Talk:Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience/li

DYK

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

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)

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)

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)

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 Sepharial.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)

Astrologers can tell you where an astronomical body in Sol system will be in the next month more often than many astronomers so I'll not poke too much fun at that part of their endeavors. See how their math is solid and mixed with the mythology: http://www.expreso.co.cr/centaurs/blackmoon/apogee.html. He knows his lunar orbits! The mythology of astrology gives rise to some great art, poetry and movies so again that contribution is admirable. Alatari 12:23, 24 October 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)

"Lilith is very evident and dominant in charts of powerful, creative women; those who are quite successful yet vulnerable and sensitive. Many have unconventional relationships." While I can certainly agree that the history of astronomy and protoscientific views are valid and interesting topics, I really don't think bits such as this belong in a Wikipedia article. 198.54.202.94 (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Astrologers being confusing in the opening

The following sentence is problematic:

"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 focus."

Is this saying that Black Moon is a term used primarily by astrologers who don't believe in Lilith's physical existence, which term they use to refer to the moon's empty focus? Or is it saying that, amongst astrologers who don't believe in Lilith's physical existence, the term is usually used to refer to the moon's empty focus? It's sort of unclear. The next sentence doesn't help, though it seems like it maybe ought to.

Notapipe 19:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like "empty focus" is referring to the empty ellipse focus where the non-empty focus is occupied by earth. Only that the orbit of moon is never an ellipse, but could be approximated by an ellipse whose line of large axis is rapidly revolving around earth. So the "Lilith" point - the empty focus - is rapidly revolving around earth in the same manner. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 20:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Split

There are three things called "Lilith" used in astrology: the hypothetical second natural satellite of the Earth; the lunar orbit's empty focus; and the asteroid 1181 Lilith. This article mentions all three, but is frequently unclear as to which one it's talking about at any given moment. I also note that the lunar orbit's empty focus (or equivalent formulations such as the major axis of the orbit) is far more popular than the second moon, but the article, nonetheless, strongly emphasizes the second moon - the only one of the three things that doesn't actually exist. Astrologers who use a Lilith at all virtually always know which one they're using, and the three Liliths all have different astrological meaning (especially when more than one is used in the same chart!), but this article seems to create confusion and an impression that they're used interchangeably. Wouldn't it be a good idea to split this article to separate the hypothetical second moon from the actual moon's empty focus? The asteroid already has its own article. 216.75.189.154 13:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two separate concepts here: Lilith as the hypothetical moon and Lilith Dark Moon as the reference to Selene at it's Apogee. See this article: http://www.widgetsworld.co.uk/search/go.php?art_id=2017 The article refers to the apogee of Lilith having an geocentric orbital period of 9 years. And it does; see Lunar precession so Lilith is the empty focus of the ellipse either calculated by it's mean (Mean Black Moon ) or by it's time dependent location (True Black Moon) which has only become available since 1992. Maybe we should add the disambiguation Lilith - empty focus or something similar and split off the contradiction. Alatari 12:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

It is not possible for Lilith to have an orbital period of 119 days (vastly different from that of the moon) and "[follow] an orbit stationary to the opposing side of the Moon"? I'm adding {{contradict}} to the section. Neitherday 16:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is in stationary orbit 3x the moon's orbit then it would still orbit in 28 days and be moving much faster than Selene. Is it supposed to be always in line behind Selene ( Earth --- Selene --- Lilith) and that's why it's not visible? I agree the explanation is confusing. There seems to be several explanations and I'll read some astrology accounts to see if I can make sense of it. Alatari 11:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

proposal

Rename the article to Lilith (astrology) and clarify the two differing concepts of the hypothetical moon and the empty focus. Then we don't have to create another article and the contradiction tag can be resolved. How do we arrange a vote on this? Alatari 13:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Blackmoon.jpg

Image:Blackmoon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetical and unsupported?

I stumbled upon this article, and the first sentence made it sound like this celestial body's existence had some evidential support. The link to Hypothetical planetary object furthered that impression. Upon reading the article, and seeing Lilith listed under Hypothetical planetary object (non-scientific), it seems that this is not the case, so I changed the lede and the link. I'm not an astronomer - I don't even play one on TV - so if someone more informed disagrees, you'll get no argument from me. - Special-T (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite correct.. but close...

First of all, I would like to start out by saying that I do not in any way, shape, or form believe in the "dark moon". That said, some of the criticisms concerning the possibility of there being a dark moon are scientifically erroneous.. Simply put, the orbit of an object in perpetuity behind the moon and never seen from the Earth most definitely does NOT violate the law of gravity. At All. Period. It is simply that the only orbits which accommodate this are the Earth-Moon L2 Lagrange orbital families, and they are rather highly unstable. (The chance of an object staying in said orbit decreases sharply with time, unless periodic adjustments are made.)

Now, the real reasons we know that there is nothing there are because: A. We've been there, and there isn't. (simple), and B, The probability of anything staying there for even a few months without adjustments is nearly indistinguishable from 0 (Not to mention a few billion years!).

Artificial satellites, on the other hand, require very little thrust to maintain stability. (NASA already has a draft for doing so... http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680015886_1968015886.pdf ) Anyway, just thought you should know.I will try to fix it with better sources than what are being used currently if I have time. --Electrostatic1 (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S., The article also says it would be Lagrange Point L3. This is wrong. L3 would be hidden from the moon, not from the Earth. It is L2 that could be hidden from Earth. --Electrostatic1 (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

History of hypothetical Earth's moon?

I added all those Fact and who tags because there did not appear to be a single citation.

It seems there is a history of observations, serious attempts at discovery, leading to a rejection of its existence on scientific grounds. Paul Schlyter gives a detailed, and referenced, account here:

http://www.neunplaneten.de/nineplanets/hypo.html

Maybe this article could be converted to something like that (in English)?

Here is my first attempt, but I do not have the energy to continue it:

In 1854 Frederic Petit, director of the observatory of Toulouse announced a discovery of a second moon, but the orbit calculated from the only three observations indicated a perigee of only 11 kilometres above the pausurface, where astronomers quickly pointed out, it would experience an immense air-resistance. Petit remained obsessed with the concept and 15 years later declared he had made calculations that would cause certain until-then unexplained anomalies in the Moon's orbit. The idea was forgotten until Jules Verne incorporated a second moon in his novel From the Earth to the Moon.

• ... attempts at detecting satellites in general, Pickering and others determined that telescopes of the time would detect any object larger than 30 cm in an orbit closer than 320 km ...
• ... Dr. Georg Waltemath makes predictions, all of which fail
• ... etc
• ... Astrolgers remained obsessed with the idea ...

In 1918 an astrologer Sepharial named the hypothetical moon Lilith and opined that it was dark enough to have escaped detection.

• ... Some Astrolgers use a so-called "Lunar node-like" construction for predictions (Schlyter refers to Florian Painke)

To the article itself I have just added this one, cited, sentence:

In 1918 an astrologer Sepharial named the hypothetical moon Lilith and opined that it was dark enough to have escaped detection.

-84user (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking again at the article, one (of many) of its problems is it starts with "Lilith is a hypothetical natural satellite of Earth", but that name was only provided by Sepharial in 1918 and as an attempt to reconcile lack of discovery since 1846. When I quickly read over Paul Schlyter's account, it seems some (and he names someone!) modern astrologers use it as some kind of construction, a senitiver Punkt, (maybe a typo for 'sensitiver Punkt'), like a Lunar node, in their predictions. This is way outside my expertise, but it seems this could be substantially reworked, and retitled, into a historical summary (as I suggest above and in the AFD), where Lilith is a section. -84user (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need, while Sepharial was the first to name the moon, he believed it was the same object as seen by Waltemath, and others prior to him, he gives an extensive list of those who "saw" the object through history as a sort of confirmation of the object's existence. He lists about 14 sightings from 1618 to 1926. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)