| |
Main
Date: 24 Apr 2007 15:30:44
From: Adam Funk
Subject: Those famous rings around Uranus!
|
The now well-known rings around Uranus were seen longer ago
than previously believed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6569849.stm
--
Guy Steele: "Bob just used 'canonical' in the canonical way."
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 09:17:42
From: Alan French
Subject: Re: Those famous rings around Uranus!
|
"Adam Funk" <a24061@ducksburg.com > wrote in message
news:ktg1g4-fcn.ln1@news.ducksburg.com...
> The now well-known rings around Uranus were seen longer ago
> than previously believed.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6569849.stm
>
> --
> Guy Steele: "Bob just used 'canonical' in the canonical way."
Well, Dr. Eves believes there is evidence they were seen by Herschel. The
article does not prove they were actually seen by Herschel. The evidence
seems rather slim.
Clear skies, Alan
|
| |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 01:06:16
From: TimC
Subject: Re: Those famous rings around Uranus!
|
On 2007-04-24, Adam Funk (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> The now well-known rings around Uranus were seen longer ago
> than previously believed.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6569849.stm
Intresting.
Saturn's rings are dynamically stable over long periods because of the
shephard moons. Without looking this up, I doubt if any of Uranus's 6
moons can act as shephard moons, but I have no idea how long rings
would last without them. I could believe they were quite a bit
brighter though 200 years ago. Sucks to be us missing out on the
giant Earth shattering KABOOM! that caused the rings to form in the
first place -- if they disappeared over the course of a couple of
hundred years, the giant Earth shattering KABOOM! must have only been
500 or so years ago.
--
TimC
Ride by the freeway
Bumper to bumper traffic
A Schadenfreude -- riding Haiku by Duncan Farrow in aus.bicycle
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 20:03:24
From: Adam Funk
Subject: Re: Those famous rings around Uranus!
|
On 2007-04-24, TimC wrote:
> Saturn's rings are dynamically stable over long periods because of the
> shephard moons. Without looking this up, I doubt if any of Uranus's 6
> moons can act as shephard moons, but I have no idea how long rings
> would last without them. I could believe they were quite a bit
> brighter though 200 years ago. Sucks to be us missing out on the
> giant Earth shattering KABOOM! that caused the rings to form in the
> first place -- if they disappeared over the course of a couple of
> hundred years, the giant Earth shattering KABOOM! must have only been
> 500 or so years ago.
Rings that go "baaa".
--
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], "Pray,
Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right
answers come out?" I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of
confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. [Charles Babbage]
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 11:19:54
From: Otto Bahn
Subject: Re: Those famous rings around Uranus!
|
"TimC" <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au > wrote
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > The now well-known rings around Uranus were seen longer ago
> > than previously believed.
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6569849.stm
>
> Intresting.
>
> Saturn's rings are dynamically stable over long periods because of the
> shephard moons. Without looking this up, I doubt if any of Uranus's 6
> moons can act as shephard moons, but I have no idea how long rings
> would last without them. I could believe they were quite a bit
> brighter though 200 years ago.
For any number of reasons or combinations thereof.
> Sucks to be us missing out on the
> giant Earth shattering KABOOM! that caused the rings to form in the
> first place -- if they disappeared over the course of a couple of
> hundred years, the giant Earth shattering KABOOM! must have only been
> 500 or so years ago.
Big city, bright lights.
Large features on a large planet ought to stick around a bit,
I would think.
--oTTo--
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 12:25:09
From: TimC
Subject: Re: Those famous rings around Uranus!
|
On 2007-04-24, Otto Bahn (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> "TimC" <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote
>> Sucks to be us missing out on the
>> giant Earth shattering KABOOM! that caused the rings to form in the
>> first place -- if they disappeared over the course of a couple of
>> hundred years, the giant Earth shattering KABOOM! must have only been
>> 500 or so years ago.
>
> Big city, bright lights.
Er...
Not everyone who has been looking at your anus 200 years to 20 years
ago has been stuck in a big city.
> Large features on a large planet ought to stick around a bit,
> I would think.
Not really. Plenty of things in the solar system have dynamical
lifetimes of less than 1000 years. Rings aren't stable without
outside influence.
--
TimC
Error: Fuzzy Pointer Exception
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 09:40:59
From: Doctroid
Subject: Re: Those famous rings around Uranus!
|
In article
<slrn-0.9.7.4-31149-4983-200704251223-tc@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au >,
TimC <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au > wrote:
> On 2007-04-24, Otto Bahn (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > Large features on a large planet ought to stick around a bit,
> > I would think.
>
> Not really. Plenty of things in the solar system have dynamical
> lifetimes of less than 1000 years.
For instance, goolge for "little red spot".
--
- Doctroid Doctroid Holmes
It's too confused to make sense, so let's make nonsense.
-- Chris McG.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 10:56:28
From: Otto Bahn
Subject: Re: Those famous rings around Uranus!
|
"Doctroid" <doctroid@mailinator.com > wrote
> > > Large features on a large planet ought to stick around a bit,
> > > I would think.
> >
> > Not really. Plenty of things in the solar system have dynamical
> > lifetimes of less than 1000 years.
>
> For instance, goolge for "little red spot".
Poor Spot!
He was little and red,
But now he's dead.
--oTTo--
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 14:59:40
From: Shelly
Subject: Re: Those famous rings around Uranus!
|
Otto Bahn wrote:
> "Doctroid" <doctroid@mailinator.com> wrote
>
>> For instance, goolge for "little red spot".
> Poor Spot!
> He was little and red,
> But now he's undead.
IFYZombieFY.
--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 10:37:24
From: Tonto Goldstein
Subject: Re: Those famous rings around Uranus!
|
Shelly wrote:
> Otto Bahn wrote:
>> "Doctroid" <doctroid@mailinator.com> wrote
>>> For instance, goolge for "little red spot".
>> Poor Spot! He was little and red,
>> But now he's undead.
>
> IFYZombieFY.
Spot wants to eat your braaaaanes!
--
"Truth matters, God doesn't & life sucks."
-- House, M.D.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 08:51:48
From: Otto Bahn
Subject: Re: Those famous rings around Uranus!
|
"TimC" <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au > wrote
> >> Sucks to be us missing out on the
> >> giant Earth shattering KABOOM! that caused the rings to form in the
> >> first place -- if they disappeared over the course of a couple of
> >> hundred years, the giant Earth shattering KABOOM! must have only been
> >> 500 or so years ago.
> >
> > Big city, bright lights.
>
> Er...
>
> Not everyone who has been looking at your anus 200 years to 20 years
> ago has been stuck in a big city.
Of course not. That's just a book. But the rings may have
been brighter as seen from Earth for various reasons.
> > Large features on a large planet ought to stick around a bit,
> > I would think.
>
> Not really. Plenty of things in the solar system have dynamical
> lifetimes of less than 1000 years. Rings aren't stable without
> outside influence.
They aren't stable *with* outside influence, yet they are
still there around more than one planet. I guess it depends
on what you mean by stable.
--oTTo--
|
|
