Talk:Jupiter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jupiter article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Featured article star Jupiter 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 Jupiter 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 6, 2007.
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
WikiProject Spaceflight WikiProject Spaceflight Importance to Spaceflight: Top

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.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)