What if the Earth had a 2nd moon?

[peadar1987]

9 hours ago, Darnok said:

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

1. Sure I can support it. Go outside. Push something. Does it accelerate to infinity when you push on it? No? Good. It has mass.

2. I don't have the time or the inclination to play little number games. As for your hypothesis, it is utterly worthless with your sample size of one. Sure I can't disprove it, because we don't have any other points of reference. But you can't prove it or even back it up. It has about as much support as Russell's Teapot just now.

3. I never said the magnetic field didn't prevent stripping of the atmosphere, I said it is what blocks most of the radiation from the sun. Common misconception, and one I try to correct whenever it comes up.

I'd like to know how you think the moon keeps the centre of the earth molten without being a source of heat. You might say tidal forces. This at least is plausible, but when you examine the numbers, the heat from radioactive decay is an order of magnitude greater today, and was even greater in the past.

My statement was that if the moon was heating the core of the earth, it would be by virtue of its size, not by virtue of it being an absurdly specific proportion of the earth's radius. The onus is on you to prove that the moon wouldn't provide the same hypothetical benefit you say it does if it were 5% larger or smaller.

[NFUN]

Mass is inertia. Bill Nye is indisputably and always correct. The opening song to his show says "Inertia is a property of matter". Therefore, mass is a property of matter. QED.

[peadar1987]

On the Titus-Bode law stuff, Darnok gets thoroughly debunked in this thread, even if he doesn't realise it: 

 

[fredinno]

4 hours ago, peadar1987 said:

1. Sure I can support it. Go outside. Push something. Does it accelerate to infinity when you push on it? No? Good. It has mass.

2. I don't have the time or the inclination to play little number games. As for your hypothesis, it is utterly worthless with your sample size of one. Sure I can't disprove it, because we don't have any other points of reference. But you can't prove it or even back it up. It has about as much support as Russell's Teapot just now.

3. I never said the magnetic field didn't prevent stripping of the atmosphere, I said it is what blocks most of the radiation from the sun. Common misconception, and one I try to correct whenever it comes up.

I'd like to know how you think the moon keeps the centre of the earth molten without being a source of heat. You might say tidal forces. This at least is plausible, but when you examine the numbers, the heat from radioactive decay is an order of magnitude greater today, and was even greater in the past.

My statement was that if the moon was heating the core of the earth, it would be by virtue of its size, not by virtue of it being an absurdly specific proportion of the earth's radius. The onus is on you to prove that the moon wouldn't provide the same hypothetical benefit you say it does if it were 5% larger or smaller.

.Wait, I thought the Moon was a greater heat source long ago when it was much closer?

[RocketSquid]

There would be two possible month lengths, potentially weirder tides, and more werewolves.

[RocketSquid]

On 2/13/2016 at 8:52 AM, Atlas2342 said:

On 2/13/2016 at 8:46 AM, 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....

Venus is dead because it is about as close to a literal hell as you can get. Venus is a terrible, terrible place.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, RocketSquid said:

Venus is dead because it is about as close to a literal hell as you can get. Venus is a terrible, terrible place.

True but it has an thick atmosphere even without an moon and decent magnetic field.
In short neither an moon or an magnetic field is required to keep an atmosphere on an earth sized world.  
if it had lost 95% of it venus had been an interesting place, 

[fredinno]

7 hours ago, magnemoe said:

True but it has an thick atmosphere even without an moon and decent magnetic field.
In short neither an moon or an magnetic field is required to keep an atmosphere on an earth sized world.  
if it had lost 95% of it venus had been an interesting place, 

Well, Venus loses a LOT of atmosphere, it just manages to create more than is ejected...

A magnetic field is needed to make one viable for life, though.

[Darnok]

On 13.02.2016 at 9:23 PM, peadar1987 said:

1. Sure I can support it. Go outside. Push something. Does it accelerate to infinity when you push on it? No? Good. It has mass.

2. I don't have the time or the inclination to play little number games. As for your hypothesis, it is utterly worthless with your sample size of one. Sure I can't disprove it, because we don't have any other points of reference. But you can't prove it or even back it up. It has about as much support as Russell's Teapot just now.

3. I never said the magnetic field didn't prevent stripping of the atmosphere, I said it is what blocks most of the radiation from the sun. Common misconception, and one I try to correct whenever it comes up.

I'd like to know how you think the moon keeps the centre of the earth molten without being a source of heat. You might say tidal forces. This at least is plausible, but when you examine the numbers, the heat from radioactive decay is an order of magnitude greater today, and was even greater in the past.

My statement was that if the moon was heating the core of the earth, it would be by virtue of its size, not by virtue of it being an absurdly specific proportion of the earth's radius. The onus is on you to prove that the moon wouldn't provide the same hypothetical benefit you say it does if it were 5% larger or smaller.

1. So I am using force vs force that is between that object "something" and Earth... and how does it prove existence of mass?

2. Ohhh, so you can say something is wrong and then run without giving any evidence of your claim... how scientific
Every experiment starts with sample size of one.

3. Then core is cooling down and tidal force may increase its "life".
Maybe you should try to build your own solar system and show me evidence that any radius is good for stable orbital movement?

On 13.02.2016 at 9:52 PM, peadar1987 said:

On the Titus-Bode law stuff, Darnok gets thoroughly debunked in this thread, even if he doesn't realise it: 

 

In which post?

[magnemoe]

On 16.2.2016 at 5:55 AM, fredinno said:

Well, Venus loses a LOT of atmosphere, it just manages to create more than is ejected...

A magnetic field is needed to make one viable for life, though.

Ok so Venus has far more vulkanisme than Earth? 
Water and life take CO2 out of the atmosphere on earth, some of the co2 in water turn into rocks and some of the living organismes is taken out of circulation but not sure if this is enough here. 

[peadar1987]

3 hours ago, Darnok said:

1. So I am using force vs force that is between that object "something" and Earth... and how does it prove existence of mass?

2. Ohhh, so you can say something is wrong and then run without giving any evidence of your claim... how scientific
Every experiment starts with sample size of one.

3. Then core is cooling down and tidal force may increase its "life".
Maybe you should try to build your own solar system and show me evidence that any radius is good for stable orbital movement?

In which post?

1. No. You are using the resistance of an object to acceleration in response to an applied force. Only one of those things is a force. How do you explain the fact that objects don't accelerate to infinity when a force is applied?

2. So when you do it it's okay, but when I don't have the time to, you get all touchy? Gotcha. It's a coincidence.

3. So you think they increase its life how? By magic? Because tidal heating (the amount of energy we can see the moon losing to the earth) is miniscule in comparison to the energy of formation of the earth, and radiogenic heating. I don't think I'm going to be able to explain the concept of a stable orbit to someone who rejects the concept of mass entirely.

4. Repeatedly and obviously, for anybody with even an arbitrary knowledge of sciance.

[insert_name]

6 hours ago, Darnok said:

1. So I am using force vs force that is between that object "something" and Earth... and how does it prove existence of mass?

2. Ohhh, so you can say something is wrong and then run without giving any evidence of your claim... how scientific
Every experiment starts with sample size of one.

3. Then core is cooling down and tidal force may increase its "life".
Maybe you should try to build your own solar system and show me evidence that any radius is good for stable orbital movement?

In which post?

#1 seems incoherent and not really sayin much

#2 every good experiment increases that sample size

#3. the core is radioactive, its not going to change much with tidal heating. especially if the second moon is small

[Darnok]

13 hours ago, peadar1987 said:

1. No. You are using the resistance of an object to acceleration in response to an applied force. Only one of those things is a force. How do you explain the fact that objects don't accelerate to infinity when a force is applied?

2. So when you do it it's okay, but when I don't have the time to, you get all touchy? Gotcha. It's a coincidence.

3. So you think they increase its life how? By magic? Because tidal heating (the amount of energy we can see the moon losing to the earth) is miniscule in comparison to the energy of formation of the earth, and radiogenic heating. I don't think I'm going to be able to explain the concept of a stable orbit to someone who rejects the concept of mass entirely.

4. Repeatedly and obviously, for anybody with even an arbitrary knowledge of sciance.

1. And what values do you need to calculate "resistance of an object to acceleration"?

2. What? I showed you math in one post of this thread.

3. I didn't said "it is main source of heat" did I? I doubt you can explain anything since you are using model with mass to prove mass exists

4. Give me link to post.

11 hours ago, insert_name said:

#1 seems incoherent and not really sayin much

#2 every good experiment increases that sample size

#3. the core is radioactive, its not going to change much with tidal heating. especially if the second moon is small

1. If you push something you are using force, but between object you are pushing and Earth exists another force, so you are using force vs force to move object, but that doesn't prove existence of mass. You can not measure source of that force between object and Earth, you only assume it is mass using model created by Newton.

2. Sure, do you know where are habitable planets? so I could increase it

3. Depends, without tides core would have exact same size all the time, that means it would have same amount of radioactive material.
But with tides core shape is changed a bit and this change can melt and add rocks and more radioactive materials to the core.

Also I don't know how radioactive materials decay works with matter that is in constant move, with tidal forces from Moon it does move all the time.
 

[peadar1987]

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

1. And what values do you need to calculate "resistance of an object to acceleration"?

2. What? I showed you math in one post of this thread.

3. I didn't said "it is main source of heat" did I? I doubt you can explain anything since you are using model with mass to prove mass exists

4. Give me link to post.

1. If you push something you are using force, but between object you are pushing and Earth exists another force, so you are using force vs force to move object, but that doesn't prove existence of mass. You can not measure source of that force between object and Earth, you only assume it is mass using model created by Newton.

2. Sure, do you know where are habitable planets? so I could increase it

3. Depends, without tides core would have exact same size all the time, that means it would have same amount of radioactive material.
But with tides core shape is changed a bit and this change can melt and add rocks and more radioactive materials to the core.

Also I don't know how radioactive materials decay works with matter that is in constant move, with tidal forces from Moon it does move all the time.
 

1. The force applied, and the acceleration. Acceleration is distance travelled over time. Force can be calculated by, say, the deformation of a spring.

2. You showed one picture (which actually contains an error). This shows one thing, for one planet, with no reasonable explanation or hypothesis about why it might be true for others. Everything else you have just pulled out of your lower digestive tract.

3. And you are using a model without mass to try and explain a universe where objects have resistance to acceleration. Go figure. The energy deposited by the moon into the earth is a fraction of a percent that of radiogenic heating. If the core of the earth had a fraction of a percent more energy in it, its temperature would go up by a maximum of a few degrees. Far more energy is deposited into the system by solar radiation. And in any case, even in the moon is depositing energy into the core of the earth, keeping it liquid, that still doesn't validate your theory that Ceres must have formed in orbit around the earth because it is a certain fraction of the radius of the moon.

4. Pretty much every one of my posts, but the general message is the same. More specifically, when your version of the Titus-Bode law has to ignore the fact that Neptune exists.

 

1b. No, you can push it along the ground, you can put it on wheels, or skates, or skis. The gravitational force and the reaction force from the ground cancel each other out, the only net force applied is the one you are providing. As for the force of gravity, well, everything we see in orbit behaves as if it is experiencing a force proportional to the product of its mass and the mass of the parent body, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Every probe we have launched, every planet, moon, binary star, comet, exoplanet we have ever observed obeys this rule. If you can find a flaw in it and come up with a better explanation that does not involve the concept of mass, be my guest. I guarantee you will not be able to.

2b. No. Nobody does. So your hypothesis has no grounding in fact or reality, and flies in the face of many well-established scientific principles.

3b. Radioactive decay works the same no matter what physical forces you place on the nuclei. And the total amount of heat generated will be the same whether the decay occurs in the core or in the mantle. Unless you want to challenge another piece of established science.

[Darnok]

1 hour ago, peadar1987 said:

1. The force applied, and the acceleration. Acceleration is distance travelled over time. Force can be calculated by, say, the deformation of a spring.

2. You showed one picture (which actually contains an error). This shows one thing, for one planet, with no reasonable explanation or hypothesis about why it might be true for others. Everything else you have just pulled out of your lower digestive tract.

3. And you are using a model without mass to try and explain a universe where objects have resistance to acceleration. Go figure. The energy deposited by the moon into the earth is a fraction of a percent that of radiogenic heating. If the core of the earth had a fraction of a percent more energy in it, its temperature would go up by a maximum of a few degrees. Far more energy is deposited into the system by solar radiation. And in any case, even in the moon is depositing energy into the core of the earth, keeping it liquid, that still doesn't validate your theory that Ceres must have formed in orbit around the earth because it is a certain fraction of the radius of the moon.

4. Pretty much every one of my posts, but the general message is the same. More specifically, when your version of the Titus-Bode law has to ignore the fact that Neptune exists.

 

1. Show me how you calculated acceleration without using mass. There is no point in discussion with you if you say that mass has to exist because only equation you know to calculate forces between bodies have to use mass.

2. What error? Where? How large?

As far as I know we measured speed of light on only one planet (sample with single case) and we assumed it works same way on every spot of universe? 
So sample of size one is enough for scientific theory, if author name is Albert, but it is not good enough to even start considering hypothesis of unknown author?

3. I was talking about something else... read my last post again.
My hypothesis is:
tidal forces created by Moon "feed" Earth core with additional radioactive material by changing shape of core and at same time melting more rocks around it. What adds more fuel for core, so it can burn longer.

4. My version comes from hypothesis that Neptune's current orbit isn't its original orbit, during billions of years Neptunes orbit could change, but this is topic for different thread.
What fits in here is that same event that pushed Neptune to new orbit could push Ceres out of Earth's orbit.
But that can be easily proved by gathering samples from Moon and Ceres (maybe not right from the surface... but little drilling should be enough for this). If both Moon and Ceres formed on near by orbits they should have common composition?

 

1 hour ago, peadar1987 said:

1b. No, you can push it along the ground, you can put it on wheels, or skates, or skis. The gravitational force and the reaction force from the ground cancel each other out, the only net force applied is the one you are providing. As for the force of gravity, well, everything we see in orbit behaves as if it is experiencing a force proportional to the product of its mass and the mass of the parent body, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Every probe we have launched, every planet, moon, binary star, comet, exoplanet we have ever observed obeys this rule. If you can find a flaw in it and come up with a better explanation that does not involve the concept of mass, be my guest. I guarantee you will not be able to.

2b. No. Nobody does. So your hypothesis has no grounding in fact or reality, and flies in the face of many well-established scientific principles.

3b. Radioactive decay works the same no matter what physical forces you place on the nuclei. And the total amount of heat generated will be the same whether the decay occurs in the core or in the mantle. Unless you want to challenge another piece of established science.

1b. Proportional to estimated mass, because we only estimate mass of planets and stars.
Sure give me some time... Newton didn't came up with his equation within single weekend

2b That is why I call it hypothesis and I am searching (waiting until some observatory finds such planet and moon for me) for more samples. http://www.utahpeoplespost.com/2015/07/jupiters-twin-planet/

3b. Nope, I don't want to change that one, I just wonder does this process can be "fed" by melting more material that surrounds Earth's core... if yes then tides caused by Moon can extend "life" of our magnetic field.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Darnok

[p1t1o]

52 minutes ago, Darnok said:

2. What error? Where? How large?

An extremely basic error in trigonometry:

x^2 + 1 =/= x^2

52 minutes ago, Darnok said:

1. Show me how you calculated acceleration without using mass.

Umm....measuring change in position over time? Am I missing something?

 

52 minutes ago, Darnok said:

As far as I know we measured speed of light on only one planet (sample with single case) and we assumed it works same way on every spot of universe? 
So sample of size one is enough for scientific theory, if author name is Albert, but it is not good enough to even start considering hypothesis of unknown author?

So...do you want to use a single datapoint or not? I have seen you go to the mat for both sides of that now.

 

52 minutes ago, Darnok said:

tidal forces created by Moon "feed" Earth core with additional radioactive material...

This is not possible. Nor is there a lack of molten material surrounding the core.

 

52 minutes ago, Darnok said:

That is why I call it hypothesis and I am searching (waiting until some observatory finds such planet and moon for me) for more samples.

This is not a hypothesis. Thinking up a hypothesis in your head and then searching for evidence is a fool's errand.

hypothesis

noun

 

1. a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

 

You seem to be very excited by the concept of using science to explore the universe around you, and by the idea that science can open up previously unseen worlds to an observer, and explain things that are seen as inexplicable by those in the dark.

However, at all points you seem to take the cart before the horse. Real science only very rarely involves moments of extreme excitement and wonder where previously held ideas are turned on their heads. In reality it is about copius amounts of reading, cross-checking, referencing, tabulating, collating, re-reading, re-checking, explaining, writing, filing and checking. And then you might be able to say something little about something little. Do this a thousand times and you can say something slightly bigger about something slightly bigger.

It is very heartening to see someone so enthusiastic, however, it is very irritating for people who like to help explain things (because nobody is ever expected to know things, not everybody is a scientist, even if they are there are infinite disciplines) when said explanation are shot down in preference for an arbitrarily generated idea supported by...mistakes. It implies a strong lack of respect for...anyone.

I said it before: read, read, read. Trust* established science. Stand on the shoulders of giants. 

 

*At first. And by "at first" I mean, "until you are a giant in the field". This is because established science is based on SO. SO. MANY. DATAPOINTS. SO MANY. I CAN'T EVEN...

 

Peace.

1.  

    

    

    

Edited February 18, 2016 by p1t1o

[Darnok]

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

1 An extremely basic error in trigonometry:

x^2 + 1 =/= x^2

2 Umm....measuring change in position over time? Am I missing something?

3 So...do you want to use a single datapoint or not? I have seen you go to the mat for both sides of that now.

4 This is not possible. Nor is there a lack of molten material surrounding the core.

5 This is not a hypothesis. Thinking up a hypothesis in your head and then searching for evidence is a fool's errand.

hypothesis

noun

 

1. a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

6 However, at all points you seem to take the cart before the horse. Real science

I said it before: read, read, read. Trust* established science. Stand on the shoulders of giants. 

*At first. And by "at first" I mean, "until you are a giant in the field". This is because established science is based on SO. SO. MANY. DATAPOINTS. SO MANY. I CAN'T EVEN...

1. Where I used that equation? I hope you read my other posts more carefully.

2. Yes, source of forces. Just to be clear... I said that mass-model is just our current interpretation of things that we can observe, not that there is no interactions between objects in universe.
Look even @peadar1987 finally wrote "If you can find a flaw in it and come up with a better explanation that does not involve the concept of mass, be my guest" this is all I am talking about a different concept (hopefully simpler and more accurate).

3. Sure, single data point is enough for making hypothesis as quoted by you definition says  "limited evidence as a starting point"

4. Ok, maybe you are right.

5. goto 3

6. Real science is based on evidence, so I can say for 100% sure I am right, that is why I am waiting for more samples.

Trust estab... what?
Progress from science comes from different ways of thinking and different interpretations of nature, not from single established, forced and most popular way of thinking.

[peadar1987]

4 hours ago, Darnok said:

1. Show me how you calculated acceleration without using mass. There is no point in discussion with you if you say that mass has to exist because only equation you know to calculate forces between bodies have to use mass.

2. What error? Where? How large?

As far as I know we measured speed of light on only one planet (sample with single case) and we assumed it works same way on every spot of universe? 
So sample of size one is enough for scientific theory, if author name is Albert, but it is not good enough to even start considering hypothesis of unknown author?

3. I was talking about something else... read my last post again.
My hypothesis is:
tidal forces created by Moon "feed" Earth core with additional radioactive material by changing shape of core and at same time melting more rocks around it. What adds more fuel for core, so it can burn longer.

4. My version comes from hypothesis that Neptune's current orbit isn't its original orbit, during billions of years Neptunes orbit could change, but this is topic for different thread.
What fits in here is that same event that pushed Neptune to new orbit could push Ceres out of Earth's orbit.
But that can be easily proved by gathering samples from Moon and Ceres (maybe not right from the surface... but little drilling should be enough for this). If both Moon and Ceres formed on near by orbits they should have common composition?

 

1b. Proportional to estimated mass, because we only estimate mass of planets and stars.
Sure give me some time... Newton didn't came up with his equation within single weekend

2b That is why I call it hypothesis and I am searching (waiting until some observatory finds such planet and moon for me) for more samples. http://www.utahpeoplespost.com/2015/07/jupiters-twin-planet/

3b. Nope, I don't want to change that one, I just wonder does this process can be "fed" by melting more material that surrounds Earth's core... if yes then tides caused by Moon can extend "life" of our magnetic field.

1. You measure how far it travels in a given time. Then you use the equation s=u*t+0.5*a*t² to calculate the acceleration. No need to know the mass beforehand.

2. In the diagram of the earth and moon. Taking the centre of the moon at the reference angle, you have the opposite as 1, the hypotenuse as Phi, and the adjacent as the square root of Phi.

3. That's not really how that works. The radioactive material will decay according to a stochastic process, generating the same amount of heat regardless of whether it is in the core or not. I do genuinely appreciate the effort at coming up with a solution though.

4. Yes, but you are using circular reasoning in your model in that case. You say your model is valid because it fits the orbits of the planets, as predicted using your model. You're right in saying that the moon and Ceres should have similar composition if they had formed near each other. We don't know the exact composition of Ceres yet, but its density is only 62.6% that of the moon (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=density+of+ceres%2Fdensity+of+the+moon), so it is fair to say that the two bodies have radically different composition. Before you say it, yes, this is assuming that mass is a thing you can work out from orbital periods.

1b. Fair enough, but everything agrees with each other on this. If we look at, say Jupiter, its mass as predicted by the orbits of its moons is consistent with it being composed primarily of hydrogen with some helium. When we do a spectroscopic analysis of the atmosphere it is composed of hydrogen and helium. The magnetic field is consistent with their being a metallic hydrogen core, which is also exactly what you would expect would happen if a mass of hydrogen and helium the same as we have estimated Jupiter to be existed.

2b. The problem isn't even that you have one data point, the problem is that you have come up with a general hypothesis before you have nearly enough data, and it's not backed up by other knowns.

3b. See 3

[insert_name]

9 hours ago, Darnok said:

1. Where I used that equation? I hope you read my other posts more carefully.

2. Yes, source of forces. Just to be clear... I said that mass-model is just our current interpretation of things that we can observe, not that there is no interactions between objects in universe.
Look even @peadar1987 finally wrote "If you can find a flaw in it and come up with a better explanation that does not involve the concept of mass, be my guest" this is all I am talking about a different concept (hopefully simpler and more accurate).

3. Sure, single data point is enough for making hypothesis as quoted by you definition says  "limited evidence as a starting point"

4. Ok, maybe you are right.

5. goto 3

6. Real science is based on evidence, so I can say for 100% sure I am right, that is why I am waiting for more samples.

Trust estab... what?
Progress from science comes from different ways of thinking and different interpretations of nature, not from single established, forced and most popular way of thinking.

1. what concept do you have to replace mass, magic?

2. hypothesizes should not be defended as fact

3. you seem to be trying to adapt data to your hypothesis, instead of adapting your hypothesis to the data like rational people do

4. back to your hypothesis, some forms of life could survive on mars, thus making it habitable. mars does not fit your rule

Edited February 19, 2016 by insert_name

[fredinno]

3 hours ago, insert_name said:

1. what concept do you have to replace mass, magic?

2. hypothesizes should not be defended as fact

3. you seem to be trying to adapt data to your hypothesis, instead of adapting your hypothesis to the data like rational people do

4. back to your hypothesis, some forms of life could survive on mars, thus making it habitable. mars does not fit your rule

Guys, this is really off topic.

[Frybert]

Is this second moon made of cheese? Because after we sent a few guys to confirm that the one we have is 100% not made of cheese we sure lost interest in it quickly.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Frybert said:

Is this second moon made of cheese? Because after we sent a few guys to confirm that the one we have is 100% not made of cheese we sure lost interest in it quickly.

I'mnot sure how you can make enough cheeze to make a moon out of it.

[Darnok]

17 hours ago, peadar1987 said:

1. You measure how far it travels in a given time. Then you use the equation s=u*t+0.5*a*t² to calculate the acceleration. No need to know the mass beforehand.

2. In the diagram of the earth and moon. Taking the centre of the moon at the reference angle, you have the opposite as 1, the hypotenuse as Phi, and the adjacent as the square root of Phi.

3. That's not really how that works. The radioactive material will decay according to a stochastic process, generating the same amount of heat regardless of whether it is in the core or not. I do genuinely appreciate the effort at coming up with a solution though.

4. Yes, but you are using circular reasoning in your model in that case. You say your model is valid because it fits the orbits of the planets, as predicted using your model. You're right in saying that the moon and Ceres should have similar composition if they had formed near each other. We don't know the exact composition of Ceres yet, but its density is only 62.6% that of the moon (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=density+of+ceres%2Fdensity+of+the+moon), so it is fair to say that the two bodies have radically different composition. Before you say it, yes, this is assuming that mass is a thing you can work out from orbital periods.

1b. Fair enough, but everything agrees with each other on this. If we look at, say Jupiter, its mass as predicted by the orbits of its moons is consistent with it being composed primarily of hydrogen with some helium. When we do a spectroscopic analysis of the atmosphere it is composed of hydrogen and helium. The magnetic field is consistent with their being a metallic hydrogen core, which is also exactly what you would expect would happen if a mass of hydrogen and helium the same as we have estimated Jupiter to be existed.

2b. The problem isn't even that you have one data point, the problem is that you have come up with a general hypothesis before you have nearly enough data, and it's not backed up by other knowns.

3b. See 3

1. ok

2. And what is wrong with that?

3. ok

4. According to NASA(link)  Mean density Moon/Earth is 0.606, so if Ceres/Moon density is 0.626... I am on the right track

1b Sure it does, but that is because we estimate mass of Jupiter using calculated mass of known volume of hydrogen and helium. Then it is impossible it wouldn't work.

2b Just like mass wasn't backed up by anything in Newton times or relativity while Einstein was alive. They just made up things, made some math to prove their models and others agreed with this.

 

[Darnok]

10 hours ago, insert_name said:

1. what concept do you have to replace mass, magic?

2. hypothesizes should not be defended as fact

3. you seem to be trying to adapt data to your hypothesis, instead of adapting your hypothesis to the data like rational people do

4. back to your hypothesis, some forms of life could survive on mars, thus making it habitable. mars does not fit your rule

1. I don't know yet...

2. I am defending it as hypothesis, while I got feeling some in here say it is very wrong to even start thinking about that kind of hypothesis.

3. It all depends how you interpret data. There are tons of different experiments done and you can make different interpretation of "what was studied" and "what results means".

4. Can you live on Mars without using  any technology?

Edited February 19, 2016 by Darnok

[peadar1987]

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

1. ok

2. And what is wrong with that?

3. ok

4. According to NASA(link)  Mean density Moon/Earth is 0.606, so if Ceres/Moon density is 0.626... I am on the right track

1b Sure it does, but that is because we estimate mass of Jupiter using calculated mass of known volume of hydrogen and helium. Then it is impossible it wouldn't work.

2b Just like mass wasn't backed up by anything in Newton times or relativity while Einstein was alive. They just made up things, made some math to prove their models and others agreed with this.

 

2. Pythagoras' Theorem: H²=O²+A². If the Hypotenuse has length Phi and the Opposite length 1, the Adjacent will have length (Phi²+1)^0.5

4. Well, not really. The moon is less dense than the earth because it is composed primarily of rocky material with a proportionally smaller iron core, suggesting it was formed from the debris of a collision between earth and Theia. Ceres is less dense than the moon because it is formed of partially differentiated rock and water ice, suggesting it formed further out, close to or beyond the frost line.

1b. My point was that Jupiter's gravitational mass, as can be calculated by the orbit of its moons and the probes we've sent there, is pretty much the exact same as the mass we get if we look at its composition as determined by spectroscopy. And the same holds for all other bodies we can do this for. That's one heck of a coincidence if mass isn't a thing.

2b. I don't think you quite understand. Inertial mass is something that is extremely well-known, and can easily be demonstrated, as in the "push something and see what happens" example I gave before. Gravitational mass is backed up by every orbiting body we've ever seen, as well as more complicated effects like gravitational lensing. There is no other explanation that even comes close to the predictive accuracy of the theory of gravity. This isn't just fitting a theory to the data we can see. Every time we've discovered a new moon, every time we've launched a satellite or probe to any body, it has behaved as if the law of gravitation is true. Even earthbound experiments, like that carried out on Schiehallion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment) or the Cavendish experiment using lead spheres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment)