Discussione:Movimenti della Terra: differenze tra le versioni
→removed image: nuova sezione |
|||
| Riga 6: | Riga 6: | ||
Pardon my english, I don't write Italian. [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Precession_torque.jpg This image], while quite beautiful, originally gave a completely wrong explanation for this phenomenon. As an example, it implied that the precession caused by the Sun on the Earth is constant throughout the year, when in fact it varies according to the sine of the Earth's orbital position. The misleading parts have been clumsily removed, but it is not very nice anymore. There is more discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Axial_precession_(astronomy)#Cause here]. Please do not re-add this image. [[Speciale:Contributi/216.239.45.4|216.239.45.4]] ([[User talk:216.239.45.4|msg]]) 18:32, 14 set 2010 (CEST) |
Pardon my english, I don't write Italian. [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Precession_torque.jpg This image], while quite beautiful, originally gave a completely wrong explanation for this phenomenon. As an example, it implied that the precession caused by the Sun on the Earth is constant throughout the year, when in fact it varies according to the sine of the Earth's orbital position. The misleading parts have been clumsily removed, but it is not very nice anymore. There is more discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Axial_precession_(astronomy)#Cause here]. Please do not re-add this image. [[Speciale:Contributi/216.239.45.4|216.239.45.4]] ([[User talk:216.239.45.4|msg]]) 18:32, 14 set 2010 (CEST) |
||
It is not balck or white, mathematically what you wrote could be correct, but for such simple illustrative image there is no differences and this is understandable from the discussion you indicated. Plus this italian voice is not focused on "Axial precession", but in a most general issue of earth movements. In other word: I am agree that 10/3 is not equal to 3.3, but at some approssimation 3.3 could be fine. Obvioulsy any costructive improvement is welcome, as a new image for instance.--[[Utente:Bramfab|<span style="color:green;">Bramfab</span>]]<small><span style="color:blue;"> <b>[[Discussioni utente:Bramfab|Discorriamo]]</b></span></small> 19:30, 14 set 2010 (CEST) |
|||
Versione delle 19:30, 14 set 2010
Domanda
Mi chiedevo se non si stia parlando della stessa cosa quando si citano nell'articolo la precessione luni-solare e la nutazione. Non sono la stessa cosa? --62.110.229.174 07:49, 16 mar 2007 (CET)
removed image
Pardon my english, I don't write Italian. This image, while quite beautiful, originally gave a completely wrong explanation for this phenomenon. As an example, it implied that the precession caused by the Sun on the Earth is constant throughout the year, when in fact it varies according to the sine of the Earth's orbital position. The misleading parts have been clumsily removed, but it is not very nice anymore. There is more discussion here. Please do not re-add this image. 216.239.45.4 (msg) 18:32, 14 set 2010 (CEST)
It is not balck or white, mathematically what you wrote could be correct, but for such simple illustrative image there is no differences and this is understandable from the discussion you indicated. Plus this italian voice is not focused on "Axial precession", but in a most general issue of earth movements. In other word: I am agree that 10/3 is not equal to 3.3, but at some approssimation 3.3 could be fine. Obvioulsy any costructive improvement is welcome, as a new image for instance.--Bramfab Discorriamo 19:30, 14 set 2010 (CEST)