Jump to content

Darnok

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,266

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Darnok

    What if the Earth had a 2nd moon?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    18 minutes ago, Atlas2342 said:

    Would Ceres' gravitational pull affect Earth's tides? Also, would it affect the rotation of the Earth? I could imagine it slowing down the rotation of the Earth. As for whether mass is real, I believe it to be real. If not, what purpose would the Higgs Boson have?

    Of course that any object on orbit around Earth would affect our planet in same way Moon does, but with different value/force :)
    Also it depends what orbit would Ceres have, I have few ideas, but it need some tests... does anyone know any good software to simulate our solar system?

    As for boson.... well good purpose would be to get Nobel prize for calculating it ;) But please I don't want to start discussion about why I think quantum physics is human invention and most of, if not all, particles described by that branch of physics doesn't really exist, because they are miscalculated.
    I want to talk about 2nd Moon in here.

    What if the Earth had a 2nd moon?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by Darnok

    13 hours ago, peadar1987 said:

    1. I actually can't believe I'm sitting here debating with someone about whether mass is real.

    2. You expressed it as an absolute statement. How are we supposed to read it? Also, the ratio of the earth and moon's radii is not in the "golden ratio". The ratio of the earth's radius to the hypotenuse of a right triangle of which the other two sides are the earth's radius and the sum of the earth's radius and the moon's radius is close to the "golden ratio". If you mess around with geometry enough, you can make anything into whatever ratio you want.

    3. Wrong. The earth's radiation shielding is primarily due to the mass of the atmosphere, not the magnetic field. And the earths molten interior is more down to radioactive decay than tidal heating: http://phys.org/news/2006-03-probing-earth-core.html. And even if those things were true, it would simply be a large moon that was needed, not a moon with a highly specific radius ratio to the parent body.

    1. No arguments, but you still defend your little model with mass :) It would be nice to admit you were wrong if you can't support your claim.

    2. You are now arguing about "it was absolute statement vs is wasn't" instead of talking about math?

    You said you can make every ratio you want... sure, but not with math constants! If you think otherwise please show me evidence and find different pattern with math constant, but as accurate as the one I presented.

    Inaccuracy in this case is result of Earth's and Moon's age, we are talking about bodies that has about 4.6 billion years and this had impact on their sizes and shapes.

    As for my hypothesis "This ratio is pattern for every habitable and inhabited planet in our universe" you didn't proved it is incorrect :)

    3. http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Cluster/Earth_s_magnetic_field_provides_vital_protection even wikipedia disagrees with you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field
    "Earth's magnetic field serves to deflect most of the solar wind, whose charged particles would otherwise strip away the ozone layer that protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation."

    Sure Earth's core source of heat is radioactive decay... I didn't said that source of heat is tide made by Moon... I said that Moon helps core to cool down slower, than it would without Moon.

    And that bold part is nice statement without even single evidence :)

    ---
    As for 2nd Moon, I wonder if Earth would have it and then something happen and this moon (Ceres) would drifted away how it would affect volcanic activity.

    Also to everyone criticizing Titius–Bode law check this one ... if you search on this forums you can find my version of this law, with math constats ;) of course

    What if the Earth had a 2nd moon?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    1.

    5 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

    1. You said that mass is a meaningless number: "...it is only our model and someone fit there some meaningless numbers". Mass is not a "model", it can easily be calculated by the resistance of an object to acceleration when a force is applied. I can get two rocks, and determine the ratio of their masses by applying the same force to both of them and measuring the acceleration. Mass is very real, and in cosmological terms, far more important than things like radius.

    2. You should probably stop making these absolute statements then: "This ratio is pattern for every habitable and inhabited planet in our universe :) But of course you are still in "geocentric model" where every pattern is limited only to our solar system". I don't call your hypothesis numerology because I believe it is incorrect (even though I do), I call it numerology because it lines up perfectly with the generally accepted definition of that word: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology#To_describe_questionable_concepts_based_on_possibly_coincidental_numerical_patterns

    1. So you only calculated that one force can affect other force. How this makes mass real? Just because more people uses mass in their calculations and hypothesis doesn't make it real.
    Apply your calculations to that definition of numerology it fits ;)

    2. It is not absolute statement it is simple hypothesis that comes from observation, you can observe/measure Earth and Moon radius and see that their ratio can be written using math constant.
    Math constants are very real and they were observed in nature, not invented nor calculated... well they were converted into numeric system that has base 10, but this source of main misconception... most people think about constants as about common numbers.
    Universe doesn't work in 10-based numeric system (<< this is absolute statement), so every number that describes real physical property written in 10-based system is meaningless and inaccurate.

     

    What if the Earth had a 2nd moon?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by Darnok

    36 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

    You have no credible theory for why a moon's radius must have this relation to its parent body for the planet to be habitable.

    I have one... because we have Moon Earths core is still liquid, since Moon can cause tides on surface, it can also cause tides inside liquid core.

    That is why Mars is "dead planet" and Earth isn't... habitable and inhabited planets must have magnetic field for time long enough to develop intelligent creatures like us. Without Moon Earth-type (I am not using "size" in here because size is not important, ratios are) planets won't be able to sustain liquid core for long enough.

    (How can I merge posts?)

    What if the Earth had a 2nd moon?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by Darnok

    16 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

    I literally can't even... Mass is meaningless? This is approaching "not even wrong" territory

     

    Do you have any evidence for this? You have a sample size of one. Neither you nor anyone else has ever seen another habitable planet. You have no credible theory for why a moon's radius must have this relation to its parent body for the planet to be habitable.

    1. Just because you acknowledging the present state of our knowledge as the "final", does not mean that this is so and in the future nothing will change. I didn't said "mass is meaningless" learn to read... I said mass is model that explains force created between two objects in space. But numbers behind that explanation are meaningless, because they are artificial/imaginary/invented by humans.

    2. No, I don't have evidence today, so I can't call it "theory", but that means today I can call it "hypothesis", as far as I understand scientific language, and search for evidence.
    It also means you can't call it "numerology" according to scientific terms, because you have no evidence it isn't correct.

    LIGO Announcement - Live Now!!!

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    1 minute ago, SargeRho said:

    While the LIGO is effectively a giant michelson-morley detector, the aether isn't the only thing it can detect. The Aether has been thoroughly disproven.

    How?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

    Quote

    We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether.

    IMO you are confusing "Luminiferous Aether" with Aether - particle that possibly creates space and those gravitational waves are nothing more, but waves of particles. And those particles affect in very minor way everything around us, also those particles are affected by energy and matter in very weak way.

    What if the Earth had a 2nd moon?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    1 hour ago, peadar1987 said:

     

    We've been through this before, if you have all the facts in front of you, you can bash together some "pattern" to fit them. All of this is worthless unless your pattern has some sort of predictive power. The Nice model has this. Your numerology does not.

    This ratio is pattern for every habitable and inhabited planet in our universe :) But of course you are still in "geocentric model" where every pattern is limited only to our solar system.

    What if the Earth had a 2nd moon?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by Darnok

    1 hour ago, peadar1987 said:

    Yes, and you could play with the constants any way you wanted. How many physical parameters of the earth are there? Why does only one of them line up with this "golden ratio"? Why the ratio of radii? Why not the density? The mass? The semi-major axes of the orbits? Why would the earth be the only system to exhibit this? Why not Jupiter, or Venus, or Ida? If it wasn't the Golden Ratio, you could kludge something together to reasonably approximate another mathematical constant, like pi, or e, or the square root of two or three.

    We've been through this before, if you have all the facts in front of you, you can bash together some "pattern" to fit them. All of this is worthless unless your pattern has some sort of predictive power. The Nice model has this. Your numerology does not.

    Density is not real it is human invention - derivative of mass.

    Mass is human invention - this is how today we understand force that occurs between two objects, but that doesn't mean mass exists, it is only our model and someone fit there some meaningless numbers.

    Semi-major axes is human invention. All those terms are created by us and they are not properties of any real object.

    Planet radius isn't human invention it is property of that planet.

    Math constant is also not human invention it was discovered by exploration/observation of universe/environment.

    What if the Earth had a 2nd moon?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    Just now, peadar1987 said:

    Not really, there are hundreds of bodies in the solar system. Just because one of them fits a pattern, this proves nothing. If Ceres didn't fit, the overwhelming likelihood would be that you could always find another body that did, presumably ignoring Ceres completely.

    Except it is math constant, not some random number that creates pattern.

    What if the Earth had a 2nd moon?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    1 minute ago, sevenperforce said:

    So because one of the planets in one solar system has a density that makes the ratio of its diameter and the diameter of its primary satellite equal to the ratio of that satellite's diameter to another random object's diameter...suddenly the solar system must be designed by a math enthusiast? Gotta give me a bit more than that.

    Now, if all the planets and moons in our solar system had exactly matching ratios of diameter, mass, and orbital periods, then we might have something to investigate.

    Earth, Moon and Ceres fits this ratio, so it is possible that same even that formed Moon also formed Ceres, but over time Ceres drifted on its current orbit.

    They have different ratios because they are build from different elements... as orbital periods check Titius–Bode law.

    How to manage dirty clothes in space?

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    11 hours ago, fredinno said:

    I don't anticipate this until at least a few decades and significantly more research into being self-sufficient in space.

    Good luck during the public videos. Also, that is usually the most sweaty part, so you still need a way to clean it.

    But it wouldn't be any different than interview made on beach during summer?

    It would be easier to get rid of only underwear than entire clothes set.

    51 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

    Oh, an idea!

    What if wash the clothes not once per year, but twice per week?
    Then a centrifugal washing machine would be not 4 m in diameter, but just as a usual washing machine.
    A ship of Hermes or Endurance size can easily contain one of such machines.

    Disinfection is quite simple, btw: gamma-rays are used to sterilize the food since 1950s if not earlier.

    So, a clothes-line (with pins) around the reactor will make the washed clothes dry, warm and disinfected.

    At least two, one as backup. Largest problem would still be water, I wonder what weights more water needed to make laundry or clean clothes delivered from Earth?

    I made a petition to the US Gov't so they can increase NASA's budget for a manned Mars landing by 2030

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    23 hours ago, tater said:

    This is simply not true given their task. If the US did not exist as a military power, someone would need to invent a replacement with ports in both the Pacific and Atlantic. The US is in a unique, geopolitical position. We also end up shouldering a lot of the defense expense for the entire western world, even as they hate us for it. Go figure. Someone has to have a credible strategic deterrence force, even now (and it was bought back when the requirement was far more easy to see). Someone needs to have naval and air forces, well, everywhere. We can argue about the cost, and I agree it could be cheaper, but it's not all spent on overpriced "stuff," even though a lot is certainly overpriced. The military would love to dump many bases, they try all the time, then Congress pairs it back to whichever delegation can't trade the right votes.

    It's less about profits (which are a small %), and more about total spending/jobs. The same is true of NASA, and always has been. There is a reason why military bases and contractors have always been spread around the country, it's the same reason Johnson Space Flight Center is in Houston, TX, and launches are mostly in FL (then CA). Then Marshall, JPL, Ames, Goddard, White Sands, etc. The launch site is physics/safety-dominated. The rest is spreading the pork around.

    IMO you are trying to use old concepts for new world.

    Look what has changed since last 50 years under US hegemony? Nothing? Rich people are getting richer and poor are starving. While before that, when US and USSR were fighting each other we reached Moon. They were developing revolutionary technologies, while today revolution means we have +100 pixels resolution in TV each year.

    We don't need single super strong single country or world wide union... we need countries that are ready for participating in evolutionary race. They should try to expand as much as possible and change their societies in way they are going to adapt new ways of thinking. Corporations have technology to expand on Moon or even further, but they will use it only if someone will try to win this race. They won't bother if their profits are stable and high enough on Earth.

    I made a petition to the US Gov't so they can increase NASA's budget for a manned Mars landing by 2030

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted · Edited by Darnok

    54 minutes ago, Frybert said:

    I know I'm going to take some heat for this, but here goes:

     

    For the moment, all of these things are a better use of money than putting a person on mars.

    Its like saying that buying a fish is better than buying fishing rod ;)

    Maybe to solve those problems we should go further and expand on new territories? Every living thing is expanding over time... we done that in past, but now we only multiply without expansion. We act like dying species, totally against laws of nature, we are limiting our territories instead of expanding it.

    I made a petition to the US Gov't so they can increase NASA's budget for a manned Mars landing by 2030

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    15 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

    Their budget is already massive, taking a small chunk out probably wouldn't do much, and it's high time they figure out better ways of spending, I read once that the Military spends more in a week that NASA does in a year.

    Don't get me wrong... I think that US military has far too large budget, but from their perspective having even small cuts in this year means lose jobs, well paid jobs.

    And what will be in next year, more cuts? People behind military, high ranks people like generals, officers etc won't agree to give away their money to anyone else. Imagine you spend in army 20 years and now you have to quit, what would you do?

    Corporations that are manufacturing weapons and military vehicles for US army won't allow anyone to take their money. They would lose their profits and it is unthinkable for them. 

    I made a petition to the US Gov't so they can increase NASA's budget for a manned Mars landing by 2030

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

    :rolleyes: Hey, its better than killing, there has to be at least 100,000 people who are for space exploration and against excessive military spending.

    And you think that people with guns will give their money back... willingly? :)

    You would have to fire lots of soldiers, it is just like fire office workers, but with guns and military training... if government is making cuts in other branches people protest, peacefully... what do you think soldiers that could lose their jobs would do?

×
×
  • Create New...