Talk:Formation and evolution of the Solar System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in Solar System.
Featured article star Formation and evolution of the Solar System is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Featured topic star Formation and evolution of the Solar System is part of the "Solar System" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 7, 2008.
WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Astronomy WikiProject Astronomy
WikiProject Astronomical objects WikiProject Astronomical Objects
WikiProject Solar System WikiProject Solar System

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Image:Splitsection.svg This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Solar System, due to size or style considerations.
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.
Archive
Archives


[edit] White Dwarf

White dwarfs shine by leftover heat and can take up to 10 trillion years to cool off.[1] -- Kheider (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That is 10,000 billion years. The statement actually says trillions meaning at least 2000 billion years, more than 100 times the length of the universe to date, though the reality is that many billions could also describe 2000 billion or 10,000 billion, which seems more meaningful to me than "trillions". Thanks, SqueakBox 18:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I prefer trillions since the Dyson reference (2) says "Detachment of planets from stars like the earth-sun system is considerably shorter than 10^15 years (=Quadrillion)." 10^9 = Billion and 10^12 = Trillions. Many of anything could be as few as 20 or 50, and I think using billions instead of trillions gives the wrong Order of magnitude. -- Kheider (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing I was concerned about was ambiguity of the word trillion: it can mean 1012 or 1018, though the second is becoming more rare. Same problem for billion. Maybe there is another way to word this in the article? CosineKitty (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Are those usages still commonly used anywhere? I think the English-speaking world has pretty much standardized on billion=109 and trillion=1012, but that could be my American bias. See long and short scales and MOS:NUM. ("Billion is understood as 109 (short scale).")
I agree with Kheider's reasoning that trillion more accurately reflects the reference here (even though pretending we know anything about what will happen in trillions of years is iffy). ASHill (talk | contribs) 05:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Evolution"

I strongly discourage usage of the word Evolution in this context.. give me a argument for the usage in this particular case... Bambinn (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What else would you suggest as an alternative. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
i think "development" or "process" would be a more appropriate word,.. Bambinn (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
"process of the Solar System" makes no sense. "Development" carries connotations of birth and growth but doesn't really cover ageing and death. "Evolution" is a commonly used word in these contexts, and Wikipedia already has a number of astronomical articles which employ it (stellar evolution, galaxy formation and evolution etc) Serendipodous 19:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
(after ce) Bambin, Mierda del toro. From OED: III. The process of development.
Serendipodous is correct. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If you look in the archive of this discussion page when this was the Featured Article, there was a lot of discussion about avoiding the word evolution. The only argument against it is that is it will make some people freak out because they think it means the same thing as Darwinism. The word evolution was in the English language long before the theory of natural selection came on the scene. And it does not mean the same thing as development: the former is a more neutral term that means gradual change over time. I still think we should leave it as is. CosineKitty (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a wiktionary link on the word. The link is awkward and not entirely appropriate, but the first definition of the word in wiktionary clearly applies to the use in this article. ASHill (talk | contribs) 01:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fate of Earth as sun's luminosity increases

This article makes it seem like it's a foregone conclusion that the Earth will become uninhabitable well before the red giant phase commences. That may well be if interference by intelligent life is not considered, but then I think it would be foolish to disregard the possibility that there may be some distant progeny of mankind alive at the time who would take interest in the continued survival of Earth as a habitat for life. Now, it's sufficiently remote that even an advanced civilization could thwart the swallowing of Earth as the Sun becomes a red giant, and it's impossible that anyone could thwart the eventual heat death to which all stellar systems eventually evolve, but it wouldn't be that difficult for an advanced civilization to deflect or absorb a percentage of the incoming solar radiation before it reaches Earth. In fact, even at a near future level of technological development, I don't see any reason why Earth could not be preserved until the onset of the red giant phase. Now, I'm not suggesting that we clutter the article with WP:OR far-future Earth saving strategies, but might it be possible to include a caveat stating that the studied model of Earth's fate doesn't include the role of life? One would think that might be a significant omission considering that life has already shaped this planet's destiny as far back as the Oxygen Catastrophe. deranged bulbasaur 14:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if humanity kills itself through stupidity, the extreme timescales we're talking about here mean that it's entirely possible that the Earth could produce another intelligent species in time to save itself from this easily averted apocalypse. Considering what else life has managed in less that 500 million years, it wouldn't even have to be a naked ape repeat. In that span, cephalopods might even get their shot at it. deranged bulbasaur 14:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to imagine any changes to the Earth's atmosphere that could lengthen the time the planet could support life. (Perhaps considerably more dust in the atmosphere to reduce the impact of the more luminous Sun? Even so, the dust would absorb solar energy, presumably heating the atmosphere.) Certainly, the impacts of life could accelerate the evaporation of water. We'd certainly need a very credible reference, because this sounds like science fiction speculation that doesn't belong in this article, even if it is technically feasible.
I've reworded the paragraph slightly to make it clear that the source's definition of the habitable zone is surface temperatures that allow the presence of liquid water, which makes this paragraph more clear. ASHill (talk | contribs) 00:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)