Talk:Asteroid belt
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Ripetute
"Ripetute"? I believe this may have been intended to say "reputedly"? At any rate, what do you supposed it is supposed to say? sugarfish 20:50 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It's an Italian word meaning "repeated". I've changed it to the correct English form. Chirstyn; 1 September, 2003
[edit] Asteroid Belt: Origin
Someone had asked elsewhere (I think on the Talk:Asteroid page) whence the term "Asteroid Belt". I'm writing here my research efforts.
- The first paper (according to the NASA ADS) to bear the words "Asteroid Belt" in its title is Dirk Brouwer, The problem of the Kirkwood gaps in the asteroid belt, Astronomical Journal, Vol. 68, pp. 152-159, 1963
- The first paper to use "asteroid belt" in its abstract is Frank J. Kerr and Fred L. Whipple, Possible explanations of the secular acceleration of PHOBOS and Jupiter V, Astronomical Journal, Vol. 56, p. 131, 1951
- No papers whatsoever use the German term "Asteroidengürtel" in their title or abstract (an odd result).
Urhixidur 17:11, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
[edit] Why a belt?
I've wondered: why exactly are so many of the asteroids arranged in this belt? What was the origin, and why would it tend to form in its present location? Meelar (talk) 18:04, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
- http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980810a.html -- hike395 22:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Asteroids go harless in sapce sometime
-
- This is a free slot in solar system.
- You may use it once.
- It would be pretty heavy there for a planet-sized object, one needs really solid(strong?) body to sustain Venu,s x Jupiter..Neptune weight when occasionally combined...
- Until this gap is filled, Venu,s should be kept as it is doing now...
- Are you sci-fi inclined? It could be a parking orbit for a really large space-ship also...
- (well, one must clean it up first from rocks and gravel, unless the space-ship is small enough to fit into Kirkwood gaps...)
- S.
[edit] Belts around other stars
Wouldn't the observed extrasolar belts be more akin to the Kuiper belt than the asteroid belt? Serendipodous 12:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of largest asteroids
Shouldn't this article have a list of the largest asteroids within the main belt, sorted by size? I am happy with the new "dwarf planet" status for Ceres, but that doesn't mean that it can't still be categorized with the others. - Lawrence King 07:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Such a list is over at List of noteworthy asteroids. Perhaps a case could be made to include the leading bodies from that list. A possible natural cut-off of sorts occurs after 10 Hygiea, the last of the "big four" most massive asteroids. Deuar 15:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Informative
Not trying to be rude, but shouldnt you article be more informative about asteroids instead of just the asteroid belt? Just so we know at least a little about what is in the asteroid belt?
- Yes, in fact Asteroid belt should be merge to Asteroid, they talk almost about the same thing ("minor planet" inside Jupiter). Tttrung 08:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- The article here is concerned only with the main orbital grouping of asteroids (red but not blue in the second diagram in the article), which is the "main belt", while Asteroid discusses all the minor bodies inwards of Jupiter. If you're in doubt whether this distinction is useful, have a look at the what links here page for Asteroid belt. Notice how many articles point here via the Main belt redirect. Nevertheless, you have a good point that it was not very informative about the asteroids themselves, so I've added a fairly prominent disambiguation notice in the introduction to try to remedy this. Deuar 14:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information added. Could you give the source for all the numbers (inclination range, semi-major axis range, ...) Are these number "universally agreed", or officially defined by authoritive organisation (like IAU)? 58.187.19.142 02:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've been planning to partly amend the terminology in this article regarding the use of "main belt" − because this is actually not well defined (as you might have guessed by comments such as "below about 0.33", etc.) Hold on.... ;Regarding the proportion of asteroids in the region mentioned, that comes from a straightforward count of asteroids in an orbit database. I'll track down which one it was... Deuar 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] asteroid belt or Asteroid Belt
Someone just modified the first sentence to use "Asteroid Belt" instead of "asteriod belt." I think "asteriod belt" should not be capitalized, so I changed the first sentence back . Am I wrong? Most of the article uses the lower case, which seems to agree with the capitalization used in some reference works (i.e. M-W, OED, etc.) —RP88 02:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC) --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)