Earth has captured a second moon, says NASA

Anyone seen this?

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/earth-has-captured-second-moon-says-nasa

Comments?

Its certainly interesting, but I personally don't think 'moon' is the correct term. Wikipedia suggests the word is not strictly defined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_satellite#The_definition_of_a_moon
However, I would not call the rings of Saturn 'millions of moons', nor would I call man made satellites 'moons'.

I agree, this isn't an object that is gravitationally bound to the Earth, it isn't in orbit.

It is a potentially interesting place to go visit however.
If you were looking for a potential asteroid to mine, or do science on, the fact that
this is so close [in orbital mechanics terms] makes it a tempting target.

You could even give it a nudge and drop it into Earth's gravity well and make it an
actual moon so that we can access it more easily....
~100 to ~800 thousand tonnes of materiel for building space stations out of already
in orbit that we don't have to lift into space [at ~$10,000,000 per Tonne] is a potential
multi-trillion dollar saving in launch costs.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Anyone seen this?

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/earth-has-captured-second-moon-says-nasa

Comments?

They are playing loose with the term 'moon'. It's a big rock maybe 200 feet across maximum.

They think it is not in a permanent orbit either.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I agree, this isn't an object that is gravitationally bound to the Earth, it isn't in orbit.

It is a potentially interesting place to go visit however.
If you were looking for a potential asteroid to mine, or do science on, the fact that
this is so close [in orbital mechanics terms] makes it a tempting target.

You could even give it a nudge and ...[text shortened]... space [at ~$10,000,000 per Tonne] is a potential
multi-trillion dollar saving in launch costs.

Even atheists obey God's Law of Gravity and in doing so are "gravitationally bound to the Earth."

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Even atheists obey God's Law of Gravity and in doing so are "gravitationally bound to the Earth."

Assuming you didn't mean that only purely as a metaphor;
since there is no verifiable empirical evidence to suggest (nor, as far as I can see, any purely deductive reasoning to suggest for that matter ) any physical law was made by an intelligence let alone a 'god', the default Occam's razor assumption should be it wasn't made by a god and thus isn't any more 'God's' law than 'my' law or 'your' law.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Even atheists obey God's Law of Gravity and in doing so are "gravitationally bound to the Earth."

This is the science forum not the spirituality forum.

Here there are no gods. Period.

Take your nonsense to spirituality.

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is the science forum not the spirituality forum.

Here there are no gods. Period.
...

Science doesn't claim that there are no gods.

Originally posted by apathist
Science doesn't claim that there are no gods.

We can be pretty sure there is no bible god, the three Abrahamic religions were strictly man made. There was no god in the inception of those three religions. But this is the science forum and religion should not even be brought up here.

Originally posted by apathist
Science doesn't claim that there are no gods.

but Occam's razor implicitly does and Occam's razor is implicitly implemented in scientific method.
I will show how exactly Occam's razor (a much more sophisticated and mathematical defined version of it) does that and with its output probabilities when I publish my book some time next year. I cannot resist showing this as I am so excited by it but this is more or less what I currently plan to put on the front cover of my book;

Tie Logic by A.Humy

A system of logic that:

● solves the problem of induction, the central problem of modern philosophy

● solves the raven paradox and the reference class problem

● defines evidence, scientific method, causality and epistemic rationality

● greatly clarifies what science is by greatly clarifying scientific method

● will revolutionize the science of statistics

● has significant potential application for Artificial Intelligence

A laypersons guide

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Mathematical proof of the solution to the problem of induction:

(...the equations for that inserted here at the bottom of front cover which I cannot show yet because I have not yet completed them although I am part way there and making good progress...)

Originally posted by googlefudge
I agree, this isn't an object that is gravitationally bound to the Earth, it isn't in orbit.

It is a potentially interesting place to go visit however.
If you were looking for a potential asteroid to mine, or do science on, the fact that
this is so close [in orbital mechanics terms] makes it a tempting target.

You could even give it a nudge and ...[text shortened]... space [at ~$10,000,000 per Tonne] is a potential
multi-trillion dollar saving in launch costs.

Sure, give the asteroid a nudge, "Doh!" into the Earth

Originally posted by sonhouse
...But this is the science forum and religion should not even be brought up here.

Science studies what exists. Religion exists. What say you to that?

Originally posted by humy
[b]but Occam's razor implicitly does and Occam's razor is implicitly implemented in scientific method. ...

Is it? Take dark matter. Either gravity behaves differently at large scales than it does here near the bottom of a gravity well, or half the universe is made of some exotic material we've never detected.

Originally posted by apathist
Is it? Take dark matter. Either gravity behaves differently at large scales than it does here near the bottom of a gravity well, or half the universe is made of some exotic material we've never detected.

I agree that it is not clear that "There are no gods" is the simpler assumption than "There is at least one God.". An absence of gods from a cosmology (in the metaphysics sense) removes objects with the God predicate and the associated requirement to explain them at the expense of having to explain everything else. One could argue (probably not successfully though) for DeepThought's ontological argument: "If there were no gods then there would be a god vacuum and since nature abhors a vacuum there must be at least one god." (atheists will dislike this because of the conclusion, believers because it gives nature priority over God) and that this is simpler than having to explain the spontaneous existence of a universe but the absence of Gods. In the case of Dark matter it's a question of whether one considers modifying a paradigm theory or hypothesising undetected matter the more parsimonious assumption.

Originally posted by apathist
Is it? Take dark matter. Either gravity behaves differently at large scales than it does here near the bottom of a gravity well, or half the universe is made of some exotic material we've never detected.

Is it?

Yes. ( as I will prove in my book )

Take dark matter. Either gravity behaves differently at large scales than it does here near the bottom of a gravity well, or half the universe is made of some exotic material we've never detected.

It is unclear how Occam's razor applies (assuming it does ) to dark matter theory. It is clear (to me) how Occam's razor applies to the god hypothesis.
The hypothesis that there is a God is not just one hypothesis but can be validly viewed as being many in disguise including, depending on exactly which religion you would regard as most valid, there exists an object (called God) that simultaneously has all the characteristics of :

1, being the creator of the whole universe

2, being immortal

3, having a mind (which in turn assumes that assumes an entity with all the characteristics that define it as being a mind)

4, being benevolent (which in turn assumes that assumes it has a mind)

5, being supernatural (which in turn assumes that there exists a supernatural)

6, there is only one such entity with all these above characteristics (i.e. there is only one God)

....etc.

Now, each of the above (1, 2, 3, ...) is a hypothesis within a hypothesis (within the god hypothesis) and if we label each of these above hypotheses A, B, C, ...etc of what attributes is attached to the same object (an object called 'god' in this case) then the prior probability of there being a god must be the probability of A multiplied by the probability of B multiplied by the probability of C multiplied by the probability of D ….etc thus leading to a relatively low prior probability of a god. In my book, I will mathematically formulate Occam's razor and show how this is an application of Occam's razor.