for what you want. And yet, you've opened yet another venue with this RfC. You've also been doing much the same thing with regards to the Manual of Style and linking - insisting that you are correct, and others are wrong, despite almost complete opposition. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice the weasel words in there. More personal attacks and misrepresentation, pretty close to out-right lying. HarryAlffa (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mostly you, it seems. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I support the lead as it is. While it may set forth a few controversial items as truth, such as the only partially settled "Definition of planet" issue and the up and coming "Earth's Moon is actually a major planet" issue, the lead is, after all, the first impression a reader sees. And when talking about a Featured Article such as this, no major changes in the lead or in any other part of the article ought to be made without extrememly close scrutiny, discussion on the Talk page, consensus of all involved editors and formal dispute settlement if necessary. Sorry Harry, you may be correct about the lead needing work; however, since this is a Featured Article, as a serious editor of Wikipedia you are expected to abide by Wikipedia:Defend the status quo. And you will need more support before you're able to justify any major alterations. ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 23:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Paine, I am correct, but I nor anyone else serious or not, is bound by any type of essay. The essay Wikipedia:Defend the status quo has nothing to do with the style of the Lead, it is about quality of information, and the lead isn't wrong, it is simply not a summary.

Comment The lead looks pretty much fine to me as it stands now. It describes in summary fashion what is covered in the article body and gives an overview of the salient features of the solar system. Possibly some of the paragraphs could be shortened a bit to make room for a brief summary of what is in the Galactic context and Formation sections. If that was done, then people could just read the lead and have everything they need to know about the solar system. Franamax (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Could you further summarize existing paragraphs to make room? HarryAlffa (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment A Request for Comment should be a neutrally-worded polite solicitation of opinions from outside editors, with a view to clarifying or achieving consensus where simple discussion has failed. As such, this is a complete failure, as its wording is likely to polarise respondents and to make reaching consensus more difficult. So for example, while I might be agreeable to making some improvements to the lead paragraph as it now stands, I would strongly disagree with the opinion that the lead is in a "terrible" state. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me: I came here straight out of the blue, from an RfC list I'd never seen before, via some odd path from my Watchlist. And, while the lead might have been a bit slow, a bit long and slightly pedestrian, and while even the most brilliant leads can usually benefit from periodic re-examination and tweaking, this one was quite interesting and told me, as a layman who has no particularly strong interest in astronomy, just about everything I'd want to know and everything I might want to investigate further, even if I hadn't known or wondered about them before. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- But if you didn't read the article, you cannot determine if it conforms to WP:Lead. It doesn't. By your experience of reading it (bit slow, a bit long and slightly pedestrian) also confirms my feeling that it is to poor for a Featured Article - "fine" & "quite interesting" doesn't cut it. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  If it's fine and quite interesting to readers, then this has to at least partially "cut it". And another concern is what the lead was like at the time Solar System became FA. The lead can't be too shabby if today's lead is pretty much what it was when it achieved FA status. And now look above! This article is also considered a "vital article in science". Seems to me the entire article including the lead is more than acceptable just as it is. ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Looks fine to me dude.. I thought it was a great introduction to the article, being very informative and interesting. Btw, why is the RfC so biased? Aren't they supposed to be NPOV and civil to get better comments? Stating only one side of the argument (and it seems to be a lonely side?) only helps in polarizing debate, which is never good. Give it a rest, dude.. the lead is fine. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Doubled image not resolved

The following was archived before my question was answered:

Layout and images

I've made a few tweaks to image layout - hope no-one minds. Could someone add a footnote to this image? I have absolutely no idea what it shows and the article doesn't seem to mention it either. Thanks Smartse (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The present caption looks okay, and readers can click on the image for details. There is another similar image just above this one on the left. Are both really needed? If I had to choose which to stay, I would opt for this one. ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 21:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) And I ask again, are both these images really needed in the article? One is on the left in the Kuiper belt subsection, and one is on the right in the Scattered disk subsection. Why does this article need both? ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 20:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Because one shows the Kuiper belt and the other shows the scattered disc. Serendi ^podous 20:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I do get that, Serendipodous, I do. My question is still out there because the image above shows both. And since they're so much alike, isn't it possible that the inclusion of both images is confusing to readers? ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 21:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be confusing regardless, because the current state of knowledge is confusing. It isn't easy to separate the Kuiper belt from the Scattered disc, and many astronomers don't. However, the Minor Planet Center, which is the closest thing we have to an authority on the subject, does, so we do. Serendi ^podous 08:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the average reader pretty much skips over those diagrams since the region beyond Neptune is generically all basically the same. Most average readers consider the asteroid belt as a single generic region and don't care about the inner vs outer asteroid belt or the kirkwood gaps. -- Kheider (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

While agreeing that our readers believes the region beyond Neptune is all the same to assume our readers don't care to inform themselves is completely contrary to our spirit of being an encyclopedia that educates people, and is an assumption we should never make. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What is our solar system called?

If our galaxy is the Milky Way Galaxy, what is our solar system called? Our planet is "Terra" right? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.129.249 (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Our Solar System is called the "Solar System." Technically the term "other solar systems" is inaccurate, but there isn't an accepted term for extrasolar systems yet. Our planet is called "Earth" or "the Earth." It is called "Terra" in Spanish and Portuguese. For the record, our star is called "the Sun" (capitalised) and our natural satellite is called "the Moon" (capitalised). "Sol" and "Luna" are only used in Spanish, Portuguese and science fiction. Serendi ^podous 06:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Sol", "Luna" and "Terra" are not Spanish: they are Latin names. Spanish, Portuguese, Italian (and maybe some other Neo-Latin language that I'm not aware of) kept this ancient words. Even the English word "Solar" came from the Latin word "Solaris" (of the Sun). Latin was the international language of science for centuries, at least until the 17th century (e.g. Sir Isaac Newton wrote in Latin), but some Latin texts were still written afterward. Of course in english they got different names and in all languages I know the Moon is called (the equivalent of) "Moon". The Moon is the name of a natural satellite, the Sun is a star, the same as Sirius, Rigel, Merak, ... you could call them "suns", but they are stars, and a star can own a planetary system or after the name of the main star: "Epsilon Eridani System" Negadrive (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The words "terra" and "luna" are no older than the words "Earth" and "moon"; they've just been written down longer. Spanish, Portuguese and Italian retained those words because they are descended from Latin. English is a Germanic language, and so uses Germanic words. And yes, while Latin was the international language of science for many centuries, Latinising a word doesn't necessarily afford it any more scientific credibility. My main issue with this, and I admit I do have a bee in my bonnet about it, is that the determination shown by some people on Wikipedia (not in this discussion, but certainly in other instances) to Latinise the Sun and Moon's names to make them more "scientific" really only makes them look like realistically-challenged geeks who've been reading too many Asimov novels, which does few wonders for Wikipedia's already strained credibility. Serendi ^podous 12:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

COOL

I WANT TO DO A PROJECT ON THE SOLAR SYSTEM, BUT I THINK IT'LL BE HARD! SO I NEED TO GO TO THE DOLLARE STORE AND GET SOME CLAY! MAYBE SOME COLOURFUL CLAY! THAT'LL WORK!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.44.61 (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

How's that coming along? Serendi ^podous 12:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Extrasolar systems

I'm looking, but I can't see a single term for the generic version of our Solar System. You know, a star and its associated bodies beyond ours. Am I missing something? Otherwise this seems like quite a massive oversight in the terminology. Surely people who study this kind of thing must have a term for it? Star system generally encompasses this in sci-fi, but it seems the technical term only applies to stars in close association. --62.31.151.92 (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that, since we've never actually been to any other extrasolar locations, there isn't a distinct term for "Extrasolar system" except perhaps that phrase itself. Solar System is supposedly specific to our own system, but... I don't know, saying that using the term with an "Extrasolar system" is incorrect seems hyper-technical/pedantic to me. Is there a real need for a distinct phrase?
—

V = I * R

(talk) 21:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Maya Solar system

I've read that the earliest known evidence for studies of the Solar system (and astronomy in general) by the Maya dates back to 300 BCE. So while their accomplishments are many and impressive, like usage of zero in their astronomical calculations, they are not really notable as an exception to the "many thousands of years" claim. It would be interesting to see some of these "notable exceptions". If examples are not given, isn't this an example of weasel words?
— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 07:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Maya did not believe in a heliocentric cosmos, as far as I'm aware. Notable exceptions are mentioned in the main Discovery and exploration article. Serendi ^podous 14:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are the moons?

Very good article!

One very important thing is missing, in my opinion. It baffles me how in a discussion on the Solar System, or Planets, or the like, this part seems always left out. One could believe that the entire astronomical community was purposely discriminating by leaving out this very important group of solar system bodies!

What I am talking about are the moons. Just because they travel in secondary orbits, why does it seem that they are not worthy of mention? Certainly they are members of the Solar System, too.

The moons fall into three sizes, if classified by mass:

1. The large moons, specifically, Earth's Moon (Luna), Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Titan, and perhaps Triton, are basically planets that rival the likes of Mercury and the terrestrial planets. Certainly they deserve mention individually or collectively as a group. These large bodies are more substantial than any of the dwarf planets like Ceres or the Kuiper Belt dwarfs that are mentioned in the article.

2. The medium-sized, or dwarf-planet sized moons. Four to seven of Saturn's moons and four or five of Uranus' compare well with Ceres in size. Triton is about the size of Pluto. (I believe the IAU should be considering a "dwarf moon" definition.)

3. The very small moons are more or less like the astroids and comets that orbit the sun. Even so, Phoebos, Deimos, and several others in this category have names and are well known.

Another nice way to classify these bodies would be geologically: "rocky" moons (Luna) vs. "icy" moons. Titan even has a subtantial atmosphere making it more like Earth, Venus, and Mars, than like Mercury, any other moon, or dwarf planet. GeoPopID (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The moons are mentioned, briefly, in their respective planet sections. I agree that the moons are worth a lot more then that, but I can't see giving each of the 19 round moons its own section; that would overwhelm the article, I think. Serendi ^podous 03:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The moons are mentioned at the bottom of the structure section. I agree that the spherical moons are important, but I am not sure we want to get too wordy in a general article about the solar system. Of course suggestions are always welcome. -- Kheider (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Editor Assistannce

Hi Ckatz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R. A. Fisher said it well:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request quotation for Rock, Ice & Gas using 'melting points'

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

Request quotation for Interplanetary medium

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

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

Request quotation for Sun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request quotation for Mars

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

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

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

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

Request quotation for Galactic context

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

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

[2]
[3]

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

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 09:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Request quotation for Terminology section

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

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