Talk:Mars
|
|
|
Pending tasks for [[Template:Articlespace:Mars]]: (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Mars&action=purge) | edit (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Mars/to_do&action=edit) - watch (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Mars/to_do&action=watch) - purge (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Mars&action=purge) | |
|---|---|---|
An event mentioned in this article is an August 27 selected anniversary.
| Contents |
Initial Discussion
I've updated the record on Mars' closest approach to Earth, on Wednesday, August 27, 2003.
2. Venus
3. Earth
4. Mars
5. Jupiter
6. Saturn
7. Uranus
8. Neptune
9. Pluto
Is anyone else seeing the letters "as" immediately above the table for Mars's natural satellites? When I view the page, I see them, but if I click on "Edit this page", I can't see them anywhere in the code! Putting "L" before the opening "caption" tag and "R" after it results in this appearing in the displayed page:
Las
R Mars's natural satellites
So the problem would appear to be related to the "caption" tag in some way. But I can't see anything untoward in the page's HTML. Does this mean that it's all my browser's fault (it's Mozilla 1.1), or is there really something wrong in the page? Going through the edit history, I see that they first appear after the edit by Notheruser on 15th March 2003, although this edit was apparently just a spelling correction, so I have no idea how it could have affected any formatting. -- Oliver P. 05:40 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
The characters were at the end of the natural satellites table, outside the table definition. They're gone now. -- Zoe
- Ah, thank you very much, Zoe! I think my brain must be tired; I'm getting confused by everything here tonight... ;) -- Oliver P. 06:40 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
Height of Olympus Mons was given in this article as 25 km, but as 27 km in that article. I have adjusted to make both articles read the same. BUT there is no mention of how these different heights are calculated. As there is no "sea level" on Mars, as there is no sea of free water, what height datum is used? On Mars is the height above mean surface level used or is the height based on elevation above surrounding landscape? I understand Olympus Mons sits in a depression 2 km below mean surface level - this would account for the 2 km discrepancy. -- kiwiinapanic 09:15 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hmm, speaking as an astronomy ignoramus, I noticed that the text of the article mentions the planet's "blood red" color, while in the picture it looks more like it's made of cheddar cheese. (Okay, I mean it's more or less yellow.). What gives?
Zashaw 04:20, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- The colors of several photos were altered in the past because some thought that the public is not yet "ready" for the truth. http://www.lunaranomalies.com/colors.htm - Der Eberswalder 10:12, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- About the colors of Mars, don't believe the conspiracy sites: it doesn't take an intentional coverup to make the colors of pictures differ. Color correction is a difficult thing, as anyone who's worked in photography, graphic design or prepress knows; and astronomical and space photos are often taken in wavelengths different from those seen by the sensing cones in our eyes, making correction even harder.
- The Seventies Viking landers' pictures were poorly color-corrected because their calibration targets were dusted with material thrown up from the ground by the landing jets. Consequently the picture calibration had to be done in a rough manner, by hand and eye, with no prior standard to go by. The initial calibration attempted to make the sky a neutral gray, because of prior theories about its appearance; this appeared bluish in some broadcast and print reproductions. It was later decided on the basis of careful study of the pictures that this was wrong, but some later calibrations went too far in the other direction, and gave the ground a bright red appearance and the sky bright pink. Gilbert Levin has been claiming for decades that the initial calibration was correct and that subsequent adjustments served to obscure the appearance of green vegetation on the ground; conspiracists call this evidence of a coverup. But unless you believe that the same conspiracy was involved in the design of the calibration targets for the Pathfinder, Spirit and Opportunity landers, it's pretty clear by now that he is wrong; we have well-calibrated pictures of the Martian surface now.
- Some have been excited by the appearance of a blue sky in completely uncalibrated downlinks from Spirit and Opportunity, or in pictures that have been run through Photoshop's Auto Levels feature, but this is meaningless; it just indicates that the sky is bluer than the ground. Others have pointed to seeming anomalies in the appearance of the color calibration targets, but this is simply because some pictures were taken with an infrared channel in place of the red channel.
- Keep in mind also that much of color perception involves automatic adjustments that happen inside the human brain. Mars is visibly redder than the other planets, and to someone who is good at seeing these color differences (I'm not so good at it) the difference can be pronounced to the naked eye. But that doesn't mean that, if you looked at it more closely, it would appear fire-engine red. It usually looks somewhere in the tan-to-orange range in telescopes, and properly corrected pictures of Martian soil give it more or less the "red" you see in red dirt on Earth (such as in the Southwest US), that is, really a rusty tan color. The sky seen from the surface of Mars is usually some shade of tan or beige, though it varies over the sky, and the sun at sunrise and sunset appears with a striking blue halo. --Matt McIrvin 21:28, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There's been a lot of media hype on Mars's "approach" to the Earth, as if it were whizzing by.
- On Aug. 27 at 5:51 a.m. ET (1051 GMT) Mars was less than 34.65 million miles (55.76 million kilometers) away -- closer than it’s been in 59,619 years. -- some dopy website
But aren't Mars and Earth in elliptical orbits? Hasn't Mars been "closer than ever" to earth for several days, if not weeks? The precision of quotes like the above, which thankfully is not in the Wikipedia, makes it sound like being close is an instantaneous event.
Also, how much easier is it to see Mars with naked eye or with 8x to 20x magnification (such as binoculars or cheap telescope) than usual? Doesn't Mars "approach" and "recede" on a regular schedule of some sort? Like every 10 orbits or whatever?
What's the big deal, anyway? --Uncle Ed 16:57, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Below is the IP address of someone I know intentionally edited the Mars to reflect bad information.
208.200.68.2
There may be more. There is a delphi forums group called the Bully Pulpit for Conservative Republicans and a few have advocated defacing Wikipedia Entries.
Thank You.
Why is the image broken? It's a valid file and the syntax seems correct - it even works in preview if you replace it with a different image... 33° 18:37, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- It looks fine to me right now. However, I too have seen images temporarilu "vanish" like you describe in recent weeks; I suspect that it's a result of Wikipedia's teething pains on its new servers, or perhaps a bug with the new image-handling code that's been introduced recently. Bryan 02:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Bah. Turned out my ad-blocking software thought it was just the right size to be an ad. So never mind... :-) 33° 14:59, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"Consequently, scientists will probably find evidence of past life on Mars within the coming years"? That seems a pretty grand statement to me. Maybe it should say "this increases the probability that earth-like life once existed on mars" - Omegatron 21:13, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
Rename
Mars (planet) is being proposed to be moved to Mars, with reference to Mars (disambiguation) at the top. Any objections or comments should be listed on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Anthony DiPierro 18:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'd rather have the map back at 580 pixels. Even at that size it's hard to figure out what you're looking at if you don't already know.
- The image's filesize at 580 pixels was 91 kilobytes, now it's 20 kilobytes. This is already a fairly image-heavy page so I think it's a good idea to keep them trim for the sake of modem users. With the thumbnail formatting it's obvious that there's a larger version available for the clicking so I don't think much is lost. Bryan 01:08, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
I found another version of that map with labels on some of the features, but it's a .gif and 400k; too big? --wwoods 01:03, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
- Thumbnailing may bring it down to a reasonable size. Also, I'd try jpegging it; if it's a version of this particular map with the same sort of smooth shading between many colours then gif is a very bad compression method to use. Bryan 01:08, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
under 'Other Cultures > Indian', this sentence is incomplete and fragmentary:
"In Jyotish, Mars is known in Sanskrit as Mangal (auspicious), Angaraka (burning coal), and as Mangal (auspicious), Angaraka (burning coal), and Kuja (the fair one). It represents energetic action, confidence and ego,"
anybody know what the missing Jyotish word is? and the unspoken thought after 'ego,'?
trace gases: methane 10.5 ppb (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/30/mars.methane/, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-life-04a.html)
for the rest i don't know which values are correct; those at http://marsland.free.fr/mars/mars_rouge.htm seem to be the most realistic ones since the neon concentration is similar to the neon concentration in earth's atmosphere (http://www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart-elements/Ne-en.htm, http://www.ktf-split.hr/periodni/en/ne.html) the values at http://members.tripod.com/debnken/mars.html are smaller by a factor of 10, those at http://www.icase.edu/workshops/hress01/RFI_responses/england.pdf are larger by a factor of 10. google gives 642 results for (mars neon 25 ppm), 428 results for 250 ppm, 210 results for 2.5 ppm.
neon 25 ppm ? crypton 3 ppm ? xenon 800 ppb ? ozone 300 ppb ?
does anyone know for certain? 193.171.121.30 21:59, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- http://private.addcom.de/jselk/Mars.htm says that there's also 100 ppm of NO in Mars' atmosphere, the same is stated on German wikipedia, and there's 2.5 ppm for neon. It seems likely that there's less neon in Mars' atmosphere than in Earth's due to neons low molecular (=atomic) weight. 193.171.121.30 14:41, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
infobox
the infobox on the Icelandic article is much better, you might want to use that look. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=User_talk:%C6var_Arnfj%F6r%F0_Bjarmason&action=edit§ion=new) 16:33, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
Why does the Icelandic article have black on black for the section headers in the info box? Ed Sanville 02:10, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Alright I need page numbers!
(Above sentence posted by User:67.81.216.201 at 2005 April 20 00:23 UTC)
- Do you mean page numbers on the web article itself, or references to the external links? -Wikibob | Talk 00:30, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
Deletion
Why is the main data column that should be on the right side of the page removed?
- Fixed.--Patrick 10:20, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
landing map
could we get a map of the surface including where probes have landed? - Omegatron 18:43, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
Mars in various cultures
The "Mars in various cultures" has two sections of only two sentences each. I am sure this is not good wiki style. They should be either deleted altogether, greatly expanded enough to deserve their own section, or condensed and mentioned in the introduction.
This article, though, looks very complete, with some great images. I'm no expert, and haven't been contributing to this article --I was just reading it out of curiosity-- but you might want to consider nominating it to be a featured article. --Dmcdevit 23:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I found mention of a Martian hurrcane on "some dopey website".[1] (http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/SpectrumSept2003.htm) Sure enough: Hubble caught a Texas-size cyclonic icy-water storm in late April 1999.[2] (http://science.nasa.gov/current/event/ast19may99_1.htm)[3] (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1999/22/)[4] (http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1999/22/content/9922w.jpg) Kwantus 20:20, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
![[4]](http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1999/22/content/9922w.jpg){kind=link}
Missing references
The only primary objection here for FA status is it needs references. As I was not a contributing editor to this article, would the people who contribute to the Mars article please provide references? Thank you. -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Images and infobox
Seems like the infobox does not allow images on the left side of it. Now all images are grouped under it. Can somebody correct this problem? --Jyril 12:32, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Highest 'known' mountain
This is indirectly addressed to User:Gene Nygaard who left the comment revert irrelevant qualification by User:24.60.77.174; do you expect to find mountains of gases on the big planets?.
If I recall correctly currently we have only mapped around 40 to 60% of the surface of mercury, and have not attempted mapping of a number of moons in the outer solar system not to mention Pluto. It is likely that there are also bodies which have as yet been been undiscovered.
Therefore it is possible, and possibly even likely that there are mountains higher than mount Olympus in the solar system. There is absolutly no need for a comment such as you made which I found rather rude and insulting to the anonomous user. --Neo 13:05, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- So you don't think that a feature taller than Mons Olympus on Mercury wouldn't stand out and be noticed without detailed mapping? Get real.
- There is no significant likelihood of finding a taller mountain in our solar system. Gene Nygaard 13:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Prior to space probes visiting Mars we had no idea that Olympus Mons was a mountain, it was just a surface feature. It is very difficult to determine the nature of features from a telescopic image. By mapped I mean imaged by a spacecraft. This image [5] (http://maps.jpl.nasa.gov/pix/mer0muu2.jpg) shows how much of Mercury's surface is known to us - 48%. I will not say that it is likely that there is an Olympus sized mountain on Mercury, but it is possible in the unimaged areas.
- This will be my last comment on the subject as you seem to be rude and hostile. --Neo 19:37, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
![[5]](http://maps.jpl.nasa.gov/pix/mer0muu2.jpg){kind=link}
Now calm down.If a higher mountain is discoverd, I'm sure that it will be added to Wikipedia later. No need to get upset...OK???