User talk:Serendipodous/archive 15

ro-vibratinal transitions

The are three types of energy that an excited molecule can have:

1. Electronic excitation, when electrons change their state (energy is usually higher than 1 ev);
2. Vibrational excitation, when atoms of the molecule periodically oscillate relative each other (usually 0.05-1 ev, see Molecular vibration);
3. Rotational excitation, when molecule rotates (usually less than 0.01 ev, see Rotational_spectroscopy).

Each type of excitation is quantized: the energy can only assume discrete values characterized by the respective quantum numbers. There can be one or two rotational quantum numbers and 1-3 from one to infinity vibrational numbers.

When a molecule emits or absorbs a photon (or interacts with other particles) the quantum numbers change. Ro-vibrational refers to a transition when only the rotational and vibrational state of the molecule change, but electronic state remains the same. Such transitions usually lie in infrared part of the spectrum. Ruslik (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The simplest explanation is: when the rotation of the molecule slows it emits a photon in the microwave of submillimeter part of the spectrum—this is a purely rotational transition.

If in addition the amplitude of vibrations of the molecule decreases, this is ro-vibrational transitions. Purely vibrational transitions are always prohibited. The wavelength of ro-vibrational transitions lies in mid infrared. In auroras of giant planets this is usually H₃⁺ ion that emits ro-vibrational photons (3-4 microns). Other molecules include hydrocarbons and HD. Ro-vibratinal transitions in molecular hydrogen H₂ (like in any symmetrical two atomic molecule) are prohibited. Ruslik (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

How is your reading? If you want you can read some good review papers here:

• http://www.filefactory.com/file/af59fdb/n/magnetospheres_zip

Ruslik (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In the above file there are papers that provide overview of all Solar System magnetospheres. They also contain simpler explanations of some things as compared to Jupiter book. Ruslik (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I also found this excellent article: http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/hill.html. Ruslik (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I will try to do photoshoping at the weekend. Have you downloaded the file above? (I mean magnetospheres.zip) Ruslik (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I made the image. Ruslik (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you write something about Van Allen and his role in the discovery of the radiation belts? You seem to know more about this than me. Ruslik (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I hope your wikibreak will not be very long. I definitely need you! Without you the Solar System project will be seriously impaired. I also had my share of edit-warring on Ganymede. Ruslik (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Serendipodous! Please come back soon, I didn't mean for discussion on the Pluto image to be like that. I have had a great time working with you on articles. Fotaun (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, again, for our discussion about the LPI image. In a few years, hopefully, the New Horizons probe will give us new data (or at least more theories) about Pluto's interior. Fotaun (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

my webpage

I find Wikipedia Discussion pages and disputes and disagreements and whatever else practically impossible to navigate and I don,t know if this is where I' m supposed to send the reply.

Thanks for your message and sorry it has taken me so long but i haven't checked my inbox until recently. There are several points you make that I would like to address. You are confusing planet with major planet as most people do and this point is elaborated on. I do make mention of moons as planets. Also, I do quote Seneca in comets being considered as planets. As well, 1 of the definitions does indeed include dust particles as planets. And I have corrected the error about the year of discovery for Pluto. There were several other errors I noticed which i corrected.

My website has been revamped and a condensed version of Sizing up the Planets has been accepted for publication.

--Bpell (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for peer review for asteroid 243 Ida

Hi, I saw that you're interested in astronomy, and have some expertise in the area of featured articles. Would you be interested in reviewing 243 Ida? Wronkiew (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome

I hope that you don't care too much about that kind of people. I have seen your edits in many articles and as a fourth year space engineering student I really enjoy reading them! Keep up the good work on space related articles! --Skizzik ^talk 15:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Solar Wind

After Magnetosphere of Jupiter I have some plans for this article. I think it will be a nice addition to the Solar System topic. BTW I found this excellent paper. Ruslik (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. This is not a 1 April joke.

The Earth's field wobbles too, but the wobble is much less important for Earth than for Jupiter. In the case of Jupiter wobble causes the precession of the equatorial current sheet, which in turn leads to the development of the wrapping and the spiral wave pattern in it. This can influence the stability of the magnetosphere's configuration. In the case of Earth the corotation as well as the wobble is less important. (Earth does not have the equatorial sheet and magnetodisk) Ruslik (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that the south magnetic pole of Jupiter is in the northern hemisphere? I think the opposite is true. Ruslik (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Earth's_magnetic_field article says something different. I actually think that the north magnetic field pole of the magnetic pointer in compass points to the north because it is attracted to the Earth field's south magnetic pole (see North magnetic pole for the full explanation). However the terminology is rather complicated. I do not think it is reasonable to apply such a complicated terminology to Jupiter. Ruslik (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can understand how Unipolar_generator works (where the disk should be replaced with a sphere), you will be able to understand Jovian magnetosphere. It is not so complicated, in fact, simpler than that of Earth. Ruslik (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hercolubus

I've found a book on it at http://www.hercolubus.net/english/home_e.htm. It appears to be the source of this whole mess. If there hadn't been something published I'd suggest putting an article for deletion tag in the Hercolubus article so it would be completely gone from wikipedia, but since it is something big enough to be published, then something should probably be done with it. Maybe it could redirect to the Barnard Star article and have a little "In New Age" section. What I'm finding so far is that it appears V.M. Rabolu was a student of Samael Aun Weor, who called his new-age stuff Gnostic, which is like calling Scientology "the ancient Israelite religion." I'll get on it. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The original source for the whole Hercolubus myth appears to be Rabolu's book as far as I can find (I have found some claims that Samael Aun Weor mentioned it, but those appear to be folks confusing the student with his teacher), and Rabolu says it's Barnard's star (or from his perspective, modern scientists are erroneously calling Hercolubus "Barnard's Star"). ZetaTalk's article [1] treats it as something different but similar to their stuff about Nibiru/Planet X, encouraging folks to see the similarities as proof of their propecies that a planet is going to come and the Ayn Rand is going to hit the fan. Putting it in the Barnard's Star article in it's own section, similar to how Nergal and Martians are mentioned in the Mars article, doesn't appear to be attracting any problems so far. The Astronomical objects long title article lists objects that have no evidence for existing, instead of different interpretations of objects known to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian.thomson (talk • contribs) 15:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Magnetosphere of Jupiter

I think the article is close to completion. I am not planning to expand the text significantly. I only want to write something about radiation hazards for spacecraft and humans and make a few of images. May I ask to do two things?:

1. Since you have the book of Wolverton, can you write more about problems experienced by Pioneers? (As I remember Pioneer 10 lost all images of Io.)
2. Can you write a new lead? I am afraid that, if I attempt to write the lead myself, it will be too complicated.

Ruslik (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Magnetosphere is ready but I want to make two additional figures. Moons of Saturn needs some references. If were to choose between Mimas and Miranda, I would prefer Miranda. It is more interesting. I have some papers about Miranda (if you need them I can send them to you). Ruslik (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded some file to filefactory. See http://www.filefactory.com/file/agb539c/n/Miranda_zip . Ruslik (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you downloaded the archive? I should also admit that the Magnetosphere of Jupiter is a very complicated article as it stands. It will take some time to bring it to FA level. The magnetospheric physics is probably the most complex and difficult to understand part of the planetary sciences. Ruslik (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I will probably add it. Ruslik (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

edit sum'y

Hat's off for this one "don't blame the Russians. we are fully capable of coming up with this sort of crap ourselves".  ;) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You've got to keep them coming, we need humour round here. Especially after I've seen too much blech at Talk:Greece. Anyway, if you can keep it up maybe we can get you a comedy show doing one liners.  :) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

243 Ida FA nomination

Hey Serendipodous, Wronkiew and I have just nominated this article for FA status. Since you peer reviewed it, I thought you might like to know. Reyk _YO! 01:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Solar System

I have nominated Solar System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

I've re-written the lead, please discuss at the featured article review before changing. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Nibiru

I've finished the translation; it's at User:Angr/Nibiru. Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense in some places, because there were some parts of the German I simply couldn't understand, either because I'm not familiar with the subject matter or because the German was written so badly it made no sense. So, you may want to do some more tweaking to the translation before you use it. —Angr 20:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

1.6% vs. 0.16%

[2]

The article Sun claims 0.16%, citing [3]. It's hard for me to believe 1.6% -- that's a lot of iron! But if that's true, would you replace the reference in Sun with something that supports 1.6%, and add that reference to Metallicity?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. Again. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Haumea (intimate mixture)

The intimate mixture is opposed to the spatial mixture and independent from the ratio (1:1 in this model). It means showing a close union or combination of particles or elements. In another model, the intimate mixture of 4:6 was suggested. The problem is that wiki does not appear to have an entry on the intimate mixture so the reader’s confusion is likely. I’d be grateful if you reverted partly your entry by restoring the meaning. Thank you. Eurocommuter (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

weird coincidence: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 6, 2009. Nergaal (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Serendipodous! Indeed, weird timing! I’ve stumbled on a couple of Haumea-related papers this afternoon so I updated some data and added a few lines, after a quite long absence on this wiki. Only later I discovered the star... and got scared of the wrath of the chaps working hard to bring it to this status...Eurocommuter (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Magnetic field

There is some ambiguity here. Magnetic field can mean (in the literature) the internal magnetic field. On the other hand, the magnetic field around any planet and especially Jupiter is generated not only by currents in the interior of the planet, but also by currents in the magnetosphere. In the case of Jupiter, for instance, the contribution from the ring current is pretty substantial. So, I think, it is better to keep this two terms separate. The term magnetic field of Jupiter should refer to the total field around the planet, which is the internal field plus the contributions from magnetospheric currents. Ruslik (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Heliosphere is the cavity created by the solar wind around the Sun. It is filed with the flowing solar coronal plasma (solar wind!). The plasma is magnetized i.e. it carries solar magnetic field. This field is commonly referred to as the interplanetary magnetic field. Ruslik (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You have an e-mail. Ruslik (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, Solar System FAR was closed. However, there appears to be several {{cn}} tags in the article. I also finished Magnetosphere of Saturn article. May I ask you to have a look at it? Ruslik (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Io torus is not a source of any significant magnetic field. I think, it is better to use the word "sources", not components. In reality, there is only one field, which is have a number of sources both internal and external to the planet. Ruslik (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved the description of currents into the structure section and made some other changes. Ruslik (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The azimuthal component of the magnetic field is not the same as the azimuthal current. The latter only produces radial components of the field. The field aligned and radial currents are responsible for azimuthal component of the field. Ruslik (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The hydrogen and helium are in a fluid state, which is not the same as liquid. Distinct liquid phase does not exist if the temperature exceeds the critical temperature (see this table). However all these considerations are not really important, because this gas/ice/rock classification usually refers to the protoplanetary nebula. Ruslik (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What about Magnetosphere of Saturn? Have you looked at it? Ruslik (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Disambigs

Hi, thanks for your work creating dismabig pages, but when you do, please don't forget to place {{Disambig}} on them. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, keep up your work :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

SDO (concurrent edits)

My apologies, due to an interruption I spent some time adding Gladman scheme and did not see your edits. Could you please restore the modifications? The term formal relates to the formally defined criteria. Please feel free to change the name of the section but I believe a single section is preferable to the scattered (mostly historical) refs. These two schemes (DES and Gladman) seem to be the most referred to by the current literature.Eurocommuter (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Bad articles" class

I wish you hadn't reverted your post at WT:GA suggesting a "Bad Artciles" category. I've suggested recently, IIRC at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, that a "Poor" category would be a way of dealing with cruft that would be less contentious and bitey than deleting them. My reasoning is that fan-boys will outnumber deletionists, so deletionism is futila. OTOH by labelling an article "Poor" or wahatever, we give a topic's fans an incentive to improve articles that may have started as cruft (as I suspect most do). --Philcha (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I accept your point about mechanisms to handle addition of cruft to artciles that are already in haf-decent shape - utlimately WP:ANI on a charge of WP:DE. I was think more of the stuff that is discussed at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, where the same deletionist zealots repeatedly press to make the rules more restrictive. --Philcha (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand your "it would have to go through the deletion process (the BA equivalent of a GA review) before consensus is reached." I'm suggesting AFD andother deletion processes should not bother withn articles that are simply poor, but should steal with violations of WP:BLP, [[[WP:COPYVIO]], hoaxes, etc. --Philcha (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OR

So, if an article doesn't reflect your view of the subject, it has no reason to exist? That's an astonishing claim to make. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Solar System objects in hydrostatic equilibrium

Hi, thanks for correcting the mean radius of Earth (and providing a source). If you still have that source at hand, could you check the other planets' mean radii too? I'm afraid there may be similar errors there. --Jmk (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Magnetosphere of Jupiter

Well, it may be time to nominate it. Ruslik_Zero 19:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I nominated it. Ruslik_Zero 18:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pluto

Hey, Serendipodous--when people making the case for Pluto being a major planet cite the scientists who disagree with the IAU's 2006 reclassification of it as a dwarf planet, that isn't a sentimental reason, and I didn't say it was. If that wasn't clear in my edit, then I or someone else could have edited that sentence for clarity. You didn't have to revert the whole thing. Methychroma (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• In response to your message on my talk page: The paragraph I edited concerns public reaction to the change, as indicated by its title. Members of the public (laypeople, as opposed to astronomers) have objected to Pluto's reclassification for sentimental reasons, or because they wish to follow tradition, and then there are those who have cited the positions taken/arguments made publicly by dissenting astronomers to support their positions--for instance, Laurel Kornfeld. You can be a member of the general public (a non-astronomer) who maintains that the IAU should reverse its 2006 decision regarding Pluto and have reasons for that other than sentiment or adherence to tradition. Methychroma (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome!

I ran across that essay because I edited the arts and culture section of the Rambler last semester and the paper had our Christmas party at the house of the woman who wrote it. I think her argument is very plausible; after all, one only need read The Picture of Dorian Gray to realize that what artists say about their work and the message it sends are often very different. (That goes for artists whose work is more than propaganda, anyway.) Always trust the work over its creator, I've learned that repeatedly as a musician myself. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walri (talk • contribs) 19:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Adrian Jacobs

I agree. There doesn't seem to be enough information available on this writer to build his own page. I will redirect it to HP page..
Abhijit Sathe (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Plans for future

On what articles are you going to work next? I will probably finish Titania and then switch to Galilean satellites and Galileo. Ruslik_Zero 07:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Galilean satellites is a low hanging fruit. Besides on 7 January 2010 there will be 400 years since their discovery. Ruslik_Zero 08:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are enough featured articles. Ruslik_Zero 08:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a slight problem

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Exploration of Jupiter/1. Nergaal (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for dealing with the concerns raised. I haven't really had any time to deal with wiki nor an energy with such articles. Nergaal (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

To my memory, I have NOT copy-pasted information directly from a journal article (at least not in the last+ year). For the Jupiter article in specific I have only copy-pasted/compiled information from the daughter articles themselves . Whatever plagiarism examples you found are most likely still present in the respective article. Nergaal (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Article traffic stats

Yes, I miss the traffic stats, I think it should possible to get it running again. Or at least I hope it will. Who created it? We should contact them..the raw stats are still there if they are any use to you? here (Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

I can't open the file, if you can. let me know what program to use. Or like I say, let me know who created the traffic checker. regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, I saw your message there...the raw stat are still there..but how to use them? [here]

Looks like its back online. *Article traffic statistics (Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I suppose it is, be happy it is back....enjoy. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

2012 Guy

... you are getting flooded because 2012 is the end of the world ... duh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.151.35 (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Signing

You don't need to type the 4 tildes to sign. They are in the box above the editing box you use to enter talk page comments. I'll use it here, note it adds the 2 dashes. --Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

acknowledgement

thanks for your msg -- & I emailed you. Terry0051 (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)