correct name steller planitary systems?

[netscape_6]

Sometimes when I hear (mabye read) talk of planitary systems other then our own they are refered to as “solar systems” how ever Sol (the root word of Solar discussed in this thread) refers, in Latin, to our sun. Our planitary system would seem to be the only Solar system. to reinforce this point planets out side our planitary system are refered to as extrasolar planets, in the same fashion as nonearth orginating life is refered to as extra terristial.
Is my reasoning flawed? or is the use of solar system incorrect for planitary systems other then our own? maybe a third possibility? although i have no idea what that would be.

[Marley23]

The idea is that all of those systems are centered around a sun. Hence, solar system.

[brianmelendez]

The Latin sol means “sun” which, as in English, can be a common noun or a proper noun. The Sun, or Latin Sol, is the proper noun naming the particular sun that our planet Earth orbits–which is therefore both a sun and the Sun.

But any other star can also be a sun–which may have its own name but is still, generically speaking, a sun. Just as the Earth orbits the Sun, our sun, the stars that other planets orbit are those planets’ suns. And just as our planetary system is the Solar System (proper noun, capitalized), another planet’s system is its solar system (common noun, uncapitalized).

[scr4]

I don’t think it’s correct to refer to other planetary systems as “solar systems” even with a lower case s. Planets orbiting other stars are called “extrasolar planets”, implying that “solar” refers to our star system alone. I think I’ve seen “star system” and “<star name> system” used.

[brianmelendez]

*Originally posted by scr4 *
**I don’t think it’s correct to refer to other planetary systems as “solar systems” even with a lower case s. Planets orbiting other stars are called “extrasolar planets”, implying that “solar” refers to our star system alone. I think I’ve seen “star system” and “<star name> system” used. **

“Extrasolar” depends on your point of view. From Earth, in the Solar System, a planet outside the Solar System is indeed “extrasolar.” From another system, though, Earth would be the extrasolar planet. Since all known human observation to date has been made from the Solar System, planets in other star systems are usually called “extrasolar,” but their systems are still other solar systems. A “star system” is simply another name for a solar system outside the Solar System.

For example (all quoted emphases added):

European and U.S. astronomers Thursday announced the discovery of two solar systems with planets in orbits similar to our own, a finding that boosts the odds that they harbor extraterrestrial life.

In all, astronomers announced they had found 27 previously unknown planets, bringing the number of known planets orbiting nearby stars to more than 100.

. . . .

The European team also reports on a different solar system with a planet that resembles Jupiter in size and its circular orbit.

Astrobiologists say solar systems whose outlying gas giants follow near-circular orbits might be more likely to have planets with life. In theory, the Jupiter-like objects would screen smaller, Earth-like planets closer in to their star from comet impacts, as Jupiter apparently has done over the history of our own solar system. Plus, a planet with a circular orbit has less chance of disturbing the orbital stability of other planets.

Dan Vergano, “Star systems similar to ours found,” USA Today, 13 June 2002.

There’s another solar system like ours, and it’s very close by.

Noah Schachtman, “Found: Solar System Like Our Own,” Wired News, 13 June 2002.

Now the reality of synchronous planetary orbits has turned up in a solar system unknown to Kepler – or to anyone else – until recently.

Phillip F. Schewe, James Riordon, and Ben Stein, “Synchronous Planetary Orbits Found In New Solar System,” Physics News, 12 Jan. 2001.

A chill went up her spine, followed by a burst of pleasure at the “gorgeous” data scrolling across her screen. There weren’t two planets orbiting Upsilon Andromedae after all, she realized. There were three.

If Fischer was elated, though, Marcy was “frightened”; the discovery of a new solar system with multiple planets, like our own, was so unexpected that he worried people “might think we’re lunatics.” . . . . It was, after all, only four years ago that the only planets known to orbit a normal star were the nine in Earth’s solar system. (A planetary system surrounding a neutron star—which emits X-rays rather than visible light—was found in 1992.) Since 1995 about 20 extrasolar planets have been discovered. But all have been solitary, raising the question of whether our nine-planet system is somehow unique. The discovery of Upsilon Andromadae’s three planets, says Fischer, “implies that our Milky Way is teeming with planetary systems.”

. . . .

And the existence of other multiplanet solar systems increases the likelihood of finding life—in particular, life that has been around long enough to evolve some complexity. As Marcy’s colleague R. Paul Butler points out, our very own existence owes a lot to other planets in our solar system, especially Jupiter. A single Earth-sized planet would be a sitting duck for meteors, comets and other space junk that can wipe out whole ecosystems in a flash—as the dinosaurs discovered 70 million years ago. But the immense gravity of Jupiter (and to a lesser extent the other giant outer planets) sweeps the neighboring skies almost clear of dangerous debris, like a celestial vacuum cleaner, so that “we hardly ever get pelted by anything large anymore.” Radio astronomer Alex Wolszczan, who discovered the first neutron-star solar system in 1992, calls the Upsilon findings “historic,” a confirmation that the variety of planetary systems is more impressive than anyone could have imagined. “Sooner or later,” he adds, “we’ll start to find other systems like our own. There’s no logical reason why we should be unique.”

Patricia King and Thomas Hayden, “Dawn of a New Solar System,” Newsweek, 26 Apr. 1999.

While the new solar system does not appear hospitable to life, the discovery “implies that planets can form more easily than we ever imagined, and that our Milky Way is teeming with planetary systems,” said astronomer Debra Fischer of San Francisco State University, a member of one discovery team.

. . . .

“We are witnessing, I think, the emergence of a new era of human exploration,” Marcy said. The newfound solar system, following a trend set by the single planets detected around sunlike stars in recent years, exhibits orbital oddities and other unexpected properties that raise “profound questions” about where we fit in, he said, and whether our solar system may be “the result of some cosmic quirk of nature.”

Kathy Sawyer, “Astronomers Find New Solar System,” The Washington Post, 16 Apr. 1999, A1.

Astronomers said Thursday they had discovered the first solar system with multiple planets outside our own, with three massive planets orbiting a sun-like star.

CNN, “Astronomers discover new solar system,” 15 Apr. 1999.

The announcement Thursday that scientists at San Francisco State University had discovered a new solar system very much like our own might hold the answer. Someday.

“We scientists don’t think about these things from day to day,” said Debra Fischer, a member of the SFSU team. “But long vision for us is that we hope to find Earth-like planets around other stars and find them in ‘habitable zones,’ which would mean that they may support life.”

The San Franciscans, helped by astronomers from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, found strong evidence of three planets revolving around a star called Upsilon Andromedae. What that suggests is that the Milky Way teems with similar solar systems, increasing the likelihood of Earth-like planets capable of supporting life.

“We don’t spend our time ‘out there,’ thinking about this,” Fischer said. “But I do believe the next generation of research will reveal – in one to two decades – Earth-like planets.”

The Upsilon Andromedae solar system is the “first kin” to our own ever found, Fischer said. “It suggests that planets are formed much more easily than we originally imagined. And that the Milky Way, which has 200 billion stars, may be filled with other solar systems like this, and ours.”

“New Solar System Discovered,” Wired News, 15 Apr. 1999.

[Achernar]

Wow… okay. Well, I too think it’s correct to call them solar systems, but I also don’t think there’s a solid rule for when you can use the word “solar”. When scientists talk about solar neutrinos or solar abundances, for instance, there’s no ambiguity; they’re talking about our star. So, the argument in the OP is not valid - “solar” refers to either the Sun or a star depending on the context. Usually we use “stellar” for other stars, but “stellar system” just never caught on.

[brianmelendez]

*Originally posted by Achernar *
**Wow… okay. Well, I too think it’s correct to call them solar systems, but I also don’t think there’s a solid rule for when you can use the word “solar”. When scientists talk about solar neutrinos or solar abundances, for instance, there’s no ambiguity; they’re talking about our star. So, the argument in the OP is not valid - “solar” refers to either the Sun or a star depending on the context. Usually we use “stellar” for other stars, but “stellar system” just never caught on. **

You’re right, Achernar, there is no “solid rule.” In fact, all the commonly used terms for the system of planets orbiting another star are ambiguous in some way. “Solar system” is ambiguous for the reasons that this thread has already illustrated: it usually refers to our solar system, but not always (and I assume that the term “extrasolar planet” was coined at least partly in order to avoid this ambiguity). A “star system” or “stellar system” is ambiguous because it can refer to one star’s system, or to a cluster of stars that are gravitationally connected, or to a system of stars that are not necessarily orbiting together: for example, the Pleiades are a star system, loosely defined. Likewise, a “planetary system” can refer to a planet and its satellites, or to a system of planets.

[Mangetout]

I think what is probably most important here is that the audience is able to fully comprehend the statemernt being made; clearly the definition of the term ‘solar’ is somewhat fuzzy (if our interstellar probe is powered by photovoltaic cells, will it be wrong to call them solar panels?) - if the audience is going to be perplexed by ‘stellar planetary systems other than our own’, then that would seem a compelling reason to call them ‘other solar systems’, rather than lose focus on the primary thrust of the statement.