Talk:Sun/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Is this section LEAD material I think it is Body material (reply pls)

Of the 50 nearest stellar systems within 17 light-years from Earth (the closest being a red dwarf Proxima Centauri at approximately 4.2 light-years away), the Sun ranks fourth in mass.[19] The Sun orbits the center of the Milky Way at a distance of approximately 24000–26000 light-years from the Galactic Center, completing one clockwise orbit, as viewed from the galactic north pole, in about 225–250 million years. Because the Milky Way is moving with respect to the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) in the direction of the constellation Hydra with a speed of 550 km/s, the Sun's resultant velocity with respect to the CMB is about 370 km/s in the direction of Crater or Leo.[20]--Inayity (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Inayity: I believe the lead is good as it is now. It is not as long as it used to be, so it is not necessary to move more content from there Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 12:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Not only about length, should also be about WP:LEAD, when the above material is placed in the lead, no matter how long or short, it is not a summary of the article. No lead should have in language like Because the Milky Way is moving with respect to the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) that is a very detailed explanation, not lead content. No lead should be explaining details about clockwise orbits. This material is coming at the expense of something more notable about the sun. And mass was already discussed, yet it is discussed again. Is there anything else about the sun the average reader would like to know? --Inayity (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

As a point read facts about the sun and see how many of these make it into this lead. The sun is Middle age, I think that is very important, yet other details come before this. --Inayity (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please, add those things you think are missing. --JorisvS (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I rather not add too much as I am observing the page, It would be better for someone familiar with the topic to tell me if my observations are right or wrong, and also they would know the exact place to add say Middle Age. --Inayity (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I still say the lead is fine as it is right now Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 13:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Inayity: what do you think should be added to the lead? --JorisvS (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

While my focus right now is moving what i believe is excessive material I think info on the sun being Middle Age would be nice, just as I have already added info on the solar calendar and the centrality of the sun to life. (pretty big deal life). --Inayity (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Both you and I already moved lots of content from the lead. It is enough. Also, the sentence you quoted above "(Because the Milky Way is moving with respect to the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB)" is used to explain the velocity of the Sun in relation to the galaxy. It is ok. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 15:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD, you not suppose to be explaining CMB and Milky way in the lead of the Sun in this detail. Why is that entire section in the LEAD in the first place?, why is it WP:NOTABLE, why does it have so much WP:WEIGHT for inclusion in the article intro. I cannot explain it more than this.--Inayity (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Inayity: In my opinion, the material you've highlighted above does not belong in the lead, it is too factoid, to quantitative, too detailed. It would be good material for the interior of the article, however. Thank you for your work on this lead. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree, the material is not by any standards something that should be in a lead. It is not even written correctly to be in a lead. I see zero justification for why this sentence is in the lead. If someone disagrees we should specifically discuss why it should be in the lead.--Inayity (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I also note that many astronomical pages have leads salted up with lots of quantitative factoids, usually, even, when there is right next to the lead on the right a summary table giving the very same quantitative values. Redundancy is not good, in general. Redundancy with two occurrences right next to each other is even worse. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting to compare Sun with Star. In the latter, the lead has almost no numerical factoids, whereas in the former it is loaded with those. Not that Star is perfect, the lead there is also too long, but it does show that the lead for Sun would benefit from some thought about what is being written. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Failing a direct challenge to that specific material and why it is in the lead it should be removed. Our mission has to be better articles, with that detail in the lead it does not help readers. More comments from Wikipedia would be good (not only people with a scientific background). --Inayity (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. In general remove quantitative material from lede-- that's primarily why we have INFOBOXs. Look at other articles on planets or even chemical elements to get the idea (Mars, hydrogen). The lead is for summarizing the article in a way which you'd do in explaining something informally to a friend, on a walk. Perhaps 5 paragraphs of 5 sentences each. The Sun is a middle-aged star, a little larger and hotter than the average for stars in our galaxy. is fine. That puts us in context. The details, at this point, are not fine. SBHarris 03:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed additions to lead

The Sun was formed about 4.57 billion years ago from the collapse of part of a giant molecular cloud. The Sun is roughly middle age and has not changed dramatically for four billion years, and will remain fairly stable for four billion more. However after hydrogen fusion in its core has stopped, the Sun will undergo severe changes and start to turn into a red giant. It is calculated that the Sun will become sufficiently large to engulf the current orbits of the Solar System's inner planets, possibly including Earth. This can be integrated into the section of the lead covering this topic. --Inayity (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Isambard Kingdom

Is it ok to remove content? All the 13 edits so far have a red change in bytes. The articles need to have a good readability; it is not necessary to simplify paragraphs that much to make them too straight to the point Tetra quark ^(talk) 18:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of administrator John concerning Tetra quark's complaint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John#one_last_thing

Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I asked John about the way you edit in general, not the edits themselves Tetra quark ^(talk) 01:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

As opposed to, say, the way you edit, with your many (many) small and often isolated edits to many (many) different pages? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

To me all the edits looks like improvements. Please keep improving Wikipedia. Ulflund (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ulflund: Yes, they're not bad. I'd revert a thing or two but I want to avoid getting into trouble. Tetra quark ^(talk) 05:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Good grief! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Color

The sun is white. This is mentioned in the article. But the picture is orange. Can we replace it with a true color picture so as not to perpetuate the myth of an orange sun? — DanielLC 23:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree. There has been previous discussion about this on the infobox talk page (Template_talk:Solar_System_Infobox/Sun#Replaced_the_false_color_image_of_sun.) and here (Talk:Sun/Archive_6#True_color), but there was no consensus. Maybe this time though. Ulflund (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Moderately agree. We have a source that we cite in the lead [1] saying the Sun is white, so unless there's a WP:RS saying the Sun is some other color, it's white, and so the infobox picture should be white. Furthermore, if you're floating in space and close enough to see it directly as a disk rather than a dot, it'll look white, correct? That said, I don't find the current infobox misleading; I don't know that anyone is really going to think the Sun is (tangerine?) orange and flecked with red and white dots and visible flares like in the current infobox picture, which quite clearly is not the Sun as we see it with our eyes. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If we end up keeping the current image, we should at least caption it as being an extreme ultraviolet image; it's not obvious to a layman like me what part of the spectrum this is until I click through to the image template file. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The sun is "white" because the sun defined "white" in your eyes. Does it not depend, where in the sky it is? So at sunset it is defiantly red. In space, it is defiantly too bright to see. Is red really such a bad choice? wouldn't black and white end up looking like the moon (on tv)?DarkShroom (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

btw further the sun is actually modelled as a black body, black bodies emit red light as they get up to temperature, they then go yellow and eventually white when your eyes are saturated, so yeah again i like red, especially since it is not something you'll ever look at anyway DarkShroom (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

At sunset the atmosphere filters out the most blue, making the sun look orangish. This is the time people are most likely to look at it, since the atmosphere is filtering out most of the light so it's relatively safe to look at. I assume this is why people think the sun is always that color. In general, it looks much whiter. The color the sun actually is, rather than what it appears to be after being filtered through an atmosphere, is pretty much white. In space, it can be safely seen from a sufficient distance, and would appear white. If you view it through a filter to make it look darker without changing the color, then it would appear white, or grey if you filter it more. "wouldn't black and white end up looking like the moon" It doesn't look much like the moon, but in any case, the point of a picture of the sun isn't to not look like the moon. The point is to look like the sun, which the current picture does not. — DanielLC 22:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems like most people agree that an image of a white sun would be more appropriate. To make a change we need an alternative. How about this image?

I'll agree with DarkShroom's aesthetics, though not his physics. Now that I look at the picture, the white sun is indeed boring, which should be weighed against the other factors. If we keep it white: the sun is the brightest thing you usually see all day, I'd prefer something that somehow gets across its brightness. A reddish true-color image at sunset is fine too, if the picture makes it clear it's taken through the atmosphere. There's a reasonable tradeoff between typicalness (the sun's true color being white in space, or whiteish at noon) and aesthetical appeal of the sunset that could go either way. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply to DarkShroom: A dark body turns white when it reaches the temperature of the sun because the emission spectrum gets shifted to low enough wavelengths, independently of whether your eyes get saturated. I don't buy the argument that since few people will look at the sun our image doesn't have to look like the sun. Ulflund (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if we don't put a true color picture in the infobox, can we at least put it somewhere on the page? I would expect one of the many pictures of the sun on the Wikipedia page for "sun" would show what the sun looks like. — DanielLC 18:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

According to this source, the sun is indeed white, although technically it is green because the sun's output is maximum in the green part of the spectrum. Indeed, the article already states "The Sun is a G-type main-sequence star (G2V) based on spectral class and it is informally designated as a yellow dwarf because its visible radiation is most intense in the yellow-green portion of the spectrum". I don't mind a picture of any color as long as the caption clarifies that point. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should have a true color image of the sun, but it's not that easy to clarify the designation. The sun looks white and has its maximum output for green light, so it is designated a yellow dwarf. At the moment none of the many orange and yellow illustrations of the sun in this article clarifies that the sun actually looks white unless it is sunset or sunrise. Ulflund (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the boring true-color image of the Sun under "observations and effects" and clarified the lede. Others can continue to change it if they want but I'm personally fine with where we are now. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I guess people have forgotten what "white" means -- in the psycho-physics sense. White means "all colors" or "your eyes being overwhelmed by the brightness or presentation of all colors -- thus human eyes see it as white." It is a coincidence of having eyes of a particular design that our psychophysics experience of "red", "orange", "yellow" etc. map onto particular parts of the visible spectrum. So -- no -- the Sun is not *really* white any more than any large multi-wavelength emitter of visible light is "white".

That being said -- sure, it is interesting to know that from a space-based vantage point, human eyes would see the Sun as white.

But for Wikipedia purposes -- I think more emphasis should be made about the Sun's position on the Main Sequence -- which means that it is described as a yellow-ish white star. A yellow image seems very appropriate.

IMHO this insistence on "the Sun is WHITE -- not YELLOW" is more because someone found a funny fact that they want to push in the article. Sometimes the astrophysics folks forget that the psychophysics of human experience is important, too. Or to put it this way -- if aliens had different types of eyes, would they see the Sun as "white"? Likely not, if their eyes were more discerning than ours or didn't get overwhelmed at exactly the same points of brightness or luminosity. They might well say the "real" color of the Sun from a point in space was yellowish-green. Chesspride 66.19.84.2 (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The sun is white. That is not a funny fact, but a true fact. If you look at it through a neutral density filter when it is high in the sky, or if you project it onto a paper through a small hole in a screen you will see it as white. White doesn't just mean all colors, it requires a balance between the different parts of the spectrum. That balance will depend on what illumination your eyes are adapted to. Under daylight conditions the sun is white, but under light bulb illumination the spectrum of the sun will look bluish white. Ulflund (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

"If you look at it --" Human perception of color, especially of white or near-white, is notoriously unreliable, especially where very bright objects are involved. The sun seen through an ND filter is still "very bright" in context, which is near-black everywhere else. "Through a small hole in a screen" isn't reliable either, because many "white" papers are not true white - whatever you mean by that. Furthermore many of them fluoresce blue in the sun's UV output. This normally is not perceptible in sunlight but it does lend a slight bluish cast to the perceived color of the sunlight. (This by the way is what "brighteners" in laundry products are doing - they add fluorescence.) Note also that While "daylight" (5600K) is one of many standards in color photography, the "daylight" that illuminates our outdoor scenes is a combination of direct rays from the sun plus the blue scattered light from the sky. The "color of the sun" that you see when looking at it (through an ND filter or with a pinhole camera or whatever) omits the latter, so it doesn't represent the sun's full output... etc., etc. So, no, "if you look at it" can't be relied on for much of anything here, except of course to describe the human experience. Jeh (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Magnetism and activity

I just wanted to alert interested editors that I intend to work quite a bit on the (new section) entitled "Magnetism and activity". Previously, material in this section was dispersed across the article, making it hard to understand. So, work in progress. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, possibly enough for today. I know that the first paragraph in this section needs integration with the paragraphs that follow. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

SUN

SUN

"with internal convective motion that generates a magnetic field via a dynamo process."

Except that internal motion has been measured and found to be 100 times less than that required to produce those dynamo effects and support magnetic reconnection or heat transfer theories. http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.3173

So why again are we still making that claim???? Steven J White (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No "claims" are being made. What is being summarized is standard Babcock–Leighton theory, and every solar dynamo talk I've ever attended assumes this theory. While there might be some scientists that don't believe this, since we are writing an encyclopedia, it is important to stick with convention. Having said that, it isn't obvious to me that the paper you cite presents a problem for this theory, but I'm happy to have this more explicitly explained to me. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word "gas"

In several places the material of the sun is referred to as a gas. In one location it even links to the gas page, where gas is described as being something different from plasma. Surely these uses of the term gas should be replaced by something else, preferably "plasma". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.253.206 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 21 November 2014

In common parlance, "gas" can refer to any matter that tends to completely fill a 3D space, including plasma. However, an encyclopedia should strive to use these terms only in their technical definitions. I have fixed this. --JorisvS (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Simply their way of avoiding the forces active in plasma, by calling it a "neutral" gas. A gas it behaves nothing like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)

"The presence of a non-negligible number of charge carriers makes plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields... Unlike gas, under the influence of a magnetic field, it may form structures such as filaments, beams and double layers.... When the charges move, they generate electrical currents with magnetic fields, and as a result, they are affected by each other’s fields."

So again, we need not consider mythical dynamos. And referring to it as a "gas" is totally misleading as to it's true behavior. Steven J White (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Steven, the word "gas" actually only appears a very few times in the article. Can you be specific as to where you think there is a problem? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Differences in observational data and solutions

Some scientists found that observational data and solutions through mathematics for the heat transfer from the center to outer parts. When plugging dark matter in equations problem can be resolved. For more information refer to website: [2] MansourJE (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Centrifugal vs gravitational effects at equator miscalculation?

I believe there may be a mistake in the section Sun#Characteristics in the line "The centrifugal effect of the Sun's rotation is 18 million times weaker than the surface gravity at the Sun's equator." This is equivalent to saying the ratio of centrifugal to gravitational acceleration is a_c/g = 1/(1.8x10⁷) ≈ 5.6x10^-8. However, my own calculation for the centrifugal acceleration at the photosphere and equator (based on solar data from the main page, e.g. equatorial rotational period of 25.05 days) yields a_c = ω²R ≈ (2.90x10^-6 rad/s)²⋅(6.96x10⁸ m) ≈ 5.85x10^-3 m/s², and thus a_c/g ≈ (5.85x10^-3 m/s²)/(274 m/s²) ≈ 2.1x10^-5. This differs from the stated value by over two orders of magnitude. Perhaps the article meant to read "The centrifugal effect of the Sun's rotation is only 18 millionths as strong as the surface gravity at the equator"? This would be close to the value of 21 millionths I'm coming up with. Thoughts?Marcosk496 (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Marcosk496, I'm not following you completely. You have one calculation that shows a contradiction, and another one that does not? Can you show the one that is close to right? Then, with respect to the sentence you are questioning, it is closely related to the subsequent sentence, which has a reference to a book by Schutz:

The centrifugal effect of the Sun's rotation is 18 million times weaker than the surface gravity at the Sun's equator. The tidal effect of the planets is even weaker and does not significantly affect the shape of the Sun.

Perhaps this reference could shed some light on this. More generally, if we are going to some numerical value quoted, then there needs to be a citation, otherwise I think we get into Wiki policy for not reporting original research. I don't have access to the book by Schutz. Maybe someone reading this does? Thanks for paying attention! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This misinformation was added in this edit on 9 July 2004 and had nothing to do with the Schutz reference. Since it was wrong and unsourced, I removed it. Spacepotato (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

calendar is important but no where in Article

I mean this is not even mentioned solar calendar I would think this matters more than G-Clouds. We really need to ask "What is the Sun" not only to scientist but to people who may need to read this article and get a better complete pic.--Inayity (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• The solar calendar is based on the earth, not the sun. The length of a day and year are specified on the articles for each planet. — DanielLC 19:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of "sun"

User:JorisvS, what do you mean by your edit comment "it is, because it is the proper name of the star our planet orbits"? I had added the paragraph:

The word "sun" is normally not capitalized but takes the definite article: "the sun". However, the International Astronomical Union "formally recommends" capitalizing the word (as well as "Moon" and "Earth").

Are you saying "It is normally capitalized"? Well, that's certainly not true. Maybe certain people think it should normally be capitalized, but it's not normally capitalized. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the star our planet orbits or the light in the sky. Those are the same thing. I object to having the word "sun" capitalized in this article, against normal usage. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Proper usage has it capitalized, simply because it is a proper noun, and English capitalizes proper nouns. Sure, a good number of people don't, but that's no reason to be sloppy. --JorisvS (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You say it's a proper noun, but it's not really. (Nor is "the earth", "the ocean", etc.) It's not a question of sloppiness. The traditional way of spelling "sun" is with a small "s" (unless you go back a couple hundred years to the time when people would capitalize almost all the nouns in English, as the Germans still do). Anyway, if you're in favor of capitalizing it, then why did you delete my sentence saying that the IAU wants people to capitalize it? If this article is going to obey the diktat of the IAU instead of following normal usage, then there should at least be a sentence explaining why. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, but it is: it is one specific star, just like Proxima Centauri is one specific star. Earth is one specific planet, just like Jupiter is one specific planet. In contrast, there are many oceans, e.g. the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Indian. --JorisvS (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You can go back more than eleven hundred years to Ælfred (writing in Old English) and still see "sun" uncapitalised (" Ðonne seo sunne on hadrum heofone beorhtost scineð, þonne aðeostriaþ ealle steorran.") Milton uses a capital letter for "Sun", but then he does the same for "Sea". Wiktionary suggests that our particular star is a proper noun, but the OED gives no such indication, most of its cites being uncapitalised. Our Moon and Earth articles capitalise "Sun" so I suppose we ought to be consistent, even though many (most?) people don't use capital "S" in normal writing. Dbfirs 15:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization rules are arbitrary social conventions ("summer" vs. "Paris"), but on Wikipedia, the Sun as an astronomical object should indeed be capitalized, per MOS:CELESTIALBODIES. If you disagree, feel free to bring it up on that talk page, preferably after reviewing the previous discussion there. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Grammarist says that "Earth", "Moon" and "Sun" are capitalized when on their own, and lowercase when preceded by an article. Interestingly, it points out that only those astronomical objects are ever preceded by "the". You never refer to "the mars", for example. — DanielLC 19:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. After you change it to one convention, somebody will come along later and change it back to the other convention. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Energy sources of Earth

"The only other source of energy Earth has are the fissionable materials generated by the cataclysmic death of another star"

[surely the Earth also has kinetic energy - the Earth & Moon exert tidal forces on each other & motions within the earth's metallic core associated with the earth's rotation generate a magnetic field and thereby a protective magnetosphere] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GusMcT (talk • contribs) 11:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I've modified the sentence appropriately. The rotational energy of the earth-moon system does contribute a small amount of energy, but it is not significant compared with solar and geothermal energy. Dbfirs 10:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sun's Place in the Constellation?

In what constellation would the Sun ("Sol", or "Solus") be part of--146.111.156.100 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)? The "page" says it is closely associated with the star "Vega"; in the constellation of Lyra. This gives no indication of its stellar grouping? I've heard that our Sun orbits around the star (and therefore our solar system,) "Hyperion". As the layman knows, and is usually less informed, or taught about the basics concerning the dynamics of astronomy, questions such as this should be resolved. A greater appreciation for the stars, and less "mystery" can do much good. --146.111.156.100 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Veryverser

Hi 146.111.156.100, your question is one of general astronomy and not actually directly related to this article (these talk pages are about the article). Still, I will try to answer your question. The reference to Vega in the article is about the *absolute* position of the Sun within the Milky Way. The "position" of the Sun in constellations, however, depends on the *relative* position of the Sun and the Earth. As the Earth orbits the Sun, the Sun appears to progress through the zodiac constellations. You will find this subject explained in many introductory textbooks on astronomy. What I am having a hard time finding is a simple visual explanation of this in Wikipedia. Other editors might weigh in on this. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The best visual explanation of the Sun's apparent position relative to the constellations is at Ecliptic. The gif at the top combined with the first section explain the concept pretty well. A2soup (talk) 07:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I assume the OP knows that the constellations are not real in terms of proximity. They are just imaginary collections of stars (and galaxies) that happen to appear in a certain direction when viewed from Earth. The sun cannot be part of a constellation, by definition, since it cycles through them. For stars close to the sun, see the diagram in Milky Way#Sun's location and neighborhood. Hyperion is just another name for the sun. Dbfirs 10:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all contributors for clarifying the subject. However, I do insist that if what you contend that the the Sun (and most stars, and other bodies viewed from Earth,)don't fall in any sort of combined elliptical pattern, then they must adhere to a geometric patter common to various cited stars in a proscribed, and measured sector of space. --146.111.156.100 (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Veryverser

Yes, there is a very clear elliptical pattern because the rotation of the earth round the sun is a regular ellipse (to a good approximation, at least). I'm not clear what geometric pattern you are looking for. All the stars in our galaxy are rotating about the centre of mass of the galaxy, but this rotation is not easily noticeable except over long timescales of thousands of years. To help you understand that constellations are really just areas of the sky as seen from a moving earth, we have an article called Constellation. Dbfirs 21:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Seasonal changes

fyi, in case this article is of use to the authors: Superimposed on the Sun's 11-year cycle of maximums and minimums is a newly discovered shorter cycle with a period of just under two years. This seasonal cycle could play an important role in space weather because, depending on its phase, it could amplify active phases. http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/15037/sun-experiences-seasonal-changes-new-research-finds Jcardazzi (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

New solar activity cycle.

According to new information from NASA, a 330-day cycle of Sun's activity has been discovered. Is this notable enough to add to the article? --Artman40 (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, compared to all the other issues that need to be discussed in the article, this seemingly new periodicity is not high on the priority list. In my opinion. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Density units

The Radiative zone section lists density in g/cm³, while the Convective zone lists it in g/m³. I think they should use the same scale for consistency and ease of comparison. Praemonitus (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right. hi (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Earth mass symbol

The Wikipedia tag, "Earth mass|100" , produces a symbol (100 M_E), that could not possibly be known by an educated layperson, who comes here for information. It is used only once in this article, with no explanation. I have removed it, and replaced it with words. If you restore it, please leave in the words. I think this comes under the Wikipedia Manual of Style explain formulae in English. Nick Beeson (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2015

Reference (53): The most abundant metals are oxygen (roughly 1% of the Sun's mass), carbon (0.3%), neon (0.2%), and iron (0.2%). Is Oxygen considered a metal or a gas? Fourstake (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as the sentence clearly explains "All heavier elements, called metals in astronomy ..." this is a non-standard use of the word.
To answer your general question, Oxygen is a "highly reactive nonmetallic element", so it is not a metal.
However, being a gas does not preclude an element being a metal, 91 of the 118 elements in the periodic table are metals - as an example most people know that Mercury is a metal, but that is a liquid at room temperature. - Arjayay (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Actually, using "metal" like that is confusing to the layman and completely unnecessary. I've reworded it where appropriate. --JorisvS (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2015

sun is first source of lights in our galaxy his light touch the last planet too 105.102.153.157 (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done It isn't clear what exactly you want done. A2soup (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Too technical

Compared to the preceding content, the two sub-sections of 'Composition' appear much too technical for most lay readers. The obtuse technical wording disrupts the overall flow, and I believe it should be toned down and clarified. Praemonitus (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This article needs lots of work, that is for sure. I've spent time working on the language in Sun, and I've added content to the magnetic and sunspot sections (where I have some expertise). Still, the level of every wikiarticle is hard to judge. I've often felt that, as a compromise, parts of technical articles can have some material accessible to the lay public, but other parts (deeper in) need to have content of importance to people with more knowledge and skill. I say that because I often use Wikipedia to understand different technical mathematical issues, for example. It might help if you ask yourself if the content that concerns you in Sun is leaps and bounds more technical than appears in Star, or if, as I suspect, the content of parts of Sun just need to be worked over. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting the material be removed; just that it be written in a more accessible form (per WP:TECHNICAL). Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please, have at it! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This raises the question of what level of knowledge should be assumed in Wikipedia articles. Should we assume that readers are completely ignorant, and write "The Sun is the bright light in the sky.", or should we assume that they know a lot, so we should discuss nuclear physics and the like?

I used to work as a high-school math and science teacher, so I tend to write in a way that would be appropriate for readers aged about 12 to 19. This does seem to be about right for most readers of Wikipedia. Of course, many readers are older, but still want to learn things that high-school students learn, and there must be some precocious infants, wise beyond their years.

So this would be my advice. Don't try to impart knowledge that would already be known by an average 12-year-old, and don't write anything that would be incomprehensible to an average 19-year-old.

Does that sound reasonable?

DOwenWilliams (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, as per my comment above, I obviously don't agree. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

General-interest Wikipedia articles that have a technical aspect to them, such as Sun, require considerable care in their organization. The general recommendation, of course, is to begin the article with an elementary treatment, pushing more advanced topics to further on in the article. This recommendation becomes totally unrealistic when the subtopics themselves have elementary and advanced aspects. One then has an article whose talk pages are studded with complaints about the article's lack of comprehensibility. The large size of this article (currently 137 Kb) certainly contributes significantly to the perception that this article is too technical. One has to wade through a lot of advanced, difficult stuff to get at the simple tidbits that may be the target of one's interest.

A similar case comes to mind with Quadratic equation. This article is accessed by middle- and high-school students, but is also filled with discussion on advanced aspects of root calculation, generalization of the quadratic equation etc. that mathematicians love but which were of no interest to the primary audience. Probably my most important contribution to this article was my 08:00, 16 April 2013 edit where I cordoned off the advanced stuff into a separate Advanced topics section as a warning to non-experts that "here be monsters." The article is still not perfect (I disagree with the pedagogical philosophies of several of the latest editors) but at least one no longer sees "Bad Article" complaints. Perhaps one can try a similar tactic here, creating an "advanced topics" section? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Although I'm sympathetic to the sentiment, splitting off an "Advanced topics" would only disorganize this page, with all topics represented in two different locations. I think the best we can is explain everything as simply as possible and start all sections with the simple, basic stuff and gradually increase the difficulty of the content. --JorisvS (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JorisvS, two sections would not work. Reordering sections might be considered, but that would then require some modification of content that now has some linear dependencies. Note that we have a "Simple Wikipedia" and there is a Sun article there: [3]Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You both are probably right, but if I have time, I'll have a go at what I was thinking about in my Sandbox. If the results aren't totally disastrous, I'll let you have a look to get your opinions. Unfortunately, seeing as you two are most likely right in your assessments, most likely you won't hear from me... :-( Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Before taking on the whole article (it is difficult to manage), why not concentrate on a section that might be put into (simple first, then technical) order. I think the section on sunlight could be ordered like that (and simple content added). Just a thought. By the way, Simple Wikipedia is under-utilized in my opinion. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Try this: User:Stigmatella_aurantiaca/sandbox/three. A great deal of the perceived technical difficulty of the article is simply that it takes so long for a reader to wade through it. I've thrown nothing away, but the article seems much shorter, and should thus be much more accessible for a reader who wants just a quick look. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Did some testing, and found that unfortunately, this solution doesn't help users accessing the site with tablets or smart phones. Let met try a different approach for such users. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Experimented with some CSS tricks that worked on desktop and mobile platforms with IE, Firefox and Safari, but didn't work with Chrome. Left a message on the NavFrame Talk page asking for a version that works on mobile devices. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I suggest staying traditional in addressing the article's shortcomings. I can have a look at the article and suggest some paring down. First thoughts: 1. Get rid of barycenter discussion and figures -- this material is of no importance to just about anything (professional opinion). 2. Then get rid of future for planet Earth -- not directly about the Sun per se. Any objections? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree. What do movements around the barycenter have to do with motions around the galaxy? Earth's fate is covered well in its own article, although you should add a brief remark in the discussion about RGB that the Earth won't survive. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The hidden text looks ridiculous (are we trying to hide information from the reader?), especially where those boxes overlap with the infobox and images. Agree with Isambard that those things can be removed. What about also writing a summary about the Sun's structure and moving the details to an article Structure of the Sun or something? --JorisvS (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not the hidden text solution looks ridiculous is matter of familiarity. Think back. Were you not frustrated and annoyed the first time that you ever tried to use a tablet or smart phone? Hiding/showing is a widely used strategy to optimize use of limited real estate on mobile devices. The overlap problem is a separate issue. NavFrame does not seem to have been designed with the understanding that people will be accessing content on widely differing screen formats and resolutions. In your case, I presume that you were accessing on a wide screen with small font. My CSS3 solution would have worked better except that it failed miserably in Chrome. :-( Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"Ridiculous" as in not appropriate for an encyclopedia, yes, on a desktop. On a mobile device, especially a smartphone, it could be useful. However, it should not force it onto desktop users. --JorisvS (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

There are contrary principles and requirements at work here. On the one hand, we want the article to be accessible to a wide range of users, to be simply worded enough for a middle school student, yet still be useful to college and postgraduate users. On the other hand, we want the article to satisfy various aesthetic and usability requirements as regards user interface. If the available widgets to provide hide/show functionality actually worked, I'd say we should use them to provide maximum accessibility. But they don't, so it's all a moot point. How can we possibly be all things to all people? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Stigmatella aurantiaca, I'm not following you with respect to middle school children. As I've said before, Simple Wikipedia (not the same as the normal Wikipedia) [4], is an under-utilized rescource. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Continuing on with the theme of getting a bit of streamlining in this article, I'd like to suggest that we remove the section entitled "Theoretical problems". This would include getting rid of the subsections on the "Coronal heating problem" and the "Faint young Sun problem". We could reasonably add links to related content at the bottom of the article in "See also". I think that removing this material is acceptable given that this is an over-view article. What do people think? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we could do away with a "Theoretical problems" section. However, I don't think it is good to remove these points from the article altogether, because they are rather important. Instead, we could merge it into the rest of the article and prune them to only the basic point, with relevant links to the details. --JorisvS (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2015

123.239.185.175 (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what you want done. Please state your request in a "change x to y" format. To do this without making a new section, change "answered=yes" to "answered=no" and enter your request between the "begin request" and "end request" lines. A2soup (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2015

The rotation velocity could be put into the same format as that of 'The Earth' which is shown as "Equatorial rotation velocity 1,674.4 km/h (465.1 m/s)"

Note that scientific notation is not used for The Earth and is not needed for The Sun either. Or it should be changed to scientific notation for The Earth, so at least it is consistent. The Earth's rotation velocity is also converted into miles/second but the Sun's is not.

Standardizing this measure makes it easier to compare Sun and Earth rotational velocities.

StreetUrchin2 (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the Wikipedia policy is on "original research". I've heard that it is considered OR to estimate, using a map, for example, the distance between cities! Still, it is not hard to calculate an approximate equatorial rotation velocity using the parameters that are given in Solar_rotation: I get 7450.6 km/hr. With this, however, we always need to bear in mind that the Sun does not undergo solid-body rotation. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Bazj (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request - Typo

The "Atmosphere" section begins "During a total solar eclipse, when the disk of the Sun is covered by that of the Moon, the Sun's surrounding atmosphere."

That's not a sentence. Presumably that should end "...surrounding atmosphere is visible."

Thanks, that was a mistake I made! It is now fixed. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead and other images

Folks, I put a "white light" image in for the lead. I know that some editors might prefer something that looks, well, more exciting, but I would assert that this (or similar) image is a good representation, as it is a visible light image and, yes, even shows interesting detail (limb darkening, sunspots, granulation). Indeed, it kind of follows the tradition that is developing for the corresponding images of the planets, again, realistic visible-light images. What I do think is missing from the interior of this article is a set of images taken of the Sun at different key wavelengths. I would suggest that these be visible, ultraviolet, x-ray, and magnetogram. Ideally, these images would all be taken simultaneously, thus permitting easy comparison of features from one image to the other. I think it is important that these images capture a instance when there are both sunspots and coronal holes, both features important for discussion of the solar cycle and solar dynamo. So, that is my opinion. Others might feel differently. I know that. I haven't had a chance, lately, to figure out how to download these images from the websites of the Solar Dynamics Observatory or National Solar Observatory websites (where they should be available). Perhaps those of you interested in exciting images of the Sun can help out with this? Thanks very much! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no immediate objections to your new lead, but I do wonder-- is it visible light in color (usually achieved by shooting through 3 color filters and compositing the data from each filter) or a greyscale image from a sensor/filter that detects only visible light? A2soup (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The question is whether the current image satisfies the criteria at WP:LEADIMAGE. I'm concerned that this image might not be one that readers would expect to see when navigating to this page, or that it best identifies the subject. How many people will click onto this article, see a white circle that they don't recognise as the lead image, and assume that they're at the wrong page? A big, glowing ball of yellow fire might not be the most accurate representation of the sun, but it is what your average punter would expect to see. What sort of image do similar high-quality reference texts use? If they use the same thing, then I've got no problem with it. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I put that image there, having observed that many editors had something of an expectation that the lead images for the other members of our solar system (planets, moons) show the corresponding object in visible light with minimal distortion of color etc. Now, of course, we can't have an image with the true intensity of the Sun! Still that image is representative of what the Sun actually looks like in visible light, just with the intensity turned way down. Many of the other images that people seem to like are in ultraviolet or x-ray, and while representative of the Sun at those wavelengths, they are not anything like what the Sun looks like in visible light. I think it would be good if other editors would contribute candidate images, argue over it, etc. just as has happened recently, for example, over at Talk:Earth. The Solar Dynamics Observatory and the National Solar Observatory are good sources of images; just visit their websites. Since I've already weighed in here, I will remove myself from the discussion and just let it happen. I've got enough to do editing other articles. Cheers, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm pinging some interested editors (no offense if I don't ping you!): @JorisvS @A2soup @Drbogdan @Tom.Reding @Vsmith @Ashill There, I hope that helps in generating some interest. Bye, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The Sun's Brightness

The sun has an apparent magnitude of -26.74. It should be added to this article that the apparent magnitude of the sun converts to 98,000 lux. [unknown author]

Agreed: the article should state the sun's brightness. Yes I know it will vary based on latitude and season, but I think everyone on planet Earth can relate to the sun as a "standard candle". So I think giving it some quantifiable value (even with a moderate variance, like 96 ~ 100 k·lux) would benefit readers to gain a perspective of luminosity. Hydradix (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There is much more variation than that. I suppose we could give a maximum for clear sky with the sun overhead, but most of us don't see anything like that brightness for most of the year. Our article on Solar irradiance gives an average power of insolation. Our article on Lux states that direct sunlight is 32 to 100 kilolux. Dbfirs 08:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2015

Sun is good son is good 31.109.198.246 (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)🌐🙏

This is not a coherent request.crh23 (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Speed relative to primordial radiation.

In the early-mid 1990's, it was announced that the cosmic primordial radiation had an anisotropy that implied that the local group was traveling about 600km/s. I cannot find any specific calculation, only this stated result, so I do not want to add it to the main article. One reference was at http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap960205.html . Another reference was from Physics Today, June 1992, p. 17, "COBE MEASURES ANISOTROPY IN COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION", by Barbara Goss Levi. That article mentions 370 km/s for the solar system. The speed of the solar system in the local group would need to be vectorially added to that, so an angle between them would be needed. The 370 km/s would give 1 light year in 810 years, but in an unknown direction. agb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.43.206.27 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Due to WP:OR, we can't calculate the vector ourselves based on published data. If, however, you want to add a cited fact on this topic without going beyond what is explicitly published, then go ahead. I don't understand it well enough to do it well myself. A2soup (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2016

Please change the false colour image of the Sun in the infobox (File:Sun in February.jpg) to the following image showing it in more natural colours: File:Spots July.jpg. This was the previously used image in the article, but was changed the 8th November 2015 without a valid reason. According to both the article itself and several credible sources (for example: [1] and [2]) the colour of the Sun is white, a fact the previously used image illustrated. There is also already a request for this change in the form of a template in the discussion page of the article.

With the replacement of the image, please do also change the caption under the image from "A false colour image of the Sun (Taken on February 18, 2015)" to the previously used caption "The Sun in visible wavelength with filtered white light on 8 July 2014. Characteristic limb darkening and numerous sunspots are visible.".

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Gary The Duck (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: You are going to have to gain consensus for this change Mlpearc (open channel) 00:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

barycenter wrt Jupiter

Since Jupiter is so massive that the barycenter of Jupiter-Sol is above Sol's surface, shouldn't this article mention that? To an observer of our sun from outside the solar system, our sun would wobble quite a bit. 96.246.64.73 (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

"Quite a bit" is a relative term, and, of course, all pairs of gravitationally bound objects orbit around a barycenter. Does this, for example, affect the dynamics of the Sun in any significant way? Not that I know of. How does this subject rank on the list of all the other issues that might be addressed in this article? I don't think very highly. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I think your comment contributes nothing substantive to the topic I raised. As I said, the barycenter (no need for you to describe barycenters) is OUTSIDE diameter of the Sun, and this means the sun to an outside observer moves back and forth by more than its diameter as it and Jupiter rotate. I think this is an interesting fact that most people would be both surprised and gratified to learn. You don't need to put quotes around "quite a bit" to pretend it has no definition, I clearly described what I meant by it. In fact, this detail of the barycenter is more appropriate in the Sun article than it is in the Jupiter article where it currently resides (who would doubt that the barycenter would be far from Jupiter, and much closer to the sun? the interesting bit is that it's not actually that close the center of the sun.) The barycenter page itself features an animated gif illustration of Pluto-Charon engaging in exactly the same dance that the Sun and Jupiter are in, a dance which to you is uninteresting. I think people would be even more impressed on the barycenter page if they saw our Sun and Jupiter doing the same thing. The barycenter of the Jupiter-Earth-Sun system is pretty much in the same place, which means that the Earth also is not orbiting about the Sun, but rather a spot outside of the Sun's surface. Inasmuch as barycenters are interesting at all, I'd say that this is the most interesting (to an earthling) barycenter in our Solar system; in contrast, the earth-moon barycenter is within the earth's crust. "Does this, for example, affect the dynamics of the [Earth] in any significant way? Not that [you] know of." And yet, wikipedia has an entire page devoted to barycenter. The lack of effect, btw, is the whole point of rotation around center of mass, the independence of frames of reference, relativity, etc. 68.175.11.48 (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this is interesting, but regarding an observed "wobble", one must take into account the relative positions of the other planets as the sun will "wobble" around a combined barycentre of all of the mass in the system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_system_barycenter.svg 178.15.151.163 (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Future Age: Where did the second half of this Statement come from?

The Sun is roughly middle aged and has not changed dramatically for four billion[b] years, and will remain fairly stable for another four billion years.

Starting after the Comma: I don't dispute the claim, because I can do math for myself regarding the rate of fuel consumption and it could easily be a billion or more beyond that.

The issue I have in this case is the number thrown around on History Channel and Science Channel programs by leading Physicists and Astronomers tends to be around 500 Million to 1.5 Billion. WadeDanielSmith (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The Sun will remain on the main sequence (and hence stable) for the next five billion years or so (the "four" in the article is unsourced, below it the article says that the Sun will leave the main sequence in about 5.4 billion years, which is suspiciously a lot like 10−4.6)). However, all main-sequence stars gradually brighten, pushing the habitable zone out. Around a billion years or so, the Sun will have become too hot/bright for Earth to remain habitable. This is where the difference lies (or is supposed to lie). --JorisvS (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"It will exit the main sequence in approximately 5.4 billion years" is cited to "Distant future of the Sun and Earth revisited"; in the model in table 1 of that paper, subtracting 4.58 (current age, /- 0.05) from 10.00 (exits main sequence) yields 5.42. I don't see any explicit error bars given for the 10.00 figure, and as always the model could be mistaken, so IMHO we should play it safe and say "approximately 5 billion years" like the NASA Sun page instead of saying "approximately 5.4 billion years". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The "chance" that the Sun's main-sequence lifetime is exactly 10.00 billion years is nearly zero. That it has exactly 10.00 is very suspicious, especially without error bars, and cannot be trusted to produce an accurate result. With the current citation we cannot be more precise than "'more than' or 'approximately' (I think the former is more accurate) 5 billion years". --JorisvS (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it, but while we're on the topic, should we get fuzz out the "approximately 4.567 billion" cited to Connely 2012 to 4.6 like NASA currently does? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Why? It says "4567.32 ± 0.42 million years", so it makes no sense to lose precision that we can confidently give. --JorisvS (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

My initial concern was only based on noticing the 4.567 figure doesn't seem to be widely used yet by tertiary sources like NASA. But looking briefly through the scientific literature, [5] (a research note in Astronomy and Astrophysics) implies that there's uncertainty about the reaction rates, and argues that 4.587 ± 0.007 is a slightly more plausible figure? (if I'm reading the note correctly, which I may not be.) (Caveat: I don't personally understand these papers well.) So it's not clear to me yet that there's currently a scientific consensus that it's been narrowed down to the suggested accuracy. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't really put my head around all the dates thrown around in that article. But given that they do give a different value, this suggests to me that maybe it would be prudent to have a 4.6 billion in the lead, with several specific age estimates down in the body (maybe including a table), with an explanation about why they differ. --JorisvS (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancy as to sun velocity with respect to center of Milky Way

The main text of the article says the sun's mean orbital velocity is 251 km/s (156 mi/s). But the sidebar at the top right says 220 km/s. Which is correct? Can this please be corrected? Thanks. TubesUntil (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll sort this out more later, but I just want to document what I've found so far. The ref cited for the 251 km/s figure is a mess. It doesn't link to the correct article (indicated by author, volume, and issue), and the title given is not the same as the linked or correct articles. The correct article is here (may be paywalled), and it indeed says that the "previous figure" of 220 km/s has been revised to 251 km/s, citing this paper, which does in fact say that and was published in a good journal. The question is whether this one paper is sufficient to overturn what it itself calls the "IAU standard" value of 220 km/s. I'm not sure I'm qualified to judge this, perhaps it would be best to ask for an expert on the relevant Wikiprojects? We could also look for more recent refs and see which figure they give. A2soup (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

An additional note: it looks like the paper I referenced above actually does not propose the value of 251 km/s itself, but rather summarizes findings from 3 other papers (Reid & Brunthaler, 2004; Gillessen et al., 2008; Uemura et al., 2000) that support that value. This lends more weight to the idea that 251 km/s is a new standard value of sorts, but I'm still not confident. A2soup (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150905192120/http://interstellar.jpl.nasa.gov/interstellar/probe/introduction/neighborhood.html, to http://interstellar.jpl.nasa.gov/interstellar/probe/introduction/neighborhood.html,
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/pdf/571/57102211.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Age Discrepancies vs Solar Composition, and Age of the Universe Discrepancy

In the Article in one place it says:

"The protostellar Sun's composition was reconstructed as 71.1% hydrogen, 27.4% helium, and 1.5% heavier elements.[50]"

Then it says:

"In the inner portions of the Sun, nuclear fusion has modified the composition by converting hydrogen into helium, so the innermost portion of the Sun is now roughly 60% helium"

If you look at the rate of fusion that is later calculated, using a figure from one of the talk entries above mine, I reached a value similar to my old calculation of 27.4 Billion years old, but instead obtained 26.97 Billion years old IF you assumed the Sun were a First Generation star, and burning continually. This is suspiciously close to a number which is exactly twice the current accepted age of the universe, being 13.7 billion to 13.8 Billion * 2 = 27.4 Billion to 27.6 Billion years. I once obtained 27.4 to 27.6 Billion years for the age of the universe, after writing a differential while studying a "Galaxy appears older than the standard model for the universe itself" problem I encountered from a science article. Namely, a galaxy appeared 11 billion years old...11 billion years ago, which meant that it must be 22 billion years old.

So I jokingly tested the notion of the Sun as a First Generation star, and it came out to being exactly twice the accepted age of the Universe. The data in this article has been updated some since then so the calculation doesn't come out to literally the exact same, but it still comes to 26.97 Billion years.

This was in VERY strong agreement with the differential I had developed to explain the "Galaxy appears older than the universe" problem.

I admit that this evidence is circumstantial, but it suggests that the universe is 27.4 to 27.6 Billion years old, and that the Sun is 27 Billion years old* and is a First Generation star. In fact, it would apparently be slightly older than that, since the Sun is supposed to be burning faster and faster with time, due to contraction of core density (Helium is denser than hydrogen) allowing the fuel to be under more pressure with time, which means that the Sun would have been burning slightly slower for the first several billion years.

This is not conjecture, it is a Hypothesis or theory, and it is ironic that both calculations agree almost exactly for the age of the Universe, if you assume the Sun is a First Generation Star. So when two calculations agree with one another, it leaves the realm of conjecture and becomes Hypothesis or Theory.

However, I should point out that all of these calculations assume that Einstein's relativity equations are correct. I have recently found what I believe to be an emergent Vector Space violation in Special Relativity, and in General Relativity, which is caused by the Lorentz Transformation. The violation is not at V=0 nor V=C. It happens apparently at any velocity under the right conditions, but the specific case I found can happen around 0.6C to 0.87C. These calculations might not be valid after all, if the vector space violation is real. Suffice it to say that the Vector Space violation is such that I can produce a scenario where observer A sees Ball 1 drop on the left end of a rocket, and observer B instead sees Ball 2 drop on the right end of the rocket, and these are not "unrelated events". These are events with the exact same cause (a common light source,) but a macroscopic vector space violation is produced, causing not just relative observations, but entire conflicting alternate time lines for each observer.

I have submitted a paper on that topic to Dr. Michio Kaku asking for advice and assistance in understanding and formalizing the problem, as I do not have a degree in physics, but I am good at finding peculiar mistakes and peculiar coincidences or relationships in equations or data. This discovery in relevant because if I am correct, our understanding of Nuclear Fusion is at least partly flawed, and our understanding of particle physics, cosmic rays, and just about everything in Astronomy/Cosmology is flawed to some degree, particularly in any case where an object is moving 0.6C or faster, and potentially even at slower velocities, because those object's data is interpreted through Einstein's equations. The Lorentz Transformation is apparently flawed at a fundamental level, if I am right, because it produces EMERGENT Vector Space Violation.

Thanks.

WadeDanielSmith (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Wade Daniel Smith, 1/20/2016, 7:00pm central.

If you find a problem in an article, and find a reliable source that supplies you with correct information, then please correct the problem and cite the article. Otherwise, we can find room for original research. Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't understand how hard it is get a PhD level physicist to give me serious review, even though there is no logical problem with my observations. For some reason they just absolutely will not even give me a serious ear, and I need 3 to 6 PhD sponsors to be able to publish ANYTHING to a Journal. Even though I have made at least 4 or 5 Nobel Laureate level discoveries in physics in my lifetime, I keep getting the "Delete and Ban" response from everyone on the internet, and I can't even get the President nor the Supreme Court via Certified Mail, nor a News Channel to take me seriously for 5 minutes.

The next step is I'm going to get a Lawyer and sue the Supreme Court itself, because they make legal decisions based on Scientific Journals in some cases, and I can't submit to a Journal at all without 3 to 6 PhD sponsors to give a theory, with evidence and calculations, which contradicts standard models in physics. I don't have anywhere else to post other than Facebook, or maybe Amazon publishing tool, but that costs around $100 a year, and I'm not exactly rich to invest in it, as I have a physical medical disability.

They think they know everything, and most of them don't know how to do anything beyond QUOTE a text. I take data and formulas and I break them down and study them forward, backwards, inside out and upside down until I find a flaw, or a pattern, which nobody else ever found, and I show how it really works...

...and they still don't listen to me, because they don't actually understand the formulas at all themselves, and they have a degree in the field.

It's freaking ridiculous.

WadeDanielSmith (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Wade Daniel Smith

I have degrees in physics. Nothing you've put forth makes any sense. What I'd recommend is you do what all of us with PhD's in physics have done. Get a bachelor's level degree in physics from an accredited university. It takes four years, but in your sophomore year, you'll see why your understanding of the Lorentz transformations is completely messed up. In your junior year, you'll learn about the constant battle between electromagnetism and gravity that creates stars. In your senior year, if you make it there, you'll have enough mathematical expertise built up, to realize physics isn't manipulating equations to see what they yield. Equations are built to match observations. We have factual observations you can learn in nuclear physics as a senior physics major about why we know the solar system is 4.6 billion years old, as is the Sun. Evidence. Finally, spend another seven years and get a PhD. Then we'll listen. By then, you'll have seen the error of your own claims. Good luck. Plenty of great universities out here looking for new physics majors.130.111.163.179 (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

edit request re: stadia

In the section "Development of scientific understanding" stadia is, I beg to say, unhelpful. It should instead direct the reader to the Wikipedia entry Stadion_(unit) DaveyHume (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2016

I beleve there is an error Youngpikachu18 (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Please clarify what you are referring to. GAB^Hello! 16:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Solar Constant

The value of the solar constant has recently been updated to 1361 W/m^2. See Wikipedia's own Solar constant entry. The photosphere effective temperature also needs to be accordingly updated to 5772 K; see, for example, Professor Eric Mamajek's Star Notes. Jrdx (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Updated. I didn't even have to hunt for a source, since [6] already updated to the new temp. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps related, the luminosity value seems to be incorrect. The article on solar luminosity and NASA's sun factsheet agree on 382,8 (E24) but this article has 384,6. The former value leads to the correct value for the solar constant, the latter does not. Asgrrr (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Went ahead and changed the luminosity, bc. the reference given is actually the NASA sunfact sheet which has the 382,8 value. I changed only the Watts figure. Perhaps someone else will look at the values given in different units. Asgrrr (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Image choice for the infobox

Previously, this article had a great high-resolution photo of the sun in a recognizable form: a red-orange ball of fire, just as it would appear to a regular camera (on very low exposure).

Now, it has been replaced by an extremely low-resolution, pixelated ball of white with very little detail that looks like a 50px image that has been blown up. The old image can't even be found anywhere on the page.

Please consider reverting to a better image for the infobox. 73.206.73.84 (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

"just as it would appear to a regular camera" Only if your camera takes pictures in UV. In visible light, the current image is exactly what you will see, and is better for that reason. Double sharp (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• I second the reply made by Double sharp. The old image was a fantasy. Very happy to see the Sun look like itself. Pocketthis (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
• The present image is what the Sun looks like in visible light, and with no adjustments made for limb darkening. The Sun is not orange. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Critical comments

I've read part of this article (as of Aug 27, 2016) and see several areas that, imho, need improvement. Here are the problems/issues I encountered:
1. The lead claims that the Sun "has not changed dramatically" in the past 4 billion years. This demands the reader have some sense of what is and is not "dramatic". OK, it (probably) entered the Main Sequence well over 4 billion years ago, and since then its evolution has been fairly smooth (as far as we know). The problem I have is that many people reading the problem text will conclude that the Sun has not changed in the last 4E9 years, and that is wrong. The Sun's core is slowly changing the hydrogen found there into helium (other products are rare, at best). The Sun is emitting a enormous number of neutrinos, protons, electrons, and alpha particles. So, it is loosing mass and is slowly changing its volume and its brightness is increasing (among other changes).
2. The lead also contains the phrase "after hydrogen fusion in its core has stopped". That is nonsense, the H fusion doesn't ever stop, but it diminishes to a point at which the Sun is no longer in hydrostatic equilibrium. The core experiences a marked increase in density and temperature while the Sun's outer layers expand. The Sun leaves the Main Sequence and enters the Red Giant branch.
3.In the section Characteristics:"The Sun is a Population I, heavy-element rich, star. It seems to me that that bald statement needs a lot more clarification. What does it mean to be "rich"? What are the other classifications (extreme Population I stars, intermediate population stars, intermediary disc population stars, Population II, and Population III (hypothetical)) The Sun is an intermediate population I star. I'm not sure it is useful to mention this classification. It would be more useful, imho, to mention when the Milky Way experienced its peak star formation rate 4-6 billion years ago, and that our Sun is a relatively middle-aged star, with another 5-6 billion years on the Main Seq. This same paragraph is confusing: if the Sun formed after the formation of Population III stars, and after formation of Population II heavy-metal poor stars, why not just say so? It is NOT true that the reason it is a Population I star is due to the abundance of gold or uranium in "the Solar System". Its Pop I status is exactly the result of the abundance of those as measured in its spectra. It also could be clearly stated that we have good evidence that several supernova (probably of Population II stars) contributed to the elements making up the Sun and our Solar System. As it is, speaking about endothermic fusion and neutron absorption is far too technical for the level of treatment otherwise being expressed.
4. Also in the Characteristics section, the AU is discussed and it is implied that it is the Earth's average distance to the Sun. Well, yes and no. I recently read that the average distance was 1.0003 AU, but perhaps this is too insignificant to quibble about. (It also depends on what is meant by "average": average taken second by second (over time) or average kilometer by kilometer (over distance or orbital circumference), another quibble.)
5."in its outer parts its density decreases exponentially." Should, imho, be changed to "above the photosphere the Sun's density decreases exponentially".
6."For the purpose of measurement, however, the Sun's radius is considered to be the distance from its center to the edge of the photosphere, the apparent visible surface of the Sun." First it is the top edge, not just edge. Second, like the Sun itself, none of these zones have sharp boundaries. This is dramatically different from the surface of Earth and the rocky planets where we can determine the surface to within fractions of a millimeter.
7. In the Photosphere section:"[The Photosphere] is the layer below which the Sun becomes opaque to visible light." It's not wrong, but begs the question HOW FAR below that layer is light no longer visible? kilometers? tens of km? hundreds? thousands?
8. Same section "Above...sunlight is free to propagate into space and its energy escapes the Sun entirely." This is just plain wrong. Some (admittedly, not much) sunlight is absorbed and scattered well above the Photosphere. The word "entirely" is far too absolute and definitely wrong. How about "almost all of its energy escapes the Sun entirely"?
9. Finally, for some really bad reason the REAL center of the Solar System (geometrically speaking) is never mentioned. Nor is the fact that the Sun orbits this (moving) point - the barycenter. Granted, the barycenter is believed to be, baring discovery of some really really massive planets out beyond Pluto, 11,000 km below the Sun's photosphere, hence inside the Sun. But the center of the Sun orbits this point. (Like a paper disk being pinned to the wall near its edge and being rotated around that point.) It should at least be mentioned in this article.173.191.76.21 (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you make these edits yourself? FYI, in the mix of everything contained in this article, I don't think your point 9 is very important. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Seconding Isambard Kingdom, a core value of Wikipedia is to be bold! But also be careful and don't get upset if people revert some of your edits. Have at it! A2soup (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

G2 color inconsistent with Stellar Classification section of wikipedia

This article declares the color of the sun as white, but the Class G section of the Stellar classification page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification#Class_G) refers to Sol as yellow. And the temperature in this article also places it in the realm of yellow. Which article is correct?

The Sun's color is rather close to white, but the conventional color description is "yellow". Don't ask me why that is. This has shows some black-body colors on a three-color diagram with the Sun being closest to the whitest circle. --JorisvS (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello JorisvS, This white yellow thing has bugged me for years as a photographer. This morning I researched the question from NASA to Stanford, and everything in-between. I read all the arguments, saw all the graphs, and the preponderance of the evidence is that the Sun is definitely "white", and if it leaned toward any color in the spectrum, it would actually peak in the green. The Sun is "all colors", which means it is "White". I truly don't think the subject can be more thoroughly researched than my efforts this morning. This is probably the most basic and academically relatively simple explanation out there: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/SID/activities/GreenSun.html - Pocketthis (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to get one other point made here, while we're on the subject: The statement that the "unsigned" editor makes above, about two articles having different facts, is actually, (in my opinion) the 2nd biggest problem we face here on Wikipedia. The first, of course, is vandalism, which we all spend way too much time on, because of Wiki's "anyone can edit wikipedia" policy. That aside, "Conflicting Information" h_{Subscript text}as to be number 2. Just in my own experience as a reader of articles here, I have noted over 100 articles that conflict with each other. That's just me. That means there must be multiple thousands of articles that give conflicting info on the same subjects. One problem is that there are too many articles that are similar in nature, and should be combined. For example: Precipitation has more articles than rain drops. So many of my friends that know I'm an editor here, tell me this place has no credibility because facts are conflicted, from one related article to the next. I recently made a point of making all "twilight" related articles have basically the same facts. Bottom line: If there's an article claiming the Sun is yellow, as the OP suggests, it should be changed to match our Sun article. There is no excuse for conflicting info on this encyclopedia. Thanks - Pocketthis (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you know what could be done here? Part of the problem is that "yellow" is the common descriptor for these, even if not accurate, and that has to be documented. This and the other color words have crept in the common terms for these. Can we find something that sufficiently satisfies WP's common-name policy without being misleading? --JorisvS (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am a photographer, and not a science editor. Even though I have a college degree, it certainly isn't in science. You guys must obtain a consensus in this particular subject, and as far as the multiple conflicted articles are concerned, we need a comprehensive plan on how to eliminate this problem. Thanks- Pocketthis (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of that, you can certainly participate in looking for conflicting information, coming up with a plan, and executing it. --JorisvS (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Of course you are right. I don't need a degree in science to research an issue or fact. I guess I was just letting go of some steam yesterday about my pet peeve here: Conflicting articles. The problem as I see it, is multifaceted. You have an author that starts an article that is very similar to an article that is already here. It then attracts a group of authors (editors) that contribute to it, and it becomes its own beast, with little or no regard for any other articles that may have conflicting facts. For instance, our Sun article is very large, and covers many associated topics, which usually branch off into their own article (like the one mentioned above), and takes on a bias of facts that may conflict with the original article it evolved from. The last time I got myself in the middle of trying to fix a mess like that, was in "Desert Island". That article should be called "Uninhabited Island", or "Deserted Island" because a true desert island is one with an arid climate, and the vegetation to match. If you read the talk page on that article, you will see that my efforts were ignored, and the article actually got named Desert Island because "it sounded cool" to the group of editors designing it, even though there are at least three other articles on this site that completely disagree with the facts in "Desert Island". It was an exhausting effort on my part, with no resolution. Fixing the conflicted article issue here will be a mammoth task, and with the egos attached to some editors here that write articles, an entire policy change would have to be implemented to begin fixing the problem. In the mean time, my suggestion to all editors that are concerned about the problem, is to try and do little tweaks to a conflicting article when you run into one. Even a minor edit that may go unnoticed, yet may lean a statement more toward the real facts, without causing a major war, can be helpful in making articles jive with each other. However, I truly believe if we want to really fix the issue, many articles will have to be combined, and some eliminated completely. Also, I think articles are started too easily here, with little or no regard for the existence of an article that already covers the subject in question. Been fun JorisvS...happy editing - Pocketthis (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I see the escape velocity is given in the box on the right at the "surface" of the Sun. Aside from the problematic concept of the Sun's "surface", I wonder if it would be useful to also include the escape velocity from an orbit at the Earth's distance from the Sun? If so it is 41.76 km/s at aphelion, 42.47 at perihelion and for the average distance of 1.50E11 m, it is 42.06 km/s. (which is only 3.7 - 3.8 times the escape velocity from Earth at Earth's surface - meaning once you've 'escaped' Earth, you still are bound to the Sun and need almost 4X more speed/energy to escape the Solar System.)71.29.173.173 (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• https://books.google.com/books?id=JnoZTbVLx0MC&pg=PA37

--66.75.3.58 (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[[Google.com|Go Google Search

Re the colour "contradiction"; the stellar classification of low or yellow-green refers to the part of the spectrum in which the output of the sun peaks. Despite that, the sun's output at all wavelengths is powerful enough that it appears white in appearance. As an analogy, an incandescent light bulb has peak output at infrared wavelengths, and yet there is enough output at all wavelengths for it appear white or almost white to humans.At least I try (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC) At least I try (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving Earth to hold in the bisophere

There is always only mentioned, that Earth bill be distryoed by the sun when changing to a red giant. Why not mention the possibility of changing Earth orbit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pege.founder (talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia does not deal in speculation nor original research, except that which is commonly discussed in professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Besides, the time frame for the sun to expand is so far off that it raises the question whether or not humanity will even still be around, or whether the post-human race that evolves from us will even regard Earth as their home. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

An image for "Name and etimology"

It's a good article so i don't edit it directly, but I have found this image File:Multilanguages Sun.jpg if you think is appropriate you can insert it in the paragraph.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Planetary System

I added a little section about the planetary system of the Sun (i.e. the Solar System) because most articles about stars include a mention of their planetary system. As there is an in-depth article about the Solar System, I kept it short with a link to the main article. If anyone thinks that there should be more included in that section, feel free to stick it in. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)