![]() | Roche limit is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 17, 2004. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
I think that Weisstein got it wrong at Mathworld --- Let's say that the celestial body is perfectly spherical: then the semi-minor axis radius would equal the semi-major axis radius, so c=R, right? So, (1-c/R) would be zero, and the output of the formula would diverge :-(. I think Weisstein meant to say that c is the difference between the semi-major and semi-minor radii. This makes the formula work. We could define it that way, but it is quite a mouthful --- it turns out that the oblateness of a body is the ratio of the difference to the semi-major radius, so that seems more compact.
I tried to double check this against a non-Mathworld source, but could not. Can someone come up with a double check? Thanks! -- hike395 17:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that isn't clear to me at all. Weisstein defines R in the main body of the article [1]. c is not defined in the main article. The main article references an article about the oblate spheroidal gravitational potential [2]. There, c is defined as the semi-minor axis, not the semi-major axis of an oblate spheroid. It isn't clear to me (from the text description, at least) whether he is referring to the oblate potential of the primary body or of the satellite. It's quite confusing. Is there a different source that we can double check this with? It seems suspiciously mushy. -- hike395 07:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why are the illustrations (well, one of them anyway) of the disintegration process showing clockwise movement? The natural direction is counterclockwise, as we tend to look at things from the "north" pole...
Urhixidur 17:53, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
Okay, I fixed the image now.
Urhixidur 17:57, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
I'm working on a book for children over at wikibooks and someone has written the following:
Now aside from the fact that this explanation is confusing to me (let alone a kid) I'm not at all convinced that the science is actually correct. So I was wondering if any of you fine people (flattery will get me everywhere I hope) could help me rewrite? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 2 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)
![]() | Roche limit is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 17, 2004. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
I think that Weisstein got it wrong at Mathworld --- Let's say that the celestial body is perfectly spherical: then the semi-minor axis radius would equal the semi-major axis radius, so c=R, right? So, (1-c/R) would be zero, and the output of the formula would diverge :-(. I think Weisstein meant to say that c is the difference between the semi-major and semi-minor radii. This makes the formula work. We could define it that way, but it is quite a mouthful --- it turns out that the oblateness of a body is the ratio of the difference to the semi-major radius, so that seems more compact.
I tried to double check this against a non-Mathworld source, but could not. Can someone come up with a double check? Thanks! -- hike395 17:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that isn't clear to me at all. Weisstein defines R in the main body of the article [1]. c is not defined in the main article. The main article references an article about the oblate spheroidal gravitational potential [2]. There, c is defined as the semi-minor axis, not the semi-major axis of an oblate spheroid. It isn't clear to me (from the text description, at least) whether he is referring to the oblate potential of the primary body or of the satellite. It's quite confusing. Is there a different source that we can double check this with? It seems suspiciously mushy. -- hike395 07:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why are the illustrations (well, one of them anyway) of the disintegration process showing clockwise movement? The natural direction is counterclockwise, as we tend to look at things from the "north" pole...
Urhixidur 17:53, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
Okay, I fixed the image now.
Urhixidur 17:57, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
I'm working on a book for children over at wikibooks and someone has written the following:
Now aside from the fact that this explanation is confusing to me (let alone a kid) I'm not at all convinced that the science is actually correct. So I was wondering if any of you fine people (flattery will get me everywhere I hope) could help me rewrite? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 2 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)