Talk:Moon

applause

The Picture of the Moon and it's Phases looks Great! This is the first time I have ever see a picture this clear! Good Job! C-ritah (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Should Be in Miles as well as Kilometers

300 million people in the US use miles, it's rude and arrogant to use the article to force the metric system on readers. Placing kilometer and mile measurements next to each other is the polite way to include and respect everyone, rather than using Wikipedia as a soapbox.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for having a differing opinion. However, this is a scientific article and the metric system is the universally accepted standard. Possibly some of the broad measurements such as the diameter could be offered in miles somehwhere in the article; though. Nevertheless labeling the lacking of imperial units as arrogant is unnecessary and unwarranted. --Xession (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason this article can't be like many other articles and use both US and metric units by using convert templates. For example: 1 mile (1.6 km)Asher196 (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there have been regular discussions about this and the consensus is to use only metric in the astronomy articles. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm American. I'm also unlikely ever to drive a Chrysler on the moon. Can't see much use for miles here. —Tamfang (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• There are also still large numbers of people in the UK who only ever think of (long) distances in miles. I would like to see conversions to miles given in the article. 86.181.205.25 (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I too am an American who is far more comfortable with miles than with the metric system, but my comfort isn't the issue. I may be able to better estimate distances in terms of football fields, but that shouldn't be listed in an encyclopedic article. It's a scientific subject and metric is the scientific standard. There are articles on the conversion ratio if people need to use them (like me).

The Cap'n (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a scientific paper. It is a general-interest encyclopedia article for ordinary readers. As long as significant numbers of those ordinary readers think in miles, Wikipedia articles should give conversions. 86.181.171.26 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Multi-impact model of Moon origin

The multi-impact model was presented in article "Gorkavyi, N.N. The New Model of the Origin of the Moon. 2004" [1] Could find only this publicly accessible page: [2] This model beats all the previous ones, looks consistent, doesn't have any visible flaws, thus is worth a separate paragraph in Formation subject!

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.135.107.154 (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Moon appearance from Earth

As all astronomers know, maps of the moon are usually oriented for northern hemisphere viewers. Fair enough. However, this does affect the position of the 'Quarters' as seen from the southern hemisphere. So though the "First Quatrter" still logically follows the New Moon, as seen from the south, the quarter of the Moon that is shaded will appear to be on the opposite side. Right rather than Left. Manie Maxx [Remember we down south stand on our heads when viewing the Moon] One should NOT say the Moon appearance is reversed, for the same features will still be in shade/light as when viewed fromthe north. (suma rongi) Suma rongi (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So should the image caption be changed to indicate "as seen from the Northern Hemisphere"? Franamax (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable caption. It's important to recognize differences in Northern & Southern perspectives, even if the Northern view is the most commonly cited (and thus arguably the default). The Cap'n (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Reflectance

The lead says "It is the brightest object in the sky after the Sun, although its surface is actually very dark, with a similar reflectance to coal." As the Moon's reflectance varies very noticeably over its surface, it would be good to clarify which parts are supposed to be similar in reflectance to coal. Is it the dark parts? 86.181.205.25 (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Diagram of phases

I cannot make head nor tail of the "New Moon" insets in the diagram of the Moon's phases in the "Appearance from Earth" section. What are they showing? What is the ring of red dots, and what are the various mutky murky dots and circles? 86.181.205.25 (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The ring of red dots represents the spot in the (day) sky where you can't see the New Moon, and I guess the dots and circles represent lens flare because you're looking near the Sun. —Tamfang (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks. I think this needs explaining in the caption, or, better still, the insets need replacing by something more recognisable. To me it looks like a system of about four planets/moons with a dotted path showing an orbit or something. 86.176.209.219 (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Goof

{{editprotect}} The first note in the note section isn;t correctly formatted and leaves a large area of nothing between the "The" and the next thought. I can see words in the note here on the article template when I click edit, but I cannot fix the problem cuz the article is locked. 75.19.69.26 (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem. Please be more specific on which words/code/note (there are notes and footnotes) is wrong. Materialscientist (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Direction of the Moon's Axis of Rotation

I have seen nothing in this or associated articles which appears to give the direction of the Moon's Axis of Rotation with respect to the Celestial Sphere (which I suppose to be at least close to constant) - the Right Ascension and Declination, which are given in the top right box in the articles on the planets.

There is a figure for tilt, but it's not clear to me in which direction the tilt is, or how to use it.

It would also be nice to see expressions for the RA & Dec of the perpendicular to the Moon's orbit - the angular momentum vector of the Earth-Moon system - as a function of time (period 18.6 years). Or the mean RA and Dec, and the radius in degrees of its presumably circular motion, and the phase of that motion from a given position as a function of time.

94.30.84.71 (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It precesses rapidly. See Orbit of the Moon#Inclination. —Tamfang (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Albedo

The albedo figure seems a little bit too high, and the reference's abstract talks about a broadband albedo, which presumably includes near infrared. From the article Bond albedo the geometric albedo is 0.123, and from geometrical considerations and the apparent magnitudes of Sun $m_{Sun}$ and Moon $m_{Moon}$ it should be ${\frac {100^{(m_{Moon}-m_{Sun})/5}}{r_{Moon}^{2}/d_{Moon}^{2}}}=0.125$, where $r_{Moon}$ is the radius of the Moon and $d_{Moon}$ is the distance of the Moon from the Earth. Icek (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

The current etymology section is rather disappointing. If we're going to discuss the entymology of 'moon', we should at least go back a little further where things get interesting and we find out that 'moon' is related to the words 'month' and 'menses'. Anyone have an account at oed.com? Kaldari (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Go down to "In culture". Serendi^podous 18:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Earth's other natural satellites

This post is not to criticize any information relating to the Earth's Moon, except one point that is not addressed. Earth has other orbiting satellites, none particularly large, but that doesn't mean they are not of interest. I came to seek information regarding them and was disappointed, and it is unlike Wikipedia to disappoint on any topic regardless of how obscure or questionable. Surely there is someonewho has access to this information ? I currently do not, or I would not have come seeking it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.60.45 (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

See Note 4 and Quasi-satellite. Iridia (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

NEO Objects

As a point of clarification it may be valuable to mention Earth's NEOs, and why they aren't considered to be satellites of Earth. I believe the public has been misinformed about objects like Cruithne being satellites of Earth.

This is not relevant: Even if the Apollonid NEOs were satellites of the Earth i.e. the earth permanently occupied one focus of their elliptical orbits, they have no place here because they are not The Moon. (Valhalan (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

In Culture

I'm a little surprised to see that this section has not been expanded more fully. For example the effect of the moon upon human reproduction has long been studied; indeed as reported the same Indo-European root for "moon" has led, through Latin, to the word "menstrual". Studies of very many females has led to the conclusion that the average human menstrual cycle is exactly one lunar month and the gestation, from conception to birth, is exactly 9 lunar months. Further, the onset of menstruation tends to cluster around the New Moon, with almost 30 per cent of menstruations commencing at this time. See: Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica: The Regulation of Menstrual Cycle and its Relationship to the Moon, 1986, Vol. 65, No. 1 , Pages 45-48 or at http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/00016348609158228 Yet further, the effect of the Moon on human romance, poetry and art is vast and yet has barely been touched upon in the Article. In history, the outcome of battles and military campaigns which have changed history's course has been determined by the light afforded by the moon; for example at the Alamo during the process of freeing Texas from Mexico in 1836, the Mexican casualties were far higher due to the near-full moon than they would have been at New Moon, and this is turn decided the subsequent outcome at San Jacinto when Texas was finally won by the Rebels, who found themselves with far fewer Mexicans to fight. If we are to speak of spacecraft visiting the Moon in this article, let us not forget that if history had been different, then no spacecraft might yet have been there. The Alamo precipitated a war in which America won not only Texas (eventually) but also most of the South-west; had this gone the other way modern America might not have been economically powerful enough for Apollo. Calendars, tidal power generation, ... even the catch yields of fishermen and anglers varies according to lunar cycles. Much room for expansion!! (Valhalan (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC))