What if the Earth had a 2nd moon?

[peadar1987]

32 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Math constant is not some random number, it suggests that we don't live in chaotic environment.

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.

[Darnok]

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.

[sevenperforce]

2 minutes ago, Darnok said:

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.

The Titius-Bode "law" is a discredited hypothesis from the era of alchemy.

Sure, there will be a roughly logarithmic distribution of bodies in any system which forms by accretion from a circumstellar protoplanetary disc, but that's a consequence of a chaotic system, not an exception to it. Now, if the main bodies of our solar system were spaced linearly, or if they all had satellites exactly 1/100th their mass at exactly 1/10th of their Hill Radius, that would be more significant. But even then, we'd immediately start looking for what sort of drivers could produce such a system.

As to Earth-Luna-Ceres: do you have any particular reason to suppose that a collision event would result in the ejecta coalescing into a series of bodies with uniformly descending radii ratios? Uniformly descending mass ratios, maybe, but radii is an implausible stretch.

[peadar1987]

5 minutes ago, Darnok said:

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

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.

[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.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Darnok

[sevenperforce]

5 minutes ago, Darnok said:

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

What the flying fudge.

[Spaceception]

6 hours ago, KerbMav said:

I like your completely non-physics approach to the question.

Well, I added a bit to the conversation.

[Darnok]

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.

[PacThePhoenix]

7 hours ago, fredinno said:

That's not a moon, so it's automatically disqualified. I'm pretty sure it's not in astable orbit either.

Very true. That's no moon.....

[peadar1987]

3 hours ago, Darnok said:

 

2 hours ago, Darnok said:

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.

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

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

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.

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.

Edited February 12, 2016 by peadar1987

[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.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Darnok

[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?)

Edited February 12, 2016 by Darnok

[peadar1987]

9 minutes ago, Darnok said:

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.

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

[Darnok]

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.

 

[fredinno]

4 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Too bad.

Are there any metastable figure-eight orbits between Earth and Luna where we could build a semipermanent Earth-Moon transfer space station?

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.

A cycler orbit is unstable by definition, but a space station SHOULD be able to stay in one, as long as it does a few engine fires.

Also, the Moon is a very strange object. Usually, objects with moons formed by accretion have ~1000 X less mass than their parent body- or so. Not surethe exact number, got to check that.

4 hours ago, Darnok said:

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.

And the Titus-Bode Law has been shown to be bunk, and a mere coincidence.

4 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

The Titius-Bode "law" is a discredited hypothesis from the era of alchemy.

Sure, there will be a roughly logarithmic distribution of bodies in any system which forms by accretion from a circumstellar protoplanetary disc, but that's a consequence of a chaotic system, not an exception to it. Now, if the main bodies of our solar system were spaced linearly, or if they all had satellites exactly 1/100th their mass at exactly 1/10th of their Hill Radius, that would be more significant. But even then, we'd immediately start looking for what sort of drivers could produce such a system.

As to Earth-Luna-Ceres: do you have any particular reason to suppose that a collision event would result in the ejecta coalescing into a series of bodies with uniformly descending radii ratios? Uniformly descending mass ratios, maybe, but radii is an implausible stretch.

It's a coincidence.

43 minutes ago, Darnok said:

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?)

Actually, Venus also has a partially molten core- it just lacks the spin to create a magnetic field. So, a moon is not necessary, but it helps.

[peadar1987]

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

1.

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.

3. 

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?)

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.

[DerekL1963]

2 hours ago, peadar1987 said:

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

I'm was waiting for someone to figure out that you're being trolled rather expertly.

[fredinno]

1 minute ago, DerekL1963 said:

I'm was waiting for someone to figure out that you're being trolled rather expertly.

....Or he's really just an idiot. Expert trolls are really rare.

2 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.

Well, the existence of a magnetic field helps keep the atmosphere from being blown away, so there's that.

[insert_name]

6 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

I'm was waiting for someone to figure out that you're being trolled rather expertly.

considering this was the same person who defended the theory that aliens came from planet 9 to mine earth and then flew said planet into the oort cloud I must agree

[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

Edited February 13, 2016 by Darnok

[Atlas2342]

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?

[Darnok]

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.

[Atlas2342]

18 minutes ago, Darnok said:

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?

Well, it is so much as software than a game/simulator but try Universe Sandbox 

[magnemoe]

20 hours ago, Darnok said:

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?)

Mars is dead because its too small and can not hold an atmosphere for billion of years anyway. Venus is probably rotating to slow but has an thick atmosphere without an field.

 

[Atlas2342]

5 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Mars is dead because its too small and can not hold an atmosphere for billion of years anyway. Venus is probably rotating to slow but has an thick atmosphere without an field.

 

Not to mention the heat, pressure and volcanic activity....