Talk:Themisto (moon)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Solar System WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Solar System. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Astronomical Objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
Contents |
[edit] Infobox
A more compact infobox, based on a this template has been suggested for the irregular satellites (e.g. S/2002 N 2). The reasons are given (and you comments are welcome) on the project page. Eurocommuter 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pronunciation
English pronunciation [the-MISS-toe] per The Dictionary of Classical Mythology (JE Zimmerman, Harper & Row, 1964)
- Given the final omega, adj. form may be Themistoan. Another possibility, Themistian, would be homonymous with the adj. form of Themis. kwami 00:57, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
[edit] Discoverer
jpl only mentions Sheppard, Jewitt, Fernandez, and Magnier as discoverer not Kowal and Roemer. Should we have all named or only Sheppard and Co.? --Marsve 13:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think Kowal and Roemer deserver to be included for finding Themisto first (As S/1975 J1) even if it was lost aftwerwards for 25 years. --Patteroast 15:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Agree.
- Urhixidur 16:26, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
-
- They missed? Oh. I thought Sheppard's group is on record somewhere indicating they felt Kowal's group shouldn't share credit. Too bad they have to carp over all their many discoveries. However, I think that Kowal et al. deserve credit, similar to the situation with Janus and Epimetheus. Also, one of Neptune's moons I think that also should be given prior shared credit? --Sturmde 06:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- I’m fully with you on the fact that they deserve; the problem is to quote the official ref as we’re not in business of deciding who deserves what. The text, of course can be highlighting Kowal's discovery. Eurocommuter 12:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Orbital Elemets
When looking at the orbital elements for Themisto, I can see large contradictions.
For example, for the semi-major axis, [1] gives 7.507 Mkm, [2] gives 7.284 Mkm, and this page gives yet another. Which sources are more accurate? JamesFox 17:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The popular Sheppard page is based on the same source (Jacobson) but apparently not updated. Jacobson data (JPL) site are the most used ref in scientific papers for mean elements (integrated for at least 1000 years). Some papers do their own longer integrations to determine statibity or confirm some hypothesis on the origin. The osculating (Keplerian) elements for many satellites change very dramatically in short periods of time. Also, for newly discovered moons, the initial orbit elements are further refined and typically change a lot. Consequently, I believe we should quote Jacobson (JPL) as a matter of routine with a link for the Ephemeris (IAU) for today’s) orbital elements. I suggest to move this discussion to irregular satellites or the project. Please also see project page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#A hundred or so irregular satellites.... My apologies I missed your post here; I haven’t got to this sat yet and it was not on my watchlist; it is not even cat as irregular satellite (see for example S/2002 N 1) for an updated example. Eurocommuter 12:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, that's cleared up... But can the orbital inclination of Themisto really be only 14 degrees (compared to the equator of jupiter)? JamesFox 20:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why was this removed from the hypothetical astronomical objects category?
It was certainly thought to exist but unconfirmed for a long time. Please do not remove things without discussion. Mrwuggs 22:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not the one who removed it, but I would think that once confirmed, it is no longer hypothetical. JamesFox 10:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That's true, but most of the article is about how it was discovered, lost before it could be confirmed, and rediscovered, making the primary topic of this page the history of astronomy that surrounds it. Stacey 14:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to bring this back up. The page for the hypothetical astronomical objects category gives the following definition: "Hypothetical bodies of the Solar system are astronomical bodies suggested or once believed to exist within the Solar system, but which have either not been proven to exist or been proven not to exist." Given the last clause, and that we have proof Themisto exists, either it doesn't seem to belong in this category or the category description needs to be changed. --Patteroast 09:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
