Talk:Ophelia (moon)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ophelia (moon) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled[edit]

According to The Royal Shakespeare Company, this is pronounced [o-FEEL-ee-uh].

The OED has the adj. form 'Ophelian', o-fee'-lee-un, with the initial o varying in pronuniation (full oe, short o, or schwa). kwami 2005 June 30 06:53 (UTC)

?[edit]

Someone mentioned a citation needed for the moons decaying orbit. The rotation of Uranus is 0.71833 days and the orbital period of Ophelia is 0.37641 days. Tidal forces will decay all such orbits around any planet. Is a citation really needed? 70.32.125.72 06:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - added a note. Should be sufficient I think. Deuar 22:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Do you really think the reader will be impressed by the explanation using tidal bulge raised on Neptune by a 50 km satellite? And where’s the bulge raised by a bit more substantial Miranda? Hey, Wikipedia articles do not have Murray & Dermott Solar System Dynamics as a prerequisite I believe (it could be quoted BTW). Eurocommuter 15:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well, the tidal acceleration article could use some more elaboration on this issue (By the way I presume that indeed, the miniscule bulge due to Ophelia is responsible, since the effect of the other moons should average out to zero over sufficiently long timescales unless Ophelia is resonant with one of them − please correct me if I'm wrong!) Quoting the textbook might be a better strategy than the wikilink, although a possible downside is that it's not online. Feel free to change it if you think that'd be better, i'm not familiar with that book although the title sounds like it should be enlightening. Deuar 15:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really question that Ophelia is spiralling down, it’s simply that the explanation in the tidal acceleration feels a bit unconvincing to me. A nice simple isolated case (Phobos/Mars) is one thing; a complex system with bigger players could be another.

You’re right, some online resource/paper would be nice. I’m a bit familiar with the book since I’ve noticed that it is the most quoted in TNO/irregular papers when the author starts with some celestial mechanics equations. But, so far I steered far away from tide-related stuff (brrrr …). Eurocommuter 15:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]