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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
There is no mention or link to Cassini's Laws in this article, an important omission. Brews ohare ( talk) 13:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
This line is incorrect in content. "The Moon is exceptionally large relative to the Earth: a quarter the diameter of the planet and 1/81 its mass."
The moon is exceptionally SMALL relative to the Earth.
99.149.127.147 (
talk)
17:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Kari Burns
really I do not understeand how a body with 29 less speed than other, can be orbiting arround it. The only way I believe is if the body been orbited, do it in small orbit, so the small body then can do it. But is not the case of the earth wich orbit is aproxinmately 140.000.000 millons kilometers multiplied by 3.1416. So that make imposible the moon to orbit arround the earth at the orbital speed Wikipedia and Nasa say, the moon do. Can somebody explain it, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.125.51.42 ( talk) 01:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's an interesting story about the (possible) eventual fate of the Moon:
— RJH ( talk) 21:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs). Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. I searched the page history, and found 9 edits by Jagged 85 in March 2010 and 5 more edits in April 2010. Tobby72 ( talk) 18:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Needs see also: link to Metonic cycle. 70.176.54.38 ( talk) 01:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Why so? In fact its' less than 25 kg.-- MathFacts ( talk) 13:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
recent impact craters - see [1] and [2] - should be included somewhere.... Smkolins ( talk) 18:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I've just restored the archives to 12 from six. For some reason, someone thought it would be a good idea to merge the last 6 archives into one archive with 350 entries. Why he didn't just merge all the archives into one is not clear to me. Anyway, restored the archives back to normal. If this was done for a particular reason I would like to know why. Serendi pod ous 18:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no See also section in this article, which is an important feature of WP, aiding in its main use, namely, to broaden the scope of a reader's inquiry. Brews ohare ( talk) 13:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I think there is a mistake in the diagram that shows the Earth-Moon system. It indicates the distance between the two is 1738km, in fact it is over 384,000km exterminator ( talk) 03:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't the fact that the moon is tidally locked mean that it is a scalene ellipsoid rather than an oblate spheroid? — kwami ( talk) 23:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Some lexicography is justified, but stick to the Moon, not the other uses of "moon". The former language:
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)</ref>is appropriate to the article
Natural satellite, but not here. (BTW, the ref is unfortunately not acceptable, bcz it doesn't serve to verify: the compiler of the site is not verifiably (nor apparently) a qualified scholar of etymology, nor does he provide the scholarly apparatus necessary to verify his assertions.)
"Moon was a
Germanic word..."
was misleading bcz "Moon"/"moon" did not come into English in that form, and it is only "Germanic" in the sense that probably the majority of English words are, namely being descended from different words in earlier Germanic languages.
The phrase "proper English name" is probably a "helpful" edit from a colleague who didn't understand the difference between that and "English
proper name". We report usage, not the PoV matter of its claims to propriety.
--
Jerzy•
t
01:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Bloodofox has just made a significant revision to the Etymology section that appears to introduce some improvements, but also to remove some material, based on reliable sources, as to the Greek origins of the word.
Old version:
The English proper name for Earth's natural satellite is "the Moon". [1] [2] Moon derives from Germanic languages but is more distantly related to the Latin [mensis] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) [3] and Ancient Greek [μήνας] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) (mēnas) both meaning month, and to [Μήνη] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) (Mēnē), the alternate name for [σελήνη] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) (Selēnē), the Ancient Greek name for the Moon. [4] [5] It is ultimately a derivative of the Proto-Indo-European root me-, also represented in measure [3] (time), with reminders of its importance in measuring time in words derived from it like Monday, month and menstrual.
The names [Luna] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) and [Selene] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) -- Latin and Greek respectively, for both the sky phenomenon and the respectively Roman and Greek goddesses corresponding to it -- are used in English to personify the Moon, and imaginings of future roles of the Moon in industry or travel often use "Luna" like a geographic name for it.
The principal English adjective pertaining to the Moon is "lunar"; one sense of "selenic" shares that meaning, and "seleno-" and "-selene" are combining forms. [6]
New version:
The English proper name for Earth's natural satellite is "the Moon". [7] [2] The noun moon derives from derives moone (around 1380), which developed mone (1135), which derives from Old English mōna (dating from before 725), which, like all Germanic language cognates, ultimately stems from Proto-Germanic *mǣnōn. [8] Proto-Germanic *mǣnōn derives from the Proto-Indo-European root me-, also represented in measure [3] (time), with reminders of its importance in the lunar Germanic calendar of the Anglo-Saxons in words derived from it such as Monday ("Moon's Day"), month and, by way of Latin, menstrual. Derived from Latin, the principal English adjective pertaining to the Moon is "lunar" one sense of "selenic" shares that meaning, and "seleno-" and "-selene" are combining forms. [6]
I would have thought it might be best to include all info, not substitute one for the other, unless there is substantiated evidence that the sources used for the old version are incorrect. Other views? hamiltonstone ( talk) 02:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Thanks Bloodofox for cleaning up that section. I have moved the more extensive material on the calendar to In culture so the etymology section can stay tightly focused just on moon. It replaces the less-detailed sentence on the calendar/month that was there. Iridia ( talk) 01:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The structure among the sections is chaotic and illogical.
So far, i don't see much reason to be concerned to change the order of sections, or of subsctions w/in their secns, tho that might emerge as something that could be done better.
--
Jerzy•
t
12:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it's important to mention that 'the Moon is the largest moon in the Solar System' a little earlier in the article, because that ties into why it is differentiated, why it can have a 2000+ km sized crater without having fractured like Miranda, etc. I will work on a paragraph that can go at the top of Physical characteristics that makes this clear, incorporates the material in Relative size, and provides some introduction. The planet-satellite bit can go as a footnote. The other article rearrangements are good. Iridia ( talk) 01:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The fact that "the Earth's day lengthens by about 15 microseconds every year" is not the reason for "the occasional addition of a leap second to the calendar." Positive leap seconds are needed now because, in recent times, the second was redefined to be slightly shorter than 1/86400 of an average solar day. The lengthening of the day due to the Moon will--very slowly--increase the rate of leap seconds, which is now about 1 every 1 1/2 years. But, if the tidal effect of the Moon on the Earth were to cease right now, leap seconds would continue to occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 ( talk) 20:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.186.192 ( talk) 05:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Lack to mention the observations of Keppler and Hevelius - and other old astronomers- about the phenomenon of " disappearance of the Moon" in the firmament, in completely cleared days, that to say without clouds. These astronomers already knew the moon phases and everything the knowledge about the orbit. Therefore these astronomers attributing the " disappearance of the Moon" to an "atmosphere in moon" that hid the Moon to the telescopes. I think is very interesting reviewing the previous thing, for the dedicated ones to this subject: the Moon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.247.80.9 ( talk) 14:23, August 23, 2010
Well. I am not astronomer, but the mentioned possibilities for those who were responsible to the note, already I thought it, but I misestimated it because a thing is that the astronomers are old, but other is lack to perspicacity in these astronomers. I do not believe in that last possibility.
I can add, for further possible investigation, that there are one more astronomer that mentioned the phenomenon in question: Ricciotti (Rudy?). Unfortunately I have not the exact source of their claims. If I had, I would have dared to write directly a part of the article. As to whether this topic is too specialized, it must be evaluate it by the authors of the article. But my view is that an encyclopedia like Wikipedia is slowly changing the model of encyclopedia in general. Many articles of Wikipedia are written more extensive than before in any encyclopedia than ever before were written. This is fine. Thus, not only the uneducated but the specialist in any field of philosophy or science, or art, (or also the finder of finer or specific data) can enter a particular item and find interesting facts. Searching is necessary in this specific topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.247.80.9 ( talk) 13:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
One of the world's oldest calendars is 5200 years old and accurately explains the lunar cycle where the moon is between the Earth and the Sun hence its 'disappearance' from view ,that calendar is beside the neolithic solstice marker at Newgrange,Ireland at an adjacent structure called Knowth .You can see the phase where the Sun,represented by the spirals,intersects with the moon symbols for 3 days http://www.knowth.com/stooke/knowth4.gif. Oriel36 ( talk) 20:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
There is no mention or link to Cassini's Laws in this article, an important omission. Brews ohare ( talk) 13:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
This line is incorrect in content. "The Moon is exceptionally large relative to the Earth: a quarter the diameter of the planet and 1/81 its mass."
The moon is exceptionally SMALL relative to the Earth.
99.149.127.147 (
talk)
17:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Kari Burns
really I do not understeand how a body with 29 less speed than other, can be orbiting arround it. The only way I believe is if the body been orbited, do it in small orbit, so the small body then can do it. But is not the case of the earth wich orbit is aproxinmately 140.000.000 millons kilometers multiplied by 3.1416. So that make imposible the moon to orbit arround the earth at the orbital speed Wikipedia and Nasa say, the moon do. Can somebody explain it, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.125.51.42 ( talk) 01:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's an interesting story about the (possible) eventual fate of the Moon:
— RJH ( talk) 21:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs). Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. I searched the page history, and found 9 edits by Jagged 85 in March 2010 and 5 more edits in April 2010. Tobby72 ( talk) 18:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Needs see also: link to Metonic cycle. 70.176.54.38 ( talk) 01:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Why so? In fact its' less than 25 kg.-- MathFacts ( talk) 13:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
recent impact craters - see [1] and [2] - should be included somewhere.... Smkolins ( talk) 18:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I've just restored the archives to 12 from six. For some reason, someone thought it would be a good idea to merge the last 6 archives into one archive with 350 entries. Why he didn't just merge all the archives into one is not clear to me. Anyway, restored the archives back to normal. If this was done for a particular reason I would like to know why. Serendi pod ous 18:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no See also section in this article, which is an important feature of WP, aiding in its main use, namely, to broaden the scope of a reader's inquiry. Brews ohare ( talk) 13:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I think there is a mistake in the diagram that shows the Earth-Moon system. It indicates the distance between the two is 1738km, in fact it is over 384,000km exterminator ( talk) 03:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't the fact that the moon is tidally locked mean that it is a scalene ellipsoid rather than an oblate spheroid? — kwami ( talk) 23:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Some lexicography is justified, but stick to the Moon, not the other uses of "moon". The former language:
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)</ref>is appropriate to the article
Natural satellite, but not here. (BTW, the ref is unfortunately not acceptable, bcz it doesn't serve to verify: the compiler of the site is not verifiably (nor apparently) a qualified scholar of etymology, nor does he provide the scholarly apparatus necessary to verify his assertions.)
"Moon was a
Germanic word..."
was misleading bcz "Moon"/"moon" did not come into English in that form, and it is only "Germanic" in the sense that probably the majority of English words are, namely being descended from different words in earlier Germanic languages.
The phrase "proper English name" is probably a "helpful" edit from a colleague who didn't understand the difference between that and "English
proper name". We report usage, not the PoV matter of its claims to propriety.
--
Jerzy•
t
01:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Bloodofox has just made a significant revision to the Etymology section that appears to introduce some improvements, but also to remove some material, based on reliable sources, as to the Greek origins of the word.
Old version:
The English proper name for Earth's natural satellite is "the Moon". [1] [2] Moon derives from Germanic languages but is more distantly related to the Latin [mensis] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) [3] and Ancient Greek [μήνας] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) (mēnas) both meaning month, and to [Μήνη] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) (Mēnē), the alternate name for [σελήνη] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) (Selēnē), the Ancient Greek name for the Moon. [4] [5] It is ultimately a derivative of the Proto-Indo-European root me-, also represented in measure [3] (time), with reminders of its importance in measuring time in words derived from it like Monday, month and menstrual.
The names [Luna] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) and [Selene] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) -- Latin and Greek respectively, for both the sky phenomenon and the respectively Roman and Greek goddesses corresponding to it -- are used in English to personify the Moon, and imaginings of future roles of the Moon in industry or travel often use "Luna" like a geographic name for it.
The principal English adjective pertaining to the Moon is "lunar"; one sense of "selenic" shares that meaning, and "seleno-" and "-selene" are combining forms. [6]
New version:
The English proper name for Earth's natural satellite is "the Moon". [7] [2] The noun moon derives from derives moone (around 1380), which developed mone (1135), which derives from Old English mōna (dating from before 725), which, like all Germanic language cognates, ultimately stems from Proto-Germanic *mǣnōn. [8] Proto-Germanic *mǣnōn derives from the Proto-Indo-European root me-, also represented in measure [3] (time), with reminders of its importance in the lunar Germanic calendar of the Anglo-Saxons in words derived from it such as Monday ("Moon's Day"), month and, by way of Latin, menstrual. Derived from Latin, the principal English adjective pertaining to the Moon is "lunar" one sense of "selenic" shares that meaning, and "seleno-" and "-selene" are combining forms. [6]
I would have thought it might be best to include all info, not substitute one for the other, unless there is substantiated evidence that the sources used for the old version are incorrect. Other views? hamiltonstone ( talk) 02:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Thanks Bloodofox for cleaning up that section. I have moved the more extensive material on the calendar to In culture so the etymology section can stay tightly focused just on moon. It replaces the less-detailed sentence on the calendar/month that was there. Iridia ( talk) 01:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The structure among the sections is chaotic and illogical.
So far, i don't see much reason to be concerned to change the order of sections, or of subsctions w/in their secns, tho that might emerge as something that could be done better.
--
Jerzy•
t
12:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it's important to mention that 'the Moon is the largest moon in the Solar System' a little earlier in the article, because that ties into why it is differentiated, why it can have a 2000+ km sized crater without having fractured like Miranda, etc. I will work on a paragraph that can go at the top of Physical characteristics that makes this clear, incorporates the material in Relative size, and provides some introduction. The planet-satellite bit can go as a footnote. The other article rearrangements are good. Iridia ( talk) 01:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The fact that "the Earth's day lengthens by about 15 microseconds every year" is not the reason for "the occasional addition of a leap second to the calendar." Positive leap seconds are needed now because, in recent times, the second was redefined to be slightly shorter than 1/86400 of an average solar day. The lengthening of the day due to the Moon will--very slowly--increase the rate of leap seconds, which is now about 1 every 1 1/2 years. But, if the tidal effect of the Moon on the Earth were to cease right now, leap seconds would continue to occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 ( talk) 20:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.186.192 ( talk) 05:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Lack to mention the observations of Keppler and Hevelius - and other old astronomers- about the phenomenon of " disappearance of the Moon" in the firmament, in completely cleared days, that to say without clouds. These astronomers already knew the moon phases and everything the knowledge about the orbit. Therefore these astronomers attributing the " disappearance of the Moon" to an "atmosphere in moon" that hid the Moon to the telescopes. I think is very interesting reviewing the previous thing, for the dedicated ones to this subject: the Moon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.247.80.9 ( talk) 14:23, August 23, 2010
Well. I am not astronomer, but the mentioned possibilities for those who were responsible to the note, already I thought it, but I misestimated it because a thing is that the astronomers are old, but other is lack to perspicacity in these astronomers. I do not believe in that last possibility.
I can add, for further possible investigation, that there are one more astronomer that mentioned the phenomenon in question: Ricciotti (Rudy?). Unfortunately I have not the exact source of their claims. If I had, I would have dared to write directly a part of the article. As to whether this topic is too specialized, it must be evaluate it by the authors of the article. But my view is that an encyclopedia like Wikipedia is slowly changing the model of encyclopedia in general. Many articles of Wikipedia are written more extensive than before in any encyclopedia than ever before were written. This is fine. Thus, not only the uneducated but the specialist in any field of philosophy or science, or art, (or also the finder of finer or specific data) can enter a particular item and find interesting facts. Searching is necessary in this specific topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.247.80.9 ( talk) 13:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
One of the world's oldest calendars is 5200 years old and accurately explains the lunar cycle where the moon is between the Earth and the Sun hence its 'disappearance' from view ,that calendar is beside the neolithic solstice marker at Newgrange,Ireland at an adjacent structure called Knowth .You can see the phase where the Sun,represented by the spirals,intersects with the moon symbols for 3 days http://www.knowth.com/stooke/knowth4.gif. Oriel36 ( talk) 20:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)