Talk:Jupiter

Template:WP1.0

Proposed Change

"Jupiter (pronounced /ˈdʒuːpɨtɚ/[9]) is the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest planet within the solar system."

Perhaps it would be better to change "solar system" to "Milky Way", since by saying "the solar system" it's very ambiguous as to which one you mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.138.55 (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Milky Way is a galaxy made up of thousands of Solar systems. Our Solar System consists of our sun and eight planets of which Jupiter is one. The proposed option is not a valid fix since it talks about two completely different things. I guess we could change it to "our solar system." Would that solve the question of ambiguity? Jons63 (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the Milky Way is made up of billions of stellar systems. The Solar system is one specific stellar system, that of the star Sol — our sun. kwami (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Another problem with the proposal is that Jupiter is not the largest planet in the Milky Way. Saros136 (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, the Solar System should be capitalized in the intro sentence... Also, the lede refers to the 'rapid rotation' as if that is a known. Wikiak (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sol system is the term usually used to donate our own solar system --68.114.130.179 (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Atmosphere Helium Mass percentage

I note that the mass percentage of helium in the article is based on helium 4 but the article states gas as a likely primordal material from the formation of the solar system. Isn't helium 3 the major isotope in space and helium 4 an Earthly artifact arising from alpha particles released in nuclear decay of radioactive minerals? Given this, mass percentage of the gas would be closer to 18% rather than 24% (Helium would be half again as dense as diatomic hydrogen rather than twice as dense.)

Howard Woods Eagle Idaho —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.28.150 (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

25% of the (atomic) matter in the universe was converted to Helium-4 during the Big Bang. By comparison, Helium-3 is just a trace element.[1]—RJH (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

nieuws: het is juist gebleken dat jupiter GEEN planeet meer is!!

       Jupiter heeft een gaskern waardoord het GEEn planeet is!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.197.190.61 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC) 

nieuws : het is juist gebleken dat jupiter toch een planeet is ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.211.169 (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

First photograph of Jupiter has distorted dimensions

Being an avid amateur astronomer who looks at it often through a telescope, I thought the first image of Jupiter in this article didn't look quite right. Based on how oblate Jupiter is (having an equatorial radius that is almost 7 percent larger than its polar radius), it didn't look as bulged out at the equator as I am used to seeing it.

I decided to do some simple pixel measurements of this photo. I was very surprised, and a bit disappointed, to find that the image has been made artificially circular. When I measure the apparent horizontal diameter in pixels (i.e. equatorially), I get a span of 783 pixels. Going vertically through the poles, I get 778 pixels. This is a ratio of 1.006, which is only 0.6 percent, instead of the 1.07 I was expecting.

I know the source of this photograph is NASA, but I wonder if we can find a photograph that is of comparable crispness and detail, but without the distortion of its true shape. This is not just aesthetics, but conveys something important about the science of the planet: it is huge, gaseous, and rotates once every 10 hours, making it bulge out more than any other planet.

Failing that, should note be made in the article that not only has the photo been processed for contrast and color, but the planet's aspect ratio has been altered as well?

CosineKitty (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! Yes it is odd that NASA would do something like that. The egdes of the image also look as if they have been artifically masked out. The full-sized image lacks anti-aliasing along the edges, which seems like a dead giveaway that it was doctored. Compare, for example, to the image at http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA04866_modest.jpg which has a nice clean edge.

Here is NASA's photojournal of 303 images:

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/target/Jupiter

There are also a few images in the commons:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Jupiter_%28planet%29

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Of those photos, I like http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA04866_modest.jpg the best. Because only part of Jupiter is illuminated, doing the oblateness calculations is much more challenging. It's a fun Sunday project though. I will post again here when I come to a conclusion. If it turns out to be a more true-to-life depiction of Jupiter's shape, would other people here consider it OK to be the replacement for the distorted photo at the top of the article? CosineKitty (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: I just realized that there is more than one use of the distorted photo I am complaining about in this article. Also, the suggested replacement already appears captioned as a Cassini photo. So a simple replacement of the distorted photo would create a redundant experience for the reader. I am still looking for non-copyrighted photographs of sufficient quality to nominate here. CosineKitty (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This one also looks decent:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PIA02873.jpg

—RJH (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition: where can you see Jupiter now?

I'm a newbie to editing Wikipedia, and as such I thought it best to ask the opinions of those who know and love the Jupiter article for their thoughts. Don't want to step on anyone's toes.

It might be nice if the page included some information on where Jupiter could be seen in the sky. There is a small web module which does just this, displaying information as text in an iframe. I should disclose that I wrote this. There are some snippets of HTML here which show the info in a couple of different box geometries. Possibly a less obtrusive alternative might be to link to a page showing similar positional information for all the major planets, such as this.

If the consensus is that this would make a worthwhile addition, then please feel free to add it in either form.

Thanks!

Mrchutney (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but wikipedia is not an ephemeris; in the past, comparable information has been removed from the Solar System articles (such as some of the asteroid pages). My personal preference is that we don't keep including information that is time-dependent, as that needs steady upkeep. There is an example of this in the Observation section (but others seem to differ.) You can always go to the "HORIZONS System" reference for ephemeris information. If there is a better site for an ephemeris, it can always be added to the External links.—RJH (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Zodiacal "sweep"

I find the description that Jupiter's 11.86-year orbit corresponds to the twelve zodiacal constellations somewhat misleading. That's apparent superficially, but my understanding is that there are thirteen constellations in the Zodiac used in astronomy--Ophiuchus being the "thirtheenth"--rather than the classical twelve derived from astrology. Of course, the modern plots on the sky of any constellation were developed out of convenience--perhaps arbitrarily and haphazardly--but all major Solar System objects pass through Ophiuchus. Correct? Just suggesting some clarification on this part the article might be helpful. 68Kustom (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some evidence that the Babylonian (not the Greeco-Roman or Druidic) zodiac used 13 constellations? All the references I check seem to indicate they used 12. (For example)—RJH (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean that. Ancient cultures plotted the ecliptic along 12 constellations. Modern astronomy added Ophiuchus probably in order to fill a 'gap'--it's really only a small area that juts down to the ecliptic. But Jupiter still should pass through Ophiuchus; 13 constellations, currently. 68Kustom (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed a "the" to "their". Hopefully it is sufficiently clear now.—RJH (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

1953 experiment

If someone's bored, the 1953 experiment's conditions are now thought to be non-representative of the atmosphere of primordial Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.149.167 (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source, per chance? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

GRS

the great red spot on jupiter is made up of swriling winds and gasses that are harmful if yiu breathe them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.25.147.98 (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like some of the park service outhouses I've visited. Glad I don't live there. ;-)—RJH (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hilfe, Hilda!

the schematic with 'Trojans' (in Interaction with the Solar System) shows 'Hildas', as yet another group of asteroids. Who are they? :-) Wikiak (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There's an article about them at Hilda family. :) --Patteroast (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

kewl! By Jove, add a link! :-) Wikiak (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion of asteroid groups and families that have orbital resonances with Jupiter at Asteroid_belt#Periphery.—RJH (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Erratum

<< [...] comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 [...] collided with Jupiter and gave informations about the structure of Jupiter. >>

Someone please change "informations" into "information". It's an uncountable word (no plural) in most English uses, such as this one. Thanks! 81.44.142.232 (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the catch.—RJH (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

In the Magnetosphere section, the image is not the aurora borealis; it's the moons trailing through the magnetosphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.132.159 (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The image is described on an Astronomy Picture of the Day caption as Jovian aurorae. Yes the display is caused by the interaction of the moons with the magnetosphere, but they don't actually show the moons in this image.—RJH (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Grammer fix

"Jupiter, along with Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, is classified as a gas giant."

This sentence doesn't read properly and should be modified to something along the lines of:

"Jupiter is classified as a gas giant, along with Saturn, Uranus and Neptune."

A resonable suggestion. The text has been updated.—RJH (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

JUPITER

what is the average temperature of jupiter? is jupiter has an atmosphere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.139.212.162 (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Temperature can vary by latitude, season, depth and weather conditions. I'm not sure how we would come up with an average temperature for all of those factors. Yes there is an atmosphere on Jupiter.—RJH (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Jupiter's magnetosphere has not improved significantly since it was created in 2006. Most of its material is unsourced and it could probably be merged back with this article. Serendi^podous 15:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there is already more about Jupiter's magnetosphere in the current article and it is cited here, so I'm not sure whether it would be worth merging. (No offence intended to the editors, of course.) But I do think it's a topic worthy of expansion.—RJH (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Jupiter article is big enough, it would be good to keep a separate article for more detail on the magnetosphere. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm trying to get a Jupiter subtopic for the Solar System FT off the ground, I would prefer it if that article weren't there. So if it's all right with everyone I'll just redirect it to the magnetosphere section. Unless someone wants to get it up to GA level within the next month or so. Serendi^podous 08:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Jupiter's magnetosphere needs its own article of course, but I agree that it can be redirected as a temporal solution. Ruslik (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If the Featured Topics system discourages the existence of valid but insufficiently developed forked topic articles, I'm unclear about the benefit of even having FTs.—RJH (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The system is designed to prohibit what they call "cherry picking", which basically means that EVERY SINGLE article related to a specific topic must be of GA or higher or the topic won't be considered. This makes nominating an FT a difficult proposition. Serendi^podous 09:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that is of some value in the process, although I'm still not sure the process itself is beneficial. What happens if an editor should decide to start working on a Jupiter magnetosphere article and that won't be complete for many months? But, it's not really important. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Great Red Spot

The GRS is a low orbit moon

May I say, that is quite possibly the oddest Solar System-related hypothesis I have ever seen, and I've read Worlds in Collision AND The 12th Planet! Serendi^podous 15:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Jupiter's color

I thought Jupiter's global disc is multicolor on the planet's disc, it sometimes have blue purple, pink, green, magenta, alot more than just orange white and brown. Jupiter I thought have yellow sometimes. Can I include this somewhere in the article? jupiter just spin too fast for spacecraft to see colors changing, that's why.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 22:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would be good to have, but color stuff can be tricky, see f.ex. Talk:Stellar classification where color is a major issue and angry D65 standard guys may walk in and change every color, so it would also be nice to have external sources, amateur astronomers would be best, because the professionals just use some electronic stuff and apply some filters, and out comes false-color images, nice to behold, but the colors are false. Said: Rursus (☻) 18:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

God

May we declare Jupiter, the planet, being a god? For those who prefer other gods or no god, one may optionally add the epithet "false". Said: Rursus (☻) 18:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting option would be Galactic Center. Said: Rursus (☻) 18:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither. This would be a violation of NPoV.—RJH (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

NPoV on the talk page? Oh, come on. Where's the fun in this place? Said: Rursus (☻) 07:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I assumed that you were discussing the article. Otherwise, it would seem to be off topic.—RJH (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

constellation, or sign?

I hesitate to add anything about astrology to this article, but in this case I think it may be justified. The article currently states that Jupiter's 12-year orbit corresponds to the dozen constellations of the zodiac. That is incorrect: it corresponds to the dozen signs of the zodiac, which were named after nearby constellations. Jupiter's orbit, like astrological signs, has nothing to do with the stars. In fact, AFAIK the signs were defined by Jupiter's orbit, so they do more than just correspond.

Yes, that change makes sense to me.

Okay, added it in. kwami (talk)

I also added a 'dubious' tag about Jupiter's orbit being about two fifths that of Saturn. If it's about two fifths, then they are not in a 5:2 resonance, as the following line states. kwami (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a reference. The abstract states the planets are "near the 5 : 2 mean-motion resonance".—RJH (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Then they are not in resonance? kwami (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to the article, but it looks as though they are in resonance. The word "about" would be inappropriate in that case, so I removed it. (The difference from an exact two fifths is negligible.) kwami (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. It's unfortunate that Icarus does not post their older articles for public reading. I think they would be invaluable for Solar System articles.—RJH (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

New core model

I believe the following is the paper being reported in the news story about "Jupiter Has Large, Rocky Core Surrounded By Layer Of Ice":

Militzer, B.; Hubbard, W. B.; Vorberger, J.; Tamblyn, I.; Bonev S. A. (2008). "A Massive Core in Jupiter Predicted from First-Principles Simulations". The Astrophysical Journal Letters. 688 (2): L45–L48. doi:10.1086/594364. Retrieved 2008-11-26.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

—RJH (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Interior update

There is a ton of new information out there on Jupiter's interior based on recent simulations.[2] [anon.]

Radio emissions

The section "Ground-based telescope research" claims that there are three types of radio emissions from Jupiter, lists two, then mentions the emission of heat. Heat is not a radio emission. 62.30.249.131 (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thermal radio emission from Jupiter and Saturn.—RJH (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Future probes

Explanation of replacement of JIMO and JEO information with EJSM:

• JIMO was cancelled 4 years ago. It should not be in a section called Future probes.

• Likewise the Jovian Europa Orbiter is now past tense. It was part of ESA's "Technology Reference Studies", which was superceded in 2007 by ESA's "Cosmic Vision":http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=33170 which includes the Europa Jupiter System Mission.Charvest (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Some of us tend to be a little conservative about the removal of material, mainly because of past vandalism and such.—RJH (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That was why I deleted JIMO and JEO, but I've rewritten the section now, and retained references to JIMO and JEO as being superceded by EJSM. Charvest (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue with "physical characteristics" box

I noticed something which may be potentially confusing. In the Physical characteristics box, the following information can be seen:

Equatorial radius 71,492 ± 4 km[4][5]

11.209 Earths

Polar radius 66,854 ± 10 km[4][5]

10.517 Earths

My issue is measuring this in terms of "Earths". Because here, the equatorial radius of Jupiter is in fact equal to 11 times the Earth's radius, not its diameter. If you're just talking about "Earths" as a measurement, people would tend to take this as a visual aid and consider the entire Earth, meaning its diameter, as opposed to just its radius. This makes it unclear if Jupiter itself [diameter] is 11 times the size of Earth, or if its radius is 11 times the size of Earth.

Its technically appropriate to list the radius instead of the diameter, and I'm a big fan of comparing measurements to Earth as a visual aid. So I'm not sure on how to change this, so I'll just mention it to you guys instead. Harley peters (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)