Space

Anyone see the latest photo of Europa passing in front of Jupiter? Truly awesome.

Other urls found in this thread:

qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/3-mass-and-distance-affects-gravity.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation#Problematic_aspects
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System#Formation_of_the_planets
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
youtube.com/watch?v=TgmGZlyZObE
youtube.com/watch?v=-2FTZhyuJy8
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>believing in government conspiracies
OK

Take that shit to /x

Go the fuck back to /pol/

Or just go away...

That's cool, is that real?

>Europa is that large compared with Jupiter

Something doesn't add up here.....................

hmmm...for a board devoted to ""science"", you sure are not very open to having your beliefs challenged. Sad!

Europa is 1,900 miles or 3,100 km in diameter.

Jupiter is 88,846 miles or 142,984 km in diameter.

So yeah...

And I can't imagine Europa orbits that close to Jupiter, either.

>Multi-frame mosaic, Voyager 1, March 3, 1979 Credit: NASA; JPL; Kinetikon Pictures

I did not know outside space was black and white. Neat

anons got a point.

due to Jupiter supposed immense """"""""""""gravitational""""""""""""""" pull, how does something that size and so close in orbit does get swallowed up?

You ever bothered to wonder how cameras work?

the question still stands.

jupiter supposedly """"balances"""" out or affects the orbits of other planets in the solar system. how is something that close not swing into jupiter and still maintain orbit?

Because thats not how gravity works. You probably think black holes suck you in

That's like asking how trains can stop at stations if the railway is pulling them along.

GRAVITY DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT

>thats not how gravity works meme

"The amount of gravity that something possesses is proportional to its mass and distance between it and another object."
qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/3-mass-and-distance-affects-gravity.html

i think NASA is full of shit.

Well, you see, Europa and the other moons are moving along very quickly. So while Jupiter is pulling them in, the moons move tangentially along, so they don't actually get closer to Jupiter, barring natural eccentricity in the orbit. Exactly like everything else in any kind of orbit, ever.

Maybe you should study some basic physics.

It doesnt matter how strong gravity is (up to a point). If you go sideways fast enough you will not move towards the gravity source

>gravity is proportional to the distance between the body and another object.

No, it's inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

apparently you are proven wrong by because thats straight from an academic source.

jupiter affects other planets that are way out in space, yet small little rocks orbiting close to that fat ass giant dont get sucked in?

explain why those rocks just don't leave Jupiter's orbit if they are going fast enough to escape it.

apparently those small rocks are moving fast enough to not get swallowed in juiters orbit but the planets that are many more times miles out still get affected by it?

>arguing with a source from a university.

Its affecting the little orbiting rocks to you moron. For them to get "sucked in" they would have to slow down quite a bit

the clouds on jupiter are moving many more times faster than those moons and is alot lighter than those rocks. how is it not moving away from Jupiter?
you just contradicted your self on gravity.

GET OFF MY BOARD BRAINLETS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>the clouds on jupiter are moving many more times faster than those moons
No they arent

>because thats straight from an academic source.
Given it immediately follows that with:
>F = G(mass1*mass2)/D squared.
It's pretty clearly a mistake.

>jupiter affects other planets that are way out in space, yet small little rocks orbiting close to that fat ass giant dont get sucked in?
Because that's not how orbits work. They're travelling fast enough that their perijove is outside of Jupiter.

>explain why those rocks just don't leave Jupiter's orbit if they are going fast enough to escape it.
Because they're not going fast enough to escape it.

jupiter is spinning

...

>newtons law

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation#Problematic_aspects

Yeah, because its not actually true, its just accurate enough for most situations. Whats your point?

>arguing with a university

Actually, user, I learned about details of gravity from university.

Didn't you?

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation#Problematic_aspects
>Newton's description of gravity is sufficiently accurate for many practical purposes and is therefore widely used. Deviations from it are small when the dimensionless quantities φ/c2 and (v/c)2 are both much less than one, where φ is the gravitational potential, v is the velocity of the objects being studied, and c is the speed of light.[31] For example, Newtonian gravity provides an accurate description of the Earth/Sun system...
Reading isn't THAT hard.

if gravity is proportional to the distance. then why are comets able to complete predicted cycles away from the solar system. Why is the sun the center of the system?

Because the solar system is by definition the sun and everything orbiting it. The sun accounts for about 99% of all the mass of the solar system

>The sun accounts for about 99% of all the mass of the solar system

so if the sun can keep planets in orbit by its mass, why are the moons not crashing into Jupiter? why is the earths atmosphere not sucked out into the vacuum of space according to joules law of expansion if it weighs less than the earth while the earth is continually being pulled into the sun?

>why are the moons not crashing into Jupiter?
For the same reason the earth doesnt crash into the sun, because they are moving sideways fast enough to continuously miss.

> why is the earths atmosphere not sucked out into the vacuum of space
Because it isnt moving fast enough to escape earths gravity

The moons aren't falling into the planets because they're in orbit. That is, they're moving around the planets and falling around the planets at the same time.

The atmosphere is not blasting into space, because air has mass, and the gravity of the earth is holding onto it.

The earth is being pulled around the sun, and also the air along with it. We are not falling into the sun, because we're in orbit, just like everything else in orbit.

If you are having a problem understanding how orbits work, you'll cover that later when you get into high school.

>if gravity is proportional to distance

Nobody is claiming it is. Gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

>why are comets in predicted cycles away from the solar system

If they are in orbit around the sun, they are a part of the solar system. Comets follow orbital mechanics exactly like everything else.

>Why is the sun the center of the system

Technically it's not. All objects orbit the center of mass of their respective orbit, including the sun.

The sun is by far the most massive object, so it is simplest to consider it the center. The distance it orbits from the centers of mass is minuscule compared to any other object.

>Technically it's not
Well, they center of gravity is physically within the core of the sun so its close enough

>Because it isnt moving fast enough to escape earths gravity
apparently birds are able to escape earths gravity just by creating lift.

also the atmosphere is supposedly moving with the earths spin.

>For the same reason the earth doesnt crash into the sun, because they are moving sideways fast enough to continuously miss.
so are orbits are random that the clocks must be changed every day or year and winter lasts longer or shorter randomly and eclipses are not accurately predicted?

contradiction: the post

yes that's the point.

Also I think that's true of the earth/sun orbit, but the jupiter/sun orbit has a barycenter slightly above the surface of the sun. Might be misremembering.

>apparently birds are able to escape earths gravity
No they arent, they can create enough lift to get a very small amount further away

>also the atmosphere is supposedly moving with the earths spin
Correct

>so are orbits are random that the clocks must be changed every day or year and winter lasts longer or shorter randomly and eclipses are not accurately predicted?
I'm not entirely certain what you are saying but unless acted on by an outside force orbits dont change

>but the jupiter/sun orbit has a barycenter slightly above the surface of the sun
Well how about that its true

>The sun is by far the most massive object
>all the planets, plus bodies that far exceed the distance of the solar system orbit this object: the sun
is gravity proportionate to its mass, yes or no?

gravitational pull is stronger the closer you are to the mass, yes or no?

>apparently birds are able to escape earth's gravity

No, they are not. They are able to push air below themselves, they do not escape earth's gravity.

>also the atmosphere is supposedly moving with the earth's spin.

Yes, this is true. The earth's gravity is much, much stronger than and "centrifugal" force resulting from its spin.

>orbits are so random that clocks have to be changed

Orbits are not random. Clocks are not changed randomly. Eclipses are easily predicted, and indeed even ancient, primitive societies were able to accurate predicte them.

>contradiction

There is no contradiction. You not being able to understand it does not make a contradiction.

>gravity is proportional to mass

Yes. The more massive the object, the stronger the gravity. The moon is not as massive as the earth. It does not have as much gravity. The sun is much more massive than the earth, it has much more gravity.

>gravitational pull is stronger the closer you are to gravity?

Yes. Thus gravity is inversely proportional (to the square) of the distance from the object. As distance increase, gravity decreases. If you go twice as far away, gravity is 1/4 less. If you go three times far away, gravity is 1/9 times less.

He's only pretending to be retarded.

>unless acted on by an outside force orbits dont change
apparently the planets do affect the earths orbit enough for scientists call it "a random occurrence and coincidence to make earth a habitat for life and have the moon perfectly fit the sun during an eclipse".

what im getting at, is that the orbits should be random in length or eventually shorten as the sun is able to pull more mass many times of the earth.
every see that demonstration of Einsteins gravity theory using a bowling ball on a trampoline making a huge indention below it and someone spinning marbles? eventually those marbles are pulled towards the bowling ball.

the suns pull should have already taken the earth to a crash course or at least pulled the earth out of the habitual zone a few times since the sun makes up the most mass of the entire system.

going back to the Jupiter moons argument, those moons are no where near the scale of the earth and sun orbits, and should have already been pulled closer considering Jupiter mass is much much heavier.

>apparently the planets do affect the earths orbit
Yes they do actually, just as earth affects all of theirs, very slightly

>eventually those marbles are pulled towards the bowling ball
Because of friction. There is (pretty much) no friction in space

Seriously, you have very fundamentally misunderstood how gravity and orbital mechanics work. I strongly suggest you get Kerbal Space Program and play it for a while until it starts to make sense, its not nearly as complicated as you might think

>should have
You have no right to use these words in this context unless you've done the calculations.

>the moon perfectly fits the sun during an eclipse

Here's one case where you're wrong. It's not a perfect fit. There's plenty of "wiggle" room. The moon's orbit is an ellipse, so sometimes it's closer during an eclipse than during other eclipses.

There's nothing special about the orbit of the moon.

>the marbles are pulled towards the bowling ball

If your example, marbles have friction so they slowly slow down, and then fall in. It outer space, there is no friction, so objects don't slow down, which means they can orbit for billions of years without falling in.

>the jupiter-moons system is on a different scale than sun-earth system

Doesn't matter. They all follow the same laws of gravity. Only thing that matters are their mass and velocity.

>It outer space, there is no friction,
begs the question of how planets form in the first place.

>Doesn't matter. They all follow the same laws of gravity. Only thing that matters are their mass and velocity.
is gravity weak?

>begs the question of how planets form in the first place
Gravity

>is gravity weak?
Very, relative to the other forces

>Gravity
how does gravity form planets? this is a rhetorical question.

>how it forms in the first place.

Well, there's a big cloud of dust that's rotating. Every particle has its own gravity, so it starts clumping together. The center has the most mass, and indeed most of the dust either falls into the center, or is moving so fast that gravity can't stop it, so it goes flying off into space never to return. A very small amount of the mass just so happens to be traveling at the right velocity that it neither falls into the center, or flies off into deep space. This stuff remains in a stable orbit. It still has its own gravity, so it coalesces into planets and asteroids and comets.

>is gravity weak?

Compared to what? The strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces? Sure.

Or are you comparing it to itself? The sun's gravity is stronger than the earths, as already discussed. Unless you go very, very far away, then the sun's gravity isn't very strong at all. The gravity of the sun that mercury feels is much stronger than the gravity from the sun that neptune feels. So that's why the tangential velocity of Mercury is much higher than Neptune's.

>this is a rhetorical question
Ok

lol

>The center has the most mass, and indeed most of the dust either falls into the center, or is moving so fast that gravity can't stop it, so it goes flying off into space never to return.

so those particles must be moving at the speed of light to escape gravity?
because apparently not even light can escape gravity. this goes completely against the rule that moons, having less mass, are moving fast enough to escape Jupiter gravitational pull. Just like the earth staying in the habital zone throughout the billions of years without the sun eventually taking over and pulling the earth closer.

The stronger the gravity you are experiencing, the faster you have to go in order to stay in orbit. How much mass you have is irrelevant. Jupiters moons have not escaped its gravity, they are stuck firmly in jupiters gravity well, but they have enough tangential velocity to maintain a stable orbit

Gravity is not a pull, gravity is the shape of the terrain an object moves through

>so those particles must be moving at the speed of light to escape gravity

No, not anywhere close.

>apparently not even light can escape gravity

You've gotten ahead of yourself. Light can only not escape gravity if it is very, very close to a very, very massive object. This is a special kind of object called a black hole.

Anything with less mass than a black hole, light is more than fast enough to escape.

The less massive an object is, the less velocity you need to escape it.

>Gravity is not a pull, gravity is the shape of the terrain an object moves through
how do planets form?

>Light can only not escape gravity if it is very, very close to a very, very massive object.
>The less massive an object is, the less velocity you need to escape it.
are the rings of Saturn stationary or moving?

You must be telling since you seem to be incapable of holding more than two pieces of information in your tiny little head at the same time. Gravity is dependent on the mass and distance between two objects. Orbit is dependent on the momentum of the object and the force of gravity on the object. Only when these factors - distance, mass, and momentum - are the same can you expect the same result. So next time you try to compare a planet to light, ask yourself if light and a planet have the same mass and momentum. Then kill yourself you shitty troll.

>are Saturn's rings stationary or moving

They are moving. They're billions of little pieces of ice, each behaving like a little moon. They're all in orbit around saturn. They're being pulled by Saturn's gravity, but they each have a tangential velocity enough that they don't fall in, and they don't fly away.

The particles of the inner rings have greater tangential velocity than the particles of the outer rings. All behaving perfectly to Newton's laws.

>how do planets form?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System#Formation_of_the_planets

>are the rings of Saturn stationary or moving?
Rock and ice making up saturns rings are in orbit around saturn, yes they are moving

>They're being pulled by Saturn's gravity,


this goes against the data that the moon is slowing moving away from earths orbit. likewise, why arent the moons of other planets moving away and why is Saturns rings not moving away or not being pulled in due to saturns greater mass?

>this goes against the data that the moon is slowing moving away from earths orbit
The moons orbit is being interfered with by other bodies in the solar system which are cumulatively slowly speeding it up and increasing the size of its orbit

>likewise, why arent the moons of other planets moving away
They are generally

>Saturns rings not moving away or not being pulled in
They are. Saturns greater mass is irrelevant

>This goes against the data
No it doesn't moron. See I have seen no math from you which shows any comparison of the moon, earth, Jupiter, Saturn, or anything else. You are talking out of your ass because you are a shitty troll.

This guy sounds like a teen that hasn't the foggiest about astronomy or physics, yet thinks himself well-equipped to debate these topics. Versed arguments will fall flat because there is no mathematical foundation in his thinking, only analogy upon analogy.

Back to skool with you.

MFW a retarded brainlet trolls half of Veeky Forums. Come on guys.

says a lot about the userbase of this board

Cmon it was fun, and there was really just me and one other guy responding

Obvious brainlet was obvious

Donald...

NASA releases new information during election year for voters to elect people who are more open to allow more funding. expect more shit like new planets and possible life to be in the news. Its the same song local police in sleepy towns play with the quota system so that they can get new toys.
meanwhile gravity is still purely hypothetical.

"n theoretical physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

this makes sense.

I hope it works.

there already be bases on the moon to gear up for a mars landing. But NASA is so full of shit these days and when someone tries to enter the playing field without government oversight they get shot down quick. no wonder that space x guy was in tears.

youtube.com/watch?v=TgmGZlyZObE

better than the fucking super bowl.
youtube.com/watch?v=-2FTZhyuJy8

>you will never wake up and step outside to the sight of Jupiter right fucking there
I would probably kill myself in horror but it would be cool.

you'd probably die of radiation poisoning anyway

>latest photo of Europa
>October 2015

>Voyager 1, March 3, 1979

I'm guessing you've never studied dynamical systems or celestial mechanics. Maybe not even a Mechanics class above intro to physics level. Maybe not even intro to physics. Obviously Europa is going fast enough to maintain orbit.

You're falling for obvious bait by this point. He reeled you all in nice and slow.

This is the single most retarded post on this board. A fucking 9 year old who has played 30 minutes of Kerbal Space Program is more intelligent than you.