User talk:Deuar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] All minor planets are asteroids

Peter, 2 days ago you edited the Asteroid article and defined them as a subset of Minor planets. I have compelling reason to believe that the astronomical community does not use these terms to make a distinction. Please see Talk:Asteroid and Talk:Minor planet. Tom Peters 18:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Tidal locking, Tidal friction, and Tidal acceleration

Hi Deuar,

You wrote on my talk page regarding my edits on the Tidal acceleration page. Interesting, I live in Amsterdam too, but I don't suppose you have had occasion to learn Nederlands so I'll continue in English.

Unfortunately I've only been here 2 months, so my Nederlands is worse than poor Deuar 15:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning my credentials: bringing in "an astronomer" would not really help, unless (s)he were an expert in the field. I do have a scientific background and I have been following the scientific literature since my study time in the 1980's, so I consider myself second only to geophysicists and astronomers who actually do the research. Having read their papers, I think I can write the Wikipedia article; whether it is understandable for someone who does not have the same background is another issue, so if you can simplify things go ahead, but please do not sacrifice accuracy.

Cool. Yeah, I try not to ... (add sheepish grin) Deuar

IIRC some time ago I started or enhanced the Tidal acceleration page separately from the Tidal friction and Tidal locking pages. The latter is more about the general phenomenon, and I kind of used the former for our specific case, because it actually has an influence on everybodies daily lives (leap seconds etc. - hm, I should add that to the page). Also there is some detailed quantitative information available for the Earth-Moon system that is better placed under its own lemma than as an elaboration on the general page.

Regarding your work on the Tidal locking page: I find the explanations rather involved. The concept of torque would sum most of it up in one word. Maybe review what I put back in the Tidal acceleration page and use it to slim down the Tidal locking page. Also, you might want to add the orbital and rotation resonance of Venus with the orbit of the Earth, which IIRC is believed to be caused by a subtle tidal influence, but not fully explained.

Tom Peters 15:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a think and try to slim it down. Does it look factually correct to you, though? I had a rather long discussion on the talk page with William M. Connolley where he had reservations but wasn't able to clearly specify what they were. The tidal influences are back. Deuar 15:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Meteorite image

You have a point. I've thought about that on and off since I posted the image. I used the plaque from the meteorite itself as the basis for the caption (i.e., the real-world plaque claims it shows the Widmanstatten pattern). I can't decide if I just took a lousy photograph or if they were wrong in their caption...

Either way, it's probably best to remove the Widmanstatten reference, as it's not clearly visible in the image, even if it really was there on the meteorite.

--Dante Alighieri | [[User talk:Dante Alighieri|Talk]] 20:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Resisters or terrorists ?

Cześć Piotr,

You ask a very good question here : Talk:Resistance movement

Let me know if you want to talk seriously about this.

Sincerely,

AtiN 12:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Template:User:V.Molotov/Welcome!Molotov (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Polish Wikipedians' notice board

Hi! You may be interested in checking our noticeboard. Welcome!--SylwiaS 16:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TNOs

[edit] Kuiper Belt

Peter, we still have 'Mars or Earth size object' in our leading section on KB, I’ve noticed you spared it. Have you read recently about such conjectures? People talk about 'missing mass' problem but as far as I know have long time ago stopped assuming that a biggy must be there.. Am I wrong? Eurocommuter 21:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks strange to me too, but I spared it just because I havent read anything relevant in ages, and don't know. On gut feeling, I could swallow the Mars-sized out in the scattered disk, but an Earth-sized object sounds a lot like wishful thinking. Show no mercy if you think it's out of date. Deuar 22:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peter, Thank you for cleaning my modest contributions. Wikipedia articles about TNO are still a bit confusing (according to my boy, Thomas, 13). This was what finally made me register and add a few pieces a week ago. I’m trying to generate another graphic illustrating where the objects are (axis, eccentricity- and maybe inclination-wise); projections of orbits graphs are confusing (to me). Eurocommuter 00:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

(Diagrams) Dziekuje! Did you notice my attempt at a multiscale map? (click on one diagram and scroll down to the description) One can do better (clicking on the map, opening articles on specific objects) in svg but I have no clue how wiki handles svg; will try one day Eurocommuter 11:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the multiscale thumbnails, although I wasn't sure what they were for until I clicked them (I havent seen this solution before). Another good idea! Deuar 20:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the edits, Piotr. Feels good not to be alone in this obscure area…The total mass of the objects is thought to decrease with a power of the distance to the Sun. I have a conjecture, (can’t publish though, no original work is allowed on wiki…) The number of editors follows the same power low Eurocommuter 15:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is definately a trend like that... also: the number of editors decreases along with the mass of the object. I hang around a lot in the asteroids, and the density of editors is similar to the TNOs -- low once you leave asteroid (a vandal and crank attractor). On the other end of the scale you get e.g. Sun or planet which are huge vandal magnets - had them on my watchlist once, and it wasn't a pretty sight. I dare not put poor old Uranus on my watchlist...
By the way, your diagrams are getting more and more interesting. e.g. Image:TheTransneptunians_73AU.svg I hadn't realised there's a centaur bigger than Chiron out there. Deuar 22:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colours

Thank you! I’ve spent a week trying to render colour indices as "reasonable" RGB by filtering the simulated spectra and the colours seem still… odd! (e.g. 2002 QZ32 in centaurs). Rendering the albedo in linear gradient proved also challenging and a bit disappointing: the differences are too big; had to cheat and went non-linear. There’s no light there anyway, right? NASA’s images of Pluto are also "software artist's" impressions I suppose…Good to have you back! Eurocommuter 22:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thermal method

Agree, a better explanation. Remains to mention the assumptions about the rotational speed and the orientation of the rotation axis to the observer…! One day someone should write a few formulas in a separate article I suppose. Eurocommuter 22:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It starts to get involved at that point, a separate article is probaby not a bad idea. There's also the issue of the thermal properties of the surface. There was a massive work by J.S. Lagerros on this [1][2][3][4] (which I haven't really read) Deuar 10:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Binary/double planet

I see the addition you've made to the planet page. I'm a keen follower of astronomy but I've never heard of the term "binary planet", although I am aware its used for Stars. Could you possibly point me in the direction of where you got this term from, and how it is distinguished from a double planet? I have no big beef about this but I just want to make sure the article is accurate. 130.126.76.27 01:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw the term here on the New Horizons website (that page has an interesting animation, as well). Actually from what I can see there's no real consensus on the terminology, i've seen at least "double", "twin" and "binary" referring to two related objects of similar mass, and I suspect there are no universally accepted rules. I think "binary" is the best for a pair like Pluto-Charon because of the analogy to stars which do a similar gravitational dance. If you have know how to make the planet page more accurate, go for it! Deuar 09:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asteroids: families

I’ve just discovered your graphs Flora. Fantastic!!! Eurocommuter 17:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. The link to data (in the image description) appears to be broken.[5]

Well, um, thanks! Actually, I got the idea to represent asteroid sizes from your diagrams on Trans-Neptunian Object and surrounds.
I worry that my diagrams might be too cluttered, though.
That link didn't last long, did it! what a pain. fixing... Deuar 20:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Cluttering is a potential problem. I’m trying to mitigate it by using ‘two-level’ diagrams, first with only major objects for illustration and the second with details (i.e. cluttered) for an eager reader. Talking about inspiration, I took the e/i graph hint from your diagrams, and the funny thing is, it does show the KBO families (cubewanos v plutinos for example) as (kind of…) distinct. The problem is to render it in readable way and I’m not exactly an artist… Still, the first attempt should be out there (cubewanos, I think) tonight/tomorrow. Eurocommuter 21:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The two-level diagram is an interesting idea, i'll have to have a think about how to apply that! I always find that "if I could only make this diagram two times bigger, it wouldn't be cluttered", but of course those asteroid family diagrams are at the practical size limit already. Deuar 15:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
What do you think of my first attempt at using cartographic colours for e/t charts ?(cubewano) Eurocommuter 16:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
That's a pretty cute idea - and I bet you had a bit of fun trying to set the right bin size. Have you tried making the i/e ranges smaller so that the colorful part of the graphs takes up more space? Then again with only a few hundred bodies it's a tradeoff with how much blockiness is tolerable. I usually end up using scatter diagrams (like your main graph) because I find them easier to understand at a glance, but they also have their own problems with showing structure both in the dense and rarefied regions... Finally, That's a lot of interesting information in one diagram! Deuar 10:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! To avoid the overloading, I split the new one scattered disk so the text comment can follow more easily. On the e/i ranges: I’ve got the auto-scale written (a logarithmic scale for colours for example is supposed to handle valleys and peaks) but as I’m comparing different families I felt better to avoid different ranges between graphs. Eurocommuter 13:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC) PS. Have you read my half-cooked comment about your diagrams (below)?

[edit] Asteroid families -3D phase space

Peter, I’m looking at your diagrams (Flora) trying to imagine the 3D phase space. Namely i/a diagram (on the left) as the front face of a cube and i/e diagram (on the right) as its right side. Orbits on the front face are circular and orbits behind them are getting more and more eccentric. With this thinking, one can easily imagine the two clumps (visual regroupings) in 3D. (The one at ~6 deg is 'in front' of the one at 2 degs). Maybe you could hint this type of thinking to the reader and help with some perspective plotting the diagram. For example, Ariadne on the left diagram should be slightly in front (smaller e) and you could help this perception by making Ariadne’s disk hiding partly the Flora’s disk. Using a sort of z-ordering and greying out the objects not members of the Flora family you could help the reader to imagine the diagrams as projections of the 3D phase space. I have no idea if this would help other people but this is the way I struggle with 3D+ It could be a part of a simplified 1st level graph, suggesting the position of Flora’s family in 3D phase space in relation to other families and Jupiter resonances. What d’you think? Eurocommuter 23:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to have a think about implementing your idea - it's very interesting. I also usually try to imagine 3D with a similar method to yours: faces of a cube etc. If it was a surface it'd be easy, but isolated points in space like this are always a major problem for me. Funnily I find it easier to imagine the 3D if there is no explicitly 3D diagram but just the projections (I think the perspective-like diagrams boggle me visually somehow, and I find it hard to get a handle on what the actual shape of the "cloud of objects" is). That's why I tend to go with projections. What I find easiest to grasp for 3D diagrams is something like a colour-coded elevation map with the 3rd dimension represented purely by colours or shading (like your recent diagram). Unfortunately that's only good for surfaces :( In any case, i'll have a go at the kind of diagram you suggest once i have a bit of a think about it, and we'll see.. Deuar 13:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Peter, I went through your impressive and growing collection of families Gefion family et al. Ceres is sure a sizeable interloper! Is 93 Minerva a member? Would be a better (bigger) choice than the current namesake! On Vesta family I've discovered the name for the big agglomeration one cannot miss on Flora. A master ‘big picture’ diagram with arrows to major families would help IMHO. It could become a Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Belt! As for me, I’ve added a house-wife-level (almost) physical space orbit plot to illustrate scattered disk v classical. What d’you think? Eurocommuter 12:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
(your comment on my projection)Ouch. Touché. Thanks for the remark on the strange projection! I spend too much time fighting with Java/svg to get a clear diagram, then quickly type in the description without thinking….Well, maybe it was a bug but I’d pretend it was a feature… Cheers Eurocommuter 22:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Borusewicz.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Borusewicz.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Stan 14:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting that the Senate website has adopted GFDL! I would suggest doing a couple things to avoid future confusion; first, create a special category for all these images (template is overkill, cat is sufficient), and put a more extended discussion of the situation on the category's page. You might also consider moving these images to commons, so en:, pl:, etc, can all use the same images, again making the special category with explanation. Stan 19:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference style

Hi! Thanks for expanding the asteroid articles, especially 15 Eunomia looks really comprehensive now. When you insert the references, please consider using the new <ref> referencing style -- it is far more powerful than the various tweaks used earlier because it is formatted automatically by the code. It is really easy to use: In the first occurrence of a source, write <ref name="name">(text that will be visible in references section)</ref> and in later occurrences just the <ref name="name"/> tag. Insert the <references/> tag where you want to see the references. The stuff put into the <ref></ref> tags is not actually inside any template, so it's safe to use in an infobox, too. See for example 258 Tyche article how this is done. Also, the use of article source templates (Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles) helps managing the standard citation style. For more information, see Wikipedia:Footnotes, or drop a message.--Jyril 22:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's good to hear. ;) Really, I can't completely disagree with you in the earlier post. Putting reference information within the tags makes the code unnecessarily messy, but it seems to be inavoidable for now. Hopefully the system is developed further to more user friendly. However, it makes references less likely getting mixed up which is in my opinion more important. Actually, a proper referencing system should have been included in the MediaWiki software when it was developed.--JyriL talk 18:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flamarande, + Quo vadis

Hi, I have a doubt which you might resolve. Reading the article about Henryk Sienkiwicz, one can read that he recieved the Nobel prize because his outstanding works (i.e. several books). But in a lot of articles it is written that he recieved the prize mainly because of Quo vadis. Now, is the first statement (several books) a bit of "political correctness" by part of the Nobel-comite. or is the second statement a bit of english egocentric worldview? Perhaps both are true. You may answer here, please. Thanks Flamarande 17:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a literature buff, so I don't have any hard knowledge (like a reference) to give you, but here's some facts from a Polish perspective, and an educated (hopefully) guess:
  • The Nobel prize site says "because of his outstanding merits as an epic writer".
  • He wrote a fair number of historical epics - pl:Henryk Sienkiewicz lists them - all but the last one under the "Powieści" heading are historical epics.
  • Quo Vadis is best known outside of Poland, because most of the other works deal with various episodes of Polish history, and so, presumably might be considered less "universal" than a Roman epic in some sense. It's reasonable to assume that the popularity of Quo Vadis at the time is probably what brought him to the attenttion of the Nobel committee. It was also one of his more recent works at the time when he was awarded the Nobel prize.
  • In contrast, in Poland, his best known works are the Trylogia (Trilogy), which have been read and liked by almost every Pole alive (even today). In fact I don't think I've ever met any Pole who hasn't read it. In my opinion, it's really well written, with a gripping and complex plot, so it remains popular just because it's fun to read. (Having said that, Quo Vadis, and several other of his books: Krzyżacy, W pustyni i w puszczy, are also very well known in Poland). All made into movies.
  • I'm guessing that once Sienkiewicz was being considered as a candidate for the prize, they investigated his other works, and found them to be of "outstanding merit" as well - hence the decision to award him the prize, and give the above explanation.
Hope that's useful to you. Deuar 18:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. I can see that it is a bit of both then. Someday, someone will corect the various articles (I would do it, but I am too lazy). Flamarande 18:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Well - actually, also, my musings are just educated guesses, so i'm not sure whether to charge in there and change all the articles. :-) Deuar 18:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Deuar (long time no see, and all that :). I have noticed that you have improved the map used in the article Western Europe. I am quite interested in learning how to work with maps to improve other articles. Could you point me to the correct place for that? Is it very dificult? I am mainly interrested in small improvements (like the one you did) using allready provided maps and then "paint" them, and perhaps add small stuff. much obliged. Flamarande 17:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Flamarande, sorry for not replying earlier - i've been away for a week and a bit. I don't have any real wisdom to share with the maps - I just loaded it up in an image editing program (GIMP in my case, since I was on a linux box, but even Microsoft Paint will do) and used the "bucket fill" tool, etc. Then saved as a png format to avoid losses. Good to see there's a couple of us trying to hold the fort on "AU" over at Western Europe ;-) Deuar 13:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] orbit.svg

Thank you for your suggessions. I have made some changes. Scalable Vector Graphics is a quite good vector graphics format and it is easy to change with the free Inkscape. Unfortunately the Wikipedia renders it sometimes incorrect. (I must arrow heads write as triangles and now the big omega as a curve.) -- Harp 09:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Lightcurve Shape models

>I wonder what your thoughts are on this - do you think the reconstructions are reasonable and qualitatively trustworthy? Do you have any suggestions for better wording when describing them in the article?<

Even Mikko Kaasalainen, the leading proponent of the lightcurve-inversion technique, admits that the lightcurve-derived shape models are only accurate for large-scale structure. His models typically contain only tens of facets, which is enough to obtain a good idea of the object's elongation and perhaps any large-scale asymmetries, but insufficient to identify surface features. To give an example: a large filled-in crater cannot be distinguished from a facet (an area of surface with no relief) or a surface that is relatively smooth but carpeted in smaller craters. I think the best idea is to say what the lightcurves can tell us about the large-scale structure and no more. Michaelbusch 16:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

>One pointy and one broad end trustworthy?

Maybe, maybe not. A narrow end could also be an area with different scattering properties in the optical.Michaelbusch 03:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pando

Thanks for commenting on the Pando (Quaking Aspen) article. We are currently trying to have it achieve featured article status. Any input on its peer review would be helpful. Thank you again. Globeism 16:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Naiad Voyager.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Naiad Voyager.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Doh! forgot the tag. That's a quick bot. Deuar 20:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of arbitration

An arbitration request involving you has been filed.--AndriyK 20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Moons of solar system v2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Moons of solar system v2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure OrphanBot, no need to be hasty, i'm just in the process of writing the caption... Deuar 17:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Чайка

Hi. In the Valentina Tereshkova article you changed the translation of Чайка from "seagull" to "lapwing". My russian-english dictionary has: Чайка - (sea)gull, but you may be right. What makes you go for lapwing? --Bucephalus 09:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bucephalus, i've changed it back, since i'm not so sure anymore. My evidence for Чайка=lapwing may have been too circumstantial - I had based it on the polish word czajka (pronounced identically to russian Чайка), which means lapwing. In polish this is a word used much more often than seagull=mewa for pseudonyms, naming boats, aliases, etc. etc. Mewa also sounds lame in polish. Anyway, so i figured it's probably the same story in closely-related Russian. However, after your comment I tracked down the wikipedia.ru article ru:Чайка which mentions the genus Larus that is indeed, seagull. That'll teach me! Thanks fot pointing this error out. Deuar 12:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

The sentence is used in almost every Politics of article. The reason why I prefered this texts is that it about Politics of, not about the country itself. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding "liberation" to "Words to avoid"

I filled the proposal for Words to avoid. Please find it here. I would be thankfull for your commennts, suggestions and corrections.--AndriyK 15:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your comment! In August, I will be soliciting my colleagues to write a series of entries on other topics that are either missing or lacking depth in the field of meteoritics. I will also search for better images and graphics. Feel free to make suggestions on how this should all be done, as I am quite an amateur when it comes to wikipedia. Jeff

[edit] X-type asteroid

For the record: X-types are by no means granted to be metallic -- M-types *may* be metallic, but E and P are definitely non-metallic. Sorry, mate! --DerHerrMigo 15:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I completely agree. That statement of mine was from a while back when I didn't know much about this metallicity issue yet, and I seem to have forgotten about it. oops. Thanks for spotting and fixing it! Deuar 16:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asteroid pictures & deletion tags

Thank you for your advice, actually I knew {{NowCommons}} existed on it.wiki, but I didn't even dare to try it on the English one. I would correct the mistake myself, but somebody has already duly cancelled the two pictures. Anyway I uploaded them on Commons with the same name, and no link needs to be changed. Sorry for messing up and bye ;-)

--Leaden´skij 19:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh. I thought I had copied all the captions. I'm sorry if anything got lost, but I'm pretty sure it can't have happened. — Leaden´skij 19:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] regarding external links

Please do not use the url parameter for cite journal if the article is not fully acessible. Doi or normal paper references should be favored over url that might not be accessible to the casual reader (DOIs usually access to an abstract, if not article.) Circeus 21:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm always willing to do some link/data sleuthing myself. I do that a lot these days. Circeus 22:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PiS

Describing the PiS as "conservative" is simply misleading, as the party advocates very different policies from those of conservative parties of Europe, including aggressive nationalism, homophobia and anti-semitism - it clearly has close ties to the anti-semitic broadcaster Radio Maryja. I would compare the PiS to the NPD of Germany rather than the conservative CDU. Skruee 15:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exotic code fix in Tisserand's parameter

Thanks for the strange code fix, Piotr. Long time, BTW, how are you doing? I’ve been tied up in real life for a couple of months and haven’t contributed a single line. Hopefully, I’m back.Eurocommuter 21:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] P-type asyeroids

Piotr; do we have P-type asteroids? What are they? I’m playing with irregular satellites and P-type pop up in papers I’m reading…Thanks Eurocommuter 20:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planet >> Suggested Narrow Definitions

My apologies if this is not how debate should be carried out regarding wikipedia entries but...

I disagree with your deletion of my text. From the current meeting in Prague:

Some panel members say they favor counting any object which is large enough that its gravity has made it round. If the object is spinning, a small bulge would be tolerated. "We're talking about no more than four or five new planets," says Iwan Williams.

Reference: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5631291

Thanks, fink

Hi Fink, i've been away for a week and a half, that's why I didn't get back to you earlier. I'm really sorry - it seems I reverted your edit along with some pseudoreligious diatribe that appeared just after yours. My bad in a big way. Deuar 16:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions appreciated

Piotr, I've re-worked Sycorax (except for the data in the infobox). As you have a lot of experience with asteroid-related articles, I’d appreciate your opinion before I lash out on the remaining 99 rocks. Thank you Eurocommuter 20:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Eurocommuter, i've been away for a week and a half, hence no reply. I've grown a bit tired of the asteroids as well myself, after trawling through maybe a hundred or so, and have been having a go at some of the rocks around Neptune and Saturn. All these small moons have the appealing but also annoying property that there is no big fat table like the IRAS data that covers them all, so you have to search through lots of papers for physical data. I reckon lash out at the rest of the rabble by all means. Imho what you've doing over at Sycorax and Margaret is good and much needed. It's always great if you can say something (anything!) about these small moons apart from a dry recitation of orbital elements and size calculated from an arbitrarily assumed albedo. I find that a search on ADS for the moon's name often gives interesting results and finds the latest data (if any). Apart from that, i'm a bit of a newbie there as well.
By the way, what do you mean by "Its exceptionally high inclination (~56°) is close to the limit of stability" over at Margaret (moon)? Sounds interesting. Deuar 16:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank for your response, Peter. Indeed, there’s not much about individual moons (colour and IR spectra for some) ; I’m rather interested in them as a class plus in dynamical/colour groupings, origin theories, resonances etc. A for Margaret, (sorry have not finished this one): above some 55 deg the Kozai resonance pumps up the eccentricity (in exchange for inclination) and they finish out of Hill radius for the section of their orbit and, ultimately, get lost. Numerical integration confirmed that as well. I haven’t inserted the references yet.
A propos Kozai, I found there’s currently not enough on wiki on the three-body problem to understand the origin/orbits of irregulars so I started adding stuff (e.g. Jacobi integral) but my LaTex is poor so it will take time. See you around. Eurocommuter 18:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sideways chicken egg? P=)

Regarding the clarification in Ellipsoid, shouldn't the "chicken egg" be "standing up", so that the poles are different and the equator is spherical? ~Kaimbridge~ 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Right - good point. The so-called "egg" is now vertical :-) Deuar 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
That's alright, but...(and this may just be my personal interpretation and preference/prejudice) wouldn't/shouldn't it (more likely) be the other way——i.e., the longer, prolate end "hanging down"? P=) ~Kaimbridge~ 15:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Beats me - the "heavy end down" configuration seemed more natural to me, for example, but feel free to change it if you like. Deuar 15:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Done with Pluto, let's see... Neptune!

(Neptune) The term ice-giant is used in the TNO literature, opposing the gas giants and the (outer) ice-giants… Even the models of origin are different it seems. Of course today is not the day to (re)define things (just kidding:). Hope you could enjoy the webcast from IAU! Eurocommuter 16:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asteroid Pole Directions

Re your comments on the Pallas talk page: astronomers typically give asteroid pole directions only in ecliptic coordinates (lambda, beta), both because ecliptic coordinates are more relevant and to avoid confusion with stellar coordinates or sky positions, which are given in RA-DEC. You may want to convert all pole directions to this standard. Michaelbusch

Yes, indeed ecliptic coordinates are much more sensible and much more used. I used to put only them into the articles I edited, but other editors complained because they're more used to the RA/DEC coordinates. We could have a go at revamping them to straight ecliptic coords again and see if there is a cry of protest (there's probably a dozen or two articles to do). Deuar 14:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Ideally, give both sets of coords. Ecliptic coords make better physical sense, but if you want to see what the polar sky of the object is (in Celestia, Megastar, or the like), you'll need RA and DEC.
Urhixidur 17:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] burst of entropy

Thanks, I followed your advice and sought the calm in the obscurity of Ananke and Carme groups. As for the planet business I’m happy that Pluto has been put where it belongs. A new chunk of the Solar system has been discovered in the last 10 years and the changes were necessary, I believe. Eurocommuter 10:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correspondance

Requested link to the JPL NEO Programme Abyssoft 02:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, that's the link to the NEO program homepage. Do they actually list masses somewhere in there? If as I suspect not, are they just calculated based on the size and an assumed density? Then it'd be good to a) know what is that assumed density, and b) indicate in the list that it's just a very rough estimate by using a tilde. Cheers, Deuar 17:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Many neo's have individual pages. Here are a few examples...

Name Mass in kg Page
2000 SG344 ~(7.1e+07 kg) http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2000sg344.html
2004 VD17 ~(2.6e+11 kg) http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2004vd17.html
1994 GK ~(1.5e+08 kg) http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/1994gk.html

(and sorry about the subscripts)Abyssoft 20:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Feedback on image requested, [6]small solar system bodies distibution Abyssoft 04:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the feed back I will attempt to make it based on semi-major axis and set to a log scale. The biggest problem is it's from a data set of all known objects with known orbital params (~340K objects) and my plot program only permits 60K objects per plot. I think I will attempt to simplify the data to reduce the number of points. I will try to have a new one up for eval on monday. Abyssoft 01:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite correct on the deduction of I had to paste it together. Per your recommendation I have found a log scale that will work and still let me past it together. I'm going with a natural log progression. I will still have to paste it together but I've also been able to greatly reduce the number of points by reducing the precission of the plot points, down to about 55K points this should still provide enough for a good display. Abyssoft 16:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok new image up still need to add planets, Hill sphere for Sol, and proper bars for the 2nd section. [7] Abyssoft 05:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: asteroid image

Thanks, but I didn't actually create it :-). The credit goes to mdf, who created it for "solar system." If there are any other articles you feel it could be used, please let me know. Serendipodous 12:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small sats

Hey, good to see you working on the other side i.e. inner moons when I’m attacking by the other end! (Haven’t got to Saturn yet). Please have a look on my draft template (e.g. used in S/2002 N 1) for a shorter infobox for the irregulars. Comments greatly appreciated. Eurocommuter 20:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! The issue your raised is a very interesting one and I’ll try to give my modest point of view on it. It boils down to forgetting about Kepler and linear secular perturbations for the irregulars adventuring at the limits of Hill sphere.

The mean is defined by the (specified) source of the data . There’re basically two sources:

  • Jacobson (JPL), where mean means over at least 1000 years.
  • Independent, often very long integrations (e.g. Nesforny 4.5 Gy backwards, Holman 10My forward)

I’ve chosen to use JPL as it is one click away and to use other sources for the long-term or the origin theories only.

There are big differences if you compare the irregulars with the asteroids:

  • As you mentioned, irregular satellites have orbits based on a very small number of observations (i.e. very poorly known)
  • Even more importantly, the orbits are hugely perturbed (little to do with the Keplerian orbits). Linear perturbations are useless for most of them. The changes in very short term are huge E.g. Pasiphae can change the (osculating) semimajor as much as 1 Gm in a couple of years (its orbital period), inclination by 5 degrees and eccentricity by an incredible 0.5 some 24 years (twice the Jupiter period! In other words, we’re not talking about secular changes, we’re talking about basically different osculating elements for the next year (or orbit, whichever shorter)

Consequently, I believe the Epoch does not add any value (unlike for the osculating elements). Epochs are indeed specified in the source (the epoch for the starting osculating elems for the integration), but there’s no simple way to go from one epoch to another, so for the purpose of the articles I felt they are useless. Of course, I also provide the link for the IAU ephemeris site producing the osculating elems for the given epoch if someone wants to locate them (well, mag=24+ for some)

The mean elements (defined via integration) serve to define the potential families. Again, unlike for the asteroids the proper elements are not known and to be frank I haven’t found so far even a single mention of them in the orbital theories for the irregulars (but of course I do not read everything). Eurocommuter 18:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Like an omega with a bar but ... different

Piotr, do you happen to now how to express in Latex the curly pi (barred omega) as used commonly for longitude of the periapsis. I mean the special omega-like symbol, without using a bar above the standard omega. Thanks Eurocommuter 19:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!. Applied. Eurocommuter 10:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the mess I left in resonant TNO! I wish could say I left a few errors intentionally to see if someone actually reads it…It’s OK now. I liked the varpis too much, so I put them liberally here and there whether needed or not. I was suddenly hurled into what the natives call ‘the rat race’ and can visit these pages only occasionally but hope to be back in the some/near future. Eurocommuter 20:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asteroid (and other) Binaries

Please check/limit the damage in asteroid moon as I tangentially entered your area with my very skimpy knowledge. Thanks Eurocommuter 10:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inner satellites

Would you be interested in contributing something of your knowledge to the stub Inner satellite? I started it, but I am not really very knowledgeable on the subject. RandomCritic 11:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ellipsoidal a, b, c

Hi again, Deuar! Regarding the identities/positions of radii a, b, c on an ellipsoid, it seems the double axes of triaxial ellipsoids are perpendicular axes on the equator, not not the north vs. south poles! See these discussions, 1st and 2nd, on my talk page (the second one is a bit fragmented——and extended P=)——so you'll have to skim through it P=). So, basically, "x" on an ellipse is "x" and "y" on the ellipsoid and "y" is "z" (though, of course, in 2D cartography it is still "x/a-equatorial, y/b-polar"!!!——confusing, eh?!?), thus oblate is a>c and prolate is a<c. Plus, most sources use \theta\,\! as both longitude and angular eccentricity!! I'm finishing up on a major rewrite, including changing "x, y, z" to "X, Y, Z" for the ellipsoid and "a, b, c" to "ax, ay, b".  ~Kaimbridge~ 18:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colors

I've been trying for something more orange, but I haven't been able to mix up a color that's satisfactory, i.e. not too yellow, too dark, or too bright. I'll keep trying. Anyway, thanks for all the help on the satellites by diameter table! Much appreciated. RandomCritic 21:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main Asteroid Belt

I suggest you don't stay that asteroids such as 87 Sylvia aren't in the main belt. In common parlance in the asteroid science community, all asteroids between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter are referred to as the main belt, even distant groups like the Hildas. The Trojans are just outside the belt and Mars in just inside it. You could make a good argument for objects like Sylvia being outside the core of the belt, but that is semantics. Michaelbusch 17:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, ok - I wasn't aware of that, I'll fix up the wording in Sylvia in a moment. The terminology in a couple of articles probably needs some tweaking as well. What about high inclination groups, like e.g. 2 Pallas? To what degree do they get referred to as the main belt? Cheers, Deuar 17:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much anything with semi-major axis between that of Mars and Jupiter and inclination less than say 45º would be classed as an MBA (the inclination cutoff is fuzzy). Certainly Pallas is in the belt. I fixed Sylvia. Michaelbusch 17:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/u/User_talk%7EDeuar_7422.html"