Talk:Rings of Jupiter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Rings of Jupiter is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Rings of Jupiter is part of the Jupiter series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 10, 2007.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 1, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed
June 10, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
July 17, 2009 Featured topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Rings of Jupiter is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
WikiProject Solar System (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.


Does this mean that the sunlight CAUSES the dust to spiral into Jupiter? if not please consider changing the words IceDragon64 01:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


I added references to this article and pretty much had to rewrite it to include them. Please add more (with references) if you've got it! 14:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Origins of the gossamer rings[edit]

This is unclear (self-contradictory?):

This hypothesis naturally explains all observable properties of the rings: rectangular shape, decrease of thickness in the direction of Jupiter and brightening of the top and bottom edges of the rings. However some properties have so far gone unexplained like Thebe Extension, which can be due to unseen bodies outside Thebean orbit, and structure visible in the back-scattered light.

So, are all of the properties explained or not? Qblik 05:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I added 'almost'. The phrase was slightly inaccurate. Ruslik 07:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The table[edit]

Are the numbers in the table correct? In particular, the "radius" values seem suspect (they overlap, but IMO they should not). Qblik 00:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I found only one typo: the outer age of the main ring is at 129,000 km (not at 29,000). It seems that two weeks ago an editor accidently removed a unit while changing the format of the table. Gossamer rings overlap and you can see this in the figure at the begining of the article. Ruslik 14:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Metisan orbit[edit]

The article talks of the Metisan orbit, and two sentences later the Metisian orbit, with an extra 'i'. I find insufficient references available online to boldly decide which spelling is correct or, if both are correct, which is more common or appropriate here. Assuming there is not a reason for the current spelling variation, an informed decision on which spelling to use within the article seems prudent. Michael Devore 07:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Or just say 'the orbit of Metis'. :) Rubble pile 03:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as an astronomer who has published several papers on the Jupiter ring and its moons, I will say that I have never heard of the term Metisan / Metisian. It is always just 'the orbit of Metis', 'the Metis notch', 'a Metis-like spectrum', etc., rather than the body taking an adjectival form. This goes for other bodies as well: one would usually not refer to the 'Enceladean plume', but rather just 'the plume of Enceladus.' throop 09:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If we must use an adjectival form, wouldn't Metidian probably be more correct? (Per Kwami's 2005 comment at Talk:Metis (moon). Double sharp (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Poor research[edit]

Designated the Voyager 1 as first enounter. Incorrect! The Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 space probes -- December 1973 for Pioneer 10 and Decmber 1974 for Pioneer 11 were the first TWO encounters. That makes Voyager 1 the THIRD. Yes, the photographs were not high definition - by today's standards - but neither were the first Mariners to Mars. Pioneer 10 and 11 established the first magnetosphere other than the Earth's -- the late James Van Allen investigator. Beatgr 00:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Did the Pioneer probes detect the rings though? I remember when Voyager 1 reached Jupiter and if my recollection is correct, that's when the rings were discovered. thx1138 04:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The rings were discovered by Voyager 1 in 1979. Pioneers did not observe rings. See ref 1. Ruslik 19:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


Surely 'Drops of Jupiter'? 18:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct English in the first sentence[edit]

This article reached the main page with its first sentence in the following form: :"The rings of Jupiter are a system of planetary rings". This is incorrect English (hopefully that's obvious?). I've edited it to read "The rings of Jupiter is a system of planetary rings" although that might not meet with some editors' tastes. Other options such as "The rings of Jupiter make up a system of planetary rings", "The rings of Jupiter is the name of a system of planetary rings", "The rings of Jupiter are planetary rings" might be better? SP-KP 22:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's "are", as there is more than one ring. Otherwise it's like saying "the fleet of buses is green", or "these fries is cold". Neil  23:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, sorry - I think you're being misled by the 's' at the end of the name. There are a number of rings, and if we want to refer to them in a sentence in their plural sense, we use are. However, this sentence isn't - it's about the system of rings, of which there is just one, so we use is. Maybe this analogy will help - "In the US, the southern states are strongly religious" but "The United States is North America's most populous country". SP-KP 23:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Is" would be correct if the title were a collective noun requiring a singular verb conjugation. As the sentence begins "The Rings of Jupiter", not "Rings of Jupiter" (showing it is not a collective noun in the sentence), "are" is correct. "The system is", would, however, be correct ("The system are", of course, being wrong). It's the old "The Beatles is" (American English) versus "The Beatles are" (British English) dispute - Wikipedia's usual method for dealing with this issue is usually leave it in whichever form it was originally written. Neil  23:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand what I'm saying, I think. Let me try another tack. "Are" would be correct if the sentence read "The rings of Jupiter are planetary rings", as then we're saying that a set of things, X, are all of the type Y. If we want to say that Z is a system, however, we don't change the "is" to "are" just because the name of that singular Z happens to be the same as the name of the group of things which comprise Z. To solve this, we're going to have to decide which of these two things we would prefer to say, and then the correct word follows automatically from that. SP-KP 00:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles dispute is misleading because of the "s", implying plurality.
Compare "The team is ready" (US) vs. "The team are ready" (UK) and decide. 23:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Best to avoid that sort of thing, and write "The planet Jupiter has a system of rings". "Planetary rings" if you must. Midgley 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to observe that the first sentence has made a full circle and (almost) returned to my original variant [1]. Ruslik 07:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Which was also correct English. Good to see that Russians know how to write English correctly, even if it seems some British people can't! SP-KP 18:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What colour is near-infrared?[edit]

"In visible and near-infrared light, the rings have a reddish color". That sentence needs reqorking, but I think it needs someone who understands and observes the phenomena to get it right as well as clear in meaning. What colour are the rings? What wavelentghs or bands of radiation are they bright in? Midgley 14:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

They are red, which means that their reflectivity increase with wavelenght in visible and near-IR (0.4-2 μm). Ruslik 07:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mass of the rings[edit]

I have an interesting question, but I'm not sure if ayone here can answer it.

Let's say we could somehow collect all the material of Jupiters Rings and condense it into one object, how large would it be and how dense?

Nick Warren 02:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The answer is in the lead: "The total mass of the ring system (including unobserved parent bodies) is about 1016 kg, which is comparable with the mass of Adrastea.". Ruslik 07:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


Someone just added operads to the "See Also" section. I don't get it. thx1138 10:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it was vandalism; someone keeps adding operads to everything. (An odd hobby!) I've removed it. Sam Staton (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Dust fraction (in τ)[edit]

The table under Discovery and structure says "Dust fraction (in τ)", shouldn't the "(in τ)" part be in the header "Optical depth"? --Episcophagus (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

As nobody objects, I fix it myself! --Episcophagus (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)