Talk:Neptune/Archive 1

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

2006 Draft Definition of a Planet

I have reverted an anonymous alteration of the article that states that Neptune is the Ninth planet (in light of the 2006 Redefinition of Planet). I don't think it's a good idea to go around changing scientific articles until the relavant body has actually come to a complete decision on it.Sycomonkey 13:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If Pluto stays demoted to a dwarf planet, should the line about switching between the 8th and 9th planet be changed to something about it crossing orbits with pluto?

Yes. I'd give it a couple of weeks to be sure, but it seems that Neptune will be the 8th planet now at all times.Sycomonkey 12:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe you need to state that not all Astronomers support the discredited IAU in their ruling.Magnum Serpentine 21:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But how can we tell if Neptune will always be the 8th? I'm sure Pluto still crosses it's path. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.1.99 (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If Pluto is no longer a planet than it doesn't matter if it cross Neptune's path or not. Samuel Sol (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Galileo's Observation Updated

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

Interior

"core ..., surrounded by a mixture of rock, water, ammonia, and methane"?! I have hard time imagining a mixture of rock + water, and water + methane.

What states are present at different depths will depend on the temperature and pressure. Some chemicals you might expect to be a gas will be liquid (due to the pressure), and some solids will be liquid (due to the temperature). You might have a high-temperature, high-pressure mix of liquid rock, water, ammonia and methane, though I don't really know if this is technically possible. The interior heat will also churn things up a bit, so some mixing between levels will still be taking place. 194.200.237.219 12:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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 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's Retrograde Period

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

jyril's right; a minus sign is used to indicate retrograde movement. I never liked it, but it is the way it's used. Perhaps, though, since a lot of people are unfamilar with it and it is contrary to other uses, a short note explaining it would be helpful? (Or just eliminating the minus sign and replacing it with 'r' for 'retrograde'?) CFLeon 00:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Updating Structure & Atmosphere

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)

Adams vs. Le Verrier

A recent article in Scientific American [1] 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)

Galileo Galilei and Neptune

What year did Galileo observe Neptune? The entry for Neptune (planet) says: "Galileo's astronomical drawings show that he had first observed Neptune on December 28, 1612, and again on January 27, 1613; on both occasions Galileo mistook Neptune for a fixed star when it appeared very close (in conjunction) to Jupiter in the night sky" but the entry for Galileo Galilei says: "Galileo observed the planet Neptune in 1611, but took no particular notice of it; it appears in his notebooks as one of many unremarkable dim stars." -- Mark Mathu July 30, 2005

Neptune (planet) is also internally inconsistent: it claims both Dec 27 and 28 within a few lines. -- ColinBell 13 Mar 2006

It's probably referring to "the night of Dec 27/28" and not knowing if the sighting was before or after midnight. However, the article should be consistant with itself. CFLeon 21:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Galileo is known to have observated Neptune on 2 occasions: Dec, 1612 and Jan, 1613. Neptune was at the slowest point of its orbit and had just turned retrograde, although i don't have the actual date it did so. See list below. CFLeon 22:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move

Support strongly. Neptune the planet is by far the most important of the Neptune articles.--Jyril 12:52, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Support Dragons flight 18:33, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Support Septentrionalis 19:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Support. Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Uranus are a precedent for this: the planet articles probably outweigh the Roman god articles. -- Curps 19:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Support. As with other planet names. – AxSkov (T) 07:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

My thinking is that people looking up the mythological character won't mind being redirected to 'Poseidon' (or 'Ares' or 'Zeus', etc). Very few people would be looking up the ROMAN version specifically. CFLeon 21:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request.

Trojans

Added mention of the trojans - then saw there is no explicit mention of Jupiter's on the Jupiter page. Please feel free to remove this here if it is not considered appropriate.

On the trojan link, it says, "The Trojan asteroids are a large group of objects that share the orbit of the planet Jupiter around the Sun." I'm confused as to which would be considered correct. Also, with asteroids sharing orbits with neptune and jupiter, I think rationale as to how they have "cleared their neighborhood" to be considered a planet now should be included perhaps. 72.241.7.173 05:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Mike

I think the point of the 'dominating the neighbourhood' is that if Neptune and Pluto did come very close together, it's Pluto that would be thrown off course or even crash into Neptune, with Neptune continuing on pretty much as before. Therefore Neptune is the planet, and Pluto is the dwarf. The same can be said for those asteroids I think. Does that make sense? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 11:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Triton compared to Luna

Wouldn't this make more sense on the Triton page? The Singing Badger 02:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Some people wanted a summary of the major moons on the Jupiter and Saturn pages, because the full tables are rather overwhelming. The Galileians and the 7 main Saturnian moons are all that many readers would be interested in. I added a Luna comparison to give a familiar connection. Anyway, I thought if I did it for two planets I should do it for all of them so the articles are kept parallel. Triton's just the only major Neptunian moon. kwami 07:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear NASA

Dear NASA,

Why not send weather satellites to Neptune? Then we could put them on TV, for a Neptune Weather Channel akin to the current (Earth) Weather Channel. I'm sure lots of people would be interested to see up-to-the-minute pictures and video of Neptune. oneismany 11:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That’s a pretty big expensive project for NASA to send a probe into deep space for rather irrelevant reasons such as weather. Even Cassini's images of Saturn are pretty boring (new ones). On Neptune the chances of another Great Dark Spot forming are miniscule (perhaps?), as well Neptune and Uranus have thin rings darker than charcoal. Besides most people want more information on Pluto since it has not yet been visited by a probe. I personally find Neptune a beautiful blue planet but Neptune doesn't have as many features present on Jupiter or Saturn.

If somehow NASA decides to visit Neptune again I would still support it. I predict a time when faster vehicles will endeavor into deep space using ion drive.--King of the Dancehall 22:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Better direct all the NASA money to private space ventures prize money... would bring us there _much_ faster...

Could they land something on Neptune and then make it move around on the surface, or would it be to cold/too low of a density/too much gravity to operate directly on the surface? Obviously on Jupiter and Saturn, anything entering the atmosphere would be vaporized, but is it the same for Neptune? I've always thought it would be interesting to see from another planet's point of view, when you're actually inside the planet. There's a picture on the site of what sunset looks like from Mars. I think that's pretty cool 74.99.65.143 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Gravity wouldn't be a problem, nor entering the atmosphere would vaporize the spacecraft... The reason why no one can operate on the surface of Neptune is that it has no surface. But above the atmosphere, that would be quite a sight... However, there is no point sending a spacecraft to take only pretty images. Not to mention about the considerable technical problems. A plummeting atmospheric probe is relatively easy to do, and has been done, but an aircraft operating in a gas giant atmosphere is completely different matter.--JyriL ^talk 16:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Prediscovery Observations?

Is there an interest in the listing of the sightings before 1846? I've made a list and can put it up if people want it. CFLeon 21:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in such things. Also, I'd be interested in a clarification of how the planet was named. The article says, "Neptune is named after the Roman god of the sea because of its blue methane clouds." If Neptune was discovered in 1846, how were the astronomers who discovered it aware of the presence of methane, much less the color of the planet? Using an 1846-era telescope, is Neptune visibly blue (as implied in the article)? More information on the discovery (and prediscovery) of the planet would be an excellent addition. 66.17.118.207 18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's my list. Someone will have to tabulize it for the article. CFLeon 22:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

1612 Dec 27/28- Galileo Galilei
1613 Jan 27- Galileo Galilei
1795 May 8, 10- Joseph Jerome F. Lalande (2nd observation actually noticed movement, but assumed it was error on his part) [S. C. Walker/ A. C. Petersen, 1847]
1830 Jul 14- John Herscel [?D. Rawlins, 1981]
1845 Oct 25- 'Dr. Lamont' (Munich) [J. R. Hind, 1850]
1846 Aug 4- John Challis [Challis, 1846?]
1846 Aug 12- John Challis [Challis, 1846?]
1846 Sep 7- Dr. Lamont [J. R. Hind, 1850]
1846 Sep 11- Dr. Lamont [J. R. Hind, 1851]
1846 Sep 29- John Challis [Challis, 1846? After news of Neptune's discovery Challis said he had actually have noticed a disk and he was LOOKING for the planet at the time; but the next night was cloudy when he tried to observe and the moon was too bright the following nights. Challis claimed he had seen Neptune 5 times before Neptune's discovery was announced on October 1.]

Sources:

Grossner, Morton; The Discovery of Neptune (1962)
Hoyt, William Graves; Planets X and Pluto (1980)
Ley, Wiley; Watchers of the Skies (1963)
Littmann, Mark; Planets Beyond (1988)
Rawlins, Dennis: "The Unslandering of Sloppy Pierre", Astronomy Sept, 1981, pgs 24-8
Standage, Tom: The Neptune File (2000)
Tombaugh, Clyde (w/ Patrick Moore); Out of the Darkness: The Planet Pluto (1980)

Speed of Winds

Three different estimates (are they really estimates?) are given concerning the speed of winds on Neptune.

Says the introduction: "Neptune also has 2,500 km/h winds of ...". The section on Physical characteristics: "Neptune's atmosphere has the highest wind speeds in the solar system, up to 2000 km/h,...". And later the section on weather: "[Neptune] has extremely violent hurricanes whose winds reach 1,000 mph."

Which is the correct one or more accurate or closer to the observations? The discrepancy between the three figures is a major one. I won't edit the page. Can an expert clarify it? cubic[*]star 20:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, If its winds are 2500 kph, that's faster than the speed of sound, about mach 2. Is that possible, and should it be mentioned in the article, and should I add it? Thanks. A stroHur ricane 00 1^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 00:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made an attempt at fixing this, but it still needs a lot of work. I've brought the various mentions into line, at least. Remember that the speed of sound isn't a constant, and its value differs between various altitudes of Neptune, and at standard temperature and pressure. Spiral Wave 20:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rings of Neptune

was created by User:202.173.128.90. Don't know if you would like to merge or redirect. Rings of Neptune contains mostly info already in main article. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Surface Area

Please convert the surface area of Neptune into the same format as the other planets. (Comparaison to Earth)

done Deuar 12:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Neptune's Surface

"There is no solid surface and the atmosphere, extending perhaps 10 to 20 percent of the way towards the center, is mostly hydrogen and helium at high altitudes (80% and 19%, respectively)." How do we know this? Has anyone ever been beneath Neptune's clouds?--24.59.186.128 01:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have, it's wicked physodelic man..you should go there sometime.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Something14 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

This page is for talking and helping give answers, not fake stuff like going to neptune. Not funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.132.61 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

Does the phrase

its stronger gravitational field has compressed it to a higher density

actually make sense? If I remember my physics correctly, its stronger gravitational field is a result, not a cause, of its higher density. David 10:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A "stronger gravitational field" is simply a function of greater mass but does not in-itself determine density as I understand it (else Saturn ought to be more dense than both, which it's not). I presume Neptune has a slightly larger rock core than Uranus. Perhaps the sentence is meant to suggest that this would cause the over-laying gas to compress to a greater degree? I'll remove it until we have a source better explaining it. Marskell 16:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Difference between Neptune and Unanus

One difference between Neptune and Uranus is the level of meteorological activity. Uranus is visually quite bland, while Neptune's high winds come with notable weather phenomena.

Actually, Uranus was apparently quite bland in 1986 when Voyager went near, and when one of Uranus' poles was pointing almost sunward. Since then Space Satellite images have indicated that Uranus has more wind patterns, as the sun is now almost equatorial for the planet.

Also, it is said in a lot of sources that Uranus, unlike the other 3 giants, does not appear to radiate energy in excess of what it gets from the sun. I would like to know if this is still the case, now that Uranus is almost equatorial toward the sun. In otherwords could all of this be seasonal? I don't know exactly how I would find out this, or is it known?Roo60 21:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Full account

There is a full account of the discovery of Neptune by Nick Kollerstrom on

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/nk/neptune/within/htm This seems to give more detail than the 2004 article, also partly by Kollerstrom.

Discovery through mathematics

The article states, "Discovered on September 23, 1846, Neptune is notable for being the only planet discovered based on mathematical prediction rather than regular observations." Pluto was also discovered that way. In each case, mathematical analysis yielded a prediction about where the planet would be found; astronomers then found the planet by making observations in keeping with the prediction. Yes, the observation part of the discovery of Pluto was far more taxing, because the planet was smaller and more distant, but the observations were guided by the mathematics. I suggest that this sentence be changed from "only planet" to "first planet".

My understanding is that Pluto is still considered a planet, though its status is under review. If the "only planet" phrase is defended on the ground that Pluto isn't a planet, then the second sentence, which assumes that Pluto is a planet, should be changed. JamesMLane t c 08:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I quote from the Pluto article

Ironically, Pluto is far too small to have the effect on Neptune's orbit that initiated the search. The discrepancies in Neptune's orbit observed by 19th century astronomers were due instead to an inaccurate estimate of Neptune's mass. Tombaugh's discovery is therefore even more surprising, given that the proximity of the predictions of Pickering, Lowell and Ketakar were coincidences.

Therefore I think the current wording describes it correctly, that only Neptune was found through mathematical prediction. Awolf002 11:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Titan's orbit: Retrograde & synchronous?

I have moved the following question from the main article. RupertMillard (Talk) 19:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

How can Titan have an orbit that is both retrograde and synchronous? I know how it could have synchronous rotation, but synchronous orbit and retrograde orbit seem logically incompatible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc42 (talk • contribs)

Naming

In his Naming and Necessity, Saul Kripke uses Neptune as an example and claims that it was actually named prior to being directly observed [2]. However, the article claims that Neptune wasn't named until "Shortly after its discovery"' — which is correct? Now, Kripke was making a philosophical point with his example, and not a scientific one, so it's quite possible he stretched the truth a bit for illustrative purposes (or was simply wrong), but since it's a well-known example it should probably be clarified. I'm trying to find better sources now, but if anyone else has some information to share it would be appreciated. --Wclark 02:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Pluto

I know Pluto has recently been relegated from Planet status, but as a mark of respect let's wait a month before we change it. Pluto R.I.P. ;-( 86.143.234.154 19:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

I would argue that the last sentence of the second paragraph is unnecessary as it has already been stated that the the surface of the planet is very cold earlier on in the paragraph. I will delete this sentence if others agree. 23/09/06 22:16

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 00:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Neptune, Physical characteristics. 1: Composition, second paragraph, second line: "There is no solid surface [for a core consisting of molten rock and metal?]". 2: Weather, third paragraph, fourth line: "they [i.e., Uranus and Neptune] have a larger solid core [than Jupiter and Saturn]". In my mind that seems at least confusing. Perhaps conflicting. Met.K. 10:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Bremiker

The star chart mentioned in the section entitled "Discovery" was by Carl Bremiker. Chart XXI is Hour XXI.

Infobox

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Planet_infobox_conventions_.28km_vs._AU_vs._miles.29 on standardizing the planet infoboxes, as well as the possibility of changing the planet diameter to radius. If you care about these things, let your opinion be heard there. Lunokhod 10:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Planets and predictions

There was, reportedly, a book published a week before Neptune was discovered "proving" there could be only seven planets. Is this correct? Could the entry in Failed history be amended accordingly. Jackiespeel 17:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Protecting planet articles

Given the high level of vandalism by anonymous editors, I suggest that this article (along with other planet articles) is protected from unregistered users.--JyriL ^talk 14:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Galileo

Even though Galileo didn't discover that Neptune was in fact a planet, he still discovered its existance (he was the first to obseve it). Wouldn't it make sense that he would be credited with its discovery in general, and that Urbain Le Verrier, John Couch Adams, and Johann Galle would be credited with the discovery of Neputne's state as a planet? Brownsc 18:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

He noted it's existance as a star, and it seems he noted a movement between 1612/12/28 and 1613/01/27, but since the movement was so slow he either assumed he was wrong or whatever and gave no further attention to it. If you simulate the view on those days in a computer you'll notice it's almost impossible not to notice Neptune near Jupiter, but it appears as just another star, and moves very slowly near HIP59164. Other persons in Europe might have seen it also, although telescope possesion was not exactly widespread at the time.

Considering the quality of his instruments he probably assumed there was an error on his notes, or perhaps that Neptune was just a comet or something.--Rnbc 20:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Drake & Kowal investigate this matter in "Galileo's Sighting of Neptune" Scientific American 243(6), 52-59 (1980), but I have not yet been able to read it, nor further matter that was in Nature. I removed the citation to Crystalinks this does not meet WP:RS. — BillC ^talk 13:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on temperature

The introduction says "Neptune's temperature at its cloud tops is usually close to −210℃ (−346°F), one of the coldest in the solar system, due to its long distance from the sun". I'm not sure what the 'one of' is referring to (cloud tops, planet, bodies?). Also, in a solar system of 8 planets, all (if planets is what we're talking about) could be considered 'one of' the coldest (they all make the top ten after all). Could we point out exactly where it fits? Dgen

There's no "surface" on Neptune. JustN5:12 02:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Icy core????

How can there be ice in the core if the temperatures are a whooping tens of thousands of degrees Fahrenheit (because last time I checked, ice was cold, not HOT!!!)??? JustN5:12 02:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Several reasons. First, not all of the core is at that temperature. Neptune's solid component is around 15 Earth masses (and under-dense compared to the Earth); hence, even if the centre is very hot, there's still a lot of room left; the solid "surface" under the gas is pretty damn cold. Second, the high pressures of that much material raise the appropriate boiling points substantially, which are already high due to the core comprising a rock/ice mixture, not pure ice. Third, at such pressures the critical point can be passed, turning what's left into a slushy mess for which ice seems as good a name as any. Fourth, astronomers are lazy, and any compounds of volatiles that should be solid at that distance from the Sun they will happily label as ices. I'll think about how to add some of this to the article, you can't be the only one who thinks it looks odd.

I notice the Uranus article has neatly avoided the issue by not mentioning ices anywhere. That should probably be addressed too. Spiral Wave 10:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Great Dark Spot

The article within Neptune, describes the spot as a storm (like Jupiter's red). While the Great Dark Spot Article describes it not as a storm, but as a hole in the atmosphere. Wikihonduras 21:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Indian name

The bit about Varuna being the Indian name, that's been removed and replaced... Varuna's page suggests that he is associated with Venus. The connection with Neptune seems only to go as far as the God-of-the-sea bit, and nothing to do with the planet.

There's also a Kuiper Belt Object called Varuna. David 12:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, spoke too soon - http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/days.html says that the Gujarati name is "Varun" - good enough as a citation? David 12:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I just checked an online Hindi-English dictionary for "Neptune", which indeed gives the translation of वरुण ग्रह (Varuṇa graha or planet Varuna—the other translation it returns is "water deity Varuna"). However, back-translation returns both "Neptune" and "Uranus"!! Clearly we need an expert opinion on the subject. Illexsquid (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem that I have with these Indian planet names is, which language? Hindi? Urdu? Punjabi? Tamil? India has 32 official languages; which ones are "valid"? Serendi^podous 22:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think we need an expert on the subject. While clearly "Varuna" is a cultural equivalent of "Neptune", the name for the planet (according to the Wikipedia articles in other languages on the left) is a transliteration of "Neptune" in all of the Indian languages represented: Tamil நெப்டியூன், Kannada ನೆಪ್ಚೂನ್, Gujarati નૅપ્ચ્યુન, Marathi नेपच्यून, Bengali নেপচুন, Nepali नेप्च्युन, Urdu نیپچون. This is a representative if not exhaustive list. Only the Hindi Wikipedia article (not linked at left; I had to look it up) is titled वरुण Varuṇa, but I don't know whether this reflects common usage; thus, we need an expert. However, probably "Indian" in this article means only "Hindi". It might be worth changing. (BTW the Hindi Wikipedia article links to Uranus as अरुण Aruṇa.) Illexsquid (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Warm south pole

May be of interest in this article:

Orton, G.; Encrenaz, T. (September 18, 2007). "A Warm South Pole? Yes, on Neptune!". ESO. Retrieved 2007-09-18.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Already posted it, my friend. Thanks for the heads up! --Josiah Bartlet, President of the United States 09:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

'Clumpy'?

These planetary rings have a peculiar "clumpy" structure, the cause of which is not currently understood but which may be due to the gravitational interaction with small moons in orbit near them.

This quote needs a reference, or a link explaining precisely what a clumpy structure means. The way it's phrased seems very unscientific.

Neptune

Neptune is a gas giant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.123.238 (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

IPA is wrong.

That little bit with the IPA is completely wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.97.28 (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Orbital Period

Which of the definitions of orbital period is applied in the infobox? NASA's page says 60,190 Earth days, not 60,327. This is important because, in 2011, Neptune will have traveled once around its orbit since being discovered... sort of a "birthday", and Wikipedians will want to celebrate. LightSpeed 09:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It should refer to the "sidereal period". According to the NASA Fact sheet: (Earth year) 365.256 days * 164.79 (Neptune) would yield roughly 60,190. So unless I am missing some recent orbital update, the 327 looks like a mistake. Good catch! I'm not sure why the NASA Fact sheet used 60,189 so perhaps we should source your 60,190 (NASA "Neptune: Facts & Figures" reference).

Previous values:
60,327 (165.16 yr) = 10:58, 14 August 2007 Source? J2000 epoch?
60,189 = 17:41, 3 August 2007 (NASA Fact Sheet)
60,223 (164.88 a) = Infobox created 23:07, 10 January 2007
-- Kheider 16:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sentence with internal heating

There is the sentence: "As with Uranus, the source of this heating is unknown, but the discrepancy is larger". But in the article of Uranus is said, (almost) no heating were measured or discovered. Is that more right, to compare the heating with that of Jupiter or Saturn? regards, --FrancescoA 09:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 2) "There is likely to be a core, believed to be of around 15 Earth masses". I suspect, there is meant rather the mantle than the core(?). On other places, I read the core about one to maximum 2 Earth masses and a size comparable to the Earth's size. Or is core meant in that way, that all unter the atmosphere is only here meant "the core". --FrancescoA 10:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the information on the core and mantle. (My Edit / Direct Ref) -- Kheider 18:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, --FrancescoA 22:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Different neptune years

In the nasa fact sheet and in the infobox, there is written a Neptune year to last 164.79 years. (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/neptunefact.html)

Then in the observation chapter, there is: With an orbital period (sidereal period) of 164.88 Julian years,

So there is an discrepancy (?) Thank you in advance.--FrancescoA 15:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems a lot of that paragraph might have been based off of the Aspects of Neptune deleted on 11 April 2007.
Most recent to oldest edits to that paragraph:
Correction/Partial Revert about Pluto (07:14, 9 February 2007)
Big Edit (05:36, 9 February 2007) Changed 165 to 164.88 (to then infobox number), added Nov 7th, 2010. Done by a one night editor 172.129.133.45
Bad edit (05:29, 9 February 2007) Our one night visitor 172.129.133.45 confusing Pluto's orbit with Neptune's.
Removing (25º Aquarius 55') (22:48, 27 October 2004) Trusted editor Urhixidur
Final creation clean-up (05:11, 10 September 2004)
Creation of paragraph (05:01, 10 September 2004) Admin Bryan Derksen
Post that started it all (04:18, 10 September 2004) 200.94.232.121

My own number crunching with Horizons Neptune

Why are the 2010 opposition/conjunction dates a better match for the discovery year of 1846 than 2011?
-- Kheider 01:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Can my Horizons output be used to say in the main article: In its orbit around the Sun, Neptune will return to its original point of discovery on July 12 2011. It will not appear at its exact discovery position in the sky due to the Earth being in a different location in its 365.25 day orbit. -- Kheider 03:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Afraid I can't provide much background on that paragraph I added. I imported it verbatim from the article April 11, 2009, which was subsequently deleted (in fact, it was one of my own extremely rare VfD nominations). In hindsight this deletion is actually a GFDL violation, though an extremely minor one since the only contributor was the anonymous editor 200.94.232.121. Not sure if it's worth restoring it since as of now with this talk page edit the full authorship of that information is now attributed. As for the Aspects of Neptune article, it appears that the German Wikipedia has more inclusive content policies than the English one for a change; you can find what looks like the same table of information at de:Neptunpositionen. The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspects of Pluto. I note that the discussion actually didn't reach a very clear consensus, so undeleting these articles isn't entirely out of the question, but I think some good points were raised in the AfD discussion about how Wikisource might be a better place for this information to live. Perhaps I'm going off on a tangent here, but would anyone more familiar with the topic than me check out Wikisource to see if there's a good page to put them on? Astrology is completely out of my field and this appears to be primarily for that purpose. Bryan Derksen 06:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Observation: When Neptune apparently arrives at the same position as where discovered

Hello, I have copied and worked the text of the visibility of Neptune into the german WP page. A user was sceptical about the data, and so I asked here to confirm, if he, I, or the text is wrong. ;) So the discovery was 23.09.1846, the next time, Neptune should be at the location (on the orbit) of it should be 164,79 years, so I calculated about 8. July 2011 (+- some days). From our table I see, the opposition should be about 20 to 25 of August 2011. Therefore Neptune should be just before oppostion. The biggest, the earth can constitute is one AU, (otherwise 2 AU, but it was discovered near opposition). So the angle of 1 AU/30 AU (arc tan (1/30) ~ 1,9° difference in angle. If Neptune should appear on April 2nd 2009 first time in the same position in the sky, where it was discovered, this is a diffrence of about 2,25 years. 2,25/165 * 360 ~ 4,9° before the real orbit position, when discovered first time. What is wrong? My calculation, the text or is there something, I didn't consider?
Regards, --FrancescoA 11:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Keep in mind that the orbital period of 164.79 is probably an average and that we did not even know the proper mass of Neptune until Voyager flew by in 1989. I have seen the orbital period listed in books as 164.79 to 164.82.

2. Opposition, by definition, is geocentrically 180 degrees away from the Sun. With Neptune's slow apparent movement this angle will change by 30º (360º/12 months) per month. So on July 12 2011, Neptune will be a little more than 30 degrees before opposition on August 23 2011. This what my Horizons table shows.

3. I will trust Horizons On-Line Ephemeris before I trust an unknown IPs unreferenced astrological calculations that do not show how they derived their data.
-- Kheider 22:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. --FrancescoA 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm Neptune's return to its heliocentric position of discovery on July 12, 2011. For midnight on Sep. 23/24, 1846 (JDE = 2395563.5) the planetary ephemeris VSOP87B gives the heliocentric ecliptical longitude 329.1025° (equinox J2000.0). This longitude will repeat around JDE 2455755.25, which is July 12, 2011, 18h ET. (One might argue that the return to the same barycentric longitude should be considered, but...).

The 2009 and 2010 dates given for the apparent geocentric return to the position of discovery are wrong, however. They line up nicely with Neptune's position on September 23, 1845, one year before it was found. The closest approaches to the 1846 position of discovery happen in April and July 2010 and in February, October and November 2011, if I can trust my GUIDE. Bye, -- Tosch 13:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Torsh. I agree with your findings: RA 22 01 / DEC -12 39. My table marks the questionable 2009-2010 dates with * and **. I only included these dates in my table since they were already included in the Neptune article by an unknown IP whom appeared to be involved in astrology. I have considered removing the astrological paragraph completely. I just don't like removing an entire paragraph without a multi-party consensus. Should we pull the astrology paragraph completely? -- Kheider (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: I updated my table to make a few points (hopefully) easier to follow. You are right, the weird astrological dates match the apparent geocentric position "one year before it was discovered" very well. This explains why the old numbers start getting matches in Apr 2009 and end in Nov 2010, and why our matches start in Apr 2010 and end in Nov 2011. That old paragraph is looking worse and worse. I would rather mention how in 2010 Neptune will come to BOTH conjunction and opposition on the same nights as it did in the 1846, when it was discovered. So should we remove that misleading paragraph? -- Kheider (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if the dates were corrected, I feel the paragraph detailing Neptune's retrograde and prograde motion while re-encountering its discovery coordinates is too long-winded for this bit of trivia (its "birthday") and out of proportion for a general article about Neptune. On the other hand, Neptune's first complete orbit since discovery may be of some historic interest and worth a short note. Maybe something like,

"With a mean orbital period (sidereal period) of 164.79 Julian years, Neptune will return to the original heliocentric point of discovery in its orbit on July 12, 2011.[32] As seen from the Earth, however, it will not appear at its exact discovery position in our sky due to the Earth being in a different location in its 365.25 day orbit. For an observer moving with the Earth, Neptune appears to go through an opposition loop roughly once a year, and these loops will carry it close to its coordinates of discovery in April and July 2010 and in February, October and November 2011."

(Feel free to revise my English if needed) bye, -- Tosch (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone follow up on my suggestion for finding a new home for the "Aspects of" tables, BTW? Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Planetary Migration of Neptune

Shouldn't there be something in this article regarding the Planetary migration of Neptune outwards over long time periods?

It has not always been at its present location, indeed, it formed much further in towards the Sun.58.175.240.247 09:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sky Color

Does anyone know what color Neptune's sky is? i have to do a report on it, and i need to know. If there is no color, then tell me that. PLEASE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.187.14 (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See: skies of other planets 23:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serendipodous (talk • contribs)

Thank you so much! -person how asked the question

length of day and year

who knows this? please tell. report comming up. And also, distance from sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.111.118 (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are both in the infobox. I have no intention of doing other people's homework, so please read the article before ddemanding information, It's called research.Serendi^podous 10:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Were can you find the infobox?? im not that smart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.131.104 (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is that big grey thing under the picture. The technical name for "year" is "orbital period". The technical term for "day" is "sidereal rotation period." Serendi^podous 19:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much. i realy mean it. You saved me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.132.61 (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

about diamond rain

Is That True diamond raining is neptune Planet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.225.43.222 (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Commas within numbers

This article was inconsistent in its treatment of commas in numbers between one thousand (1,000 or 1000) and ten thousand. Most of the numbers did have commas, but a few did not, so I added them. According to the talk page, this article is written in British English, and I am an American, so I hope my changes are acceptable. Bunkyray5 (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bunkyray5: The place to look for this sort of thing is the Manual of Style. The relevant section here is MOS:DIGITS, and it looks like your edits brought this page into line with it. Thanks! A2soup (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

thermosphere

I suspect that microbars should be bars. pietro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:760:2C00:8001:445F:2A1A:C13:F8FE (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup! Changed now. RhinoMind (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Neptune. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 13:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017

This edit request to Neptune has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

88.88.166.202 (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)