A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » UK Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Planet's density



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 13th 12, 09:44 AM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
Dave Liquorice[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default Planet's density

On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:17:42 +0100, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

The Moons do not rotate and there no magnetic field.


The moon does rotate otherwise we wouldn't have the same side facing us
all the time.

--
Cheers
Dave.



  #12  
Old December 13th 12, 06:26 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
Dr J R Stockton[_190_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Planet's density

In uk.sci.astronomy message
, Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:16:34, Barry Schwarz posted:


Compared to almost any other non-manmade object, the mass of the ISS
is quite small.


That depends on your definition of "object". The Solar System contains
a large number of small objects of the sort that end up as meteors. The
Sahara also contains a large number of objects : grains of sand (with
the occasional camel, jerboa, etc.).


Does ISS attract the cosmonauts or repel them?


And it would repel them because? The gravitational force between two
objects is proportional to the product of their masses. There is no
**noticeable** attraction between the ISS and the supply ships that
dock with it periodically. The mass of the supply ship is orders of
magnitude more than the mass of a cosmonaut. The attraction between
the ISS and a cosmonaut would therefore be orders of magnitude less.


Only just "orders" - a cosmonaut weighs something under 100kg and a
Soyuz around 100 times more.

The surface of the Hill sphere of a Soyuz re-entry capsule may well be
outside the surface of the capsule, and so it could be possible to orbit
around the outside of a Soyuz. IMHO, without calculation, it should be
possible for a Lunar Soyuz in mid-path. The period would, of course, be
hours.

Outside the Earth-capsule Roche Limit, the capsule will by definition
attract a cosmonaut particle.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Mail via homepage. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
  #13  
Old December 13th 12, 08:00 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Planet's density

On Dec 13, 9:44*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:17:42 +0100, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The Moons do not rotate and there no magnetic field.


The moon does rotate otherwise we wouldn't have the same side facing us
all the time.

--
Cheers
Dave.



The only person ever to propose something as hideous as a spinning
moon did so barely a paragraph after he has Venus turn once in 23
hours and the Earth to stellar circumpolar motion in 24 hours ! -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-...page&q&f=false

They did put up somewhat of a struggle in the middle of the 19th
century to reason their way out of something that is dysfunctional as
a spinning moon but failed as your response demonstrates and so it
remains that there are people who make an effort to justify a spinning
moon and others who know no better follow them.

The fact is that planets do turn once to the central Sun as the polar
coordinates are carried around in a circle thereby replacing axial
precession as a long term axial trait to an annual orbital trait and
responsible for the polar day/night cycle -

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/...gs_changes.jpg

No point in throwing good information after something as dumb as a
spinning moon,that it is even entertained demonstrates a type of
mental slavery which the wider world knows little about.

  #14  
Old December 13th 12, 08:14 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
Szczepan Bialek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default Planet's density


"Dave Liquorice" napisal w wiadomosci
ll.co.uk...
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:17:42 +0100, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

The Moons do not rotate and there no magnetic field.


The moon does rotate otherwise we wouldn't have the same side facing us
all the time.


The Moon and the Earth rotate as the pair. But in that pair only the Earth
rotate around the Earth axis.
Rowland do not examine the magnetic field of a pair of charged bodies. The
pair where the distance is very big.
S*


  #15  
Old December 14th 12, 09:32 AM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
Szczepan Bialek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default Planet's density


"Dr J R Stockton" napisal w
wiadomosci news
In uk.sci.astronomy message
, Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:16:34, Barry Schwarz posted:


Compared to almost any other non-manmade object, the mass of the ISS
is quite small.


That depends on your definition of "object". The Solar System contains
a large number of small objects of the sort that end up as meteors. The
Sahara also contains a large number of objects : grains of sand (with
the occasional camel, jerboa, etc.).


Does ISS attract the cosmonauts or repel them?


And it would repel them because? The gravitational force between two
objects is proportional to the product of their masses. There is no
**noticeable** attraction between the ISS and the supply ships that
dock with it periodically. The mass of the supply ship is orders of
magnitude more than the mass of a cosmonaut. The attraction between
the ISS and a cosmonaut would therefore be orders of magnitude less.


Only just "orders" - a cosmonaut weighs something under 100kg and a
Soyuz around 100 times more.

The surface of the Hill sphere of a Soyuz re-entry capsule may well be
outside the surface of the capsule, and so it could be possible to orbit
around the outside of a Soyuz. IMHO, without calculation, it should be
possible for a Lunar Soyuz in mid-path. The period would, of course, be
hours.

Outside the Earth-capsule Roche Limit, the capsule will by definition
attract a cosmonaut particle.


"By the definition". But what is in reality.
Can you ask a "particle"?
S*



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Our planet's center may be more active than thought Sam Wormley[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 32 August 10th 10 04:22 AM
New pneumonic for the planet's names Tom Myers Misc 5 August 25th 06 09:01 AM
The Tenth Planet's First Anniversary Magnificent Universe Amateur Astronomy 1 January 6th 06 06:38 PM
The Tenth Planet's First Anniversary Magnificent Universe Astronomy Misc 0 January 5th 06 03:49 PM
Speculation: Big Planet's Weather [email protected] Science 5 February 10th 05 04:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.