Timeline for Can the Solar System be assumed a single body concentrated in the Sun?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://space.stackexchange.com/ with https://space.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Sep 12, 2013 at 16:40 | vote | accept | Everyone | ||
| Sep 11, 2013 at 2:41 | comment | added | Everyone | @BenCrowell: The other billions of stars didn't even occur to me .... Yet the Galactic Hole may be construed to form the hub for the spiral arms - potentially exerting influence as far out as we are. But that may just be me unwilling to give up my idea (+: /me contemplates genuflection | |
| Sep 11, 2013 at 2:30 | history | edited | Everyone | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Rendered unambiguous
|
| Sep 10, 2013 at 21:59 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | The general answer to the title question is "To zeroth order, yes. How sensitive are you to corrections?". But that just expresses the tendency of physicists to see everything as a perturbitive expansion. | |
| Sep 10, 2013 at 19:40 | comment | added | user4552 | If I'm understanding the space.SE discussion correctly, this is about whether the system consisting of Sagittarius A* and our sun has Lagrange points at various places in the galaxy. In that case, the issue isn't the fact that our solar system is a compound object, it's that there are billions of other stars in the galaxy. | |
| Sep 10, 2013 at 18:44 | answer | added | anna v | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 10, 2013 at 18:25 | history | edited | Everyone | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Formatted to place emphasis, and provided explicit reference to context
|
| Sep 10, 2013 at 18:05 | history | asked | Everyone | CC BY-SA 3.0 |