Talk:Orbit of the Moon

message: If things like "synchronous rotation" are to be kept, then it makes sense to rename this article to "The Moon (motion)" from the current "The Moon (orbit)".  mdf 15:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article 

message: I had an argument with a friend who said that the distance between the earth and the moon was increasing. From what I know about physics, this is impossible. Orbital energy must be lost due to tides etc. However, he argued so convincingly that I came here to know for sure. If he is correct, I think it deserves a section in the article, if he is wrong, the decay rate of the orbit would be an interesting factoid to add to this article.
:the Moon is indeed receding from the earth. "Measurements show that the Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year" http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html. But the is also a corrsponding change in the rotation which keep the engergy conserved. 
No - the point is that energy is not conserved !  The sum of the moon's potential energy and kinetic energy falls as energy is progressively dissipated in the tides.  Paradoxically the result is to increase the moon's potential energy at the cost of its kinetic energy. Perhaps this is what is intended above. g4oep
Roguebfl 11:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Predictions suggest that the range will increase until the Earth and Moon become double synchronised, that is, both are tidally locked to one another. (So the Earth's day length would match the Moon's future orbital period of about 47 days, and the Earth-Moon distance would be about 550000km, compared to today's figure of 400000km). This won't occur for something like 50 billion years, by which point the Sun will be a white dwarf and will have passed through a red giant stage, which may result in the destruction of the Earth.   :Roguebfl 11:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance 

message: In the heading Inclination of the rotation axis, this article explains the axial tilt as 6.69° to ecliptic (my emphasis).
However, in the table lower down Other properties of the Moon's orbit Mean inclination of lunar equator to ecliptic is listed at 1° 32'Roo60 12:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Query re Axial tilt

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Proposal: Merge Earth and Moon with either The Moon's orbit or Tidal acceleration.
The result of the debate was merge with tidal acceleration. — Lunokhod 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge results 

message: It has been suggested that Earth and Moon be merged with either The Moon's orbit or Tidal acceleration.
FOR: I am for the move for the following reasons
# The title of the Earth and Moon papge is really bizarre.
# The Earth and Moon topic is really short and I don't see how it will ever be expanded.
# The orbital evolution of the Moon is clearly under the domain of The Moon's orbit.
I think that the some portion of this material could be placed in The Moon's orbit, but that Tidal acceleration is where the bulk of it should go.
Lunokhod 18:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, tidal acceleration is a more appropriate place. Lunokhod 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Merge

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Proposal: Rename The Moon's orbit to Orbit of the Moon.
The result of the debate was move. — Lunokhod 10:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed rename results

message: FOR I am for the proposed rename/move because (1) it is not wikipedia policy to have pages started with the word "the", and (2) when listing this page in an alphabetic list of see alsos, this topic falls under "the" (hence the reason for the naming policy). Lunokhod 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed rename

message: I see from the article that the ellipse of the lunar orbit rotates counterclockwise, and that the precession of its orbital plane is clockwise.  How about the orbit itself?  The animation of the Moon as it cycles through its phases allows one to infer that the orbit is counterclockwise (same as the rotation of the Earth, and the Earth's orbit around the Sun) but this really should be stated explicitly both here and at Moon.  --Wfaxon 22:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The physical Moon itself moves counterclockwise. (directions are always measured from above the north pole). Sagittarian Milky Way 21:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCW? 

message: Someone looking for info on the "secular acceleration of the Moon" in Wikipedia will search long and hard. Perhaps it is here but searching on this familiar term yields nothing.Cutler 09:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is already discussed in this article under Orbit of the Moon#Tidal evolution of the lunar orbit as well as the main article Tidal acceleration already listed under that heading. But I've added your term, secular acceleration of the Moon, as a redirect to tidal acceleration. — Joe Kress 23:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secular acceleration of the Moon 

message: I've searched the internet, and can only find recorded dates for one of the lunar cycles, the synodic.  This is a problem due to the importance of the draconic (nodical) cycle in predicting eclipses.  Someone should do some research. 68.144.80.168 (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: There is no reference point!

message: According to this article, cited by a source I can't access, the Earth and the Moon will achieve spin orbit resonance in 2 billion years. This seems a remarkably short time. I've heard estimates as high as 50 billion years. Serendipodous 16:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spin orbit resonance

message: As the Moon orbit becomes larger, eventually the year will become exactly 12 synodic (or 13 sideric) months. Will this cause any resonance effect, like the orbit getting more excentric, or is the orbit too irregular for such resonance effects? Ambi Valent (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sun will become a red giant long before that happens. In about a billion years the Sun's increasing luminosity will vaporize the oceans, removing virtually all tidal acceleration from the Moon, stopping its regression from Earth and preventing any further change in the length of the month. In 7.6 billion years both the Earth and Moon will be destroyed as the Sun increases in size and engulfs their mutual orbit. Furthermore, all calculations that I have seen presume that the present tidal acceleration will continue unchanged, producing double Earth/Moon spin-orbit resonance in 50 billion years, whereas we now know that the present acceleration is at least twice the long term (620 Ma) average deduced from tidal rhythmites, doubling all calculated times. — Joe Kress (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sun-Earth-Moon resonance? 

message: The diagram in the section "Path of Earth and Moon around Sun" only shows a small part of the orbit of the Moon relative to the Sun, in order to illustrate the "convexity" (or "concavity") point.  The diagram is not apt to illustrate the direction of movement of the Moon along its orbit (and in any case, insufficient information is given to define this direction, because the diagram might equally be considered as seen from the north, or from the south).  But to clarify the "convexity" point, it is important to say what is the location of the Sun relative to the portion of orbit shown in the diagram:  the Sun is located below and to the left.  Terry0051 (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of diagram 

message: Recent change was said to be a 'correction' from 1.023 'km/s' to 'm/s'.
Mean distance from the Earth is about 385000 km (not m), mean sidereal period is 27.321661 days of 86400 secs, (385000 x 2 π )/(27.321661 x 86400) comes to about 1.024 in km/s not m/s.  After a chance for anybody to point out mistakes in this , the 'correction' should be reverted. Terry0051 (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon's orbital speed: 'correction' was mis-correction 

message: In contrast to all texts that I have ever read, this maths site www.mathpages.com/home/kmath273.htm  plausibly proposes that the moons orbit has not always been receding from Earth.
I think that mention should be made of this in the article. I will likely be unable to pursue this matter as I rarely have appropriate internet access.
93.187.145.247 (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  May not have always been receding ? 

message: In light of the recent tsunami (11 Mar 2011) and talk of how it could have been influenced by the "supermoon", it seems like some discussion of this topic is in order.  As an orbit dynamicist (but admittedly not an astrophysicist), I am concerned by claims in the article that supermoons are correlated (or might be correlated) to significant geological and meteorological events.  These claims are completely uncited, and as a scientist I cannot think of a good reason that lunar perigee coinciding with full moon would have more impact than, say, perigee + new moon.  The events quoted have been cherry-picked to match, and they don't even match well.  (One deleted event was two weeks before a "supermoon"--i.e. when the moon was at apogee!)  I propose removing the speculative sections, leaving only a discussion of the term and its history, and will do this unless I can be swayed otherwise.  Kemperb (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also: A lunar perigee ... coincides with a full moon once every two to three years.  An exact coincidence of two instantaneous events happens with probability zero.  Does 'coincides' mean they occur on the same calendar day, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A few extra photons of light striking Earth, reflected off a "super moon", is negligible.  And even a large amount of light doesn't cause Earthquakes.  If light caused Earthquakes, we'd have one at Dawn and Dusk every day.  Please remove this crackpot section.  I swear to God I wish I never studied physics, I can't stand it anymore.  Kill me, please kill me!98.165.15.98 (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Yup the 'supermoon' theory is complete bovine excrement, though no doubt a few fruitcakes will insist that there is a connection anyway. If they try to ewdit the article, tell them that their theory clearly predicts more quakes as the SM gets closer, so they should head for the hills, rather than trolling the internet... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed the speculation about a correlation between the position of the moon and and an earthquake because it is not only unsourced but unsourcable (to a suitably reliable source). While I would be happy to see the section removed, perhaps some brief mention of what is known to science about the topic is suitable (without any mention of the earthquake, per WP:ONEWAY). Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see everything about the supermoon removed. It's not science. It's mystical garbage. It has no place here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the whole thing out, as consensus appears to be that it's a train wreck. The term comes from an astrologer and is not used in sensible discussions of the moon's orbit. It doesn't appear to have particularly wide currency amongst astrologers either. The bit about Cyclone Tracy and Hurricane Katrina is not sourced. As has been pointed out, something happening a few days away from a supermoon being touted as evidence for its influence is nonsense, because the moon is then nearer to apogee. Unfortunately, people who hear about supermoons as a once in 18 year event or whatever will regard a few days difference as evidence for rather than against the idea, because it sounds pretty near relative to the total recurrence time. If any mention of supermoons belongs, it's for the purposes of debunking, along the lines of that being issued by serious commentators (see for example the Bad Astronomy blog). Please note that because the supermoon idea is doing the rounds on the internet and even in some newspapers, a supermoon article has appeared (see also its talk page). I raised the issue at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Astrology_and_the_Japanese_earthquake. Please keep an eye on all relevant articles to avoid nonsense creeping in. 82.46.43.33 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Good work. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

text: LOL! When I wrote above that perhaps something should be retained, I had entirely missed the "astrologer" in the section—I just could not imagine that such a reference was in this science article. Thanks to 82.46.43.33. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The body of the article should contain a simple statement such as "A full moon near a time of lunar perigee is commonly called a  Supermoon". The Supermoon "See also" reference is then unnecessary. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's very wrong to say "commonly called a  Supermoon". Until three weeks ago most of the world had never heard the term. HiLo48 (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be common now, which is what matters; Wikipedia should certainly support established neologisms.  But my "such as" clearly admits of alternatives, such as "often" or "sometimes". 94.30.84.71 (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supermoon section misleading 

message: "and the 8.9-magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami that hit Japan on March 11, 2011, was eight days prior to a Super-Moon during which the moon was reported to be closer to the Earth than at any time since 1992"
The super moon stuff seems a bit fringe, but okay - but this part is really silly as it is completely opposed to the supermoon theory - 8 days before a Super-Moon means the moon was further than average from the Earth (as it takes ~14 days to move from furthest to nearest point when it is moving towards us), and the three objects were well out of line, so even if the SuperMoon theory is correct, things happening days away from that particular date can't be part of the evidence of that theory, and things happening more than a week either side of a supermoon stand in direct contradiction with the theory. --Sfnhltb (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup the 'supermoon' theory is complete bovine excrement, though no doubt a few fruitcakes will insist that there is a connection anyway. If they try to ewdit the article, tell them that their theory clearly predicts more quakes as the SM gets closer, so they should head for the hills, rather than trolling the internet... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed the speculation about a correlation between the position of the moon and and an earthquake because it is not only unsourced but unsourcable (to a suitably reliable source). While I would be happy to see the section removed, perhaps some brief mention of what is known to science about the topic is suitable (without any mention of the earthquake, per WP:ONEWAY). Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see everything about the supermoon removed. It's not science. It's mystical garbage. It has no place here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the whole thing out, as consensus appears to be that it's a train wreck. The term comes from an astrologer and is not used in sensible discussions of the moon's orbit. It doesn't appear to have particularly wide currency amongst astrologers either. The bit about Cyclone Tracy and Hurricane Katrina is not sourced. As has been pointed out, something happening a few days away from a supermoon being touted as evidence for its influence is nonsense, because the moon is then nearer to apogee. Unfortunately, people who hear about supermoons as a once in 18 year event or whatever will regard a few days difference as evidence for rather than against the idea, because it sounds pretty near relative to the total recurrence time. If any mention of supermoons belongs, it's for the purposes of debunking, along the lines of that being issued by serious commentators (see for example the Bad Astronomy blog). Please note that because the supermoon idea is doing the rounds on the internet and even in some newspapers, a supermoon article has appeared (see also its talk page). I raised the issue at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Astrology_and_the_Japanese_earthquake. Please keep an eye on all relevant articles to avoid nonsense creeping in. 82.46.43.33 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Good work. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

text: LOL! When I wrote above that perhaps something should be retained, I had entirely missed the "astrologer" in the section—I just could not imagine that such a reference was in this science article. Thanks to 82.46.43.33. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The body of the article should contain a simple statement such as "A full moon near a time of lunar perigee is commonly called a  Supermoon". The Supermoon "See also" reference is then unnecessary. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's very wrong to say "commonly called a  Supermoon". Until three weeks ago most of the world had never heard the term. HiLo48 (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be common now, which is what matters; Wikipedia should certainly support established neologisms.  But my "such as" clearly admits of alternatives, such as "often" or "sometimes". 94.30.84.71 (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  supermoon 

message: In the section on lunar standstill, some angular arithmetic is presented that must involve some rounding (23°29′ + 5°9′ or 28°36′) and later (23°28′ − 5°8′ or 18°19′). The first sum would be 28°38′ while the second would be 18°20′. I'm wondering if the (distracting) rounding in this description could be avoided somehow. Or, perhaps it simply reflects an error?  Mike Fikes (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is too big to be a rounding error, and the use of 5°9′ in one place and 5°8′ in another has to be fixed (by an astronomer who would know better which is wrong). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_standstill does not help as it rounds to nearest degree. To be consistent with the table at the top of the article it should be 5°8′ since 5.14° == 5°8.4'. Tbonefrog (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Simon 1994 states the average inclination of the lunar orbit to the ecliptic at J2000.0 is . However, Jean Meeus, Mathematical astronomy morsels, page 12 notes that the inclination of the lunar orbit varies semiannually from about  or  (1996.0 to 1999.0). IERS Useful Constants states that Earth's axial tilt (obliquity) is  (IAU Astronomical Constant (1976) for J2000.0). Thus the average lunar standstill range is  or . The lunar orbit variation may add or subtract another . Lunar parallax of up to 0.95° is usually ignored. — Joe Kress (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lunar standstill math 

message: I have read through the entire article and I cannot find a statement of which way the Moon goes around the Earth.  Please would someone add this, either in the introduction, or in the section: "Path of Earth and Moon around Sun".
I suggest a sentence in the form: "Viewed from the north, i.e. the direction of the star Polaris, the Moon travels [clockwise/anticlockwise] around the Earth; the Earth travels [clockwise/anticlockwise] around the Sun." Darkman101 (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When viewed from the north celestial pole, near the star Polaris, the Moon orbits the Earth counterclockwise, the Earth orbits the Sun counterclockwise, and the Moon and Earth rotate on their own axes counterclockwise. Alternatively, the right-hand rule may be used. If the thumb of the right hand points to the north celestial pole, its fingers curl in the direction that the Moon orbits the Earth, the Earth orbits the Sun, and the Moon and Earth rotate on their own axes. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent !  Many thanks for that Joe !  I have incorporated your information in the "Path of Earth and Moon around Sun" section. Darkman101 (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direction of Travel ? 

message: This page needs a Java or Flash applet that will show how the Moon, its nodes and apsids all rotate with different periods and in different directions. Prose can only explain so much; a moving model that can be viewed from different angles and different frames is essential here. 24.138.76.31 (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applet? 

message: "some of the Earth's angular (or rotational) momentum is gradually being transferred to the Moon's orbital momentum, and this causes the Moon to slowly recede from Earth at the rate of approximately 38 millimetres per year." 
I don't see anything about the change in the length of the month while changing the orbital radius. What is the change in the length of the month?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddwarf2956 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longer orbits leads to Moon's month change. 

message: The equations which are said to be the basis of the image in the article are not accurate. The image should be shown as accurately as possible in an encyclopedia article. I have written a python program to display the image of the orbit of the Earth and Moon together. This program uses the correct values for the masses, distances, velocities and acceleration according to Newton's law of gravity and therefore shows a true representation of the path of the Earth and Moon together.
It does consider the Earth-Moon-Sun as a three-body system and so disregards the gravitational effects of the other planets.
This program can be found at   http://pastebin.com/NEpwDQxs
It requires python 2 or 3 with numpy and matplotlib. Give it time to run. It takes about 26 seconds on my machine.
The image of a portion of the earth moon orbit is here http://ctrlv.in/240322
The green curve is the earth orbit and the blue curve is the moon orbit.   I would like to replace the image in the article with this  image together with an explanation of the equations used to calculate it. I am uncertain how to do this. If someone agrees that this is a worthwhile addition and would like to help put it in, please let me know here.
B A Andersen (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagram of the Earth Moon orbit

message: There is said: "The Moon crosses the same node every 27.2122 days" (the draconic month) There should be said, that it is an average value, where actual time distances between ascending node passages (relative to dynamic ecliptic plane) are currently (this year) in range 27.05 - 27.36 days (the difference is over 7 hours), varying on a sinusoide with 173.3 day period, as detected from NASA/JPL ephemerides DE422. Similar variability (173 day sinusoide) shows the angle between angular momentum vector (orbit axis) of Moon orbit relative to Earth and of angular momentum vector of EMB orbit relative to Sun (on range 5.0328° - 5.30428°).  The angular frequency of rotation of a vector from EMB to Moon Ascending Node ranges from 1.6e-5° to 3.21° per 27 days (the low bound could be probably an artifact of discrete position of ascending node calculation? But probably it is not...). I found no mention of the variability of Moon precession here...?! There should be at least the word average draconic month...  P.A.Semi  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.98.159.114 (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variability of draconic month 

message: The article says, The sidereal month is the time it takes to make one complete orbit of the earth with respect to the fixed stars, it is about 27.32 days
and later 
The time between two successive passes of the same ecliptic longitude is called the tropical month. The latter three periods are slightly different from the sidereal month
The sidereal month and the tropical month both  refer to one revolution in ecliptic longitude, and in both cases use the rate of change of the mean longitude at an instant. The difference is that the sidereal month refers to a fixed equinox, the tropical year to the equinox of date. Usually the instant and, in the first case date of fixed equinox, J2000.  
Simon et al. have 1732559343.736 arcseconds per Julian century. For the J2000 equinox. There being 36525 days in a Julian century and 1296000 arcseconds per revolution, we get 27.32166155 days. Same thing the article gives for the sidereal month.
The same calculation for the mean elements of date agrees perfectly with the tropical month. And it has nothing to do with the vernal equinox.
Saros136 (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant in the 2nd paragraph,  mean equinox of date. Saros136 (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstanding sidereal vs tropical year 

message: I am new to wikipedia and I added a diagram I thought would be helpful.  However, I think I have messed up the formmating on the TOC and table at the beginning of this page.  Can someone please fix it and let me know what I can do in the future to avoid this?  Thank you! -Peter
Psobchak (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The diagram is actually really helpful, thank you; I'm seeing the picture with the 5.14° lunar orbital inclination and the 23.4° obliquity of earth. It looks like it fits just fine with the other diagrams and pictures; it is properly lined up and is better that it's small. It's better that it's unreadable until you click it, because with the amount of tiny details on the diagram, it'd take way too much space for something that a lot of people wouldn't want to see. Excellent addition! I'm not accustom to the sourcing of diagrams, but was this properly sourced? If you drew it yourself, was there a book you retrieved your data from? Just making sure it's by the books. Thanks again.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Complete turing (talk • contribs) 09:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

text: The diagram looks good to me. A small typo Equitorial should be Equatorial. Tom Ruen (talk) 09:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

text: I also prefer the original image.  It looks better, seems easier to interpret, and has more data. Hadron137 (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

text: I prefer Peter's diagram to NASA's. WikiParker (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC Formatting 

message: Is this a typo?
74.72.169.238 (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The draconic month is the time from ascending node to ascending node. 

message: Article is written with Km all over it. Where I live, we work with miles, inperial measurements. I'm struggling with this article because the Km does not quantify the distances. The article and associated articles need updating to show both measurement systems.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.255.84 (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: apart from boohoo and who doesn't understand metric, I'll attempt some obvious converts for you Dave Rave (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miles 

message: All the content pertaining the Tidal rhythmites has no references whithin and they had to be seen on Tidal acceleration 
The citation is Williams, G. "Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of Earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit". Reviews of Geophysics 38, 37 (2000). 
The contents on the Earth's paleorotation and distance to the Moon is contradicted in a posterior document 
consulted here 
Citing from the abstract: "We have shown that analysis of ancient tidal rhythmite may help us to estimate the palaeolunar orbital periods in terms of lunar days/month accurately. Determination of absolute Earth–Moon distances and Earth’s palaeorotational parameters in the distant geological past from tidal rhythmite, however, is ambiguous because of the difficulties in determining the absolute length of the ancient lunar sidereal month." (my bold) 
The same concern about the contents and references should be addressed in the Tidal acceleration page. 
The page Rhythmite#Tidal_rhythmites is correct because there is no mention of this outdated and erroneous content.  
Because I'm not used to edit WP I ask a more experient editor to proceed with the corrections.   
62.169.67.133 (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidal rhythmites - no references and outdated content 

message: .
ready ur y5 just9for her that if the time of delivery on it to the list you know where that would mean it that we would do to fix and it says on our list so it might work on your homework so it might work on your homework so it might work on your tyy in
Registration in to your family is all you guys still there at around in there so if he  does
Ouu;it in and get to go in  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.135.113 (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Orbit of the Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330095748/http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13266 to http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13266
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Can someone please add this info about the orbit of the Moon and the Earth's atmosphere? link: . Thank you. --Miaow 15:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: The Moon flies through Earth's atmosphere

message: Under "Properties" and "Elliptic shape", the phrase "(Julian day 2000)" might be a mistake.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:A90D:559:F0F0:6602 (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarified. Ruslik_Zero 08:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: I wonder if anyone can confirm if this research is accurate - I can't find online copies of the obscure citations in fn.27 - On the curve of the Moon’s orbit: A brisk debate between gentlemen, the Trajectorium Lunare and after:
https://www.academia.edu/13219527/On_the_curve_of_the_Moons_orbit_a_brisk_debate_between_gentleman_the_Trajectorium_Lunare_and_after?auto=download
"The  final  steps  towards  a  mathematical proof  of  the  question  were  taken  in  1761. In a short article, comprising just two pages  of  textual  argument  and  one  diagram the  proof  was  provide[d]  by ‘S.  Reader,  Mathematical’. The article appeared in the January  1761  issue  of  the  somewhat  eccentric journal Martin’s Miscellaneous Correspondence.(27) ... No specific reason is given for the timing  of  the  publication,  but  Benjamin Martin  (the  Editor)  provides  the  following introduction, ‘I  was  favoured  with  the  following Theory, by an ingenious and learned Friend  at  Wareham,  some  Years  ago’.  The article  is  with  little  doubt  due  to  the  Reverend Simon Reader (? – c. 1794), who was well-known  at  that  time  as  a  Dissenting Minister,  preaching  at Wareham,  in  Dorset. Apparently, therefore, the article and proof were  produced  some  time  prior  to  1761, but the exact date remains unclear. Reader provides  no  references  or  historical  con-text  within  his  article,  and  simply  sets  out to prove the introductory statement that: ‘A Demonstration that the Moon passes, at the Time of Conjunction; further from the Sun, than a right Line, drawn betwixt two of its Places, taken, one before and the other after Conjunction,  and  equidistant  from  I’’.   The Proof is entirely geometrical, and having es-tablished the correctness of the statement, a  corollary  then  asserts  that  the  Moon’s path must be concave to the Sun. Reader’s proof is similar in outline to that provided by  John  Badder  in  January  of  1743,  but rather  than  relying  upon  approximate  numerical calculations Reader develops a full analytic  argument... The same obscurity has  additionally  befallen  the  Reverend  Simon Reader, who apparently provided the first  mathematical  proof  that  the  Moon’s path  must  always  be  concave  towards  the Sun.  Indeed,  the  proof  of  the  concavity  of the Moon’s path, if even stated with an astronomy  text,  is  invariably  taken  as  being in the ‘public domain’ with no original authorship  being  recognized."   
[fn.27: Martin’s   Miscellaneous Correspondence, Vol. 4, p. 591, January 1761. There is little  biographical  data  on  Simon  Reader. According  to  the  memoir  of  the  Reverend W. Hordle (The Evangelical Magazine and Missionary  Chronicle, 28  (1850),  p. 628 ‘he ran a boarding school and taught Latin, Greek, geography, the use of globes and astronomy’. Reader was educated under Rev. Dr  Philip  Doddridge  (1702-1751)  –  a  leading  English  Nonconformist  minister  -  and is  described  as  being, ‘a  man  of  extensive learning’ in The Critical Review, Or, Annals of Literature for November, 1795 (p. 319).] Shtove (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First geometric proof by Simon Reader? 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Earth-moon system and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 14#Earth-moon system until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Earth-moon system" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An image caption in section History of observations and measurement now reads, "The apparent trajectory of the Moon in the sky seen from Earth each night is like a wide ellipse, ... ". Isn't it very close to a great circle on the celestial sphere, at most 1°1′32″ off? The difference is too small to be observed without instrumentation, so why call it an ellipse?  --Lambiam 13:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent trajectory of the Moon  

message: :
Is that so?  It's not obvious to me that the precession of the Moon's rotation axis should match that of its orbital plane. —Tamfang (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  draconic year