Talk:Lilith (hypothetical moon)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lilith (hypothetical moon) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

An entry from Lilith (hypothetical moon) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 28 September 2006.

	Astronomy Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Astronomical Objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
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.

Contents 1 DYK 2 Position? 3 npov tag 4 How can this article be improved? 5 Is this a joke? 6 clean-up 7 Clarification?

[edit] DYK

I suggested this article on Did you know. --BorgQueen 20:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Position?

The first paragraph mentions a Lagrangian point; the second mentions an empty focus. These are very, very far away; which is it? Or is "Lilith" a generic name for all second-moon theories? I don't understand what's going on here. Melchoir 23:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me clarify here:

• The orbit of the Moon (about the Earth) is very nearly an ellipse with an eccentricity of 0.05 and a semi-major axis of 400000 km. Earth occupies one focus of this ellipse; there is another focus 40000 km away from Earth. From Earth's perspective, this point is in front of the Moon, at a distance from us just 7 times the radius of the planet; it is much closer to the Earth than it is to the Moon.
• In the circular approximation, the Earth-Moon system has five Lagrangian points. Two of these are close to the Moon, one about 60000 km in front, and one about 60000 km behind.

My point is that it is logically inconsistent to identify these various points. The open focus has nothing to do with the Lagrangian points. It sounds like astrologers place Lilith at the empty focus, and the Lagrangian point stuff is original research based on an analogy. Shall we just delete the latter? Melchoir 22:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem. There was a lot of confusion regarding three different astrological concepts of Lilith. "The Second moon theories and science" section now makes everything very clear. Mrwuggs 01:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, much better! The "This conception..." sentence works well to avoid equating the two positions. It would still be nice to have a citation that connects Antichthon to L3, though; I see that our article does it, but it doesn't have a source, the image depicts something completely different, and the whole thing seems kind of anachronistic. Melchoir 01:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that certainly would be nice, but someone has gone and halted all progress on Antichthon until we can get the re-meger with counter-Earth approved. Personally, it seems like someone is throwing a lot of needless beurucratic red-tape our way because hypothetical planets make "real scientists" mad. Mrwuggs 20:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I'm not familiar with what's going on, but that sounds like a shame. Just cite everything you can, and good luck! Melchoir 20:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, head on over to the Antichthon talk page and check it out. You can help by casting a vote in favor of the merger. 199.219.129.54 14:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This issue doesn't seem cleared up at all. I see text that describes Lilith as being on the far side of the Moon, next to a diagram showing Lilith inside the Moon's orbit. They aren't presented as two alternative ideas. They're just contradictory. Also, in the intro there is the phrase "empty apogee". Was that supposed to be "empty focus"? Spiel496 14:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] npov tag

The style of this article is bad, and it is not sufficiently clear that any second moon of the Earth would have been seen by now. There is nowhere for it to hide. Michaelbusch 18:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected this problem by the addition of a section on this concept's scientific impossibility. Mrwuggs 19:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How can this article be improved?

This is a growing article. There are many ways it could be improved. For example:

• Adding further detail through research
• Adding sources
• Adding outside links
• Adding books or other media in which this or a similar astronomical object appears.

These are just a few ideas. Can anyone think of more? Mrwuggs 22:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It needs a picture or a graphic explaining their theory. --Pedro 00:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture added for the "Black Moon" aspect, but now we need a "Dark Moon" image. Mrwuggs 00:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a joke?

Why is this astrological quackery on the main page? Who cares what astrologers think about anything? How about we leave space to the astronomers and leave the astrologers to do their horoscopes in the Weekly World News.L0b0t 11:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not "quackery." This is an article on the history of astronomy. Mainstream scientists believed in the possibility and even likelyhood of a second moon until 1898. Jules Verne was a serious man of science and a great author who was way ahead of his time. It is unbelievable that you would call him a quack. The fact that intelligent, questioning people once believed in a theory that has since been rendered obsolete does not invalidate the merit of their inquiries. The fact that these theories were later taken up by practitioners of astrology, the protoscience that gave birth to astronomy, does not devalue the beliefs held by the early scientists, Jules Verne, or even Seraphiel.You are entitled to your opinion, but keep in mind that wikipedia is built on neutrality, not personal belief. Mrwuggs 15:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Seraphiel? You mean the astrologer Sepharial. --BorgQueen 14:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This article presents an explanation of an unverified scientific view, which is of paticular interest to many, including me --Jawsaints 19:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] clean-up

We have done a lot of clean-up here. Perhaps it is time for the tag to come down. Mrwuggs 19:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just had to delete the bulk of the History section as it was plagarized directly from here. Cheers. L0b0t 03:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded the history sections original information so that is is no longer plagarized. Mrwuggs 18:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification?

I don't understand what is meant by "empty apogee." Could someone who understands what this article is about clarify this? I'm guessing that this is supposed to be a Lagrange point, or something like that, instead.

"though the term Black Moon is usually used by astrologers who do not believe in Lilith's physical existence to refer to the moon's empty apogee. "

This also makes no sense

Astronomically, Dark Moon Lilith is supposed to have a geocentric period of 119 days and to orbit at three times the distance of the Moon. Its diameter is said to be about one quarter that of the Moon. Despite many criticisms as bad science, the idea's proponents maintain it follows an orbit stationary to the opposing side of the Moon, rendering it invisible except when crossing the sun.

If it was indeed stationary behind the Moon, the geocencentric period would be the same as that of the Moon. I realize that this is bad science, but we still need to be clear as to what the proponents actually say! Lunokhod 12:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)