Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
bison

Large moon may not be necessary

44 posts in this topic

New research indicates that a large moon may not be needed to stabilize the rotational axis of a planet sufficiently to allow life to flourish. This claim has been heard a good deal in recent years. If it were so, it would sharply limit the number of otherwise Earth-like planets that could make good homes for complex forms of life. If the new research holds true, the number of possibly habitable planets will increase markedly. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-life-alien-planets-require-large.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any study ever said that a large moon or even a highly stable axis is necessary for life. All we do know is that it doesn't hurt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any study ever said that a large moon or even a highly stable axis is necessary for life. All we do know is that it doesn't hurt!

The article linked below, from Science Magazine's website, refers to the recent predominant conjecture about the near necessity of a large moon for planet stability, and why this was thought be so important for long term survival, particularly of complex forms of life. It also discusses the new work that renders this conjecture questionable. http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/05/who-needs-a-moon.html Edited by bison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go , girls and boys . How long before our moon is towed around and used as a dump for space garbage ? When it gets full just point it towards mars and light the touchpaper .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go , girls and boys . How long before our moon is towed around and used as a dump for space garbage ? When it gets full just point it towards mars and light the touchpaper .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then that means we can all pull up our pants now? Today's science is so behind where it should be...partially because any idiot who has a paper published can push his own level of stupidity upon the masses. Just as in primitive time...we believe we are way smarter than we truly are. A moon necessary for life on a planet? We can never exceed the speed of light? What next? We evolved from Apes? Please....think!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then that means we can all pull up our pants now? Today's science is so behind where it should be...partially because any idiot who has a paper published can push his own level of stupidity upon the masses. Just as in primitive time...we believe we are way smarter than we truly are. A moon necessary for life on a planet? We can never exceed the speed of light? What next? We evolved from Apes? Please....think!

No it means science has been amended, that is what science is, the pursuit of knowledge, it is not a definition of knowledge. To imagine a thing does not mean it can be done.

And no, we are not claimed to have evolved from apes, science says we evolved alongside them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does one classify as a "Large moon"? In larger instances, as per with Gas Giants, moons are where one would look for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does one classify as a "Large moon"? In larger instances, as per with Gas Giants, moons are where one would look for life.

Large enough, in comparison to its planet, to be able to supply the previously supposed stabilizing effect on that planet. The larger and closer in, the firmer the moon's hold on the planet's wandering rotation axis would be. If life is to be sought on the large moons of 'gas giant' (Jovian) planets, the significant roles would be reversed. The planet would eliminate any wandering tendency of the moons poles of rotation. Edited by bison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Large enough, in comparison to its planet, to be able to supply the previously supposed stabilizing effect on that planet. The larger and closer in, the firmer the moon's hold on the planet's wandering rotation axis would be. If life is to be sought on the large moons of 'gas giant' (Jovian) planets, the significant roles would be reversed. The planet would eliminate any wandering tendency of the moons poles of rotation.

So dependent on the body being orbited, and the ration between the two bodies then, but what is that ratio?

I wonder how big is big? 30%? 10% ?

Mass would be the deciding factor wouldn't it? So a small dense moon would have the same effect. Therefore you could have a very small dense moon doing what a larger moon with less mass does. Physical size would then be irrelevant.

They seem to be talking about mass, not physical size?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So dependent on the body being orbited, and the ration between the two bodies then, but what is that ratio?

I wonder how big is big? 30%? 10% ?

Mass would be the deciding factor wouldn't it? So a small dense moon would have the same effect. Therefore you could have a very small dense moon doing what a larger moon with less mass does. Physical size would then be irrelevant.

They seem to be talking about mass, not physical size?

Well, the Earth's Moon has 1/81 the mass of Earth, and that's considered an unusually large ratio by a wide margin. Only Pluto's largest moon Charon exceed this, at 1/9. Yes, mass, not diameter is of of the essence where gravity is concerned. In principle, a small dense moon would have the same gravitational effect as a large, less dense one. As it actually turns out, large moons tend to be denser than small ones, so we wouldn't expect to see a very dense small one. Edited by bison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the Earth's Moon has 1/81 the mass of Earth, and that's considered an unusually large ratio by a wide margin. Only Pluto's largest moon Charon exceed this, at 1/9. Yes, mass, not diameter is of of the essence where gravity is concerned. In principle, a small dense moon would have the same gravitational effect as a large, less dense one. As it actually turns out, large moons tend to be denser than small ones, so we wouldn't expect to see a very dense small one.

I think the title might be somewhat misleading then ;) Large mass may not be necessary..... ;) . I think this concept has been hypothesized before? I remember reading something a while back about proposed life on tidally locked planets, and some have felt there may be a Goldilocks zone of life around the rim. As has been proposed with the discoveries of Red Dwarf Systems. Interesting concept to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the title might be somewhat misleading then ;) Large mass may not be necessary..... ;) . I think this concept has been hypothesized before? I remember reading something a while back about proposed life on tidally locked planets, and some have felt there may be a Goldilocks zone of life around the rim. As has been proposed with the discoveries of Red Dwarf Systems. Interesting concept to say the least.

My money is on life will find a way to be in the most strange places we have yet to even Imagine !

Moons or not we just need to start really Looking . Stop all this non-sence about Money and research funding !

Just Do it ! Its our only chance to survive this world !

post-68971-0-39211200-1323064445_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How else do you get lunatics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New research indicates that a large moon may not be needed to stabilize the rotational axis of a planet sufficiently to allow life to flourish. This claim has been heard a good deal in recent years. If it were so, it would sharply limit the number of otherwise Earth-like planets that could make good homes for complex forms of life. If the new research holds true, the number of possibly habitable planets will increase markedly. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-life-alien-planets-require-large.html

I've yet to read the link, but first guess... I'd say not necessary. After all the Earth supports life deep in the crust, at the bottom of the oceans and in radioactive pools. Situations that would kill most creatures in seconds support other life just fine.

Is it a big help here on Earth, sure. But look at Mars and Venus. Little to no wobble that I know of. The Moon if anything is probably sustaining the axial wobble that the Earth does have.

Edit: I'd say that a Magnetic field is ten times more necessary.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've yet to read the link, but first guess... I'd say not necessary. After all the Earth supports life deep in the crust, at the bottom of the oceans and in radioactive pools. Situations that would kill most creatures in seconds support other life just fine.

You're confusing the creation of life with the support of life.

Yes, we know that life can thrive in some crazy environments once it's abundant. We don't yet know what environments are required to create life from scratch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article linked below, from Science Magazine's website, refers to the recent predominant conjecture about the near necessity of a large moon for planet stability, and why this was thought be so important for long term survival, particularly of complex forms of life. It also discusses the new work that renders this conjecture questionable. http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/05/who-needs-a-moon.html

People have only speculated that it might be necessary, i.e. it's a theory. Predominant conjecture should not be confused with fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may well be required for civilizations with a desire to leave their own planet. It gave us a reasonable target and also captivated our imaginations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're confusing the creation of life with the support of life.

Aren't those one and the same? An environment that can support life should also be capable of creating it, if at a much lower chance.

Yes, we know that life can thrive in some crazy environments once it's abundant. We don't yet know what environments are required to create life from scratch.

So my idea seems plausable, just maybe not as likely as, say, a warm pool with plenty of sun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't living organisms be heavier? The moon does have a gravitational pull on water and all life does have water in it. So the moon is pulling everything upward, and the planet is pulling downward thus making the organisms lighter, and without the moon organisms would just be pulled downward. So wouldn't everything need to be re-evaluated? Especially the weight sistem right?

Edited by catfishyeah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't living organisms be heavier? The moon does have a gravitational pull on water and all life does have water in it. So the moon is pulling everything upward, and the planet is pulling downward thus making the organisms lighter, and without the moon organisms would just be pulled downward. So wouldn't everything need to be re-evaluated? Especially the weight sistem right?

The moon has a gravitational pull on everything, not just water. If you're thinking of the effect of the moon on the tides, then tell me, does your goldfish bowl have discernible tides? This only works on a global scale. I'd very much doubt that you weigh more or less with each pass of the moon. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it is very nigh immeasurable.

Postscriptum: system is spelled s-y-s-t-e-m, not sistem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't those one and the same? An environment that can support life should also be capable of creating it, if at a much lower chance.

No, they're not the same. People mistakenly presume that environments never change but we know that Earth's environment has gone through dramatic changes since life began here.

At some point the creation of new life on Earth stopped. All life today (except for parasitic viruses) can be traced to a single early life form. There is no evidence that since that life was created billions of years ago that additional life forms were created even though Earth has continued to have what we think are "ideal" conditions for the creation of life. That suggests that changes in Earth's environment have stopped the creation of new life even though the environment has been excellent at sustaining existing life and promoting its evolution. If the environment of today's Earth is so ideal for the creation of life then why hasn't it happened repeatedly?

Conversely it's possible for life to be created in ideal conditions that later become toxic and exterminate that life. We don't know the likelihood of that but we do know it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moons are necessary to support werewolves. Just sayn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they're not the same. People mistakenly presume that environments never change but we know that Earth's environment has gone through dramatic changes since life began here.

At some point the creation of new life on Earth stopped. All life today (except for parasitic viruses) can be traced to a single early life form. There is no evidence that since that life was created billions of years ago that additional life forms were created even though Earth has continued to have what we think are "ideal" conditions for the creation of life. That suggests that changes in Earth's environment have stopped the creation of new life even though the environment has been excellent at sustaining existing life and promoting its evolution. If the environment of today's Earth is so ideal for the creation of life then why hasn't it happened repeatedly?

Conversely it's possible for life to be created in ideal conditions that later become toxic and exterminate that life. We don't know the likelihood of that but we do know it happens.

Early Earth Was Purple, Study Suggests - LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it Melancholia that made the earth Spin around?

On a real note Go see this movie even If its a bit off topic, Its a Great Dark look at the art film world. ,Kirsten Dunst is great in this flick ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.