Talk:Radial velocity

	This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Astronomy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is not clear to this naive how the Earth's orbit is accounted for. I assume the radial velocity is relative to the Sun even though the measurements are made from Earth. 103.227.170.9 (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)103.227.170.9[reply]

the animation File:Planet reflex 200.gif isnt the right one to correctly show radial velocity. the right animation would show the shifting spectral lines.[1] -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was written "For the figure on the right, the radial velocity of the moon is 0 because the distance between the moon and Earth does not change". Is that true? --Email4mobile (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the header because some texbooks use radial velocity to refer to angular velocity, and I myself was confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hacky (talk • contribs) 03:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Actually, I'm the only one confused here. Never mind about the header. Carry on --hacky (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if

I thought one source was sufficient to avoid

fgnievinski (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks.

Personally, I don't mind if some claim in an article is made with one source, but it seems like too much to start defining terms that aren't ever defined elsewhere: it seems likely to confuse readers. (I'm also not convinced this particular name is especially obvious or natural. I wouldn't mind if someone wants to talk about e.g. a "set of co-hemispherical points" on a sphere; then the word is just being applied as a description, rather than as new jargon, and I think readers would understand the intended meaning [i.e. points that are all within a single hemisphere] from context. But "co-hemispherical vectors" is a couple of hops of abstraction away.) –jacobolus (t) 08:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems "

fgnievinski (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

These do not seem common either. Each has only a handful of sources, and some of those look irrelevant ("There are notable discussions on the intentionally obtuse directions used in Las Vegas," "Because the [musical] chords are going by so fast and they're going in such weird, obtuse directions," "Conversation might tum from local gossip to philosophy, sometimes wandering in obtuse directions", etc.). Why do you feel a need to add definitions and create redirects for terms nobody is looking for? represent useful concepts – on its face this claim seems contradicted by the evidence. But we should leave it to the "marketplace of ideas" to come up with a name for this and wait to add it to Wikipedia until it is in common currency or at least until there are some secondary sources clearly defining it. –jacobolus (t) 08:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edits to the "Formulation" section, to me, seems to reduce readability. The inclusion of the non mathematical acronym "LOS" also conflicts with the original intent of a pure mathematical derivation with minimal superfluous terms. Quirian (talk) 07:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]