Thinner than a razor blade?

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Thinner than a razor blade?

by Empeda2 » Sat Dec 31, 2005 1:23 pm

BMAONE23 wrote: (are there any (many) moons orbiting planets in a retrograde orbit?)
There are a few (most notibly I believe is Triton), but these are believed to be captured moons.

by gordhaddow » Sun Dec 25, 2005 4:20 pm

A more technical treatment can be found at

http://cc.oulu.fi/~hsalo/salo2001_icarus153.pdf

razor thin rings

by ta152h0 » Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:32 am

gravitational viscosity is a summation of all the individual atom/molecule/substance attractions that occur . :D .

by harry » Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:56 pm

Imagine some people here have no knowldge of Gravitational Viscosity.

Please explain



Merry Xmas

razor thin rings

by ta152h0 » Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:42 pm

gravitational viscosity

by BMAONE23 » Sat Dec 24, 2005 4:48 pm

I would imagine that it would be affected as far as gravity warping the space around the earth. The earth's gravity acts to pull the moon ( to a small degree) around it in a certain direction. (are there any (many) moons orbiting planets in a retrograde orbit?) If the rotation increases then the warping might also tend to increase which would affect all within the field of influence.

by William Roeder » Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:54 am

Since the rings are totally outside the atmosphere of Saturn, the planet's mass can be treated mathematically as a point.

How would body rotation have any effect on the rings?

The moons however can affect the rings.

rings

by ta152h0 » Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:29 am

<<<<<<I don't think anyone knows for sure Harry, a lot of the rings are held in place by 'shepherd' moons that hold the particles in place - some of the moons are also replenishing the rings as technically, ring systems aren't that stable.>>>>>

Isn't Saturn itself the "engine" that motors the rings and the moons ???? I would guess if Saturn rotated at a significant slower rate, the rings would be much thicker and more chaotic???

by Empeda2 » Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:32 pm

I don't think anyone knows for sure Harry, a lot of the rings are held in place by 'shepherd' moons that hold the particles in place - some of the moons are also replenishing the rings as technically, ring systems aren't that stable.

by harry » Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:47 am

What makes it so thin?.
What controls it?

Why do most of the structures in the universe have this type of feature?

Is it the spin of the core or the spin of the planet.

by William Roeder » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:01 pm

I remember reading elsewhere another comparison.
If saturn was the size of a (beach?) ball then the rings would be much thiner than a piece of paper.

by harry » Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:43 am

Smile,,,,,,,,,is this the comic relief

by S. Bilderback » Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:09 pm

Empeda2 wrote:In proportion of their diameter.

If you scaled the rings diameter down to the length of a razor blade, the rings would be much thinner than said blade.
Good answer, give yourself 2 points!

razor thin

by ta152h0 » Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:40 pm

Next time a politian wims by a " razor thin " margin, I am going to look at it from a different perspective. Pass the ice cold one

by orin stepanek » Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:27 pm

I would Imagine that the important thing is that the rings are very thin in respect to the size of Saturn. Being composed of so many moon lets it is amazing that they all stay within such a narrow band around the planet.
Orin

by Empeda2 » Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:18 pm

In proportion of their diameter.

If you scaled the rings diameter down to the length of a razor blade, the rings would be much thinner than said blade.

by S. Bilderback » Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:44 pm

ta152h0 wrote:]Comparative sizes do not require the knowledge of absolute sizes. TA152h0 is correct
"... making them many times thinner, in relative proportion, than a razor blade . . ."

It needs to state in relative proportions to "what"? I don't see a scale to satisfy the "what".

I would guess that it is a clumsy use of a figure of speech.

by ta152h0 » Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:38 am

Comparative sizes do not require the knowledge of absolute sizes. TA152h0 is correct

by S. Bilderback » Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:16 am

But then the size of Saturn would need to be compared to something on the same scale and that is not posted. It is an open-ended comparison. Unless it is figurative speach.

ipgrunt is correct.

raqsor blade thin

by ta152h0 » Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:44 pm

Saturn

Thinner than a razor blade?

by ipgrunt » Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:44 pm

What on earth is meant by this claim ??

>> "Brightness measurements from different angles have shown Saturn's
>> rings to be about one kilometer thick, making them many times
>> thinner, in relative proportion, than a razor blade. "

:?: In relative proportion to what :?:

Top