Talk:Neptune (planet)
|
|
Updated description of Galileo's pre-discovery observation to mention conjunction with Jupiter which explains how it came to light.
The source for this is the book 'Planet Quest' by Ken Crosswell.
-- Alan Peakall
| Contents |
Atmospheric Pressure
So what's the atmospheric pressure for Neptune? Colipon 23:58, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I updated the article with 1-3 bar (or 100-300 kPa). I'm not sure that is the most exact value, but it's better than nothing. :) Jugalator
- NASA's Neptune Fact Sheet (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/neptunefact.html) gives a Surface Pressure value of "much greater than 1000 bar" (100 MPa). A value of 1-3 bar that's currently on the article is just plain ridiculous. -- Prometheus235 20:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the meaning of atmospheric pressure on Neptune. Is it referred to the rocky surface or what? If it's referred to the rocky nucleus , I bet it's somehow larger than a mere 1-3 bar...Cyclopia
Triton has a orbital period of _minus_ five days? What does that mean? Jeronimo
it means its retrograde. (goes backwards) - fonzy
- OK, but it's a lousy notation in that case. This seems to suggest the moon goes back in time... Jeronimo
Minus sign is often used for pointing out that the orbit is retrograde. BTW, data for the new giant planet satellites seems to be outdated. I'll update them soon. - jyril
Orbit periods should always be positive. A negative period implies that Triton's energy is an imaginary number. Retrograde orbits are denoted with inclinations greater than 90 degrees. -njs
Five New Moons
I'm awfully confused.. we've known about these moons for a couple years, now. Why is it important that they were just now announced in Nature? I'm most confused about why it's listed as in the news... --Patteroast 23:35, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I didn't know they were already known. I just saw the new on Nature,and I thought it was a new discovery. Perhaps I should have checked,but you can admit it's odd to publish a discovery 2-3 years after it has been announced. Well, sorry. ----Cyclopia 01:07, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've just tried to improve the material on the internal structure and atmosphere. A lot of my information I got from _Neptune and Triton_, ed. D.P. Cruikshank, 1995, although initially I may have made it worse based on misinterpreting what I read (and being misled by the Britannica). I think I have it right now, but there's much room for greater detail and so forth.
Mark Foskey 00:46, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Moon navigator
The "moon navigator" has no purpose anymore as all the links are include in the footer, and are in sequence. It provides nothing but duplicate links. ed g2s • talk 03:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
the circumference
Adams vs. Le Verrier
A recent article in Scientific American [1] (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CA850-8EA4-119B-8EA483414B7FFE9F) makes a strong case that Le Verrier deserves sole credit for discovering Neptune, and that the story of Adam's independent calculation may have been exaggerated.
This article seems to emphasize Adams' role over that of Le Verrier, which is not fair. Even if you don't believe the evidence presented by Scientic American, it's still clear that Le Verrier published first! He should get sole credit for the discovery!
- Scientific historians are re-evaluating the priority of Le Verrier and Adams in light of the discovery of the "Neptune file", and the article on Neptune should probably mention this. I first became aware of the "Neptune file" issue when researching the article on Olin Eggen, and gave it a passing mention there, though I didn't mention its possible consequences for Adams' credit for discovery, since in the source I read at the time it was just speculation. The Scientific American article seems to go further. -- Curps 20:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)