Talk:Astronomy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

General

Jmccann, consider precession done. Post any request here, or email me at [email protected] and I can add to almost any subject I'm made aware of.

---

I notice that there are several people editing astronomy related topics. I think that before there is too much material, some planning should take place. An example of what I am talking about is the entries for the planets: there is no consistency from one to the other (except for the ones I typed in yesterday: Venus, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune . Here are some proposals for proceeding.

Before proceeding to cover topics in depth (other than pet topics that people cannot be stopped from covering immediately) let's make certain that all basic terms are covered. I am aware that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", but I think that many basic concepts (e.g. precession, obliquity of the ecliptic) to give two right off the top of my head) need to be present in order for the work to stand on its own. Maybe we can make a list on this page of requested articles.

Lists of things: We need to set up some formats, for instance, each planet will have its radius, density etc. in a common format, and will have a description of its composition, and then cover unique features of the planet.

Big, long tables of objects: Do we want big long tables? I am not sure this is useful, should there be big long tables in an encyclopedia (Look at the entry for Star)? I am not sure how valuable this is. If I want to look up Bellatrix, am I going to look up Star and then click on Bellatrix? If I look up Star, do I want to see a long list of names, with no additional information? Jmccann

I don't think these data tables need to be put here. External links to them would be useful. -- zandperl 04:40, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Most (if not all) astronomers now have a strong background in physics, and observations are always put in an astrophysical context, so the distinction between astronomy and astrophysics almost doesn't exist anymore.

Is this true for planetary scientists and exobiologists, though? For an astrophysicist I imagine there's no significant difference, but what about the other specializations within astronomy? --LMS

• I imagine a background in chemistry might also be uselful--Hello'from^'SPACE 00:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that. The truth is, I didn't think of exobiologist as astronomers...but according to my own definition, they are. Maybe I should think of moving this back to astronomy, and giving exobiology a place there. In the case of planetary scientists, i'm pretty sure that their physics background must be good, though they could be strongers in other areas of earth sciences. I think we need more astronomers around here. -- AN

In some countries other than the US, astronomers and astrophysicists are distinctly separate categories. I'm a grad student in astronomy and my Yugoslavian classmates assure me these are very separate there, that astronomers only measure things and only get a Master's degree while astronomers do only theory and get a PhD. Should this be elaborated on the page for NPOV reasons? -- zandperl 04:40, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Has anyone considered pilfering NASA site for materials to add? I've just gone there and not found a general copyright notice, stating that it covers materials on the entire site, but it seems to be under the typical U.S. gov't terms; the notices I have found all say not to use pictures including recognizable people for any commercial purpose w/o written permission, and say the materials must not be used to imply endorsement by NASA, etc. No explicit word on whether the materials are in the public domain (I expect that they are). --KQ

Actually, just on mon I emailed the webmaster of image.gspc.nasa.gov about their copyrights, because of the article x-ray astronomy that I found out was copied from there. The head e-mailed me back telling aprox "we are a federal gov. site so our material is in the public domain, we appreciate, though, that credit is given"...so, i put the article back, with a link to the website saying it was from them. That opens lots of new oportunities. AN

I recently researched this for a presentation I was giving, and got the following info/pages. NASA images are not quite public domain, but are free for use with only a credit to NASA. Check out [1] for their image server, and [2] for the copyright info. -- zandperl 04:40, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi AN--you asked me to look at this, and the page is really shaping up well, I think. I'd say it's one of the better portal pages now! The only trouble I see is with overcapitalization of titles...and even then some of the instances are arguable (e.g., whether "astronomy" should be capitalized). --LMS

---

Would not "prograde orbit" and "retrograde orbit" not be better covered in the "orbit" article? They're simply matters of how an orbit is perceived from another planet in the same system... I'm not sure they need separate articles. It's difficult to talk about prograde orbits without mentioning retrograde ones, and vice versa. Opinions? -- April

I agree that it's probably simplest to cover prograde and retrograde orbits in the same article, but the distinction isn't quite as arbitrary as you suggest; prograde and retrograde orbits are percieved as such relative to the rotation of the primary body they orbit, a simple and objective measure. A retrograde orbit has significant implications. For example, there are several moons of outer planets in retrograde orbits (Triton is the most obvious example), and having a retrograde orbit means they were almost certainly captured and also means that they will one day spiral in due to tidal effects and be destroyed.

---

---

Hi. In the article about Keppler, I note that there is brief mention of "Tyco." Should this not be expanded to mention something specific about Tyco Brahe, who did so much of the grunt work? ... tony

---

I really hate what they did to this page. From a page that actually contained some information, it became a list of links. Don't anybody thinks the same!

I agree. The recent changes suck. AstroNomer, you know this page better than me. Would you like to revert? -- CYD

I tend to agree also - I think it had a lot of useful info before which has now disappeared. Judging from Lir's comments at the bottom of Talk:Main Page, she thinks this is a great improvement. I can see what she's getting at: there is, I think, some value in a plain list of links on a particular complex subject - an index page, if you like - but I'd rather it was on a separate page, like List of astronomy topics or something. --Camembert

Has this information actually disappeared? My understanding is that it is all enclosed behind the appropriate links. Now if you want...we could have an explanation of positional astronomy and an explanation of radio telescopes etc. etc. but that isn't going to be very useful to the reader. If the reader wants to read that explanation, they want to go to the full page, not get a brief synposis of it.

Not that no information should be presented here, Id like to see more information here, but a discussion of what is already on another page is pointless. Lir 16:17 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be entirely pointless to have some duplication here. I agree that the page shouldn't go into too much depth, but I think a brief overview of all the main areas (and some of the minor areas also) is useful, with a more in depth treatment on the individual pages. I also think that in some cases, it is useful to have a brief note next to links; it probably isn't obvious to an average reader what precession is, for instance, and a note would give them the briefest possible explanation of it, so they know whether they want to read more. People who know what it means are probably going to use the search function anyway. That said, this isn't a subject I know much about, so I'll let those who know more get on with it.--Camembert

I don't know if a brief cliff's note describing precession would be of any use to the reader either. The physics page doesn't have that sort of format. Ie

Astronomy

Bla blah blah

Position astronomy-astronomy observing positions of the stars blah blah Radio astronomy- astronomy using big radio waves blah blah blah X-Ray astronomy- astronomy using X-Rays blah blah blah Planetology-a study of planets blah blah blah

Lir 16:55 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

I agree. The page is now merely a laundry list of links to other pages, whereas before it was actually a readable article! Imagine you know nothing about astronomy. Reading through the article, you see a bunch of links with incomprehensible names. Why should you click on any of them? Which should you click on? It's unusable.

It IS still a readable article. There are several paragraphs at the top. Imagine you know nothing about astronomy...where to start? I advise you make Astronomy for Beginners. This page did not serve the function you suggest before it was edited to this format. Such a page would probably refer the reader to Amateur Astronomy and positional astronomy.

There's nothing wrong with duplicating information. Ideally, we want a short discussion of each important topic in the astronomy article, with the topic examined in greater depth in the full page. See, for example, the Physics article, which contains a short history of physics with a more detailed history in the works in a separate page. It isn't perfect, but I think it's more motivating than a laundry list.

Lir, could you please put the removed information back on this page? -- CYD

The only difference I can see between this and the physics page is that we have moved the history of astronomy to it's own page. You say you want a brief discussion of each "important topic" but what is important? What good will it do to cut and paste the first paragraph from each subject page onto this page? Lir 16:50 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

well, maybe not the first paragraph, but bare lists are not terribly good content. -- Tarquin

i restored some but it looks way messy to me. The list without comment is much more useful. Lir 17:19 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

---

I have changed the article to a form that is closer to its former self. In particular

• I put back the explanation of the different subfields of study
• I eliminated the list of isolated topics, after verifying they are listed in "list of astronomy topics".
• I put back the short history. It is my belief that a short story of the subject is adequate in this page, and a long history deserves its own article. I consider this to be subject to discussion.--AN 01:58 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

Your revert erased subfields. Lir 15:40 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

Your brief history was pointless. It's all in history of astronomy and it is meaningless to those who know nothing and redundant to those who do know the history. I believe the only question here is whether there should be a paragraph explaining the difference between radio astronomy and X-Ray astronomy and optical astronomy. I see no reason for such madness. If somebody wants to read about optical astronomy they can click on the link. That's what it is there for.

I mean

Infrared astronomy deals with using infrared radiation

is about as pointless as

Radio astronomy deals with using radio telescopes

Lir 15:53 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

Imho both are useful albeit too concise explanations for outsiders. Erik Zachte

---

Once again the revert is losing a lot of data by going back so far and since it doesnt add anything that isnt on another page... rerevert Lir 22:00 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

It was you modifications that lost a lot of information. And the previous edit back was not a simple revert, but I tried to incorporate several of the changes you had made. You, instead, simply put back your last copy, that doesn't read like an article, and misses information.--AN

Now look. As the page says, Astronomy is a big topic. Thus, Astronomy needs some disambiguation. Go look at a disambiguation page-see how they have a big list that is clearly visible? You have all this history of astronomy stuff clogging the top of the page-there is a page for history of astronomy its all there. Lir 22:49 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

No one is disputing that all of astronomy cannot fit onto one page, but it does not follow that the astronomy article should be little more than a list of topics. People click on a link to "astronomy" expecting to see a cohesive and articulate article on astronomy, so there is nothing wrong with having a brief history of astronomy on this page - just as there is nothing wrong with having a list of links of further topics co-existing with it. -- CYD

I am not disputing that information should not be on this page, I am only disputing the type and location of it. To be honest, I really don't care what you put below the links-but those links need to be high up on the page so they are easily used by someone. Lir 23:51 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

---

In drafting the original section differentiating astronomy and astrology, I deliberately avoided calling astrology a pseudoscience in an attempt to maintain the NPOV. Calling it a pseudoscience (although of course I believe it is, at best) is kind of a slap in the face, and that's not neutral. What's the consensus? Should this be reworded? If we call it a pseudoscience here, what's to keep someone from using loaded language on the astrology page to denigrate astronomy?

That said, I'll be content to abide with whatever the consensus on this is. Tally ho! Stormwriter

Do astrologists claim that its a science? Yes, I guess they do...

The study of the positions and aspects of celestial bodies in the belief that they have an influence on the course of natural earthly occurrences and human affairs.

I would word it that astrologers argue that they are conducting science BUT the key tenent of the scientific process is that a scientific hypothesis leads to predictions which can be proven as correct. This argument is ignored on most "astrology IS a science" websites. So the question then is, "Do any astrologers have any predictions that we can test for validity?" and wait to see if anyone offers up a prediction. Lir 04:41 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

Sure Astrologers have made and do make testable predictions, and they often then attempt to test them, they've tried biographical studies etc. Heck some astrological predictions are verifiable and intertranslatable with predictions in other fields, Farmer's almanacs often phrase predictions about harvest times in astrological terms for instance. And the whole notion of the key tenet of the scientific process is a thornier issue mired in POV, see scientific method Bmorton3 21:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You could word it "mainstream/academic scientists call astrology a science." I would also take care to mention in the history section that astronomy and astrology were once the same field of study. -- zandperl 02:28, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Not directly related to this page, but related topics. I've started stubs on a couple astronomy-related terms and if anyone wants to take on a new project, they could use fleshing out: Dobson (with links to currently empty John Dobson and Dobsonian telescope), and SIRTF. -- zandperl 04:40, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

The link to "Astronomy Formulas" is broken. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:34, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Definition of "Astronomy" using etymology

It would be best not to give the etymological derivation of "astronomy" because etymology is often unhelpful. "Meteorology" for instance means literally "the study of meteors". This is because the ancient Greeks thought meteors were portents of storms etc, and so could be used to predict weather. "Meteorology" today just means the study of all aspects of weather. Similarly "astronomy" does not refer to the study of stars, but of all objects and phenomena to be seen (or even NOT seen!) in the heavens. So I'd omit the etymology and go straight to a modern definition of "astronomy".

Spurious "by subject" entry?

I noticed "cosmosophy" and "cosmogony" as new entries under the "By Subject" section. Google search on cosmosophy suggests that this has a tenuous link to astronomy at best; it seems to be a spiritualistic philosophy. I could not determine whether cosmogony was similarly unrelated to astronomy or if it is a recognized branch of the science. Does anyone have more knowledge of these purported branches of astronomy, or should these entries be removed? Alanyst 06:48, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Is there currently any list of astronomy topics page, and if not should there be? I was working on H-alpha and wanted to make sure this info wasn't repeated elsewhere. --zandperl 16:05, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The List of astronomical topics is what you're looking for.

Adrian Pingstone 09:55, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Is this a general new Wikipedia phenomenon or is this page especially affected by vandalism recently? – Torsten Bronger 16:58, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

telescopes

Would anyone be interested helping with a Wikipedia:WikiProject Telescopes and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Telescopes? Should a telescopes template include space telescopes? It/they could be modeled after the following articles:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical Objects
• Hubble Space Telescope
• Spitzer Space Telescope
• Arecibo Radio Telescope

--zandperl 15:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Impact Craters

I removed the extensive discussion, since there no longer seems to be any point to it on this page. If someone wants to talk about it more, please do so on the "crater" talk page. NealMcB 05:27, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)

I've put it back to make an archive in the modern sense. Graham87 00:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Impact craters do in fact develop central peaks. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] --SheikYerBooty 06:39, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

And can you explain this mechanism by which impact craters develop central pylons? What magic causes this pylon of rock to grow out of a blast crater? Can you show me other blast craters (bombs, observed meteorite impacts (only one thought to have been observed so far on the moon made a BOWL-SHAPED CRATER), other things blasting holes in the ground)? Where do the pylons come from and how? And where are the observed meteorite strikes with flat basins? Where are any blast craters with flat basins? Please do not post any more references proving that many people believe flat basins and central pylons are indicative of blast craters. I want you to explain to me why and how it happens without resorting to magic. - Plautus satire 16:13, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) Is this another case where facts are thrown out in favor of popular myths? - Plautus satire 16:15, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is not our job to make up for your inability to do basic research. The reasons why people think impact craters are impact craters is in most every introductory book on planetary science as are the answers to every question that you are asking. (hint look up Widmanstätten)

And the evidence for the claims made in these begginer instruction books to planetary science is...? Where? What is it again? Can you cite the evidence and explain it please?

You can use google. You can use adswww. You probably have access to a university library. You can find the answers to your question. The fact that you aren't able to do some research on your own, makes me wonder why I should waste my time with you. Roadrunner 04:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• adswww now has an entry, so you can use the link to it from there. --zandperl 15:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I already have done the research, and I have concluded (as have many others) that meteorite impacts do not typically produce craters with flat basins, steep walls and central pylons of solid rock. How many simulations have produced such craters? How many such impacts have been witnessed and verified to have created a crater with a flat basin, central pylon and steep walls? In both cases the answer is zero. - Plautus satire 04:17, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

- Plautus satire 00:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've been more than patient with you in trying to explain to you why the scientific community believes what it does, but I am getting extremely frustrated by your attitude which appears to be that if you come up with an blindingly obvious issue with what the scientific consensus is, that it must be that the scientific community is a bunch of idiots who never thought about the problem. Don't you think that before rewriting all of these pages, you should at least go down to your local library and try to find out what the standard answers to your questions are before assuming that there are none? You seem to believe that if you don't know the answer, there isn't one.

I'm sorry, but I don't see anywhere you explaining "why the scientific community believes what it does" except to say that "because it's in books". Scientists rely on more than merely what is in books. Can you explain how lunar craters with flat basins and central pylons made of solid rock can be created by a falling rock?

Yes. I can. I don't see why I should right now. Roadrunner 04:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC) (Then why are you posting here? - Plautus satire 04:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC))

Are all these perfectly circular "impact" craters with central pylons of solid rock caused by toroidal meteorites falling straight down?

No. Roadrunner 04:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Then by what magic does a falling meteorite produce a crater with a flat basin, steep walls and central pylon of solid rock? - Plautus satire 04:18, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

- Plautus satire 00:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for every fringe theory, nor is it a playground for you to reveal your ignorance about what scientists think and why. You seem to get all of your information from fringe websites, yet seem to have not opened even the most basic standard textbook. Roadrunner 20:18, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's a known fact that there is no evidence that circular craters with flat basins and central pylons of solid rock are or could ever be caused by impacts. If I am wrong, can you quote and cite material that gives evidence that indicates such a preposterous thing can occur?

The question shouldn't be whether I can or can't, the question should be why you are so prone to changing web pages even though by your own admission, you aren't familiar with why people think impact craters are impact craters. At least *find out for yourself* why people think that this is the case. If you still don't believe it, then more power to you. Roadrunner 04:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The question is, by what mechanism do meteorites typically produce craters with flat bottoms, steep walls and central pylons of solid rock? - Plautus satire 04:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I anxiously await your response. - Plautus satire 00:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is another case of you putting forth the science fiction fantasy that plasma is the reason and cause of everything. It's not "magic" that creates the central peaks (or peaks) it's the rebound effect of the compressed rock from the impact. Wave your hands all you want, heck, jump up and down and hold your breath, it won't make these facts go away. Discussing this with you is pointless until you come up with references that a)explain why these impact craters could be caused by impacts, and b)how your "plasma" is supposed to account for the morphology of impact craters. --SheikYerBooty 19:03, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

I have provided numerous sources and quoted these sources explaining the lines of evidence that point to an electrical phenomenon. Can you now quote and cite the evidence that leads one to believe these perfectly flat, perfetly circular craters with central pylons of solid rock are "impact" craters? I mean evidence aside from your belief that since it's written in books it is thus. Can you please now show me quotations and citations that explain the evidence for this belief you hold or is mere rote memorization supposed to be sufficient for me? "It is thus, believe it in spite of contrary evidence." - Plautus satire 00:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(note:plasmas account for electrical discharge craters, not impact craters - Plautus satire)

Show me the money, SheikYerBooty. By "money" I mean show me one blast crater or known not assumed impact crater with a flat basin and a central pylon of solid rock. If you can not show me that, I would accept some reasonable explanation based in scientific principles and observations that explain how a rock hitting the moon could blast a crater with a flat basin and a central pylon of solid rock. (Are all the flat basins with central pylons of solid rock on every satellite of the sun made by donut-shaped meteorites that kindly drop at precisely 90 degree angles to the surface? - Plautus satire 19:26, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)) - Plautus satire 19:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why is this change so threatening? - Plautus satire 19:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Check it out, real research! It's not a "blast crater", it's an impact crater. Thanks though, for the other links that you provided below. They are, ummm, interesting. I got down to your second example and had to stop. You see, I was laughing so hard I got lightheaded and almost fell over. Science knows exactly how the grand canyon was formed, science knows where the sediment went, and science knows what created the Barringer Crater (and how big it was and the composition). If your sources can't even get their terrestrial facts right, why should they be trusted with anything else? --SheikYerBooty 23:24, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

SheikYerBooty, can you kindly quote this source you cite? You say it provides evidence of your belief that randomly falling meteorites will consistently produce almost perfectly circular craters with flat basins, steep walls and central pylons made of solid rock. I can't seem to find that information in the document you cited. Where is this evidence? - Plautus satire 00:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You can do your own research for a change, read the paper yourself. I think you've tap-danced your way around this enough to demonstrate that you don't know anything about the subject. Hang out here on the talk page and debate the subject with yourself or the next hapless victim, but don't expect to get your theory inserted into the Astronomy page any time soon. --SheikYerBooty 03:12, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

I've been trying to read the paper, since you claimed it supported your position. Can you tell me where you read this? The link you provided is to the NASA ADS Astronomy/Planetary Abstract Service. This page states, about the paper at that URL, a page you claim you have read, "Abstract - Not Available." Can I ask you where you found the abstract to which this document refers? I would very much like to read it since you claim it supports your argument and since you have linked to a summary of an unavailable (from NASA) abstract. - Plautus satire 03:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The abstract is not available because the paper in question doesn't have one. The full text, however, is available. Just click the "full printable article" link. -- Tim Starling 03:43, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

And would you like to volunteer to quote the passages that support the claim that craters with flat basins, steep walls and central pylons of solid rock are the result of impacts (blasts)? I've stated I can't find them, and no abstract is available to summarize the conclusions of the paper. SheikYerBooty claims he has read the document in question and it supports his view. I would like him to quote some of the passages he thinks are relevant here. - Plautus satire 03:58, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Page 427 in the document showed the process pretty nicely IMO 62.119.131.95 10:39, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can you quote this document or is it sufficient to say "showed the process pretty nicely IMO"? Is there any accompanying text or is it an out-of-context image? - Plautus satire 15:33, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Plautus. If I can show you *one* simulation that shows that meteorite impacts can produce a flat basin, steep wall, and central pylon, will you at least admit that you need to improve your research skills? Roadrunner 04:23, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I see no need for you to personally attack my research skills again and again. If you can show me a simulation that is backed up by experiment showing that meteorite impacts can produce a flat basin, steep walls and central pylon, I will admit that there is a mechanism by which this can occur. All that will remain at that point for your position to remain tenable is for you to show how the conditions of this simulation (and the subsequent experiments proving the simulation accurately models reality) apply to most meteorite impacts, as most craters observed on the moon are clearly of this type. - Plautus satire 04:44, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I wonder if he'd like to see pictures of a couple of Leonid meteors hitting the moon? (something that he claims we've never seen). --SheikYerBooty 04:36, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

I would love to see images of meteorites observed hitting the moon and making craters with flat basins, steep walls and central pylons. Nothing would please me more than to be wrong, because if I insist on standing by the evidence, I have to contradict all the baseless notions, like the notion that most meteorite impacts on the moon have created circular craters with flat basins, steep walls and central pylons of solid rock. We do not need experimentless simulations or cartoons to imagine how plasma could create such a crater. Plasmas have been observed creating exactly this type of crater in process that is well-known and used every day on this planet: arc welders. - Plautus satire 04:44, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Here is a typical statement about these "impact" craters on the moon: "Moltke Crater, 7 kilometers in diameter, is an excellent example of a simple crater with a bowl-shaped interior and smooth walls. Such craters typically have depths that are about 20 percent of their diameters." This kind of crater is typically called a "simple" crater, meaning it has no central peak. This "impact" craters is circular, indicating the meteorite essentially fell ballistically. It is said to have a depth that is about a fifth of its diameter. How? - Plautus satire 05:06, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here is another example: "Bessel Crater, 16 kilometers in diameter and 2 kilometers deep, is an example of a transitional crater between simple and complex craters. Slumping of material from the inner part of the crater rim destroyed the bowl-shaped structure seen in smaller craters and produced a flatter, shallower floor. However, wall terraces and a central peak have not developed." This "impact" crater is slumping. Slumping of material? What causes that on the moon? Wind? Water? And also referenced here is this "transition" from simple to complex crater. Is this crater destined to be hit again by another meteorite so it can change type? How else can this change occur? - Plautus satire 05:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here is another example: "King Crater, on the Moon's farside, is 77 kilometers in diameter and more than 5 kilometers deep. The terraces and slump blocks on the inside of the crater rim and the relatively flat floor are both typical of large lunar craters. However, the central peak is much larger at King Crater than at other lunar craters of similar size, such as Copernicus or Tycho." This crater is cited as a "complex" crater. More "slumping" somehow, no proposed action, is it wind, water, more impacts in the precise spot? Why does this crater possessed of such a huge pylon when others of the same size have much smaller central pylons? Is erosion by mysterious sources again the cause here? Are the older central pylons from craters of the same size eroded somehow? What's causing these craters to age like this? Are they really eroding or is the underlying assumption that they are all impact craters faulty? - Plautus satire 05:14, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The source of these claims has many images of craters on the moon. It shows six images of six of the largest craters on the moon, all of them circular. What are the odds that six of the largest (are they the six largest?) craters were caused by impacts of meteorites directly perpendicular to the surface? The odds have to be astronomical, I think. But clearly it happened, since those six craters are all impact craters. That must mean that there is a god and that god hit the moon with meteorites, because clearly that defies coincidence, it is divine intervention sent to confound us all. - Plautus satire 05:18, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sources asked for by SheikYerBooty

[9] There are many visible examples of electrical scarring on Mars. Electrical scars have characteristics that enable us to distinguish between them and water erosion and/or impact cratering. Venus also exhibits evidence of having been electrically machined.

[10] Presently a debate is occurring among some geologists as to exactly what process formed the Grand Canyon of Arizona. There is no evidence of where the soil that was removed went! There is no river delta. It has all disappeared. And the Colorado River would have had to flow uphill in order to create the Canyon. Also, no evidence of the "meteor" that formed Arizona's "Meteor Crater" has ever been found. Were both these scars also formed by electric arc machining? It is highly likely. For a detailed description of the problems associated with the accepted explanation of how the Grand Canyon was formed see Wal Thornhill's page.

[11] Thornhill points out in his work, "The Electric Universe", that plasma pervades the solar system and arcing will occur when and if charged bodies interact electrically. He proposes that it is just such arcing that has caused craters on the planets, asteroids and moons - even on Earth. He postulates that pictures of craters coming back from our space probes do not show a shape consistent with either the impact or volcanic models. Almost every crater we observe is round and not elliptical as many of them would be if made by meteors. They have flat bottoms with conical central cones. The strata of the central peaks are undisturbed in many so-called impact craters, including the famous Chicxulub in the Yucatan. Their walls are terraced. Secondary craters form on the rims of primary craters.

Thornhill has demonstrated in the laboratory that such characteristics are expected from electrical arcing, but not from impacts. On some small asteroids the craters are huge, with diameters more than the asteroids' radii. Some asteroids have several craters this large. If these craters had been caused by impacts, surely the asteroids would have been destroyed. Is this electrical arcing the phenomenon that was interpreted as the "thunderbolts" that raged between the gods (planets) as described in ancient myths?

[12] Similarly, geologists have never witnessed a crater formed by cosmic impact. Their attempts to replicate the features of planetary craters by high-velocity impacts or explosions have failed – but the story remains.

The Mars Exploration Rover, Opportunity, landed in a 20 meter wide crater in Planum Meridiani. The surrounding region has some of the most spectacular etched surfaces seen on Mars. Just east of Terra Meridiani is a 470-km diameter circular depression known as Schiaparelli Basin. In June 2003 Mars Global Surveyor imaged a small crater in that Basin that exhibits most of the strange Martian features that challenge geologists when using terrestrial analogies.

To begin, it is baldly stated that the feature is an ‘old meteor impact crater.’ That is an opinion, not a fact. The floor of an impact crater is supposed to be formed of shattered rock. This crater floor is layered rock. So the crater ‘may have once been completely filled with sediment’ - or else the assumption is mistaken. Regular, episodic sedimentation is called upon to produce such even layering. Some method of cementation is also required to form each distinct layer. Whatever happened had to have repeated more than 20 times with precision to give such a regular appearance. Finally, ‘the material was ..eroded to its present form.’ We should like to know how that miracle was performed. Neither wind nor water moving across the landscape could produce the circular symmetry seen here. And it does not attempt to explain the strange landscape surrounding the crater.

There is a better explanation. In an electric universe, surfaces and atmospheres of rocky planets are exchanged in the process of their electrical ‘birth’ from a gas giant planet and in subsequent electrical interactions with other moons and planets in the process of achieving a stable orbit. Both Jupiter and Saturn have moons that would be classified as planets if they orbited the Sun. Saturn’s moon, Titan, has an atmosphere heavier than Earth’s. Later this year, when the Cassini spacecraft and Huygens probe arrive to observe it first-hand, Titan may have much to teach us about a planet that didn’t manage to leave home.

The birth of planets by expulsion, followed by accretion of the ‘afterbirth,’ leaves significant scars and layering on their surfaces, as does establishing a stable planetary orbit. Orbital dynamics tells us that two planets, which began in close association, will come together again at regular intervals. This would make the process of electrical deposition and erosion between the planets episodic and regular for a short time (geologically speaking). The result is a global ‘onion skin’ build up of crustal materials together with various erratic mineral deposits. Superimposed are the effects of electrical erosion that occurs only upon the closest approaches between two planets (the same electrical forces that caused the initial expulsion preclude impacts). Electrical erosion tends to be concentrated hemispherically because of the short duration of closest approach. It also leaves the most dramatic scars. They take characteristic forms of circular craters (universally mistaken for impact craters), raised blisters (often mistaken for volcanoes), sinuous channels (usually mistaken for water or lava erosion channels), and etched or ‘fretted terrain’ (no conventional explanation).

A note in passing: the small circular craters on the eastern lip of the large crater illustrate a recurring pattern in electrical cratering. Lightning is attracted to high points so subsequent discharges will tend to form craters centered on the rim of an existing crater. It is a pattern that is inexplicable by impacts. Also, in the upper right side of the image are some typical electrically etched, or “fretted” depressions with the circular ‘cookie cutter’ effect in the walls produced by cathode arcs. It is a pattern that the Galileo orbiter saw being formed on Jupiter’s electrically active moon, Io.

Without necessarily subscribing to Kervran’s ideas about the origin of the earthly iron deposits, powerful electric discharges through other common elements, like carbon and oxygen, can form iron deposits.

Response

The meteor hits the ground so quickly that the ground acts like a fluid. Here is an experiment with glass granules.

http://www.physics.mun.ca/~phabdas/physics/mypapers/2003PRL91.pdf

This research uses glass beads to simulate bedrock of the moon. Do you feel that is appropriate? - Plautus satire 14:53, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC) This research also drops spherical steel balls straight down into the medium of glass beads. Does this accurately reflect a typical meteorite impact? - Plautus satire 14:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here are hydrocode simulations....

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~gareth/publications/abstracts/lpsc01.pdf

These simulations are tied in no way to reality, they are what Ron Dittemore of NASA would call "cartoons". They are entirely virtual and were created by jiggering the physical constants of the universe until execution produced visual output that looked like a crater caused by electrical arc machining. - Plautus satire 15:02, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to be civil with you, but it is getting harder and harder to do. All of the questions you have asked are good questions, and if you asked them in a civil tone, I wouldn't mind answering them. However, the tone you are taking is "well, I can't think of the answer after five minute of thinking about it, so all these geologists and astronomers must not be able to answer those questions. Stupid idiots not to be able to see the *obvious* truth."

I'm not going to waste my time answering questions from someone who isn't going to take anything that I say seriously. I've already exercised far more patience with you than most of the other people here, but you are really starting to get on my nerves. Roadrunner 05:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you are finding it difficult to be civil to me, perhaps you need a break. Is this what they call "wikistress"? I do not wish you to have wikistress, please try and calm down, we are merely dispassionately discussing issues here. - Plautus satire 14:57, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Roadrunner, this is from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire:

In the Yahoo [Apollo Hoax] group, Plautus posted approximately 400 messages over a six-day period. A significant number of them were nothing more than vulgar insults aimed at other posters. His tone was uniformly condescending, even when he was clearly in the wrong on factual questions.

And have you read the archive of my posts? Apparently you have not, or you would not be posting this slander here. My record speaks for itself, go download the archive and read it, see how far down you have to scroll to find anything "insulting" from me. It's quite a ways, and only after I was insulted and attacked first. I can't help it that I am just a faster thinker/typist. ;) Cheers. - Plautus satire 14:59, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Does this sound familiar? Feel free to join in the RfC on Plautus - there's an emerging consensus that he should be banned. -- ChrisO 08:21, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

By the way, speaking of civility, can you fellows count the number of times above where I was told "go do some research for a change, excercise your gray matter for a change!"? And now you protest because I crack a joke? You people should lighten up, as has been pointed out to me many times, it's just an encyclopedia. - Plautus satire 15:07, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Debate location

Why is this debate on craters going on here? This isn't the page about craters. You might want to consider moving the debate to the crater talk page, or to something like Talk:Astronomy/Craters. --zandperl 15:40, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The debate here is to determine if the caption on the lunar crater image at the top of the astronomy entry is supported by evidence or wild speculation. - Plautus satire 15:57, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I hesitate to call this a "debate". Plautus would like us to believe that there is a cosmic arc welder running around zapping holes (craters) and lines (Grand Canyon) in everything. His theory has been met with less than overwhelming support. Oh yeah, and the Apollo flights where a hoax by NASA so they could not have snapped the impact crater photo on the Astronomy page. We've been discussing his other contributions here. --SheikYerBooty 17:26, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

I do not appreciate the tone of this post, SheikYerBooty. I ask you now to be as polite and reasonable with me as I have been with you. Though your record on just this page reveals you are prone to becoming very excitable and combative, I have faith in you. I know you can discuss this reasonably if given the chance, which I am repeatedly doing. - Plautus satire 17:30, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well then, I must say thank you for not letting this debate spill over onto the article itself too much. Plautus satire, can I recommend a compromise? I suggest on the Crater or Talk:Crater page, you write a brief summary of alternate theories regarding crater formation. And in the moon crater image on the Astronomy page we link the word "crater" to the crater page while removing the words "impact basin." Hopefully this allows both points of view to be aired and does not favor one of them. You could also list this page on Wikipedia:Peer review and try to get some additional outside feedback. --zandperl 19:58, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How is this a compromise? The completely subjective, baseless assertion that it is an impact crater is one hundred percent, demonstrably wrong. You are not asking me to compromise, but to ignore facts clearly in evidence in favor of a popular fable. - Plautus satire 20:23, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your honest attempt to resolve this issue, but this is not a case of "alternate theories," this is a case of a statement in an entry that bears only cosmetic resemblance to reality, and only just barely that, as it defies all explanation, if it really is an impact crater. Impact craters in bedrock (or any rock for that matter) do not resemble in any way, shape or form impact craters in aggregations of glass beads, which is the only "simulation" medium that has been able to produce these kinds of "craters," (mounds, really, craters are in a solid, these mounds are an aggregate) and only then when the simulated meteor (a steel ball bearing) is dropped at precisely perpendicular angles. This in no way provides evidence that a lump of iron smacking into the bedrock of the moon could produce craters like the one (and the five others I noted) in the image at the top of the astronomy page. - Plautus satire 20:22, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would concede this issue if the word "impact" is removed from the caption, however. - Plautus satire 20:26, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It will be put back. Curps 20:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is a limit to what kind of edits are acceptable. Crackpot theories rejected by the overwhelming majority do not merit presentation on the basis of equality on a mainstream page. Such a presentation implicitly creates the misleading impression that there is a genuine controversy among experts in the field, and for this reason is not acceptable.

In this case, the acceptable solution is to create an entirely new page. For instance, there is an Apollo moon landing hoax accusations page entirely separate from the Apollo program. There is a non-standard cosmology page separate from the Big Bang page.

Curps 20:37, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zandperl, I think you can now understand why working with Plautus yields such disappointing results. He's unwilling to read the required papers or do the minimum amount of research needed to discuss issues in a reasonable and informed manner. He instead relies on only reading abstracts, and then building the flimsiest of strawmen from what little information he absorbed. --SheikYerBooty 20:48, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Curps, are you rejecting this reasonable compromise proposed by an unbiased party? SheikYerBooty, would you like to go on record as stating you reject this reasonable compromise suggested by a disinterested party? - Plautus satire 20:51, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In your original tampering with the caption, you also deleted the part about the photo being taken by the crew of Apollo 11, because apparently you believe the Apollo program was a hoax. No doubt your next step will be to demand the removal of this too, in the name of "compromise". Enough. Curps 21:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tampering? Is this a fair characterization of my good faith edition? Curps, wikiquette guidelines suggest you should not use this form of characterization, as it can make people angry and hostile toward you. I can explain why I removed that material, however, and it has nothing to do with my personal prejudices, which I try to ignore while I am editing. The reason I deleted the portion about where the photograph came from is that I have seen elsewhere where captions of images were fairly (in my opinion) shortened to eliminate citation of the source of those images. The reasoning behind these fair changes by others to other pages was that all images are supposed to be sourced and cited on their respective pages, as per wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for your patience on this issue, and I do hope you are more careful with your inflammatory language in the future. (P.S.: I still don't see why the page was protected one (1) hour after the most recent edition. Why the urgency to protect a page inactive for one (1) whole hour? What is going on here? - Plautus satire 22:03, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In this case, this is not a mere photographer's credit. In this case, mentioning how the photograph was taken and who took it and when is actually of almost equal significance to mentioning precisely which crater the photo actually depicts. Curps 22:46, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are correct. To be strictly literal, the claim that the picture was taken during Apollo missions is space exploration history. - Plautus satire 23:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

SheikYerBooty, I have created an entry on my user page where you may educate me on the use of abstracts when doing research. I have put some of what I know about the subject in this entry, where you may elaborate further within reasonable constraints. Thank you in advance for any assistance you may provide me in my quest to become ever-more educated. - Plautus satire 21:01, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

And after all this mess, what are we left with? My original edition was the following: "Lunar astronomy: the far side of Earth's Moon. The large, flat basin pictured is Crater 308. It spans about 30 kilometers (19 miles)." Now we have "Lunar astronomy: the large crater is Daedalus, photographed by the crew of Apollo 11 as they circled the Moon in 1969. Located near the center of the far side of Earth's Moon, its diameter is about 93 kilometers (58 miles)." and a much larger image. Was it really worth all this hassle just to keep the reference to the Apollo missions? - Plautus satire 03:50, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yep. --SheikYerBooty 04:00, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Was Apollo 11 an astronomy mission? - Plautus satire 04:08, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sure, look at those pretty pictures of the moon. Did you ever manage to read that research paper by Sabaneyev? --SheikYerBooty 05:00, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

You're saying the Apollo 11 was an astronomy mission? If it were important enough to me or relevant enough I would prove you wrong right here, right now. Yes, I did read that published paper, I read it the hour you first posted it, and it does nothing to support your case. Not then, not now, not ever (until you change your case). - Plautus satire 05:11, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK, whatever you say. On a side note, I notice you're still having trouble getting any of your edits to "stick". That must be frustrating. --SheikYerBooty 05:19, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Not frustrating at all, I expect nothing but healthy skepticism with regards to all my reversions! :D - Plautus satire 05:24, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, good luck then. I'm dissapointed that you didn't get anything valuable from the Sabaneyev paper. It does a pretty good job of describing the multivariate nature of differing crater morphology. But then again, you've got your "plasma" theory and it seems to be be working well for you, since you insist on trying to wedge it in anywhere you can. --SheikYerBooty 05:40, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Actually what the paper does is discuss a cartoon based on jiggered laws of physics and flights of fancy. Plasma science is backed up by experimental evidence, not computer-generated cartoons or falsely analogous experiments using beads of glass to simulate bedrock (or any rock for that matter). Hope this clears up the confusion you seem to be experiencing with regards to this paper. - Plautus satire 05:43, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, that's all I needed to know. --SheikYerBooty 05:49, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

All of the critics of the arc-discharge theory have most obviously not taken more than 5 minutes themselves to do the reading and thinking which would be necessary to understand the process. Yes, there is evidence that there are impact craters. Yes, there is evidence that there are arc-discharge craters. Which ones are which? that is the more proper question. Sure we could write a wiki article on the subject, but why when an entire website exists already on this subject? Have none of you ever witnessed a dielectric breakdown between to charged items? If you want to learn more about the physics of arc-discharges themselves, seperate from the crater theory, there is an entire special-issue of IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. devoted to the subject. -Ionized 17:09, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Astronmy v. Astrology=

RmhermenChrisO, let me start by saying I think you did some good work on the astronomy page trying to observe NPOV while inserting relevant detail. But can we please remove the word "scientists"? I feel astrology is considered by everyone as a pseudoscience (reference to their lack of scientific method pretty much seals the case). One thing to keep in mind is this is about astronomy, not a rebuttal of astrology, honestly I think pointing out that contemporary astrologers (do we really know about the ancient past?) do not follow the scientific method is enough, saying this makes it a pseudoscience is redundant and hinting that this belief is shared by elitist "scientists" while the rest of us fall for that bunk is kind of insulting to me (and might be to other casual readers). - Plautus satire 16:37, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've sort of 'adopted' astrology under the major heading of Culture called Alchemy, Astrology and Pre-science which ties things like the Zodiac, Protoscience, pseudoscience and other not-so-scientific stuff to Culture rather than Science. ````

I feel there is plenty of evidence that astrologers in the past did attempt to follow the scientific method as it was understood then, further some astrologers in the present do attempt to follow the scientific method as they understand it. For every "astrologers don't follow the scientific method" cite you can come up with I can come up with an astrologer claiming to follow the scientific method, and a philosopher arguing about exactly what the scientific method is. The astrology page has a reference for an astrologer claiming to follow the scientific method. I suspect there is a near consensus among astronomers that astrology does not follow the scientific method, but that doesn't make it NPOV. Bmorton3 21:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. As someone a lot more interested in astronomy than astrology, I think it is important to remember that, though astrology may, in today's Occident, have been turned into a big joke or make-money-quick scheme, it was traditionally considered a serious attempt at science (regardless of its accuracy or lack thereof). Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 00:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm trying to promote the fa site, can someone fix my mistake??/?

---

Don't think this is true

During part of the 20th century astronomy was considered to be separated into astrometry, celestial mechanics and astrophysics. The current high status of astrophysics can be seen reflected in the naming of University departments and institutions involved in astronomical research: the oldest ones are invariably Astronomy departments and institutes, the newest ones tend to include astrophysics in their names, sometimes excluding the word astronomy, to emphasize the nature of its research. Furthermore, astrophysical research, especially in theoretical astrophysics can be carried out by people whose background is in physics or mathematics rather than astronomy.

I believe it is true. At least the part about the traditional three branches being enumerated as astrometry, celestial mechanics and astrophysics, and how astrophysics has more or less come to be synonymous with astronomy in the last few decades. Is it the wording you want to change? Curps 22:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From my experience, the content of that paragraph is true. In the Western world today, astronomy and astrophysics are mostly synonymous, and students are encouraged to learn theory (astrophysics) as well as observation techniques (astrometry). Within the modern astronomy/astrophysics community, I have definitely observed a rivalry between those specializing in theory and observation. However, in less industrialized countries they are sometimes different departments, or different concentrations within one department, with the highest astronomy degree being a Master's (or equivalent), and the highest in astrophyiscs being PhD. Wording-wise, I think I might say that it was two branches, astrometry==celestial mechanics, and astrophysics. --zandperl 23:02, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, astrometry and celestial mechanics are different. Astrometry was about accurately mapping the positions of the "fixed" stars and recording the motions of the planets. It was most of what early astronomers did, including the ancient Greeks, long before Kepler and Newton. It still lives on with the Hipparcos satellite. Celestial mechanics is about calculating orbital elements for planets and such and predicting their future positions, calculating perturbations, etc.

I have seen this traditional division of astronomy into astrometry, celestial mechanics and astrophysics mentioned before in other sources. Today, of course, it has much less significance since photography and CCDs have automated the mapping of positions and computers have automated calculating orbits, and much of the science of astronomy is astrophysics. Curps 01:13, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do think having a discussion of this breakdown is useful, but I disagree with its placement as paragraphs 2 and 3 in the introduction section. I think it should be placed further down, in the "divisions of astronomy" section. --zandperl 02:47, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Astronomers observe more than the electromagnetic spectrum. They study meteors, cosmic dust, cosmic rays, neutrinos, gravitational waves, pre-solar keplerkeplerkeplerkeplerkeplergrains, etc. That section

---

Recent Vandalisms

I reported the recent vandalisms, along with IP addresses on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. If there was a more appropriate place for me to do so, please let me know or feel free to correct it yourself. --zandperl 01:07, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dang this page gets a lot of vandalisms! Don't seem consistent enough to want protection though. --zandperl 14:31, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this page and star as well. I'm not sure why. — RJH (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Astrophysics and other overlapping entries

There has been some discussion on Talk:Astrophysics about the fact that there is presently considerable redundancy between the astronomy and astrophysics entries, and several more. Perhaps watchers of this page would be interested in joining the discussion. Rkundalini 07:52, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If they are separate pages, should Newton be mentioned here? --David R. Ingham 21:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Astrology

A preëmptive note here, which I hope will head off a lot of pointless squabbling. Astrology properly wouldn't belong on this page at all, were it not for the facts that (a) astronomy and astrology share some common history; (b) a lot of people do confuse astrology with astronomy. It would be sufficient, I think, merely to mark, as has been done, the shared history and that they should not be confused, sending people who land here by accident off to the article they're looking for: no need to give astrology undue prominence. Therefore I've toned down the POV attack on astrology, which doesn't belong here at all: it's enough to state, as has been done quite properly, that the two disciplines differ in method, and to link astronomy to scientific method; links to pseudoscience are just inflammatory. People interested in astronomy by and large couldn't care less about astrology, and the great majority of people interested in astrology are blind partisans of it, and "pseudoscience", an intrinsically POV article, is just waving a red rag in front of a bull.... — Bill 13:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Someone reverted "pseudoscience". First, it's an inherently POV statement: very few of us would call Islam a pseudo-religion, or rock music a pseudo-art. But more to the point in the article Astronomy, there's no need to drag more astrology in here than necessary. It is amply stated, quite correctly, that astronomy is a science, and that astrology is something different. This article is about astronomy, not astrology. It should not be up to the article Astronomy to define or judge the merits of astrology: that should be done in the article Astrology. Much of what goes on in that article — listing of curious claims, famous people purported to have practiced it (who did not) — merely reflects the insecurity of certain proponents of astrology; similarly, vengeful pursuing of astrology in an article on astronomy has a flavor of insecurity about it too. Why should astronomers care whether astrology is a science, an art, a pseudoscience, or a religion? If you care about this, do it on the article Astrology. — Bill 00:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with you here, and will not support your description on this page, as it seems to lend credence to astrology. However, I hope you find my edits an acceptable compromise. Most people know what the term astrology means, and those who do not should be smart enough to follow the link posted. It also maintains the integrity of the page by refering to each field's relationship to the scientific method. [N.B. I did not make the earlier reversion, although I was tempted]. --NeilTarrant 08:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neil, that looks perfect to me. It is indeed quite pointless on this page even to offer a thumbnail description of what astrology is — it just doesn't matter — I'd got carried away by the start in that direction which was there before. Who says the Wikipedia process doesn't work? — Bill 11:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Describing astrology/astromancy as a pseudoscience is factual, not inflammatory. Stating that « astrologers do not [embrace the scientific method] » is nearly synonymous with labeling it as a pseudoscience, so why should it be considered "more neutral"? Use of the term pseudoscience is not subjective (i.e. a POV matter): the pseudoscience article's "Classifying pseudoscience" section gives the criteria that must be met for a discipline to be recognised as pseudoscience —these are all objective. Still, relegating the debate to the Astrology page is indeed the way to go. :-)

Urhixidur 16:45, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

Describing astrology as not embracing the scientific method is partisan and POV. Some astrologers do, some don't. Nor is it clear that Astrology fits the objective criteria of the term pseudoscience, after all criterion #1 is "has presented itself as scientific" and again its pretty clear that astrology is internally conflicted on whether it presents itself as scientific or not. Put these fights on the astrology page, not the astronomy page. If I phrased it "Although the two feilds share a common origin, most people on both sides now consider them to be distinct fields. (end of paragraph)" Would that be NPOV enough for everyone? Bmorton3 21:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Function of space telescopes

The article currently contains this sentence:

Space telescopes are also used to eliminate noise (electromagnetic interference) from the atmosphere.

To the best of my knowledge this is usually not true, but before I go change it I'd like to give others a chance to explain what I'm missing. To my understanding, space telescopes are used to:

• avoid atmospheric opacity at certain wavelengths
• avoid atmospheric emission at certain wavelengths
• avoid the effects of astronomical seeing in the optical band

The quoted sentence occurs in a discussion of infrared telescopes. If thermal infrared is meant, then I reckon the statement is true; see Spitzer Space Telescope and IRAS for examples of instruments that do not suffer from atmospheric thermal emission (which I suppose is a form of EMI in this context) as a result of being space-borne. However there is also the near infrared, a band in which the Hubble Space Telescope is active, and being spaced-based in this band has nothing to do with avoiding EMI since there are plenty of ground-based near-IR astronomical instruments.

So my question is: Is this just a matter of not distinguishing between near-infrared and thermal-infrared applications? Or is the statement meant to apply to all space telescopes working in either infrared band? In either case, I think the statement needs to be clarified. Look forward to hearing your thoughts about this. Jeff Medkeff | Talk 08:44, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Frenchised

Hello astronomists - question: Is there a page on here thats named something like skygazing? Because there's a French article, found at fr:Observation du ciel (observation of the sky) that in WP:TIE, and before I start translating it, I'd like to know if there's already an article here? Reply here, but could u drop me a note on my talk page, Thanks --Thewayforward 15:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

A related topic, Astrophysics is currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Come and support the nomination or comment on it.--Fenice 07:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

supernatural?

Hello, there is a content dispute at Methodological naturalism that I've filed an article RFC for [13]

The original question is whether or not the scientific method is a natural method or a supernatural method of scientific investigation. One editor (Markus Schmaus) refuses to allow the scientific method be listed as a natural method unless a link can be provided to support the claim. I assume he is a proponent of Intelligent Design which pushes the view that ID is "scientific" even though it investigates supernatural causes such as how God must have creaeted life on earth. I assume it is this POV that is getting pushed, and Schmaus will not allow the scientific method be listed as an example of MN because then ID would not fit in the scientific method.

[14]

In an attempt to resolve the dispute until some sort of consensus was reached, I removed the mention of the Scientific Method as an example of methodolgical naturalism and instead inserted "astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics" are examples of methodological naturalism. Schmaus is now disputing that these are examples of MN and insists on a URL to prove that they are natural methods rather than supernatural methods of scientific investigation.

Since methodological naturalism is a minor article with only a few editors, the dispute has remained unresolved for lack of any sort of consensus. Please weigh in with your comments at the following links:

Scientific method is natural or supernatural

astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics are natural or supernatural methods

If you have links to support whether it is supernatural or natural, that would be greatly appreciated. FuelWagon 18:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• "The supernatural (Latin: super- "exceeding" nature) refers to forces and phenomena which are beyond ordinary scientific or any other type of measurement." Ergo, the Scientific method is not supernatural by definition. It's axiomatic. — RJH (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, super-nature refers to phenomena beyond the realm of "nature" (whatever that means) whether they are measurable or not, or measurable in ordinary ways or not. So this doesn't settle the fights on the scientific method, again see the extensive work at scientific method. For that matter numbers and geometeric forms have been considered outstanding examples of supernatural entities in some time periods, and the modern scientific method relies rather heavily on them. This is simply not a slam-dunk quick fight either way. Bmorton3 21:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Astronomy for beginners

Make notice of astronomy for beginners. Is it useful? Karol 09:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Er, for beginners, where is it - I see red? Vsmith 13:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Spelling error, sorry. Karol 17:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

OK - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronomy for beginners for my deep thoughts :-) Vsmith 18:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thx, I didn't want to be the nominator. Karol 08:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

publication

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Green Fireballs - request for help

Would someone please check the accuracy of Green Fireballs. In particular, it concludes "Green fireballs continue to be reported now and then, but their origins remain a mystery." According to Watch the Skys, by Curtis Peeples, 27-29, there was a two-day meeting about them in 1949 which concluded that they were a natural phenomenon (a meteor, I presume). Thak you, Bubba73 (talk), 00:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Astrology & Astronomy: the True History versus Conventional POV

I removed some excessive astrology comments and fixed some wording problems along with removing a circular link. User:theodore7 (who claims to be a professional astrologer) then reverted with the edit comment This version is more historically balanced and does not treat astrology as redundant. If you feel I have unbalanced the historical parts, then edit that - don't just revert other errors back in. I feel the previous version included a bit more astrology than needed. Astrology is not a field of study in the science of astronomy as the previous version stated. Vsmith 14:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately Theo has been doing the same thing in several other articles on Wikipedia at this point and he continues to do so even after dozens of reverts. The astrology article has sustained the most damage at this point, but I know that he has been going around to every other related article on astrology, astronomy and various biographies and commiting the same sort of vandalism. You guys would be well advised to keep an eye on the astronomy article to make sure that the same sort of "balanced" edits from him don't creep into the article.

I don't "claim" - I am a professional astrologer, astronomer, and teach on the subject. I also do NOT have a problem with ASTROLOGY as some have; and who clearly show their lack of knowledge on the history of astrology and astronomy because it upsets them so much. I also take exception to the "view" that because I do not agree with some rather sharp conventional scientific perspectives on astrology that clearly is POV and tries to steer the reader toward a view of astrology as a pseudo-science. If you MUST have astrology and pseudo-science in the same sentence - come with proof that it is not a science, nor is considered one by those who practice it. You will find that history tells you otherwise. And yes, I am keeping an eye on what is some of the most biased POV on this subject as it relates to astronomy. Obviously, there are some who should re-take a history lesson on this subject - astronomy/astrology before running around crying "vadalism" when they read something that upsets their preconceived sensibilities or point-of-view. Moreover, the term -astrology - seems to be thought as being some silly, outlandish "belief" that ancient astronomers had when the facts show clearly that this is not so. Saying, as you do in the above statement that "astrology is not a field of study" shows that you are not versed in this science to make that statement at all. One more thing: to claim that balanced rewrites, or edits by me are "vandalism" is not true, but clearly an attempt to keep out materials that run counter to your pwn personal POV on this subject. Astrology is one of the world's oldest sciences, and has many links to other sciences, including mathematics, as well to numerous famous astrologers. But, when you look at this subject, and those who clearly practiced astrology, you will find the term ASTROLOGY missing, or placed second to astronomy, as in an after-thought. (Oh, weren't they silly?) Obviously, some modern conventional thinkers continue to avoid the "logy" in "astro" - and I suggest they focus more on why this is so. So, in following the English rule for placing the word that comes earlier in the alphabet - astrologer, or astrology appears first where appropriate, then astronomy. The "l" comes before the "n". Suggest you discover the factual history of astrology/astronomy before running around "correcting" things connected directly to astrology. Balance is not claiming that your POV versions are so because you say astrology is not a science. Define what makes astrology not a science? Try actually telling us here what knowledge you have of astrology so we can then take what you say with some weight, rather than throwing around insults on others you do not know because you personally disagree with astrology being considered a science. The facts do not support this view - despite how upsetting they may be to your POV.Theo 08:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Theo, I've looked over your edits and reverts, but it seems here the problem isn't so much PoV issues regarding astrology, but its relevance to this article. Specifically the second paragraph of the introduction: while it's justifiable to briefly differentiate astrology and modern astronomy, detailed explanations of astrology and astronomy's links to it belong in the sections on astrology and history of astronomy respectively. Also, please edit pages instead of reverting to your preferred version. There are a number of errors and corrections unrelated to the content that are restored or lost.

--A brisson 07:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Clyde Tombaugh

Is the discussion about Clyde Tombaugh's opinions of UFOs accurate? Bubba73 (talk), 07:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

unmarked reverts and vandalism

The continued unmarked reverts to a ~two week old version that plainly pushes one users POV are simply vandalism and will be treated as such. This article is about the modern science of astronomy. There exists an article on astrology and it is linked from the astronomy page with an appropriate short comment. There also exists an article on the history of astronomy, plainly linked, therefore extensive details of astronomy history do not belong in the astronomy page. There is also an article astrology and astronomy for comparison of these fields for those who may be confused by the terms. Vsmith 14:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Astrophilosophy

I'm sorry, but does anyone really know what astrophilosophy might be? Or more objectively: does this really exist as an active or expressive area of research and if so, should we include it as a "discipline"? Leschatz 03:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included at all. A Google search of the term reveals pathetically few links and none of them seem particularly valuable...they don't even really define what the subject 'is'. As far as I can tell (from the one slightly coherent search result I found), it seems to be the study of the "philosophy of the Universe." Somewhat fishy... It should probably be removed. Any objections? Splat 02:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

A proposal

There is a proposal up that will affect a few articles under the umbrella of Astronomy that needs input. If you are interested, please see Wikipedia:Locations in fiction, fictional locations, and settings.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 07:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)