Talk:Planet/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents

New section: Composition

Is this necessary, or the "Internal differentiation section" covers the topic enough? Nergaal (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be quite a long section. It would have to address the varying compositions of the terrestrials, gas giants and ice giants in our Solar System and the varying compositions of the numerous extrasolar planets found to date (hot jupiters, water planets etc.) Serendipodous 10:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Slight mistake

The article now reads that "according to Ptolemy" the seven planets were the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. But in fact Ptolemy did not consider the Sun and Moon planets. His Almagest clearly separates the Sun and the Moon from "the planets". EDIT: rephrased the line to make it less ambiguous, but the main issue is not yet resolved. Serendipodous 12:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Disambig

The following need disambig:
hemisphere
ketu
kronos
Randomblue (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

First two fixed. Hemisphere's a problem, because none of the more specific articles actually mention hemisphere in the context described in the article, so there isn't much point in linking it, unless someone wants to create an article that deals with the topic. Serendipodous 18:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Chthonian planets

Just a small question here; I know almost nothing about the topic, and am slightly confused. In "Extrasolar planets" various types of planets are discussed, and in the last sentence of the second paragraph Chthonian planets are mentioned: "There is also a class of hot Jupiters... the Chthonian planets." But the article Chthonian planet states that this is only a hypothetical class of objects and that currently no such planets are known. What I mean, maybe the sentence here should be reworded to "There may also exist a class of hot Jupiters.." (or something like it), for clarity? Or perhaps the article on Chthonian planets is wrong? --Jashiin (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right there. Well spotted. Serendipodous 11:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The extrasolar planets section was massively outdated (I don't think anyone had bothered to change it in two years), so it really needed a makeover. I've done a cursory update, but if anyone wants to have a go, they're welcome. Serendipodous 14:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

New Planet needs article?

Planet GJ 436T discovered Wed. April 9. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080409/sc_afp/spaceastronomyplanets_080409190123 http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080409-smallest-exoplanet.htmlDreammaker182 (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where they're getting that "smallest planet" malarkey from; the smallest planet ever found is smaller than Mercury, orbits a pulsar and was found in 1992. Still, belongs in the article. Serendipodous 19:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Classification

Is there currently any system for classifying planets? Masterof148 (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many informal classifications for planets, such as gas giant, ice giant, terrestrial, super-Earth, hot Jupiter and hot Neptune, but nothing cast-iron. Serendipodous 05:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ironic Remark

I quote an ironic remark that is currently placed in the article: "In the 6th century BC, the Babylonians had a far more advanced astronomical knowledge than the Greeks, and had a theory of the planets long before the ancient Greeks understood what the planets were." This is clearly an ironic comment towards the Greeks and should be removed unless you want similar comments to be made from Greeks towards western astronomers that came 2000 years after Greek astronomy. I dont see why he should make such a comparison, and if he is making it why there is not a similar comparison made for other civilizations. And in any case, the author of the above ironic comment did not clarify in detail the 'great' understanding of the Babylonians. And of course the same author cannot give us one name of babylonian astronomer or one babylonian serious scientific astronomical treatise, except of tablet with observations. Observations were made from all ancient civilizations. However, there is a tremendous gap between observations and advanced scientific work. Permit me to remind you that the ancient Greek scientific literature is far more extensive than the Babylonian observations from a plethora of famous astronomers. May I also point out that the astronomic scientific work done by the ancient Greeks is far more advanced than that of the Babylonians without the Greeks having any more advanced technology. To point out only a few of pure scientific works of the Greeks would take many books. Kassos (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the statement is true; whether it is ironic or not is a matter of opinion. I certainly didn't intend it that way. The comparison is made because modern western planetary theory is derived from the Greeks, and the Greeks obtained their planetary theory from the Babylonians. Serendipodous 06:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not a matter of opinion. It is clearly ironic. It is clumsy, childish, uncivilised and provocative. Certainly not the kind of way someone with your English would put words. Furthermore,what you call the truth is a matter of debate. Although you could state it otherwise, even so you could not be precise because most of the Greek astronomic work is ORIGINAL as you know and did not copy 'theories', which again you cannot name because they were not stated explicitly in any scientific treatise. Moreover, if this is how you perceive truth I suggest you put the same comments for the western astronomers of renaissance. Also, the irony is within the irony in this case because the Greek ancient civilization was much more advanced than the Babylonian in all respects, not just astronomy, and if you want ironies from us we have a lot for your 'great' civilzation. Kassos (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Greek astronomical knowledge did eventually eclipse that of the Babylonians, but not for 500 years. In the 6th century BC, the Babylonians had a far more advanced planetary theory than the Greeks. That fact is borne out by historical evidence. At the time the Babylonians were compiling tables of the motions of Venus, the Greeks still believed Venus was two stars, the evening star and the morning star. There is no record that the Greeks were aware of the planets before the arrival of Babylonian astronomy into their territory. It could be made clearer, and if it makes you feel better I can also neutralise the language a bit. Since no one actually proved heliocentrism until the 19th century, I don't really treat the Renaissance astronomers any more favourably. Copernicus had just as much evidence for his heliocentric views as Aristarchus did. It just so happens that for him, the idea caught on. Galileo did manage to find some evidence, but not enough to sway the Church. Serendipodous 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the altering the lines but that is not good enough. There are still mistakes. I quote:

"the Babylonians had a highly advanced level of astronomical knowledge, and had a theory of the planets long before the ancient Greeks." 1) the Babylonians did not have highly advanced astronomy, 2) Just because they observed venus before the Greeks does not make their astronomy any better, 3) the Greek astronomy that followed was the first advanced scientific astronomic work of this world and was much more advanced than that of the babylonians. 4)"long before the Greeks" That does not make any sense (and is still ironic)because the Greek astronomic work was original as it was based on geometry. 5) They way you put it is read like the Greek astronomy that followed was inferior, whereas it was superior. 6)You make it noteworthy to mention the Babylonian tablet, but what about all the Greek books, not just the almagest. I'm talking about countless books. Afterall, Newton used Greek geometric propositions in his Principia extensively to prove his gravitational theory. This IS reference. Not the one you are noting that the Greeks had referenced. Anyway, I will end this discussion here. I dont expect you to change anything. Write anything you like. There are other major errors in the article: 1) the sumerian origin of writing (false), 2) the Babylonian origin of greek gods (false), 3) The indoeuropean theory (false).

All these are just theories that have prevailed but not proven. The unfortunate thing is these theories and their inventors are being referenced all the time. There are some of those inventors whose intenions are not very fair and noble and anyone who knows the history of those theories will understand. There are many anti-Hellenic theories going around by various people of known semitic ethnicity and other ethnicities and their intentions are known. By this I dont include you personally. I just believe you have the wrong references. I see a gap of basic history facts between us so I will go no further. Also, the term civilization is very relative and I treat the term 'sumerian civilization' or 'medieval europe civilization' or 'early USA civilization' very skeptically.

Kind regards. 130.88.165.30 (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


"the Babylonians had a highly advanced level of astronomical knowledge, and had a theory of the planets long before the ancient Greeks." 1) the Babylonians did not have highly advanced astronomy,

  • Yes they did. Particularly for the time. Serendipodous 19:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


2) Just because they observed venus before the Greeks does not make their astronomy any better,

  • It was better, at that time, because, again, at that time, the Greeks did not recognise what Venus was. Serendipodous 19:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

3) the Greek astronomy that followed was the first advanced scientific astronomic work of this world and was much more advanced than that of the babylonians.

4)"long before the Greeks" That does not make any sense (and is still ironic)because the Greek astronomic work was original as it was based on geometry.

  • For God's sake, the Greeks took their astronomy from the Babylonians, and then improved upon it using geometric calculations. Changed "long" to "centuries." Serendipodous 19:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

5) They way you put it is read like the Greek astronomy that followed was inferior, whereas it was superior.

  • No it doesn't. Read the following paragraph. Serendipodous 19:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

6)You make it noteworthy to mention the Babylonian tablet, but what about all the Greek books, not just the almagest. I'm talking about countless books. Afterall, Newton used Greek geometric propositions in his Principia extensively to prove his gravitational theory. This IS reference. Not the one you are noting that the Greeks had referenced.

  • All centuries later, which is already mentioned. Serendipodous 19:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I will end this discussion here. I dont expect you to change anything. Write anything you like. There are other major errors in the article: 1) the sumerian origin of writing (false),

  • You're going to need some pretty cast-iron proof to tell me that the Sumerians weren't the first civilisation to use writing. Serendipodous 19:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

2) the Babylonian origin of greek gods (false),

  • This article makes no such claim, only that the Greeks gave the planets names from their gods that loosely corresponded to the Babylonian gods. Serendipodous 19:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

3) The indoeuropean theory (false).

  • The Indo-European theory is hardly anti-Hellenic. And since it is backed up by 250 years of scholarship, and you've backed up your rebuttal with, well, nothing, I don't really think I can help you there. Serendipodous 19:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All these are just theories that have prevailed but not proven. The unfortunate thing is these theories and their inventors are being referenced all the time. There are some of those inventors whose intenions are not very fair and noble and anyone who knows the history of those theories will understand. There are many anti-Hellenic theories going around by various people of known semitic ethnicity and other ethnicities and their intentions are known.

  • Ah. So you attempt to redress anti-Hellenism by employing anti-Semitism. Great. Serendipodous 19:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

By this I dont include you personally.

  • I'm flattered. (That was ironic) Serendipodous 19:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I just believe you have the wrong references. I see a gap of basic history facts between us so I will go no further.

  • I have no idea which histories you're reading, but I think they've been rather selective. The works I use were recommended to me by historians of science. Serendipodous 19:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the term civilization is very relative and I treat the term 'sumerian civilization' or 'medieval europe civilization' or 'early USA civilization' very skeptically.

  • Civilisation means "building and living in cities". That's it. The Sumerians built cities, so they were a civilisation. Serendipodous 19:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Kind regards. 130.88.165.30 (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


Look, I'll take your concerns under advisement but I'm not about to start turning this article into a paean to the perfection of Greek civilisation just to appease your wounded national pride. The fact is that, as far as we can tell, the Greeks had no idea the planets existed until they received that information from the Babylonians. That doesn't take anything away from the Greeks; the Bible doesn't mention the planets either. This article is about planets. Not about astronomy. I will address your issues as far as I can but I will not distort the facts to suit your feelings. Serendipodous 19:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with the present version of the article? Nergaal (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically, this guy thinks it isn't pro-Greek enough. Serendipodous 20:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Heliocentric theory

There is mistake in the article that says that the ancients only proposed the geocentric theory. Of course,this is not true. The Heliocentric center was proposed by Aristarchus, not Coppernicus. Aristarchus was an astronomer who attemped among other thing to measure the size and distances of the moon and sun. He was therefore a pure scientific astronomer, not a philosopher and certainly not a mere observer. Kassos (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So should the thoughts and beliefs of an entire civilisation be discounted because of the speculations of one man? That seems a bit imbalanced. EDIT: OK; added a qualification to the line "it was believed" to account for the occasional dissenters. Serendipodous 06:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That man is not just anybody. He was an astronomer and was author of many books with original scientific astonomical work much more advanced that that of Babylonians. If you want to be precise, you should take that into account. We are not talking about an unknown here. I hope you understand that. You changed it to "it was believed". I'm sure you can do better than that for a man whose works are known and respected throughout the world. The Greeks were the first to propose the Helicentric system, and yes it took one man. As Copernicus was only one man. Therefore you should change the line: "In ancient Greece as well as in ancient China, ancient Babylon and indeed all pre-modern civilisations,[7][8] it was almost universally believed that Earth was in the centre of the Universe and that all the "planets" circled the Earth." and put that only babylonians and chinese believed on the geocentric system whereas the ancient greeks were the first to propose the heliocentric system. Be precise please, don't avoid Greek contribution on purpose. I'm sure if it was a babylonian proposing the heliocentric system you would have mentionted him first line in the article. Kassos (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The idea that the "ancient Greeks" as a whole proposed the heliocentric system is just ludicrous. Aristarchus's ideas obviously had little or no effect on the wider philosophical community, for the simple reason that, when the collective astronomical knowledge of the ancient Greeks was compiled by Ptolemy 300 years later, his views are ignored, and indeed, discounted (I'm speaking from experience here; I've read the Almagest). He is notable mainly because he had a hunch which, 2000 years later, turned out to be right. Serendipodous 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No,i'm not saying the Greeks as a whole, and that's not the point. I simply believe that since the Babylonians did not prove anything as well, and since they adopted the geocentric theory, it would be fair to mention a Greek astronomer (not philosopher) who 'speculated' the Heliocentric theory for the first time. Also, whether or not Aristarchus' ideas were accepted does not mean that he did not 'propose' the Heliocentric theory. Therefore, if you are going to mention Copernicus, then you should also mention Aristarchus who happened to measure the distances and sizes of moon and sun with whatever accuracy using CORRECT paralax geometric methods for the first time in the world. Thank you. Kind regards. 130.88.165.30 (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Plenty of other people also preceded Copernicus in suggesting heliocentrism. These individuals are not relevant to the wider historical context because they were abberations. Copernicus does not deserve credit for coming up with heliocentrism, sure, but the fact of the matter is that it was Copernicus's idea that caught on. All the others faded away. And really, it wasn't until Galileo, Kepler and Newton that the heliocentric model met with wide acceptance. So no, I don't see this as relevant. Serendipodous 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

I believe the Greek etymology of the word 'Planet' although it is mentioned in the article, it is mentioned mid-way through the article. This is not appropriate, as the etymology should come first in any article, and it certainly does so in all the other wikipedia articles. Kassos (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't mentioned in the lead; it is, however, mentioned directly below it. I don't see the point of mentioning it twice. Serendipodous 06:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but I fail to see the rationale behind placing the etymology first in this or any article, unless it is of particular importance to the article. Certainly such a requirement is not listed in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and the etymology is not exactly the most important element in an article of this nature. In fact my preference would be to put the etymology near the end, or move it to the wiktionary where it belongs.—RJH (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
When someone write an article about a name-word-term-place then the etymology is the first most important thing. For some other cases, etymology is not applicable or appropriate, i agree. But not in all cases. When you write an article about astronomy, astrology, philosophy, galaxy, telescope, biology, geography, geology, geometry, theatre, tragedy, comedy, mathematics, democracy, artistocracy, oligarchy, politics and so on, then the etymology is the first most important thing to mention, otherwise you miss the whole point. What's the point of teaching your children about philosophy if you haven't told them first what the word means? What's the point of teaching your children about astronomy without telling them what the word means? What is the point of doing a course in history 101 and not knowing where the words 'history', 'museum' and 'archaeology' and 'neolithic' come from? What's the point of going to drama school without knowing what the words 'theatre', 'amphitheatre', 'drama' 'comedy' tragedy' 'chorus' 'lyrics' mean? Do you find these things unimportant RJH? Do you want to produce half-educated half-illiterate people? What's the point of writing an article about Acropolis, Neapolis(Italy), Tripolis (Libya), Philadephia (many places), Sozopolis (Bulgaria), Atlantic, Arctic, Antarctic, Amazon without telling the etymology of these names? What is the point on writing an article about 'Europe' or 'Asia' without explaining the origin and etymology of these words. As far as the article about planet is concerned, it may be arguable where to place the etymology. However I would prefer it is placed first because it has an interesting meaning. I understand why some people (and i dont mean serendipodous) would like not to include at all the etymology of important terms-names-places. The reason being that most of them have Greek origin and it would not be politically correct for the rest of the world having to face a Greek etymology all the time. Furthermore, the same people would like to avoid the etymology of those words-names-places-terms because they reveal the Greek origin of those things and the Greek historical places currently under foreign occupation. Therefore, for the sake of 'political correctness' we should not tell the whole truth because it will upset some people. For the sake of YOUR 'political correctness' we should not educate people and we should sacrifice truth and history. And when did the Wiki manual become the bible of conduct RJH? If you want to burry the etymology to wiktionary go ahead but that will not help anything. Would you like to be one of those people who goes to a pathologist, ofthamologist, gynaecologist, otorinolaringologist without knowing what it means? Would you like to read the 'Genesis' without knowing what the name means? Why should we not mention the etymology of those things RJH? Why write an article on Alexander the Great or Aristotle and miss out the etymology of the names? Is there a political reason behind this? RJH the etymology of a word is the First most important thing whether or not i has a Greek or Latin or whatever origin. What you do in this article is your choice and I dont care. I just wrote this as an answer to RJH. 130.88.165.30 (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that we need to concentrate on the "planet" means. However, the modern meaning of "planet" is (roughly) "large object that orbits a star", and the article does concentrate on this meaning. The etymology of the word might be interesting, but it is not important. Bluap (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, a lengthy rant. Let's see...
  • "What's the point of going to drama school without knowing what the words 'theatre', 'amphitheatre', 'drama' 'comedy' tragedy' 'chorus' 'lyrics' mean? Do you find these things unimportant RJH?"
    • There is a difference between meaning and etymology. I can certainly understand the meaning of a word without needing to know its history.
  • What's the point of writing an article about Acropolis, Neapolis(Italy), Tripolis (Libya), Philadephia (many places), Sozopolis (Bulgaria), Atlantic, Arctic, Antarctic, Amazon without telling the etymology of these names?
    • I believe that an article on all of those subjects would do just fine without a history of the word. In fact, I have read a fair amount on several of those subjects without needing to know the history of their names, thank you.
  • However I would prefer it is placed first because it has an interesting meaning.
    • Not everybody has your priorities. I would prefer to learn about the place first and then, if I'm still interested, read about why it was named. The latter just isn't as important to everybody else.
  • Would you like to be one of those people who goes to a pathologist, ofthamologist, gynaecologist, otorinolaringologist without knowing what it means?
    • Again you are confusing meaning with etymology. I can understand the meaning of a word without knowing it's history.
See the etymology article. It tells me the meaning in the first sentence without even mentioning the origin of the word "etymology". Bah. &c.—RJH (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the opening be "a body that orbits a Sun"?