Talk:Moon/Archive 1

Stats Bar

 * The statistics bar is somewhat confusing regarding the orbital inclination of the Moon's orbit. This confusion is cleared up with a good discussion about a third down the page, but it would be nicer if either a) it didn't cause the confusion in the first place, or b) it gave some hint that there was further discussion.  See, the inclination is given with respect to the Earth's equator, like a normal satellite's, but if you follow the link to the Inclination page, it states "For the Moon however, the inclination is measured with respect to the ecliptic [...]".  In light of that, I'm adding the inclination with respect to the ecliptic in above the inclination with respect to the Earth's equator.  That's my solution, if other people have better solutions, they should implement them...
 * Aidan 03:51, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Water Escape

 * 'Energy from sunlight splits much of this water into its constituent elements hydrogen and oxygen, both of which usually fly off into space immediately.'

Why would this be ? The moon has Gravity and the molecules have some density that is higher than that of empty space! It should remain in some hight of atmosphere ?! Togo 05:01, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The Moon has gravity, but not nearly as much gravity as a planet like Earth does; this means it has a lower escape velocity. As a result, the thermal motion of lightweight molecules such as oxygen and hydrogen easily reaches velocities higher than the Moon's escape velocity and the molecules never fall back to the surface. Bryan 05:11, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Inlunation

 * Light falling on the Earth from the Moon is called "inlunation".

Never heard of that, nor can it be found on the Web.

Nor it can. I had back-formed it from insolation. So had a friend of mine with whom I was having a conversation. Anyway, thanks for deleting it. --drj


 * Actually, the correct term is "ashen light" ("lumière cendrée" in French), although that is also used to designate a faint glow occasionally observed on the dark side of Venus. Earthshine is another term used.


 * Urhixidur 03:40, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

External agent

 * The fact that the Moon seen from the earth appears to be exactly the same size as the Sun has been used by some people to suggest that life on Earth has been set up by some external agent.

Huh? Would you please elaborate?


 * Slapped wrists - I think this edit was mine, and yeah 'Some people' do include the below freaks searchers for the truth. I can't find any real evidence for it, either. [User:Dave McKee]

Yeah, that's a new one on me. Do "some people" include Billy Joe and his cousin Ralph, UFO cults, or some more distinguished subsection of the population?

Yes, that idea is sheer lunacy. [User:BAD PUN]

Probably so, but someone wrote "This fact has been used by some people to suggest that life on Earth has been set up by some external agent," and if that's true, the article should say so only if it's some appreciable minority of the populace who thinks so--you know, a few wacko exobiologists, or something. --LMS

Hey- Billy Joe here -- Just because you don't think that the 'coincidence' is important doesn't mean other people don't. In fact, I would expect that if I did a survey in the right environment, that most people would consider the fact that you don't believe it is a sign that an external agent (ie: God) created the earth and all that is in it as a sign that you are close-minded and generally lacking in 'common sense'. That is not to try to be judgemental or derogatory, but the folks that feel this way have as much ability to draw their conclusions from nature as you do. - Billy Joe, if you would please answer my question, I would be happier. --LMS

Eclipses
Hello! I've removed the section on eclipses that referred to coincidences and God. The rest of the section outlines why eclipses occur, and also links to detailed articles about solar and lunar eclipses. --Hellesfarne

Tolkein
But notice that Isil, the Moon in Tolkien's Middle Earth, is male, while Anar, the Sun, is female

I like Tolkien as much as the next person, possibly more, but this does seem kind of out of place here. There are so many mythologies we're not even going to try and represent, why would we single Tolkien's out?

Fraudulent fabrication
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down

Evil government plot
Oooo... kaaaay. Anyway, assuming for the moment that Earth's moon is in fact real and not an evil government plot of some kind, there's something I'm thinking of doing that I wanted to run past folks in Talk: before starting. It's bugged me for some time that two major articles - one on Earth's moon and the other on moons in general - shared the same page like this. But it's always seemed a little too audacious for me to disambiguate; what would the new pages be called?

A couple of ideas for Earth's moon:
 * Moon (moon)
 * Moon (Earth)
 * Luna

And a couple of ideas for moons in general:
 * Moon (generic)
 * Moon (general)
 * Moon (planetary)
 * Moon (moon) (yeah, the same as above. It would only be used for one, though :)

Does anyone have any ideas or preferences on this matter? Of course, I would do all of the heavy lifting of changing existing links to point to the appropriate new pages once the article is split. Bryan Derksen, Thursday, May 23, 2002

I think it would be good to try to avoid parenthetical disambiguation whenever possible because you can not easily make direct links to these articles within edit windows.

Becasue there is an obvious ambiguity here, I think the Latin form for Earth's moon (Luna) would be best for that entry and natural satellite would be good for the generic "moon". The word "moon" or "Moon" could then be introduced in the first line of the article and used throughout. Moon would then be a disambiguation page. In general, I think we should try to find valid, and easy to link to alternatives for what we name articles when faced with ambiguity (like what was done with the asteroids articles) and avoid using artificial means for disambiguation (such as the use of parenthesis). --maveric149


 * Heh. Your timing is impeccable. :) I like your idea of natural satellite, I'll move the article over to that in a little while once some more dust settles. I also agree that parentheticals are nice to avoid when possible (though it's not always possible). Bryan Derksen, Friday, May 24, 2002

Luna
(Formerly at Talk:Luna:)

I have had the temerity to apply the "Paris solution" to this article. If there's any disagreement, let's discuss it. - user:Montrealais

I don't much like the the title of this article - hardly anyone refers to the moon as 'Luna'. I would much prefer The Moon, which is the normal english name, and just as unambiguous. Any thoughts? Enchanter


 * I totally agree. It may be "Luna" to Spanish-speakers, but certainly not to English-speakers.  -- Zoe


 * Depends on how much Heinlein you read. :) However, I'd prefer to just put it at Moon. There are exactly zero links to the moon or the Moon except from this talk page, so I wouldn't call it natural; people just don't tend to include the direct article in the link. A spot check of links to Luna shows a zillion links on the form of the Moon (which ain't natural neither). --Brion


 * It's also "Luna" to Russians, but I think it should be at Moon. -phma

It was strange to me too, why the Luna instead of better or proprier the Moon. In my language we also have two terms (Luna and Mesec). We use Luna more often, but I know Moon is more often used in English. A common error in my language is also writting of Luna in small leter luna, which means general moon of one arbitrary planet. Mesec in lower case means also a month in Slovene, so perhaps that's why we use more often Luna. --XJamRastafire 02:52 Sep 20, 2002 (UTC)

I have moved the Moon back here where it belongs. Note that some of the article's edit history lies at Luna. --Brion 02:45 Sep 20, 2002 (UTC)

Anyone wanna join me in the 21st Century and name this Moon, "Luna" since that appears to be the general global consensus on it's name...this way we can get rid of the disambiguation at the top of the page.


 * No, then we'd have to put the same disambiguation block on whatever you'd come up with to put at Moon, just like the last time somebody tried that. --Brion 21:07 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)

Why would somebody mistake Luna for being named Moon or something like that? I mean, geez, that so silly. Lir 21:17 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)

Two moons
I heard somewhere a couple of years ago that the Earth has two moons - Luna, and a distant asteroid, which had just been discovered. Perhaps someone would like to add something about it to this article?


 * You're probably thinking of 3753 Cruithne, which is not a moon of Earth but rather a co-orbital asteroid. I think the proper place to mention it would be in the Earth article, since it has nothing to do with the Moon itself. Bryan

Gerstenkorn event
Disappointed to find no Wikipedia article on the Gerstenkorn event. Unfortunately, the only info I have is from 1982 and, I suspect, quite out of line with later thinking. Would be nice to see something, or have I missed it? Cutler 12:21, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Animated Moon phase gif
It's a nice animation, but even with the touchup work I did on it a moment ago the image is still over half a megabyte in size. I think it should be moved out of the main article, both for the benefit of those without broadband and for those who wish to print out the article (the animation would be useless to them). Any ideas on where I should send it? I'm thinking Lunar phase.

Tom Ruen- 5/2/04 - I uploaded the phase animation. Thanks for the impressive touchup! I agree it isn't friendly to have big images on general info pages. Free free to move it if you like. Maybe Lunar phase or maybe better Libration ?


 * Libration looks good, Lunar phase already has a good image on it. I must say, this animation illustrates libration better than anything I've seen before - I virtually get seasick watching the Moon rocking back and forth. :) Bryan 09:03, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Far side photo
Would anyone mind terribly if we used a photo of the side of the moon that normally faces the earth? It's great that a photo of the far side is available, but the familiar face would be more appropriate for the beginning of this article. --Yath 19:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Why not use them both? I presume you'd want to put the nearside photo in the infobox, so the other one can be moved down into the article text and given a caption there. Bryan 16:08, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It's actually a side photo, half far side, half near side.


 * Urhixidur 23:36, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

Any actions regarding changing the photo? I would also prefer the "normal" view of the near side. Awolf002 16:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why did Urhixidur add "the moon says yes" and "the moon says no"?
Does anyone know why Urhixidur added "the moon says yes" and "the moon says no"?

Bobblewik (talk) 22:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Because it moves like a person's head does when (s)he says yes or no. Feel free to clarify. Maybe we should say the "the Moon nods yes" and "the Moon shakes no"...Hmmm, doesn't seem any better.


 * Urhixidur 23:35, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)


 * Ah. I get it. I made an edit that I think makes that clearer (to me anyway). Bobblewik (talk) 23:57, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Caption
Just curious, but was there any reason why the caption under the moon image said "Hold mouse over image for description," and the caption only appeared if I do that? I thought that was silly, so I put the proper caption under the image. - Brian Kendig 19:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where does the moon shine the brighest?
... where the sun doesn't shine, of course!

removed link to landing controversy
I've removed this sentence linking to Apollo moon landing hoax accusations:

For the controversy surrounding this claim, see here. -Wikibob | Talk 23:36, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

Inconsistent statistics for lunar orbit
Within the article, there are a couple of problems with the orbital distances in the tables.

Orbital characteristics
 * Semi-major axis 384,400 km (0.0026 AU)
 * Orbital circumference 2,413,402 km (0.016 AU)
 * Eccentricity 0.0554
 * Perigee 363,104 km (0.0024 AU)
 * Apogee 405,696 km (0.0027 AU)

Other properties of the Moon's orbit
 * Mean distance from Earth ~384 403 km
 * Distance at perigee ~364 397 km
 * Distance at apogee ~406 731 km

The semi-major axis and mean distance are much the same here, but perigee and apogee differ quite a bit between these two tables. There is no explanation given for these discrepancies.

The figures given for distances in astronomical units (AU) are given to a precision of only two significant figures, even though the distance in kilometres is given to a precision of six figures and the AU is defined elsewhere in Wikipedia with similar precision. If the distance in AU's is to be given, it would be better if these distances were revised to six significant figures to match the precision of the distances in kilometres. --B.d.mills 12:38, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Selene" and "Cynthion" (sic)
"the terms selene and cynthion refer also to the Moon." Perhaps so. This is just owlish showing-off. These are words used in second-rate Elizabethan poetry and nowhere else. ("Cynthian" not "Cynthion.) This doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. --Wetman 16:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The terms are really used, e.g. in http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/loinfo.txt and http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a14/a14mr06.htm ; (pericynthion with an o)--Patrick --Patrick 00:38, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Transfer of momentum
I struck out the sentence « (Note however that this slowing is mostly caused by direct tidal friction within the Earths oceans and is not primarily due to the "tidal locking" transfer of momentum to the Moon) » because the distinction is pointless. Earth's rotation slows because it transfers the momentum to the oceanic tidal bulge, which in turn applies torque to the Moon and transfers the momentum to the latter. Angular momentum is preserved, whatever happens. Tidal friction dissipates energy, which is not preserved by this process.

Urhixidur 03:26, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Moon Hoax claims answered by Buzz Aldrin
From the article: "In September 2002, Buzz Aldrin also memorably and very effectively answered the Moon Hoax claims of Bart Sibrel."

I was very interested in reading how Buzz Aldrin dissected those claims, but after a bit of research, I found that the only thing that has happened is that Buzz hit Bart. If this is indeed the case, the present paragraph is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but only in a way that you can understand if you already know about the incident. Since Wikipedia should probably try to give new info and not read like a geeks humor insider-writeup, I suggest that this sentence be rewritten more clearly.

Moon axes?
Under Origin, it is said that "Tidal forces deformed the once molten Moon into an ellipsoid, with the major axis pointed towards Earth". Can anyone provide a reference that gives the Moon's dimensions (as a triaxial ellipsoid)? I had a devil of a time just finding one (one!) reference for the biaxial dimensions and hence oblateness...

Urhixidur 23:54, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Our table currently lists:
 * Equatorial diameter 3476.2 km
 * Polar diameter 3472.0 km
 * Oblateness 0.0012

The current JPL listing is (following the 1977 reference to ):
 * Mean diameter 3475.06 ± 0.06 km (formal standard error)

Also note « an offset of the centre of figure of 1.98±0.06 km toward (19±2)°S, (194±1)°E ».

Apparently, Don Dixon's Universe (Houghton Mifflin, 1981), gives:
 * Equatorial 3477.8
 * Average 3476.7
 * Polar 3475.6
 * Hence Oblateness 0.00063±0.00003

That's the best we've got so far.

Urhixidur 04:19, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Addendum: gives Moon oblateness as 0.002 and diametre of 3475.06 km (notice the match with the 1977 measurement quoted above).

131.136.242.1 19:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)