Talk:Astronomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic astronomy topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!
↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Good article Astronomy has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
WikiProject Astronomy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of Top importance within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
This article was previously the Space Collaboration of the Week.
Currently we are working on NGC 1333, please help us to improve it.
Archive
Archives
*Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Magnetospheres & gravitational fields

If I can make a suggestion, please add a description of Solar System bodies' magnetospheres, their power and the gravitational force and expanse to the templates (perhaps someone can create graphics of this too). It's important info, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IdLoveOne (talk • contribs) 04:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation page

Shouldn't the viewer be taken directly to that page first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LAgurl (talk • contribs) 10:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Astronomical timelines

This topic is already covered on the list of timelines page. Does it also need to be duplicated here? I don't see a comparable section on the biology, chemistry or physics pages. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I struggled momentarily with removing the list because there's no way to link directly down to the astronomy timelines on list of timelines. Then I found the Astronomy timelines category. My vote is with you to remove the list from the article (there's too many lists in this article already), but add the category to the see also list or something.--Will.i.am 23:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
That works, thanks. I was "bold" and made the change. — RJH (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Since this is a high-level summary page, does it make sense to include detailed in-line citations everywhere? I would think those would be found on the drill-down detail pages. Would it make sense to just have a list of good-quality astronomy books, comparable to the list at World_War_I#References? — RJH (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm tended to agree with you, but I'm afraid this article is never going to make it to FA (or even GA) if it doesn't have inline references. Nick Mks 16:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought the same when I saw the "uncited sources" tag. Unfortunately too, none of the more general science (or arts) pages have been featured so there's little precedent. But there are a few spots where inline references might be able to be put in:
  • "During the 1990s, the astrometric technique of measuring the stellar wobble has led to the discovery of large extrasolar planets orbiting nearby stars."
  • "Kinematic studies of matter in the Milky Way have demonstrated that the galaxy has more mass than can be accounted for by the visible matter."
And places in the History section could be referenced (could be hard though because they're not inline in the main article).--Will.i.am 23:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you suggest then that we should try and go for GA with the current (or a couple more general) references? Nick Mks 13:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
After my 1000 edits to add one inline this afternoon.... I would definitely add three or four more general references. The inlines can wait until the review process points them out or we see more spots where they'd be appropriate.--Will.i.am 00:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps if everybody would be so good as to put some {{Fact}} entries after lines that they believe need citations, we can put in some appropriate references. Thanks!!! — RJH (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are some references available at Wikisource:

The second is sadly mising the figures --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nature of the article

Quick question to those of you who have been here much longer: is this article about the fields of astronomy, their discoveries, or both? It mostly seems like both, but some sections (e.g. astrometry) just talk about what the scientists, do whereas others (e.g. galactic astronomy) only talk about discoveries. Most seem to approach both. Commentary?--Will.i.am 00:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Both I would think. I'd hope it would be a top-level overview with drill-downs to more detailed pages. Astrometry is probably closer to data collection than to an astronomical subject, so maybe it should be relocated. But it's also about data analysis, so I'm not really sure what's the best place. — RJH (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for reorganisation

The layout of this article doesn't seem to me to allow it to cover everything it needs to. I'm not convinced starting with 'divisions' is the best way to go. I'd like to suggest a possible TOC here, which, if people think it would be good, we could rearrange the article around:

1. History

1.1 Prehistory to the 17th century
1.2 Telescopic astronomy
1.3 Astronomy in the Space Age

2. Astronomical observations

How objects are observed, with what tools, and what the results are (i.e. images, spectra)

3. Astronomical objects

3.1 Solar system astronomy
3.2 Galactic astronomy
3.3 Extragalactic astronomy

4. Amateur astronomy

The importance of amateurs - one of the only sciences where they make significant contributions

5. Major questions in astronomy

Brief summary of some of the biggest issues

6. Refs 7. External links

What does anyone think? Worldtraveller 11:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The details can of course be filled in while in progress. Nick Mks 11:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Overall it looks good, and I like the idea of having an amateur astronomy section. But I'm not sure I agree with the astronomical objects section—I think your list has too few sub-sections. What about stellar astronomy and cosmology, for example? — RJH (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I was sort of mentally putting stars under the galactic astronomy bit, and cosmology in extragalactic, but we could certainly have more subsections there for those. In a way that section seems odd to me anyway - the types of objects studied will already have been mentioned in the history and observations section - but I thought we ought to have a decent overview of what types of things are out there. Worldtraveller 21:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
That certainly works for me, thanks. Were you going to start a temp sub-page to do the re-edit? — RJH (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I like it. This format (history, what is is, and then how it's divided) makes sense for article flow.--Will.i.am 00:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a global re-edit of the page to bring it closer to the above organization. It will need some more work though. :-) — RJH (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Should there be some mention of the connection between astronomy and navigation in this article? Historically navigation was certainly an important application of astronomy. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a sentence in the "Astrometry and celestial mechanics" section. Is that sufficient? — RJH (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes and GA

Hi all, I've been on a vacation lately, but I see that things keep improving here. Despite the ongoing discussions about references, nature and a possible reorganisation, I wonder whether we shouln't nominate it for GA now. If it fails, then at least we get an outside view of what isn't right. Any ideas? Nick Mks 16:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The tag at the top of the Astronomy about missing references or sources should mean that it fails GA, per WP:WIAGA 2(a). Plus there is the re-org. discussion above that has resulted in two new sections and a need for a re-edit. — RJH (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

This article has horrible referencing and is therefore not suitable to be a Good Article. Also, the LONG article was removed from FA status recently. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It now has a number of general references, so hopefully that will be sufficient. — RJH (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Should very much be indeed. Finally... :) Nick Mks 09:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major questions in astronomy

I whacked out a couple of my own entries from this section because they are somewhat speculative in nature. I.e. there have been some hypotheses concerning these questions, but current evidence is mainly in the negative.

This entire topic is also somewhat PoV, so I tried to add in some references to back the questions up. But it probably wouldn't hurt to add in a few more. :-)

Are there any other questions that could be added? I think an older major question about whether neutrinos have mass has already been addressed. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History Section

Should this article mention about the Mayans? Since they were very good astronomers. And the pyramids that they had for the 8 planets, Sun, and Moon, and one small side small pyramid that was speculated to be Pluto? Also, their calendar ends on when the Earth is in the galactic plane. Thanks, CarpD (^_^)

They are mentioned on the History of astronomy page. Perhaps that section on the Mayans needs expansion? I'd rather see this page focus more on modern astronomy, but that's just my preference. The history section is getting pretty bloated already, considering it's got a main article of its own. That may need some trimming down. :-) — RJH (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, did not know that there was a seperate page... Thanks, CarpD (^_^) 8/31/06

[edit] Space Pinwheels

i saw this of digg http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060904_mystery_monday.html i couldn't find a mention of space pinwheels on the pinwheel disambiguation page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinwheel is there no pinwheel page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.170.90.4 (talk • contribs).

Pinwheel nebula. — RJH (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

It looks like this page was semi-protected on November 6th; the protection removed November 7th, and the page was then vandalized twice within a day. The apparent reason the semi-protection was removed? A very low level of vandalism. ;-) — RJH (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the semi-protection (which I requested) was discontinued too soon (after little more than 24 hours) and I also don't understand how there could not be a very low level of vandalism to a protected article. Hopefully the three damaging edits since were unintentional, but if there is one more I'll ask to reprotect. Nick Mks 17:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems as if vandalism semi-protection could be automated based on the number of reverts of a page by bots or named accounts over a period of time (such as over a four week interval). — RJH (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
As from now, I am discontinuing my efforts to limit vandalism to this article. Without the requested support from admins, this is becoming an impossible task. Nick Mks 18:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I can empathize. — RJH (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help the simple english version of this

Ok I was looking at the simple english wikipedia out of boredom... I noticed that the simple english astronomy article is not SIMPLE. Someone finish the job i started please?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by H3nrydah3n (talk • contribs).

I'm unclear what you mean. What is a "simple english" version? This article is primarily intended to meet the wikipedia good article criteria. — RJH (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh you mean this page. Never mind. — RJH (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References (english)

The references section at the bottom has the word English in brackets behind the writing. In a lot of cases this is rendering the text unreadable. Can this be corrected?--Jcvamp 10:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "language=" parameter from all the in-line citations. (The page are the citations are both in English, so the language tag isn't needed.) — RJH (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism, again

This is getting unpleasant, and I have requested an extended semiprotect. Have tried to clean up, but may have missed some. Please keep an eye on this article. (Why on earth are the vandals so attracted to this article? I can understand that the creationist opinion-pushers like to vandalize here, but what makes it so attractive to the simple bored schoolkids?) Kosebamse 06:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the vandal-kiddies are attracted to basic topics such as this due to their level of education. I've tried in the past to get this article semi-protected, but it was ignored. But I do keep this (and some others) on my watchlist and check regularly to make sure it has not been inappropriately altered. Thanks for your help to reduce the vandalism. — RJH (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wikiproject

Since articles can be within the scope of multiple wikiprojects I think astronomy should in addition to being within the scope of wikiproject astronomy and wikiproject physics which it already is should also be added to being within the scope of wikiproject mathematics since astronomy is very mathematical and was originally considered part of mathematics not of science even though now it is considered part of science not of mathematics. Prb4 21:01:42 February 14, 2007 (UTC)

Astronomy is as mathematical as physics and all of the other sciences. But I'm not seeing the particular connection to this page. Do you just want an association somewhere on the page? — RJH (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Putting an article in a wikiproject does not give that wikiproject ownership over the article. It merely means that that wikiproject has an interest in the article. It is perfectly normal for articles to be within the scope of multiple wikiprojects, e.g., the Nikolai Lobachevsky article is within the scope of wikiproject biography, wikiproject mathematics, and the Russian history wikiproject. The history of mathematics article is within the scope of the history of science wikiproject even though mathematics is not one of the natural sciences. Therefore it would be perfectly ok to put the astronomy article into wikiproject mathematics because astronomy is much more mathematical than most sciences are and it was originally classified as part of math, not part of science until recently when it switched to being considered part of science not part of math. In many respects astronomy is more like math than science. It involves spatial relationships and a lot of geometry and trigonometry. It also involves Euclidean distance. It also involves some complex geometry such as spherical trigonometry. This article should be added to wikiproject mathematics although it should still of course remain in wikiproject physics and wikiproject astronomy as well. Prb4 1:24:48 February 15,2007 (UTC)

"This WikiProject aimed originally to organize articles in the area of mathematics; in its broadest terms, this may include overlap into the areas of physics, computer science, operations research, and other areas." This is what wikiproject mathematics says about articles that are not about math but are about subjects that involve a lot of math. Therefore it would be legitimate to place the astronomy article within the scope of wikiproject mathematics. Prb4 2:28:24 February 15, 2007

Okay well you're implying things that I never stated, such as "ownership". But don't you think that the project tags are more effective if they are tightly focused on directly-related material? I'm highly familiar with the uses of mathematics in science, thanks. :-) Anyway I'm not clear why this needs to be discussed—most people just add in the wikiproject banner without asking. I usually just follow up by adding it to a {{WikiProjectBanners}}. — RJH (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge notice

See Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Merging astronomy and astrophysics. Spacepotato 03:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading definition in the intro

Astronomy (also frequently referred to as astrophysics). Astronomy is, and has always been, much more than astrophysics, as the article quite nicely explains. Backyard astronomy, naked eye observation, celestial navigation, calendars, to name only a few. Although the detailed discussion under "lexicology" elucidates the question, the alleged identity is too questionable, particularly in historical context, to leave it in the very definition. I'd take it out of the intro and leave the question to the second section but would like some more input before I mess with the intro. Thanks. Kosebamse 06:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if there's no comment I'll just rewrite it, and opinions are welcome. Kosebamse 20:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Units of Measurement in Astronomy Articles

There have been some gratuitous unit changes in a couple of the Hubble related articles. I don't pretend to know that much about astronomy other than what I have run into while working with Hubble, but it does seem like some reasonable consistency in the use of units might not be a bad idea. Thus I started this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units_on_Astronomy_Pages Dfmclean 13:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theory

As an Atheist, for a while now I've been searching for a way of putting all things surrounding creation into context.

This is one possible theory that I have been developing which I'd like to discuss.

We have all studied high school chemistry playing with plastic balls and sticks to make models of elements and compounds

For example: [1] <<Random example

well, the covalent bonds are invisible and are, as I understand a similar force to gravity.

Now take a look at this random solar system picture: [2] <<Random example

see any similarity?

What I'm suggesting is that perhaps on a much greater scale, when we look at a galaxy or a solar system we are in fact looking at a chemical conglomerate, or compound.

This got me thinking further. If this were true, does that offer any explanation to the strange phenomenon in the solar system?

Look at Saturn's asteroid belt for example. Perhaps the belt is an example of an element tending towards equilibrium by attracting negatively charged particles (asteroids) to balance its + latent charge.

So then, how would all this explain life? Is life as most believe similar to bacteria or do we have a larger part to play?

Well Perhaps each planet is also a stable chemical conglomeration. Life on earth for example could be a catalyst or agent in the balancing of whatever chemical compound this planet is.

How would you go about proving a theory such as this? Well I thought that perhaps if you look at the earths main (solids, liquids and gases)chemical components as ratio's

for example:

Carbon 2:Oxygen 1: Hydrogen 1 etc...

Then also look at what constitutes the moon in same way, and then look at all known chemicals for a similar pattern?

We might be living on a stable carbon monoxide element or something, you don't really know.


Hopefully you can understand all this, It makes more sense than god.

-nick

Hi Nick. As neat as your thoughts are, I don't believe you're supposed to use article talk pages this way, so please limit yourself to discussion related to the article. Thanks. General Epitaph 03:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but it is related to the topic. I just want experts to consider this, because it may help them gain insight into their own science. Imagine if it was true? What an amazing sea-change this would bring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.107.2.194 (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
                                                                                                                            In Cajori's edition of Motte's translation of Newton's Principia Newton gives us his rules for reasoning in Philosophy and Rule Number 1 is: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."  He then goes on with: "To this purpose the  philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes."  To which I say GREAT!!!, except for one caveat which is that it appears to me that a lot of physical occurrences including organisms that accurred on earth happened in vain with respect to their category of organism; so I'll paraphrase that to say that Nature does nothing without a reason. But the pursuit of science is rapidly and vastly broadening our knowledge of the reasons for a lot of "occurrences": both good and bad and it behooves us to try to steer our path of (progress?) into areas with a maximum possibility of continued existence. And I hope you'll go along with that. WFPMWFPM (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)WFPMWFPM (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC) WFPMWFPM (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally agree with what you said too. That sort of compliments the ideology of this theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.79.81.47 (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hi

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.55.99 (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why the moon doesnt revolve around sun????

Fact #1 Sun has more attractive power than earth.

Fact #2 Moon is a satelite of earth and it revolves around earth.

Doubt #1 If sun has more atractive power than earth; why moon doesnt get atracted towards sun or revolve around it???

Doubt #2 If sun can make even ploto to revolve atound it, why cant the moon???

Please send your answers to jomandu2000@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.18.175 (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fact #1 Sun has more attractive power than earth. It depends how far you are from the sun or earth. Fact #2 Moon is a satelite of earth and it revolves around earth. Doubt #1 If sun has more atractive power than earth; why moon doesnt get atracted towards sun or revolve around it??? The moon and the earth both revolve around the sun, and the moon also revolves around the earth. Doubt #2 If sun can make even ploto to revolve atound it, why cant the moon??? The gravitational force is directly proportional to the mass from which the gravity originates; because the sun is about 332,918 times as massive as the earth, it produces a gravitational field 332,918 times as strong as the earth's. The gravitational force is also inversely proportional to the square of the distance between any two gravitating objects. If you were to move the earth to a distance twice as far from the sun, the sun would only exert a gravitational force on the earth 1/(2 times 2) = 1/4 as strong; 3x as far, 1/(3 times 3) = 1/9 as strong; etc. Because the moon is closer to the earth than the sun, earth's gravity on the moon is strong enough to make it revolve predominately around the earth. The sun's gravity still tugs on the earth and moon, however; in fact the gravity due to each of the planets and the sun tugs on earth of the other planets, in varying degrees depending on the masses and distances between them. From the formula below, you can see how the gravitational force F depends both on the mass m1 and m2 of the two attracting bodies and the distance r between them: F=-\frac{G m_1 m_2}{r^2}, where G is known as the universal gravitational constant.

--Geremia (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

                                                                                                                   The earth and the moon of course have interacting orbits around the sun. The subject matter is the orbital mechanics of the orbits. After the moon's perigee with respect to it's orbit around the sun the moon with mass 1 receives an increase in angular momentum (around the sun) for 13+ days from the earth with mass 81.  This results in the moon speeding up in it's orbit and rising up and over the earth's orbit to its point of apogee. Then for the next 13+ days the moon is slowed back down and the angular momentum is transfered back to the earth.WFPMWFPM (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Discussion - Astronomy

http://www.intellecttoday.com/

IntellectToday is a place to discuss Astronomy, as well as other scientific and philosophical subjects. IntellectToday has an extensive database related to Astronomy and Astrophysics, and considers it one of it's primary points of focus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.181.118 (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)