Talk:Neptune

Rotation period revised

The planet's estimated rotation has been revised to 15^h 57^m 59^s. See:

Stolte, Daniel (June 29, 2011). "Clocking Neptune's Spin". The University of Arizona. http://uanews.org/node/40494. Retrieved 2011-06-05. 

Regards, RJH (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Internal Structure

The internal structure is described quite unconditionally: the reader is given no clue about the high uncertainties, both quantitative and qualitative, involved in these models. Nor is there any information given about how these models were derived. Perhaps the tone needs to be changed.Ordinary Person (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, improvements are certainly welcome. But, in cases like this, some caution is needed to avoid weasel words and unnecessary vagueness. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Superheated is incorrect

In the description of Neptune's internal structure, the word superheated is incorrect. Superheat refers to the number of degrees above saturation temperature for steam. It refers to a temperature between normal boiling and critical temperatures for water at which temperature the water must be under more than atmospheric pressure. If this pressure is suddenly released, the water will suddenly boil. The mantle of Neptune is in the supercritical temperature regime in which there will be no phase transition with decreasing pressure. User:Fartherred from 207.224.85.91 (talk) 09:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Not only is the use of the word superheated wrong, worse yet it lacks a citation. There is no reference given that refers to any superheated fluid in Neptune's mantle. This in a featured article, oh, the horror! User:Fartherred from 207.224.85.91 (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The word superheated was in the second of four contributions added by User:203.129.151.10 at 14:18 hours on the 4th of September in the 2006th year of our Lord. 207.224.85.91 (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I cannot wait for RJH to do all the work. I corrected this one myself. People might still improve upon the state in which i left the article Fartherred (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD applies, as always. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Times

States that Neptune has today completed one orbit since it was discovered. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a blurb in the AIAA Daily Launch about it this morning; here's the BBC news link they provided. siafu (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

Incorrect: "none of the planet's remaining 12 moons were" Correct: "none of the planet's remaining 12 moons was"

The word 'none' does not have to be singular. The Times suggests that it is acceptable to use it as a plural except in the specific cases where it means not one or no one.[1] Hence, I think the wording is okay. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

On Galileo's observations.

It is a very cowardly thing, with the benefit of 400 years of hindsight, to accuse someone of "failing" to see what they "should" have seen and I have no intention of doing so. But having said that, I have a small issue with this:

"... Since Neptune was only beginning its yearly retrograde cycle, the motion of the planet was far too slight to be detected with Galileo's small telescope...."

Using the well-known and freely available Cartes du Ciel software, it is easy to model the movement of Jupiter and Neptune past the stars during the interval in question - 28th December 1612, to 27th January 1613. During that time Neptune moves past two stars of at least the same brightness as it. 30th January 1613 is particularly interesting, as Neptune moves past and very close to what is the brightest star in the area during the time in question. Thus, David Jamieson's findings that Galileo <could> have observed Neptune's motion, despite it being at the prograde/retrograde changeover point, are eminently believable. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Just

"Neptune is an intermediate body between Earth and the larger gas giants: its mass is seventeen times that of the Earth but just 1/19th that of Jupiter"

There must be a better way to word this. This is the sort of construction that makes non-scientists laugh at scientists. I proposed removing the "just" but was reverted. Any other ideas? --John (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, "and is" should work. Mlpearc Public (Talk) 15:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense, as does Mlpearc Public's suggestion. There's another issue in that the wording "intermediate body between Earth and the larger gas giants" is ambiguous; the same statement is true of Mars. Perhaps "intermediate-sized body between the terrestrial planets and the larger gas giants"? Regards, RJH (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The statement isn't true of Mars, since it is much smaller than the Earth it can't be considered to be intermediate between the Earth and any larger bodies. siafu (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I suppose you might have meant that Mars is intermediate in placement between Earth and the gas giants, which is, I suppose, true, but the sentence makes it quite clear that mass is being discussed. In other news, I'm not sure I understand the objection to the wording enough to be helpful-- guess I'm too much of a scientist. I think it does a reasonable job of imparting the scale of solar system bodies to the layperson, and scale is one of the most important (and IMHO, least appreciated) things to impart when discussing any astronomical topics in lay terms. siafu (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The statement about mass is in a separate clause of the sentence, so it is subject to interpretation. I think it's just better to be unambiguous. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

updated data available

• Jacobson, R. A. (2009 April 3). "The Orbits of the Neptunian Satellites and the Orientation of the Pole of Neptune". The Astronomical Journal 137 (5): 4322–4329. Bibcode 2009AJ....137.4322J. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4322. 

— Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

surface gravity

Composition and structure "The planet's surface gravity is only surpassed by Jupiter, making the two gas giants the only planets in the solar system with a surface gravity higher than the Earth". But Saturn has 1.044g surface gravity (or 1.06 in List of Solar system objects by size). So there are three gas giants with sg higher than earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.113.98.63 (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it was introduced by this unsourced edit. I've removed the sentence clause since it didn't add much value. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: planetary status

Just so everyone knows, I'm not out to challenge the IAU's assignment of "planet" status to Neptune, but I wanted to raise a question I'm not sure anyone has considered -- Per the IAU's criterion of a planetary body having "cleared the neighborhood" of other gravitationally significant bodies in order to be considered a planet, and recognizing that Neptune's orbit crosses that of Pluto regularly, does Neptune in fact meet the IAU's definition of a planet? Just a thought. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 03:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but this isn't really the place for this type of debate. You could try posting to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Will do; thanks. Feel free to clear this if you want. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 04:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Reticent caption

At Orbit and rotation, the caption mentions only the Sun and Neptune, but there's a lot more going on. Rothorpe (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)