![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
[From Solspot] The line "Semi-major axis 384,399 km" appears as 384.399 (the comma appears as a decimal point; it may mislead a reader). Perhaps it's overlaid by the line below: "Eccentricity 0.054". It seems ok in the source, but I can't identify the line-spacing command. Solspot ( talk) 18:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Can someone put in a mention about this as it just featured on the news and is very important - a large quantity (by lunar stantards anyway) was found in the soil. According to the scientist on the news if you squeezed a washing machine full of the soil you would get about a litre of water from it. He did not mention the type of water however. 78.145.175.176 ( talk) 17:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
There has recently, been the detection of air molecules also. The implications of this are immense. With no atmosphere on the moon, the detection of air molecules would signal the presence of intelligent life being contained with an advanced life support type system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.5.20 ( talk) 07:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
These are mentioned in the article but no explanation or hyperlink is given.
On the line for 'Volume,' the units are in cubic kilometers, but the link is shown as k[m^3], which may (?) lead people to believe that we are talking about thousands of cubic meters, rather than billions of cubic meters.
KJBurns ( talk) 16:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The moon is earth's only natural satellite and the fifth largest in the Solar System. The average centre-to-centre distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 384,403 kilometres (238,857 mi), about thirty times the diameter of the Earth. The common centre of mass of the system (the barycentre) is locatedd at aboout 1,700 kilometres (1,100)--- aquater the Earth' radius----- beneath the surface of the Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.203.211.111 ( talk) 22:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The picture that show the "halo" around the Moon, have something strange. It isn't true? -- Little bishop ( talk) 17:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This statement "Likewise, about 600 million years from now (assuming that the angular diameter of the Sun will not change), the Moon will no longer cover the Sun completely and only annular eclipses will occur.[69]" is not supported by the cited source "69" which is "^ a b Thieman, J.; Keating, S. (2006-05-02). "Eclipse 99, Frequently Asked Questions". NASA. http://eclipse99.nasa.gov/pages/faq.html. Retrieved 2007-04-12.". According to that source, the number is 1 billion years. However, the following source does say 600 million and it's also a NASA source: http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2006/faq.php. The source or the number of years should be changed, however, that does beg the question about which source, if either, is accurate. If someone or some persons are keeping a close eye on this page, please advise. Rodney420 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC).
Is this line appropriate to add to article?
By coincidence, diameter of corner cubes in retroreflectors on Moon is also 3.8 cm with references http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/lrrr.html
Thanks! Rāmāh ( talk) 21:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The section 'Orbit and relationship to Earth' says 'As a result of the conservation of angular momentum, the slowing of Earth's rotation is accompanied by an increase of the mean Earth-Moon distance of about 3.8 m per century, or 3.8 cm per year.[68]' However the source cited makes no such assertion. It states that there is an indication that there is a relationship between tides and the increasing distance between the Moon and the Earth. I don't think Earth's tides can be claimed as a proven cause or the one and only cause of this increase in separation.
Blueshift999 (
talk) 10:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Intro, para 3 says:
All citations is from 2005. It needs update with at least some Oct/Nov 2009 fact link, because of the economical crisis and Obamas decisions on the space programs. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
This site: [ Fox] writes that hole in the Moon could shelter colonists. Agre22 ( talk) 20:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)agre22
In the section "Ocean Tides" I have changed three things:
1) I added, parenthetically, that the sun also contributes to the ocean tides, with about half the gravitational effect of the moon.
2) I corrected two or three occurrences of "nearest" and/or "farthest" where, in comparing two objects, it should be "nearer" and "farther".
") In one paragraph only, I corrected a repeated capitalization error. In the phrase "I live on Earth", the upper-case "E" is correct. In the phrase "I live on the earth", the "e" should not be capitalized. Likewise, "the moon" requires a lower-case "m". This capitalization discrepancy should be corrected throughout the entire article, but I didn't take the time to do it, because someone may simply reverses my efforts. In any case, the way it stands now, the capitalization is incorrect. Worldrimroamer ( talk) 16:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The Moon was called Luna by the Roman's,Selene and Artemis bt the Greek's.The Moon's orbit is 384,400km from Earth.It's diameter is 3476km and it's mass is 7.35e22kg.It is the second brightest object in the sky after the Sun.As the Moon orbit's around the Earth once per month,the angle between the Moon and the sun change's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.161.214 ( talk) 15:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The path of the Moon with respect to the Sun in the diagram "Phases of the Moon" in the section "Orbit and relationship to Earth" is incorrect in showing the Moon curve away from the Sun. In the entry Orbit of the Moon, section "Path of Earth and Moon around Sun", the correct relationship is stated "The Moon's orbital path around the Sun . . . is always convex outwards", which means that the Moon's path/orbit is always "concave to the Sun". In other words, the path of the Moon about the Sun resembles an approximately 13-sided polygon with rounded sides and corners. It's motion is never away from the Sun. This diagram "Phases of the Moon" should be corrected by removing the reversal in curvature shown at left and right ends. I am not qualified to make such a correction and rely on the expertise of other editors. Phaedrus7 ( talk) 22:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Franamax is factually incorrect stating "It would be necessary to show the whole Earth-Moon-Sun system to show the continuously-concave orbital path" of the Moon, as would be apparent by examining the figure on p. 178 of Christopher P. Jargocki's 1976 book Science Brain-Twisters, Paradoxes, and Fallacies. This figure correctly portrays the intertwined paths of Earth and Moon over the same time span as the "Phases of the Moon" diagram. Thus, while this concave behavior is not discussed in the section, it is not necessary for this diagram to portray an incorrect geometric relationship between the orbits of Earth and Moon. Phaedrus7 ( talk) 22:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The opening line to this article states that the moon is the "only natural satellite" to the earth. This is only half true. While scientists are very clear that the 4 other items orbiting the earth are not moons, I think they do fit the definition for natural satellite. Opinions? SeanBrockest ( talk) 21:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I see that you have adjusted the lunar albedo down further, peer review work from the most respected optical journal on the planet puts the lunar albedo at 7 degrees phase at 13.62% as measured by the most accurate radiometer ever flown in space, see:
2008 G. Matthews, “Celestial body irradiance determination from an under-filled satellite radiometer: Application to albedo and thermal emission measurements of the Moon using CERES” Applied Optics. Vol 47, No 27, pp 4981-4993
The wikipedia value is now over 30% incorrect, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Dr Grant Matthews
Snerby ( talk) 02:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
... related to the Latin mensis and Ancient Greek μήνας (mēnas) both meaning month, and Μήνη (Mēnē), (alternate name for Selēnē in Ancient Greek) {{editsemiprotected}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arty2 ( talk • contribs) 12:29, 3 March 2010
Not done
Done
Could someone please fix the table formatting for the set of images
here? I can't quite get it to line up properly.
Iridia (
talk) 01:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Fixed it.
Iridia (
talk) 06:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Tiny nitpick alert! The far side of the moon does not get "exactly" the same amount of illumination as the near side. The near side is sometimes in the Earth's shadow (lunar eclipse) but the far side never is. So the far side gets (on average) slightly more illumination.
And the moon is closer to the Sun when the far side is illuminated, so again it gets (very slightly) more illumination. Oh, heck, I forgot to factor in the effect of reflected Earthlight, which of course only illuminates the near side. Anyway, I propose that "exactly" be changed to "almost exactly". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.209.93 ( talk) 02:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I was going to fix up the cross-section image of the Moon Image:Moon Schematic Cross Section.svg, but more I look at it the more problems I have with it.
Michael JasonSmith ( talk) 11:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I have written a draft version of a new lead at Talk:Moon/Lead to more comprehensively reflect the contents of the article, per WP:LEAD, as part of the FAR improvements. Please could you comment and suggest improvements. Iridia ( talk) 05:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The mass of the moon is described on the side bar as "(0.012 3 Earths[1])". Why is there a space between the "2" and "3" digits?
-- 90.199.197.182 ( talk) 10:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)ManInStone
For some bizarre reason, Ptolemy's values for the Moon's size and distance were not given in the Moon#Early studies section. I've added these and removed the following text:
These values were calculated more accurately between 825 and 835 AD by the Persian astronomer, Habash al-Hasib al-Marwazi, at the Al-Shammisiyyah observatory in Baghdad, who estimated the Moon's radius as 1,520 km and its distance from the Earth as 346,000 km.
The source was given as
These values do not seem to be any more accurate than those given by Ptolemy. Also the usual way to discuss these measurements is in terms of multiples of the Earth's size, rather than in any other units, as that separates the accuracy of these measurements from that of the Earth's size.
All the best. — Syncategoremata ( talk) 15:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help); no-break space character in |title=
at position 28 (
help)I know that this may not be the place to ask, but I had a question. I know that the moon does have a gravitational field, but what would a compass do on the moon? Will it follow Earth's field, or would it have it's own direction? P.S. - If this is not the right place to ask, please point me there. A p3rson ‽ 17:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
"4.527 ± 0.010 billion years ago". Is there any justification for such an incredibly precise value? Mtpaley ( talk) 22:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Is there a reason why the animated graphic showing the yellow light beam is no longer animated? I don't see any beam at all, either on this article or here, yet the display here is OK. I'm using IE 8. 86.152.242.168 ( talk) 00:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC).
I don't see this effect mentioned any longer in the article. It is an important omission, IMO. Brews ohare ( talk) 13:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
[From Solspot] The line "Semi-major axis 384,399 km" appears as 384.399 (the comma appears as a decimal point; it may mislead a reader). Perhaps it's overlaid by the line below: "Eccentricity 0.054". It seems ok in the source, but I can't identify the line-spacing command. Solspot ( talk) 18:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Can someone put in a mention about this as it just featured on the news and is very important - a large quantity (by lunar stantards anyway) was found in the soil. According to the scientist on the news if you squeezed a washing machine full of the soil you would get about a litre of water from it. He did not mention the type of water however. 78.145.175.176 ( talk) 17:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
There has recently, been the detection of air molecules also. The implications of this are immense. With no atmosphere on the moon, the detection of air molecules would signal the presence of intelligent life being contained with an advanced life support type system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.5.20 ( talk) 07:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
These are mentioned in the article but no explanation or hyperlink is given.
On the line for 'Volume,' the units are in cubic kilometers, but the link is shown as k[m^3], which may (?) lead people to believe that we are talking about thousands of cubic meters, rather than billions of cubic meters.
KJBurns ( talk) 16:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The moon is earth's only natural satellite and the fifth largest in the Solar System. The average centre-to-centre distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 384,403 kilometres (238,857 mi), about thirty times the diameter of the Earth. The common centre of mass of the system (the barycentre) is locatedd at aboout 1,700 kilometres (1,100)--- aquater the Earth' radius----- beneath the surface of the Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.203.211.111 ( talk) 22:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The picture that show the "halo" around the Moon, have something strange. It isn't true? -- Little bishop ( talk) 17:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This statement "Likewise, about 600 million years from now (assuming that the angular diameter of the Sun will not change), the Moon will no longer cover the Sun completely and only annular eclipses will occur.[69]" is not supported by the cited source "69" which is "^ a b Thieman, J.; Keating, S. (2006-05-02). "Eclipse 99, Frequently Asked Questions". NASA. http://eclipse99.nasa.gov/pages/faq.html. Retrieved 2007-04-12.". According to that source, the number is 1 billion years. However, the following source does say 600 million and it's also a NASA source: http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2006/faq.php. The source or the number of years should be changed, however, that does beg the question about which source, if either, is accurate. If someone or some persons are keeping a close eye on this page, please advise. Rodney420 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC).
Is this line appropriate to add to article?
By coincidence, diameter of corner cubes in retroreflectors on Moon is also 3.8 cm with references http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/lrrr.html
Thanks! Rāmāh ( talk) 21:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The section 'Orbit and relationship to Earth' says 'As a result of the conservation of angular momentum, the slowing of Earth's rotation is accompanied by an increase of the mean Earth-Moon distance of about 3.8 m per century, or 3.8 cm per year.[68]' However the source cited makes no such assertion. It states that there is an indication that there is a relationship between tides and the increasing distance between the Moon and the Earth. I don't think Earth's tides can be claimed as a proven cause or the one and only cause of this increase in separation.
Blueshift999 (
talk) 10:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Intro, para 3 says:
All citations is from 2005. It needs update with at least some Oct/Nov 2009 fact link, because of the economical crisis and Obamas decisions on the space programs. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
This site: [ Fox] writes that hole in the Moon could shelter colonists. Agre22 ( talk) 20:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)agre22
In the section "Ocean Tides" I have changed three things:
1) I added, parenthetically, that the sun also contributes to the ocean tides, with about half the gravitational effect of the moon.
2) I corrected two or three occurrences of "nearest" and/or "farthest" where, in comparing two objects, it should be "nearer" and "farther".
") In one paragraph only, I corrected a repeated capitalization error. In the phrase "I live on Earth", the upper-case "E" is correct. In the phrase "I live on the earth", the "e" should not be capitalized. Likewise, "the moon" requires a lower-case "m". This capitalization discrepancy should be corrected throughout the entire article, but I didn't take the time to do it, because someone may simply reverses my efforts. In any case, the way it stands now, the capitalization is incorrect. Worldrimroamer ( talk) 16:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The Moon was called Luna by the Roman's,Selene and Artemis bt the Greek's.The Moon's orbit is 384,400km from Earth.It's diameter is 3476km and it's mass is 7.35e22kg.It is the second brightest object in the sky after the Sun.As the Moon orbit's around the Earth once per month,the angle between the Moon and the sun change's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.161.214 ( talk) 15:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The path of the Moon with respect to the Sun in the diagram "Phases of the Moon" in the section "Orbit and relationship to Earth" is incorrect in showing the Moon curve away from the Sun. In the entry Orbit of the Moon, section "Path of Earth and Moon around Sun", the correct relationship is stated "The Moon's orbital path around the Sun . . . is always convex outwards", which means that the Moon's path/orbit is always "concave to the Sun". In other words, the path of the Moon about the Sun resembles an approximately 13-sided polygon with rounded sides and corners. It's motion is never away from the Sun. This diagram "Phases of the Moon" should be corrected by removing the reversal in curvature shown at left and right ends. I am not qualified to make such a correction and rely on the expertise of other editors. Phaedrus7 ( talk) 22:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Franamax is factually incorrect stating "It would be necessary to show the whole Earth-Moon-Sun system to show the continuously-concave orbital path" of the Moon, as would be apparent by examining the figure on p. 178 of Christopher P. Jargocki's 1976 book Science Brain-Twisters, Paradoxes, and Fallacies. This figure correctly portrays the intertwined paths of Earth and Moon over the same time span as the "Phases of the Moon" diagram. Thus, while this concave behavior is not discussed in the section, it is not necessary for this diagram to portray an incorrect geometric relationship between the orbits of Earth and Moon. Phaedrus7 ( talk) 22:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The opening line to this article states that the moon is the "only natural satellite" to the earth. This is only half true. While scientists are very clear that the 4 other items orbiting the earth are not moons, I think they do fit the definition for natural satellite. Opinions? SeanBrockest ( talk) 21:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I see that you have adjusted the lunar albedo down further, peer review work from the most respected optical journal on the planet puts the lunar albedo at 7 degrees phase at 13.62% as measured by the most accurate radiometer ever flown in space, see:
2008 G. Matthews, “Celestial body irradiance determination from an under-filled satellite radiometer: Application to albedo and thermal emission measurements of the Moon using CERES” Applied Optics. Vol 47, No 27, pp 4981-4993
The wikipedia value is now over 30% incorrect, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Dr Grant Matthews
Snerby ( talk) 02:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
... related to the Latin mensis and Ancient Greek μήνας (mēnas) both meaning month, and Μήνη (Mēnē), (alternate name for Selēnē in Ancient Greek) {{editsemiprotected}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arty2 ( talk • contribs) 12:29, 3 March 2010
Not done
Done
Could someone please fix the table formatting for the set of images
here? I can't quite get it to line up properly.
Iridia (
talk) 01:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Fixed it.
Iridia (
talk) 06:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Tiny nitpick alert! The far side of the moon does not get "exactly" the same amount of illumination as the near side. The near side is sometimes in the Earth's shadow (lunar eclipse) but the far side never is. So the far side gets (on average) slightly more illumination.
And the moon is closer to the Sun when the far side is illuminated, so again it gets (very slightly) more illumination. Oh, heck, I forgot to factor in the effect of reflected Earthlight, which of course only illuminates the near side. Anyway, I propose that "exactly" be changed to "almost exactly". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.209.93 ( talk) 02:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I was going to fix up the cross-section image of the Moon Image:Moon Schematic Cross Section.svg, but more I look at it the more problems I have with it.
Michael JasonSmith ( talk) 11:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I have written a draft version of a new lead at Talk:Moon/Lead to more comprehensively reflect the contents of the article, per WP:LEAD, as part of the FAR improvements. Please could you comment and suggest improvements. Iridia ( talk) 05:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The mass of the moon is described on the side bar as "(0.012 3 Earths[1])". Why is there a space between the "2" and "3" digits?
-- 90.199.197.182 ( talk) 10:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)ManInStone
For some bizarre reason, Ptolemy's values for the Moon's size and distance were not given in the Moon#Early studies section. I've added these and removed the following text:
These values were calculated more accurately between 825 and 835 AD by the Persian astronomer, Habash al-Hasib al-Marwazi, at the Al-Shammisiyyah observatory in Baghdad, who estimated the Moon's radius as 1,520 km and its distance from the Earth as 346,000 km.
The source was given as
These values do not seem to be any more accurate than those given by Ptolemy. Also the usual way to discuss these measurements is in terms of multiples of the Earth's size, rather than in any other units, as that separates the accuracy of these measurements from that of the Earth's size.
All the best. — Syncategoremata ( talk) 15:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help); no-break space character in |title=
at position 28 (
help)I know that this may not be the place to ask, but I had a question. I know that the moon does have a gravitational field, but what would a compass do on the moon? Will it follow Earth's field, or would it have it's own direction? P.S. - If this is not the right place to ask, please point me there. A p3rson ‽ 17:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
"4.527 ± 0.010 billion years ago". Is there any justification for such an incredibly precise value? Mtpaley ( talk) 22:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Is there a reason why the animated graphic showing the yellow light beam is no longer animated? I don't see any beam at all, either on this article or here, yet the display here is OK. I'm using IE 8. 86.152.242.168 ( talk) 00:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC).
I don't see this effect mentioned any longer in the article. It is an important omission, IMO. Brews ohare ( talk) 13:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)