bison Posted December 2, 2011 #1 Share Posted December 2, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowl Posted December 2, 2011 #2 Share Posted December 2, 2011 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bison Posted December 3, 2011 Author #3 Share Posted December 3, 2011 (edited) 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 December 3, 2011 by bison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergeantflynn Posted December 4, 2011 #4 Share Posted December 4, 2011 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 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergeantflynn Posted December 4, 2011 #5 Share Posted December 4, 2011 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 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terra 333 Posted December 4, 2011 #6 Share Posted December 4, 2011 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted December 4, 2011 #7 Share Posted December 4, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted December 4, 2011 #8 Share Posted December 4, 2011 What does one classify as a "Large moon"? In larger instances, as per with Gas Giants, moons are where one would look for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bison Posted December 4, 2011 Author #9 Share Posted December 4, 2011 (edited) 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 December 4, 2011 by bison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted December 5, 2011 #10 Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) 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 December 5, 2011 by psyche101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bison Posted December 5, 2011 Author #11 Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) 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 December 5, 2011 by bison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted December 5, 2011 #12 Share Posted December 5, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted December 5, 2011 #13 Share Posted December 5, 2011 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 ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
27vet Posted December 5, 2011 #14 Share Posted December 5, 2011 How else do you get lunatics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted December 5, 2011 #15 Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) 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 December 5, 2011 by DieChecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowl Posted December 5, 2011 #16 Share Posted December 5, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowl Posted December 5, 2011 #17 Share Posted December 5, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travelnjones Posted December 5, 2011 #18 Share Posted December 5, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted December 6, 2011 #19 Share Posted December 6, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catfishyeah Posted December 6, 2011 #20 Share Posted December 6, 2011 (edited) 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 December 6, 2011 by catfishyeah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muenzenhamster Posted December 7, 2011 #21 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowl Posted December 7, 2011 #22 Share Posted December 7, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptozological Mascot Posted December 7, 2011 #23 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Moons are necessary to support werewolves. Just sayn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted December 8, 2011 #24 Share Posted December 8, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted December 8, 2011 #25 Share Posted December 8, 2011 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 ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now