Talk:Nebular hypothesis/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Speculators

People who proposed the nebular hypothesis were Tycho Bobostein, Johannes Kepler, Edmond Halley, Emanuel Swedenborg, Immanuel Kant, Johann Heinrich Lambert, Rudjer Boscovich, Pierre-Simon Laplace, William Herschel, and Maria Mitchell.Lestrade 14:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

The hypothesis has been confirmed.[1]69.6.162.160 01:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

[edit] Where did the solar nebula come from?

Where did the solar nebula come from? I'd like to know. It must have come from a supernova from earlier in the history of the universe (to account for the heavy elements on earth.) Can anyone write anything about this? I think it's significant. Jolb 02:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Formation and evolution of the solar system?

These two articles have a lot of overlap, and there is information in this article that really needs to be in the other. Some kind of mergence would tidy things up a lot. Serendipodous 18:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I agree. There's a lot of material in here that's only applicable to our Solar System, which Formation and evolution of the solar system can do a much better job with.
It's a grand undertaking, but I'd like to see the material relevant to our system the merged with the other article, and this article to become a general discussion of planetary system formation, from cloud collapse to final orbits. Really, that's already what it is, but it's tailored to our particular corner of the universe, and there's already an article for that. There are so many known exoplanets now that this sort of article needs to speak in broader terms. This could be renamed Theory of planet formation, or Formation of planetary systems, or some such, and leave the other article to specialise on our system, which we know much more about.
There are also a lot of disparate planetary articles - accretion disc, planetesimal, protoplanet, planetary migration, planetary differentiation, accretion (astrophysics), etc. - and tidying up this one into a quick guide through the whole process could be a good way of connecting them all up and providing some structure, just as universe does for the evolution of our universe. Needless to say, I'd be happy to help. I guess that's kinda why I signed up. Spiral Wave 14:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary for anyone wondering why chunks are being removed from this article: Overlap between this and Formation and evolution of the solar system is quite bad, though it's more conceptual than actual content, Heavy Bombardment excepted. I intend to turn this into a general article on planet formation (something that already links here), and move the Solar System-specific content to the other article. There's a larger discussion on the matter over at that article's talk page. Spiral Wave 15:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Made a bit more generic, eg turning each reference of 'Sun' into 'star'. There's still a few more sections to be added for this to be a true 'planet formation' discussion, eg planetary migration, turbulence, a bit more on dust settling, gravitational instability. And lots of references, of course. But it's getting there. Spiral Wave 06:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Among the observed extrasolar planetary systems, the distribution of the planets in our own system may as yet be considered somewhat"

Somewhat what? Serendipodous 09:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Please don't shout so loudly; it's a bit too early. Spiral Wave 10:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; I am a bit hard of hearing. Serendipodous 10:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming of article to Planet formation?

As explained above, I've been working on sorting out the duplicate material between this article and Formation and evolution of the solar system. It was already hovering inbetween being specific to our Solar system, and a general discussion, so I'm working on generalising it further so we have a full article leading through the process of planet formation. I feel this article now needs renaming to reflect this change. Planet formation already links here; formation of planetary systems has also been suggested. If anyone has any opinions, or knows how to do all the necessary moving while preserving histories and (double?) redirects and so on, please speak up. I'm also left wondering if Solar Nebula should now be a redirect somewhere else; perhaps to Formation and evolution of the solar system. It's outgrown the original title and I've already moved most of the relevant content to the appropriate section there. Spiral Wave 14:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed - planet formation links here, but planetary formation links to protoplanetary disk. That needs tidying up too. Spiral Wave 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure yet; this whole series of articles is in a bit of a mess; I just got back from "Sun" and found nothing about formation in it at all. Merging "Protoplanetary disc" wouldn't be so difficult, as it isn't very large. Serendipodous 14:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
it's definitely a mess. The structure I'm aiming for is one 'central' article, on planet formation, each with a short piece describing and linking to the relevant larger article - protoplanetary disc, protostar, planetesimal etc. Kind of like how universe is attempting. So I'd rather keep protoplanetary disc separate; if we brought in everything like that, for each subsection, we'd get one huge article, which probably isn't too helpful. But I'm open to any better suggestions. Spiral Wave 16:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
(Uh, that means better than mine, not better than what you just said, BTW, That could be taken the wrong way. ) Spiral Wave 22:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


  • Solar nebula → Nebular hypothesis —(Discuss)— This title of this article is simply wrong. The "solar nebula" is not the nebula out of which the Sun and solar system formed. That nebula is called the "presolar nebula." The solar nebula is the residue remaining after the formation of the Sun that went on to form the planets. I can provide a number of scholarly references (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) which describe the mass of the solar nebula as far less than that of the Sun, which would be impossible if the Sun formed out of the solar nebula. Regardless, this article goes far beyond describing the solar or presolar nebulae. It is in fact an account of the nebular hypothesis of the formation of the solar system, and should be described as such. Serendipodous 06:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

  • Object — Then the article needs to be clarified. But discussion of the formation of the Sun seems necessary as a precursor to discussion of the "solar nebula". "Solar nebula" gets many more ghits, so I take it to be the more common term. I also get 7633 matches on NASA ADS for "solar nebula" compared to 1027 for "nebular hypothesis". The former seems the more scientific term, whereas the later is more historical. — RJH (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Relying on Google hits is misleading in this case because "solar nebula" is an accepted term in planetary science. But not for the primordial nebula out of which the Solar System formed. In planetary science, the solar nebula is the remainder left over after the formation of the Sun that went on to form the planets. Thus this article's lead is incorrect. The solar nebula only existed for a fraction of the time described in this article, and indeed, by the time described in "Giant impacts" was already gone. It seems strange then, that it is the article's title. Serendipodous 16:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - The article as it stands now appears to be primarily about the hypothesis. While not getting into the details of what is or is not meant by "the solar nebula", I would expect this article to be titled to indicate that it describes a hypothesis, not a physical object. Perhaps a secondary article on the physical object itself would be better suited to the title of "Solar nebula". -dmmaus 04:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from solar nebula to nebular hypothesis as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 07:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)