Comments on: Saturn gets edgy

By: MB

MB — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 06:33:41 +0000

I’ve had my telescope for about a week now, and I haven’t been able to find Saturn yet. I follow the star charts that I download, but I can’t seem to find it. I’ve had no problems with Venus and Jupiter, but pesky Saturn keeps on hiding from me.

By: Sili

Sili — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:40:12 +0000

Speaking of vagaries, what kind of physics makes the rings that thin? To channel my inner six-year-old: “Why?”

By: thomasfortenberry.net » Blog Archive » Saturn Gets Edgy

thomasfortenberry.net » Blog Archive » Saturn Gets Edgy — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:27:41 +0000

[...] Saturn Gets Edgy So you got a telescope for Christmas/Hanukkah/Newtonmass/whatever… or you’ve had one for awhile. Either way, you get a treat this week. Or a lack of one. Saturn’s rings are going away. [...]

By: Matthew Ota

Matthew Ota — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:12:48 +0000

It is interesting that we are seeing Saturn’s rings edge on this year, while the Cassini spacecraft is in a high inclination orbit around Saturn at this time.

By: kuhnigget

kuhnigget — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:06:50 +0000

@ Ivan:

4. Crank, one step removed from. See nutter.

By: Bein'Silly

Bein'Silly — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:01:03 +0000

@ NorthGuy‘s

“Will I be able to see the rings if I stoop down or stand on my tippy toes?”

Uh, I’ll assume you’re bein’ as silly as I am but the answer is _no_ sorry you can’t.

What you need to see them nice and big again is a time machine … Future or past? It don’t matta as long as it ain’t anotha ring-lane crossin’ .. What %-age of the time is that? Dunno but not often!

By: Asimov-Fan

Asimov-Fan — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 13:53:10 +0000

Make that :

& sorry Phil but he even preceded you with including astronomical natural hazards in his book : …

Plus there’s a lot more ones on astronomy and science more broadly that Asimov wrote too – those are just my personal seven faves!

By: Asimov-Fan

Asimov-Fan — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 13:10:22 +0000

kuhnigget Says: (December 26th, 2008 at 9:01 am)

“@ Elwood: And Galileo before Asimov!”

Actually Isaac Asimov was quoting Galileo in onbe of his non-fiction pieces – & yes Asimov cited him.

Asimov actually spent more time and effort on writing his “popular” science articles including a couple of books devoted to Astronomy than he did on his SF works.

A few examples – (in Harvard uni. style (?) cites with publisher & date in brackets after italicised title.)

1. his childrens series on the solar system :Isaac Asimov’s ‘Library of the Universe’

2.‘Asimov on Astronomy’ (Coronet Books, 1974.)
3. ‘The Tragedy of the Moon’ (Coronet books, 1973.)
4. ‘Planets for Man’ – with Stephen H.Dole based on a Rand study into extraterrestrial life incl. candidate stars. (Random House / Rand Corporation, 1964.)

5. ‘Alpha Centauri – the Nearest Star’ ,Lothrop, Lee & Shepherd, 1976.)
6. ‘Counting the Eons’, (Grafton Books, 1985.)

& sorry Phil but he even preceded you with includingastronomical natural hazards in his book :

7. ‘A Choice of Catastrophes’, Hutchinson, 1979-1980.)

… Plus teher alot more one sonastronomy and science more broadly that Asimov wrote too – those are just my personal seven faves!

There’re all still good reading too albeit a little dated in some cases.

Whoa that guy was prolific -and good! You’ve got at least another 500 odd books to write to catch up wth him, Dr Plait!

By: BeinSilly

BeinSilly — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 12:49:56 +0000

So if we can’t ring Saturn does that mean we have to email or snail mail for this year now ..?

Sorry, couldn’t resist. Ducks & runs for cover ..

By: IVAN3MAN

IVAN3MAN — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:30:57 +0000

Dictionary.com:

pedant noun 1. A person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning. 2. A person who overemphasizes rules or minor details. 3. A person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense. 4. Obsolete. A schoolmaster.

:-)

By: Peter

Peter — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:09:32 +0000

Does anyone have any idea whether the rings are at a constant, stable thickness, or are they tending to consolodate toward a metre thick say, or possibly increasing in thickness? Have any measurements been done?

By: Phil Plait

Phil Plait — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 05:36:57 +0000

If I am wrong, I admit it.

In this case, I am not wrong. “To scale” has a specific meaning, and that is like a scale model. A piece of paper is colloquial enough to mean a single sheet of paper, and it doesn’t matter if it’s A4 or a piece a meter across; as I showed in my comment above, a piece of standard typing paper is, to scale, 1000 times thicker than the rings.

“Across”, similarly, has an obvious meaning as the diameter of the rings. And the rings are, to scale, so much thinner than paper that it doesn’t matter if I say they are a 10 meters thick or 100 meters thick. I was making very rough estimates, and because of that 100x scale factor precision isn’t necessary.

And Space Elevators, I debunk bad science on this blog all the time. Like, almost every day.

By: Crudely Wrott

Crudely Wrott — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 04:58:10 +0000

Whoops! May have just figured it out.

Because adjacent images are similar to the view between two eyes. Adjacent images show a difference in time that is equivalent to a difference in perspective! The magic eye blends adjacent images similarly to how it blends red/blue images. Neat. Time and POV are the same (under strict conditions)!

And the universe is suitably embellished.

By: Bobbin

Bobbin — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 04:50:01 +0000

Sure it was a clumsy sentence (saying “to scale” before introducing the concept of comparing it to a piece of paper), but come on – you guys can figure out what the author meant.

I do wish he had given a precise number instead of a “few dozen meters”, which in my mind could mean anything from 24 to 100+. Heck, the Marines use the word “few” to describe 120,000 people.

By: Crudely Wrott

Crudely Wrott — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 04:44:19 +0000

Daniel J Andrews wrote:

For those of us under continuous cloudy skies you can go to Alan Dyers astronomy site (linked in Phil’s article above), click on Alan’s picture of the Saturn’s oppositions 2001-2029, and then view it as you would a magic eye picture. If you know how to do that you’ll see several images of Saturn in glorious sharp 3D….good enough for me at least till the skies clear.

The magic eye is working, but never in this fashion. How does this presentation of a series of images make me see five columns in 3D when it only contains four columns in 2D?

It’s wicked cool but I’m not understanding.

By: llewelly

llewelly — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 04:15:40 +0000

Daniel J. Andrews:

… click on Alan’s picture of the Saturn’s oppositions 2001-2029, and then view it as you would a magic eye picture.

When I do that the inner ring looks curiously tubular … like a hula-hoop. I guess because those images are not intended for 3-d viewing.

By: The Space Elevators

The Space Elevators — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 03:39:32 +0000

Phil, please put some time back into writing the dissections and critiques of the “bad astronomy” that began your flirtations with internet fame. I’m already aware of Saturn’s current appearance, and there are plenty of well-written astronomy websites to inform those who want to know. Don’t just cater to the fark.com crowd so you can get lots of hits on your shiny new blog. You used to point out all of the BAD stuff that showed up in media reports of things like this. I’m sure you wouldn’t have to look very far to find a current article about Saturn that contains all sorts of errors and misinformation. I want to know what you think of the latest clap-trap that passes for science in the movies and the news. Where is your review of the new Keanu Reeves crapfest? I don’t bother to look at your site anymore unless FARK links to it, because I know these days you’re usually writing about some bit of space news that has already been reported elsewhere.
I dare say that your little blurb about sheets of paper and Saturn’s rings is just an attempt to cater to the unfinformed, a “misuse of science”, if you will.PLEASE.

/get back, JoJo

By: The Mad LOLScientist

The Mad LOLScientist — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 02:10:22 +0000

if i evr gets 2 b Ceiling Cat, i wil bees in ur soler sistum, makin ur Urfs wif teh ringz. cuz deys TEH AWSUM like Ceiling Cat. =^..^=

By: Ian B Gibson

Ian B Gibson — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 01:49:02 +0000

I’m with the pedants:

Saying something is thinner than a piece of paper is about as useful as saying something is as long as a piece of string!

By: Gray Lensman

Gray Lensman — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 00:53:34 +0000

We have this very photo in a large size with a big mat on the mantel in our living room. In another room is a large M31 photo.

By: Old Geezer

Old Geezer — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 22:21:04 +0000

I’m with DaveS and Katherine here. The whole time I was reading the remainder of the post, I was thinking, “What scale? 1:1 ? That would make them ‘dozens of meters thick…’ Or it could be a scale of 1:2 in which case they’d be half dozens of meters thick. Still too thick for paper. Hmm…”

By: NorthGuy

NorthGuy — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 21:15:28 +0000

Will I be able to see the rings if I stoop down or stand on my tippy toes?

By: Noadi

Noadi — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 21:02:41 +0000

I don’t have a telescope yet but my parents gave me a check specifically for my telescope fund. Going to get one early next year. Won’t be big or fancy but worlds better than my rather poor eyesight.

Saturn is one of those things I really look forward to take my first view of through a telescope along with Jupiter and Mars.

By: Daniel J. Andrews

Daniel J. Andrews — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:15:52 +0000

For those of us under continuous cloudy skies you can go to Alan Dyers astronomy site (linked in Phil’s article above), click on Alan’s picture of the Saturn’s oppositions 2001-2029, and then view it as you would a magic eye picture. If you know how to do that you’ll see several images of Saturn in glorious sharp 3D….good enough for me at least till the skies clear.

By: Rexe

Rexe — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 18:54:49 +0000

I wish that I had a telescope. Still, that is totally awesome.