Miscellaneous desk
< February 28	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	March 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 29

About the Picture Of Buzz Aldrin ( Walking on the Moon Surface )

Starofthenight09 (talk) 06:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)If you see the photo of Buzz Aldrin while walking on the surface of the moon, have you noticed his shadow while on the moon which is fully lighted my question is from where his shadow came?[reply]

Is this a question? If it is, it doesn't seem to make much sense. What the heck is a 'fully lighted' shadow? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the OP thinks that there is no light from the sun on the moon (space is dark, isn't it?), I assume he means the shadow cast by the sun. The answer, therefore would be that the shadow comes from the sun. Just like it does down here on Earth. Mingmingla (talk) 06:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows should actually be sharper on the Moon, since there's no atmosphere to diffract and reflect the light. There could still be reflected light off other objects to make shadows less than completely dark, though, as well as Earthshine and light from stars. StuRat (talk) 06:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP might be asking about this image, and the question might be why Aldrin's side facing the camera (which is on his shadow side) is lighted at all. And the answer is that while the moon has no atmosphere distributing light by diffraction, it still has a fairly large surface doing so by reflection. So the light that lights up the dark side of Aldrin is mostly reflected off the surface of the the moon (and, to a lesser degree, off the equipment nicely reflected in his faceplate). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it's because the moon's surface reflects sunlight so well that we can see it so well. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the moon is a comparatively poor reflector (albedo of .12, as contrasted with Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn all in the .5-.6 range). We can see the moon well because it's close and the sun (or the reflection of the sun off Earth) is bright, but not because the moon is particularly reflective. — Lomn 14:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of the question of why you can't see stars in photographs taken on the moon. Apparently conspiracy theorists think that black sky=night. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty photographs were taken of Buzz and his shadow on the moon and about a dozen or so of these have been particularly well publicized. As the question fails to specify which photograph is meant, one can only make a blind guess which one is intended. The question is also stated very unclearly so the questioner should restate his inquiry more sharply and identify the image. What does it mean to say a shadow "is fully lighted"? Such a statement is illogical since anything fully lit is not in shadow. The only part of the question that can be answered is where the shadow came from: it was cast by the sun which was shining at a low sunrise angle of 11.6 degrees, from the east. — O'Dea (talk) 09:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every question raised by the moon landing hoaxsters has been answered in detail over and over. However, there's always someone new coming along who hasn't seen the explanations, only the conspiracy theories, and mistakenly thinks they're onto something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That's part of why we have an article like Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs in the first place. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't I know it. It brings back bitter memories of my early times here. That article subject is where I learned all about WP:ANI and SPI's and AIV's and all manner of so-called "drama boards". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O'Dea: OP links to the Buzz Aldrin page which is why I think we can assume they are referring to the only photograph of Buzz walking on the moon that's shown on that page. – b_jonas 18:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that image, I'd say that a significant light is coming via reflection from Neil Armstrong's spacesuit and the lunar module. The spacesuits in particular are highly reflective - note the way the direct sunlight on the inside of Aldrin's inside right leg is reflected to light up his inside left leg. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point, b_jonas, it is the famous image AS11-40-5903. The shadow in that picture is not "fully lighted" although Buzz is. The explanation for that is simple. When there is a full moon in the sky, you can read a book by moonlight even though the light source is about 382,000 km away. Think how intensely bright the reflected surface is on the actual moon itself. The astronauts had gold visors in their helmets to avoid being dazzled. No wonder the side of Buzz facing away from the sun is so well lit by reflected sunlight from the surface. Professional photographers describe this shadow elimination technique as using a fill light. An even better analogy is the bright white reflectors that photographers' assistants hold near a person being photographed out of doors on a bright day to provide fill-in reflected lighting on the subject while the photographer shoots the image. Question answered. — O'Dea (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre André Buffière

Hi. I´m working in an interwikipedia projects trying to fix our problems of "person died in some WP and alive in anothers". In this case, says is dead because an obituary in french, but is not clear, it seems not exist other sources in other languages and the other wikipedia when says is dead show the same link. Can someone please check is right? If so, all Wikipedia should be updated. Thanks. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 13:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear evidence that this André Buffière died. The weblink “carreer” names a wife Simone and children Françoise, Dominique et Michel. The weblink “obituary” has different names for wife and children. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 14:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted with an add in talkpage. Thanks a lot. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 23:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

800 Meters

I want to participate in an Masters athletic meet when I turn 40(i.e in another two years). I would like to participate in 800Mts event. The current winning time is 2 minutes 17 seconds. How should I go about it to become competitive?I have no prior running experience. Sumalsn (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but you probably don't have much chance of winning no matter how thoroughly you prepare if you are running in an open competition. At the age of 38, your body is already past its prime. Also, with only 2 years to train, you may not be able to outcompete even people your own age who have been training their bodies for decades. The real issue, though, is competitors in their 20s, who could have been training since their early teens and whose bodies have not yet started to suffer significantly from aging. On the other hand, if the event in which you want to compete is separated into classes by age, especially if the youngest age in your age class would be 40, then you might just have a shot. In that case, then you should contact a trainer with a track record training runners who have won this kind of competition. You would need to pay for at least a consultation with this person but preferably for an ongoing coaching arrangement. You will get much more useful advice from this kind of expert than from Reference Desk editors. Marco polo (talk) 15:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the youngest participant would be 40. It is a competition for groups classified by age.Sumalsn (talk) 16:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The important thing... is not winning but taking part, for the essential thing in life is not conquering but fighting well." I've never won a race in my life but I've certainly had a lot of benefit by trying. 2'17" doesn't sound impossibly fast, but it is a tall order if you're not a runner already. There is a lot of advice out there about middle distance running. I found [1] [2] [3] and [4], but your best bet is to join a running club, make friends with a competent runner or seek professional advice as Marco polo wisely says. My advice would be to start with 10 to 20 minute jogs without pushing yourself too hard - picking up an injury is easy-peasy for older runners and it can take months to recover. You MUST Warm Up and Cool Down. Also, buy the best running shoes you can afford, and get them from a specialist athletics shop which can give you proper advice, rather than from a spotty youth in a high-street sports/fashion store; you need shoes that take into account your weight, pronation, and what surface you're going to train on. Lastly, enjoy the experience - don't torture yourself. Alansplodge (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me again - on reflection and in the interests of balance, you may of course find a spotty youth who knows more about running than most people could learn in a lifetime. One shouldn't be acneist. Alansplodge (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for assuming that winning the race was your main motivation. Of course Alansplodge is right that there is value in running a race whether or not you win. Marco polo (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why apologize? There would be no apparent reason for mentioning the current winning time if the OP wasn't interested in winning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, sirs. Marco Polo, Alansplodge and Baseball bugs. The idea is to participate and if possible, win. I mentioned the time so that other posters could be in full picture of the enormity of the task. So should I go ahead?Sumalsn (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC) March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you consult a doctor before making that decision. He could tell you if you're fit enouh to try it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a sensible suggestion Bugs. Doctors like to check the blood pressure etc of us older chaps. You do occasionally hear of older runners dropping down dead, and middle distance is quite intense. When you've done that, I would go for it - it's much more common for people who do no exercise at all to keel over. Alansplodge (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oldest archeological find

is it possible to pick the oldest archeological find? or is this too broad a subject? i am curious what ia the oldest relic or settlement we have discovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.172.203 (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on where you draw the line between archaeology and prehuman paleontology, and that in turn depends on who you think were the earliest human beings. As our Human (disambiguation) page shows, there is some disagreement on who the earliest "humans" were. Marco polo (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest objects found which are associated with humans are stone tools. Our article on the Oldowan type of tool states that the earliest are from Gona in Ethiopia, and were made around 2.6 million years ago. As Marco polo says, there is some dispute as to whether the hominids who made these should be counted as humans. The earliest settlements were temporary, but I believe the earliest permanent settlement found is Mureybet, founded around 10200 BC. Warofdreams talk 21:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there's also the problem that the earliest stone tools are quite difficult to discern from naturally split rocks, so that for any given object, opinions may vary. StuRat (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't a rock, even not worked or processed, become a tool (strictly speaking) the instant it is used for something i. e. to crack open a nut? --Ouro (blah blah) 08:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using that def, animal use of tools would be widespread, such as birds which swallow rocks for their gizzards. I also don't think such tools are of much interest to archeologists, unless their wear-patterns make it obvious they were used as tools. An obvious modification to the stone, to make it into a tool, is much better. StuRat (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neolithic#Early_settlements lists some early settlements. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

k thanks guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.172.203 (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continent Travel Userboxes

Are there any userboxes that apply to travel to specific continents? Allen (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask this question in WP:Help Desk --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 00:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes are more to do with interests than where you have been, but see Wikipedia:Userboxes/Travel.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked that link. There aren't any userboxes that have to do with continents, just countries, U.S. states, and some cities. Allen (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could always make them... Dismas|^(talk) 02:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made them earlier. Check out this page. Allen (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]