|WikiProject Astronomy||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 Unsupported Biblical references
- 2 Galactic Center conjunction with Andromeda Galaxy (M31)
- 3 What the hell is this ******* astrology thing?!
- 4 Non-lunar & non-solar occultations not so rare
- 5 Pluto
- 6 Can we please get rid of this astrology stuff?
- 7 Split off a "list of upcoming conjuctions"
- 8 Conjunctions vs. general planetary groupings
- 9 "Coincidence"? The solar system is not a random number generator...
- 10 Three or more planets?
- 11 Quasiconjunction, and why only for inner planets?
- 12 Superior and inferior: only concerning the Sun?
Unsupported Biblical references
This line, for instance: (literally, a woman with 12 stars around her head and the moon at her feet); In regards to Dec. 23rd, 07. I'm removing it, and what you guys do from there is up to you. -Motley a b c qu 00:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
here is the main article which explains the meaing behind this conjunction.freaky stuff
Galactic Center conjunction with Andromeda Galaxy (M31)
The Milky Way galaxy rotates so slowly that it is not yet much used in astrology. In time that might change. The 220-million-year cycle is so slow that human beings have only started to observe it. Even so, many ancient species have been around twice already.
The one visible exterior object, the Andromeda Galaxy or just "Andromeda" for short, is a useful marker for Galactic Rotation. Andromeda is 21 degrees in galactic latitude south of the Milky Way's equator and 121.17 degrees in galactic longitude away from the Galactic Center.
Current claims that it was an asteroid that caused extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago almost seem specious compared with the substantial possibility the extinction was caused by a conjunction starting just ten million years earlier between the Andromeda Galaxy and the Galactic Center.
The rotation of 121.17 degrees since then means the conjunction itself would have begun just about 75 million years ago, only ten million years earlier. It would have signaled the swan song for the brutes.
A galactic conjunction, majestic and slow, would be capable of wearying any species to its faintest original errors no matter how anciently they were buried in instinct. It is the sort of thing that would cause the collapse of a species that had been coarsely conceived 300 million years earlier. Its quantum electrodynamics, anchored in the entire cosmology of the exterior galaxies, would have been inverted more than once, and at conjunction the alignment would have enforced the implications of the errors of their ways. The dinosaurs had survived one conjunction, but the second conjunction proved decisive. SyntheticET (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
What the hell is this ******* astrology thing?!
- The only "occult" in this article should involve occultations! Verdana♥Bøld 02:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Non-lunar & non-solar occultations not so rare
Occultations in which the larger body is neither the Sun nor the Moon are very rare.
- Yes, and recently, an asteroid occulted a star. It only lasted a few seconds, but was really cool. Verdana♥Bøld 02:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Can we please get rid of this astrology stuff?
Why is this page not split? These two subjects are simply too disparate to be lumped together like this. When people look up an article about a scientific subject they should be presented a page of what is generally believed to be true, not a page half of truth, half magical effects which are not only not believed by most people but for which there isn't any actual evidence for! I'll probably be less horny during the transit of Venus (why it must be, being surrounded by dozens of you-diameters of eye-damaging bright solar disk surely should diminish any planet's magical power!) but it'd be because I'm occupied watching it, and not because the Sun's magic is outshining it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The Article doesn't endorse astrology. It's just a matter of fact that a planetary conjunction is the same thing in both Astronomy and Astrology. Regardless whether Astrology is or isn't a load of garbage as a worldview, a conjunction is a conjunction is a conjunction. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Split off a "list of upcoming conjuctions"
This article should probably discuss what a conjunction is, and simply point to another article listing upcoming conjunctions. It's much too cluttered as is. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
|Text from Conjunction_(astronomy_and_astrology)#Conjunctions_of_planets_in_right_ascension_2005-2020 was copied or moved into List_of_conjunctions_(astronomy). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Conjunction (astronomy and astrology).|
Conjunctions vs. general planetary groupings
The section "Notable Conjunctions" lists several planetary groupings when three or more planets appeared to lie fairly close in the sky. These groupings are not strictly conjunctions, but will include conjunctions at particular times. Is it right that the article confuses the two concepts? By all means include a list of notable conjunctions, but the article should not list vague planetary groupings. And including a reference to the Galactic Centre is eccentric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
"Coincidence"? The solar system is not a random number generator...
I noticed the word "coincidence" in this article. When I searched for it, I found another one, and one use of the word "coincidentally". In my opinion, this is wrong. Coincidence makes it sound as if conjunctions are a matter of pure chance. Coincidence are simply a (mathematical) product of the orbital periods and inclinations of the various astronomical objects involved, and can be predicted pretty accurately. If you want to express that a certain event only happens once in a million years or whatever, it is better to use "uniquely" or "in a rare event" or something like that. I have editted those sections and am putting this here now as an explanations. Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- I introduced the word "coincidence" to describe a series of unconnected conjunctions that happened within a short period of time as seen from the Earth. I did so because that is what I meant.
- These were essentially random events, unconnected with each other. The only reason they were introduced into the article in the first place is, presumably, because somebody searched through planetary motion data to find instances when celestial bodies happened to lie close together in the sky as seen from the Earth. I then tried to rewrite those subsections to refer to conjunctions. It was a coincidence that planets happened to reach conjunction within a few days. There was no underlying process and there was no significance to these events. They were coincidences. TowardsTheLight (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, this is bullsh it. "Coincident" doesn't mean "random", it means co-incident, happening at the same time. If a lunar eclipse happens on your birthday three years in a row, that is coincidence, even though it is deterministic.
- I just have to state my objection to such presumptuous pedantry. It's why you geeky guys can't get laid. Verdana♥Bøld 02:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- TowardsTheLight & Verdana: if you would use the verb "to coincide" (happen at the same time) then there would be no problem at all. But the words "coincidence" or "coincidentally" have a slightly different meaning in contemporary use of the English language, and suggest a randomness that just is not there. Contrary to what you suggest TowardsTheLight, there *is* an underlying system, namely the combination of predictable orbits of the various celestial bodies. Planets don't just move across the sky in an arbitrary fashion, creating conjunctions by pure chance, although it may seem like this to an untrained eye observing from Earth. But that's precisely what an encyclopedia is for if you ask me. As for birthdays or other specific dates, that's a slightly different matter indeed, since dates are a manmade construction. Especially with the existence of leap years, there is no objective (astronomical) significance to any specific date. And forgive me if I don't even respond to the rest of your reply, Verdana. To TowardsTheLight; I understand what you're saying, I (partially) see why you phrased it like that and how this paragraph came in to existence. No hard feelings, but I still think the new phrasing is more correct, I'm hoping you don't take offense and can live with the new text too. Greetings and have a nice day, RagingR2 (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Three or more planets?
Isn't it possible that three planets (e. g. Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune) are in conjunction? How often does that happen? Same with four or even seven planets.--184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
No, a conjunction involves two bodies only. That comes from the definition of a conjunction - a conjunction is two bodies reaching the same right ascension (or ecliptic longitude), and that is something that happens at one specific time. For a conjunction to involve three bodies, all three would have to reach the same right ascension (or ecliptic longitude) at precisely the same instant, which will not happen in practice. TowardsTheLight (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- So no one calls a close grouping a conjunction? A "real" conjunction like Venus-Mercury can be almost 14 degrees apart! Closer 3-conjunctions have happened. (Mercury passing the 1990s ice giant overtaking guarantees it) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sky and Telescope refers to three close planets as a "conjunction." Verdana♥Bøld 02:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Quasiconjunction, and why only for inner planets?
I have made a seperate section for quasi, because it is neither superior nor inferior, which is the section it was in. Also, Mars goes retrograde too, and when it does, Jupiter might well sneak up behind it (and get arbitrarily close, modulo orbital planes). Why did you guys say this only happens with Merc or Venus? It happens with outer planets too; it is just not as noticeable. Or am I wrong? Verdana♥Bøld 02:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Superior and inferior: only concerning the Sun?
Does the"Superior and inferior" section concern only conjunctions involving the Sun? Whereas the definition at the article's beginning is "n two astronomical objects (...) In the case of two objects that always appear close to the ecliptic – such as two planets, or the Moon and a planet, or the Sun and a planet – ". --220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)