Talk:Moon/Archive 6

Moon The Only Natural Satellite!

Cruithne, discovered in 1986, is another natural satellite and is a temporary moon of the earth which may become a permanent moon. So to say that the moon is the only natural satellite of the earth is false, especially since scientists believe there are more temporary moons than just Cruithne. I haven't changed the article in reference to this, but it does need to be changed.

Here is a quote from Space.com (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/second_moon_991029.html):

"Earth has a second moon, of sorts, and could have many others, according to three astronomers who did calculations to describe orbital motions at gravitational balance points in space that temporarily pull asteroids into bizarre orbits near our planet.

The 3-mile-wide (5-km) satellite, which takes 770 years to complete a horseshoe-shaped orbit around Earth, is called Cruithne and will remain in a suspended state around Earth for at least 5,000 years."

There is some debate as to whether it can be classified as a moon, though the term "temporary moon" seems to satisfy everyone. However, it is indeed a natural satellite and is referrenced as such in the quote above.

That could mean satellite of the sun, or it could just be grasping for a term to refer to something that's hard to categorise. Wikipedia has a page on it 3753 Cruithne. Looking at the orbit simulations I wouldn't count it as a satellite of the Earth but that's just me. The type of object is on Wikipedia page Quasi-satellite. CaspianM 14:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

POVdeRursus: The scientists mentioned speak rubbish, by my account - a satellite is a non-star astronomical body orbiting a planet. A moon, by my subjective POV, is a huge satellite. Now to be precize about orbiting a planet, this means (my subjective POV again) that the gravitational force from the planet by far supersedes the gravitational force from the sun as applied upon the satellite. The chaotic and dysfunctional process of the professional astronomers as regards to the definition of planet, clearly demonstrates to us that they're not prepared with the necessary linguistic insight to make definitions about anything - yet. That was not meant to prove anything, except to say that "IMHO Cruithne isn't a satellite to Earth", and maybe we should be a little cautious of listening to how astronomers speak (and besides, I got the chance to make a small revenge to the astronomers for producing crap-definitions, heheehhehee!!!) Rursus 15:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

By your standards, we would not have a Moon. The Sun pulls the Moon harder than we do.Saros136 15:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

By Jove, You're right!

pl	m - mass kg	d - dist from Moon AE	G' = m/d²
Sun	1.9884e30	1	1.9884e30
Earth	5.9742e24	0.00255	9.1875e29

OK, then I've ever thought that the Moon was a little weak in performing it's role - so then we'll demote Moon to being a planet. ;-) Rursus 16:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Are there other co-orbitals, and are the ones listed correct? In the article it says "Three other near-Earth asteroids (NEAs), (54509) 2000 PH5, (85770) 1998 UP1 and 2002 AA29, which exist in orbits similar to Cruithne's, have since been discovered." In a book I have it claims that there are 7 indentified, Cruithne, 2000 PH5, 2000 WN10, 2002 AA29, 2003 YN107 and 2004 GU9. (Strangely the book only names 6?). I don't want to add this info, as I know very little about the subject, and the book is not a serious science reference, so could somebody 'in the know' check these details? 213.48.1.131 19:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Why not change the opening sentence to, "The Moon is the largest of several natural satellites that orbit the Earth". This neither supports or opposes the idea that the Earth has more than one moon. I'd do it myself, but I'm newly registered, and the page is protected, presumably because people keep changing the definition to "The act of flashing one's buttocks to another person or group of persons".

Co-orbitals do not orbit the Earth. Saros136 08:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to make changes to reflect this, however it gets reverted straight back (well within 12 hours) - any reasons why?[[[User:Rufty|Rufty]] 10:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]

Moon News

One of the major benefits of wikipedia over other encyclopedias is the option for being current, and providing news - a place to revisit for updates. One of the most newsworthy items through the centuries has been the eclipses of the sun and moon. This news should be included in this site - based on relevance and interest:

Next Eclipse:

• 28 Aug 2007 - Total Lunar Eclipse

A total lunar eclipse will be visible over the Americas, the Pacific, eastern Asia, and Australasia.

(Saros 128, umbral mag. 1.481, max. eclipse 10:37 UT total: 09:52:00 UT to 11:22:45 UT)

Next Solar Eclipse:

• 11 Sep 2007 - Partial Solar Eclipse

A partial eclipse will be visible over southern South America, and parts of Antarctica.

(Saros 154, umbral mag. 0.749, max. eclipse 12:31 UT partial: 10:25:45 UT to 14:36:33 UT)

Next Total Solar Eclipse:

• 1 Aug 2008 - Total Solar Eclipse

The track -- 237 km wide at maximum -- begins in north Canada, passes near the North Pole, and into northern Russia. It then runs south-east into China. It is visible as a partial eclipse in Britain, though will not be dramatic. The maximum duration is 2 minutes 27 seconds, and the path width at maximum is 237 kilometers.

(Saros 126, umbral mag. 1.039, max. eclipse 10:21 UT total: 09:21:07 UT to 11:21:28 UT)

citations: http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/OH/OH2007.html and for being user friendly http://www.hermit.org/eclipse/

Roo 7 April

Moon and colour

There are occasions where the moon is tinted a red colour due to the light passing through the atmosphere of the earth. However, the article makes no mention of it (it's not a lunar eclipse, as it happened less than two hours ago as I post this) and the moon is not in the Earth's shadow. Does this have a name? i think it should be included in the article.--Tiberius47 11:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Copper Moon" is actually a lunar eclipse where the earth stands between the moon and the sun [1]. The earth's atmosphere causes some light from the sun to bend and fall on the moon which is why the moon is not totally dark and also what gives it the colour. I'll check the article and add missing details. Sophia 21:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he's talking about when the moon is near the horizon and looks red or orange.thx1138 03:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This occurs where the light reflected from the Moon has to pass through more atmospheric dust due to the shallower angle, and this causes the amount whereby the light is refracted to be greater, therefore in turn the light is changed to longer wavelengths. The same happens to the Sun. As for a name, God knows. Let's call it perihorizontal discoloration. Kris 22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Moon in the day

I'm just wondering if there is a technical term for when the moon is visible during the day. - Jigsy 16:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a technical term for the Moon visible at night, or when it's not visible (either obscured or below the horizon)?? I'm not sure. If not, there should be. Kris 22:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The moon in the day is the new moon Roo 7 April

intro

From the intro - 'The related adjective for the Moon is lunar (from the Latin root), but this is not found in combination with words using the prefix seleno- or suffix -selene (from the Greek deity Selene).' this is awkward - needs re-writing but I can't think of a good way to do it... sbandrews 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go:

"The related adjective for the Moon is lunar (from the Latin root), however this is never found in combination. The preferred combining form is -selen- (from the Greek deity Selene), appearing as a prefix (seleno-, as in selenography) or suffix (-selene, as in aposelene)." Kris 09:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

better, thanks, the combination bit is still awkward - its probably not *entirely* obvious that we wouldn't say 'lunar selenography' (or 'lunography'!) but this seems a matter for an article on English grammer rather than an intro on the Moon...

"The related adjective for the Moon is lunar (from the Latin root) and words can also be combined with -selen- (from the Greek deity Selene), appearing as a prefix (seleno-, as in selenography) or suffix (-selene, as in aposelene)." sbandrews 11:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's misleading to say that "lunar" is never found in combination; if the adjective "selenic" applied to the Moon rather than to selenium, it would not be used in combination either. The article needs to distinguish between the related adjective and the related combining form. (In any case, the would-be combining form "luna-" is used in some Moon-related words, such as "lunatic", even though this is not an astronomical term.)

I think sbandrews' suggestion should therefore be modified to:

"The related adjective for the Moon is lunar (from the Latin root). However, the combining form is -selen- ... " — Paul G 10:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Political viewpoint?

There's a section in the exploration that says

What was the next big step depends on the political viewpoint: in the US (and the western world in general) the landing of the first humans on the Moon in 1969 is seen as the culmination of the space race.

As opposed to what? The article doesn't expand on other political viewpoints (for instance the Eastern world viewpoint). It just expands and explains the US (Western world) Viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.70.254 (talk • contribs)

Taken care of. Nick Mks 10:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

FA push

It seems to me that the people who made this article to what it is today (a fine piece of work just short of FA status) have lost their interest a bit after GA was achieved. I'd like to give it a try to give this one the final FA push it needs, starting later today. Any help is welcome of course. Nick Mks 10:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I don't see anything that I personally want to see improved. It also seems that all comments from the previous peer review have been taken care of. Let's just do it and address problems along the way. I'm nominating! Nick Mks 17:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Observations

This section included an image labelled "Moon reddened because of physical phenomena." I couldn't tell just what this phenomena was, and the image caption wasn't telling. Could someone clarify the matter? Until then, I've removed the image from the article. mdf 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we better just drop it. It's not bad, but not a featured picture either... We could also drop the caption alone. I could write an entire paragraph on the atmospheric phenomena causing this, but that's got nothing to do with the Moon. Nick Mks 19:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image quality is not an issue, just the description of what the image is supposedly of. If someone specifically identifies the "physical phenomena", I have no objection to its re-introduction into the article. mdf 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. How about just atmospheric phenomena? Nick Mks 20:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Even that may be a bit vague, but it's certainly better than nothing. The person who knows best is probably the author of the image, User:Valdezlopez. I've left him a note. mdf 20:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Under the heading of Observation is "The highest altitude of the Moon on a day varies and has nearly the same limits as the Sun. It also depends on season and lunar phase with the full moon being highest in winter." is this for the Northern Hemisphere, is this article written for Northern readers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.208.191 (talk • contribs)

This statement is correct for both hemispheres, i.e. full Moon is highest in local winter. Nick Mks 13:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I see the image of the Moon I removed yesterday has returned with a caption "lunar eclipse". Thank you, User:Valdezlopez. However, it pains me to make a few observations here. (a) the geometry of the shadow is wrong for an eclipse of the Moon. Compare the shape of the shadow with the animation currently at Lunar eclipse. (b) The red color of an eclipse is going to be on the inside of the curvature, and there is a noticeable gradient in color and intensity, features apparently absent in this image. And, most alarming of all, there was no lunar eclipse in 2006 May (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lunar_eclipses). mdf 20:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll also note that according to the EXIF data within the image, it was collected at 2006-05-20T03:18:38. At that time, the Moon was almost exactly at third quarter. And indeed, but for the red color, this looks for all the world like a picuture of the Moon at third quarter, not in eclipse. mdf 20:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that it had returned yet. Indeed, the caption is impossible. It think we better remove it, since the last talk at the FA is that there are too many pics. Nick Mks 16:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Selenography

This word is currently moribund, if it was ever used at all in the way Wikipedia is currently using it. As I mentioned at the selenography talk page, it's arguably a neologism. I'd love to be bold and just change it to "lunar geography", if only to be consistent with "lunar geology" (used in-article). But one suspects resistance. mdf 19:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you know this, it's your call. I'm just the astrophysicist here, before yesterday I hadn't even heard the word. Nick Mks 19:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to find a "real" use of the word in the manner Wikipedia is doing, but have mainly drawn a blank. People use it, but not the "important people" (so to speak). Most of the good stuff on the subject is found by searching for "lunar geography". Hopefully, I'll be surprised. Just today, for example, I came across "selenophysics" for the first time (see http://www.iers.org/documents/publications/tn/tn34/tn34.pdf). I initially thought it was just some guy trying to be cute with "lunar geophysics" (~650 hits at google), but others have been using the word in the same way (~40 hits). mdf 20:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)