Talk:Solar System

New Image Showing Sizes in Orders of Magnitude

Earlier today I made a new image to show diameter comparisons in how the Sun, Jupiter, Earth and the Moon are related in orders of magnitude. These are arguably the four most important objects of the Solar System (from an Earthling's perspective). I think it would be an excellent addition to the article, and I would add it myself, but during the above discussion about communicating the vast distances between these objects, I committed to holding off from making edits to the article. I hope you all like it, and that you find it as useful as I do. Here it is...

Ironically, while this image may make the size relationships much more clear, it may contribute to people having a distorted understanding of the distances between objects (particularly in the first frame with all four bodies). It may be helpful to add a note directly onto the image.

I'll be glad to address feedback on this new image in this section, but I still prefer to hold off on adding to the discussion in the previous section, for the time being. What this section would best be used for is the appropriateness and helpfulness of this image if it were to be used in the Solar System article. For anyone who has feedback specific to the image itself, it would probably be better to add that over at its Wikicommons page.--Tdadamemd (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I think this image would be an excellent companion to the orbits image in the 'Structure' section.--Tdadamemd (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not necessary. The very first image in the article gives the size scales of all the planets. And there are more images below that that do various comparisons. This image appears to add nothing that isn't already in the article. HumphreyW (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What you are saying is akin to holding the view that all the info in the new image is contained within the very first quadrant, and that the other three quadrants are unnecessary. But notice how much more detailed info those other three quadrants give. It shows at a glance that Jupiter is one tenth the diameter of the Sun, and that the Earth fits 11 times across Jupiter. And the bigger point is in identifying the general trend of the order of magnitude relationship between various categories of bodies found in the Solar System. This does not come across at all in the first image of the article (not to me at least). It is a fundamental quality of the Solar System. I'm not sure how well it comes across in the text of the article. This image is offered as a very quick and convenient way to communicate that fundamental info.

If the concern is that the article already has too many images, I would agree. I can also suggest several images that the article would not lose much by eliminating (actually, the article would be improved by eliminating).--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC) [edited]

I also don't see the point of the image. It might be useful in Orders of magnitude (length) though. Serendi^podous 08:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The point was that this image is illustrating a fundamental characteristic of the solar system. I don't see how this is communicated clearly in the article as it currently stands. Another way this could be communicated is through a graph that lists the diameters of Solar System objects in descending order. My expectation is that such a graph would clearly show that these major objects fall into four distinct categories that would look like stair-steps (if the y-axis showed diameter logarithmically), roughly speaking. The Sun would be on the top step. The gas giants would be on the next step. The terrestrial planets one step down from that. Then the dwarf planets on the bottom step. This image was my way of showing the transitions between those four steps, but instead I showed the Moon at the bottom end with a comment in the description of how it is very large proportionally, which is a distinctive feature of it as a moon in our Solar System.--Tdadamemd (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Origin of the Solar System a fallacy

The origin of our solar system must not be correct. Here is a correct explanation taken directly from the hebrew bible. Two stars merge and unite, vulcan and the sun. Vulcan passes by the sun every 4x 36k yrs. Einstein's law of relativity states that only matter of the same size can move matter therefore vulcan moves the sun and creates failed worlds which make up the outer-ring of our solar system via the south. Planets are drawn because of the shear gravity of mass or the star's polarization with the sun. First comes the first and second planets, neptune and uranus, they briefly skirmish for first place or barely touch. Neptune is the 2nd planet, uranus the first both on one side of the sun. Whilst Saturn comes later it does arrive after vulcan's pass however this is much later. Saturn becomes the first planet of the sun. Then comes Jupiter whom overtakes saturn and flings it out of control. Jupiter takes the position of saturn, therefore Saturn merges with Neptune and Neptune sinks. Saturn then flies into uranus and kills it. Saturn lies dead but for one mistake, Vulcan returns and saturn is brought back to life. The clock ticks once more. The Neptunian age ends and the biblical age of man begins 870,000 years ago. Venus looses its orbit and becomes the second planet of the once eight position. Vulcan in the lemurian age becomes Mercury now. The Earth gets smaller and smaller via gas escape from a dead moon star of the previous system. Earth is created alone via Sirius (moon, pleiades seed), Orion (great bear) and Capella (vega) as the youngest of our solar system. Actually in 1994ish the shoemaker probe asteroids tried to destroy or made a mockery of your planet's significance in the universe let alone the galaxy. Therefore karma is permanently here to stay and put in place via nature. Nothing goes backwards, unless you're mildly psychotic.