Talk:Occultation

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Occultation was copied or moved into Syzygy_(astronomy) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

1

references[edit]

How can the 1979 Sky and Telescope reference be edited, since it shows up as a hidden entry for me? The author should be Steven Albers - that's me in fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.75.201.73 (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC) I was able to fix this now. I do have a web page also on this: http://stevealbers.net/albers/ast/conjun/conjun.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.75.201.73 (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Occultation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Occultation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Occluding[edit]

Can occultation also be described as occluding? I see this usage on the solar eclipse article. Perhaps it should be added here. Rauisuchian (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pollux occultations[edit]

I understand the reasoning that Pollux will be occultable by the moon in the future, around 25000 years based on it's proper motion and the moon's ecliptic inclination, as well as lunar parallax and angular radius. What is the basis for saying it could be occulted in the past - by either moon or planets? Is this actually predictable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:8200:BD60:216E:1606:997B:E8C5 (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect definition?[edit]

"If the nearer planet appears larger than the more distant one, the event is called a mutual planetary occultation."

The primary literature uses the term mutual just to refer to the fact that one planet is occulting another, regardless of the apparent sizes of the two. So whether the nearer one has a smaller or larger apparent diameter does not determine whether it is mutual or not, but it does determine whether it can be annular or total. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:881E:A6AF:CA0:836A (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology?[edit]

I'm curious about the links their must be between "the occult" and occulting. It is a very distinct word. tx Billyshiverstick (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

163 Erigone's shadow[edit]

It's stated that the shadow of the asteroid 163 Erigone had a width of 100 km when it occulted the star Regulus. But is that a true number? Also, Regulus is not the only star that sends light in that distance. How are the scientists sure that the asteroid's shadow was only because of Regulus? Also again, how faint was the shadow? I'm pretty sure no one could practically see a shadow on the ground. Aminabzz (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The asteroid blocks the stars light like an full solar eclipse. So ideally a telescope pointed at the star will see the star disappear behind the fainter asteroid for several seconds. -- Kheider (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty true.

But I still can't get the idea that a star 80 light years away can cast a 100 km wide shadow on Earth! Aminabzz (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]