![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I've noticed in the article on Mars that Mars enthusiasts have actually designed a flag for Mars, which is intriguing. Why then does the moon apparently have no flag? I propose a simple flag, simply a field of grey. It represents both the actual colour of the moon as well as its sterility. Plus, come to thing of it, I think grey is pretty much the only colour (fine, it's not technically a colour) that isn't represented on any terrestrial flag that I'm aware of. Loomis51 04:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's a trivia question for you, and one to which I don't know the answer. Does the Moon have a polar star, whether at the north or south pole, similar to Polaris for the Earth? If there is an answer, it might make an interesting anecdote on this page. Thanks. — RJH 22:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is the Sun or the Earth's equatorial bulge mainly responsible? This source states the Sun dominates, but the article is about the precession of the perigee, not the precession of the nodes. This later page states it unequivocally. In terms of perturbations, it makes sense that the Sun would dominate. Its gravity is about 5.9 mm/s² whereas the Earth's equatorial bulge tugs at it with a gravity less than 0.018 mm/s² (this latter figure is obtained using the Earth's elliptical volume minus the polar-diametre sphere, times the average density --which obviously overestimates the bulge's mass). If the Earth-induced precession term dominated, the precession rate would be far from uniform, because the tilt between the Earth's equatorial bulge and the lunar orbit varies considerably.
Urhixidur 17:28, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
The change in the introduction should be improved. Although there is an asteroid "in orbit" [1], that orbit is temporary. This is one of the reasons it is still under discussion, whether that asteroid should be called a "moon" or not. We should tone down that sentence and mention that (and possible other not yet discovered objects) later in that intro. Awolf002 17:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
According to the article from space.com, it isn't even a moon of Earth at all. Perhaps it should be mentioned later on in the article, but certinaly not in the first sentence. And if it is going to be mentioned, there should at least be a link to 3753 Cruithne in the article. Columbia 06:48, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
While it is a "featured picture", the main image does appear a bit soft to my eyes. I have uploaded a potential replacement and stuck it beside orbital elements table. mdf 22:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Guys, what are you doing in Origin and History?? Just because someone believes that the Moon was "created," it does not follow that this explains how!! I understood this section as a "how" discussion, which is a scientific question! Please, take your Creationism discussion to those pages and do not muddy the waters, here. Awolf002 15:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
This discussion is not about "supressing a view," but to find its correct place at WP. Since I still think the section in question is about scientific theories, this text does not belong there. Science looks for "natural explanations" by definition. Find a better place, please! Awolf002 21:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, good question! Maybe we should explicitly split this into two sections! The "scientific" one, as it is now, and the "alternative" one. The wording/title can be discussed. I just don't see the point in mixing these. Awolf002 21:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Really? Whatever you do, make sure this new section is about "how," not about "why." Obviously, things can be created through natural processes and still have been made for a reason. The question about a reason for sure does not fit in this article. That's theology IMO. If all you have is this one sentence, it should go to a different article. Awolf002 21:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Here is the reverted text: [The Moon's] origin is the subject of strong scientific debate. (Adherents of Creationism simply state that the Moon was created by a higher being.) Is it not obvious that this a very unhelpful (to say the least) sentence? What does it say? Creationists are not interested in the scientific debate? Or do they have a different explanation for it? How does this statement then answer the question? It just does not make sense there! Awolf002 22:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Golbez, what you propose now seems to try to address the angular size match of the Moon and the Sun. That does not seem to be the question of this section. In fact, currently this article does not mention the angular match as a problem. Do you plan to move this to "Eclipse"? I'm guessing what you are thinking of is something like: "Creationsts views on the properties of the Earth-Moon system." Maybe it should have its own article and a "See also" link in here? Awolf002 23:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, however, all but the "Scientific understanding" section are like "See also" with basically a link to another article. Is that what you think of? Or real text? Awolf002 00:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The statement "In part due to its arguably unusual origin, and the coincidence in size that allows for a total solar eclipse, some people believe the Moon was created by a deity." has been removed. Here is why:
IMHO, there simply is no point in including Creationist viewpoints into a scientific article. Creationism is per definitionem non-scientific, because scientific hypotheses must a) allow predictions and b) be falsifiable. Now, would you dare to make a prediction about God's future behaviour? Or how would you disprove the existence of a God? You can't, because an almighty God could always set things up to make it look like he isn't there. (The question why he should play such a stupid game is... well.) Thus, religious topics are not within the range of scientific discussion, and vice versa.
Perhaps more to the point, the statement "God may have created the moon" doesn't make sense at all, because in every Christians POV God created the whole universe anyway, thus you'd have to add this sentence at the end of each and everything. In how far God endowed the universe with the laws of science to run down its path of evolution like a clockwork, and in how far he resorts to "miracles" (skipping his own set of rules, for some obscure reason) to create a moon which is not compatible with science, is a matter of discussion. So, the statement in question could more meaningfully be rephrased as: "Some think the existence of the moon is so strange, it requires a miracle to explain it." If you want to. -- Syzygy 11:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Yet more howling at the Moon. The second last paragraph of the Orbit section started with the sentence The Earth and the Moon form in fact a "binary planet": each one is more closely tied to the Sun than to the other. I have removed it for two reasons:
I was talking with an astronomer on the night of the 28th-29th of August who stated that the moon in the UK was at its most northerly point, an event that happens only every nineteen years. Can anyone here verify this or offer a reference to further information. Thanks - Solar 18:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The "Earth-Moon" images clashed badly on my computer (Firefox, 1280px wide screen, Bitstream Vera Sans font, Classic skin), so I tried unclashing them. This eventually led to putting the six images in a float:right table as a group. I also put the Moon photo above this section in a one-cell table of its own and put a br clear=right above this section. Please check this works in all reasonable setups on your own screens and correct as needed - David Gerard 11:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following from the end of the 'Exploration' section:
I'm not entirely sure what is meant here, but is is written so badly I couldn't leave it. Does anyone understand what is meant here? DirkvdM 06:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Should we add a section about the future of the moon to this page? I believe the moon is currently receding from earth at about 3 cm per year due to tidal forces and transfer of angular momentum, but at some point this transfer would stop and the moon would stop receding.
I've also read, I believe in Astronomy or Sky and Telescope magazine, that the moon will then start approaching earth until tidal forces rip it apart and give earth a mighty saturn-like ring. Since we have theories about the origin and history in the article, we should probably address the future as well. -- Fxer 17:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Guys,
I have a question. Since the Moon doesn’t have an atmosphere (in earthly terms) how will the sunrise and sunset look like from the Moon? On Earth we can see twilight before dusk and after dawn and it gives us a feeling of a smooth transition stage from darkness to daylight and vice versa. As we know, twilight is due to diffusion of light through the Earth’s atmosphere. However on the Moon, this phenomenon cannot (possibly) happen. So, I guess, upon sunset the light will go off as if it were “switched off” and during sunrise, the light will appear as if a light source were switched on as soon as the Sun is visible on the horizon. Is this correct? Comments please?
Shibu Jacob, November 15, 2005
Thanks Patteroast for your explanation. One more doubt. Will it be possible to see the brightest stars (or other planets) from the Moon during day time, because the sky might appear dark? SJ Nov 17, 2005
If you can shield your eyes from the glare of the lunar surface, yes. Urhixidur 23:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Tony Dunn, Jan 25, 2006 The Sun moves across the Lunar sky about 12 degrees per day, or about 1/2 degree per hour. Since the Sun is about 1/2 degree wide from the Moon, an hour will pass from the time the Sun first touches the horizon, or mountain or whatever it will set behind, to the time the solar disk completely vanishes. So it won't be like an instant switch. Then, as was said earlier, it will take another few hours for the corona to set, and for the peaks mountains to the East of you to experience sunset. So it will probably take a good 6-12 hours of day to fade to pitch black, ignoring Earthshine and light from the stars.
Thanks Tony Dunn, for your informative explanation...!! I did not imagine (even though I should had..!!) that the movement of solar disk across the lunar sky is only 12 degrees per day. While posting this question, I thought Solar disk moves as fast as we see it moves from Earth, behind horizon. Is it possible to add this information in the main artile (for common readers).
SJ 10 May 2006
According to this article there were 10 missions to the moon in 1971. Looking at http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/lunartimeline.html I can only see 4 in 1971. Fuelbottle | [[User talk:Fuelbottle|Talk]] 22:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
This is a great article - are the authors thinking of nominating it as a featured article? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Or rather, has anyone ever doubted it since the beginning of civilization? I ask because in Scientific understanding, we have
That strongly implies that this was some sort of medieval discovery. The news would surprise Aristotle, who kenw it was no more flat than the Earth. If nobody pipes up soon with a plausible explanation, I'll fix this detail. Dandrake 02:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Interestingly, the abnormal orbit of the moon had delayed the formulation of Kepler's Laws. Upon observing intricate measurements of the moon's orbit, Kepler discovered inconsistencies in the moon's perihelion. Scientists still cannot the apparent lack of consistency between the orbit of the moon and other satillites in the solar system.
The paragraphs that start "The energy loss of the Earth's spin" and "Since both angular momentum and energy are conserved" are incorrect, in my opinion. For example, why must there be "a mechanism on earth to store a surplus or a deficit of angular momentum"? The transfer of angular momentum from the earth to the moon would happen just the same even if the Earth (apart from its oceans) were a cold solid lump of non-magnetic material with no magnetic field and no internal material currents. Occultations 13:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that this book and his author are not part of the set of creators of peer-reviewed theories about the origin of the Moon. Instead, this seems to be a non-notable book with unorthodox (to say the least, with dinosaurs roaming the Moon's surface [2]) speculations. I remove it from the Origin's section until proven otherwise Awolf002 18:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is important, but I know about a whole pack of conspiracy theories concerning the allegedly "inexplicable" halt of manned missions to the Moon after the 70-s. There is little to none mention of this in the article itself, which leaves the reader familiar with these theories puzzled. I realize not every conspiracy nut has to be presented in Wikipedia, yet the total blackout on this issue bothers me. Just putting it out there; thanks for your time.
-- Chodorkovskiy 13:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing inexplicable about the cessation of manned missions to the Moon after the 70's. Putting a man on the Moon is hugely expensive, and America suffered a prolonged economic recession at the beginning of the 1980's; the Space Race was largely over. Future generations may wonder why we sent men to the Moon at all, considering that it is cheaper and just as effective to send robots there to do the same tasks.
The point is, a vast majority of the funds required for future missions were already spent. Why stop now? -- Chodorkovskiy 12:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The Nixon Administration cut NASA's funding. Forcing NASA to cancel Apollo program and cut thousands of jobs. People lost interest so funding was never restored.
There was actually a Fox TV program that aired concerning this. They gave a mass amount of proof that man never landed on the moon. I am a huge NASA fan but now I believe that they did not land on the moon.
Nick
The table gives the crust composition in percent but doesn't mention if it is in percent of mass or in percent of atoms. Which is it? The Infidel 12:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science
/copied
A | J | O | T | W | R | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
O | 44.11% | - | - | - | 42.6% | - |
Na | < | - | < | < | 0.152% | < |
Mg | 18.5% | 22.4% | 20.8% | 19.8% | 12.8% | 22.22% |
Al | 6.21% | 1.96% | 2.04% | 3.25% | 8.63% | 1.97% |
Si | 19.83% | 19.9% | 20.5% | 20.8% | 18.7% | 20.19% |
S | 0.415% | - | 0.08% | - | 0.193% | - |
Ca | 6.78% | - | 2.31% | 3.3% | 9.14% | 2.17% |
Ti | 0.36% | 0.114% | 0.122% | 0.184% | 0.467% | 0.18% |
Cr | 0.128% | - | 0.314% | 0.43% | 0.203% | 0.22% |
Mn | < | 0.15% | 0.131% | 0.123% | < | 0.12% |
Fe | 3.09% | 10.6% | 9.9% | 8.3% | 7.0% | 9.51% |
Ni | 0.543% | - | 0.472% | - | 0.0914% | 0.2487% |
Thomas J. Ahrens (ed.), Global Earth Physics : A Handbook of Physical Constants, American Geophysical Union (1995). ISBN 0875908519 Composition of the Solar System, Planets, Meteorites, and Major Terrestrial Reservoirs, Horton E. Newsom. TABLE 11, Compositions of the Silicate Portion of the Moon. From these sources:
Though this source also uses the ambiguous ppm notation, from comparing the data for the Earth with other sources (CRC, Kaye&Laby, Greenwood) that explicitly state the units, it's evident that this means mass fraction.
A cutoff value of 0.1% should be good enough as an overview. "<" stands for small values that I didn't bother to copy (they're available down to the ppb range). Note that they're all estimates based on various assumptions. For the infobox, I arbitrarily chose the most recent source, O'Neill, with the oxygen value from Wänke. I also updated the similar table (also without apparent references) at Geology of the Moon.
Femto 16:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me but I like the older one (on the left) better
The second seems much darker, although it has the advantage of being a completely full moon, the first one seems about 1 (1/2?) day or so away from full. I also like that it doesn't COMPLETELY fill the box, a little black all the way around is better, IMHO. I just started watching this article beacuse of the vandalism so I have no background on which is really better, sorry if this got talked about already but did want to mention it. ++ Lar: t/ c 00:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
How about this? I took the full moon image and optimized the brightness in Photoshop.
File:250px-Moon PIA00302optimized.jpg
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.111.200.127 ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 4 February 2006 .
The Clementine pictures are cool, but I have to say I prefer the original image as well. Not being full is a plus for me, since I think it helps highlight some of the surface detail. Actually even beyond that the original picture seems to have more texture than the Clementine one. I like them both, but I think the original one should stay. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I came in through the link to the talk page about the factual nature of the information on the tidal forces. I couldn't find it, so here's what I have to say:
It should be mentioned that the tides on Earth on not due solely to the moon. The sun causes tidal bulges as well. Thus the moon either increases the bulges or balances out the bulges, depending on its location orbiting Earth.
That should be mention in the tidal forces section. 128.6.175.26 16:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
While reading the article on the moon, I noticed that it mentioned in the Tidal Forces section that the tides are influenced mostly by the moon, and very little by the sun. However, this is exactly opposite of the actual relationship. This can be proved with physics.
Consider that the force of gravity on a celestial body can be shown by Fg=[G(M1)(M2)]/R² , where G is the gravitational constant, 6.673x10^-11, M1 and M2 are the masses of the objects involved in Kilograms, and R is the Orbital Radius, or the average distance between the centers of the two masses in meters.
The earth's mass is 5.97x10^24 Kilograms, the mass of the moon is 7.35x10^22 Kilograms, and the mass of the Sun is 1.99x10^30 Kilograms. The orbital radius of the earth about the sun is 1.50x10^11 meters, and the moon about the earth is 3.84x10^8 meters. All of the above figures are according to the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Solar System Dynamics Group ( http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov).
According to Newton's Laws, the force of gravity from a first object on a second is equal to the force of gravity exerted on the first object by the second. Therefore, the moon has an equal pull on the earth as the earth does on it, and the same is true of the earth and the sun.
By calculating [G(M1)(M2)]/R² for each mass and distance relationship, one may observe that the force of gravity of the sun on the earth is 3.523432973x10^22 Newtons, and the force of gravity of the moon on the earth is only 1.985730682x10^20 Newtons. Therefore, the ratio of the gravitational force of the moon to the force of the sun is 5.6357839x10^-3:1, or the moon has roughly 0.56% of the force on the earth as the sun has.
The claim that the moon has a more prominent effect on the tides than the sun is therefore preposterous; compared to the impact from the force of the sun, the moon comparatively makes mere ripples in the water. I hope this clarifies this issue.
67.101.166.19 05:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Anonymous Physicist
Actually, the computations are not done corectly. The force of gravity of the sun on the earth is 4.354x10^20 Newton (plural is not used!), and the force of gravity of the moon on the earth is 1.98x10^20 Newton. Therefore, the ratio of the gravitational force of the moon to the force of the sun is 2.19. (if you make the same computation for Venus, for instance, it will give 0,00014x10^20 Newton).
The combined force is 2,374 Newton during full moon and 6,334 Newton during new moon (acting in the direction of the sun), and 4,783 Newton during quarters (acting in a direction deviated from the direction of sun by 24º). But, due to the differencial effect, the tidal action of the Moon and Sun during full moon add to one another - so, for tides, it is as if the force was also 6,334 Newton).
So it is clear that the tides are influenced by the combined atraction of the sun and moon. The sun is the main actor. The Moon adds to the effect - increasing it by 45% - during full and new phase (causing «spring» tides), and decreases the effect by 25% and shifts it in time (by one hour, 24º/360º or 24º/24h) during quarters.
User:Tó campos 7 March 2006
I will take a look at that..and get back to you later... Anyway, I must apologize because the numbers I wrote about «forces of gravity» were the ones corresponding to the forces on the Moon by the Earth and Sun. The atraction of the sun on the moon is 2.19 times the Earth's atraction on the moon! But that is not relevant to our discussion! Sorry. (I had made these calculations for another problem and did not realize my mistake!)
User:Tó campos 7 March 2006
So finally I agree! Now I understand that what is revelant is not the fact that the gravitation force from the Sun is 179 times the one of the Moon: 3.54*1022 N vs. 1,98*1020 N. (And not 2 times!, as I wrote before... what is true is that the gravitation force from the Sun is 2 times the one of the Earth over the Moon!... 4,35*1020 N vs.1,98*1020 N)
What is relevant is the difference in gravitation force on the two sides of the Earth, which is what causes the unbalance leading to tides. Using the formula in tidal forces, we see that we have to multiply the gravitation force values by a factor (Earth radius/Distance). So for the case of the Sun, we have 4.26*10-5=6.38*106/1.5+1011, and for the moon, 1.66*10-2=6.38*106/3.84+108... And so, in fact the final values for the tidal forces are: for the Sun, 1,51*1018; for the moon, 3,29*1018. The influence of the Sun is 45,9% the one of the Moon!
I apologize again for my mistake. I had never before thought more deeply about this subject... and my irrelevant calculations lead me to an error! (but you always learn a lot when you correct your errors... and it is a lot of fun!)
User:Tó campos 7 March 2006
I aggree. I made a slight change in my text of yesterday to make the exponential factors more readable and to change the word «pull», that I used, for gravitational force, as the term «pull» is not correct because it gives the idea of movement.
User:Tó campos 8 March 2006
The process of Earth's day lengthening and Moon's distance increaseing will stop when 1 future Earth day = 1 future Earth month ~ 55 current Earth days. The Moon will can never be seen from a hemisphere of Earth and suspend on a fix position when be seen from the other hemisphere. -- G.S.K.Lee 15:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The effects of the moon many millions of years ago, must have been quite different than they are now, not only how it influenced the weather, but also how tides (not just ocean tides) affected things. Any comments or links to such information would be nice.
I'd like input on this new section, I'm surprised no comments have been made. -- Golbez 19:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed it, but I still think some of it might have a place. The diagram showing the orbit might be useful. However, I stand by my previous comment. The Moon orbits the Earth, and vice-versa; and the Earth-Moon system orbits the Sun, and vice-versa. Likewise, Deimos and Phobos orbit Mars, and vice versa, and the Mars-Deimos-Phobos system orbits the Sun, and vice versa. IANAPhysicist, but I don't think you can't really separate the bits out when dealing with this. -- Golbez 19:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
If you don't realise why the true path of a body is important in an article about that body, I cannot explain it to you. As for the tone, I mentioned a rewrite. But there were bits of that that are worth keeping, in my opinion. Guinnog 00:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing of original research in this. Check Orbits- Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council -Royal Greenwich Observatorywhere you can read the following: «The Moon is the closest astronomical object to the Earth. With the Earth, it forms what is almost a double planet, for no other planet has a satellite that is as large in comparison to the size of the planet.» «The orbit of the Moon is especially complex because the pull of the Earth and that of the Sun are not too dissimilar. It is a surprise to many that the path of the Moon about the Sun is always curved in the same way, concave towards the Sun, and is nowhere looped or even convex towards the Sun. This despite the fact that we know that is is orbiting the Earth each month. » It is because that is surprise to many that it could be interesting to talk about it. The Royal Greenwich Observatory thinks so... You can check also The College Mathematics Journal Tó campos 1:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok... I admit that when I wrote that the center of curvature of the Moon's trajectory oscillates slightly I was careless in the choice of the word «slightly»... (and I did not write that in the article....of course... I said it «in the heat» of the debate...)
But please notice that I never said that the Moon does not follow a geocentric orbit about the Earth! I am calling the attention to the shape of the Moon's track around the Sun and comparing it to the Earth's. The fact that the pull of the Earth and that of the Sun are not too dissimilar explains their similitude. The fact that the "gravitational pull of the Sun is larger", in Newtonian terms, "does not affect dynamics"; but it implies that it has a great influence in defining the geodesic of the Moon's free fall. The space-time curvature imposed by the Earth as it moves along is not enough to «cancel» the one imposed by the Sun. (Speaking in Newtonian terms, the combined Sun-Earth "pull" is the centripetal force that keeps the Moon moving in its trajectory, perpendicularly to its direction.)
If we "subtract the force the Sun "pulls" on the Earth", we are ignoring its effect in the definition of the geodesics; we are thinking in terms of a referential on Earth. Which is all right, if that is what we want to do. But of course the purpose of my presentation is to talk about the shape of the Moon's path in terms of a referential in the Sun. My approach would only be completely erroneous if my purpose was to talk about the geocentric orbit of the Moon. But that matter is already very well addressed in the main article. I am talking about Moon's path around the Sun and comparing it to the Earth's. And its shape is a surprise to many. Only that!
Am I persisting in an error? I don't believe so. I think that you are drawing wrong inferences from what I wrote. Maybe the problem arises because in this talk page I used the expression "the Moon orbits the Sun" (I did it in the article at first but I decided to change that for clearness). I use the word "orbit" with the meaning of "one complete passage around a body" (Oxford Dictionary). You seem to use it with a meaning that implies that the Moon is either orbiting the Earth or the Sun, but not both.
Maybe if I had always talked about "the track of the Moon as it moves with the Earth around the Sun" you would not express such dispproval. Can that be the problem? Tó campos 1:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The section I introduced tried to explain why it a surprise to many that the path of the Moon about the Sun is the way it is (misleading representations in scholar books, lack of knowledge by school teachers...). And I think the Wikipedia could have an important role in eliminating that lack of knowledge about this estabished fact. Maybe we should «cool down the emotive dispute» about this and let astronomers and teachers decide if this information is important and relevant or not... Let's find a clearly recognized atronomer and ask him. What do you think about that way of solving the problem? Tó campos 12:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
This is for clarity. The first sentence ("The Moon makes a complete orbit about the Earth approximately once every 29.5 days.") is contradicted by the "Revolution Period" figure in the table and is qualified by the second paragraph in a way that makes it inaccurate as a categorical statement, which it appears to be. I suggest deleting the first sentence and replacing it with the entire second paragraph which is an excellent, concise discussion that more completely and accurately answers the question, "how long does it take for a complete orbit?" Neev 16:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
When viewed from earth the moon-rise on a full moon day, which are the north and south poles of the moon? - the sides on our left and right of the lunar disk or the the ones at top and bottom side of the lunar disk? For a common reader, who is not an expert on the subject "moon", this artile is missing with this type of minor points.
SJP April 20, 2006
Since the moon doesn't have a molten Core, it doesn't have magnetized poles. Ilikelotsofnumbers 19:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
But, moon will have poles, which are the points where its axis of rotation intersects with the surface... correct? SJP June 7, 2006
I think what he's asking for is a moon map - maybe the near side (moon) blank article referenced here could be started with this sort of info? Anyone got a PD picture of this as I get fed up trying to work out the tags to add to images! Sophia 10:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I can clarify things here. I hope I don't accidentally get too complex here. OK, The Moon DOES have poles, but not magnetic ones. On Earth, the magnetic poles and the geographical poles are different. The geographical pole is where the Earths axis around which it rotates exit the Earth. The magnetic poles are the uhhh...OK, well, I'm, not a magnetism expert, but you get the picture: the magnetic and geographical poles are different. :) So the Moon DOES have poles.
However, determining which one is which can be harded for people in different locations. If civilization had developed in the southern hemisphere, we would probably consider what is generally thought of as the "bottom" half of the Moon to be the "Top" half, because to look at the Moon, which orbits roughly around the Earths Equator (at a 5 degree tilt to the Ecliptic to be exact) from the northern, hemisphere, you have to look south, but to look at it in the southern hemisphere, you must look north, so it looks "upside down" (unless you sit upside down in a chair, or you have a strange disease that makes your head tilt funny).
If you didn't understand all that, then you don't have to. Just understand that if you're in the Northern hemisphere, the "north pole" is at the "top", and if you're in the south, the "north pole" is at the "bottom". :) The QBasicJedi 20:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I kinda figured it would be too complex. I try to simplify things, but I have a habit of going off on tangents. Oh well... The QBasicJedi 13:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
How would this website and its content fit into the artile? Specifically, which segment thereof.. DrWho42 06:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Removed this:
I think such a section is too short to give "Blood Red Moon" wider meaning in a reasonable way. Maybe it should have its own article or dab page? Awolf002 23:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
To counter the usual "We never been to the Moon" case, there's been an alternative theory that believes that the forementioned conspiracy theory is simply a cover to deride people from finding out the "true" reason why we left the Moon (or told the public we stopped going, as John Lear states). The scientific advisor for Coast to Coast AM, Richard C. Hoagland, frequently propounds and firmly believes that there are ancient ruins on the Moon and discounts the whole collision theory as a misinterpretation of the so-called hi-temperaturely formed "rocks" found when claims they're more akin to what would be found of New York in 10,000 years..
This prolly a whole lot of pseudoscience, as Phil Plait points out as here, but it should be noteworthy in its own way as they're been included other theories as the Welteislehre theory wherein which the Moon is made solidly of ice. DrWho42 03:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
What is this? It looks NPOV, un-encyclopedic, doesn't site sources, and doesn't fit will with the article (it's like a 'pop culture references to the moon' type of section). I will be reviewing the history of this article to see if it's been around for a long time, but this section either needs to be put elsewhere or moved imo Piepants 21:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Piepants
I am not sure about the rules about adding external links but there is a software called VMA "Virtual Moon Atlas" available for free at http://astrosurf.com/avl/. This software offers an interface to navigate the moon, similar to Google Earth. It's quite better than the Google Moon listed already. It's quite efficient and very exhaustive and easy. I suggest we add it in the external link section. (from User dunwich)
Odd that the English article only uses metric units in the chart. ( Cj67 13:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC))
In the table, this article gives the axial tilt as 1.5424° to ecliptic (my emphasis).
However, see the article The_Moon's_Orbit, which states in the heading Inclination of the rotation axis, that the moon's axial tilt relative the lunar orbit is 1.5424°, but the axial tilt relative to the ecliptic is always 6.69° (as discovered by Cassini in 1721). Roo60 12:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only person for whom the article renders strangely? See picture. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 20:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It is a useful comparison between the size of the Earth and moon and their distance. I agree it is annoying, but should be kept and possibly be edited. Reywas92 01:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I placed it on speed of light. If anyone could perhaps edit the image so that it wouldn't move and the put it on Moon. Reywas92 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I put the above picture in, I hope it works well. Reywas92 23:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I may be wrong and probably am but that image depicting Alan Shepard on the moon.. can it be classed as a genuine photograph due to the image of the flag appearing to be flowing but the moons atmosphere has no air in which the flag can flow in. As i said i am probably wrong use know more than me so if you could let me know thanks
Don't worry about it, it's not a mistake by NASA conspirators! It looks like it's waving because 1) there's a pole in the top of the flag to make sure that it doesn't just slump in a rather unimpressive way 2) Shepard is shaking the flag pole as he plants it, making it ripple. Hope that helps you. Boyinabox 17:43, 8 September 2006 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I've noticed in the article on Mars that Mars enthusiasts have actually designed a flag for Mars, which is intriguing. Why then does the moon apparently have no flag? I propose a simple flag, simply a field of grey. It represents both the actual colour of the moon as well as its sterility. Plus, come to thing of it, I think grey is pretty much the only colour (fine, it's not technically a colour) that isn't represented on any terrestrial flag that I'm aware of. Loomis51 04:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's a trivia question for you, and one to which I don't know the answer. Does the Moon have a polar star, whether at the north or south pole, similar to Polaris for the Earth? If there is an answer, it might make an interesting anecdote on this page. Thanks. — RJH 22:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is the Sun or the Earth's equatorial bulge mainly responsible? This source states the Sun dominates, but the article is about the precession of the perigee, not the precession of the nodes. This later page states it unequivocally. In terms of perturbations, it makes sense that the Sun would dominate. Its gravity is about 5.9 mm/s² whereas the Earth's equatorial bulge tugs at it with a gravity less than 0.018 mm/s² (this latter figure is obtained using the Earth's elliptical volume minus the polar-diametre sphere, times the average density --which obviously overestimates the bulge's mass). If the Earth-induced precession term dominated, the precession rate would be far from uniform, because the tilt between the Earth's equatorial bulge and the lunar orbit varies considerably.
Urhixidur 17:28, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
The change in the introduction should be improved. Although there is an asteroid "in orbit" [1], that orbit is temporary. This is one of the reasons it is still under discussion, whether that asteroid should be called a "moon" or not. We should tone down that sentence and mention that (and possible other not yet discovered objects) later in that intro. Awolf002 17:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
According to the article from space.com, it isn't even a moon of Earth at all. Perhaps it should be mentioned later on in the article, but certinaly not in the first sentence. And if it is going to be mentioned, there should at least be a link to 3753 Cruithne in the article. Columbia 06:48, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
While it is a "featured picture", the main image does appear a bit soft to my eyes. I have uploaded a potential replacement and stuck it beside orbital elements table. mdf 22:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Guys, what are you doing in Origin and History?? Just because someone believes that the Moon was "created," it does not follow that this explains how!! I understood this section as a "how" discussion, which is a scientific question! Please, take your Creationism discussion to those pages and do not muddy the waters, here. Awolf002 15:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
This discussion is not about "supressing a view," but to find its correct place at WP. Since I still think the section in question is about scientific theories, this text does not belong there. Science looks for "natural explanations" by definition. Find a better place, please! Awolf002 21:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, good question! Maybe we should explicitly split this into two sections! The "scientific" one, as it is now, and the "alternative" one. The wording/title can be discussed. I just don't see the point in mixing these. Awolf002 21:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Really? Whatever you do, make sure this new section is about "how," not about "why." Obviously, things can be created through natural processes and still have been made for a reason. The question about a reason for sure does not fit in this article. That's theology IMO. If all you have is this one sentence, it should go to a different article. Awolf002 21:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Here is the reverted text: [The Moon's] origin is the subject of strong scientific debate. (Adherents of Creationism simply state that the Moon was created by a higher being.) Is it not obvious that this a very unhelpful (to say the least) sentence? What does it say? Creationists are not interested in the scientific debate? Or do they have a different explanation for it? How does this statement then answer the question? It just does not make sense there! Awolf002 22:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Golbez, what you propose now seems to try to address the angular size match of the Moon and the Sun. That does not seem to be the question of this section. In fact, currently this article does not mention the angular match as a problem. Do you plan to move this to "Eclipse"? I'm guessing what you are thinking of is something like: "Creationsts views on the properties of the Earth-Moon system." Maybe it should have its own article and a "See also" link in here? Awolf002 23:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, however, all but the "Scientific understanding" section are like "See also" with basically a link to another article. Is that what you think of? Or real text? Awolf002 00:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The statement "In part due to its arguably unusual origin, and the coincidence in size that allows for a total solar eclipse, some people believe the Moon was created by a deity." has been removed. Here is why:
IMHO, there simply is no point in including Creationist viewpoints into a scientific article. Creationism is per definitionem non-scientific, because scientific hypotheses must a) allow predictions and b) be falsifiable. Now, would you dare to make a prediction about God's future behaviour? Or how would you disprove the existence of a God? You can't, because an almighty God could always set things up to make it look like he isn't there. (The question why he should play such a stupid game is... well.) Thus, religious topics are not within the range of scientific discussion, and vice versa.
Perhaps more to the point, the statement "God may have created the moon" doesn't make sense at all, because in every Christians POV God created the whole universe anyway, thus you'd have to add this sentence at the end of each and everything. In how far God endowed the universe with the laws of science to run down its path of evolution like a clockwork, and in how far he resorts to "miracles" (skipping his own set of rules, for some obscure reason) to create a moon which is not compatible with science, is a matter of discussion. So, the statement in question could more meaningfully be rephrased as: "Some think the existence of the moon is so strange, it requires a miracle to explain it." If you want to. -- Syzygy 11:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Yet more howling at the Moon. The second last paragraph of the Orbit section started with the sentence The Earth and the Moon form in fact a "binary planet": each one is more closely tied to the Sun than to the other. I have removed it for two reasons:
I was talking with an astronomer on the night of the 28th-29th of August who stated that the moon in the UK was at its most northerly point, an event that happens only every nineteen years. Can anyone here verify this or offer a reference to further information. Thanks - Solar 18:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The "Earth-Moon" images clashed badly on my computer (Firefox, 1280px wide screen, Bitstream Vera Sans font, Classic skin), so I tried unclashing them. This eventually led to putting the six images in a float:right table as a group. I also put the Moon photo above this section in a one-cell table of its own and put a br clear=right above this section. Please check this works in all reasonable setups on your own screens and correct as needed - David Gerard 11:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following from the end of the 'Exploration' section:
I'm not entirely sure what is meant here, but is is written so badly I couldn't leave it. Does anyone understand what is meant here? DirkvdM 06:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Should we add a section about the future of the moon to this page? I believe the moon is currently receding from earth at about 3 cm per year due to tidal forces and transfer of angular momentum, but at some point this transfer would stop and the moon would stop receding.
I've also read, I believe in Astronomy or Sky and Telescope magazine, that the moon will then start approaching earth until tidal forces rip it apart and give earth a mighty saturn-like ring. Since we have theories about the origin and history in the article, we should probably address the future as well. -- Fxer 17:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Guys,
I have a question. Since the Moon doesn’t have an atmosphere (in earthly terms) how will the sunrise and sunset look like from the Moon? On Earth we can see twilight before dusk and after dawn and it gives us a feeling of a smooth transition stage from darkness to daylight and vice versa. As we know, twilight is due to diffusion of light through the Earth’s atmosphere. However on the Moon, this phenomenon cannot (possibly) happen. So, I guess, upon sunset the light will go off as if it were “switched off” and during sunrise, the light will appear as if a light source were switched on as soon as the Sun is visible on the horizon. Is this correct? Comments please?
Shibu Jacob, November 15, 2005
Thanks Patteroast for your explanation. One more doubt. Will it be possible to see the brightest stars (or other planets) from the Moon during day time, because the sky might appear dark? SJ Nov 17, 2005
If you can shield your eyes from the glare of the lunar surface, yes. Urhixidur 23:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Tony Dunn, Jan 25, 2006 The Sun moves across the Lunar sky about 12 degrees per day, or about 1/2 degree per hour. Since the Sun is about 1/2 degree wide from the Moon, an hour will pass from the time the Sun first touches the horizon, or mountain or whatever it will set behind, to the time the solar disk completely vanishes. So it won't be like an instant switch. Then, as was said earlier, it will take another few hours for the corona to set, and for the peaks mountains to the East of you to experience sunset. So it will probably take a good 6-12 hours of day to fade to pitch black, ignoring Earthshine and light from the stars.
Thanks Tony Dunn, for your informative explanation...!! I did not imagine (even though I should had..!!) that the movement of solar disk across the lunar sky is only 12 degrees per day. While posting this question, I thought Solar disk moves as fast as we see it moves from Earth, behind horizon. Is it possible to add this information in the main artile (for common readers).
SJ 10 May 2006
According to this article there were 10 missions to the moon in 1971. Looking at http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/lunartimeline.html I can only see 4 in 1971. Fuelbottle | [[User talk:Fuelbottle|Talk]] 22:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
This is a great article - are the authors thinking of nominating it as a featured article? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Or rather, has anyone ever doubted it since the beginning of civilization? I ask because in Scientific understanding, we have
That strongly implies that this was some sort of medieval discovery. The news would surprise Aristotle, who kenw it was no more flat than the Earth. If nobody pipes up soon with a plausible explanation, I'll fix this detail. Dandrake 02:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Interestingly, the abnormal orbit of the moon had delayed the formulation of Kepler's Laws. Upon observing intricate measurements of the moon's orbit, Kepler discovered inconsistencies in the moon's perihelion. Scientists still cannot the apparent lack of consistency between the orbit of the moon and other satillites in the solar system.
The paragraphs that start "The energy loss of the Earth's spin" and "Since both angular momentum and energy are conserved" are incorrect, in my opinion. For example, why must there be "a mechanism on earth to store a surplus or a deficit of angular momentum"? The transfer of angular momentum from the earth to the moon would happen just the same even if the Earth (apart from its oceans) were a cold solid lump of non-magnetic material with no magnetic field and no internal material currents. Occultations 13:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that this book and his author are not part of the set of creators of peer-reviewed theories about the origin of the Moon. Instead, this seems to be a non-notable book with unorthodox (to say the least, with dinosaurs roaming the Moon's surface [2]) speculations. I remove it from the Origin's section until proven otherwise Awolf002 18:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is important, but I know about a whole pack of conspiracy theories concerning the allegedly "inexplicable" halt of manned missions to the Moon after the 70-s. There is little to none mention of this in the article itself, which leaves the reader familiar with these theories puzzled. I realize not every conspiracy nut has to be presented in Wikipedia, yet the total blackout on this issue bothers me. Just putting it out there; thanks for your time.
-- Chodorkovskiy 13:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing inexplicable about the cessation of manned missions to the Moon after the 70's. Putting a man on the Moon is hugely expensive, and America suffered a prolonged economic recession at the beginning of the 1980's; the Space Race was largely over. Future generations may wonder why we sent men to the Moon at all, considering that it is cheaper and just as effective to send robots there to do the same tasks.
The point is, a vast majority of the funds required for future missions were already spent. Why stop now? -- Chodorkovskiy 12:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The Nixon Administration cut NASA's funding. Forcing NASA to cancel Apollo program and cut thousands of jobs. People lost interest so funding was never restored.
There was actually a Fox TV program that aired concerning this. They gave a mass amount of proof that man never landed on the moon. I am a huge NASA fan but now I believe that they did not land on the moon.
Nick
The table gives the crust composition in percent but doesn't mention if it is in percent of mass or in percent of atoms. Which is it? The Infidel 12:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science
/copied
A | J | O | T | W | R | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
O | 44.11% | - | - | - | 42.6% | - |
Na | < | - | < | < | 0.152% | < |
Mg | 18.5% | 22.4% | 20.8% | 19.8% | 12.8% | 22.22% |
Al | 6.21% | 1.96% | 2.04% | 3.25% | 8.63% | 1.97% |
Si | 19.83% | 19.9% | 20.5% | 20.8% | 18.7% | 20.19% |
S | 0.415% | - | 0.08% | - | 0.193% | - |
Ca | 6.78% | - | 2.31% | 3.3% | 9.14% | 2.17% |
Ti | 0.36% | 0.114% | 0.122% | 0.184% | 0.467% | 0.18% |
Cr | 0.128% | - | 0.314% | 0.43% | 0.203% | 0.22% |
Mn | < | 0.15% | 0.131% | 0.123% | < | 0.12% |
Fe | 3.09% | 10.6% | 9.9% | 8.3% | 7.0% | 9.51% |
Ni | 0.543% | - | 0.472% | - | 0.0914% | 0.2487% |
Thomas J. Ahrens (ed.), Global Earth Physics : A Handbook of Physical Constants, American Geophysical Union (1995). ISBN 0875908519 Composition of the Solar System, Planets, Meteorites, and Major Terrestrial Reservoirs, Horton E. Newsom. TABLE 11, Compositions of the Silicate Portion of the Moon. From these sources:
Though this source also uses the ambiguous ppm notation, from comparing the data for the Earth with other sources (CRC, Kaye&Laby, Greenwood) that explicitly state the units, it's evident that this means mass fraction.
A cutoff value of 0.1% should be good enough as an overview. "<" stands for small values that I didn't bother to copy (they're available down to the ppb range). Note that they're all estimates based on various assumptions. For the infobox, I arbitrarily chose the most recent source, O'Neill, with the oxygen value from Wänke. I also updated the similar table (also without apparent references) at Geology of the Moon.
Femto 16:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me but I like the older one (on the left) better
The second seems much darker, although it has the advantage of being a completely full moon, the first one seems about 1 (1/2?) day or so away from full. I also like that it doesn't COMPLETELY fill the box, a little black all the way around is better, IMHO. I just started watching this article beacuse of the vandalism so I have no background on which is really better, sorry if this got talked about already but did want to mention it. ++ Lar: t/ c 00:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
How about this? I took the full moon image and optimized the brightness in Photoshop.
File:250px-Moon PIA00302optimized.jpg
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.111.200.127 ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 4 February 2006 .
The Clementine pictures are cool, but I have to say I prefer the original image as well. Not being full is a plus for me, since I think it helps highlight some of the surface detail. Actually even beyond that the original picture seems to have more texture than the Clementine one. I like them both, but I think the original one should stay. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I came in through the link to the talk page about the factual nature of the information on the tidal forces. I couldn't find it, so here's what I have to say:
It should be mentioned that the tides on Earth on not due solely to the moon. The sun causes tidal bulges as well. Thus the moon either increases the bulges or balances out the bulges, depending on its location orbiting Earth.
That should be mention in the tidal forces section. 128.6.175.26 16:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
While reading the article on the moon, I noticed that it mentioned in the Tidal Forces section that the tides are influenced mostly by the moon, and very little by the sun. However, this is exactly opposite of the actual relationship. This can be proved with physics.
Consider that the force of gravity on a celestial body can be shown by Fg=[G(M1)(M2)]/R² , where G is the gravitational constant, 6.673x10^-11, M1 and M2 are the masses of the objects involved in Kilograms, and R is the Orbital Radius, or the average distance between the centers of the two masses in meters.
The earth's mass is 5.97x10^24 Kilograms, the mass of the moon is 7.35x10^22 Kilograms, and the mass of the Sun is 1.99x10^30 Kilograms. The orbital radius of the earth about the sun is 1.50x10^11 meters, and the moon about the earth is 3.84x10^8 meters. All of the above figures are according to the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Solar System Dynamics Group ( http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov).
According to Newton's Laws, the force of gravity from a first object on a second is equal to the force of gravity exerted on the first object by the second. Therefore, the moon has an equal pull on the earth as the earth does on it, and the same is true of the earth and the sun.
By calculating [G(M1)(M2)]/R² for each mass and distance relationship, one may observe that the force of gravity of the sun on the earth is 3.523432973x10^22 Newtons, and the force of gravity of the moon on the earth is only 1.985730682x10^20 Newtons. Therefore, the ratio of the gravitational force of the moon to the force of the sun is 5.6357839x10^-3:1, or the moon has roughly 0.56% of the force on the earth as the sun has.
The claim that the moon has a more prominent effect on the tides than the sun is therefore preposterous; compared to the impact from the force of the sun, the moon comparatively makes mere ripples in the water. I hope this clarifies this issue.
67.101.166.19 05:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Anonymous Physicist
Actually, the computations are not done corectly. The force of gravity of the sun on the earth is 4.354x10^20 Newton (plural is not used!), and the force of gravity of the moon on the earth is 1.98x10^20 Newton. Therefore, the ratio of the gravitational force of the moon to the force of the sun is 2.19. (if you make the same computation for Venus, for instance, it will give 0,00014x10^20 Newton).
The combined force is 2,374 Newton during full moon and 6,334 Newton during new moon (acting in the direction of the sun), and 4,783 Newton during quarters (acting in a direction deviated from the direction of sun by 24º). But, due to the differencial effect, the tidal action of the Moon and Sun during full moon add to one another - so, for tides, it is as if the force was also 6,334 Newton).
So it is clear that the tides are influenced by the combined atraction of the sun and moon. The sun is the main actor. The Moon adds to the effect - increasing it by 45% - during full and new phase (causing «spring» tides), and decreases the effect by 25% and shifts it in time (by one hour, 24º/360º or 24º/24h) during quarters.
User:Tó campos 7 March 2006
I will take a look at that..and get back to you later... Anyway, I must apologize because the numbers I wrote about «forces of gravity» were the ones corresponding to the forces on the Moon by the Earth and Sun. The atraction of the sun on the moon is 2.19 times the Earth's atraction on the moon! But that is not relevant to our discussion! Sorry. (I had made these calculations for another problem and did not realize my mistake!)
User:Tó campos 7 March 2006
So finally I agree! Now I understand that what is revelant is not the fact that the gravitation force from the Sun is 179 times the one of the Moon: 3.54*1022 N vs. 1,98*1020 N. (And not 2 times!, as I wrote before... what is true is that the gravitation force from the Sun is 2 times the one of the Earth over the Moon!... 4,35*1020 N vs.1,98*1020 N)
What is relevant is the difference in gravitation force on the two sides of the Earth, which is what causes the unbalance leading to tides. Using the formula in tidal forces, we see that we have to multiply the gravitation force values by a factor (Earth radius/Distance). So for the case of the Sun, we have 4.26*10-5=6.38*106/1.5+1011, and for the moon, 1.66*10-2=6.38*106/3.84+108... And so, in fact the final values for the tidal forces are: for the Sun, 1,51*1018; for the moon, 3,29*1018. The influence of the Sun is 45,9% the one of the Moon!
I apologize again for my mistake. I had never before thought more deeply about this subject... and my irrelevant calculations lead me to an error! (but you always learn a lot when you correct your errors... and it is a lot of fun!)
User:Tó campos 7 March 2006
I aggree. I made a slight change in my text of yesterday to make the exponential factors more readable and to change the word «pull», that I used, for gravitational force, as the term «pull» is not correct because it gives the idea of movement.
User:Tó campos 8 March 2006
The process of Earth's day lengthening and Moon's distance increaseing will stop when 1 future Earth day = 1 future Earth month ~ 55 current Earth days. The Moon will can never be seen from a hemisphere of Earth and suspend on a fix position when be seen from the other hemisphere. -- G.S.K.Lee 15:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The effects of the moon many millions of years ago, must have been quite different than they are now, not only how it influenced the weather, but also how tides (not just ocean tides) affected things. Any comments or links to such information would be nice.
I'd like input on this new section, I'm surprised no comments have been made. -- Golbez 19:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed it, but I still think some of it might have a place. The diagram showing the orbit might be useful. However, I stand by my previous comment. The Moon orbits the Earth, and vice-versa; and the Earth-Moon system orbits the Sun, and vice-versa. Likewise, Deimos and Phobos orbit Mars, and vice versa, and the Mars-Deimos-Phobos system orbits the Sun, and vice versa. IANAPhysicist, but I don't think you can't really separate the bits out when dealing with this. -- Golbez 19:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
If you don't realise why the true path of a body is important in an article about that body, I cannot explain it to you. As for the tone, I mentioned a rewrite. But there were bits of that that are worth keeping, in my opinion. Guinnog 00:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing of original research in this. Check Orbits- Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council -Royal Greenwich Observatorywhere you can read the following: «The Moon is the closest astronomical object to the Earth. With the Earth, it forms what is almost a double planet, for no other planet has a satellite that is as large in comparison to the size of the planet.» «The orbit of the Moon is especially complex because the pull of the Earth and that of the Sun are not too dissimilar. It is a surprise to many that the path of the Moon about the Sun is always curved in the same way, concave towards the Sun, and is nowhere looped or even convex towards the Sun. This despite the fact that we know that is is orbiting the Earth each month. » It is because that is surprise to many that it could be interesting to talk about it. The Royal Greenwich Observatory thinks so... You can check also The College Mathematics Journal Tó campos 1:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok... I admit that when I wrote that the center of curvature of the Moon's trajectory oscillates slightly I was careless in the choice of the word «slightly»... (and I did not write that in the article....of course... I said it «in the heat» of the debate...)
But please notice that I never said that the Moon does not follow a geocentric orbit about the Earth! I am calling the attention to the shape of the Moon's track around the Sun and comparing it to the Earth's. The fact that the pull of the Earth and that of the Sun are not too dissimilar explains their similitude. The fact that the "gravitational pull of the Sun is larger", in Newtonian terms, "does not affect dynamics"; but it implies that it has a great influence in defining the geodesic of the Moon's free fall. The space-time curvature imposed by the Earth as it moves along is not enough to «cancel» the one imposed by the Sun. (Speaking in Newtonian terms, the combined Sun-Earth "pull" is the centripetal force that keeps the Moon moving in its trajectory, perpendicularly to its direction.)
If we "subtract the force the Sun "pulls" on the Earth", we are ignoring its effect in the definition of the geodesics; we are thinking in terms of a referential on Earth. Which is all right, if that is what we want to do. But of course the purpose of my presentation is to talk about the shape of the Moon's path in terms of a referential in the Sun. My approach would only be completely erroneous if my purpose was to talk about the geocentric orbit of the Moon. But that matter is already very well addressed in the main article. I am talking about Moon's path around the Sun and comparing it to the Earth's. And its shape is a surprise to many. Only that!
Am I persisting in an error? I don't believe so. I think that you are drawing wrong inferences from what I wrote. Maybe the problem arises because in this talk page I used the expression "the Moon orbits the Sun" (I did it in the article at first but I decided to change that for clearness). I use the word "orbit" with the meaning of "one complete passage around a body" (Oxford Dictionary). You seem to use it with a meaning that implies that the Moon is either orbiting the Earth or the Sun, but not both.
Maybe if I had always talked about "the track of the Moon as it moves with the Earth around the Sun" you would not express such dispproval. Can that be the problem? Tó campos 1:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The section I introduced tried to explain why it a surprise to many that the path of the Moon about the Sun is the way it is (misleading representations in scholar books, lack of knowledge by school teachers...). And I think the Wikipedia could have an important role in eliminating that lack of knowledge about this estabished fact. Maybe we should «cool down the emotive dispute» about this and let astronomers and teachers decide if this information is important and relevant or not... Let's find a clearly recognized atronomer and ask him. What do you think about that way of solving the problem? Tó campos 12:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
This is for clarity. The first sentence ("The Moon makes a complete orbit about the Earth approximately once every 29.5 days.") is contradicted by the "Revolution Period" figure in the table and is qualified by the second paragraph in a way that makes it inaccurate as a categorical statement, which it appears to be. I suggest deleting the first sentence and replacing it with the entire second paragraph which is an excellent, concise discussion that more completely and accurately answers the question, "how long does it take for a complete orbit?" Neev 16:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
When viewed from earth the moon-rise on a full moon day, which are the north and south poles of the moon? - the sides on our left and right of the lunar disk or the the ones at top and bottom side of the lunar disk? For a common reader, who is not an expert on the subject "moon", this artile is missing with this type of minor points.
SJP April 20, 2006
Since the moon doesn't have a molten Core, it doesn't have magnetized poles. Ilikelotsofnumbers 19:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
But, moon will have poles, which are the points where its axis of rotation intersects with the surface... correct? SJP June 7, 2006
I think what he's asking for is a moon map - maybe the near side (moon) blank article referenced here could be started with this sort of info? Anyone got a PD picture of this as I get fed up trying to work out the tags to add to images! Sophia 10:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I can clarify things here. I hope I don't accidentally get too complex here. OK, The Moon DOES have poles, but not magnetic ones. On Earth, the magnetic poles and the geographical poles are different. The geographical pole is where the Earths axis around which it rotates exit the Earth. The magnetic poles are the uhhh...OK, well, I'm, not a magnetism expert, but you get the picture: the magnetic and geographical poles are different. :) So the Moon DOES have poles.
However, determining which one is which can be harded for people in different locations. If civilization had developed in the southern hemisphere, we would probably consider what is generally thought of as the "bottom" half of the Moon to be the "Top" half, because to look at the Moon, which orbits roughly around the Earths Equator (at a 5 degree tilt to the Ecliptic to be exact) from the northern, hemisphere, you have to look south, but to look at it in the southern hemisphere, you must look north, so it looks "upside down" (unless you sit upside down in a chair, or you have a strange disease that makes your head tilt funny).
If you didn't understand all that, then you don't have to. Just understand that if you're in the Northern hemisphere, the "north pole" is at the "top", and if you're in the south, the "north pole" is at the "bottom". :) The QBasicJedi 20:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I kinda figured it would be too complex. I try to simplify things, but I have a habit of going off on tangents. Oh well... The QBasicJedi 13:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
How would this website and its content fit into the artile? Specifically, which segment thereof.. DrWho42 06:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Removed this:
I think such a section is too short to give "Blood Red Moon" wider meaning in a reasonable way. Maybe it should have its own article or dab page? Awolf002 23:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
To counter the usual "We never been to the Moon" case, there's been an alternative theory that believes that the forementioned conspiracy theory is simply a cover to deride people from finding out the "true" reason why we left the Moon (or told the public we stopped going, as John Lear states). The scientific advisor for Coast to Coast AM, Richard C. Hoagland, frequently propounds and firmly believes that there are ancient ruins on the Moon and discounts the whole collision theory as a misinterpretation of the so-called hi-temperaturely formed "rocks" found when claims they're more akin to what would be found of New York in 10,000 years..
This prolly a whole lot of pseudoscience, as Phil Plait points out as here, but it should be noteworthy in its own way as they're been included other theories as the Welteislehre theory wherein which the Moon is made solidly of ice. DrWho42 03:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
What is this? It looks NPOV, un-encyclopedic, doesn't site sources, and doesn't fit will with the article (it's like a 'pop culture references to the moon' type of section). I will be reviewing the history of this article to see if it's been around for a long time, but this section either needs to be put elsewhere or moved imo Piepants 21:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Piepants
I am not sure about the rules about adding external links but there is a software called VMA "Virtual Moon Atlas" available for free at http://astrosurf.com/avl/. This software offers an interface to navigate the moon, similar to Google Earth. It's quite better than the Google Moon listed already. It's quite efficient and very exhaustive and easy. I suggest we add it in the external link section. (from User dunwich)
Odd that the English article only uses metric units in the chart. ( Cj67 13:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC))
In the table, this article gives the axial tilt as 1.5424° to ecliptic (my emphasis).
However, see the article The_Moon's_Orbit, which states in the heading Inclination of the rotation axis, that the moon's axial tilt relative the lunar orbit is 1.5424°, but the axial tilt relative to the ecliptic is always 6.69° (as discovered by Cassini in 1721). Roo60 12:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only person for whom the article renders strangely? See picture. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 20:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It is a useful comparison between the size of the Earth and moon and their distance. I agree it is annoying, but should be kept and possibly be edited. Reywas92 01:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I placed it on speed of light. If anyone could perhaps edit the image so that it wouldn't move and the put it on Moon. Reywas92 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I put the above picture in, I hope it works well. Reywas92 23:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I may be wrong and probably am but that image depicting Alan Shepard on the moon.. can it be classed as a genuine photograph due to the image of the flag appearing to be flowing but the moons atmosphere has no air in which the flag can flow in. As i said i am probably wrong use know more than me so if you could let me know thanks
Don't worry about it, it's not a mistake by NASA conspirators! It looks like it's waving because 1) there's a pole in the top of the flag to make sure that it doesn't just slump in a rather unimpressive way 2) Shepard is shaking the flag pole as he plants it, making it ripple. Hope that helps you. Boyinabox 17:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)