User talk:Marasama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 06:31, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Extrasolar Description Names

Hi Marasama -- I was wondering if you could provide a reference (such as a web page, book or journal article) for the extrasolar description names you added to the planet article? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

So I gather you're 'the' Marasama from Extrasolar Visions forum. It's a small Internet, eh?

BTW, if you find something that should have own article, be bold and just create it! Most pages have humble beginnings as they start from small stubs. Many of them eventually grow into large, comprehensive encyclopedic articles. I don't see that any celestial object can be considered non-notable enough not to be included. In fact, I think that some objects like galaxies and brown dwarfs are quite poorly represented in Wikipedia.--JyriL talk 21:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't hesitate to ask me (or any administrator, it's their job) if you need help. I know editing Wikipedia is not always terribly easy.--JyriL talk 21:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Trojan Horse - Malaria

Hi Marasama, thanks for the heads up on malaria - I reinserted it with ref.

btw, it's a little confusing if you sign with ~~~~ at the beginning of your posts - I thought CarpD and Marasama were different users till I checked the history. Signing at the end is probably better. Cheers --Singkong2005 talk 04:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stellar Classification

Is it possible to add the sprectral lines from the French version to the English version?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification
Thanks, CarpD (^_^) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasama (talk • contribs)

I don't see why not. The images are all good quality and have public domain licenses. I'll suggest it in the Astronomical objects project discussion. — RJH (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Luna"

I'm aware "the Moon" is the formal name. But in the English astronomical world is it customary to use the term "Luna" when other moons are also being mentioned. I *believe* I have only used it in this context.

[edit] M104 group

You were one of the two critics of my "destroy all groups" comment in the Astronomical Object Wikiproject forum, so I wanted to run this by you first and see if I have a convincing case.

First, please look at Sombrero Galaxy under "Environment". I think I have made a good case that the membership of the Sombrero Galaxy to any group is questionable. (A galaxy pair is not a galaxy group.)

Next, look at the (mostly empty) M104 group of galaxies page. It does not make much sense to keep this page if it is uncertain as to whether the Sombrero Galaxy does belong to a group. In this light, would you support a move on my part to get the "M104 group of galaxies" page deleted?

Thank you, George J. Bendo 14:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Richard Powell on the universe page, the Sombrero Galaxy is a foreground galaxy and is not part of the Virgo II group. M104 group, never heard of it. But, I could email Richard Powell, since he specialized in galaxies. CarpD (^_^) Let me know if you want Richard's opinion.
The Sombrero Galaxy is not exactly a foreground galaxy (see Tully's Nearby Galaxies Catalog), but, as I hope to have demonstrated in the Sombrero Galaxy article, its inclusion in a group is uncertain. It would be nice to see what his opinion is. Go ahead and email Powell. Please CC the email to me. (You should be able to find my email address if you do a web search on "George Bendo Imperial College". You can also find information on my professional research. I specialize in galaxies, too.)George J. Bendo 18:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I am giving Powell until 1 Sep 2006 to email a response. After that, I am putting up the M104 group for deletion.

Powell has not responded. Since my research (where I used Powell's references) has revealed that the Sombrero Galaxy may not be in a group (as explained on the Sombrero Galaxy page), the M104 group of galaxies page should be deleted. I will nominate it for deletion appropriately. George J. Bendo 10:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I have a feeling that Richard may not respond for another 3 weeks. Thanks, CarpD 9/1/06

[edit] ADS Abstracts

I notice that you seem to be finding a large number of scientific articles (including preprints and conference proceedings) from random locations on the web. You may want to try finding these articles' official publication information at the Astronomy Data Services (ADS) Abstract Service (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html). For example, the version of the Lucas, Roche, and Tamura article on the Orion brown dwarf survey that you found is a preprint, not the final copy of the article. You can find the information on the final version of the article here. The ADS abstract service also contains links to the preprint forms of the articles in case you are working from a location where you do not have access to the licenses to access to scientific journals themselves. Also, most papers published before 1996 are freely accessible from the ADS website.

In Wikipedia, I cite information from the ADS Abstract Service frequently. Please look at the Sombrero Galaxy article to see how I do this. It is ultimately more useful to cite papers this way because all professional astronomers as well as many students get their information from the ADS website. (Also, if you cite the ADS website, professional astronomers will think you are a cool, intelligent amateur astronomer.) George J. Bendo 06:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] List of astronomy acronyms

First, let me say that I like this list of acronyms that you have assembled. However, you are making a few mistakes in the list. For example, CIAO is data processing software; it cannot be referred to as as "astronomical catalog" in any context. I am also trying to improve the style of the article so that it will be easier to read and understand. Please allow me to make changes to the article as you write it. George J. Bendo 16:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Personal information

On another note, I realize that I do not know anything about you. This would help me in being able to discuss the astronomy articles with you. Could you please tell me:

  • How old are you?
  • What is your educational background?
  • Where do you live?

As best as I can tell, your primary language may not be English, you might live in Europe, and you do not have a formal education in astronomy (although you spend a lot of time reading scientific articles). Thank you, George J. Bendo 16:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Astronomy Acronym cat

  • No problem - it is good to see someone doing the work you are. Do you enjoy categorizing items? You seem to have a good mind at sorting things out by class. --Exodio 22:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok - i see on your page that you are already working on stuff - Can you check out the Structure portion of WikiProject Astronomical objects and come up the with the basic hierarchy for the differenct classes of Astro objects? Obviously Galaxy, Star, Planet, but should Satellite be its own category? Dwarf Planet? Quasar? Black Hole? What is the best and most logical way of categorizing AOs? --Exodio 02:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PSR B1257+12 planets

Hello, I noticed you changed the designations of the planets in the PSR B1257+12 article to b,c,d. You claim that the planets have been renamed, can you provide a source for this? Thanks. Chaos syndrome 20:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mind-numbingly long lists of acronyms

This is to let you know that I am still proceeding with additions and revisions to the List of astronomy acronyms, although I may go a little slowly at times. The lists of acronyms that are available on the web can be mind-numbingly long. The section for "I" in the Wikipedia list now spans more than one page on my browsers and I still think it's missing important acronyms from somewhere. George J. Bendo 08:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, it is longer than letter 'S', for now. No problem, this page is not as pressing as some. So no need to stress over it. Thanks, CarpD (^_^) 8/31/02
I just did L. It's about as long a I. By the way, I am impressed with some of the acronyms that you've come across. George J. Bendo 18:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks CarpD 9/1/06

[edit] Near-visible EMR

Near-visible EMR - This is a new article. I am not an expert myself, however, i do not believe the subject is already covered by other articles. Light is way too long, visible light includes the unavoidable school physics spectrum. If you have some time available - found your user id with Brown dwarf. User:Yy-bo 21:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revision of list of NGC objects

I was thinking that you have a lot of energy for creating lists. The list of NGC objects currently looks rather amateurish, especially compared to the German version. The English version of the page could use a lot of work by a dedicated individual who is good at gathering and tabulating data. Would you be interested in revising the list to look more like the German version? I would like to go through a few rough drafts of the list with you first in a sandbox before you try revising the whole thing. I can also give you instructions on how to use Simbad to get high-quality information on the NGC objects. Are you interested? George J. Bendo 09:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I would be interested. Actually, I would be interested to list other things as well in different pages. My Database Attempt at making of list of objects in the sky. I'll need help in understanding the Sandbox testbed, I'm not sure how it works. I see it, but I'm not sure where it goes. Another reason, is that I can use this list in the future. Thanks, CarpD 9/13/06
You should seriously consider getting in touch with the National Virtual Observatory. They are attempting to do what you want to do but with a much larger organizational structure. You may be able to convince them to let you be a beta tester for their software. (I've seen the British version, and I have not been impressed in what it can do in regards to my research, but you may still be interested in their work.)
As for the NGC list, I suggest borrowing some (but not all) of the concepts from the German website. Use the tables, with the NGC number listed in the first column on the left. The columns could be "NGC number", "Common name", "Object type", "Constellation", "Right Ascension", "Declination", and "Apparent Magnitude". (If you have sugestions for other information to include, I'm willing to discuss it, although SIMBAD does not provide any other information that is used for clusters, galaxies, and nebulae on a consistent basis.) All of this information can be taken from SIMBAD for most of the NGC objects, although interpreting the SIMBAD results is tricky. Here are my guidelines for interpreting SIMBAD output:
  • SIMBAD gives common names, so those can be inserted into the common name column. (Ignore the other weird catalog designations.)
  • Look up the RA and Dec in a very good star chart to see where objects lie in relation to the constellations. (Professional astronomers just do not pay attention to constellations; so SIMBAD does not list this information.)
  • For the object type, start with the following categories: "Elliptical Galaxy", "Spiral Galaxy", "Irregular Galaxy", "Lenticular Galaxy", "Galaxy", "Open Cluster", "Globular Cluster", "Cluster", "Diffuse Nebula", "Planetary Nebula", "Supernova Remnant", and "Asterism". SIMBAD can list some strange object descriptions at the top of its page for each object. Translating these names into general terms is a little tricky.
  • Galaxies are usually labelled as such, but the name listed at the top of the page often looks strange by anyone's standards. However, with galaxies, SIMBAD usually includes a line labelled "Morphological Type" that should be used to classify the galaxy. If the line begins with "E", the galaxy is elliptical. If the line begins with "S0", it is a lenticular galaxy. If the line begins with "I", it is an irregular. If the line begins with "S" but not "S0", then the galaxy is a spiral. Some lines are listed with multiple designations (for example, "E/S0"); in these cases, list both designations separated by a slash. If the line is blank, write in "Galaxy" as a generic term.
  • Open clusters and globular clusters are sometimes (but not always) describes as such at the top of the page. Use these terms when they are given. If they are not given, use the general term "cluster" uness you can find information from another source.
  • "Planetary nebula and supernova remnants may be described as such at the tops of the pages. Other nebulae are given scientific names (such as "HII region" for the Orion Nebula). Just use "Diffuse Nebula" for HII regions.
  • SIMBAD gives three sets of RA and Dec to confuse everyone. Use the FK5 2000.0 RA and Dec coordinates for the objects. (The ICRS 2000.0 coordinates probably differ very little from these for most objects.)
  • Use the V magnitudes (the magnitudes given after the comma in the "B magn, V magn, Peculiarities" line) for the apparent magnitudes. If no magnitude is given, leave this blank.
If the entry (or some part of it) is not given (or if SIMBAD returns an error message), leave the entry blank. If you follow this information, you should be able to crank out a huge, professional-looking list with few errors (very important) in no time. If you have questions on interpreting some of the entries after what I have stated here, let me know and I will try to fill in the information.
As I said, I think working on a small part of the list first to work out problems, make sure that we agree on formatting, etc. Maybe try doing objects 1-50 first. (I also do not know if the information on the Wikipedia site is correct for many of the first 300 objects or so; I would only trust information from SIMBAD unless the Wikipedia information is referenced.) After that, I think you would be mostly able to produce a professional-looking list on your own without much help from anyone else. What do you think? George J. Bendo 20:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems to be easy. A couple things, though. Should I list a dwarf galaxy as dwarf galaxy or dwarf irregular galaxy? 2nd, I'm still a little ignorent when it comes to RA & Def. I am unable to interpret it and use the SIMBAD constellation decipher. Also, did you want to use the color codes in the Messier Catalog? Thanks, CarpD 9/13/06
  • SIMBAD does not consistently identify dwarf galaxies as such. (It correctly indicated that NGC 1569 is a dwarf, but it failed to note that NGC 1097A, NGC 1510, and NGC 4627 are dwarfs.) Therefore, you should not attempt to list anything as dwarf galaxies.
  • RA and Dec are the equivalent of latitude and longitude on the sky. These are easy numbers to copy from SIMBAD; Wikipedia even has templates for RA and Dec. As for the constellations, it may be best not to include those after all. Finding the formal definitions on the web in an easy-to-use format is difficult (although I did find a difficult-to-use format). Including it would become messy. (For future reference, though, many sky atlases for serious amateur astronomers have RA and Dec coordinates. My mediocre Peterson Field Guide has RA and Dec coordinates in its maps.)
  • Jim Cornmell and I both are dissatisfied with the list of Messier objects color scheme (possibly for different reasons). Try using no colors. George J. Bendo 22:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The table will include the following.
  • NGC#
  • Aliasname
  • Object Type
    • Molecular Cloud
      • Diffuse Nebula
        • Emission Nebula (optional)
        • Reflection Nebula (optional)
      • Pinwheel Nebula
      • Dark Nebula
      • Planetary Nebula
      • Sueprnova Remnant
    • Asterism
    • Open Cluster
    • Globular Cluster
    • Galaxy
      • Spiral Galaxy
      • Barred Spiral Galaxy
      • Elliptical Galaxy
      • Irregular Galaxy
      • Radio Galaxy
      • Seyfert Galaxy
      • Dwarf Galaxy
  • Constellation
  • Angle (I am uncertain what this is)
  • Magnitude
  • Ref
  • Def
  • Distance in parsec

Additional stats: (depends if we want it)

  • Age

Thanks, CarpD 9/15/06

Your classification scheme is invalid. Emission nebulae, planetary nebulae, and supernova remnants are not molecular clouds. "Pinwheel nebula" is not a commonly used term. Spiral, elliptical, and irregular galaxies may also be Seyfert or radio galaxies. Moreover, you made the scheme that I developed much worse. You changed "Common Name" to "Aliasname", which just sounds stupid. You added "Constellation", which, as we discussed up above, may be difficult to determine for many of the objects. You added "Angle", "Ref", and "Def" for reasons that I do not understand. (I do not even know what these are supposed to be.) Finally, you added "Distace", which, if you read here, is not handled well in Wikipedia. You will have a very difficult time finding accurate distances, even in the scientific literature. I strongly recommend leaving it out. "Age" is even more difficult to determine; astronomers have an extraordinarily difficult time with that one. I strongly recommend leaving that out as well.
Try this organization scheme:
  • NGC Number
  • Common Name
  • Object Type
    • Nebula
    • Diffuse Nebula
    • Planetary Nebula
    • Supernova Remnant
    • Cluster
    • Open Cluster
    • Globular Cluster
    • Galaxy
    • Elliptical Galaxy
    • Lenticular Galaxy
    • Spiral Galaxy
    • Irregular Galaxy
    • Asterism
  • Right Ascension (J2000)
  • Declination (J2000)
  • Apparent magnitude
This information is simple to look up. It is generally accepted knowledge. You do not need to make any subjective judgments. I have already explained how to get the information from SIMBAD. It should be simple.
I do not know if you realize this, but Wikipedia is one of the first references that most people find when they do a Google search on anything. Therefore, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, your edits become a guideline for the entire English-speaking population of the Earth. If you are sloppy or inaccurate or incorrect, or if you even lie, everyone is going to copy it. If you feel any responsibility for your actions, you should put in full effort and get it right so that you can make Wikipedia a reliable resource and so that you do not provide garbage information to the general public. If you do provide garbage, then you cause harm. After all, look at the chaos that HurricaneDevon inflicted on astronomy topics in Wikipedia. He now has some people fooled into believing that astronomers renamed Messier 109 the "Vacuum Cleaner Galaxy" because he posted the name on a couple of websites, including Wikipedia. He also "renamed" a few other galaxies. Several of us have since undone some of his work, but much of his trash remains.
I am willing to help, but I am unwilling to repeat the experience I had with the list of astronomy acronyms, where a substantial amount of what you wrote was either incorrect or misleading. I revised that list so that it could be used as a reliable resource. (Your list of common astronomy symbols also contains some egregious errors that are going to confuse instead of help people, but I do not have time to deal with it.) Try to get things right. Don't rely on other people to clean up your mistakes.
This is all heavy-handed. I can see that you have a lot of energy as well as good intentions, but you seem to lack some background information in astronomy (although you do try to understand). I think you and I both understand your weaknesses and strengths in writing articles (or lists, actually). I really think the list of NGC objects is a project that is well-suited to you as long as you do not try to impose your own classification scheme. Please just go with the organization scheme that I laid out above. George J. Bendo 17:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I have creates a sample table here. This was created using simple information from Simbad. I did not try to second-guess SIMBAD, nor did I impose my own classifications. One entry was not listed in SIMBAD, so I left it blank. V-band magnitudes were only listed for NGC 5004, so I left the other entries blank. This is simple to do, but it takes a long time to do it right. Let me knwo what your comments are on this approach. George J. Bendo 20:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revision of list of NGC objects 2nd

I apologize George.

  • Pinwheel Nebula, I took that from Nebula, on that page, it fails to mention that Pinwheel is an antiquated misnomer.
  • I am not a galaxy expert, that is why I listed all the galaxy types I could think of. I put them there for you to decide which is the best choice.
  • "Aliasname" is what is written in the [German Site]. You said to kind of copy from them. So I put that there to see if this is what was wanted. Yes, "Common Name" is a better choice.
  • "Angle" is written in the German Site. I have no clue what that is. So I added it to see what it was.
  • I am unaware that there was a difference between Nebula and Molecular cloud.
  • Distance is in the German Site, so I added that to the list.

My oops.

  • Ref and Def is a childhood oops that I thought stood for RA and Dec. But since I would have put links to them, I would have noticed that error. Sorry for this mistake.

Yes, I know that Wikipedia is used a lot. More than Britannica. Also, I am the one that helped removed the so called, "Grey Dwarfs", which was added in the Sub-brown dwarf page. I believed that came from the Extrasolar.net forum.

I'm sorry of the pain that I gave you from the acronyms. Other than the PNe error, all the other acronyms I got from the astro-papers. Wheather it was common or not, I did not know. But, if it was in the paper, I included it.
I know you were not comparing me to HurricaneDevon, but that kind of got me when you mention it. It seems that I would provide more pain than help. So, I am going to resign from the Astronomical Project for now.
As for future updates to articles. I'll only add them if I am free, but it will not be a major activity.
Thanks for the time we had, George. Thanks, CarpD, 9/16/06

I would just like to apologize for being heavy-handed. I am unhappy with the outcome of this situation, and I am sorry that this has not worked out better. Good luck with your pursuits elsewhere. George J. Bendo 07:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous astronomy topics

Hello CarpD,

I am glad you are feeling better. In answer to your questions:

  1. Seyfert Galaxies: These were object originally identified by someone named Seyfert which contained specific spectral lines in their nuclear spectra, particularly strong hydrogen lines. A broad range of galaxies (elliptical, lenticular, and spiral galaxies) may exhibit this type of emission, although I believe Seyfert emission is most commonly found in spiral galaxies with loosely would spiral arms (Sb and Sc galaxies). Research over time has revealed that Seyfert galaxies contain active galactic nuclei, which are comprised of gas surrounding supermassive black holes. For an example, see the article on NGC 5033 that I wrote.
  1. Radio Galaxies: These are galaxies where abnormally strong extended radio emission is present. This radio emission originates from jets of gas ejected from the environment around active galactic nuclei in these galaxies. As with the Seyfert galaxies, radio galaxies probably contain supermassive black holes. Centaurus A and NGC 1316 are good examples of radio galaxies. (I still need to add information on the radio emission to the NGC 1316 article.)
  1. Nebulae: Nebula as a general term may refer to a cloud of gas in space. However, several different types of nebulae exist, and they are not the same. Molecular clouds are clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas (10-30 K) that do not produce much visible-light emission. In amateur astronomy terms, molecular clouds are referred to (and can validly be referred to) as dark nebulae. Diffuse nebulae such as the ones around star formation regions contain warm ionized hydrogen gas (10000 K). The Orion Nebula is an example of this. Some other diffuse nebulae may just be clouds of cool (30-100 K) dust and gas reflecting starlight, such as the diffuse nebulae around the Pleiades. Planetary nebulae such as the Ring Nebula also contain 10000 K warm ionized hydrogen gass. However, in contrast to diffuse nebulae where stars are born, planetary nebulae are formed when small stars die. Supernova remnants such as Messier 1 contain very hot (106 K) gas. These are formed when large stars die. As you can see, molecular clouds, diffuse (star forming) nebulae, planetary nebulae, and supernova remnants are all very different from each other. (This does not even cover all of the phases of gas in the interstellar medium.)

I hope this answers your questions. Good luck with the software. George J. Bendo 21:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thorne-Zytkow object formation

What do you think of my changes? I found the third method of formation (supernova kick) in the van Beveren reference. I added the WN8 path further down, since it happens after coalescence.

Thanks,

CarlFeynman 13:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C6H-

Would this fit in this page? List of molecules in interstellar space Negatively Charged Space Molecules Discovered, thanks, CarpD (^_^) 1/12/06

It looks like HC6 is already on the list. I'm not sure if the difference is due to a configuration change. *shrug* — RJH (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the only thing significant is that is it the first negatively charged molecule. So, maybe there should be an extra note on that or a duplicate with a negative symbol. At least, that's what I think could be added. CarpD (^_^) 4/12/06

A note would be good. The article could do with some notes and references anyway. Thanks :-) — RJH (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just let you know, I am unfamilar with chemestry and astrochemestry. So, I may not be the best person to make notes on that. I can add the reference to the bottom for the C6H- molecue, though. thanks, CarpD 04/12/06

Neither am I. ;-) — RJH (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Structure questions

  • I removed "Ultra Blue Compact Dwarf Galaxy" and "Ultra Compact Dwarf Galaxy" because they sould like relatively new terms (i.e. the terms may have only been used in one or two papers). If you can demonstrate otherwise, then maybe the term should be put back in.
  • HII galaxies are galaxies where the nuclei produce spectral lines similar to what are seen in HII regions. These are generally galaxies with modest to strong levels of nuclear star formation and no AGN activity. The designation is frequently used in discussing the spectra of nearby galaxies' nuclei. (See the works of Ho, Filippenko, & Sargent, for example.)
  • It might be appropriate to place "starburst galaxy" under "nuclear activity types", but this interpretation really depends on whether the observed starburst is constrained to the nucleus (as is the case for something like Messier 83) or if the observed starburst seems to extend throughout the galaxy (as is the case for Messier 82). Maybe "nuclear activity types" could be renamed "AGN and starburst activity types". The categorization is awkward.

Dr. Submillimeter 19:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extrasolar Vision

I saw your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetary mass type about the Extrasolar Vision website. You do realize that the material from Extrasolar Vision cannot yet be added to Wikipedia, don't you? No one is going to consider the website's system to be a notable or acccepted classification guide; see WP:NOTABILITY. Of course, if you can get the astronomical community to use the system, then it would be acceptable to include in Wikipedia. Until then, maybe the classifications should stay on the Extrasolar Vision website. Dr. Submillimeter 07:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy, I think you know this already. I probably misunderstood your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetary mass type. (It might be worth pointing User:BlueEarth to WP:NOTABILITY.) Dr. Submillimeter 07:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morrigan's taunt

  • No, because it's a gameplay issue. It has nothing to do with the character of Morrigan. Other characters with normal moves that put them in mid-air states can't be caught by the SGS at that time either (such as Spider-Man's dash). JuJube 20:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)