Talk:Sun

Template:VA

SUN

SUN

Chemical composition

The Sun is composed primarily of the chemical elements hydrogen and helium; they account for 74.9% and 23.8% of the mass of the Sun in the photosphere, respectively.[81] All heavier elements, called metals in astronomy, account for less than 2% of the mass. The most abundant metals are oxygen (roughly 1% of the Sun's mass), carbon (0.3%), neon (0.2%), and iron (0.2%).[82]

Oxygen is not a metal! The word "Metal" should be edited into "Elements." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powertripp (talk • contribs) 02:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Have a closer look at the text you quoted: All heavier elements (than helium) are called metals in astronomy. — HHHIPPO 16:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article uses the unusual specialist sense of "metal". Perhaps putting quotes round the word (though usually discouraged in Wikipedia) would help to clarify the use of language. I'll try it. Dbfirs 20:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

...(later)... The word is already italicised and linked to an appropriate article, so I think it's clear enough as it is. Sorry HHHIPPO, I should have taken a closer look, too! Dbfirs 20:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem, it looked indeed a bit like the emphasis was mine. — HHHIPPO 22:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggested change to the Radiative zone section

I'm not allowed to volunteer changes to this locked article, so here's one for someone with more privileges than li'l ol' me:

".. This zone is free of thermal convection, however the temperature drops from seven (7) million to (2) million Kelvin with increasing distance from the core."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.206.251 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 24 November 2012‎

What's the source of this? - Sidelight12 ^Talk 23:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

1. The source is the paragraph "The Radiative Zone" in the page <http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/interior.shtml>.
2. The article already contains very similar wording.

Spacepotato (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Its not hard to get a wiki account, if that's what you want to do. This looks like a reasonable contribution, and good sourcing. I made a minor edit based on your suggestion. Sidelight12 ^Talk 00:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you know that the sun got colder now you can stand on it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.215.29 (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Kelvin

Please change "Kelvin", which is a man's name, to "kelvins", which is the correct form for the unit of temperature.76.18.184.9 (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the error. I've changed Kelvin to kelvin on the one occasion it was wrong. I don't think the use of the plural is common is it? Dbfirs 16:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Fate of sun - articles are inconsistent

Some articles state the sun will become a White dwarf.

The article Formation and evolution of the Solar System is a lot more detailed:

The helium-fusing stage will last only 100 million years. Eventually, it will have to again resort to the reserves of hydrogen and helium in its outer layers and will expand a second time, turning into what is known as an asymptotic giant branch star. Here the luminosity of the Sun will increase again, reaching about 2,090 present luminosities, and it will cool to about 3500 K. This phase lasts about 30 million years, after which, over the course of a further 100,000 years, the Sun's remaining outer layers will fall away, ejecting a vast stream of matter into space and forming a halo known (misleadingly) as a planetary nebula. The ejected material will contain the helium and carbon produced by the Sun's nuclear reactions, continuing the enrichment of the interstellar medium with heavy elements for future generations of stars.

This is a relatively peaceful event, nothing akin to a supernova, which our Sun is too small to undergo as part of its evolution. Any observer present to witness this occurrence would see a massive increase in the speed of the solar wind, but not enough to destroy a planet completely. However, the star's loss of mass could send the orbits of the surviving planets into chaos, causing some to collide, others to be ejected from the Solar System, and still others to be torn apart by tidal interactions.

and also summarizes:

Sun passes through helium-burning horizontal branch and asymptotic giant branch phases, losing a total of ~30% of its mass in all post-main sequence phases. Asymptotic giant branch phase ends with the ejection of a planetary nebula, leaving the core of the Sun behind as a white dwarf.

Can various descriptions be merged, as we have different descriptions in different articles. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the inconsistency. The summary in the sun article is shorter and easier to read (less numbers) as it is should be. Both articles say that the sun will end as a white dwarf and describe how this will happen consistently. Ulflund (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding a new file

I would have been bold and done it myself, but I thought it should be better if its asked on the talk page first. Should we add this file to the article and where(which file to replace)? I doubt there will be any objections at all though, but its better to check TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Just add it, you don't even have to replace any images. The only concern is if its a copyright one: it does look kind of commercial.Sidelight12 ^Talk 15:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I know it does look like one. But it isnt. Added it though after replacing one of the other images on the same topic TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the author of that picture—I drew it myself, with NASA pictures as tracing templates for the textures.—Kelvinsong (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• You guys must revert the page back to original condition. The file is OK, However, you have not done what was asked of you by the one person who gave you permission to do it. He said NOT to eliminate other files. Also, the file is way too big. It must be shrunk, and placed in a spot that doesn't leave 13" of free space on the page. This file can add to this article, but it has to be placed without destroying what is already there. I would shrink it and place it for you, however, my computer is running slow today, and this page is a monster. I would be there all day. Please put the page back to its original condition, and then work together in your Sandbox until you have made it smaller, and found the perfect spot to place it. If a reader wants to read what's on the Poster in detail, he/she can click on it to blow it up. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If you see the page you will find that the file we replaced had exactly the same thing as this pic, which is why it was removed. The reason I had the file so big is because the picture is most useful only when its size is bigger. Still I shall try to see if a smaller size suits the article better. As for the rest, the spot looks perfect enough and the rest of the pics seem to be in sync with the article to me. Not sure if you have any other opinions though. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Hello T.O.S., When you made the first edit there was a 13" free space under "Core". Then Kelvin came in and tried to fix it at the same time I was trying to revert it..lol. As it stands right now, there is still a 6" space under "Core" that wasn't there until this file was added. On a page this size, I feel it is extremely important that there be no free space at all. Usually this occurs when a file is placed in a poor spot; and tends to "un-format" the page. My first suggestion is that you make the file exactly the size it is shown here, and not a bigger version of it. It is overwhelming in the article. Then try and put it on the left side in the middle of text that may apply to it. That should eliminate the free space under "Core" we have right now. Like I suggested earlier: working with this file in your sandbox until you have nailed the placement won't disfigure the article in the meantime. I really like the chart. I just happen to really like perfect formatting as well. Happy Holidays. Pocketthis (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Umm what? I do not see any free space anywhere. Maybe thats what leading to a confusion between us. Let me see if Firefox has something different to show. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Firefox and IE both show the same thing to me as Chrome. So either I did not understand what the problem was, or its not there for me. A screenshot would help. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• • • I just changed browsers, and I don't see any free space anymore. I don't know whether you just fixed it, or my other browser wasn't allowing proper formatting to be viewed. So at this point, it's fine other than I would suggest you make the chart the same size as it is here. Thanks again, and if it was a faulty browser of mine causing this discussion, other than the size of the chart....I apologize. Pocketthis (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not do anything, which means it was probably your browser (Maybe you were not reading the full article? If you read only the section, its a different formatting). As for the size, 300 seems to be very small to be even vaguely understable or clear. I much prefer a 420 size or around it. Is that agreeable? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not the boss here; the general concensus is. If you decide on a size, and if someone else doesn't agree with you, they will edit it down.

I've already expressed my opinion as to the size being perfect as displayed here. You don't have to be concerned with me reverting any size you choose. I've expressed my two cents here, and "time" always makes the best adjustments in articles. :) Thanks again....Pocketthis (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand. I was hoping for further feedback on what my POV was on the size of the image. If both of us would have agreed on the size, it would have allowed me the liberty to think that the image size wasn't off by a wide margin.

In any rate, thank you for your constructive feedback in the addition of this image. Lets see what happens to the image with time (Hopefully nobody will remove it completely). Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Perhaps there was some misunderstanding. My feedback is: The chart is 41/2" wide right now. It is a good inch wider than any other chart or photo on the entire page. It stands out like a sore thumb. It should be at least inch smaller in width. I think I can say with the utmost confidence, that another editor will eventually shrink it. thanks Pocketthis (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Reduced it even further. I am not sure I can reduce it now. It would be sacrilege to make it smaller now. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Do me a favor, and look at the chart under yours. It's the same type of theme. If someone is interested in reading the fine print, they click on it. If you do a stats check on that chart under yours, you will find that well over a thousand folks a month blow it up to read the fine print. Why should your chart be any different than any photo or fine print file on the entire site? Now 'you' can either make it the same size as the one you used as an example here, (that's what we were judging, not a monster version of it) or another editor will. You should take my advice and do it yourself. Why be edited behind if you don't have to. Do the right thing. Pocketthis (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I just went and shrunk the image to 350px—the same size as the next largest image on the page(Not counting the 600px star cycle picture).—Kelvinsong (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I know you guys are young, smart and full of enthusiasm, however, you seem to think your chart loses credibility if it's smaller. Here's the truth. I am a photographer. I love putting up a photo that will enhance an article of as much as you guys do. However, if the photo is so large that no one needs to click on it to blow it up to see it better, it won't get any hits. If it doesn't get any hits, it will lose credibility and be exchanged by another editor. A file gains its credibility by how many hits it gets, both in commons, and in en.org. If I were you guys I would be looking to see how small I could get it and still look great; not how large. Life lessons are hard learned....lol Pocketthis (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

SVG

PNG

• I didn't mean to incite an argument. I implied that nothing had to be taken down, for one to be put up. Its up to everyone's discretion really. Actually the old diagram didn't have much information on it. The new picture is good: the wording the sun "drawn to scale" could have been smaller, but other than that, there's no better picture. The screen zoom or text size may be why it shows differently on everyone's screen, as you've figured.

The resolution of the original picture would only make a difference for a 40 inch tv, which is what its actually set for, and it won't matter on a monitor. The text resolution, however, is very low for even an old monitor, could also be the font. This is why the picture has to be made larger to view the wording. I uploaded a cropped png version of it, the lettering looked not much different than the high resolution svg image. Sidelight12 ^Talk 01:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted you—that png is blurrier than the SVG—Kelvinsong (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Stepping back, never thought my little sun picture could set off so much controversy...—Kelvinsong (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, ...your little Sun file.....the size of the real Sun!!......:) It's been fun playing with you kiddies today, however the truth is, when one of the serious science editors gets an eye full of this page, and the never ending edits you kids are doing, Playtime will be over.

I suggest you size the photo to 300 like the sample, hope it sticks, and call it a day. Oh... and Kelvin, I see you have exchanged the .png on the Sun Stereo. That was good, now will one of you please caption the photo? Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

But I don't wanna go to bed!!! :P Anyway, I'm confused—I did caption the Stereo photo, are you talking about the Sun poster.svg file(Which has a caption as well)?—Kelvinsong (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you crop it. The text resolution is still low, regardless. I had the same resolution at 3mb. SVG is difficult to work with. Sidelight12 ^Talk 02:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've cropped it and increased the label size—Kelvinsong (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That looks good. Sidelight12 ^Talk 03:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Noticed a problem—after resizing the image, now the picture on the Wikipedia mobile app is all distorted—it has the wrong aspect ratio—Kelvinsong (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know what size you tried to make it, but I guess we can live with the size it is now and hope it sticks. "Kelvinsong", you did a really nice job making that chart, and it does enhance the page....nice work. :) Pocketthis (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Picture tutorial upright factor or pixel height might be it. Sidelight12 ^Talk 16:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't use or know anything about "Mobile Apps", however all appears well now. Perhaps we can finally put this puppy to rest now. My fingers are getting sore from typing..:) Pocketthis (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not talking about the XXpx wikimarkup—I think its because I cropped the image. The mobile app is using the old height, but the new width.—Kelvinsong (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

300px width, variable height

x200px height, variable width

variable width and height, adjusting size proportionally upright=1.5

or SVG is making it stretch to a set height/width ratio on the wiki, regardless of the real proportion. Sidelight12 ^Talk 17:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

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"