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
Weitter Duckss

Differences in structure of the body

33 posts in this topic

Why there are differences in structure of the objects in our system?

 

R/B

Objekt

Satelit

Ø density g/cm3

Radius km

Poluos orbite km

1

Mars

Phobos

1,876

11,27

9.376

2

 

Deimos

1.4718

6,2

23.463,2

3

Jupiter

Amalthea

0,857

83,5

181.365,84

4

 

Io

3,528

1.821,6

421.700

5

 

Europa

3,013

1.560,8

670.900

6

 

Ganymede

1,936

2.634,1

1.070.400

7

 

Callisto

1,8344

2.410,3

1.882.700

8

Saturn

Janus

0,63

89,5

151.460

9

 

Enceladus

1,609

252,1

237.948

10

 

Tethys

0,984

531,1

294.619

11

 

Dione

1.478

561,4

377.396

12

 

Rhea

1.236

763,8

527.108

13

 

Titan

1,8798

2.575,5

1.221.870

14

 

Hyperion

0.544

135

1.481.009

15

 

Iapetus

1,088

734,5

3.560.820

16

Uranus

Miranda

1,20

235,8

129.390

17

 

Ariel

1.592

578,9

191.020

18

 

Umbriel

1,39

584,7

266.000

19

 

Titania

1,711

788,4

435.910

20

 

Oberon

1,63

761,4

583.520

21

Neptun

Proteus

~1,3

210

117.647

22

 

Triton

2,061

1.353,4

354.800

23

Pluto

Charon

1,707

603,6

19.591

24

Haumea

Hi`iaka

~1

~160

49.880

25

Haumea

 

2,6

620

 

26

Eris

 

2.52

1163

 

27

Pluto

 

1,86

1.187

 

28

Neptune

 

1,638

24.622

 

29

Uranus

 

1,27

25.362

 

30

Saturn

 

0,687

58.232

 

31

Jupiter

 

1,326

69.911

 

32

Ceres

 

2,161

965,2

 

33

Vesta

 

3,456

572,6

 

34

67P/Ch-G

 

0,533

4,1x3,3x1,8

 

35

Mars

 

3,9335

3.389,5

 

36

Earth

 

5,514

6.371

 

37

 

Moon

3.344

1.737,1

384.399

38

Venus

 

5,243

6.051,8

 

39

Mercury

 

5,427

2.439,7

 

40

Sun

 

1,408

695.700 eq

 

 

 

Dysnomia, the moon of Eris, is beyond our abilities to acquire data in a credible way (that is obvious when talking about the less distant object of Haumea), but it should not be forgotten that nowadays scientists introduce, with "a high probability“, "relevant“ data for the exoplanets that are tens and thousands of light-years away. Therefore, the measurements are unreliable and should be treated as such, i.e., with caution.

The data from the table clearly point out that it is quite difficult to recognize the pattern that could attract the attention with its clarity and simplicity. If we take a fact that higher density also means more complex chemical structure of the objects, regarding chemical elements and compounds, we can conclude that an object's density has no clear regularity. The object 67P/Churymov-Garasimenko, classified as a comet, has a lower density of all so-called gaseous planets. Although it is relatively close to Sun, its aggregate state is solid, so Philae could easily land on its surface. This fact clearly states that gaseous planets are solid (and solid/melted) objects with impressive atmospheres. There are solid objects with even lower density: Pan 0,42 g/cm3, Atlas 0,46 g/cm3, Pandora 0,48 g/cm3 – all of them the satellites of Saturn. Etc.

The objects that are closer to the central object possess a higher density (due to the higher tidal force effects), as well as the objects with bigger masses and higher temperatures of space (Ariel/Umbriel; Titania/Oberon; Proteus/Triton; Rhea/Iapetus; Galileo's satellites; Phobos/Deimos; internal/external planets; etc). Of course, it does not mean that all objects belong to this group. The very division of asteroids into S, M and V type suggests a dramatical deviation. One part of objects becomes more dense in the beginning of their approach to the Sun (because volatile matter disappears and higher temperatures help the creation of the more complex elements). The other part of objects was created during the disintegration of objects (the internal – the higher density, and the external – the lower density), due to the collisions. In both cases a continuation of growth must be taken into consideration, as the lesser objects keep arriving to their surfaces. A certain portion of satellites also does not abide the strict law (density, mass, space temperature and distance to the central object), which implies the different past of these objects before they got captured by the central object. A part of it definitely belongs to the different composition of objects that constantly bombard satellites and other objects. It is unlikely that more dense asteroids from the asteroid belt would hit the outer objects, unlike the interior ones, because the gravitational force of Sun is dominant.

The conclusion would be that it is a very complex and dynamic pattern related to the processes of objects' creation – it is constantly moving and growing. The complexity of objects is related to the space temperature, the mass of an object and the total sum of tidal forces. Furthermore, the complexity is influenced by the position of an object related to the planet, Sun, as well as the asteroid belt. The important role also belongs to time when object got captured, for how long the object had been near Sun (perihelion) and at what distance.

The goal of this article is to eliminate the biblical-style of thinking of simultaneous creation of all objects and their inability to change during time, as well as to point out that everything could be explained by the already existing evidence and processes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please post a source link for this text.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The goal of this article is to eliminate the biblical-style of thinking"

So the point of your post is to knock religion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" is to knock religion "

Not. I am not religious, it's just a metaphor that is something outside of Sciences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 8/27/2016 at 11:56 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

" is to knock religion "

Not. I am not religious, it's just a metaphor that is something outside of Sciences.

Still can't get what this thread about, cause your "metaphor outside of sciences" usually means diddly squat.

PS, stop punching Like this on every reply. Thats kinda stupid, when you "like" posts you disagree with.

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" stop punching Like this on every replybmk1245

There is stacking with the person who makes a comment and disagree with the comment. I'm glad we are discussing (this is lajk) response can be + and -. You can not give lajk who ignores you
Often I emphasize that more, I love the attack of clapping, shoulder or ignoring in the style "we're too smart to show her knowledge, rather belittle other people's knowledge."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice read, will need a lot of time to read it entirely but interesting stuff ... a lot way over my head but yeah , I have little to no idea what its all about ~

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, third_eye said:

I have little to no idea what its all about ~

The big problem is that neither does Weitter Duckss. 

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Waspie_Dwarf said:

The big problem is that neither does Weitter Duckss. 

:tu:

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

The big problem is that neither does Weitter Duckss. 

Oh, he does, just in language of fairies.

He's still using online translators, hence gibberish multiplied by gibberish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Weitter Duckss said:

" stop punching Like this on every replybmk1245

There is stacking with the person who makes a comment and disagree with the comment. I'm glad we are discussing (this is lajk) response can be + and -. You can not give lajk who ignores you
Often I emphasize that more, I love the attack of clapping, shoulder or ignoring in the style "we're too smart to show her knowledge, rather belittle other people's knowledge."

Just put it in your own words, in concise form - what the hell it is about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/08/2016 at 9:01 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

 "source"  Weitter Duckss

 

wetter ducks? :lol:

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why is there a difference in rain drop sizes? Why dont all Oak trees look the same? Why does a tree full of apples have bigger ones and smaller ones? Why do we have dwarfs, average height humans, and those who grow to 7 or 8 ft high? Why are snowflakes different? Why do we have oranges and lemons? why not JUST oranges?

Answer.... its just the way it is. Looking for reasons isnt necessary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, seeder said:

why is there a difference in rain drop sizes? Why dont all Oak trees look the same? Why does a tree full of apples have bigger ones and smaller ones? Why do we have dwarfs, average height humans, and those who grow to 7 or 8 ft high? Why are snowflakes different? Why do we have oranges and lemons? why not JUST oranges?

Answer.... its just the way it is. Looking for reasons isnt necessary

Dammit, you just gave some ideas for crazy stuff. I'd bet next topic will be about snowflakes... 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, seeder said:

why is there a difference in rain drop sizes? Why dont all Oak trees look the same? Why does a tree full of apples have bigger ones and smaller ones? Why do we have dwarfs, average height humans, and those who grow to 7 or 8 ft high? Why are snowflakes different? Why do we have oranges and lemons? why not JUST oranges?

Answer.... its just the way it is. Looking for reasons isnt necessary

For all the examples you say, today there, clear answers. For everything there is a reason and a clear verifiable process.
If we do not know it is not proof. The processes,, evolution, genetics, inheritance, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

I have checked out your stuff over and over again. Post after meaningless post. Topic after idiotic topic. It's all nonsense, every single word.

You do not have a clue about basic science, You do not understand the scientific principle. You do not understand what constitutes evidence and proof. You do not understand the science you claim is wrong,

Despite being totally clueless you have somehow fooled yourself into thinking you are the greatest scientific genius of the age. You fool no one else.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

bmk1245 

You know very well that Star Trek are fiction, not proof.
If you have a headache you do not need Jean-Luc Picard, only provide counter-arguments: eg, light travels from the Sun with carriage so the there is no between, the atmosphere of the Earth and the Sun, etc.
About that on another occasion, now I expect counter-arguments why is chemical composition of the body in our system completely different for every body (we know the composition of the cloud of gas before the "collapse" mainly H2 slightly He and other in traces)?

Waspie_Dwarf 

"I have checked out your stuff over and over again. Post after meaningless post. Topic after idiotic topic. It's all nonsense, every single word.

You do not have a clue about basic science, You do not understand the scientific principle. You do not understand what constitutes evidence and proof. You do not understand the science you claim is wrong,

Despite being totally clueless you have somehow fooled yourself into thinking you are the greatest scientific genius of the age. You fool no one else."

You always surprises me how arguments access debate and with very decent and carefully chosen words you perform your evidence! On your evidence I have nothing to add. Briljantno!
I would link where you picked it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

 

bmk1245 

You know very well that Star Trek are fiction, not proof.
[...]

Dude, that was based on real events...

</sarcasm off>

Seriously, try yourself in writing books for kids. You might be the next to Astrid Lindgren. As for science, thats not your horsey, as many sciency UMers pointed out that n+1 (→ times already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Dude, that was based on real events...

</sarcasm off>

Seriously, try yourself in writing books for kids. You might be the next to Astrid Lindgren. As for science, thats not your horsey, as many sciency UMers pointed out that n+1 (→ times already.

In the past topic you have been very serious with a myriad powerful arguments. What influenced this drastic change.
General climate or a sense of superiority?
For the gaseous planets evidence is clear: high density (relative to the density of the elements, which we have in the atmosphere) makes clear that in these bodies there is a body with a solid surface (solid objects with even lower density: Pan 0.42 g / cm3, Atlas 0 , 46 g / cm3, Pandora 0.48 g / cm3, 67P / Churymov-Garasimenko 0.533 g / cm3 ...  as opposed to: 1.326, 0.687, 1.27 and 1.638 g / cm3).
The basic question if the bodies are formed from the collapse of gas why not the chemical composition of as the gas or why they are different structures if the sources are the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weitter, you actually don't understand the concept of density at all, do you?

Density is simply a measurement of mass per unit volume. If you take a gas, such as hydrogen, and pressurise it ii's density will increase. This means that your statement:

Quote

high density (relative to the density of the elements, which we have in the atmosphere)

is just meaningless drivel. An element does not have "a density". It's density is dependent on such things as temperature and pressure.

Weitter, this is the stuff they teach to school children. Go and learn some high school science before telling the scientific world that they are wrong, it will save you a lot of continued embarrassment in the long run.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Weitter, you actually don't understand the concept of density at all, do you?

Density is simply a measurement of mass per unit volume. If you take a gas, such as hydrogen, and pressurise it ii's density will increase. This means that your statement:

is just meaningless drivel. An element does not have "a density". It's density is dependent on such things as temperature and pressure.

Weitter, this is the stuff they teach to school children. Go and learn some high school science before telling the scientific world that they are wrong, it will save you a lot of continued embarrassment in the long run.

Quick check: nebulae or cloud of gas (a similar composition) mass milujun mass of the Sun does not create the core "If you take a gas, such as hydrogen, and pressurize it's ii density will increase." but gas planets generate. How many types of gravity is there? Please explain as "this is the stuff they teach to school children.".

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.