Slashdot Mirror
Earth's Moon is a Rarity
Smivs writes "Scientists have concluded that moons like the Earth's are actually quite rare. Only 5-10% of planetary systems are likely to contain moons formed by planetary collisions. 'By the time the Earth's moon formed, when the Sun was 30 million years old, the planet formation process in our Solar System should have been approaching its end. In the latest study, Dr Gorlova's team looked at the heat signature of stars using the infrared. This allows astronomers to predict how much of that heat comes from the star itself and how much is re-emitted by dusty material encircling it.'"
What's also rarer is that OUR moon has a face on it. I don't see any other planets having moons with faces on them. So all these other loser planets just gotta admit that our moon is better than their moon.
Side note: In The End of Eternity, we developed time travel before space travel, and so never colonised the galaxy until we eventually discovered hyperspace in the 130,000th century and found that the galaxy was already full of other species and we had no room to expand. Eventually those from near the human extinction altered history to make sure time travel was not invented and thus ensure the expansion into a galactic empire. Apparently the idiots who wrote the sequel trilogy a few years ago failed to read this book (or Robots and Empire), and retcon'd the robots in as Eternals who killed off all competing intelligences in a bizarre and nonsensical addition.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Isn't this rather old news? I thought that it was already pretty well known that Luna is rather rare, as shown in the Rare Earth hypothesis?
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
.. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
And with us "our" moon?
That's no moon. and you're on Alderaan. buckle up.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Not only are moons rare, but earth's moon is actually the fifth largest in our solar system. Considering how small our planet is and how big our moon is, I would say it's probably extremely rare to find similarities like this in the universe.
Full Tilt
I suggest you learn how to use these if you want anyone to actually attempt to read your drivel.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Bunch of lunatics.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Ignignokt: Our race is hundreds of years beyond yours. Err: Man, you hear what he's sayin'? Ignignokt: Some would say that the earth is our moon. Err: We're the moon. Ignignokt: But that would belittle the name of our moon...which is "The Moon". Err: Point is: We're at the center, not you. Carl: No, the real point is I don't give a damn.
Theres 200 people in the room..10 to 20 of them have a birthmark on their left cheek... how RARE.
Theres 2000 people in the room..100 to 200 of them have a birthmark on their left cheek... how RARE.
Given distances between galaxies 5 to 10 percent seems rare, but if distance didn't matter then this percentage is hardly RARE considering the vastness of the universe, and number of galaxies.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Not according to official definitions for binary systems, because the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system is less than the radius of the major body, in this case Earth. On the other hand, Pluto-Charon system has a barycenter above the surface of Pluto, hence it is a binary planet (well, dwarf planet) system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_planet
Please direct all bug reports to
To be honest, I'm not convinced that you can take a SF plot device and run away with it too far in the real world.
1. Radiation. Actually, Earth probably has the least radiation problem in the solar system, because of its strong magnetic field.
Venus, for example, started extremely similar to Earth but was doomed because its dynamo stopped (and was probably weaker to start with). So the solar wind stripped away all hydrogen, leaving it with an atmosphere of CO2.
Mars hardly has a dynamo because its core froze already. Fat lot of good it did for intelligent life there.
Mercury. Ditto. Its magnetic field is at a whole 0.1% of Earths.
So even when you factor in the different mass and conditions, it seems to me like Earth is unique in having too _strong_ shielding, not in needing some plot device to weaken it.
2. (Or 1a.) If allowing more radiation in was better, you don't need a moon for that. Just rotate slower.
(And indeed the way I remember it, the collision theory says that the same collision that created the moon actually accelerated Earth's rotation a lot.)
Or lose your water, which stops plate tectonics, which kills off the dynamo. Easy.
In fact, you need a whole bunch of special conditions to _keep_ your shielding. Losing it seems more like the norm for a rocky planet in the right band to not turn into a snowball. If the moon's positive influence were punching a hole in our shield... heh... then a lot of planets would get there without a moon just as well.
3. Mutations. Longer text, so have patience please.
Well, this is stuff that happens anyway, simply because some UV gets through, there are radioactive elements in the soil, and even because simply errors happen when transcribing DNA. Especially look again at the last parts: even if you kept something under a slab of lead, without UV or cosmic radiation at all, it would still mutate.
Most of the history of life (except for virii, some bacteria and your immune system) was about _preventing_ mutations. Your cells have layers upon layers of defenses against that kind of thing. Starting with the very fact that you're DNA instead of RNA based, and all the repair proteins, and it goes on and on.
Heck, even the fact that you age is a defense against cancer, i.e., against mutation. Your cells start with a max division counter and literally count divisions. So if that mechanism didn't break down too, a tumour would reach a maximum size and stop. Unfortunately that also means that as more and more of your cells reach that limit natuarally, there's more and more damage which can't be repaired, and you discover the fun of old age.
At any rate, any multi-cellular kind of life, actively fights off mutations. Simply because you can't exceed a certain complexity without preventing mutations. You can't have a body consisting of gazillions of cells, if they don't obey the rules. If cells in your palm randomly tried to evolve into a nose, your left foot tried to become a palm, etc, your body would break apart pretty fast.
You also have to understand that this all happens on a "good enough" basis. Your body could evolve even more fool-proof defenses -- and through the billions of years it has, slowly -- but beyond a point they wouldn't be worth the extra complexity and energy requirements. Plus, in the long term, perfect repairs would also mean an inability to evolve. So anything that got too good at it just disappeared later in the next glaciation, when it was unable to evolve.
And in rare cases, even conversely: if it's of advantage to mutate faster (if still in a controlled manner), mechanisms evolve to create just that. E.g., there are cells in your immune system which actively mutate certain genes randomly, to try to produce a protein that exactly matches a target protein. (E.g., a piece of a new virus's capsid.) There's literally an enzyme in there whose sole role is to junk a random codon (think: byte) of DNA, so the repairs would kick in and some of them would get i
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Of course it's a rarity, there's only one moon belonging to the Earth.
As you probably know, Asimov wrote not only fiction, but non-fiction for the masses, and was rightly well-known for the way in which he made science not just understandable but interesting. He explained in a number of works, including The Tragedy Of The Moon, explaining how unique the moon is.
As noted in the parent post, Asimov will often incorporate real science into his fiction.
So, what's this about how the Earth's moon is unique? Is this something new?
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Well, a moon in geosynchronous orbit might be unusual, but it's certainly not ours (otherwise you'd never see the moon raising or sinking). Our moon just shows bound rotation (well, for now; at some time in the far future earth will indeed be slowed down enough by the moon's tidal forces to also show bound rotation in respect to the moon, and then the moon's orbit will indeed be geostationary).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
So potentially 2/9 so far...
Earth and Pluto are similar in having a moon which is a decent fraction of their own mass. The two moons of Mars, and the moons of the four gas giant planets are minute in comparision to their primary bodies.
Earth and Pluto are sometimes called binary planets for this reason. And there is no easy way to show how they formed in this way, other than invoking chance impacts shortly after formation.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
While it's true that the moon is currently receding, it will eventually stop and begin approaching the Earth, then pass the Roche Limit, break up, and generally cause everyone to have a bad day. However, the universe might not last long enough for that to happen. As for the proto-earth/moon impactor, it was absorbed into the system, with the lighter materials of both it and proto-earth forming the moon, while the two cores sank to the bottom of what became Earth.
Since there are no -1: misinformation in the comment system, I instead reply to your post with wikipedia's article.
Antiope
Orbit of the Moon
Barycenter(Centre of mass)
They actually both revolve around a point that astronomers call the apotex, which lies about 187 million miles from Earth.
If I remember correctly, the center which they both orbit around is *inside* the Earth (but not at the center). Some have suggested that the difference between "moon" and "double planet" could be defined by whether the center of gravity is inside the larger body or on the outside (between them).
Table-ized A.I.
The moon isn't just a rarity in terms of formation. It's also a rarity in terms of fortune, I think. How awesome is it that there's a big ball of rock only 200,000 miles away where we can practice our space technology on till kingdom come? How awesome is it that it has enough gravity (and water!) to make a moon base possible? I think in the next 5000 years, we'll look up at the moon and see next year's resort spa trip. Though it's a huge, lucky win, we also kind of got screwed by being so far from the next nearest star.
Obviously, the Giant Space Mouse roams the universe, looking for tasty large moons (since they are made of cheese). That's why our moon is a rarity. When the Giant Space Mouse came for it, the Fantastic Four used the Ultimate Nullifier or some Giant Space Cat to take care of it. I bet Wolverine was involved, too, since he's ALWAYS involved.
Anyhow, that's why our moon and its delicious Swiss Cheese core are still around, while other planets with their lame Brie-mantled moons were pillaged by the Giant Space Mouse.
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice
If I remember correctly, they claimed that without a large moon, Earth's rotational angle would wobble wildly at times and a single pole would point toward the sun all year round for millions of years, like Uranus. (Recent research suggests that Mars has done this in the past.) This allegedly would slow the formation of life.
Uranus doesn't point one pole at the sun year round. It points one pole at the same area in its "sky" year round.
Imagine if our north star wasn't Polaris, but instead, say, Aldebaran (Which is in Taurus). When the sun is in Taurus, the North pole would point at the sun. 6 months later, the South pole would point at the sun. In "spring" and "autumn" the sun would be over the equator.
So north and south of the equator, you'd have 6 months of darkness (read: COLD) and 6 months of light (read: HOT). On the equator, the sun would, over the course of a year, go from the southern horizon to the northern horizon, and back. When it was significantly above the horizon, it would rise and set in much the way it does now.
No idea if that'd be habitable or not, but it would assuredly not be "fairly stable"
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
The entire Milky Way is made of milk.. thats why we call it the big whirlygig.
Because the moon is on the outer edge of the Milky Way it gets churned a lot, so it turned into cheese.
Not that I'm in the field, but I can't say I've heard of Earth being called a binary planet.
The centre of gravity of Pluto and its moon is somewhere between the two, so that I can understand is binary. But Earth and our moon? I'm pretty sure the centre of gravity is well beneath Earth's surface.
tl;dr version: could you provide a reference?
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
You are correct. My mistake. Unlike you, I don't visit Uranus often enough :-)
Until life developed migratory patterns (or perfected hibernation), it would freeze for 6 months and then be too hot for another 6. Near the equator it would be less extreme, but still have wide swings.
Table-ized A.I.
The amazing thing, to me, is that the Moon's diameter as viewed from the Earth is almost exactly the same as that of the Sun. I've heard that, of the moons in the Solar System, only a handful subtend the same arc as the Sun when viewed from their primary's surface (though of course "surface" is a tricky concept when we're talking about the gas giants), and of those, I don't think many of them are spherical. The kind of diamond rings we get during eclipses are probably quite rare.
IMBO, the earth-moon system can still be called a binary planet as no other major body in the solar system except Pluto has a satellite with as large a mass fraction as the moon is to earth.
Are you serious, or are you trolling?
For this you need Newtons law of Universal Gravity. The formula you want is right there. As you see, there two masses, and one radius. Let's assume we have a mass of 1kg on the surface of earth (and later on the moon), that's our m2 and as such we can ignore it the whole calculation.
Some data about Earth:
Some data about The Moon:
The gravitational constant G = 6.67x10^-11 N m^2 kg^2. The formula we are going to use is F = G * m1 *m2 / r^2. We calculate the force exerced on an object on the surface of the stellar body, so we need to take its radius, because the center of gravity of the stellar body is well, in it's center.
So, first for Earth: F = ( 6.67x10^-11 * 5.9736x10^24 * 1 ) / ( 6371000 ^2 ) = 9.81 N
Now, the moon Earth: F = ( 6.67x10^-11 * 7.3477x10^22 * 1 ) / ( 1737100 ^2 ) = 1.62 N
So, as you can see the force exerced on a body of 1kg on the surface of the Moon is only 1/6 of the same object on the surface of Earth. Yet, as you can see, Earth has 80x the mass of the Moon. What did you ignore? The radius! That one has an even greater effect on gravity than the mass: it is a inverse square law.
You do realise that this is middle-school physics, don't you?
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
--
Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
You're right of course but everything under the crust and outside of the core is molten. Our planet is very geologically active and that's helped by the moon acting on the liquid mantle. Perhaps if the moon wasn't there the mantle would cool and settle down more quickly. But what do I know, I am not a geologist...
You do realise that this is middle-school physics, don't you?
I certainly wasn't taught about this directly in school at all, 15 years ago or so, and judging by your spelling, I'm from the same place as you (UK). The inverse square law people should know (though it is not, even in places like /., commonly applied knowledge), but extrapolating it to planets etc. is not immediately intuitive. Don't assume people are trolls simple because their field of expertise is not your's (I include amateur expertise in this).
Ehm, no, I don't live in the UK... Continental Europe, though. That said, this was really standard stuff in my high school and I can guarantee you that the calculation I did here was on the curriculum. Actually, this together with Keplers laws was often illustrated with planets.
Sure, that's over 15 years ago. I guess, the curricula have been dumbed down by now.
This *is* basic physics and goes hand in hand with F=m*a. In this special case F=m*g, and you guessed that I actually calculated g for both Earth and The Moon! Since m2 was 1kg F=g in this case. Frankly, I can't imagine doing F=m*g without explaining where the g in that formula comes from. Hence you automatically come to F=(G*m1*m2)/r^2.
I'm not an amateur physicist, nor an amateur astronomer. I'm a mere dumb computer scientist, remembering what he had in school (and double-checking with wikipedia because frankly, I didn't know the value of G by heart anymore)
Oh, and finally, I just *asked* if he was a troll. I assumed he his innocence or he wouldn't have gotten the detailed reply that I gave.
Besides, aren't we supposed to be Nerds???
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)