1. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35586
    18 Jun '16 08:28
    Anyone seen this?

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

    Comments?
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 Jun '16 12:32
    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'.
  3. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    19 Jun '16 01:33
    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.
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    19 Jun '16 02:191 edit
    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.
  5. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    19 Jun '16 23:51
    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."
  6. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    20 Jun '16 07:524 edits
    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.
  7. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    20 Jun '16 16:58
    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.
  8. Standard memberapathist
    looking for loot
    western colorado
    Joined
    05 Feb '11
    Moves
    9664
    20 Jun '16 23:28
    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.
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    21 Jun '16 00:14
    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.
  10. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    21 Jun '16 06:128 edits
    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...)
  11. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    21 Jun '16 22:19
    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
  12. Standard memberapathist
    looking for loot
    western colorado
    Joined
    05 Feb '11
    Moves
    9664
    23 Jun '16 00:21
    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?
  13. Standard memberapathist
    looking for loot
    western colorado
    Joined
    05 Feb '11
    Moves
    9664
    23 Jun '16 00:25
    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.
  14. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78643
    23 Jun '16 01:20
    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.
  15. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    23 Jun '16 06:214 edits
    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.
Back to Top