1st or only in our galaxy?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Dinosaur, Sep 14, 2005.

  1. fo3 acdcrocks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    Thanks for the graphs.. I was just trying to draw this on a piece of paper, but it didn't go too well..
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Thanks - if you did not cheat, you won the argument easily. Even if you did, you sure made your point very clearly.

    You have also partially answered my first of two questions. I.e at least with a separation a significant fraction of the current Earth/Moon separation any mass circling (not "orbiting") Earth at a fixed distance is not a satellite of the Earth, but part of the Earth / Moon dual planet system. Since you made the graphs so quickly will you repeat it again but with the moon at the Roche limit. This will answer my new question below:

    Has the Moon ever been a satellite of the Earth?

    You comments on the original questions would be appreciated also.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 17, 2005
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,394
    As long as the Moon was ever closer than 260,000 km, yes.(Assuming that we define a satellite as a body that is more greatly attracted to the Earth than it is to the Sun.)
    Okay.

    1. 260,000 km. With the caveat that I wouldn't consider just any body greater than that distance as a "planet" . To be considered a planet I would expect the body to be massive enough that gravity is the major factor in the shape it takes. (IOW, large enough to be pulled into a spherical shape by its own gravity.)

    2. With the above caveat about waht would constitute a planet, I do believe that there is at least one man-made object that could be locked in a sychronized solar orbit with the Earth.
    In 2002, An object was discovered that was thought could be a another moon of the Earth. It turned out to be a booster from the Apollo 12 mission. It had been in Solar orbit unitil it recently was recaptured by the Earth.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    to Janus58:

    We seem to have three different definitions, in only this thread, of what a satellite is:

    (1) Mine (from a prior post implicitly gives one whle it defines what a dual planet system is):
    “If the orbits of two bodies orbiting their star are both always concave towards the star, but each can sometimes be closer to the star than the other, then they constitute a dual planet system, and neither is a satellite of the other.” (The “but…” condition is required to keep, for example, Earth and Mars from being a dual planet system.)

    (2) Dinosaur’s (also from prior post of this thread):
    “If you superimpose a plot of a true satellite on its planet’s orbit, you see loops…”

    (3) And yours:
    “we define a satellite as a body that is more greatly attracted to the Earth than it is to the Sun. … plus the additional requirement that self gravity should make it roughly spherical“ - Be careful the little planet people may take you to court for discrimination based on size

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Certainly yours is the easiest to apply, but I prefer mine as with it the moon is not both a satellite and a planet as it is with yours. I would like to suggest that Dinosaur's be adopted as the definiton of a NEO satellite, but that is no good if geo-stationary satellites can show loops.

    Thanks for the answer to my second of two questions, but that leads me to ask: How did Earth capture the spent rocket in a two body inter action? ( I am assuming from your statement “It had been in Solar orbit until it recently was recaptured by the Earth“ that it was for some period not bound to the Earth. I.e. how did it get bound with negative potential again?) Perhaps it is not again bound to the earth - that could be the case if it is at one of the two stable Earth/sun Lagrange points, but if it is there Jupiter will surely set it free soon as those points are not very deep "holes."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 18, 2005
  8. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    Janus58: Thanx for correcting me. Your analysis seems valid.

    I was surprised by your diagram of Callistro’s orbit. I thought that Luna was the only satellite in the solar system which does not have “loops” in its orbital path.

    Now that you have mentioned it, I realize that a satellite can reverse direction relative to its planet’s orbital path while always traveling in the same direction (clockwise or counterclockwise) relative to the sun. After reading your post, it took very little analysis for me to realize that my concept on this issue was dead wrong.

    I suppose that a not bad definition of a satellite orbit would be that a satellite reverses direction relative to its planet’s orbital path (Id est: An orbital path with “loops”).

    I suppose it is possible for a satellite to have an orbital path with cusps, which seems strange. This would be the critical case between a satellite orbit and a perturbed planetary orbit.

    I think this is the 3rd (maybe 4th or 5th?) time I have admitted being wrong in some Thread at this site. Might this be a record?
     
  9. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,394
    At one time, I briefly thought the same thing, until I actually analysed the orbital paths.
     
  10. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,394
     
  11. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    It does not. It was late and I was not expressing my idea/ concern well. Of course, the moon is not both satellite and planet (either by my definition distinuishing them: "Planets are always concave to sun", etc. or by yours: "If sun's gravity is stronger than that of near by body, it is a planet" Both definitions make the moon a planet.)

    My dislike for your definition of a "satellite" MAY continue because I was not entirely happy with your answer to my first question. You said in answer: at more than 260,000km, the satellite becomes a planet. (This form is "Earth bound", not general, so I corrected that in my restatement of your definition above, as clearly that is your intent.)

    If an objects "circling" Earth at 259,000km has parts of its solar orbit convex, I have no problem accepting your more simple (to apply) definition, for the Earth at least, but if this "259 satellite" (satellite by your definiton) always has only concave curvature in the solar orbit, then it would be a planet by my definition. Thus to accept to accept your definition distinguishing satellite from planet, I would need to abandon my definition that distinguish satellite from planet. It is not just "pride of ownership", (especially since my definition is built entirely on information you surprised me with) that makes me defend my definition. Let me try to state why I MAY object to your definition more accurately (at least without the erroneous "It makes moon both planet and satellite" statement):

    I distinguish "planet" from "satellite" by the curvature of their solar orbits. You by the balance point of solar and near by body gravity. I am almost sure that by your definiton the "261 planet" or "barely a planet" planet of Earth could be a satellite of Neptune even if it were slightly more distant from Neptune than from Earth (Neptune's "265 satellite"). (Solar gravity at Neptune is much less and Neptune is much bigger than Earth so Neptune's 265 is surely a satellite by your definition.) It probably is still a satellite by my definition also as Neptune is progressing more slowly (angular rate) around the sun than Earth. But, are your sure that the more distant "just barely a Neptune satellite" (by your definition) does not have only concave curvature to sun, which would make it a planet by my definition? If it does have any convex part, then by my definition it is a satelite also. Certainly if the most distant satellite of Neptune were circling Earth at that distant, your definition would convert it from satellite to planet, but mine might not.
    I suspect that even if mine also converts that most distant Neptune satellite into a planet, there may be some satellite of Nepturn that you definition converts to a planet if moved to orbit Earth at same separation, but my definition may lets it remain a satellite of Earth also.
    I also suspect that some satellite of Neptune or some "extra massive Neptune" (your definition of satellite) could, at the same separation from Earth, just be a planet (your definition of satellite and planet). for example Earth's "planet 261" is surely Neptune's "satellite 261" It might still be a Neptune satellite by my definition also, i.e. exhibiting some convex curvature wrt the sun.
    Very hard to express my concern with your definition clearly. No wonder I failed last night. Not sure I have it correct, and clear yet. Hope you see my concern. I want the definition to keep satellite a satellite of the larger body no mater how distant from the sun the "larger body" is, if the separation of satellite from "larger body" is held constant. I am not sure whose defition does this better. Perhaps both fail this test, but I strongly think yours fails.

    What do you think? Is not my (stolen from you) definition better than yours?

    Now a new point/ question. (It seem the more I learn from you, the more questions I have to ask you.)

    You have shown that more than 2/3 of the gravity acting on moon comes from the sun (If one ignores fact gravity on moon is a single gravity field, not two separate ones.) That makes me realize that when the moon is on far side of Earth from sun it has roughly 3 units of gravity but only 1 unit of gravity when on the near sun side. Consequently moon's orbit must be far from any ellipse - Like most others here, prior to your post, I assumed (without thought) that Earth's gravity was very dominate, even that the sun's could be neglected!)

    New question:

    Can you describe, mathematically, the idealized shape of the moon's orbit as a funtion of its Earth/ sun gravity ratio? (the "1 to 2" or some other such characterization like 2/3 etc.) I suspect not, as the "three body problem" has no analytic solution, but perhaps you know a reasonable simple mathematical discription that is approximately correct?

    Reason I ask is I am looking for "eggoid equations." If you have never looked at my threads "Jell-0 ..." OR "Co- authors wanted ...." please do so. I think all of the "gravity is a cosmic flux, not intrinsic to matter" concepts can be demolished by the "virtual work" / math approach outlined there. The "co- authors..." thread is a half finished draft of a paper that may be sent to a math/physic journal. It mainly lacks a few 3D integrations still. Perhaps you would become a co-author? I.e. do some of these integrations.


    PS your "L1" answer to another question was both satisfying and interesting. Interesting because the common knowledge that capture is impossible without a "third body" is not exactly accurate. A "virtual third body" formed by two others will do.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 18, 2005
  12. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I want to appoligize to Dinosaur for helping steal / steer his thread far fom topic, but doubt if he minds as both he and I have learnd a lot form Janus58. Also it was Dinosaur who first took us on this lunar turn - I.e., it is all his fault

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Perhaps we can return to topic now. To help this, I again post some earlier coments of mine:

    I did not understand Ophiolite’s point about plate tectonics cycles encouraging advanced life forms nor why he asserts that: “inward migration of gas giants is a commonplace occurrence” Perhaps he will explain more fully.
    I note that which way they are migrating is not an empirical fact. Only “large planets” that are relatively near their sun can be discovered by current techniques Thus fact the known ones are both relative closer to their sun than Jupiter and larger than Jupiter can not be taken as evidence for this migration.
    The moon is migrating AWAY from the Earth because of tidal interactions, but this fact may not be a strong counter argument against the Ophiolite’s “towards star migration” as it simplistically appears to be, because I think that under certain conditions, which I can no longer recall, the lesser body can even escape from the greater by tidal interactions, although it may take infinite amount of time to do so as these interact rapidly weaken as the separation increases.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 18, 2005
  13. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,394
    First off, I have not given any actual definition for what I would consider a Planet. While the relative strengths of the gravitational attraction to the Sun and another body might be one factor to consider, There are other things to consider.(BTW, the distance at which these two equal each other is the boundary between completely concave heliocentric path or not. Also, the 260,000km figure is only for the Earth; Each ppanet would have its own boundary point.)

    For example, if you had Earth mass bodies of equal (or even near equal size), that were separated by 160,000km, and thus neither followed a completely concave orbital path around the Sun, I would find it difficult not to still classify them both as planets.

    Conversely, I would not classify a 2 kiloton rock co-orbiting with the Earth at a distance of 400,000 km as a planet. (otherwise every piece of rock orbiting the Sun in an independent Solar orbit would have to be considered a planet.) So you must have a lower mass cutoff for classification of Planet.

    Obviously, size is a large factor. But not just size alone either. Ganymede is large enough that if it were in a solar orbit it would probably been called a planet, but it orbits Jupiter so it is a moon. This seems only right as it is so small compared to Jupiter. Thus with paired systems we should consider the mass ratio of the pair.

    Thus I might consider a staring point for the definition of Planet:

    1.A body of a certain minimum mass.
    2.Which
    a. Either orbits the Sun in an idependent orbit
    Or
    b. Co-orbits the Sun with another body at a distance greater than that at which the gravitational attraction between it and the Sun equals that between it and the other body.
    or
    c.Co-orbits the Sun with another body at a distance less than that at which the gravitational attraction between it and the Sun equals that between it and the other body and has a mass of at least 1/100 of the other body while still being greater than the minumum mass of rule one.

    (1) Allows us to elliminate asteroids and Such.
    (2a) Covers the conventional planets
    (2b) Allows for bodies that meet (1) but are loosely gravitationally bound to another body (Ganymede would fit this rule if it were moved out to beyond Sinope.
    (2c) Allow for Double planets such as I mentioned above, but still keeps the The large Jupiter moons as satellites of Jupiter. (this ratio is just a suggestion, and could be fine tuned.)

    Remember, the Sun acts on the Earth too, so you have to take the differential across the Earth-moon system to get any net force pulling on the Moon's orbit. (in effect, since the 2 units of graivty act on both the earth and moon, it pretty much drops out when considering the Earth-moon system alone). The moon is slightly closer to the sun when it is on the near sun side than it is on the far side, and this does cause a small tidal effect across the orbit. As a result, the moon's orbit is stretched a little bit along the line joining the Earth and Sun. This has the effect of increasing the eccentricity of the Moon's Earth orbit slightly when the major axis aligns with the Earth and Sun and the effect of decreasing the eccentricity when the minor axis does.
     
  14. Lucas Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    447
    I happen to have the issue of October 2001, and in it, I read that the author of the article, Guillermo Gonzalez, was also the person that proposed the concept of GHZ, concretely in 1999, so maybe he can be a bit biased in his conclusions, as 2inquisitive noted. I don't think that we are the only intelligent civilization of the Galaxy, I bet that there are 2 or 3 more at least
     
  15. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Thanks. Glad to see there is no difference between "my definition" (really one stolen from your superior knowledge in these matters) and the excessively simple one I put in your mouth. All your points are well taken. Thanks for putting up with me. I too am patient with some one ignorgant, but obviously trying to learn, however, If I were you and and you were me, I think by now I would have at least become irritated enough to complain or make a few jokes at your expense. Thanks a again. - I have learned a lot from you. I think we can let the thread return to topic now, as I suggested in recent post.
     
  16. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Seems like we're thinking inside the box. We're assuming that all life has to be like life here. DNA, or at least carbon-based organic molecules and water. Maybe silicon-based if we really stretch the envelope.

    Sci fi writers with plenty of credentials in real science have been postulating other types of life for decades.
     
  17. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it..."
     
  18. Physics Monkey Snow Monkey and Physicist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    Mr. Spock rules.
     

Share This Page