What if the Earth had a 2nd moon?

[Darnok]

1 hour ago, peadar1987 said:

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)

2. This is exact reason why I am criticizing most of scientific work... just because this works for billions of different cases you didn't made "experiment" in this case, you are standing on shoulders of giant... and you estimated that my equation is wrong...

well it isn't wrong because phi isn't common number it is mathematical constant and it has unique properties:

phi² = phi + 1

1/phi = phi - 1
 

4. I would like to see some studies on this topic (Ceres) as much as results of same studies performed in exact same way on Moon.
Because I suspect that if you study Moon with exact same rule, that you used on Ceres, it will tell you that Moon shouldn't form on Earth's orbit.

[KAL 9000]

On February 18, 2016 at 4:40 AM, 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.

With your Titus-Bode law/ratios thing: So, you have a sample size of one (Earth/Solar System), and yet you apply a coincidental ratio to every habitable planet/solar system in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE? Waaaaat?

[Darnok]

Just now, KAL 9000 said:

With your Titus-Bode law/ratios thing: So, you have a sample size of one (Earth/Solar System), and yet you apply a coincidental ratio to every habitable planet/solar system in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE? Waaaaat?

I can say same thing about speed of light... you have sample size of one (we measured speed of light in vacuum only on Earth) and yet you are applying this for entire universe

[KAL 9000]

2 minutes ago, Darnok said:

I can say same thing about speed of light... you have sample size of one (we measured speed of light in vacuum only on Earth) and yet you are applying this for entire universe

Actually, we measured it in space too, and the equivalence principle says the basic physical laws and mathematical constants (not things like the Titus-Bode law and coincidental ratios) are the same everywhere in the universe. And Einstein says so. And if Einstein says so, it's probably right .

[peadar1987]

16 minutes ago, Darnok said:

2. This is exact reason why I am criticizing most of scientific work... just because this works for billions of different cases you didn't made "experiment" in this case, you are standing on shoulders of giant... and you estimated that my equation is wrong...

well it isn't wrong because phi isn't common number it is mathematical constant and it has unique properties:

phi² = phi + 1

1/phi = phi - 1
 

4. I would like to see some studies on this topic (Ceres) as much as results of same studies performed in exact same way on Moon.
Because I suspect that if you study Moon with exact same rule, that you used on Ceres, it will tell you that Moon shouldn't form on Earth's orbit.

2. Fair enough. My mistake. It doesn't change the fact that this is just a cute numerological trick though. A coincidence until proven otherwise. 

4. The composition of the moon is consistent with what would be expected of a body that had formed in about the same orbit as earth. i.e. fairly poor in volatiles like water, unlike Ceres. The fact that the earth has a more massive iron core, relatively speaking is hypothesised to be as a result of the collision. Theia and earth collided and merged, with much of their surfaces being thrown into orbit. When things quietened down, the remains of earth and Theia had combined to form the new earth, whereas the surface material coalesced to form the moon. This is a simplistic explanation, but is fairly accurate. When we model this using principles that are easily verified, we come up with pretty much the situation we see today. That's not to say this is set in stone, but it does make it the best explanation we currently have.

[Darnok]

5 minutes ago, KAL 9000 said:

Actually, we measured it in space too, and the equivalence principle says the basic physical laws and mathematical constants (not things like the Titus-Bode law and coincidental ratios) are the same everywhere in the universe. And Einstein says so. And if Einstein says so, it's probably right .

Titus-bode law is for bodies orbiting stars, while for moons we have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermott's_law

 

9 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

2. Fair enough. My mistake. It doesn't change the fact that this is just a cute numerological trick though. A coincidence until proven otherwise. 

4. The composition of the moon is consistent with what would be expected of a body that had formed in about the same orbit as earth. i.e. fairly poor in volatiles like water, unlike Ceres. The fact that the earth has a more massive iron core, relatively speaking is hypothesised to be as a result of the collision. Theia and earth collided and merged, with much of their surfaces being thrown into orbit. When things quietened down, the remains of earth and Theia had combined to form the new earth, whereas the surface material coalesced to form the moon. This is a simplistic explanation, but is fairly accurate. When we model this using principles that are easily verified, we come up with pretty much the situation we see today. That's not to say this is set in stone, but it does make it the best explanation we currently have.

2. If you have any spare observatory it may help to speed things up

4. you have +1 for bold part.

[KAL 9000]

4 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Titus-bode law is for bodies orbiting stars, while for moons we have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermott's_law

 

2. If you have any spare observatory it may help to speed things up

4. you have +1 for bold part.

So what?

[NFUN]

Here. Now we don't have to be off topic.

[fredinno]

24 minutes ago, NFUN said:

Here. Now we don't have to be off topic.

Yeah, itsn't this still off topic?

[insert_name]

On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 6:08 AM, Darnok said:

2. This is exact reason why I am criticizing most of scientific work... just because this works for billions of different cases you didn't made "experiment" in this case, you are standing on shoulders of giant... and you estimated that my equation is wrong...

well it isn't wrong because phi isn't common number it is mathematical constant and it has unique properties:

phi² = phi + 1

1/phi = phi - 1
 

4. I would like to see some studies on this topic (Ceres) as much as results of same studies performed in exact same way on Moon.
Because I suspect that if you study Moon with exact same rule, that you used on Ceres, it will tell you that Moon shouldn't form on Earth's orbit.

so you say that it is possible that Pythagorean theorem doesn't work. Do you have any proof of this or is this you saying that everyone who knew about math for the last couple millennia have been fooled by the aliens you said came from planet 9?

[NFUN]

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 4:06 PM, fredinno said:

Yeah, itsn't this still off topic?

It isn't off-topic in that thread.

[magnemoe]

On 19.2.2016 at 3:55 PM, KAL 9000 said:

Actually, we measured it in space too, and the equivalence principle says the basic physical laws and mathematical constants (not things like the Titus-Bode law and coincidental ratios) are the same everywhere in the universe. And Einstein says so. And if Einstein says so, it's probably right .

An major difference, speed of light works inside our solar system, light speed delay with communication with probes for one. Its also ancored in an theoretical framework who says its constant and Einsteins theories has proven to be right. 
Titus-Bode law is at best rules of thumb laws, based on underlying physic, you can not have planets too close or orbits become unstable for one. 
At worst its just random luck like an order of lotto numbers.
Then we map more solar systems in details we will know more.