Talk:Neptune/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Rotation period revised

The planet's estimated rotation has been revised to 15^h 57^m 59^s. See:

Stolte, Daniel (June 29, 2011). "Clocking Neptune's Spin". The University of Arizona. Retrieved 2011-06-05.

Regards, RJH (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Internal Structure

The internal structure is described quite unconditionally: the reader is given no clue about the high uncertainties, both quantitative and qualitative, involved in these models. Nor is there any information given about how these models were derived. Perhaps the tone needs to be changed.Ordinary Person (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, improvements are certainly welcome. But, in cases like this, some caution is needed to avoid weasel words and unnecessary vagueness. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Superheated is incorrect

In the description of Neptune's internal structure, the word superheated is incorrect. Superheat refers to the number of degrees above saturation temperature for steam. It refers to a temperature between normal boiling and critical temperatures for water at which temperature the water must be under more than atmospheric pressure. If this pressure is suddenly released, the water will suddenly boil. The mantle of Neptune is in the supercritical temperature regime in which there will be no phase transition with decreasing pressure. User:Fartherred from 207.224.85.91 (talk) 09:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Not only is the use of the word superheated wrong, worse yet it lacks a citation. There is no reference given that refers to any superheated fluid in Neptune's mantle. This in a featured article, oh, the horror! User:Fartherred from 207.224.85.91 (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The word superheated was in the second of four contributions added by User:203.129.151.10 at 14:18 hours on the 4th of September in the 2006th year of our Lord. 207.224.85.91 (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I cannot wait for RJH to do all the work. I corrected this one myself. People might still improve upon the state in which i left the article Fartherred (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD applies, as always. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Times

States that Neptune has today completed one orbit since it was discovered. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a blurb in the AIAA Daily Launch about it this morning; here's the BBC news link they provided. siafu (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

Incorrect: "none of the planet's remaining 12 moons were" Correct: "none of the planet's remaining 12 moons was"

The word 'none' does not have to be singular. The Times suggests that it is acceptable to use it as a plural except in the specific cases where it means not one or no one.[1] Hence, I think the wording is okay. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

On Galileo's observations.

It is a very cowardly thing, with the benefit of 400 years of hindsight, to accuse someone of "failing" to see what they "should" have seen and I have no intention of doing so. But having said that, I have a small issue with this:

"... Since Neptune was only beginning its yearly retrograde cycle, the motion of the planet was far too slight to be detected with Galileo's small telescope...."

Using the well-known and freely available Cartes du Ciel software, it is easy to model the movement of Jupiter and Neptune past the stars during the interval in question - 28th December 1612, to 27th January 1613. During that time Neptune moves past two stars of at least the same brightness as it. 30th January 1613 is particularly interesting, as Neptune moves past and very close to what is the brightest star in the area during the time in question. Thus, David Jamieson's findings that Galileo <could> have observed Neptune's motion, despite it being at the prograde/retrograde changeover point, are eminently believable. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Just

"Neptune is an intermediate body between Earth and the larger gas giants: its mass is seventeen times that of the Earth but just 1/19th that of Jupiter"

There must be a better way to word this. This is the sort of construction that makes non-scientists laugh at scientists. I proposed removing the "just" but was reverted. Any other ideas? --John (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, "and is" should work. Mlpearc Public (Talk) 15:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense, as does Mlpearc Public's suggestion. There's another issue in that the wording "intermediate body between Earth and the larger gas giants" is ambiguous; the same statement is true of Mars. Perhaps "intermediate-sized body between the terrestrial planets and the larger gas giants"? Regards, RJH (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The statement isn't true of Mars, since it is much smaller than the Earth it can't be considered to be intermediate between the Earth and any larger bodies. siafu (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I suppose you might have meant that Mars is intermediate in placement between Earth and the gas giants, which is, I suppose, true, but the sentence makes it quite clear that mass is being discussed. In other news, I'm not sure I understand the objection to the wording enough to be helpful-- guess I'm too much of a scientist. I think it does a reasonable job of imparting the scale of solar system bodies to the layperson, and scale is one of the most important (and IMHO, least appreciated) things to impart when discussing any astronomical topics in lay terms. siafu (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The statement about mass is in a separate clause of the sentence, so it is subject to interpretation. I think it's just better to be unambiguous. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

updated data available

• Jacobson, R. A. (3 April 2009). "The Orbits of the Neptunian Satellites and the Orientation of the Pole of Neptune". The Astronomical Journal. 137 (5): 4322–4329. Bibcode:2009AJ....137.4322J. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4322. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

— Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

surface gravity

Composition and structure "The planet's surface gravity is only surpassed by Jupiter, making the two gas giants the only planets in the solar system with a surface gravity higher than the Earth". But Saturn has 1.044g surface gravity (or 1.06 in List of Solar system objects by size). So there are three gas giants with sg higher than earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.113.98.63 (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it was introduced by this unsourced edit. I've removed the sentence clause since it didn't add much value. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: planetary status

Just so everyone knows, I'm not out to challenge the IAU's assignment of "planet" status to Neptune, but I wanted to raise a question I'm not sure anyone has considered -- Per the IAU's criterion of a planetary body having "cleared the neighborhood" of other gravitationally significant bodies in order to be considered a planet, and recognizing that Neptune's orbit crosses that of Pluto regularly, does Neptune in fact meet the IAU's definition of a planet? Just a thought. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 03:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but this isn't really the place for this type of debate. You could try posting to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Will do; thanks. Feel free to clear this if you want. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 04:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding "clearing the neighbourhood", as many seem to do: it doesn't mean there's nothing else in that region, it's just that the planet is the dominant object in that region. If Pluto suddenly magically disappeared, Neptune's orbit would only change negligibly; the same cannot be said the other way around. Double sharp (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Reticent caption

At Orbit and rotation, the caption mentions only the Sun and Neptune, but there's a lot more going on. Rothorpe (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree. It's a busy image and I'm not quite sure what message it is trying to communicate. Regards, RJH RJH (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Name of planet

It´s stated in this article that the Earth is NOT, and unlike the other planets, named after some character from classical mythology. This is NOT true. The Earth is known as Tellus, meaning Earth (Mother Earth, a goddess) in Roman myth. Smilesofasummernight (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

But we don't call the planet Tellus or even Mother Earth in English, except perhaps poetically. We call it Earth. In any case, this is the article for Neptune, so I'm not entirely sure how it's relevant either way...--Patteroast (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The following wording seems more accurate, "The demand for a mythological name seemed to be in keeping with the nomenclature of the other planets, all of which have a history of being named for Greek and Roman mythology." According to the Terra (mythology) page; "In several modern Romance languages, terra (or French terre) is the name of planet Earth." While the English word for the planet is not mythological in origin, it does have a history of being named for mythology. The fact that currently it is still named after roman mythology in modern non-english languages, to me, makes it worth avoiding singling earth out in the way it currently is. Especially considering, like Patteroast said, this is the Neptune article and I don't see why we shouldn't just side-step the issue this way. AaronMP84 (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You're forgetting something. Wodenhelm (Talk) 23:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well pointed out. I'm going to make the change I suggested above. AaronMP84 (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please add to exploration

Please add the following:"
Nearest estimated new exploration of Neptune is 24 August 2014, when the New Horizons probe will pass Neptune's orbit. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.110.81 (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: I'm not exactly clear that passing Neptune's orbit constitutes "exploration", even if we construe that rather broadly. Please feel free to reopen this edit request if you'd like a second opinion. (Thanks for providing a ready-to-use ref, btw. If you want to be an even more awesome IP editor, sign your talk-page posts by typing four tildes: ~~~~.) Rivertorch (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Even though this request was answered 6 months ago, I would like to point out that New Horizons will pass Neptune, But won't explore the planet. what i mean by explore is that the craft won't send back any info about Neptune. Best,--Anderson - What's up? 03:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I would just add, to make clear what was already hinted at by the responses previously, that while New Horizons will pass the orbit of Neptune, it will not pass remotely close to the planet itself because Neptune and Pluto are about 1/4 of a revolution out of phase with each other, ergo they are about 15 AU apart. So New Horizons' closest distance to Neptune will be more than the distance between Earth and Saturn. Sailsbystars (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

NASA Announces Discovery of 14th Moon

Can the number of moons in this and the sub-article be updated following NASA's announcing of new satellite S/2004 N 1. NASA Hubble Finds New Neptune Moon

Neptune's Climate

It is written that the pole is 283 K (!) warmer than the rest of the planet... If my memory is correct,the difference was around 10 degrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.148.22 (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah.... I went and checked the article. I'll fix that or remove the offending statement.... Sailsbystars (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Climate: Nearly Supersonic

Under the Climate section the wind speeds are described as "nearly attaining supersonic flow". I am curious if this is a good way to describe it because the speed of sound depends on the density of its medium. Are those speeds supersonic relative to the speed of sound in Neptune's atmosphere, or Earth's atmosphere? The description struck me as a potential misnomer. Althrretha (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Aren't you answering your own question? Since the speed of sound depends on the medium, this refers to the speed of sound in Neptune's atmosphere. — Reatlas (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not answering my own question because I didn't take the reference to "supersonic speeds" to automatically refer to the speed of sound in Neptune's atmosphere. I don't know what the speed of sound is in Neptune's atmosphere, but I'm guessing it is not the same as in Earth's atmosphere. My concern is that the article as written does not specify which atmosphere its frame of reference is. Althrretha (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, but whereas "speed of sound" alone might be ambiguous, "supersonic flow" is more of a term used in fluid dynamics, so it refers to the speed of wave propagation in the specific medium, be it Earth's, Neptune's or any other's. — Reatlas (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Superfluous Suffix

In the Reference Box\Physical Characteristics\Equatorial Radius, there is a </ref> suffix that needs not exist, as there is no "ref" preceding it. Please correct it, those of you who can edit the page! Queen4thewin (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. — Reatlas (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox: Atmosphere composition

The last field in the infobox is broken. Other planet articles use HTML (<table>...</table>) instead of wikimarkup ({|...|}). I'm not sure I can fix this without breaking the whole box, so I'd rather leave it to someone else. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Another possible reason for high temperature of Neptune's thermosphere

Since the article is locked I couldn't edit it. The following page suggests that diamond formation is possibly a cause for the high temperature of Neptune's thermosphere: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1999/1006/diamonds.html. It would be useful to add it to the relevant paragraph.

Jamadagni (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Atmosphere

[...] "Other candidates are gravity waves from the interior that dissipate in the atmosphere." That would be really something special, at least 'a citation would be needed', but it just looks like vandalism to me.... Regards, Noud van Klinken— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.217.25 (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Noud, look at gravity wave and you'll see that it is nothing dubious: Gravity waves are something from fluid dynamics. The thing from general relativity is called gravitational wave. --JorisvS (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2014

162.127.107.1 (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC) I would like to change wrong facts

 Not done - Submit your changes in this form, "please change X to Y". Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2014

162.127.107.1 (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

نبتون[عدل] من ويكيبيديا، الموسوعة الحرة نبتون

صورة لكوكب نبتون تم التقاطها من مركبة فويجر 2 في صيف 1989 المكتشفون المكتشفون يوهان جدفريد جال Aww shit I ripped my pantfuck يحنا كوش آدامس اكتشف في 23 سبتمبر، 1846 م الخصائص المدارية نصف المحور اﻷكبر للمدار الإهليجي 4.498.252.900 كم 30،06896348 وحدة فلكية اللا مركزية المدارية 0،00858587 الحضيض 4.459.631.496 كم 29،81079527 وحدة فلكية الأوج 4.536.874.325 كم 30،32713169 وحدة فلكية الفترة النجمية 164 عام و 323 يوم و 21،7 ساعة الفترة التزامنية 367،4857 يوم السرعة المدارية المتوسطة 5،432 كم/ثانية السرعة المدارية القصوى 5،479 كم/ثانية السرعة المدارية الدنيا 5،385 كم/ثانية الميل المداري 1،76917° عدد اﻷقمار 13 الخصائص الطبيعية القطر الاستوائي 49.528 كم 3،88 مرة قطر اﻷرض القطر القطبي 48.681 كم التسطح 0،0171 مساحة الكوكب 7،619 × 109 كم2 أي 14،94 مرة مساحة اﻷرض حجم الكوكب 6،254 × 1013 كم3 أي 57،74 مرة حجم اﻷرض كتلة الكوكب 1،0243 × 1026 كغ أي 17،147 مرة كتلة اﻷرض الكثافة 1.638 × 103 كغ\م³ الجاذبية الاستوائية 11،15 م\ث² سرعة الإفلات 23،5 كم\س فترة الدوران 16 ساعة و 6 دقائق و 36 ثانية سرعة الدوران على خط الإستواء 2،68 كم\ث أي 9660 كم\س الميل المحوري 28،32° البياض 0،41 الحرارة على السطح الدنيا 50 ك°، الوسطى 53 ك° ، القصوى -- خصائص الغلاف الجوي الضغط الجوي --- الهيدروجين 80% +- 3،2% الهليوم 19% +- 3،2% الميثان 1،5% +- 0،5% الأمنياك 0،01% الإيثان 0،00025% الأستيلان 0،00001% الهيدروجين الثقيل 192 جزء في المليون

صورة لكوكب نبتون من تلسكوب هابل بألوانه الطبيعية وثلاثة من أقماره. نبتون Neptune (رمزه ) معناها بالإغريقية إله الماء، ويطلق عليه الكوكب الأزرق هو أحد كواكب النظام الشمسي وهو رابع أكبر الكواكب الثمانية، وهو ثامن أبعد كوكب عن الشمس في نظامنا الشمسي وهو رابع أكبر كوكب نسبةً إلى قطره وثالث أكبر كوكب نسبةً إلى كتلته. سمي هذا الكوكب نسبةً إلى الإله الروماني للبحر (نبتون) حيث تم اكتشافه في 23 سبتمبر عام 1846. كان نبتون أول كوكب يتم اكتشافه عبر المعادلات والتوقع الرياضي بدلاً من الرصد المنتظم. فالتغيرات غير المتوقعة في مدار كوكب أورانوس قادت الفلكيين إلى استنتاج أن الاضطراب الجذبي ناتج عن كوكب مجهول يقع خلفه، واكتشف الكوكب على بعد درجة واحدة من الموقع المتوقع عبر المعادلات الرياضية. أُكتشف نبتون من طرف عالم الفلك يوهان غتفريد غال(Johann Gottfried Galle) يوم 23 سبتمبر 1846، في الوقت نفسه الذي كان فيه العُلماء أوربان لوفيريي وجون كوش آدامز(John Couch Adams) يتوقعان بالحساب مكان وجود نبتون. ولو كان وزنك فوق الأرض 70 كيلوغرام يصبح فوق نبتون 84 كيلوغرام. وتجتاح نبتون عاصفة هوجاء أشبه بالعاصفة التي تجتاح كوكب المشتري ويطلق على عاصفة نبتون اسم "البقعة المظلمة العظمى" (حيث أن هناك واحدة أصغر شبيهة بها). ولا يعرف منذ متى نشبت لأنها بعيدة ولاترى من الأرض. وقد اكتشفتها مؤخرا المسابير الفضائية الاستكشافية. ونبتون هو أبعد الكواكب والأقل معرفة بالنسبة لنا, وأقماره المعروفة حتى الآن هي 13. وهناك ست حلقات تدور حول نبتون. له أقمار أهمها ترايتون الذي يبلغ قطره 2720 كم وتنبعث فوقه غازات. ويظن العلماء أنه يوجد تحت سحب نبتون محيط من الماء أشبه بمحيط أورانوس، وجوّه مكون من الهيدروجين والهيليوم والميثان. تمت زيارة كوكب نبتون مرة واحدة فقط بواسطة السفينة الفضائية فويجر 2 والتي طارت إلى الكوكب في الخامس والعشرين من أغسطس عام 1989. نبتون مماثل في التركيبِ لكوكب أورانوسِ، وكلاهما لهما تراكيب مختلفة من أكبر العمالقة الغازِية: كوكبا المشتري وزحل. آثار الميثانِ في الكوكب تفسر سبب ظهوره باللون الأزرق. محور كوكب نبتون مائل بزاوية 50 درجة عن محور دورانه، وهو يبعد عن مركز نبتون حوالي 10000 كم، ومن هذه المغناطيسية القوية هنالك شفق قطبي في نبتون وكذلك في قمره تريتون. ولنبتون عدة أقمـار أحـدها هو ترايتون الذي يُعد أكبر أقمار نبتون وأبرد جسم في المجموعة الشمسية بحيث تبلغ حرارته 230- درجة مئوية. محتويات [أخف] 1 المدار 2 التركيب والغلاف الجوي 3 اكتشافه 4 أقمار وأحزمة نبتون 5 المصادر 6 المراجع المدار[عدل] المسافة بين نبتون والشمس هي 30 ضعف المسافة بين الأرض والشمس (أي أنها 30 و.ف). يتحرك بلوتو داخل مدار نبتون لمدة 20 عام مرة كل 248 سنة وهذا يجعل بلوتو أقرب للشمس من نبتون في ذلك الوقت. وقد كان عبور بلوتو الماضي في 23 يناير/1979 وبقي داخل المدار حتى 11/فبراير/1999. يدور نبتون حول الشمس بمدار إهليجي ويبلغ متوسط بعده عن الشمس 4495.06 مليون كم (2,793.1 مليون ميل)، ويدور حولها مرة كل 165 سنة. وعندما يدور حول الشمس فإنه يدور حول محوره ويُتم دورة كل 16.1 ساعة. ويميل محور دوران نبتون بزاوية 30 درجة (وهذا بناءً على ميله عن مداره حول الشمس، حيث أن محوره يميل 30 درجة عن الوضع العمودي له مع المدار). التركيب والغلاف الجوي[عدل] يَعتقد العلماء أن كوكب نبتون يتكون أساسا من الهيدروجين والهليوم والماء وسيليكات، ونبتون هو كوكب غازي كثافته ليست كبيرة، وبالتالي فليس له سطح صلب يُمكن المشي عليه، بينما الكواكب الصخرية المكوّنة من الصخور – مثل الأرض – هي صلبة والمشي عليها مُمكن. تتصاعد سحب كثيفة فوق كوكب نبتون تغطي سطحه وتجعل رؤيته صعبة. وفي نواته تكون الغازات مضغوطة جدا، وهي عبارة عن مزيج من الغازات في طبقة سائلة تحيط بالنواة المركزية للكوكب التي تتكوّن من صخور وثلوج. إن ميل محور نبتون يتسبب في انقسام الكوكب لنصفين من حيث درجة الحرارة، وهما النصفان الشمالي والجنوبي، مما يؤدي إلى التغير في درجات الحرارة وبالتالي تولّد الفصول (أي أنه توجد عليه فصول كما في الأرض). يُحاط نبتون بطبقة سميكة من الغيوم ذات حركة سريعة، حيث تهب الرياح بسرعة تصل إلى 1.100 كم (700 ميل) في الساعة. الغيوم البعيدة عن سطح نبتون تتألف أساساً من الميثان المتجمد، ويَعتقد العلماء بأن الغيوم التي تقع تحت سحب غاز الميثان داكنة تتألف من كبريتيد الهيدروجين. الغلاف المغناطيسي لكوكب نبتون يشبه إلى حد كبير الذي يملكه أورانوس، وهو أكبر بكثير من الذي تملكه الأرض مثله في ذلك مثل أورانوس. وتشير نظرية رياضية إلى أن حلقات نبتون تؤثر على حركة الجسيمات في مجاله المغناطيسي.[1] اكتشافه[عدل]  مقالة مفصلة: اكتشاف كوكب نبتون

عواصف فوق سطح نبتون: البقعة المظلمة الكبيرة (أعلى), Scooter (السحابة البيضاء الوسطية) و البقعة المظلمة الصغرى(أسفل)

تظهر رسومات غاليلو أنه كان أول من لاحظه في 28 كانون الأول 1612 ومرة ثانية في 27 كانون الثاني 1613 وفي كلتا الحالتين اعتقد غاليلو أنه يراقب نجم ثابت عندما ظهر بوضوح في ظلمة السماء إلى جانب المشتري لذلك لم يعتبر غاليلو على أنه مكتشف نبتون. و ضع أليكسيس بوفارد Alexis Bouvard سنة 1821 جداول فلكية لنبتون جار أورانوس إلا أن النتائج اللاحقة أظهرت انحرفات كبيرة عن جداوله مما قاد بوفارد إلا فرض وجود جسم غير معروف يحدث تغيرات في المدار نتيجة فعل الجاذبية. بدأ جون كوش آدامز (John Couch Adams) في عام 1843 – وهو عالم فلك ورياضيات من جامعة كامبردج – بعمل دراسة حول بعد وكتلة جرم كان يُعتقد أنه يقع خلف كوكب أورانوس (وذلك بناءً على اضطراب في مدار أورانوس). ولقد أكمل آدامز دراساته ومن ثم أرسلها إلى السير جورج آيري – العالم الفلكي الملكي في إنكلترا – والذي طلب من آدامز توضيح الأمر. وقد بدأ آدامز بإعداد مشروع الرد ولكنه لم يرسله قط لعدم وجود حماسة لحل مشكلة أورانوس. وفي الوقت نفسه بدأ أوريان يانوش - وهو شاب لم يكن يعرفه آدامز - في العمل على المشروع، وبحلول منتصف عام 1846 استطاع التنبؤ بموعد ومكان ظهور نبتون، وقد كانت توقعاته مشابهة لتلك التي كانت لدى آدامز. وقد قام يانوش بإرسال نتائجه إلى الدكتور "آيري" في مرصد غرنتش، لكن آيري لم يستطع رصده فأرسل طلباً بذلك إلى الفلكي "جيمس تشالّس" في كامبردج ولكنه لم يكن يملك خرائط جيدة لبرج الدلو (وقد كان نبتون فيه آنذاك) ولذلك لم يَستطع رصده. ولم يستطع جيمس إقناع أحد من زملائه بالرصد فأرسل رسالة إلى مدير معهد برلين "جون إنك" يَطلب منه فيها رصد نبتون. فقام بدوره بتكليف فلكيَّين في المعهد بالمهمة، وقد استطاعا رصد الكوكب واكتشافه. وبسبب هذا كله فقد ثار جدل بين الفلكيين بشأن المُكتشف الحقيقي للكوكب، انتهى بتقاسم الشرف بين كل من آدامز ويانوش.[1] أقمار وأحزمة نبتون[عدل] يوجد لنبتون 13 قمرا أكبرها هو ترايتون الذي يدور حوله على بعد 354,750 كم (220.400 ميل) منه، ونصف قطره يبلغ حوالي 1350 كم (0.2122 من نصف قطر الأرض). وهو قمر نبتون الوحيد الذي يدور عكس اتجاه دوران نبتون. ترايتون له مدار دائري ويدور حول نبتون مرة كل ستة أيام، ودرجة حرارة سطحه تبلغ حوالي -235 درجة مئوية (390- فهرنهايت). وهناك بعض السخانات على ترايتون بالرغم من برودته الشديدة، اكتشفتها مركبة فويجر أثناء رحلتها الشهيرة. توجد لنبتون أربعة حلقات، لكن هذه الحلقات أقل كثافة وحجما بكثير من حلقات كوكب زحل، ويبدو أنها تتكون من جزيئات الغبار، وحتى الآن لا يعرف العلماء السبب الذي يجعل انتشار الغبار غير متساو فيها[1]. وأقماره هي: ناياد (Naiad). تالاسا (Thalassa). ديسبينا (Despina). جالاتيا (Galatea). لاريسا (Larissa). بروتيوس (Proteus). ترايتون (Triton). نيريد (Nereid). هاليمدي (Halimede). ساو (Sao). لاوميديا (Laomedeia). بسامثي (Psamathe). نيسو (Neso). المصادر[عدل]

بوابة النظام الشمسي
بوابة فلك

Walter, Elizabeth (April 21, 2003). Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (Second Edition ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-53106-3. Littmann, Mark; Standish, E. M. (2004). Planets Beyond: Discovering the Outer Solar System. Courier Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-43602-0. المراجع[عدل] ^ تعدى إلى الأعلى ل: أ ب ت ناسا - نبتون تاريخ الولوج 10 مارس 2010 [أخف] ع ن ت النظام الشّمسي

 الشّمس ·   عطارد · الزهرة ·   الأرض · المريخ · سيريس ·   المشتري ·   زحل ·   أورانوس · نبتون · بلوتو · هاوميا · ميكميك · إريس

كواكب · كواكب أقزام · أقمار طبيعيّة ( أرضيّة · مريخيّة · مشترييّة · زحليّة · أورانوسيّة · نبتونيّة · بلوتويّة · هاوميّة · إريسيّة) أجسام صغيرة: كويكبات (الحزام الرئيسي · حزام كايبر · القرص المتفرق) · مذنبات (سحابة هيلز · سحابة أورط) · نيازك انظر أيضاً في الأجرام السماوية أو قائمة أجرام النظام الشمسي، أو بوابة علم الفلك. تصنيفات: نبتونكواكب المجموعة الشمسيةعمالقة غازية

 Not done - Submit your request only in English language. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2014

From its discovery in 1846 until the subsequent discovery of Pluto in 1930, Neptune was the farthest known planet. Upon Pluto's discovery Neptune became the penultimate planet, save for a 20-year period between 1979 and 1999 when Pluto's elliptical orbit brought it closer to the sun than Neptune.[37] The discovery of the Kuiper belt in 1992 led many astronomers to debate whether Pluto should be considered a planet in its own right or part of the belt's largduck I ate my pop tar Union defined the word "planet" for the first time, reclassifying Pluto as a "dwarf planet" and making Neptune once again the last planet in the Solar System.[40]

Composition and structure

 Not done - It is unclear what changes you wish to bring about in the article. Submit your request in this form, "change X to Y". Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

2751 × 3 ≠ 24764

"These altitudes are in the layer where weather occurs, the troposphere, which is estimated to rise to 2,751 km from the surface of the water–ammonia ocean. This number is a third of its equatorial radius."

I don't think 2,751 km × 3 equals 24764 km as it's given in the infobox?—Love, Kelvinsong talk 17:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Apsis changes, and infobox implications

No set of elements, not even VSOP87 or Standishs' best fit, gives the perihelion and aphelion distances as accurately for the outer planets as people think. This is true of other quantities of the orbit as well. Those bodies just don't follow Keplerian orbits closely enough. In a lot of cases, especially Neptune, the derived numbers are good to only two signigicant figures. I've just used actual distances in edits in the Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune articles.

So what should become of the elements in these articles? A major overhaul is in order.

Saros136 (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Switching Horizons to "Center: Solar System Barycenter (@0)" prevents major swings in the orbital elements. -- Kheider (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't use Horizons much. Solex for elements. The oscullating elements still fluctuate, but that's not the problem here. The problem is is that the orbits of the outer planets don't follow Keplerian orbits well enough to allow us to deduce the apsis, circumference, time average, etc. with very high precision from any set of mean elements.

Saros136 (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh wait, I see. Now that's more accurate than the mean elements. Saros136 (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Perihelion distance now good to four significant figures, as compared to either nearest two or nearest four of them. A vast improvement. Saros136 (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Second Mention of Earth

I would like to inform you that the second mention of Earth in the first paragraph needs a link on it. I would fix it myself but I can't(new user). Hobo36 (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't. It is even in the same sentence as the first mention. Linking it would be simple overlinking and pointless. --JorisvS (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know.--Hobo36 (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. --JorisvS (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Neptune/Pluto mass ratio

The notes give mass ratios for Neptune to various planets. As Neptune ‘controls’ the orbit of Pluto (3:2), the Neptune÷Pluto mass ratio is of interest. It’s about 7849, but the ratio might be known more precisely than either absolute mass. (I don’t know.) JDAWiseman (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ring Discovery Date

It's unclear if the rings were discovered in 1968 or if the data was collected in 1968 which was later re-examined to reveal them. Various articles suggest the latter.2605:E000:8643:9B00:A80C:9971:584D:B627 (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the latter. Ruslik_Zero 20:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Tagged for five years

This tag has been on this FA for five years; can someone address? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• The abundance of methane, ethane and ethyne at Neptune's equator is 10–100 times greater than at the poles. This is interpreted as evidence for upwelling at the equator and subsidence near the poles.

References

Naked eye observations?

Reverted this edit because comparing a visual magnitude chart with a Neptune's magnitude is WP:SYNTH, A+B does not equal conclusion C (that Neptune is a naked eye object). I see no references that state Neptune is a naked eye object and it is not something that should be stated as a general possibility. There is a discussion here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

...atmospheric pressure crushing.

This seems rather a rather vague statement in the lead. Is there a better definition or explanation? Nyth63 20:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The IPA transcription of the pronunciation is in British English--it does not match the audio, which is the American pronunciation Listeni/ˈnɛptjuːn/[2]

It should be /ˈnɛptuːn/ in American English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.7.34 (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right about that. I've changed it. --JorisvS (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Climate - Internal Heating

The article states: "Although Neptune lies half again as far from the Sun as Uranus" but the opposite is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctreffinger (talk • contribs) 03:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

No. The statement you refer is correct. Uranus is about 20 (19.2) AU from the Sun and Neptune is about 30 (30.1) AU from the Sun. 20 + ½ * 20 = 20 + 10 = 30. RhinoMind (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I rewrote it for clarify, as 'half again as' is not very commonly used. Gap9551 (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016

Please update the first sentence in the article to reflect the recent findings from CalTech:

Neptune is the eighth and second farthest planet from the Sun in the Solar System.

Source: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/22/meta;jsessionid=49CC7264E9D554279148B57A04C726F5.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org

Kennethjcarey (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Planet Nine (2016 hypothesis) is hypothetical, not (yet) confirmed to exist. Gap9551 (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverts

The advent of Hubble Space Telescope and large ground-based telescopes with adaptive optics has allowed for more-detailed observations from afar.

RhinoMind, I removed this from the lede because, as my edit summary explained a) the information is not cited in the body; b) There is no reference for this fact; c) I'm not sure the ground based observations are "more-detailed" than those made by Voyager 2 (which flew within 3,000 miles of the pole). Perhaps "further detailed" would be more accurate, or I could be mistaken and they are "more-detailed", but either way, we really need a ref. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for writing here. You are right, the new images from afar is not more detailed than the Voyage 2 images. I will correct it now. I think the word "more" just meant more as in "additional". It is however a well-known property of both space telescopes and recent adaptive optics, that they can be used to study the atmospheres of the Outer planets in useful detail, compared to previous telescopic technologies. At least in the world of astrophyics. It should not be too difficult to find some refs for it I guess. The images can all be found on the HST website for one thing. RhinoMind (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Btw. It is too aggreesive to remove unreffed material just like that. If refs are needed, use a cn-tag and use the "reason" parametre to explain it further. This is how stuff is improved. Deletion is the last resort. RhinoMind (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. I just removed the "-" in more-detailed. Simple. RhinoMind (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Gosh, was I being aggressive? That makes me sad..

The Hubble images have shown new features, but don't come close to being more-detailed. Compare images of Neptune from Hubble here and here with those taken by Voyager here

However, the Keck Observatory's website does say:

Astronomers observing with the adaptive optics instrument on the Keck II Telescope have obtained the best pictures yet of the planet Neptune... “We’ve never seen the detail we see now,” said team leader Imke de Pater, a professor of astronomy and of earth and planetary science at UC Berkeley. “This shows us how much structure there is in the planet’s atmosphere, how dynamic it is - as dynamic as Jupiter.” [2]

The statement is somewhst ambiguous; “the best pictures yet” could be taken to mean "Keck's best pictures yet", and the same goes for "We've never seen the detail we see now". But I think it's fair to say that Keck's observations of cloud structure can be described as more detailed than Voyager's.[3] Clearly much has been learnt since Voyager and this info needs to be incorporated into the article. I do appreciate your attempt at a solution, but in my opinion, in a featured article (lol), rather than add cn-tags to unreffed stuff, if there's some doubt about the statement then it's probably better to remove material until we have refs. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with what you interpret about the Keck statements, it must certainly pertain to their own observational schedule.

Without delving deeper into the issue, I can not believe however, that any telescopic images from afar can possibly be on the same level of quality as those sent home from Voyager 2 in 1989. That is why I removed the dash in "more-detailed".

If I hadn't gone through all your recent edits in detail, I would never have discovered the deleted information about HST and AO. If you had put up a cn-tag, it would have got the attention from several other editors. This is why tagging is so important for progress instead of deletion. PS. Do not take words like "aggressive" etc personal. They are are meant with relation to certain edit-styles, not as personal insults. RhinoMind (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: I have read up a bit about the Keck 2 results, and indeed the ref you gave states that at least the images obtained with AO from Uranus exceeded those from Voyager 2! Wow. I do not think however, it applies to the Neptune image however, as Voyager was so close and observed it for so long. I will put more info from the ref in the article now. Great stuff. RhinoMind (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2016

IT SAYS THAT NEPTUNE IS COMPOSED OF ICES AND ROCKS. HOW CAN IT BE COMPOSED OF ICE. ICE IS A FORM OF WATER AND NO OTHER PLANET HAS WATER OTHER THAN EARTH. THAT IS WHY THEY SAY IT HAS LIFE. PLEASE THINK BEFORE GIVING INFORMATION.

117.213.226.80 (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done -Uninformed critic/request without citing a reference. Many compounds can form ice, not just water. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes ice is just a specific type of solid state. Many elements (all?) can form ice under the right circumstances. Also, water is found on many other planets (all?). Water is a prerequisite for life as we know it yes, but water does not equal life per se. There are lots of water-ice on the Moon for example in some of its craters, but no life. There are also lots of water (H2O) on Neptune as observed from spectroscopic images. The only planet in the Solar System where water has not been found - as far as I know - is Mercury. But even there astrophysicists are suspecting it to be present in some craters. A similar story can be told about organic molecules.RhinoMind (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Main picture

Should we really be using the photo we are? The Voyager/Pioneer photographs are infamous for being horribly oversaturated. In reality, Neptune is nowhere near that shade of blue. More recent photos taken by Hubble (such as this) show its true colour. Though if we want to maintain detail, we could always use the Voyager photos modified to look closer to true colour, something like this. 134340Goat (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC) - Hello Fellow Earthlings!

(Just going to update this by adding this template)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Just a note, the proper links for the images are as follows: [4] [5]. The other links that you provided seem broken to me. If you need help uploading the images, I suggest going to the WP:Help desk as I probably can't help you. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:134340Goat Understandable point. But first, the two links to images you provide are dead-end. Secondly, The Voyager image is the most detailed image available (and will probably continue to be for a very long time). Many astronomical images are not in true colour - for many reasons -, and the problem could be solved by informing a bit about the colour-issue in text form. Thirdly, I am not even aware of any true-colour image up on WikiCommons, so no other picture can be inserted anyway. RhinoMind (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Liquid diamond

The terms "liquid diamond" and "diamond-berg" are nonsense that originated with this science writer's article. There is no such thing as liquid diamond: diamond, by definition, is a particular crystalline arrangement of carbon.

The term "liquid diamond" should be replaced with "liquid carbon", and the term "diamond-berg" should be replaced with just "diamond".

99.236.11.167 (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I changed it to "liquid graphite (a form of carbon)". Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, but "liquid graphite" is equally wrong @User:BatteryIncluded. Graphite is yet another crystal arrangement of carbon, and liquid carbon is not crystalline. The closest thing to "liquid graphite" would be a colloidal suspension of graphite, but no such thing is claimed in the source. 2620:101:F000:700:6CD2:915B:CD0:E5EB (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. I read in the published paper "graphite-liquid melt line" and I thought of liquid graphite. The author describes the liquid phase as "liquid carbon": [...] showing that liquid carbon, at temperatures just above the melt line is a semi-metal. ([6]) Is that satisfactory? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Doubts on the Necessity of Adams and Le Verrier's Work

It has long been assumed that without the mathematical predictions of Adams and Le Verrier, Neptune would not have been found. However this can be shown to be a myth; the planet could quite easily have been located without them.

It had long been known that before 1822, Uranus had been traveling too fast in its orbit, as though an unknown planet were ahead of Uranus (ie to the left of Uranus in our night sky) and was pulling Uranus forward in its orbit, while after 1822 Uranus moved slower than predicted, as though the unseen planet had now moved to the right of Uranus in our night sky, and was trying to pull Uranus back in its orbit. In other words, in 1822 itself, the 2 planets must have been in conjunction (a quick check on our modern Fourmilab sky map actually verifies this).

Astronomers in 1846 could have used Bode's Law, which is of course inaccurate, and projected beyond Uranus to predict for the hypothetical Neptune a distance from the sun of 38 AU (it is actually 30 AU), and then used Kepler's 3rd Law to calculate an orbital period for the new planet of 234 years (it is actually 164). This seems quite an error -- but the astronomers could have easily calculated that at the rate they believed, since 1822, Neptune would have moved by 16.8 degrees around the ecliptic, from where Uranus had been in 1822.

However Bode's Law is inaccurate and Neptune had actually moved by 36.8 degrees.

Therefore, if they had swept with their telescopes, looking tentatively for a small object with a discernible disk, (without checking all the stars for movement) they would have quickly found it, within 20 degrees of where they started looking. This is only 4 times the separation between Dubhe and Merak in the Plough, or Castor and Pollux in Gemini. A slender rectangle of sky, along 20 degrees of the ecliptic, and say 2 or 3 degrees high, could have been searched in a single night -- without Adams and Le Verrier.

As it turned out, Adams in particular was in error by 12 degrees, which is almost in the same ball park as the 20 degrees within which searchers would have actually found it without him, rendering Adams' work therefore only slightly more useful, and hardly worth the effort on his part given the speed with which a slender 20 degree rectangle of sky could be searched. We can further see from this that Le Verrier (out by 1 degree) deserves all the credit from a purely mathematical standpoint.

206.45.236.112 (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to post personal theories. Historical "what ifs" have no bearing on the relevance of actual history. Serendi^podous 06:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not a personal theory. It is a reappraisal of the importance of Adams and Le Verrier's contribution to the search for Neptune, based on facts and mathematical data. Further, this is the "talk" page, as in "discuss", which is why I have included it here. It is the "Article" page which is no place to include personal theories.

206.45.135.128 (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT#FORUM talk pages for discussing how to improve articles, not for general discussion about the subject of the article. If you wish to note referenced material that can improve the article please stay on that topic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Introduction has confusing wording

In the introduction where it says "Neptune is the most dense. Neptune is 17 times the mass of Earth and is slightly more massive than its near-twin Uranus, which is 15 times the mass of Earth and slightly larger than Neptune." I believe that the wording is very confusing and should be changed to something more straight forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N. H. Feniak (talk • contribs) 05:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

What's confusing about it? There are two separate statements in a row, having nothing more to do with each other than with the rest of the paragraph. --JorisvS (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

How old is Neptune?

Neptune has always been my favorite planet in comparison to the rest, aside from earth of course, but I've always wondered how old Neptune is. -ℳ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solorman08 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

See the "Formation and migration" chapter in the article. It appears that the formation of the ice giants, including Neptune, is still an unsettled issue. RhinoMind (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)