PROFILPELAJAR.COM

Text and/or other creative content from this version of template:Earth's location was copied or moved into template:Earth's location in the Universe with this edit on 15 April 2014‎. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Hierarchy

Earth
- Earth-Moon System
  - Terrestrial planets
    - Solar System
      - Solar Neighborhood
        Local Fluff
        Local Bubble
        Orion Arm
        disk of the Milky Way
        Milky Way Galaxy
        Galactic Realm
        Local Group
        Virgo Supercluster
        Laniakea Supercluster
        The Observable universe
        The Universe
        The Multiverse
        The Omniverse
        Eternity/Infinity

Information

Please be careful with this template. Among other things:

Please avoid inventing neologisms such as "Earthspace".
The Local Fluff article in unreferenced, and I have tagged it as such. As far as I know, it is not even a term used in professional astronomy.
Two of the three external links in the Orion Arm article are busted. That means that the SEDS website is the only reference for the Orion Arm article. SEDS is not a reliable reference (and I do not always trust their reference on the Orion Arm, the Atlas of the Universe page, although the Atlas of the Universe page is probably OK for the Orion Arm information).
No serious astronomer is going to discuss anything larger than the Universe. The terms "multiverse" and "omniverse" are more metaphysical than physical concepts.
The term "eternity/infinity" at the end has no real practical meaning for astronomy.

Other comments:

The "Earth-Moon system" is an unnecessary layer.
The "disk of the Milky Way" is an unnecessary layer.
The "region of space affected by the Great Attractor" is probably unnecessary. The Virgo Supercluster is sufficient for large-scale structure.
The "observable universe" is an unnecessary layer.

Dr. Submillimeter 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"No serious astronomer is going to discuss anything larger than the Universe", except that there is serious discussion about things beyond the universe by cosmologists and physicists. Brane-theory with the colliding branes creating recurrant Big Bangs, etc.

"Earthspace" - is used... and I've seen it used for atleast a decade... so it's not really a neologism. (24000 Google hits) It's just a vague term (which is why Earth-Moon system is there). See this NASA link.

I rather think that the observable universe should be something that should be noted, as many people are confused between it and the universe.

"Orion Arm" is a term that non-astronomers have used as a name for the structure. (Or atleast I've seen it in a few works of pop-culture). NASA also uses this term [1] [2] [3]

Earth
- Solar System
  - Milky Way
    - Local Group
      - Virgo Supercluster
        Observable Universe
        Universe

132.205.93.32 02:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am serious when I say that no serious astronomer talks about the "multiverse" and "omniverse". I work among a group of extragalactic astronomers/cosmologists here at Imperial College. Would you like me to show other people in my office the template with "multiverse" and "omniverse"? I guarantee that I will get either strange looks, words of mockery, or outright laughter.

As I indicated above, Orion Arm is probably OK, but the references are less-than-desirable. I would rather see a few professional scientific articles identify the Orion Arm.

I also still think that "Earthspace" and "observable universe" are simply unnecessary layers, although they are technically correct.

Finally, I prefer the shorter version of the template. I still think "observable universe" is an unnecessary layer, but at least this does not interject any unorthodox vocabulary. Dr. Submillimeter 09:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "multiverse" or "omniverse", I just said beyond the universe. Why use these particular terms? Because we have articles here. As I said on the Astronomical Objects wikiproject talk page... I did consider anything beyond Universe as controversial.

Personally, I would still like to have "observable universe" as a part of the template, because people do confuse the two, and it should be made explicit that what is observed is only a portion of the entire universe.

At any rate, my shortened heirarchy above removes everything except Observable Universe. 132.205.45.206 02:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a reasonable compromise. Dr. Submillimeter 11:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a number of articles on the Local Fluff; indeed NASA's planning to launch a probe to study it. [4] Here's a scientific article on it: [5] Also, I think there needs to be some reference to our Solar System's location within the Milky Way; going from one to a hundred billion in one jump seems a bit grandiose. Serendipodous 19:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using the ADS Abstract Service, I did find a number of articles on the "Local Interstellar Cloud" and a few that also use the term "Local Fluff". I prefer the more formal term (which seems to be in more common use in professional astronomy). I have also heard of the term "Local Bubble" and can find papers on it with the ADS Abstract Service, so I am satisfied with leaving that in the template. Interestingly, "Orion Arm" is not commonly used, although it does appear to be a real term. Dr. Submillimeter 10:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that we shouldn't include "The Universe" as anything beyond the Known Universe is simply unknown to us. In science anything we can not observe for all intents and purposes does not exist. Child of Albion 21:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I’d say that, if we accept Universe, we should also accept Multiverse, Omniverse and Eternity/Infinity, since they are all speculative things. Or else, we remove Universe (leaving Observable universe which, by its very name, is proof enough that there is a difference with “complete” universe). Either way, we have a coherent classification. I recognize some rationale besed on others ideas (like “popularity”) would justify the present classification.
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 11:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]