Talk:3156: Planetary Rings

2025-11-05T18:16:01Z

Stroopwafel Falafel:

Is my draft right? It's hard to understand a comic that hasn't yet got an explanation! [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 16:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
:I came here to say this is one of those xkcds that really doesn't need explaining. I do like the bit about "although it's theorized that [Earth] may have had [a natural planetary ring system] in the past," it's additional information I wouldn't think about just reading the panel. [[Special:Contributions/64.201.132.210|64.201.132.210]] 17:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
:I think you did a good job, you gave depth to the terms used, added related facts, and included comparisons netween the listed rings. [[Special:Contributions/64.114.211.102|64.114.211.102]] 18:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Can't wait until our ring evolves via kessler syndrome. [[Special:Contributions/64.114.211.102|64.114.211.102]] 18:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
: I can't wait for the stage after that: [[2314|Carcinization]]. [[Special:Contributions/149.22.90.216|149.22.90.216]] 23:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I added two notes, but I don't have time now to learn the syntax to make proper notes, so they are just in the middle of the text. I will try to do it later, if someone else doesn't do it. [[User:Rps|Rps]] ([[User talk:Rps|talk]]) 18:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Earth's historical rings: {{w|Rings of Earth}} [[Special:Contributions/191.101.157.126|191.101.157.126]] 19:20, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Mars also has a ring, although it consists of just 2 very large objects. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 21:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
: Nope. Mars has TWO rings. Deimos orbits at three times the distance and four times the period of Phobos. Two rings with one large object each. And if you are taking an areocentric perspective, there's a much more massive ring 1.5 AU away. [[Special:Contributions/181.214.218.33|181.214.218.33]] 22:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the title text: One of those bits of information that aids navigation has long been where on a tree the moss grows (should you be in an area with trees, obviously, and otherwise be without a compass or can see the Sun to do the watch-dial trick (with an analogue watch, or a bit of imagination)). Back in the '90s, I noted that I could augment that, in an urban environment, from the rise in houses having satellite dishes (BSB 'squarials' and Sky dishes, originally, here in the UK) all pointing pretty much directly south. (With enough local knowledge, you might even be able to compare them to TV aerials and possibly triangulate to where you were within a larger urban area - assuming you were 'somewhat lost, but not ''totally'' lost'.) And, even today, I find them a reassuring extra bit of info when I'm skirting through the suburbs of cities, knowing that I'm not being twisted too far awa from my chosen direction (working with my in-head memory of the map I'd planned with, which can occasionally get nudged off from reality by an inconvenient twist and turn of road).<br/>
Though I must say, I've never ever considered latitude-enumeration as an additional factor. Apart from anything else, the design of the dish normally has the 'receiver arm' sitting at an off-axis focal point, so you need to project out at the complimentary 'up-angle' from the exact angle the dish itself ''points''. But, anyway, I'm not sure I ever could have distinguished 55°N from 60°N, by eye, even sighting upon a centre-axis dish's direction. And yet I'd surely already know if I was as far south as Edinburgh or actually somewhere as far north as Lerwick, before checking out the local dishes... ;) [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 21:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why it says "If some of them are pointing straight <b>up</b>, you're probably near the Equator". Surely, if you're on Earth, they're pointing straight down. {{unsigned ip|86.20.197.254|18:12, 18 October 2025}}
: Well, the satellite dishes need to point up to get signal from up there in the sky. [[User:MinersHavenM43|MinersHavenM43]] ([[User talk:MinersHavenM43|talk]]) 18:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
: Sounds like 86...254 thinks "satellite dishes" are the transmitting/transceiving dishes ''upon'' the satellites, not the receiving/transceiving dishes aimed ''at'' them. [[Special:Contributions/2.98.65.8|2.98.65.8]] 18:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Sidenote: I visited my local thrift store and found three nearly new copies of "what if?" on the Humor bookshelves. I bought one (Sorry you won't get paid twice.) and moved one to the Reference bookshelves. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 20:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I accidentally nerdsniped myself by asking "How many geostationary satellites would we need to have a ring visible from the moon?". I don't even know where to begin with it. Google's AI said it's between 80 million and 540 million (based on the brightness of a single satellite and the lowest brightness visible to the naked eye), but I'm hesitant to trust LLM generated math. Someone please help! [[User:Stroopwafel Falafel|Stroopwafel Falafel]] ([[User talk:Stroopwafel Falafel|talk]]) 18:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3156: Planetary Rings