Talk:Sun/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Sun Stereo Photo

Hey guys, one of you must put a caption under that new photo. What good is a blue sun photo; if no one knows what they're looking at. Come on..heads up guys. Pocketthis (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Done—Kelvinsong (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

STEREO image of the sun, taken at the 171Å (UV) wavelength.

• Kelvin, I hold a BA, and I don't know what that means. The average person reading that subtitle will feel like an idiot. Can you elongate and simplify that Caption for the general public? Like why is it called "Stereo Sun" and what does it show? Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• How about this—"Image of the sun taken by the STEREO probes, at the extreme UV wavelength (171 Å)."—Kelvinsong (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• That's better, however, I don't know what Stereo Probes are. I just clicked on your STEREO Link. That's very good because it takes you to exactly what we're looking to learn...the NASA Stereo Info. Actually either caption works, but I like the longer version a little better. I think you should go ahead and put this Caption in the article. I think it will work very well there. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Earth's fate

I have never edited a document on Wikipedia and I have only just created an account. I did so because I think there's something wrong under the heading "Earth's fate" and it needs to be fixed. The very first sentence under the heading states that "Earth's fate is certain." However as the paragraph continues, Earth's definitive fate is not provided and there are a number of words like 'probably', 'suggests', 'if', and 'possibly'; words to the effect that Earth's fate isn't as certain as the first sentence would have us believe. Even if the paragraph didn't contain those words though, I still think it would be dubious to state, with absolute certainty, what is going to happen to the Earth several billions years from now. FillsHerTease (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleted the sentence. Double sharp (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• FillsHerTease: You were correct to suggest the removal of the prediction of certainty. That sentence has bothered me for a long time, however, I usually leave the science to the science editors. Truth is though....in billions of years, man may have moved the Earth to another Galaxy. "Extremely unlikely", but at the rate technology is moving....who knows. Besides, there are so many other ways the Earth can go Bye Bye; such as a major asteroid hit, or another planet crashing into it.....NOTHING is certain except death and taxes; and sometimes not even death...just ask Elvis. Good edit idea, and it has been removed by Double sharp. Welcome to Wiki. Pocketthis (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC

Mean Diameter

Is [1.392684×10^6 km] really so necessary that the much more obvious and easier to read [1,392,684 km] cannot be used?74.235.197.171 (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not necessary at all. 1.392684×10^9 m would be more logical in SI units (unless there is some convention to use kilometres instead of metres in astronomy), but I prefer your suggestion of a whole number of km. Write it as 1392684 km to avoid commas because they are used as decimal separators in some countries. Dbfirs 07:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Core temperature citation

In the section about the solar core, there is a "citation needed" sign next to the core temperature of 15.7 million kelvin. You can use citation [48] for that as well; but I can't seem to edit that article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awumnox (talk • contribs) 09:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Ulflund (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Chemical composition

The following sentence is ungrammatical:

"However, since the Sun formed, the helium and heavy elements have settled out of the photosphere. Therefore, the photosphere now contains slightly less helium and only 84% of the heavy elements than the protostellar Sun did; the protostellar Sun was 71.1% hydrogen, 27.4% helium, and 1.5% metals."

It would be better written like this:

However, since the Sun formed, helium and heavy elements have settled out of the photosphere. Therefore, the photosphere now contains slightly less helium than the protostellar Sun and contains only 84% of the protostellar Sun's heavy elements. The protostellar Sun was 71.1% hydrogen, 27.4% helium, and 1.5% metals.

My reasoning -- First, "the helium" should just be "helium" because the author is not talking about any particular helium, just helium in the photosphere. This is a minor gripe; however, there is no reason to add an extra word. Second, "slightly less helium and only 84% of the heavy elements than the protostellar Sun did." This is not a minor mistake. It is okay to say "slightly less helium than the protostellar Sun" but not okay to say "only 84% of the heavy elements than the protostellar Sun," which is the way it reads when both phrases are connected with the conjunction "and."

In addition, the verb "did" is redundant because the protostellar Sun does not exist anymore; therefore the past tense is implied. It is also not parallel since the verb being used is "contain." "Contained" could be used instead of "did," which would be parallel, but again, why add an extra word?

Also, it is not clear what the protostellar Sun is since it is not introduced anywhere in the article. The author simply starts discussing it as if everyone should just know what it is. The introductory sentence for the paragraph could be written like this: "The Sun inherited its chemical composition from the interstellar medium out of which it formed into a protostellar Sun." Ron012 (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 February 2013

The following sentence (under Chemical composition) is ungrammatical:

"However, since the Sun formed, the helium and heavy elements have settled out of the photosphere. Therefore, the photosphere now contains slightly less helium and only 84% of the heavy elements than the protostellar Sun did; the protostellar Sun was 71.1% hydrogen, 27.4% helium, and 1.5% metals."

It would be better written like this:

However, since the Sun formed, helium and heavy elements have settled out of the photosphere. Therefore, the photosphere now contains slightly less helium than the protostellar Sun and contains only 84% of the protostellar Sun's heavy elements. The protostellar Sun was 71.1% hydrogen, 27.4% helium, and 1.5% metals.

My reasoning -- First, "the helium" should just be "helium" because the author is not talking about any particular helium, just helium in the photosphere. This is a minor gripe; however, there is no reason to add an extra word. Second, "slightly less helium and only 84% of the heavy elements than the protostellar Sun did." This is not a minor mistake. It is okay to say "slightly less helium than the protostellar Sun" but not okay to say "only 84% of the heavy elements than the protostellar Sun," which is the way it reads when both phrases are connected with the conjunction "and."

In addition, the verb "did" is redundant because the protostellar Sun does not exist anymore; therefore the past tense is implied. It is also not parallel since the verb being used is "contain." "Contained" could be used instead of "did," which would be parallel, but again, why add an extra word?

Also, it is not clear what the protostellar Sun is since it is not introduced anywhere in the article. The author simply starts discussing it as if everyone should just know what it is. The introductory sentence for the paragraph could be written like this: "The Sun inherited its chemical composition from the interstellar medium out of which it formed into a protostellar Sun." Ron012 (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ron, Just for the sake of grammar I agree with your changes. However, I am not a science editor, and would feel more comfortable asking one of them to review your input, and perhaps subsequently make the changes. I'll track one down today, and we'll see what happens. Thanks. Pocketthis (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree too. I suggest thst Ron should just cut and paste his wording from above into the article. DOwenWilliams (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit further than the suggestion, taking into account also that the mentioned ratio of 84% refers to the relative content of heavy elements (metallicity) in the photosphere. — HHHIPPO 22:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and update. I would have phrased the paragraph differently, but I think it certainly reads much better now. I suppose everyone has their own writing style. Ron012 (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

is this sentence missing the word "zone"?

I am on my phone and ask that someone fix this for me

" The radiative zone and the convection form a transition layer, the tachocline" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B106:CDC9:74CF:8CE6:5FE:29A7 (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Also tweaked a bit more to avoid the impression that the tachocline consists of, rather than separates, the radiative and convective zones. — HHHIPPO 19:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

another typo/clarity issue

I think the point is that it is TOO opaque. Maybe the clause should be cut out enitrely?

"the solar plasma is not dense enough or hot enough to transfer the thermal energy of the interior outward through radiation; in other words it is opaque enough" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.214.111 (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2013‎ (UTC)

 Done This sentence was indeed a bit too opaque ;-) Rephrased in accordance with the cited ref. — HHHIPPO 20:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

per heliosphere the bow shock is outdated

Me again. I haven't got the expertise (or a keyboard) to do this myself but I see that the following sentence is outdated, there is no bow shock:

The heliosphere, which may be considered the tenuous outer atmosphere of the Sun, extends outward past the orbit of Pluto to the heliopause, where it forms a sharp shock front boundary with the interstellar medium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B106:CDC9:74CF:8CE6:5FE:29A7 (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

 Partly done. This one is tricky: as I understand it, there are three possible 'boundary' layers: the termination shock, where the solar wind slows down to subsonic speed, the heliopause, where the average particle speed and the magnetic field reach that of the interstellar medium, and the bow shock, where the speed of the interstellar medium relative to the Sun becomes subsonic.

The bow shock was recently found not to exist, since the relative speed of Sun and ISM is subsonic anyway. I'm not quite sure what the sentence in question means by sharp shock front, but I took out this expression for now. This should be checked and maybe better explained by an expert in the field though. — HHHIPPO 22:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Life stages, a significant edit in context

I have significantly expanded the section of the life stages of the sun. Mostly this discusses the post-main sequence stages. The pre-main sequence stage seems OK, and the main sequence stage is "now" so not much more to discuss, The context for this is that there are various article sections all over the place about the "fate of the earth", "sun as a red giant", etc., which it seemed should be pulled together into one place and then linked from all the other articles. The main impetus was the large section Red_giant#The_Sun_as_a_red_giant.5B15.5D.5B16.5D.5B17.5D in the small article Red giant. If this location and text (no doubt still needing tweaks) is acceptable, I will then cut down sections such as Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System#The_Sun_and_planetary_environments and Future_of_the_Earth#Red_giant_stage and link them here. Lithopsian (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Eye damage

The section on potential eye damage from observing the sun is completely inaccurate, lacking in any scientific credibility, and just repeats the anecdotal warnings passed down through the generations. Surely we can do better without giving anybody ideas that would blind them. For example, the whole retinal intensity thing is wrong. No optical instrument produces a retinal intensity higher than that of the naked eye. The total energy passing into the eye can be higher, and the energy intensity at the cornea/iris/lens can be enormous with a small exit pupil, but that's not what the article describes. To quote something specific, the idea that binoculars can deliver 500 times as much energy to the retina as the naked eye is wrong. Total energy delivered to the eye is in the region of 50 times the naked eye (simply aperture divided by pupil size, squared), intensity on the retina as already mentioned is slightly less than the naked eye (aperture divided by pupil size, squared, divided by magnification squared, or more simply the exit pupil size divided by the pupil size, squared), and intensity at the exit pupil is of the order of 50 times (due to low magnification, telescopes can be much much higher). Lithopsian (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't convince me because 500 is less than 23 squared, and some binoculars have this magnification, but I agree that references are important. Do you not believe the references given in the section? The "anecdotal warnings" are repeated by scientists every eclipse. Dbfirs 08:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't believe the references given (I haven't looked it them) if they say that binoculars dump 500 times as much energy into the eye. That is wrong. They are simply scare stories handed down to stop people doing something which, in the wrong circumstances, would damage their eyes. I agree, find some actual references about eye damage. Here's some possibilities:

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?id=18060 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02476660?LI=true Lithopsian (talk) 11:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

These papers seem to be about direct observation of the sun without binoculars, though the second one makes clear that the temperature increase in unaided observation is not significant. I think it is energy per unit area on the retina that is the important measurement. I still don't see why you limit the ratio to 50, but I haven't found any figures quoted in the references. There's an interesting experiment here(together with lots of crackpot comments), but a more scholarly summary of the dangers is here. Dbfirs 13:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

My main problem is actually with the energy per unit area on the retina, because this is the one value that *does not* increase when using optical assistance. The *total energy* transmitted to the eye can increase, but it is spread over a larger area of the retina. The unaided image of the sun on the retina is about 0.15mm. While damage from the sun with optical assistance is generally temporary, any permanent damage is restricted to a tiny area and vision loss is usually quite small. With an optical instrument the energy per unit area (on the retina!) is less due to increased image size (more magnification means lower intensity on the retina, but even at lowest usable magnification it cannot be higher than unaided) and losses through the instrument (can be very large in infra-red). The larger image size (proportional to the magnification) means that *if* damage occurs then it will occur over a larger area, leading to more significant vision impairment and possibly total blindness. The high total energy load also increases the temperature of the eye, again increasing the chances of permanent and total vision loss. A completely separate issue is the immense energy intensity at the exit pupil, increasing with the square of magnification. This is not relevant to the retina because it cannot possibly land on the retina, but it can land on or near the cornea, iris, and lens of the eye. Although these parts of the eye are relatively transparent, the enormous intensity can cause direct damage. Occasional incidents of people actually looking briefly through a telescope eyepiece report intense pain, which would be from the surface of the cornea, not from the retina. Retinal damage is painless. This is largely ignored in the pseudo-scientific babble that is propagated to the masses to stop them peeking into telescopes pointed at the sun. It can also set fire to stuff placed near the exit pupil! I do not limit any number to 50 arbitrarily, it is simply an approximate number for typical astronomical binoculars (total energy increase from 50mm objectives), while the 500 number in the article is completely wrong as quoted (either total energy or intensity at the retina). Lithopsian (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll construct a rather stretched scenario for you, if you want to play the big numbers game. I'll compare to an unaided eye with a pupil size of 2.5mm, which is about as small as you can realistically say even in the sun. Actual cases of (naked) eye damage almost always occur when the pupil is larger, for example due to drugs. I'll use 20x50 binoculars, not exactly typical but certainly they're around and in use. Now we have, conveniently a 2,5mm exit pupil feeding 50/2.5 squared amount of light, if you're lucky all through the pupil. So that's 400 times as much energy. Note it is *not* 400 times the intensity, not on the retina anyway, but the image size on the retina is now about 3mm so it would be very noticeable if that area was permanently damaged. To show how stretched this is, even if all those rather extreme conditions are met, only the most expensive binoculars with multi-coatings on every surface will transmit more than 75% of visible light, and far less infra-red. Lithopsian (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Everyone has been assuming that the image of the Sun is well-focused on the retina. This is true in the visible part of the spectrum, but it is badly wrong in the infrared and ultraviolet. The cornea, lens, etc., of the eys blur the IR and UV from the Sun so it is spread over a much larger area of the retina than the sharp image, which greatly reduces its intensity per unit area. If the image is magnified by binoculars or whatever, the blurring still occurs, but its main effect is around the edge of the image. Near the centre, it only slightly reduces the intensity. So using binoculars does increase the amount of energy per unit area on the retina.

It's interesting to speculate that the eye's mis-focusing of IR and UV may have evolved because it reduces the damage caused by looking at the Sun.

DOwenWilliams (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the retinal intensity factor will be much lower than the total energy factor. We do need to rephrase the sentence in the article to make this clear. I like the idea of evolved mis-focusing, though I suspect it's a side-effect of evolved focusing of the mid-frequencies. I don't think either UV or IR will be seriously out of focus, but I suppose every little reduction in retinal intensity helps to avoid damage. One factor that we haven't taken into account is the constant movement of the eye, moving the small unmagnified image of the sun around the retina, thus reducing damage in one spot (unless the person steadfastly fixes their gaze). Observing a magnified image reduces this possibility. Dbfirs 21:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

... later ... I've rephrased the dubious paragraph in the article to more closely match what I read in the references, but please improve it further. I now understand your point about energy per unit area on the retina. Should this be explained more fully in the article? Dbfirs 21:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not good at judging what level of technical detail is right for an audience. I suspect we don't want to get too exact, especially when there are so many uncontrolled variables. That would probably obscure the message. Just be clear ourselves when we are referring to intensity, total energy, etc. And where that energy is falling. There's a Wiki article on solar retinopathy :) Lithopsian (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the article link. It's a very short article, but it supports your argument about retinal light intensity and the lack of permanent retinal damage. (We should not lose sight (apologies for the dreadful pun) of the possible heat damage to the cornea, lens and humours from observing the sun through magnifying optics.) Dbfirs 22:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. Many studies report higher incidences of photokeratitis of the cornea than retinal damage due to viewing the sun. Too many sources just blindly state the sun will burn your retina when with a telescope is more likely to set fire to your iris :lol: Lithopsian (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Image title may be wrong

I have some serious doubt about the accuracy of the title of this image:

Taken by Hinode's Solar Optical Telescope on January 12, 2007, this image of the Sun reveals the filamentary nature of the plasma connecting regions of different magnetic polarity.

First I doubt that plasma has a filamentary nature. Second, I thought the matter at the outer part of the sun were atomic or ionic in nature not completely stripped of their electrons. And I wonder if those are filaments of ions following the lines of the electric fields generated by the magnetic fields. Someone needs to track down the original photo or ask a person more deeply involved in physics Zedshort (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

If you click the image you can see that it comes from NASA ([1]) and that the image caption here is directly copied from the NASA page. I think it is quite clear from the picture that the plasma is filamentary (has lines in it). In a plasma the atoms don't need to be completely stripped of their electrons. Ulflund (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Plasma_(physics)#Filamentation Happy editing! — CpiralCpiral 02:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Core or other place

For now, I restored the deleted paragraph removed "because its info is covered fully elsewhere". I can see it doesn't belong where it is in Core characteristics. But that paragraph completes the end of the "photon's tale" and "neutrinos tale" from the paragraph above it. Better 1) move the (cited and linked featured paragraph, but deleted) paragraph to Convection zone as a lead in from there to Photosophere, or best 2)move both paragraphs to Radiative zone. — CpiralCpiral 02:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Characteristics: Poor expression

Existing sentence: "The photosphere is the last visible layer as those above it are too cool or too thin to radiate a significant amount of light to be visible to the naked eye"

Propose replacing the word "significant" with "sufficient" so the sentence will read: "The photosphere is the last visible layer as those above it are too cool or too thin to radiate a sufficient amount of light to be visible to the naked eye"

Additionally, the phrase "visible to the naked eye" is ambiguous. I suspect that this is referring to what can be observed at visible wavelengths. If so, the sentence should say that and should be further changed to read: "The photosphere is the last visible layer as those above it are too cool or too thin to radiate a sufficient amount of light to be observable in light at wavelengths visible to humans"

TerribleTadpole (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

With this edit, I changed "significant" to "sufficient". I don't really feel that "visible to the naked eye" is ambiguous, and I don't think we need to get as elaborate as your suggestion. The term naked eye is wikilinked in the article, so in the (in my opinion) unlikely event a reader thinks it means something else, or doesn't understand it, one click takes them to an explanation which begins: "The naked eye is a figure of speech referring to human visual perception unaided by a magnifying or light-collecting optical device". That all seems fine to me. Thanks for pointing out the error, and I love your username. Happy editing. Begoon ^talk 02:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

And further improved by User:DOwenWilliams, here:[2]. Thanks again for drawing attention to the inconsistency. Begoon ^talk 03:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

"However, before and after this spell as a stable star burning hydrogen in its core, a star is a very different object."

I can't tell if this statement is trying to sound like a textbook or what. It makes no sense. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Convective zone

At the end of the first paragraph of section Convective zone it says: "At the photosphere, the temperature has dropped two 5,700 K and the density two only 0.2 g/m3 (about 1/6, 000th the density of air at sea level).[48 ]". But the source says, "At the visible surface the temperature has dropped two 5,700 K and the density is only 0.0000002 gm/cm3 (about 1/10, 000th the density of air at sea level)" [3]. 84.202.218.13 (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The two densities are identical, so I assume what you don't like is the comparison to air. The density of air is 1.225 kg/m3, which is 6125 times less than 0.2 g/m3. This factor can be rounded to 6000 or to 10000, depending on what precision you want. Given the uncertainty in the Sun's density, it might be best to say "four orders of magnitude less than..." so people don't mistake the factor for an exact number. On the other hand there might be readers who are not familiar with "orders of magnitude". — HHHIPPO 11:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Death of the Sun -> Envelops Mercury's Iron core -> Supernova?

With the planet Mercury having a large iron core and being the closest planet to the Sun, will our star supernova, or proceed directly to a white dwarf, soon after it envelops the planet Mercury in a few million years? I would think that as soon as the iron and nickel from Mercury is incorporated into the Sun it will quickly migrate to the core of the star, due to it's density, and interrupt the exothermic fusion process through photodisintegration or some other mechanism. In summary, will the endothermic nature of iron and nickel halt the helium fusion chain reaction, and if so, what happens next? --NJB (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Mercury is a speck of dust compared with the Sun. While less than one percent of the mass of the Sun consists of heavy elements such as iron and nickel, this is still hundreds or thousands of times more than the total mass of Mercury. When Mercury is absorbed by the sun (billions of years from now), it will increase the mass of nickel and iron in the star by much less than one percent. Will this make a significant change to the nuclear reactions in its core? I doubt it. DOwenWilliams (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: first sentence of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun to read:

Sun, or Sól, is the de facto name given to the star at the center of our Solar System.—HamiltonFromAbove (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Unsourced. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think that "Sol" is an appropriate name for the Sun? It is the basis of the adjective "solar", but appears as a proper noun only in Science Fiction. We mention the Latin name "Sol" in a later paragraph. Is this not adequate to reflect reality? Dbfirs 07:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Math error

In the article entitled "Sun" it states that the sun is roughly 150 million kilometers from Earth (1.5 billion meters). Later in the same article it states that light from the sun takes about eight minutes to get to Earth. Since the speed of light is roughly 300 million meters per second, either light must reach the earth in five minutes, or the distance to the sun averages 2.4 billion meters. I understand that the distance to the sun varies throughout the orbital period of the Earth, but these two statements are not mathematically coherent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtchdrmd (talk • contribs) 16:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There are two errors in your calculation: 150 million km are 150 billion m, not 1.5 billion m, and you forgot to convert from seconds to minutes. Try again ;-) — HHHIPPO 17:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - foolish errors, and I am appropriately embarrassed. The numbers now work as stated in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtchdrmd (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I hate it when things poorly substantiated are stated as absolute facts...

soap

It seems to be the position of 'pop-science' in past decades. Scientists look more and more like salesmen trying to pedal their latest theory. If they don't state it in strong grammar that portrays their position as absolute fact, they fear they might lose popularity. Really. Isn't that it? Eg. the entirely speculative theory about the sun's origin... here's the real physics folks. In general things in space don't collide, they travel in hyperbolic or elliptical paths around one another. It is possible that collisions will happen and it's possible that a variety of things will dogpile at once and accumulate as this article says absolutely happened. It just is unlikely HOWEVER that isn't how we know this isn't how it happened. We know it didn't happen this way by evaluating solar wind energy and seeing what variety of particles would have been moved from the region. As it turns out, I seem to recall a few mm of Al density material would still be hanging around. This is a massive problem for the theory posted (as fact)... because think about it. THis mass of material comes together in a swirling mass. Wouldn't there naturally be a distribution of LESS obstructed matter continuing to orbit? That's kind of how things generally work right? Unless..some creator say INJECTED the right amount of material. But naturalistically we'd expect a vast variety of material that would dither down in density as collisions occurred and the matter lost orbital status and became part of the future sun. BUT ONCE THE DENSITY GOT TO A CERTAIN POINT, then there would be insufficient collision potential and eventually a mass of material would be found in orbit. And some would just continue on a hyperbolic path perhaps. But IF the sun formed...IF that huge mass came together there SHOULD be a large distribution of material that didn't wind up in it but did wind up in orbital paths. Then the sun ignites and solar wind drives out the less dense materials. However again if we do the calculations which are on my web page as I recall, and are easy to do... we find there should be a distribution of material that was NOT driven out. And not just in the asteroid belt but all over the region. Obviously planets (wherever they came from. One's spinning the wrong way so an accretion in a disk scenario doesn't work for that either) would clear their orbital paths of debris. But our probes do NOT find sufficient density of ANYTHING to promote the 'theory' that is promoted as FACT by whoever wrote that article or part of the article. I haven't even read the rest. Let me know when a person who has at least done well in upper level physics courses like E M and CLassical Mechanics has been given oversight of the page. Really..wiki is a joke on subjects like this because it's always some person who just doesn't have the background to FACT CHECK.... before they state things AS fact.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sounddoctorin (talk • contribs) 23:39, 9 July 2013‎ Wikipedia reports facts and theories that are set out in reputable documents elsewhere. You need to point us to published papers that set out your reservations about the current theory, then we can include those reservations. I agree with you that origins are better presented as theories. Dbfirs 05:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibility of diversifying topics in the lede?

Just reading this article for the first time -- really brilliant (like the subject...) and very well written, cited, documents. Complements on creating this FA. I was wondering though if the lede (and some parts later) might be improved by eliminating some of the specifics that are dealt with later in the article and if the non-astronomical encyclopedic aspects of the Sun could be given more emphasis. For instance, there is an explanation of spectral class label indications in the lede ("the spectral class label, G2 indicates its surface temperature of approximately 5778 K (5505 °C), and V indicates that the Sun...") but only at the end is the Sun's role in photosynthesis or its significance in human thought and belief mentioned (again, written quite well, but somewhat hidden after a discussion of cosmic background radiation, etc.). The sun's orbit and the galactic north pole is mentioned, but the fact that earth and the other planets orbit it is not. It would be good if eclipse were defined briefly somewhere in the article (I know that there are other articles that describe it well, but sun seems a good place to start), since a number of times the effects of eclipses on our ability to observe are mentioned. Thanks for listening. Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Distance to galactic center

29-07-2013 In the article it is stated the Sun orbits at a distance of 24-26,000 light years from the galactic centre, but according to a search entered on NASA's website the distance is approximately 50,000 light years to the centre of the galaxy from Earth. An expert in editing Wikipedia should check this for accuracy and edit the article with the correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.54.203 (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get this information. When I entered a NASA search I found this page which gives the distance as 26,000 light years. Could you give the URL of the page which says 50,000 light years? — Reatlas (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Current Sun red-giant timeline?

I removed the chart at "File:Solar Life Cycle.svg" since it seems out-of-date. Here's my understanding based on the cited sources, especially [4], please correct me if I'm wrong:

1. The Sun exits the main sequence around 10BY, because the core hydrogen fusion is mainly finished and hydrogen fusion takes place mainly in a shell around the core. (I'd guess the technical criterion is based on the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram?)

2. The Sun is a subgiant from 10BY to 11BY. Subgiants are not "main sequence" stars. The subgiant phase is marked by a large expansion for 500MY followed by an even larger expansion for 500MY. Is a subgiant technically considered a type of red giant? Also, are subgiants red/orange, or are they still white?

3. The subgiant expansion ends around 11BY. The Sun is in a stable "red giant branch phase" from 11BY to 12BY.

4. The RGB phase is followed by the eventful AGB phase, which lasts about 120 million years.

5. Near the end of the AGB phase, Schroder (2008) says around 12.17BY the Earth gets eaten by the Sun; nobody else has published a dissent with that in the five years hence that I could find. If that reflects the current scientific belief, can we just go ahead and state it as fact for now?

When does the first shell helium flash occur? When does the first core helium flash occur?

Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request - Earth's Fate

This section is extremely poorly constructed and poorly written. Could someone please fix ? Specifically:
1.quote:"When the Sun is an asymptotic giant branch star, it will have lost roughly 30% of its present mass due to a stellar wind, so the orbits of the planets will move outward."
Due to "a" stellar wind?? Please fix. I suggest:
"By the time the Sun has entered the asymptotic red giant branch, the orbits of the planets will have moved outwards due to a loss of roughly 30% of the Sun's present mass. Most of this mass will be lost as the Solar Wind increases."
2. quote: "If Earth should escape incineration in the Sun, its water will be boiled away and most of its atmosphere will escape into space." and "... in the main sequence, the Sun is becoming more luminous ... in about another billion years the surface of the Earth will probably become too hot for liquid water to exist..."
These two statements are contradictory. The boiling of the water will precede the asymptotic branch phase by billions of years. The first sentence is just wrong. How long it takes for water vapor and Earth's atmosphere to escape Earth's gravity is much less that the 3-8 billion years between loss of our oceans and vaporization (not incineration; although that will happen first -- the Earth will not escape incineration, even if it does escape vaporization in the Sun). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.189.74.6 (talk) 06:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Applied a ce. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence is wrong

The sun is not at the center of the solar system. The center is the barycenter, which is sometimes not even within the volume of the sun, let alone at its center. This needs to be changed to "near the center of the solar system". I would make the change myself but the page is protected. I can see not wanting to confuse unlearned readers, but as it stands now, it is flat our wrong. 129.63.129.196 (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The definition of center is important. If I send you to the city center to go shopping you go to the most central point and stand there and say I cant buy anything because there is no shop in the center of the city? The sun is not identical with the barycenter, but for all people here on earth except a few astronomers which do high precision measurements it is close enough. Motion and location within the galaxy is giving a nice image on the reality, but I think it would be too much for the first sentence.--Stone (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Compromise: I've added a note mentioning that the barycenter is just outside the Sun's volume. The sentence can be technically correct while flow is unaffected. — Reatlas (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to R & D for the clarifying note. The time average location of the barycentre is genuinely at the centre of the sun. The barycentre will move outside the Sun only when the giant planets are on the same side (as the note explains). The sentence is not "wrong" on average. Dbfirs 07:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

IMHO the article could be reverted to not mention the barycenter at all, which as Stone pointed out was added based on the false premise that the first sentence of the article was incorrect. Alternatively, the barycenter discussion could be moved to the "Motion and location within the galaxy" section, which already mentions the Sun's motion within the solar system at the end. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, actually. That sentence isn't correct only on average, it's just correct. — Reatlas (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also happy with the lead as it was. The note can be moved to a later paragraph as Rolf h nelson suggests. Dbfirs 20:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out to the several people who make/accept the "average" argument above, that the same argument could be used to claim that Pluto (or whatever planet you choose) is "on average" at the Center of the Solar System. I'd also like to point out that the barycenter (et. al.) is orbiting the Milky Way, so claiming that the barycenter "on average" is inside the Sun is fatuous. The Sun's center is NOT the point which the planets orbit around. If you want to claim the Sun is the Center, then you SHOULD also note that it and the planets orbit the very near-by barycenter. Dumbing down an article is one thing, implying something that is just not true is another.173.189.74.6 (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you have made some serious miscalculations in your estimate of barycentre. You are correct that the barycentre of the solar system is orbiting the galaxy, but the Sun follows the same orbit, and, since it accounts for 99.86% of the total mass of the solar system, the barycentre is within the volume of the Sun for most of the time (it moves outside when Jupiter & Saturn are on the same side). If you take a time average of the barycentre (in the frame of reference of the Sun) over many years, then the barycentre will almost exactly coincide with the centre of the Sun. Dbfirs 08:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Dbfirs, I think anon is objecting that, from the reference frame of Pluto, the position of the Barycenter is, if averaged over n years, inside Pluto (if n is large or an integer). So stick with the point that the barycenter is usually inside the Sun and is always "near" the sun; the "time average" argument is just going to confuse. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I see what you (and the anon) mean. I should have considered the reference frame of the barycentre, but I agree that my argument is superfluous anyway. Dbfirs 16:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

'Billion' left ambiguous without scientific notation

I was left a little puzzled about the age of the sun after reading this article as I couldn't discern whether the 'billion' in this article was defiantly long or short scale

Would it be possible to also use scientific notation for units of time in this article for the sake of those countries where 'billion' causes confusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matburton (talk • contribs) 22:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia manual of style (MOS:NUM#Large numbers), the use of billion and trillion is short scale. It probably wouldn't hurt to clarify that somewhere in the article though. — Reatlas (talk) 06:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, even here in the UK, I have to think "which billion do they mean?" because I learnt the meaning of the word when a billion was a million million (as in so many other countries), before Harold Wilson decided to change the meaning here. Dbfirs 06:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added a note to the article; once in the lead, then at the first other use of billion. — Reatlas (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct Mathmatical Billion (International) means Bi-million, ie. a million million 1,000,000,000,000 while Financial "Billion" (American usage) is deemed to mean what ought to be a Milljard (Thousand Million) (1,000,000,000). Likewise Trillion 1,000,000,000,000,000,000, etc If using an international site should be sure to make sure that it is in international English and non-standard slang (such as US "Yanklish" is in brackets) when using Maths (in English from Mathematics, referring to a number of diverse disciplines - while in "Yanklish" annotated "math" single discipline of "math" is in fact from French-American origin "Mathematique", thus not English (or scientific terms, in metric not US variant imperial or measurements, which may not conform to old imperial measurements used for historical purposes). AspieNo1 (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the traditional billion in Europe (including the UK) was a million million. Unfortunately, Harold Wilson decided that he was going to use the American billion for his financial calculations, so usage in the UK tends to be ambiguous. For this reason, I prefer not to use the word and to use either scientific notation or "thousand million" or "million million" as appropriate. Dbfirs 18:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: plasma flow and faster solar rotation at equator

New findings of massive, long-lasting plasma flows enhance explanation of why sun rotates faster at equator: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/sun-rotation-driven-enormous-plasma-flows — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercury's Stepson (talk • contribs) 03:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Multispectral view of the Sun

NASA just released a rather interesting and educational video of the Sun taken by SDO showing all of its filtered views at once. I've uploaded it to File:NASA SDO multispectral view of the Sun, September 2011.ogv, but will not add it to the article myself. If anyone thinks it has a place here or elsewhere, please find it a happy home. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sol vs. Sun

Should our sun, the star of our solar system, be called Sol instead of Sun? Sol is the common name for our star; "the sun" is 'that shiny object in the sky that gives us light and warmth'. On a planet of any other star system, I believe they would also point to their light-giving sphere and call it "the sun", even if the star is, say, Sirius A.

I would like to see this Sun wiki page linked to or moved to the wiki page Sol -- or at least the astronomical data of the star I think should be moved to wiki page Sol. Historical and cultural and etc data can remain here on the Sun page.

tl;dr: Sol is the scientific and astronomical name for our star -- much like Sirius, Rigel, etc have names. "The sun" is the common term for "light-giving sphere in the sky", which can be the case on any planet. It is not the name of our star. This page should be moved/updated accordingly.

Sources/References/Relevant:

1. ninjawords.com: (One) definition of "sun": (n) "A star, especially when seen as the centre of any single solar system."
2. wikipedia.org/Sun: "The Latin name for the star, Sol, is widely known but is not common in general English language use; the adjectival form is the related word solar."
3. wikipedia.org/Sol: "Typically used in science fiction and other contexts where the author wants to distinguish our particular star or the Solar System from "a sun" or "a planetary system""
4. earthsky.org/space/what-is-the-suns-name: "Bottom line: Our sun doesn’t have an official proper name, according to the International Astronomical Union. In antiquity, the names Sol and Helios referred to ancient sun gods and perhaps the sun itself."

Elaborating from Reference #4 above, there currently is no official name -- which is why I'm coming to wikipedia to try and encourage the use of Sol as the official name, because, as I explained above, I think it is a more practical name for both astronomy and the English language.

What does everyone else think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamkila (talk • contribs) 14:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Though I can understand and in fact somewhat agree with your logic, per the WP:FORUM policy "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information". WP:UCN gives that since Sol is equally unofficial as Sun but also far less commonly used in nearly all contexts, the page can't be moved/split. Reatlas (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Much like the word god is capitalized when referring to a specific diety, the word sun implies and is used to describe any star with planets while "Sun" or "the Sun" refers specifically to our star. The word Sol could then also be defined. I feel this should be clarified at the top of the article and/or included in the disambiguation section. I don't feel qualified to edit this page so I will leave it to someone who is. Jellyneck (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The word "sol" has other meanings. It is used to refer to the rotation periods, relative to the Sun, of planets other than the Earth. For example. NASA's press releases about the rovers on the surface of Mars say that a rover did something on Sol number X, where X is the number of sols that have elapsed since the rover landed. DOwenWilliams (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

If this was the Latin Wikipedia, I would support your suggestion, but your claim that "Sol is the common name for our star" is clearly false in the English language, except as used by some science fiction writers. (The same applies to Luna "By the light of the silvery Luna"?) Dbfirs 06:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. Sol is Latin for the Sun, Om is Hindi for the Sun, and On is Egyptian for the Sun. Using the OP's logic, we would also have to move, relabel, or link the Page to Hindi and Egypt as well. The Article is labeled just fine the way it is. Pocketthis (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"Aten" is, or was, Egyptian for "Sun". Nowadays, Egyptians mostly speak Arabic. I have no idea what they call the Sun. DOwenWilliams (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ein Shams, now a northeast suburb of Cairo, was once the famed City of the Sun, or Heliopolis in Greek. The ancient Egyptian word for sun is "on", hence the current derivation which means either Spring of the Sun or Eye of the sun. During the reign of Akhenaten, the ancient name of the Sun was Aten. I guess Egypt has been around for a while, and the name has changed a few times. Both are correct answers to describe the ancient word for Sun, as it changed twice. Today, the Sun is described in two words (Arabic) for the Egyptian Sun. In Egyptian worship, "Horus" is the rising sun, "Ra" is the noon sun. None of which means a hill of beans as to the subject matter proposed by the OP. But....it's nice to take this opportunity to lean something. Pocketthis (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that the Greek name Heliopolis is not a direct translation of Egyptian Iwnw (On), or "pillar city", iwn meaning "pillar". r^c (ra) does mean "sun" (re in Coptic). Iblardi (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Correct. I didn't mean to imply that Heliopolis was a translation for "Sun", but rather known as: "City of the Sun". The ancient Egyptian name was Iunu, or iwnw, meaning pillar. Thanks. Pocketthis (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Iblardi, I noticed you have the capitalized word: "On" in parentheses as implying "pillar" in ancient Greek I believe? I did extensive research this morning, because I love Egyptology. I easily found numerous references for lower case "on" (pronounced: un) as the ancient Egyptian word for Sun, however, I could find no references to "On" anywhere relating to "pillar" in either language. Can you site your source please? I'd like to garble up as much knowledge as I can, since at my age....there isn't much else to do....:) thanks: Pocketthis (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

No, Heliopolis is referred to as "On" sometimes, probably because the city is called by that name in Genesis 41:50[5]. On in itself has no meaning. It is merely a Hebrew rendering of Egyptian Iwnw. See [6]. Iblardi (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be surprised if the Hebrew or Genesis reference to Heliopolis, City of the "Sun", doesn't stem from the Ancient Egyptian word "on" meaning Sun. The more research I do, the more I'm discovering about that word and its possible relationship to the word Sun in several languages. One reference sites the pronunciation "un" as a direct link to the English version "Sun". It wouldn't be too hard of a stretch of the imagination to logically connect "un" to "Sun" in our language. Thanks for your reply:Pocketthis (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I always refer to our star as Sol.  I consider Sol its proper name, and Luna the proper name of our moon.  I am also frequently annoyed when people say or imply that there are other Solar Systems.  There are other star systems and planetary systems, but there is only one Solar System, i.e., the planetary system that orbits Sol.

I agree with Kamkila that Sol is a sun, in that it is a star around which a civilisation (i.e., ours) orbits.  Not only is it a sun, it is our only sun.  But, it is not the only sun.  If a civilisation lives on a planet orbiting Polaris, that civilisation has every justification for referring to Polaris as their sun, just as we have every justification for referring to Sol as our sun; but neither would constitute the sun.

While DOwenWilliams is correct that sol has other meanings, that would not undermine the idea that Sol is mainly the name of our star.

Jellyneck notes that there may be a difference between “sun” (lower-case S) and “Sun” (upper-case S).  I would say that, at best, “Sun” (upper-case S) is an English translation of Sol, not its official name.  Officially calling Sol “Sun” simply because it is a sun would make as much sense as officially calling Earth “Planet” simply because it’s a planet or officially calling Luna “Moon” simply because it’s a moon.

Moreover, considering the official name of our sun to be “Sun” strikes as being Anglo-centric.  Why not “Sonne” or “Soleil” or “Sole” or “Zon”?  Since Latin is the language of science, used for many other fields (e.g., biological taxonomy), it only makes sense that Sol would be the universally- and scientifically-accepted name of our star.

The only remaining barrier here is Reatlas’s point.  Reatlas says that “Sol is equally unofficial as Sun.”  I cannot say with any certainty that Reatlas is correct, but it won’t deter me from calling our star Sol.  The scientific community eventually came around to agreeing with me that Pluto was not a planet, and I do not doubt that history will conclude likewise that the most proper name for our star is Sol.

All that said, I do not concur with Kamkila that “the astronomical data of [our] star I think should be moved to wiki page Sol” leaving the “[h]istorical and cultural and etc data…here on the Sun page.”  Rather, my suggestion is far more modest.  The first sentence currently reads:

The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System.

I would simply reword that to read:

The Sun (also known as Sol) is the star at the center of the Solar System.

I think this is something we can all get behind.

Cheers,
allixpeeke (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If you speak Latin, then it is quite correct to refer to the Sun as "Sol" and to the Moon as "Luna", but this is just not done by most people who speak English (except in Science Fiction). The fact that you are an exception doesn't mean that the article should be changed, nor do I have any right to insert my idiosyncratic names for things into other articles. Why don't you call the Earth "Terra"? Dbfirs 14:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Dbfirs,

In the unlikely event that aliens were to land on Earth tomorrow, and were to ask us what names we want them to place on their galactic maps, we would probably tell them to go ahead and label our sun Sol and our moon Luna in order to prevent any Earthling from being offended.  I’ve never personally called Earth Terra, but if the scientific community were to decide that Terra is a better name for this hypothetical galactic map, I’d have no problem with that.  But, I would find it strange if the scientific community were to choose Tierra or Terre or Erde or Tero.

Thanks for the question.

Best regards,
allixpeeke (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the hypothetical aliens would probably ask "what do you call your planet?" and someone would reply "Earth", and that would be the name that the aliens called the planet if they had not already given it a name. Similarly, they might well use the names "Sun" and "Moon" (suitably transcribed to imitate the sounds of the words in their writing system). ( ... unless, of course, we couldn't understand what the aliens were saying, and said so, in which case the planet might get called "I don't understand", as is reported to have happened with the name of the animal we call "kangaroo" (similar to "I don't understand" in one dialect of old Australian).) I agree that if an international committee was formed to agree on names, then Terra, Sol and Luna might well be chosen, but these are currently not the scientific names. Dbfirs 21:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Dbfirs, all the more reason we get crackin’ on setting Sol as the international standard.  Those hypothetical aliens will probably think Paris is such a beautiful city, they’ll end up landing there and I will end up having to learn how to pronounce le Soleil.  Yours, allixpeeke (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I wish you well in your campaign to change the world. Dbfirs 06:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There are modern languages of Latin descent, e.g. Spanish, in which "sol" and "luna" are the words for "sun" and "moon". If you want to speak Spanish, go right ahead. But in English, our local star is the sun (sometimes but not always with a capital initial). In other languages that are closely related to English, e.g. German, the words for "sun" are similar to "sun", e.g. "sonne". Are you going to try to make all the people who speak those languages switch to Latin or Spanish too? DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

DOwenWilliams,

I know not whether you are referring to me or to Kamkila when you wrote your question, but for what it’s worth, I am not trying to “make” anybody switch.  What I said is that I always refer to our star as Sol, that I consider Sol its proper name, and that I believe the scientific community will ultimately voluntarily agree with me about our sun’s name just as it ultimately voluntarily agreed with me about Pluto’s status as a non-planet.  Unlike Kamkila, my suggestion was never to transfer vast amounts of info from this page to sol.  Nor was my proposal to change the word “Sun” to “Sol” throughout this entire article.  Rather, my proposal was simply to add four parenthetical words to the first sentence of this article.  Doing so would not “make” any English-speaking person cease calling our sun “Sun”; rather, it would simply acknowledge the scientific name for our sun.  (Similarly, just because I prefer the scientifically-accepted term aluminium over the more-common term aluminum doesn’t mean I want to “make” people use my preferred term.)

You bring up various languages, including English, Latin, Spanish, and German.  But I find it interesting that whether one speaks English, Latin, Spanish, German, Italian, French, or one of many other languages, the proper name for our species, Homo sapiens, is used or acknowledged.  If the Wikipedians who speak other languages wish to add something akin to “(also known as Sol)” to the other pages about the star around which we orbit, I would have no objection whatsoever.  But let’s not deceive ourselves into thinking that people choosing voluntarily to include “Homo sapiens” or “(also known as Sol)” on non-English pages “makes” anybody do anything.

So, in summation, I am not suggesting we “make” anybody conform her or his manner of speaking or writing.  Living in North America, I am the only person I know who calls aluminium by its scientific name, just as I am the only person I know who calls Sol by its scientific name.  And, yet, I’ve never once initiated force against someone for her or his choice of words.  I am sorry if you misinterpreted my position as being that people should be “made” to conform to my standards of perfection.

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

P. S.

I also think the short scale, the metric system, and C. E. are more scientifically-accepted than the long scale, the English system, and A. D. respectively, and, yet, I would never condone initiation of force in order to “make” anyone conform to these things.  So, just to reiterate, “making” people conform is not part of my agenda in my use of the term Sol.

... (clarification) ... The first part of the reply below was in response to a typo that has now been corrected. Dbfirs 18:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The scientific community has not come around to agreeing with you that Plato is not a planet. I suppose there may be a small asteroid with that name, but nothing that has ever been considered a planet. Incidentally, here in Toronto, the spelling "aluminium" and the corresponding pronunciation are fairly common. DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Typo fixed.  Thanks for the catch, DOwenWilliams.  Also, I am glad to hear the more-logical spelling/pronunciation of aluminium is used there; here in Maryland, people look at me like I am crazy when I omit the second i.  Best, allixpeeke (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Really?! Most Americans omit it nowadays, although I understand that it was used long ago, when the metal was first available. In the rest of the English-speaking world, the second "i" is generally included, and the word is pronounced with the stress on the first "i". Here in Canada, British and American usages are both accepted, but there is a trend away from U.S. usage. When I first came her, 40 years ago, the newspapers used American spelling. Now, they're much more British. DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed the listing is wrong reference to "the Sun" is neither factually correct nor scientific, at best it is a bad vernacular usage, and a hangover from regular recatagorisation. Earth's Star is properly named Sol, thus Solar System. Any star can be called a Sun, and thus use of "the Sun" is a generally used slang, at best. The article should be corrected to Sol and have Redirections from a disambiguation page for Sun, which references stars in general and "the Sun redirected to Sol ... the article on Sol should however for transparency sake consider including Sol (commonly referred to as "the Sun"). That should resolve this problem. AspieNo1 (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC) AspieNo1 (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you've got it wrong. You are creating a problem where one doesn't exist. Scientists refer to "the Sun" when they write or talk about our nearest star. "Sol" is used only in Science Fiction. If you don't believe me, try to find scientific papers that use "Sol". Any star can be called "a sun", but only Earth's star is "the Sun". Dbfirs 18:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, you are probably not aware that it is considered bad manners to alter other people's comments here on Wikipedia. I've reverted your alteration in the interests of clarity (it was a reply to the original mis-spelling, now altered) and to avoid you getting comments of disapproval. Dbfirs 18:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's pretentious poppycock to say that "Sol" is the scientific name of our local star. When they speak or write in English, scientists call it "the Sun". So, too, do reputable encyclopedias such as the Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/573494/Sun If Wikipedia were to adopt "Sol" as the Sun's name, it would just bring itself into disrepute. DOwenWilliams (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I realize this discussion is several months old, but I'll just add my two cents: I would also like it if there were internationally-accepted scientific names for the Sun, Earth, and Moon. Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, there are not. Wikipedia should never take any sort of initiative in attempting to actively encourage changes in terminology. Wikipedia is not the place for international, scientific consensus to be reached on the issue, nor is it the place to put forward opinionated commentary as fact. Thus, renaming this article "Sol" would be disingenuous. At some point in the future, should humans ever develop interstellar travel, communication, and government, it is likely that official names for these celestial objects will be decided by scientific and/or political authorities. If Wikipedia still exists when that time comes, we (or our descendants) can change the name of the article. Until then, the encyclopedia must present the names as they are. --Samuel Peoples (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sun's composition

Collapsed; no action required

The first paragraph states: The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. It is almost perfectly spherical and consists of hot plasma interwoven with magnetic fields.[12][13] It has a diameter of about 1,392,684 km (865,374 mi),[5] around 109 times that of Earth, and its mass (1.989×1030 kilograms, approximately 330,000 times the mass of Earth) accounts for about 99.86% of the total mass of the Solar System.[14] Chemically, about three quarters of the Sun's mass consists of hydrogen, while the rest is mostly helium. The remainder (1.69%, which nonetheless equals 5,600 times the mass of Earth) consists of heavier elements, including oxygen, carbon, neon and iron, among others.[15] The sentence: "Chemically, about three quarters of the Sun's mass consists of hydrogen, while the rest is mostly helium." is consistent with the values given under "Photospheric composition (by mass)" which addresses the Photosphere layer, not the entire sun. The NASA site, http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Sun, states "The sun is a star. A star does not have a solid surface, but is a ball of gas (92.1 percent hydrogen (H2) and 7.8 percent helium (He)) held together by its own gravity.", which I believe is correct. It might be best to insert this information prior to the incorrect sentence, and modify the incorrect sentence to identify the information as pertaining to the Photoshere layer.Engi1956neer (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Engi1956neer My mistake, I see that the distinction was made between % and mass. Since Helium atoms are 4 times heavier than Hydrogen atoms,this brings the two statements into agreement.Engi1956neer (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Engi1056neer

File:The solar interior.svg

The Featured diagram File:The solar interior.svg is pretty nice, but currently unused on English Wikipedia. Can we find space for it here, or is there a better subarticle? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Is the solar neutrino problem still worth including in the Theoretical problems section?

Theoretical problems lists three problems, of which one is now considered solved and two are considered unsolved. In principle we could provide a comprehensive list of every problem concerning the Sun in science's history, but in practice it would be inappropriate to include ones solved a long time ago, since both the title and the "present day anomalies" hyperlink (followed by "in the Sun's behavior that remain unexplained") imply a concern for unsolved problems only. If a fact about the Sun is well-established enough to be mentioned elsewhere in the article, I doubt it can be considered an as yet unexplained anomaly. For example, we quickly discuss the Sun's composition and power source. In fact, the SNP solution is already mentioned at the end of the subsection Core, and dated to 2001, well over a decade ago. I therefore propose that the subsection Solar neutrino problem be removed. But what do others think? 86.130.227.45 (talk) 10:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The proposal sounds reasonable, perhaps even over-explained. I'll blank the section and see if anyone objects. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Some tweaked version of the text could probably fit in the Sun#History_of_observation sub-section. I personally lean towards just deleting it though; the solar neutrino problem is really more about neutrinos than it is about the Sun. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Scientists predict that in approx 1 billion years its brightness will increase by 10%

Scientists predict that in approx 1 billion years its brightness will increase by 10%, this will result in all of the oceans on earth boiling away & all life will be destroyed. http://www.frontiernet.net/~docbob/sun.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.221.149 (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

We'll be celestialized before that. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sun solar flares and public understanding

Headline: Sun unleashes monster solar flare, biggest of 2014.

• http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/25/sun-unleashes-monster-solar-flare-biggest-2014/?intcmp=features

Interesting; fascinating; important to know. — IMO, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

How much should go in this article? since there is also solar flare — Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Headine-2: Watch: NASA releases footage of spectacular solar flare

• http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/04/06/nasa-captures-solar-flare/7387011/

QUOTE: “NASA released a spectacular video on Sunday from its Solar Dynamics Observatory of a flare erupting from the sun.” [Video, with no commentary.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Headine-3: NASA Spectacular solar scene: Burst of radiation erupts from sun

• http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/04/07/spectacular-solar-scene-burst-radiation-erupts-from-sun/?intcmp=features

QUOTE: “NASA unveiled incredible footage of a solar flare erupting from the surface of the sun. NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory captured the mid-level flair peaked at 10:05 am (EDT) on April 2.” [A lot of interest.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Possibly add a new section that lists possible sister stars?

Someone might want to create a section about sister stars, such as HD 162826. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

HD 162826

Someone might want to work HD 162826 into the article, since it has been announced that this star is likely a sibling of our sun, born at about the same time in the same cloud. Reference at Physorg. I don't want to undertake it because the article seems sensitive. CoyneT ^talk 04:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

rotational velocity data comment

Minor point; rotational velocity is listed 7.189×10³ km/h (superscript 3 doesn't copy correctly). Altho not much of a concern, takes fewer characters & space, and, more importantly, easier to read/interpret if listed 7,189 km/h. If number was larger then scientific notation would be beneficial. Number is not large so scientific notation not necessary. More legible without. This would also be true for the "Average Density" listing of 1.408×10³ kg/m. Quisizyx (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't list "declination" and "RA"

I believe that declination and RA are references to where a celestial object appears to be, from earth, on the celestial sphere. (Click on the "declination" link to see what I mean)

The Sun has a declination, though it is continually changing between -23.4 and 23.4 degrees, and it has an RA that is also changing.

Can anyone explain to me why these values are here and what they mean? Dgluss (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to remove the declination and RA listed in the article, since they are wrong.

See , for example, for the current correct values.

Dgluss (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The values present in the article are correct based on the 2000-01-01.5 epoch (aka J2000). Considering that is the baseline modern epoch, I'd prefer to see those values remain in the article. Also, since this page doesn't seem to be very widely watched, significantly more time should be given for additional responses. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

My point is twofold: first, the value is not fixed, it's a variable. Second, the declination of the Sun can never be 63 degrees at any time. We are talking specifically about declination. (Oops, not the RA). So just declination, which runs between tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. Dgluss (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

In this case, the coordinates refer to the direction to which the north pole is pointing. It's very slowly changing. I wouldn't mind if it was removed...it's overkill.

Saros136 (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

'Sun thermal conductivity 74'

I don't what this means: "Sun thermal conductivity 74"? I found it in one chart and can't find it anywhere else including this article. HELP! - Benjamin Franklin 65.34.130.188 (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussion on improvements to the article about the sun. Questions can be posted to the Wikipedia science reference desk, but in this case I doubt they will be able to answer without more information about where you found the information. Ulflund (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Informal Classification

I have heard from multiple sources that the sun is not a "yellow dwarf" but a "medium yellow" star. If this is the case, or both can be used, could this please be added as I found this a little confusing. 121.79.205.141 (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)10th September 2014

Can you please provide those sources so their reliability can be determined? — Huntster (t @ c) 02:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2014

2620:0:D50:1002:C9DF:8B7:FD56:D0F3 (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2014 (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. Please resubmit your request, detailing exactly what changes you wish to be made, and provide any necessary sources. NiciVampireHeart 19:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Would it be possible to adapt Template:Infobox star so that it can be used for this page's infobox? --JorisvS (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is worth the trouble. From our perspective the sun is very different from all other stars, so the relevant information is also very different. Ulflund (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

All values used here do, in principle, apply to other stars. By far the greatest difference in "perspective" is really just the Sun being so vastly better known than all other stars, which results in many of these values not being known for them. --JorisvS (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

To start with, "mean distance", where we average the Sun's distance to the Earth over a solar year, is only a useful parameter for the Sun. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Out of the six main fields now shown in that template for a single star (Epoch, Constellation, Right ascension, Declination, Apparent magnitude, and Absolute magnitude) only the last two makes any sense for the sun. The infobox for the sun has more than 30 such fields, so there isn't that much in common. Several of these field could be relevant for other stars also, so extending the star infobox template might be good even if it will not be used here. Ulflund (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's basically where I'm coming from. I think that when those fields are included it may well be worth it to start using it here. @Rolf: "Mean distance" is really just the distance parameter modified to account for Earth's orbital eccentricity; at Template:Infobox planet something similar is done: is removing the "known" from certain parameters, which is handled using an additional parameter. --JorisvS (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

All of this is can go

The Sun is currently traveling through the Local Interstellar Cloud (near to the G-cloud) in the Local Bubble zone, within the inner rim of the Orion Arm of the Milky Way. Of the 50 nearest stellar systems within 17 light-years from Earth (the closest being a red dwarf named Proxima Centauri at approximately 4.2 light-years away), the Sun ranks fourth in mass. 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.

The mean distance of Earth from the Sun is approximately 1 astronomical unit (about 150,000,000 km; 93,000,000 mi) by definition, though the distance varies as Earth moves from perihelion in January to aphelion in July.--Inayity (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The Lead contains details which should be moved to the body

The Lead contains details which should be moved to the body per WP:LEAD. And While it is tempting to include everything, it does not make a good read. All i see is technical scientific specs. The sun is more than that, yet none of the "more than that" is in the lead. Here is some random stuff that has no business in the lead: 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, I mean that just fly over my head.--Inayity (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Soln: List by priority the most important aspects of the sun, and then make sure they are covered, everything else should move to the body. Cut down technical specs. I think the human/culture element is unrepresented and that is far greater than Lux values and what not.--Inayity (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Inayity: I totally agree with you. However, I don't think that deleting more than 1000 bytes in content is a good idea. It is better if you move the information to a different section in the article. I'll shorten the lead some more too, by the way Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 03:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That information is already in the body.Actually some of it about the color is not. Which is actually a problem. Because why is something so texty in the lead but then not in the body? The lead should sum up the best parts of the body. If in lead it should be covered in body. --Inayity (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)