Wikijunior talk:Solar System/The Sun

media
hey check out the image of the sun in the wikipedia aricle sun it pulls up a moving image really cool actually --Larsie 23:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see it. There are two still images on that page, but I don't see any moving ones :-( Theresa knott 06:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think he's talking about http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/SOHO_solar_flare_sun_MPEG_20031026_eit_304.mpeg . Gentgeen 06:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh I see. Yes it is cool. Larsie was that you who tried to add the image to this module direct from the wikipedia page? Because it doesn't work. All I see is a message "Missing Image". When you put an image link in, the software checks to see if it's here, if not it checks wikicommons -and that's it. It doesn't check wikipedia. Theresa knott 06:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

well it should ;)--Larsie 17:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

so cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.66.107 (discuss • contribs) 03:21, 15 December 2005

warning
This page is going to need the standard do not directly look at the sun warningGeni


 * Good idea, we should also show how to make a simple pinhole camera for safe viewing of the Sun. Theresa knott 20:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Distance
I added the distance to the sun, as that should be in there somewhere, but if it should be moved to another section that's fine. --Asbestos 23:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sample spread
I whipped this up. It's a little sparse, and some of the orange text overlaps the sun picture, and the colors got really intense when I went from CMYK to RGB, but it's a start. Let me know what you guys think. LockeShocke 00:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)




 * problem is that one of the uses of what we are doing is meant to be a website and webistes compoed of pictureas are less then idea on dialupGeni 02:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but these are going into print sooner or later. I thought that was the whole point. LockeShocke 22:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * both. They are meant to end up in print and as a website (not here).Geni 23:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that images help learning things as well as they encourage kids to keep/get their interest. Gotta walk a fine line again, huh? ;) --Telcontar 00:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That whole thing could be done with no pics (or just one depending on how you do it), just html and css. would take some time and some know-how but its possible. I think as a mock up it looks pretty damn good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The bellman (discuss • contribs) 04:56, 8 June 2005

Solar Wind
Is a section needed on the Solar Wind? &mdash; RJHall 20:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay I added a short section. Wasn't sure how much detail to add. &mdash; RJHall 22:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I apologize for editing/deleting the words that you put in for the solar wind. I tried to incorporate the major ideas that you had, but it has been substantially reworded as part of an overall expanded explaination of the solar atmosphere in general.  I also feel that the discussion of the aurora needs to be put on the Earth page instead, although perhaps we need to add something about auroras in general here, as they also occur on all of the other planets with an atmosphere (Does Mercury have aurora?  Really, I don't know.)Rob Horning 06:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Possible Minor Clarification for How Bright a Sunspot is
Right now, the brightness of a sunspot is compared to an electric arc. Would it be possible to compare it with a light bulb of the appropriate wattage instead? I think that might be clearer to young readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.51.70 (discuss • contribs) 13:17, 23 June 2005

Suggestion of possible warning message
My concern here is that with the mention of various aspects of the Sun, that children will want to look at it. While that is not a bad thing, perhaps we should warn children that looking directly at the Sun is dangerous - viewing the Sun should only be done with appropriate protective eyewear or a protective apparatus (I don't think sunglasses count). I saw that there was a blurb hidden within the text, and there's a previous comment here about it. Could we put it in a little more visible place? Maybe the top? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 13:38, 23 June 2005 (discuss • contribs) 192.160.51.70
 * I added a warning message into the 'fact box' section. This is a valid point.  BTW, I would personally (Non-NPOV here... so I don't think it is easy to put into the module) recommend using welding goggles or other similar filters.  Solar observatories use somewhat similar filters that are even stronger....they look like black glass or even obsidian until you see the sun through it.  If you ever get a chance to see solar prominences through one of these telescopes, it is an experience that is nothing short of incredible, and photos just don't do it justice. (I had my first experience at Mt. Wilson observatory in Los Angeles.)Rob Horning 07:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Better basic facts
I really dislike most of the "Sun Facts" on this page. For example, "The sun is really a star" suggets that it might be something else. Perhaps just "the sun is the closest star to earth"

The one about the sun blowing up should be replaced with something that explains how light takes 8 mins to travel from the sun the earth.

And also, ALL bodies that rotate around an axis move faster along the equator because the distance of the circumference is greater at the equator than at the poles. Perhaps this should be changed to "The Sun rotates about an axis, just as Earth does" or something. Doom of Doom 26 Jul 2005


 * I completely agree. --Laura Scudder | Talk 06:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, the sun "swirls" around on its axis. The equator completes a rotation sooner than the higher latitudes.  I think it is 25 Earth days for the equator, 35 for the higher latitudes.  When we talk about the surface of the Sun, we are talking about the photosphere, which is a gas.  Presumably, the Earth's atmosphere swirls around the Earth's axis in a similar way. --SV Resolution 04:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Photoshpere
On section "What are sunspots?", "photoshpere" is mentioned without previously defined and without a short explanation: "The Umbra is about 2000 °C (3600 °F) cooler than the photosphere and only looks dark in relation to its surroundings." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agro1986 (discuss • contribs) 08:40, 16 August 2005

Move Heliopause and Zodiacal Light to "Solar System"?
I don't think either of these things are part of the sun. What do you all think?--SV Resolution 15:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, ok, Heliopause *IS* part of the sun. But maybe Zodiacal light is not so much a part of the sun's atmosphere. Since Zodiacal Light is the light reflected from interplanetary dust, I think it is only part of the sun in the way that the asteroids are part of the sun. I am thinking Zodiacal Light should be moved to the "The Solar System" module, perhaps right after "asteroids". I might just be bold enough to do it. --SV Resolution 04:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Voyager recorded "the bump" ???
In May 2005, the Voyager I spacecraft went through this region recorded the bump.


 * not sure what this means b ut it is unclear and need some sort of fix Pedant 19:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. That's bad writing. --SV Resolution 13:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Proofreading Done
I have proofread this entire page following the plan, except for the references section. I am not sure what the current policy is about locking the page to prevent it from becoming "unproofread". Who is the admin for this area?

Dubious factoid
Copy paste from a post I just made on reddit
 * "This seems way off to me. Order of magnitude approximations: volume of a pinhead is about a mm cubed density of sun's core is about 150 g per cm cubed so the piece would way 0.15 g heat capacity of hydrogen gas is about 15 J per g per degree K at ambient pressure and temperature, which probably bears little resemblance to the heat capacity of material in the sun's core. I'll use 150 J/gK as an upper bound. Temperature at the sun's core is about 15000000 K, so with simple arithmetic we get the thermal energy in that piece of sun is about 300000000 J, which is equivalent to about 0.1 tons of TNT exploding. While impressive, this is nowhere near sufficient to kill someone at 100 miles. Atomic weapons equivalent to millions of tons of TNT are survivable at less than that range. Unless my value for heat capacity was off by over a factor of 10000, this post is completely incorrect.

tl,dr, OP lies (or is at least misinformed)" Unless someone can give a better source for that factoid it should be removed. Bouer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.131.0 (discuss • contribs) 06:13, 25 November 2014