Talk:Moon: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Moon/Archive 15) (bot |
iTS GOT NO FREINDS |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
ITS MADE FROM CHEESE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|||
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|||
{{American English}} |
|||
{{Article history |
|||
|action1=PR |
|||
|action1date=17:54, 8 July 2006 |
|||
|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Moon/archive1 |
|||
|action1result=reviewed |
|||
|action1oldid=62727336 |
|||
|action2=FTC |
|||
|action2date=22:45, 15 October 2006 |
|||
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Solar System/archive1 |
|||
|action2result=promoted |
|||
|action2oldid=81663997 |
|||
|action3=GAN |
|||
|action3date=00:04, 2 January 2007 |
|||
|action3result=listed |
|||
|action3oldid=97825850 |
|||
|action4=PR |
|||
|action4date=03:42, 14 January 2007 |
|||
|action4link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Moon/archive2 |
|||
|action4result=reviewed |
|||
|action4oldid=100501832 |
|||
|action5=FAC |
|||
|action5date=03:22, 30 April 2007 |
|||
|action5link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moon |
|||
|action5result=promoted |
|||
|action5oldid=122013916 |
|||
|action6=FAR |
|||
|action6date=23:40, 18 May 2010 |
|||
|action6link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Moon/archive1 |
|||
|action6result=kept |
|||
|action6oldid=362557416 |
|||
|maindate=August 28, 2007 |
|||
|ftname=Solar System |
|||
|currentstatus=FA |
|||
}} |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|||
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=FA|category=Natsci|core=yes|VA=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Moon|class=FA|importance=Top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Solar System|class=FA|importance=Top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Astronomy|class=FA|importance=Top|object=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|class=FA|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Russia|class=FA|importance=mid|sci=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject United States|class=FA|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{ITN talk|19 March|2011}} |
|||
{{Vital article|topic= Science |level=3|class=FA}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 512K |
|||
|counter = 15 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|||
|algo = old(60d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:Moon/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months }} |
|||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|||
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|||
}} |
|||
== Is the orbital period correct? == |
|||
The article states the Moon's sidereal period is 27.321582 days but googling this number along with the synodic period shows other sources quoting the sidereal period as roughly 27.321661 days and taking 27.321582 days as the tropical period. At least a reference should be added to back it up. [[User:JensPetersen|JensPetersen]] ([[User talk:JensPetersen|talk]]) 10:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, I think you've spotted an error here. Many websites do quote 27.321582 days, but our article [[Lunar month]] makes the distinction between the two. Which figure is more appropriate, or should we quote both? [[User:Dbfirs|''<font face="verdana"><font color="blue">D</font><font color="#00ccff">b</font><font color="#44ffcc">f</font><font color="66ff66">i</font><font color="44ee44">r</font><font color="44aa44">s</font></font>'']] 11:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
(Sorry there is actually a reference: through a journal paywall.) |
|||
I think Sidereal is most common for "Orbit Period", but maybe best to confirm with the template owner? Alternatively possibly 27.322 days is good enough (it would cover both). The Lunar Month article is nice: seems the Synodic period is a mean. [[User:JensPetersen|JensPetersen]] ([[User talk:JensPetersen|talk]]) 15:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
It might be nice to add a link to [Lunar month] too. [[User:JensPetersen|JensPetersen]] ([[User talk:JensPetersen|talk]]) 15:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Actually the Orbital Period link is clear that in Astronomy the default meaning is the siderial period (ie wrt the stars), so it should be changed to 27.321661 d. [[User:JensPetersen|JensPetersen]] ([[User talk:JensPetersen|talk]]) 15:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:I've made that change. [http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/MarcEpstein.shtml Here] is another ref if anyone thinks we need it. [[User:Dbfirs|''<font face="verdana"><font color="blue">D</font><font color="#00ccff">b</font><font color="#44ffcc">f</font><font color="66ff66">i</font><font color="44ee44">r</font><font color="44aa44">s</font></font>'']] 17:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Effect on rain == |
|||
Headline: [http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/01/465151496/scientists-say-the-moon-really-does-impact-rainfall-on-earth Scientists Say The Moon Really Does Impact Rainfall On Earth]. But you know, [[Wikipedia:Qualify evidence|single study syndrome]]... -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 05:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== In the leap years 1801-2500 February has three phases instead of four phases of the Moon, or a phase is just on leap day. == |
|||
In the leap years 1801-2500 February has three phases instead of four phases of the Moon, or a phase is just on leap day. |
|||
Source http://astropixels.com/ephemeris/phasescat/phasescat.html |
|||
1820 FM on leap day |
|||
1824 NM on leap day |
|||
1856 LQ on leap day |
|||
1860 FQ on leap day |
|||
(1900 NM on 1 March because 1900 is not a leap year!) |
|||
------------------------------ |
|||
1936 FQ on leap day |
|||
1940 no LQ |
|||
1972 FM on leap day |
|||
1976 NM on leap day |
|||
2008 LQ on leap day |
|||
2012 no FQ |
|||
2048 FM on leap day |
|||
2052 no NM |
|||
2088 FQ on leap day |
|||
2092 no LQ |
|||
------------------------------- |
|||
2124 FM on leap day |
|||
2128 no NM |
|||
2164 FQ on leap day |
|||
2168 no LQ |
|||
2196 NM on leap day |
|||
------------------------------ |
|||
2228 LQ on leap day |
|||
2232 no FQ |
|||
2268 FM on leap day |
|||
2272 NM on leap day |
|||
------------------------------ |
|||
2304 LQ on leap day |
|||
2308 FQ on leap day |
|||
2312 no LQ |
|||
2344 FM on leap day |
|||
2348 no NM |
|||
2380 LQ on leap day |
|||
2384 no FQ |
|||
2416 NM on leap day |
|||
2420 FM on leap day |
|||
2424 no NM |
|||
2456 LQ on leap day |
|||
2460 FQ on leap day |
|||
(2500 NM on 1 March because 2500 is not a leap year!) |
|||
You can easily see that there are pairs or even trios after each about 40 years! And NM/FM and FQ/LQ are alternately! <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.245.24.147|84.245.24.147]] ([[User talk:84.245.24.147|talk]]) 14:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Apparent size match == |
|||
The sentence "This matching of apparent visual size is a coincidence." in the third paragraph of the article needs a [citation needed] tag. A more appropriate wording would either stat it ''seems'' to be a coincidence, or literally that no explanation has been found for the match. It would be very reasonable to at least presume it is not a coincidence. [[Special:Contributions/192.0.228.3|192.0.228.3]] ([[User talk:192.0.228.3|talk]]) 02:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)William from Canada |
|||
:There is absolutely no physical reason that could make this ''not'' a coincidence. Why this is a coincidence is actually described in the body of the article, where it is properly sourced. --[[User:JorisvS|JorisvS]] ([[User talk:JorisvS|talk]]) 10:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::That is implying you (we) know absolutely all physics. In fact it could very well be caused by the complex relation between Sun and Earth or be related to lighting and shadowing. It is called an apparent coincidence only because it cannot be explained yet. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/206.47.187.114|206.47.187.114]] ([[User talk:206.47.187.114|talk]]) 14:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:::We know far enough to be able to know this. Just because certain details are not always fully understood does not mean that such basics aren't. Lighting and shadowing certainly cannot physically place the Moon at the necessary distance from Earth for it to have the same apparent size. --[[User:JorisvS|JorisvS]] ([[User talk:JorisvS|talk]]) 16:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::The distance is constantly changing, of course. In the past, the moon looked bigger, and in the future the sun will look bigger. Rather than saying that the match is a coincidence, we could emphasise the fact that the match is only for a while. I suppose it's just possible that life developed only because of a particular proximity of the moon in the past, and therefore our observation of a match in size millions of years later would not be entirely coincidence, but I'm stretching theory a bit, and I've no refs for this. [[User:Dbfirs|''<font face="verdana"><font color="blue">D</font><font color="#00ccff">b</font><font color="#44ffcc">f</font><font color="66ff66">i</font><font color="44ee44">r</font><font color="44aa44">s</font></font>'']] 21:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Good point, there ''could'' be an [[anthropic principle]] underlying this, whether it's likely or not doesn't matter. It's not right to call it a coincidence without a proper source in the subsection 'Eclipses'. [[User:Gap9551|Gap9551]] ([[User talk:Gap9551|talk]]) 21:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The words "coincidence" and "coincidentally" don't really add anything to the article, so I've removed them. I understand why they were there, but, if they cause controversy, then they are better omitted. The surrounding text explains sufficiently that the phenomenon occurs only in our current aeon. [[User:Dbfirs|''<font face="verdana"><font color="blue">D</font><font color="#00ccff">b</font><font color="#44ffcc">f</font><font color="66ff66">i</font><font color="44ee44">r</font><font color="44aa44">s</font></font>'']] 23:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Thank you for pointing out the anthropic principle Gap9551, I indeed was thinking about such implications but lacked the vocabulary. [[Special:Contributions/192.0.228.3|192.0.228.3]] ([[User talk:192.0.228.3|talk]]) 00:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)William from Canada |
|||
== First line of article is incorrect == |
|||
Article reads "The Moon (in Greek: σελήνη Selene, in Latin: Luna) is Earth's only natural satellite" but this is not true. |
|||
Perhaps it should read, "The Moon (in Greek: σελήνη Selene, in Latin: Luna) is Earth's only natural satellite which can be seen easily without a telescope" |
|||
or |
|||
"The Moon (in Greek: σελήνη Selene, in Latin: Luna) is Earth's largest satellite" <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:283:C001:AE39:9C22:AA4B:893C:8C92|2601:283:C001:AE39:9C22:AA4B:893C:8C92]] ([[User talk:2601:283:C001:AE39:9C22:AA4B:893C:8C92|talk]]) 20:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:See the article [[Claimed moons of Earth]]. Although there are other natural objects which have temporarily revolved in very distant orbits around the Earth, the Moon is the only permanent natural satellite of our planet. Extensive searches with telescopes, radar, etc. have failed to find any others. [[User:DOwenWilliams|DOwenWilliams]] ([[User talk:DOwenWilliams|talk]]) 21:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 11:27, 17 March 2016
ITS MADE FROM CHEESE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!