stellar system, planetary system, solar system

[parallaxicality]

I've been engaged in a long-term low-level argument with a rather entrenched individual who is convinced that "stellar system" should be used when describing a star and its planets. I, however, was under the impression that "stellar system" applied only to systems of multiple stars, and that "other solar systems" were generically called "planetary systems." Is there an agreed-on correct term?

I'd very much like the advice of a professional astronomer, and, if possible, a link to an officially endorsed webpage to clear this infernal matter up. Thanks for your help.

[Champion_Munch]

I'm not professional, but wiki says:

A star system or stellar system is a system comprised of a star or group of stars, with possibly planetary systems of smaller bodies (such as planets or asteroids), in close gravitational association. The solar system is, properly, the star system comprised of our Sun and other bodies (like Earth) in orbit around it.

A planetary system consists of the various non-stellar objects orbiting a star such as planets, moons, asteroids, meteoroids, comets, and cosmic dust. Collectively, one or more stars and their planetary systems form a star system. Our own planetary system, which contains Earth, together with the Sun comprise a unique star system: the solar system.

A little confusing but it looks like either term can be used.

with regards

[parallaxicality]

That's the problem. The guy I'm arguing with is the guy who wrote those wiki articles.

[Champion_Munch]

I should have read your post more carefully:

officially endorsed webpage

Good luck.

with regards

[Ara Pacis]

Sol noun ((Roman mythology) ancient Roman god; personification of the sun; counterpart of Greek Helios)

star noun ((astronomy) a celestial body of hot gases that radiates energy derived from thermonuclear reactions in the interior)
adjective (indicating the most important performer or role)

stellar adjective (being or relating to or resembling or emanating from stars), see also the NASA Glossary- Of or pertaining to stars.

Perhaps stellar is preferred because it is specifically an adjective to modify the noun, system while implying an astronomy meaning. However, star can be used as an adjective as well, so it would be grammatically correct, but the meaning would be more at coordinate than astronomy. Sol, on the other hand, is a proper noun and should not be used except when referring to the system of the star specifically named Sol, which earth orbits.

I never really thought about it before, but I'd have to agree with your rival on this. However, I don't know if multiple stars in a system would change the meanings.

[Tobin Dax]

I use "stellar system" to encompass a star and the objects gravitationally bound to it. I think it's proper since we use the term "solar system" in such a definition for our own sun. Plus, stellar system is all-purpose. If it's a multiple star system, or if it contains planets/dust/disk debris, it's still a system of material around a star. Planetary system slips in sometimes in reference to another star with planets around it, and I'll say "another solar system" or the like if that will convey my meaning better to my audience. However, IMO, stellar system is all-purpose and therefore the best and most useful.


I guess I should have said this, too: you need something to describe multiple-star systems, and if "planetary system" describes one with planets, why wouldn't "stellar system" be a general use form for binary, trinary, etc., systems?
Ask this guy what he wants to call multiple-star systems.

[Ara Pacis]

For some reason I thought planetary system referred to a planet-with-satellites system, such as Jupiter. Or should that be called a satellite system?

[George]

I stumbled into something related regarding planetary nebulae . [See "Stage 9".]

The envelope of the star becomes finally a transparent and extensive shell of atoms; this shell can only be seen from the side from very long distances, thus giving the surroundings of the star a peculiar appearance of a luminous ring. Once upon a time, astronomers believed those rings were the first stage of formation of planetary systems; because of that the rings were called "planetary nebulae".

Just thought you might find it intersting.

[Doodler]

Hmm...I've always heard the term star system used for the generic reference to a star and its associated detrius, whether that was planets, co-orbital stars or whatever. Solar System as a proper name for this particular star system.

Planetary system was more a planet and its associated junk in orbit around it.

That's just the usages I'm familiar with.

[Argos]

Stellar System (star + everything around it) as a "latu sensu" definition sounds right. The Solar System would be a special kind of Stellar System. For gravitationally bound stars there would be no problem with 'Double', 'Triple Stellar System'. For other configurations 'Group' or 'Cluster' would do.

[Tobin Dax]

For gravitationally bound stars there would be no problem with 'Double', 'Triple Stellar System'.

"Binary [Star] System" or "Trinary ..." work just as well, there, too.

[George]

"Binary [Star] System" or "Trinary ..." work just as well, there, too.

I would think yours would be more accurate, because "double" can also mean visual double, whereas binary means a gravitational double?

[Argos]

My bad. Both of you are right.

[pumpkinpie]

I stumbled into something related regarding planetary nebulae . [See "Stage 9".]

The envelope of the star becomes finally a transparent and extensive shell of atoms; this shell can only be seen from the side from very long distances, thus giving the surroundings of the star a peculiar appearance of a luminous ring. Once upon a time, astronomers believed those rings were the first stage of formation of planetary systems; because of that the rings were called "planetary nebulae".

Just thought you might find it intersting.

Hmmmm. I had never read that explanation. PNs were first observed with telescopes in the 1700's. They looked like bluish-green disks, much like Uranus and Neptune looked. Hence "planetary." But the observers also noticed a nebulous quality to them. Hence "nebula." The observers didn't have very high-resolution telescopes, I wouldn't imagine they would be able to make out the rings at that point.

[hhEb09'1]

A little confusing but it looks like either term can be used.

Actually, if you read those definitions closely, I think that they're saying that a planetary system does not include the star--it says "Our own planetary system, which contains Earth, together with the Sun comprise a unique star system"

I don't really see the need for the distinction though

[George]

Hmmmm. I had never read that explanation. PNs were first observed with telescopes in the 1700's. They looked like bluish-green disks, much like Uranus and Neptune looked. Hence "planetary." But the observers also noticed a nebulous quality to them. Hence "nebula." The observers didn't have very high-resolution telescopes, I wouldn't imagine they would be able to make out the rings at that point.

I did a little more thrashing in google, and you seem to be correct.

I suspect W. Herschel may have originated the name .

A Planetary Nebula is a glowing gaseous shell thrown off by a star during the latter stages of its evolution. Eighteenth century astronomer William Herschel named this type of object a 'Planetary Nebula' because the faint green tint and round shape reminded him of his recent discovery, the planet Uranus.

At least he didn't name them Uranusums Nebula. [He even he had a better name for Uranus (but we won't go there ).]