Talk:Solar System model

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Solar System model article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy: Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Additional trails

Baltimore & Annapolis Trail Planet Walk is another potential addition. http://www.americantrails.org/resources/art/planetwalk.html http://www.friendsofaatrails.org/planet_walk.htm 108.15.40.121 (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a model near Saint Louis, Alsace, France, along the walk/bike trail parallel to the Grand Canal d'Alsace. 132.3.49.78 (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology

I've attempted to clean up the article. Please indicate any further concerns. --agr 19:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The part at the end that starts sermonizing about astrology is inappropriate. I'll snip it out myself if no one objects. Thedoorhinge 23:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The concept that the section attempts to explain is very valid, and should be retained. The text is, however, very poorly written and should be completely rethought. There is text on the Solar Sytem page that could be incorporated here. --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the concept is valid, it presents an opinion- that astrology flourishes on misconceptions. That isn't for Wikipedia to take a stance on. I'll remove it, if someone wants to find a source of someone significant saying it and put it back as "according to X, misconceptions like this are what allow astrology to flourish" then go ahead.Thedoorhinge 14:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... I was referring to the part about the scale of the Solar System, not the astrology... delete away! --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Model

What is the best simple mental model of the solar system?

If the goal is a rough mental model of the planet spacing, there are two sets of planets:

The Inner Planets
Mercury Venus Earth Mars
0.4  0.7  1.0  1.5
  
The Outer Planets
Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune (Pluto)
5  10  19  30  39

Each set is spaced quite evenly. The inner planets are spaced at about 0.3 astronomical units. The outer planets are spaced at about 10 AU. The key mental concept is that the four inner planets are closely spaced, and the outer planets are spaced about 30 times farther apart.

What is the best simple mental model of the planet sizes?

Mercury, Venus and Mars are "a little smaller" than Earth (0.4 to .95 diameter). Jupiter and Saturn are "about ten times" (11 and 9 times dia). Uranus and Neptune are 4 times bigger. Pluto is one-fifth dia. (The difference in masses is greater than the difference in diameters.) The Sun is 100 times the dia of Earth. The distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 100 times the dia of the Sun. The solar system is almost all empty space -- the sun is small compared to the distances between, and everything else is extremely small. -69.87.203.252 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago I posted my best effort to present a model that is easy to mentally grasp at a human scale. Imagine going to a football field with a golf ball and four BB pellets. Place the golf ball at one goal line, then run all the way to the other end to place one of the BB pellets at the other goal line. Along the way you dropped the other BB pellets - one at the 17 yard line, one at the 30 yard line, and one 63 yards beyond the golf ball.

Ok, so if you scale the distance from the Sun to the farthest planet, Neptune, down to that 100 yards, that's a close approximation to what you'd have. The golf ball would actually be larger than the Sun (the Sun would be two-thirds the diameter of the golf ball). And the four BB pellets are larger than each of the Gas Giants. Saturns rings, however, would extend wider than the BB.

So that's how vastly empty the Solar System is. The five largest bodies all scale to smaller than scattering a golf ball and four BBs down the entire distance of a football field! (And keep in mind that the distance across the entire orbit of Neptune would be double this.)

The terrestrial planets and the dwarf planets scale down to the size of fleas and flea eggs! That's on this same football field. Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars are all found at the 5 yard line and closer. The yard line sequence for those planets is: 1, 2, 3, 5. Along with those, Ceres and Jupiter all are in the Red Zone, at 9 and 17 yards.

The full sequence of distances from the Sun to Neptune is:

0, 1, 2, 3, 5, (9), 17, 30, 63, 100.

Pluto and the outer dwarf planets scale to:

(130), (143), (152), (225).

This full detailed graphic of this description has been posted to the article, with pointers toward the dwarf planets past Neptune's goal line as they'd be found off the image to the right. A simplified diagram, showing only the golf ball and four BBs is here:

File:Solar System scaled to football field.png

I hope this is as helpful to others as it has been for me. As soon as you become aware of how vast the actual spacing is, then you can see how badly distorted all the images and orreries we've grown up with are. If you're able to walk a full-scale model, that can help to convey the accurate vastness of the Solar System, but these are typically so large that by the time you reach the outer planets, you've forgotten how far you've travelled to get there. At least, that's been my experience. It's hard to take it all in at once. When reduced to the scale of a football field, everything stays within an immediately graspable human scale. A person can be sitting at a football stadium, see both goal lines, and be holding a golf ball in one hand, four BB's in the other hand, and simultaneously get bitten by a flea because they brought their dog to enjoy the game too. Ha!--Tdadamemd (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today I uploaded a photograph-version of the Solar System scaled to a football field. This could be a good one to incorporate into this article, or even the main Solar System article. The main article still falls short in communicating the vast distances between the planets.--Tdadamemd (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, for the time being, I've just added a text-link to the caption of the original football field image. If a consensus sees the new image to be a better one to present in this article as primary, then they can be swapped out.

...and FYI, I made this edit to include the new image into the main article on the Solar System, in the effort to address this long-standing deficiency.--Tdadamemd (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Badly chosen sites

Calais, Saint-Valery-sur-Somme, and Rotterdam are not in the UK, and should be changed to sites more or less north of London; Pluto could be in Snowdonia. There is in fact no need to use the UK; whole Pluto could be in the Middlesbrough region, more or less. Or, with the centre near Preston, it may be possible to have at least one body in each of the four constituent parts of the UK - England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done just that. Using sites in France and the Netherlands for a UK model was ridiculous. The places I have chosen are all fairly large and well-known UK locations accurate to within a mile, according to Great Circle Mapper. Walshie79 (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ratio sorting

Is there any way to get MediaWiki to sort columns containing ratios correctly, aside from making the entire column header “1:” and filling the values with the second half of the ratio? El Mariachi (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

El Mariachi, I see the issue as well. I took a brief look at the documentation but I've not processed it all yet.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Help:Sorting

Do you know of any good examples of sortable tables?

I tried adding data-sort-type="number" |to the column header but it didn't seem to work correctly.

Jasebaese (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sorting problem is still there. I propose just eliminating the repetitive and redundant "1:" from each "Scale" entry, which will fix the sorting issue. I think I've seen this done on other Wikitables with the same issues. Reify-tech (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Solar System, to scale, for a school yard

In the talk page of Solar System I wrote

I have made what I believe to be a very useful education resource, The Solar System, to scale, for a school yard. There are obvious non-N-POV reasons why I should not add on Wikipedia a link to this page. But if a respected editor of some experience and expertise should agree that it is a very useful education resource, and should think it worth adding it to an external links § somewhere suitable, I’d be flattered. But if that respected editor of some experience and expertise should think not, then it should not be done.

to which Tbayboy replied

Perhaps not here, but I think it would be fitting for Solar System model.

Please consider the same question asked here. JDAWiseman (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, fits nicely, so done. JDAWiseman (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About those "Voyage" solar system models

Just curious why they're listed in the second table, the one for virtual/temporary/dual-scale models. I was under the impression that they are true-scale models. Niobrara (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came to ask the same question. Sounds like we should move them. I'll do that. McKay (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Solar System model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]