Talk:Moon/Archive 6

message: I'd like to point out that the moon and earth move around each other, they both share a gravitational pull 1,000 miles below the earth, meaning the earth has three centres of gravity, the sun its own axis and this. --Game overman (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What you probably intended to say with the first statement you made is that the moon and the earth rotate around the centre of gravity of the moon/earth system, which is below the earth's surface.  As for the earth having three centres of gravity, I'm not exactly sure what you mean.  Maybe something along the lines that the earth has a centre of gravity on its own, the moon/earth system has a centre of gravity, and the sun/moon/earth system also has a centre of gravity? --Slashme (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon and earth gravity 

message: There are occasions where the moon is tinted a red colour due to the light passing through the atmosphere of the earth.  However, the article makes no mention of it (it's not a lunar eclipse, as it happened less than two hours ago as I post this) and the moon is not in the Earth's shadow.  Does this have a name?  i think it should be included in the article.--Tiberius47 11:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Copper Moon" is actually a lunar eclipse where the earth stands between the moon and the sun . The earth's atmosphere causes some light from the sun to bend and fall on the moon which is why the moon is not totally dark and also what gives it the colour. I'll check the article and add missing details.  Sophia 21:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's talking about when the moon is near the horizon and looks red or orange.thx1138 03:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon and colour 

message: I'm just wondering if there is a technical term for when the moon is visible during the day. - Jigsy 16:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a technical term for the Moon visible at night, or when it's not visible (either obscured or below the horizon)?? I'm not sure. If not, there should be. Kris 22:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon in the day 

message: There's a section in the exploration that says 
What was the next big step depends on the political viewpoint: in the US (and the western world in general) the landing of the first humans on the Moon in 1969 is seen as the culmination of the space race.
As opposed to what? The article doesn't expand on other political viewpoints (for instance the Eastern world viewpoint).  It just expands and explains the US (Western world) Viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.70.254 (talk) 
:Taken care of. Nick Mks 10:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political viewpoint? 

message: This section included an image labelled "Moon reddened because of physical phenomena."  I couldn't tell just what this phenomena was, and the image caption wasn't telling.  Could someone clarify the matter?  Until then, I've removed the image from the article.  mdf 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we better just drop it. It's not bad, but not a featured picture either... We could also drop the caption alone. I could write an entire paragraph on the atmospheric phenomena causing this, but that's got nothing to do with the Moon. Nick Mks 19:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Image quality is not an issue, just the description of what the image is supposedly of.  If someone specifically identifies the "physical phenomena", I have no objection to its re-introduction into the article.  mdf 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I understand. How about just atmospheric phenomena? Nick Mks 20:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even that may be a bit vague, but it's certainly better than nothing.  The person who knows best is probably the author of the image, User:Valdezlopez.  I've left him a note.  mdf 20:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: This word is currently moribund, if it was ever used at all in the way Wikipedia is currently using it.  As I mentioned at the selenography talk page, it's arguably a neologism.  I'd love to be bold and just change it to "lunar geography", if only to be consistent with "lunar geology" (used in-article).  But one suspects resistance.  mdf 19:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know this, it's your call. I'm just the astrophysicist here, before yesterday I hadn't even heard the word. Nick Mks 19:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been trying to find a "real" use of the word in the manner Wikipedia is doing, but have mainly drawn a blank.  People use it, but not the "important people" (so to speak).  Most of the good stuff on the subject is found by searching for "lunar geography".  Hopefully, I'll be surprised.  Just today, for example, I came across "selenophysics" for the first time (see http://www.iers.org/documents/publications/tn/tn34/tn34.pdf).  I initially thought it was just some guy trying to be cute with "lunar geophysics" (~650 hits at google), but others have been using the word in the same way (~40 hits).  mdf 20:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Selenography was always understood to be the study of the physical features of the surface when I was studying many years ago. As for it being a neologism I would refer you to this library entry
Our Satellite: a Selenography
Author: D'ORSAN, Dr. A. Le Vengeur
Contributor: DE MORGAN, Augustus
Mark : DE MORGAN
Reference : 1824 (October 11,1862), 460  - at
http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~asp/v2/titles/tget.cgi?1824.html@OurSatellite:aSelenography
Sorry about the length of the link but I could not use tinyurl for some reason. I think 1824 counts as not new, and I'm sure the phrase pre-dates that book by a good way. Its a shame people like to change lovely old words for no particular reason. PrivateWiddle 20:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selenography 

message: One of the major benefits of wikipedia over other encyclopedias is the option for being current, and providing news - a place to revisit for updates.  One of the most newsworthy items through the centuries has been the eclipses of the sun and moon.  This news should be included in this site - based on relevance and interest:
===Next Eclipse:===
* 28 Aug 2007 - Total Lunar Eclipse
A total lunar eclipse will be visible over the Americas, the Pacific, eastern Asia, and Australasia.
(Saros 128, umbral mag. 1.481, max. eclipse 10:37 UT
total: 09:52:00 UT to 11:22:45 UT)
===Next Solar Eclipse:===
* 11 Sep 2007 - Partial Solar Eclipse
A partial eclipse will be visible over southern South America, and parts of Antarctica.
(Saros 154, umbral mag. 0.749, max. eclipse 12:31 UT
partial: 10:25:45 UT to 14:36:33 UT)
===Next Total Solar Eclipse:===
* 1 Aug 2008 - Total Solar Eclipse 
The track -- 237 km wide at maximum -- begins in north Canada, passes near the North Pole, and into northern Russia. It then runs south-east into China. It is visible as a partial eclipse in Britain, though will not be dramatic. 
The maximum duration is 2 minutes 27 seconds, and the path width at maximum is 237 kilometers.
(Saros 126, umbral mag. 1.039, max. eclipse 10:21 UT
total: 09:21:07 UT to 11:21:28 UT)
citations:
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/OH/OH2007.html
and for being user friendly
http://www.hermit.org/eclipse/
 Roo 7 April
  
:Yeah, well, good point but a list like the one you added is not acceptable in a FA. I'll see to it. Nick Mks 12:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon News 

message: * 1 Aug 2008 - Total Solar Eclipse 
The track -- 237 km wide at maximum -- begins in north Canada, passes near the North Pole, and into northern Russia. It then runs south-east into China. It is visible as a partial eclipse in Britain, though will not be dramatic. 
The maximum duration is 2 minutes 27 seconds, and the path width at maximum is 237 kilometers.
(Saros 126, umbral mag. 1.039, max. eclipse 10:21 UT
total: 09:21:07 UT to 11:21:28 UT)
citations:
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/OH/OH2007.html
and for being user friendly
http://www.hermit.org/eclipse/
 Roo 7 April
  
:Yeah, well, good point but a list like the one you added is not acceptable in a FA. I'll see to it. Nick Mks 12:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Next Total Solar Eclipse:

message: I think an important and interesting fact to place in the second intro paragraph would be how many people have landed/set foot on the moon, to date; I don't know where that figure is given, if it is anywhere on Wikipedia.  That the six Apollo missions have been the only manned missions to the moon should also be given more prominence; I don't think Project Apollo states that clearly either.  Cheers, Postdlf 22:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to amend. Nick Mks 14:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exploration suggestions 

message: From images taken by the Clementine mission, it appears that four mountainous regions on the rim of the 73-km-wide Peary crater at the Moon's north pole remain illuminated for the entire lunar day, at least during the hemisphere's summer season. These peaks of eternal light are possible because of the Moon's extremely small axial tilt to the ecliptic plane.
The text above contains an inconsistency. For the peaks to be illuminated for the entire day during summer, a large axial tilt is not prohibitive. Compare earth: large axial tilt and midnight sun. What an extremely small axial tilt might enable however, are peaks that are illuminated during the entire lunar year. Also luna orbits very close to the ecliptic, so the eternally lit areas would have to be very horizontal. Shinobu 15:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I looked it up and it should be really eternal (except during eclipses). Nick Mks 18:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eternal light 

message: Someone with experience at editing pages should add this. It is the only known natural moon besides 'the Moon'. It's identified as "6R10DB9" see . See also  and . An article from Sky & Telescope --Daveonwiki 18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, but not appropriate in this article I'd say. Nick Mks 18:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth's New Temporary Moon 

message: The first sentence of the second parargraph states that the Moon is the only celestial body that humans have orbited except for the Earth. What about the Sun? The centre of the Milky Way? -- Rmrfstar 23:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, can't say that you're wrong. Any suggestions on how to rephrase? Nick Mks 09:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't think it's that significant of a fact. I'd take it out and leave that it's the only celestial body that we've landed on. -- Rmrfstar 12:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: or add "in spacecraft". I assume it's there to make it explicit that although probes have been to other planets, men have not.  Sophia 13:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but while you are orbiting the Earth in a spacecraft, you're also orbiting the Sun in your spacecraft. So that doesn't really solve the problem. I guess I'll take it out. Nick Mks 14:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only celestial body orbited... 

message: The article implies, but does not state directly, which way the Moon orbits the Earth - anticlockwise, as viewed looking down on the North Pole of the Earth, same as the Earth itself rotates.  It might be better to state this explicitly.148.197.5.19 09:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not, go ahead. Nick Mks 09:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direction of orbit 

message: What is a limb of the Moon? I saw the word used in Lohrmann (crater) and it is in this article too, but not explained. Thanks. Itsmejudith 11:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See limb for the answer. Urhixidur 14:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much for your answer and for making the link in the article. If I've got it right the limb is the great circle that divides the near side from the far side. I don't quite see how the term would relate to other celestial bodies, unless it is always defined by their positions relative to Earth. A bit more clarification in the relevant articles might be called for. Itsmejudith 15:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  As a common amateur astronomer I have always understood it to mean the visible/apparent edge of the Moon and those areas close to it.  This has more currency because the Moon presents the same face to us all the time so you can simply say that such and such a feature is on the southern limb. PrivateWiddle 18:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limb? 

message: "allow a total of about 59 per cent of the lunar surface to be visible from Earth at one time or another"
As it currently reads, this would mean that you can see 59 percent of the moon at any given instant. Is this correct or should it have been written as; "allow a total of about 59 percent of the lunar surface to be viewed from Earth."
I skimmed through the article looking for shape descriptions other then oblateness, as this wouldn't change the maximum permissible view at a single instant, but didn't find anything.
--Charlesburg 03:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your rephrased interpretation is correct, however I don't see the problem. I think the at one time or another does the trick. Nick Mks 17:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but the sentence in the article does say at one time or another and not at any given time. I really don't see the problem, but if you want to change the wording, go ahead... Nick Mks 09:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct, or badly written?