Talk:Planetary nebula - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arianewiki1 (talk | contribs) at 01:34, 20 March 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:34, 20 March 2019 by Arianewiki1 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Planetary nebula is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 31, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 16, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
November 25, 2009	Featured article review	Kept
December 16, 2014	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Top‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Physics Mid‑importance

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

Template:WP1.0

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Audrey.vee, Gmusto11 (article contribs).

Archives

Index 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 8 sections are present.

Origin of name

There is a request to discuss the origin of the name planetary referring to this type of nebula. Herschel referred to '...the nebulae I have called Planetary...' in Phil. Trans, vol 79, p 225 (1789). The whole work can be read here: http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/79/212.full.pdf+html.Robin Scagell (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It is dubious because Antoine Darquier of Toulouse (1718-1802) used the term in January 1779 when he described the ring nebula in his notes "...a very dim but perfectly outlined; it is as large as Jupiter and resembles a fading planet." The usage is likely English bias against the French. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

At 23:07 hours on the 28th of January your edit summary was: "Who really first coined the term 'planetary nebula still remains a matter of contention. What about Antoine Darquier de Pellepoix of Toulouse? Herschel only found they were gaseous. Origin is certainly French. Talkpage please". This is what about Antoine Darquier de Pellepoix of Toulouse: He has usually been credited with the discovery of the Ring Nebula in 1779. That is enough credit for him. He never claimed to have coined the phrase, planetary nebula, and no editor has given a quotation of him using the phrase. If the addition to the article were made claiming that Antoine Darquier de Pellepoix of Toulouse coined the phrase without a quote in support, that addition would need to be removed as original research. If there is no such quote of dear Antoine using the phrase, there is no point in further discussion, but that does not stop me from discussing. The English are notorious for stealing words from any language with which they come into contact. Far from being biased against the French, English speaking Americans are more prone to use innovations that are given Frenchy sounding names like french fries, french bread and champaign. So unless there is a quote to support that that astronomer from Toulouse used the phrase, planetary nebula or planetary nebulae in the plural, the current text in the article in this regard should be maintained the same. - Fartherred (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"Herschel only found they were gaseous." Incorrect. He thought they were unresolved stars, actually. (Only NGC 1514 may have suggested otherwise.) As for "no editor has given a quotation of him using the phrase." There are many sources for this quote (three given). The problem is there is known to be some correspondence between Herschel and Darquier, with the discovered quote coming after Herschel, even though it was written before Herschel. The point is the round shapes of these nebulae looked similar in size to the planets, hence the name. It is far from WP:NOR. ~~Also Messier found the Ring Nebula first not Darquier.~~ Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A citation supporting giving credit for coining the phrase is Hoskin, M. (2014) "William Herschel and the Planetary Nebulae". Journal for the History of Astronomy 45(2), pp. 209–225. which I do not know how to access and likely lack permission to access. This text from the article: "Herschel assigned these to Class IV of his catalogue of 'nebulae', eventually listing 78 'planetary nebulae'" is supported by p. 16 in Mullaney, James (2007). The Herschel Objects and How to Observe Them. Astronomers' Observing. It quotes Herschel using the phrase and applying the phrase to any thing that looked to him like a dim nebulous planet, including many galaxies. Herschel coined the term and later the use of it was refined to today's understanding of planetary nebulae.

Antoine Darquier de Pellepoix of Toulouse found the Ring Nebula independently after Messier found it and Antoine Darquier de Pellepoix of Toulouseand has usually been credited with the discovery of the Ring Nebula (exactly as I wrote above) in spite of his not finding it first. - Fartherred (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

In 1785, Herschel said of the Ring nebula: "a nebula that has a concentric dark spot in the middle and is probably a ring of stars."
As for this Darquier quote, a Google search confirms this as true. Jones "Messier's Nebulae and Star Clusters" pg.25, says this here. "...so it seems that Herschel might merely have adopted this description for the whole class." Evidence enough to support this claim.
Messier found M57 on 31st January 1779, while Darquier said January 1779 (deduced as earlier). He found it while both he and Messier was both looking at (the same) passing comet. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, the Ring Nebula and who found which Messier object first is a side point. I hope you agree with the quote of Herschel using the phrase "planetary nebulae". - Fartherred (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Herschel's invention and explanation of the term

In the opening section of the article, the mention of Darquier is interesting but not relevant. The prominence given to Darquier is misleading and the passage should be removed, or shortened and moved. Three sources are cited for the Darquier quotation; it is actually found in Messier's "Catalogue des Nébuleuses & des amas d'Étoiles" in the Connoissance des Temps (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-NnBsQU7QdgC&pg=PA259). Messier remarks on his entry number 57:

M. Messier a rapporté cet amas de lumiere sur la carte de la comète de 1779. M. Darquier, a Toulouse, découvrit cette nébuleuse, en observant la même comète, et il rapporte: “Nébuleuse entre gamma & beta de la Lyre; elle est fort terne, mais parfaitement terminée; elle est grosse comme Jupiter et ressemble à une planète qui s’éteindroit.”

There is no evidence that Darquier's remark (or Messier 57 itself) influenced the subsequent introduction of the term "planetary nebula" by William Herschel who explained the name in his paper, “On the Construction of the Heavens” At the time he believed that all nebulae consisted of unresolved stars, glowing in the manner of the Milky Way. He did not consider Messier 57 planetary; his prototypes for the class were NGC 7009 (the very first DSO he discovered, nicknamed the Saturn Nebula by Rosse in the 1840s) and NGC 7662 (nicknamed the “Blue Snowball” in the 1960s). Here are extracts from Herschel’s paper:

A Perforated Nebula, or Ring of Stars. Among the curiosities of the heavens should be placed a nebula, that has a regular, concentric, dark spot in the middle, and is probably a Ring of stars. It is of an oval shape... The light is of the resolvable kind, and in the northern side three very faint stars may be seen, as also one or two in the southern part... It is the 57th of the Connoissance des Temps. Fig. 5 is a representation of it.
Planetary Nebulae. I shall conclude this paper with an account of a few heavenly bodies, that from their singular appearance leave me almost in doubt where to class them. The first ... I have examined... with the powers of 71, 227, 278, 460, and 932; and it follows the laws of magnifying, so that its body is no illusion of light. It is a little oval, and in the 7-feet reflector pretty well defined, but not sharp on the edges. In the 20-feet, of 18.7 inch aperture, it is much better defined, and has much of a planetary appearance, being all over of an uniform brightness, in which it differs from nebulae: its light seems however to be of the starry nature, which suffers not nearly so much as the planetary disks are known to do, when much magnified. The second of these bodies ... has a round, bright, pretty well defined planetary disk of about 12" diameter, and is a little elliptical... . The planetary appearance of the two first is so remarkable, that we can hardly suppose them to be nebulae; their light is so uniform, as well as vivid, the diameters so small and well defined, as to make it almost improbable they should belong to that species of bodies. On the other hand, the effect of different powers seems to be much against their light's being of a planetary nature, since it preserves its brightness nearly in the same manner as the stars do in similar trials. If we would suppose them to be single stars with large diameters we shall find it difficult to account for their not being brighter; unless we should admit that the intrinsic light of some stars may be very much inferior to that of the generality, which however can hardly be imagined to extend to such a degree. We might suspect them to be comets about their aphelion, if the brightness as well as magnitude of the diameters did not oppose this idea ; so that after all, we can hardly find any hypothesis so probable as that of their being Nebulae; but then they must consist of stars that are compressed and accumulated in the highest degree. If it were not perhaps too hazardous to pursue a former surmise of a renewal in what I figuratively called the Laboratories of the universe, the stars forming these extraordinary nebulae, by some decay or waste of nature, being no longer fit for their former purposes, and having their projectile forces, if any such they had, retarded in each others' atmosphere, may rush at last together, and either in succession, or by one general tremendous shock, unite into a new body. Perhaps the extraordinary and sudden blaze of a new star in Cassiopea's chair, in 1572, might possibly be of such a nature. But lest I should be led too far from the path of observation, to which I am resolved to limit myself, I shall only point out a considerable use that may be made of these curious bodies. If a little attention to them should prove that, having no annual parallax, they belong most probably to the class of nebulae, they may then be expected to keep their situation better than any one of the stars belonging to our system, on account of their being probably at a very great distance. Now to have a fixed point somewhere in the heavens, to which the motions of the rest may be referred, is certainly of considerable consequence in Astronomy; and both these bodies are bright and small enough to answer that end.

In 1790 he discovered NGC 1514 (a planetary nebula in the modern sense) and saw it as a "star with atmosphere". He then revised his theory, believing that some nebulae consisted of luminous fluid (possibly of planet-forming kind) rather than unresolved starlight. Many of the objects he classed as "planetary nebulae" (his Class IV) are really galaxies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Crumey (talk • contribs)

Nope: Not true. Darquier, A. (1777) comments appear in his notebook, being Reference 3 in the article. This has been discussed several times on this Talkpage. It is evidence of perpetuated bias that has been historically been mostly made by English writers. Sure Herschel tried to explain the phenomena of planetary nebulae, but the usage of the term predates this. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Categories: