This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Galilean moons article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Galilean moons has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Galilean moons is part of the Jupiter series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I hope noone minds that I've moved this to "Galilean moons", in the plural, because there is really no such thing as a Galilean moon and the four only have in common their discovery in a group. I know this is not the usual singular convention, but consider usage; Google gives 28x the number of hits for the plural.-- Pharos 00:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that anyone has ever actually managed to see even Callisto as separate from Jupiter with the naked eye? I suspect not. RandomCritic 17:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Somewhere in the last forty years of "Scientific American" (and yes, I realize that that's not a solid citation) there was an article about what constitutes a "scientific discovery". The thrust of the article was that to obtain proper scientific credit for a discovery, it was not enough to make the discovery per se, it was also essential to infer the importance of that discovery. It gave as one example that there exist "Indian" (as in Native Americans) drawings showing that they were able to observe the moons of Jupiter but attached no significance to them. I realize that this is all very vague. Old_Wombat ( talk) 12:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the history behind the discovery of the moons come later in the article? Probably, the list of moons should come earlier.
I have an issue with this part of the article - 'whether this was actually achieved by the Chaldeans remains a matter of speculation'. Since the word 'Chaldeans' leads to a disambiguation page, it could do with clarifying. Unfortunately I know nothing about the subject, and many of the potential meanings could be the correct one. Hopefully one of you knowledgable people will be abl;e to clear this up.
Hi Rayyan Melazhikam ( talk) 16:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
While the Gan De connection, dubious as it is, at least has a real astronomical observation behind it, the "Horus" and "Marduk" conjectures do not appear to refer to astronomy at all - the citation given is totally inadequate - and don't belong in this article. So I'm deleting them. RandomCritic 20:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
There are some interesting notes on the possibility of naked eye observations of the Galilean moons in an archived Sky & Telescope article. Spaceman13 21:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm having some trouble with these. For one thing it's not clear where they actually appear -- I assume the Ephemerides, but I can't find this securely stated anywhere. For another, it's claimed that the names are for the "four Medici brothers" -- but which brothers? The names given are Principharus, Victipharus, Cosmipharus and Ferdinandipharus. But Cosimo II's brothers were Francesco, Carlo, and Lorenzo -- no Ferdinand among them; and his sons were Ferdinando II, Giancarlo, Matteo and Leopoldo -- without a Cosimo. Ferdinando II had a son Cosimo (III) who would have been a child at the time of the publication of the Ephemerides. And who do Principharus and Victipharus refer to? My best guess at this time is that Principharus stands for the late Medici ruler at the time Hodierna was writing, Cosimo II; Ferdinandipharus for his son, Ferdinando II; Cosmipharus for Ferdinando's son, Cosimo III; and Victipharus (some web sources have Victripharus, I'm not sure which is correct) for Ferdinando's wife, Vittoria della Rovere. But that's all guesswork. If anyone has access to Hodierna's Ephemerides, perhaps they could see if it contains an explanation? RandomCritic 10:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The following sentences seem to be contradictory: "All four Galilean moons can, in principle, be sighted without a telescope." "Other than the Moon, Ganymede is the only planetary satellite that can be seen by the naked eye, but still can only be seen in good conditions." So which is it? Colin M. 11:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Support:
Good work, and fast! To complete the merger, however, the subsection "Galileo" "Dedication" and the "Name" sections should be harmonized (there are fact conflicts) and duplication eliminated consolidated. Also, the facts and references should be harmonized with the relevant parts of
Moons of Jupiter.
Finell
(Talk) 20:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Callisto (only one with discovery date
reference),
Io, and
Europa are listed as discovered on January 7, 1610. But
Ganymede is listed as discovered on January 11, 1610? Should all four
Galilean moons be listed as discovered on the same date? Do we have a reference that shows Ganymede was truly discovered last, even though Callisto orbits further out and Io switched sides every day further confusing Galileo?
--
Kheider 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The article states that "The times of the eclipses of the moons could be precisely calculated in advance, and compared with local observations on land or on ship to determine the local time and hence longitude." I think this sentence can be understood multiple ways. I initially thought it meant that the moons of Jupiter could help determine local time. However, I doubt that is what it should mean. More likely, comparing the observed moons of Jupiter to pre-calculated tables would provide universal time (GMT) and other observations (such as Sun's Zenith, moon rise, etc) would determine local solar time. The differences between these times then provides longitude. If my understanding is correct, I think the sentence should be expanded and clarified. Else if my understanding is incorrect, it should be clarified anyway. :) Alexgenaud ( talk) 14:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
There are some images in the article which show the interior sturcture of the moons. However, these are rather speculative. There is also no data on the different densities/compositions of the data which makes the images meaningless. There is no evidence to prove these structures are correct? How were they obtained? Polyamorph ( talk) 10:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really stalking you, comments to follow jimfbleak ( talk) 05:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
*Lead more distinctly than ever before in human history. – redundant words
* First two sentences both begin - As a result
I haven't checked for any other AE/BE switches, I'll do that on a final read. jimfbleak ( talk) 06:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I did a final tidy, see you at FAC! jimfbleak ( talk) 05:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
There was a reference by the late Patrick Moore
"Ganymede, Prince of Troy". AT Kunene ( talk) 10:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The sections "Dedication to the Medicis" and "Name" contradict each other. Tad Lincoln ( talk) 02:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Our articles use refs that in turn cite Voyager and even pre-Voyager data. Especially for the physical parameters, we should be using Galileo data, shouldn't we? — kwami ( talk) 23:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I changed something that said minutes of arc to read as seconds of arc and it was reverted. If it is indeed minutes then the citation on reference 44 should be changed to read arc min as well. TeigeRyan ( talk) 23:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Galilean moons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.minorplanetcenter.org/iau/NatSats/NaturalSatellites.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Galilean moons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The second paragraph contradicts the paragraph entitled "Visibility".
1st para: They were first seen by Galileo Galilei in January 1610. 2nd paragraph: The Galilean moons were observed in either 1609 or 1610 when Galileo made improvements to his telescope. I suggest merging them to fit the 2nd paragraph. As an aside, the article should not mention the discovery in 2 separate place in the lead. I intend to rearrange the lead to have one paragraph on their properties, one on their discovery, and one on their names. Adpete ( talk) 00:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
In "Latest revision as of 12:46, 11 July 2019", Drwonmug put some discussion into the main article. It looks like it belongs here in Talk, so I reverted that change. This was the text:
This has been widely cited -- cf eg
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1300:_Galilean_Moons
but I believe it is an oversimplification and is in fact false; at least, it deserves a reference:
According to J\"urgen Moser, Stable and random motions in dynamical systems, [Hermann Weyl lectures (1973), the Institute for Advanced Study Annals of Mathematics studies 77 Ch I p 7]:
"Between three of the Galilean moons of Jupiter one has a relation \omega_I - 3\omega_II + 2\omega_III \sim 0 to a high degree of accuracy..."
(where \omega denotes the orbital frequency). The current wikipedia article asserts something like \omega_I \sim 2\omega_II \sim 4\omega_III (though I'm not sure of the indexing, ie of which moon is labelled I,II,III etc). This is incompatible with Moser's assertion, which is {\bf extremely} authoritative.
He later added in this talk page,
added by drw later on 12 July in an attempt to clarify things: apologies for not being more familiar with Wikipedia practice:
Thanks for moving this here! I don't try to edit things very often and didn't intend to step on the article itself, I apologize; I meant to put my comment on the talk page but couldn't find it; or, more precisely, thought that was what I was doing.
I have a copy of Moser's book and would be happy to scan a couple of pages to .pdf if that would help. I'm afraid that actually
(1 - 3/2 + 4/2) = 1 + 1/2 = 3/2 is NOT equal to zero.
BTW I like xkcd a lot and think he would be interested in this discussion but don't want to muddy the waters.
Thanks for taking this seriously! signed as best I know how by DRWONMUG
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drwonmug ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
That book is in JSTOR, but I can't get to it myself. I can find another source in a lot of places: Peale, Stanton & Hoi Lee, Man. (2002). A Primordial Origin of the Laplace Relation Among the Galilean Satellites. Science (New York, N.Y.). 298. 593-7. 10.1126/science.1076557. One source is https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11075719_A_Primordial_Origin_of_the_Laplace_Relation_Among_the_Galilean_Satellites
It gives the same equation as Moser but using different notation, stating "numbered consecutively for Io, Europa, and Ganymede, respectively .... leading to n1 − 3n2 + 2n3 = 0, where ni = {λ dot}i are the mean angular velocities with the dot indicating time differentiation."
"Orbital frequency" and "angular speed" are synonyms. Lowercase omega is the usual character used for angular speed.
But mean angular velocity / mean angular speed is not the same as orbital period. For a circular orbit, orbital_velocity = 2*pi / orbital_period. (I don't know how to do the fancy-pants math markup, and I'm not inclined to look it up in this simple case.) I think that, because it's MEAN angular velocity, we can consider the orbits as if they were circular. So
2*pi / period_Io - 3*2*pi / period_Europa + 2*2*pi / period_Ganymede = 0
The proposed orbital-period resonance would have the periods 1:2:4. To make the formula shorter, call period_Io = T, so if the proposed orbital-period resonance holds, 2 * T = period_Europa and 4 * T = period_Ganymede. Does that satisfy the equation?
2*pi / T - 3*2*pi / (2*T) + 2*2*pi / (4*T) = 0
Divide both sides by 2 * pi.
1 / T - 3 / (2*T) + 2 / (4*T) = 0
Multiply both sides by T.
1 - 3/2 + 2/4 = 0
So the stated resonance orbital periods do fit the equations from Moser and Peale + Hoi Lee. (Edit note: thanks to DRWONMUG for pointing out that my original version was incorrect. I had typoed 4/2 instead of 2/4. While I'm here, I've also uncompressed the steps to make it clearer.) So the equation from Moser, or from Peale + Hoi Lee, for mean orbital velocity implies the 4:2:1 orbital period resonance.
Tim McDaniel ( talk) 23:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks from Drwonmug! I'm sorry about the confusion. I should maybe say that what really concerned me about this (and still does) is that one linear relation
\omega_I - 3\omega_II + 2\omega_III \sim 0
is not the same as two linear relations
2 * period_Io = period_Europa, 4 * period_Io = period_Ganymede
so I suspect there is some further physical fact lurking somewhere behind all this; but that is not something for Wikipedia to explain and I will shut up now.
But BTW Wikipedia has a very nice /info/en/?search=Orbital_resonance page which probably deserves to be linked somewhere in this article.
Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drwonmug ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Why not to use one scale for mass? Why two are 10^22 and two are 10^23? Why not to use single scale 10^21, 10^22 or 10^24 for all 4 entries in the table? Or better use SI prefixes - Yg (yottagrams). Elk Salmon ( talk) 16:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
This article describes the namesakes of the Galilean moons as both "rape victims" of Zeus and as "lovers" of Zeus but these are contradictory terms. I am not a classical scholar, so which is the case? Nicole Sharp ( talk) 18:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
All four moons are named after "lovers of Zeus" according to that article, but in fact these mythological humans (three female and one male) were all abducted and raped by Zeus. I will eventually change the Galilean moons article to more correctly describe the origin of the names, assuming my additions are factually accurate according to classicists.