Talk:Helium planet
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Transition between gas giant planets and terrestrial planets?[edit]
With more mass or originating in a cooler part of the Solar System, Earth would have been capable of holding helium and becoming a "warm Neptune"... and could even maintain the helium that arises from the radioactive decay of long-lived isotopes of thorium and uranium. Helium from such sources escapes the Earth's atmosphere.Pbrower2a (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes these are indeed interesting scenarios. It is currently a hot astrophysical topic, if the gas giants of our Solar System contain a rocky Earth-like core or not. And to know more about the interiors of gas giants is a major motive for new missions to the Outer Solar System. RhinoMind (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- It seems implausible that Helium from radioactive decays alone could create a Helium planet. RhinoMind (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Clutter[edit]
“There are several theoretical ideas for how a helium planet might form.” I changed “theoretical ideas” to “hypotheses”, to remove clutter. Likewise, in “The Gliese 436 b exoplanet is a candidate helium planet” i took out “The” and “exoplanet”; and in “This characteristic contrasts ordinary gas giants such as Jupiter and Saturn...” i changed “characteristic contrasts” to “contrasts with”. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
There are several hypotheses[edit]
@Daß Wölf: please, don’t delete a valid introductory phrase for a section. Here is not a paper encyclopedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- It struck me as redundant, it doesn't actually convey any more information than would changing the title of the main section to "Formation hypotheses" or something similar. Daß Wölf 00:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Picture of hydrogen evaporation[edit]
The picture of hydrogen evaporation seems to have a mistake, the second and third frames are identical and presumably the third one shoukd be different (showing complete loss of hydrogen and carbon in the form of oxides). Olthe3rd1 (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)