This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Saros136 (talk | contribs) at 10:19, 4 December 2007 (→Past and Future Transits: answer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:19, 4 December 2007 by Saros136 (talk | contribs) (→Past and Future Transits: answer)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Transit of Venus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 7, 2005. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Featured article | |||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small} | Astronomy: Solar System Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Template:V0.5 Whilst I was drawing this,the page layout was changed and i can't think where to put it. So I'll stick it here for now theresa knott 15:48, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
File:Viewing the sun safely.png
- There's room for it, I added it to the page. Curps 18:01, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
We have to try to include this. It's the coolest transit picture I have ever seen.
The site is here. Apparently the image is copyright ESO Education & Public Relations Department. I wonder if they would let us reproduce it? -P3d0 13:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
de:Venustransit#Bilder des Verlaufs is free to use if you cant get it.
The images at taralaya.org/archive are free to use. Although the images currently there are through a Coude telescope, and hence the whole image is rotated by an angle. But the transit is seen beautifully in many pics. These images were taken at Bangalore
David Peck Todd
I had added a paragraph (many moons ago) about David Peck Todd's photographs of the transit of Venus in the 19th century, which as I understood it were some of the earliest, if not the earliest, photos of the event, and which were thought lost until rediscovered in 2002. I checked back today to see that the paragraph was completely removed (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Transit_of_Venus&diff=4909397&oldid=4849720). Was the information really that useless? -Rjyanco 10:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
James Gregory
I have added a few words to indicate that it was James Gregory and not Edmond Halley who devised the method of measuring the astronomical unit using observations of the transit of venus. He decribed this method in his book Optica Promata around 100 years prior to the measurement. Halley possessed and had read this because the book also contains a description of the design of the Gregorian reflecting telescope, which was the principal design used at that time, indeed until the 1800s. It is not to Halley's credit that he failed to acknowledge Gregory's priority in this regard. pclive
Why two?
Why are there two transits 8 years apart, then none for a hundred so years? --Golbez 17:25, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
- 420 commit suicide every day. 68.40.239.194 05:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Venus in Astrology
As an astrologer I am very pleased that the Venus transit was put on the main page. The transit of Venus is considered significant because many people consider it to herald in a spiritual new age. The next transit will be in 2012, and according to the Mayan calander it is supposed to be a very significant date and some people say it will be the end of the world. Perhaps this end of the world will be a turning point in man's consciousness and not a physical end of the world, as many people would assume. I am a member of an astrology group and the Reverend Alice Miller wrote a fine piece on the transit of Venus. I would also like to point out that ancient myth states that at one time Venus was a comment. This was written about in a book called The Venus Legacy and I have written about it in an upcoming book called Seasons, Cycles and the Ancients. --TracyRenee 03:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Recent vandalism
A revert that was necessary due to some recent vandalism has taken away some recent edits, including the transit visibility table I created and that was improved by User:Phil Boswell, and some media that was added later by User:Brian0918. We will need to look for later contributions as well. These will need to be restored. -- B.d.mills (Talk) 13:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
(im)possible double transits
I find the use of the words "currently (im)possible" very strange inrelation to the simultaneous transits of Venus and Mercury or the Moon, since it seems perfectly clear when next they will occur. The only thing it could mean is that perhaps earlier then when we know for certain they might (not) occur, but I rather doubt this explanantion. Someone should reword this. -MarSch 14:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Discovery of atmosphere on Venus in 1761
Was this event too minor to be mentioned in the article? I tried to fix this. But I think it even deserves a right to be included into the lead section. Cmapm 14:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Cultural stuff
Starting with this edit (if I've read the edit history correctly) a load of weird stuff has gone in about how Venus used to be a commet. I've removed this stuff for the time being. The text removed is below. — KayEss | talk 10:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- According to The Venus Legacy, written by Shane O'Brien, Venus was believed to have originally been a comet. This comet had a very eliptical orbit, which took it past Jupiter and then it grazed past Earth during its orbit. It was during these times that the comet grazed past Earth that calamities occured to affect the actions of man. Two of these events are chronicled in the Old Testement of the Bible, the first being during the exodus of the Jews from Isreal and the second about 50 years later.
- The comet theory is substantiated by the fact that Venus is called the morning star. Certainly the ancients would not call the planet as it is today a morning star, and the fact that they gave it such reverence and possibly even worshiped it indicates that at one time it had a much greater luminosity. At that point in the history of man, Venus was much brighter than it is today, and when man viewed it, it was perceieved to be as large as the Moon and the Sun in the sky, which means that at some point during its orbit it was much closer top the Earth than it is today, and this is why the Mesopotamians held those heavenly bodies in such high esteem.
- It was during one of Venus' orbits, when it was believed to come too close to the Earth that a massive upheaval occured. The axis was shifted, moving Babylon about 50 miles away from its original location, and the number of days of the year changed from 360 to 365.
- It is also around the time of Christ that the comet, Venus, made its last orbit as a comet. Something of a magnificient celestial event occured because the tail from the comet burned off and it settled into its present orbit between Mercury and the Earth. It is believed that when Jesus the Christ was crucified, which lead to the Earth shaking, moving on its axis, and day and night standing still for three days, that this event was caused by what was going on with Venus. It is worthy to note that many major civilisations at that time have recorded a time, around the time of Christ, that the Earth shook and day and night stood still for several days, which means that the Earth changes that occured when Christ was crucified were actually world events that people, who had no knowledge of Christ, witnessed.
Wierd Stuff
With regard to Kay's comment re "weird stuff", I would like to point out that someone emailed me and actually asked me to put that "weird stuff" into the article and to quote my references. I took all of the information form the book that I referenced and it is certainly not "weird". Just because you don't like something doesn't make it "weird". --TracyRenee 16:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that it doesn't belong in the article. The article is about the cultural significance of the transit of Venus, not about how Venus was a comet, or changed our year from 360 to 365 days, or how it actually caused the miracles described in the Gospels. And those theories certainly sound weird to me. - Dangerous Angel 21:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Dangerous Angel, one of the reasons why the world is the state it is in is because people label things they don't understand. I normally mind my own business, but a well intentioned person asked me to put that information in, so I did. I will just stick to myself in the future and try not to get involved in your petty squabbles. I really didn't want to get involved in your petty squabbles in the first place, but someone actually asked me to put information into the article, and then I/it was labeled "weird". It is nice to know that you are open minded enough not to label things you don't understand (please note the sarcasm).--TracyRenee 05:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- It seemed to me that this was a major claim to introduce on this page when the Venus article makes no mention of it. Tracy, might I suggest that you put this into a page on the guys book with a single sentence here and on the venus pages linking to it? I'm assuming that all of the claims are from the book? — KayEss | talk 05:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
The information that I got was from the book, but I have another book on astrology at home that talks about in ancient antiquity and what is believed to have occured. I do not necessarily object to the information deleted because people have their editorial right to do so, my main objection was to the word "weird". One person took the time to email me the definition of the word "weird" to justify their comments. I would like to point out when you are calling someone or something "weird" that you are labeling that person. That is what I took offence to. I did not take offence at deleting the text, per se. A person may be fat, but you would not call them fat unless you were incredibly rude. A person may be black, but you would not point out the fact to them that they were black because you would risk being called a racist. I don't think it is appropriate, dictionary definition or not, to label people or their contributions "weird" just because you don't agree with them or understand them. I would also like to point out that one of the people who said what I wrote was "weird" is an atheist, so of course that individual is going to make every effort to discredit any mention of Jesus because that person has openly admitted that he/she does not believe there is a God.--TracyRenee 08:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Tracy, I'm sorry if you thought I was calling you weird. It never occured to me that anybody might interpret the english in that way. I'm not sure that you can assume all athiests would want to discredit Jesus. Anyway, I assume that you are not talking about me and I really don't want to get into a conversation about that here (but feel free on my talk page). It looks like you have some good material to start a page on the book that you referenced. I look forward to seeing it (please leave me a note when you create it and I'll have a look) — KayEss | talk 09:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- The atheist Tracy is talking about is me. Tracy, please assume good faith. I disagree with that text being included in the article because it has nothing to do with a transit of Venus (as stated above), not because it mentions Jesus. I did not remove it myself because I am new to Misplaced Pages and wanted a more experienced editor to make that decision. I apologize for calling your views "weird" when what I meant to say was that they were unusual and in the minority (hence me quoting the dictionary at you). If you took offence, sorry. Wikipedians can judge my conduct by reading the brief exchange on Tracy's talk page and mine. --Dangerous Angel 10:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- In my view, featured article is not an exercise book, where somebody glues excerpts from various books, magazines etc., even :-) on somebody's request. For example, you must be sure, that the information you present is cited by many sources, links to which you can provide immediately; if you suspect that somebody can question information you intend to add, you should first provide it on the talk page and add it into the article only when (and if) consensus is achieved. To summarize, two (me and Dangerous Angel) are against adding that info, one is neutral (?) and one is for, so, that info in its present form is not suitable for the FA in my view. Cmapm 14:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Predicting 67,000 and 224,000 years in advance?
Given that the solar system is a chaotic system (or so I always thought, though I find no mention of it on Wk), it is really possible to accurately predict simultaneous transits of Mercury and Venus that far in advance?
Also, is it possible or impossible for a transit of Pluto, as seen from Neptune, to occur, given that Pluto's orbit sometimes takes it closer to the sun than Neptune? Aumakua 16:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the solar system only really changes during vast periods of time (Millions and billions of years). When the dinosaurs walked the Earth, the planets were still pretty much how they are today, and at the same distances, basically. It's only a matter of mathematics to predict transits and such for such small (!) timescales.--Planetary 06:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Pluto's orbit is tilted quite a bit against the ecliptic -- the plane which the other planets' orbits approximate. The plane of Pluto's orbit crosses the plane of Neptune's at two points, both of which are during the portion of the Plutonian year when it is further from the sun than is Neptune. Pluto spends only a small portion of its year closer to the sun than Neptune, and by then it has already moved far enough out of the plane of Neptune's orbit that it never passes directly between the two. 4.232.225.95 04:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Sidereal or synodic?
From the article:
- The pattern repeats every 243 years because 243 sidereal orbital periods of the Earth (365.25636 days - slightly longer than the tropical year) is 88757.3 days, and 395 sidereal orbital periods of Venus (224.701 days) is 88756.9 days.
Is this correct? I thought the time taken for Venus to return to the nodes of its orbit (the synodic period) was more important here. --B.d.mills 23:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
muddapur?
Where in India is Muddapur, the location of the 1874 expedition to see a transit. after asking google about it, i couldn't get a straight answer, other than it seems to be somewhere in East Bengal. 131.111.220.6 13:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Past and Future Transits
In this section, would the passage "Venus will just miss the Sun as seen from the centre of the Earth" read better as "from the _equator_"? I assume that's what's meant ... 132.244.246.25 09:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- They're not the same thing. The centre is one spot, the equator has a wide range of locations. Also, because of the tilt in the Earth's axis, a line drawn from the centre of the Sun to the centre of the Earth will normally not pass through the equator. The coordinates given for transits are geocentric-as seen from the centre of the Earth-ones. Saros136 10:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Unassessed Astronomy articles
- Unknown-importance Astronomy articles
- Unassessed Astronomy articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed Solar System articles
- Unknown-importance Solar System articles
- Solar System task force