|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Planet's density
The density of the Earth is 5.52
The Mars has 3.95 and The Moon 3.34 Is the density the diameter dependent? S* |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Planet's density
On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 18:58:54 +0100, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote: The density of the Earth is 5.52 The Mars has 3.95 and The Moon 3.34 Is the density the diameter dependent? S* Density is simply mass divided by volume. The volume of a sphere is directly related to the cube of the diameter. So in some sense, the density is affected by the diameter. For two objects with the same diameter, the one with more mass has the greater density. Similarly, for two objects with the same mass, the one with the smaller diameter has the greater density. In the real world, the overall density of an object is determined by the density of the matter it is made up of, almost like a weighted average. Hence, neutron stars with small diameters have very high densities while asteroids of similar dimensions have more typical densities. -- Remove del for email |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Planet's density
"Barry Schwarz" napisal w wiadomosci ... On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 18:58:54 +0100, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: The density of the Earth is 5.52 The Mars has 3.95 and The Moon 3.34 Is the density the diameter dependent? S* Density is simply mass divided by volume. The volume of a sphere is directly related to the cube of the diameter. So in some sense, the density is affected by the diameter. For two objects with the same diameter, the one with more mass has the greater density. Similarly, for two objects with the same mass, the one with the smaller diameter has the greater density. In the real world, the overall density of an object is determined by the density of the matter it is made up of, The Earth, Moon and Mars are simmilar and are close to each other. The differences are rather big. So should be a lot of theories to explain this phenomenon. Are such theories? S* |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Planet's density
In article ,
Szczepan Bialek wrote: The density of the Earth is 5.52 The Mars has 3.95 and The Moon 3.34 The density of the moon is very similar to that of the earth's mantle, which is one piece of evidence for the moon having been formed in a collision between the earth and some other body. The earth retained its dense metal core and the moon was formed from part of the lighter outer material. Mars's density may be due to its having a smaller core than the earth. -- Richard |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Planet's density
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:17:20 +0100, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The density of the Earth is 5.52 The Mars has 3.95 and The Moon 3.34 Is the density the diameter dependent? No, density is mass per unit volume. The Earth, Moon and Mars are simmilar and are close to each other. The differences are rather big. So should be a lot of theories to explain this phenomenon. Are such theories? Donno what exists out there but the obvious one goes back to the formation of these objects. The smaller ones have a lower gravitational field so stuff being attracted won't hit as hard as stuff attracted toa larger object. The objects themselves will also have less tendancy to collaspe onto themselves. Thus the smaller objects will tend to be less dense. -- Cheers Dave. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Planet's density
"Richard Tobin" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci ... In article , Szczepan Bialek wrote: The density of the Earth is 5.52 The Mars has 3.95 and The Moon 3.34 The density of the moon is very similar to that of the earth's mantle, which is one piece of evidence for the moon having been formed in a collision between the earth and some other body. The earth retained its dense metal core and the moon was formed from part of the lighter outer material. Mars's density may be due to its having a smaller core than the earth. We know the GM only. The G (gravitational constant) was mesured by Cavendish on the Earth surface where is the excess of electrons. On the Moon is the electrostatic levitation of the dust. So the G may be incorrect. It is possible that the planets do not have metal cores. It would be interested to know the measurements done on the ISS. ISS is a "planet" which mass is known and not small. Does ISS attract the cosmonauts or repel them? S* |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Planet's density
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:53:39 +0100, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote: We know the GM only. The G (gravitational constant) was mesured by Cavendish on the Earth surface where is the excess of electrons. For some reason you think the electrons have some effect on the measurement of G. Since the Earth has more water than the moon or Mars, maybe that affects the measurement of G also. On the Moon is the electrostatic levitation of the dust. So the G may be incorrect. It is possible that the planets do not have metal cores. The supposition is the gas giants don't. It would be interested to know the measurements done on the ISS. ISS is a "planet" which mass is known and not small. Compared to almost any other non-manmade object, the mass of the ISS is quite small. 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. -- Remove del for email |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Planet's density
"Barry Schwarz" napisal w wiadomosci ... On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:53:39 +0100, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: We know the GM only. The G (gravitational constant) was mesured by Cavendish on the Earth surface where is the excess of electrons. For some reason you think the electrons have some effect on the measurement of G. Since the Earth has more water than the moon or Mars, maybe that affects the measurement of G also. On the Moon is the electrostatic levitation of the dust. So the G may be incorrect. It is possible that the planets do not have metal cores. The supposition is the gas giants don't. If "the electrons has some effect on the measurements of G" than the terrestial planets also do not. The only "cause" of the metal core is the calculated density 5.5. It would be interested to know the measurements done on the ISS. ISS is a "planet" which mass is known and not small. Compared to almost any other non-manmade object, the mass of the ISS is quite small. But bigger than the Cavendish masses. Does ISS attract the cosmonauts or repel them? And it would repel them because? Everything in the space have the excess of electrons. In such case the small objects repel. Like the dust and fog (water droplets) in the air. 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. And the repulsion is prportional to the charges. What is the netto force between the ISS and a supply ship? Between the dust particles the repulsion is the winner. S* |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Planet's density
On 12/12/2012 09:04, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The only "cause" of the metal core is the calculated density 5.5. No, a metal core rather helps to explain the magnetic field. Plus, analysis of earthquakes gives good information on internal structure of the earth. And we have had similar sensors on the moon, confirming the absence of a metal core. One of the surprises from the Apollo programme was how little "damping" there was for lunar vibrations set up by deliberately crashing the orbiter. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Planet's density
"newshound" napisal w wiadomosci eb.com... On 12/12/2012 09:04, Szczepan Bialek wrote: The only "cause" of the metal core is the calculated density 5.5. No, a metal core rather helps to explain the magnetic field. Some years ago Rowland proved that rotaing charged body create the magnetic field. The Earth has the excess of electrons and must have the magnetic field because is rotating. Plus, analysis of earthquakes gives good information on internal structure of the earth. And we have had similar sensors on the moon, confirming the absence of a metal core. The Moons do not rotate and there no magnetic field. One of the surprises from the Apollo programme was how little "damping" there was for lunar vibrations set up by deliberately crashing the orbiter. The Moon is cold. The damping is temperature dependent. S* |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 05:38 PM |
The Tenth Planet's First Anniversary | Magnificent Universe | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 5th 06 02:49 PM |
Speculation: Big Planet's Weather | [email protected] | Science | 5 | February 10th 05 03:43 AM |