Submitted by Any_Palpitation_3110 t3_z7gd3c in space
noseboy1 t1_iy6q9se wrote
Reply to comment by blazingknight144 in what would be different if we had two moons by Any_Palpitation_3110
On the topic of moon collision, I don't imagine that being necessarily true... or, at least, not on a timeline even remotely significant to human existence. But, like, several planets have multiple moons that seem to be fine. I do think it might screw with tidal locking though, but again idk
Any_Palpitation_3110 OP t1_iy6vqq3 wrote
So it's possible somewhere in time and space there is a civilization that has two moons side by side almost touching by not quite yet?
Ok_Neighborhood_1203 t1_iy6xp4y wrote
That could actually be a stable configuration... the two moons would orbit their barycenter, and that barycenter would orbit the planet. It wouldnt last forever but easily hundreds of thousands of years, like the rings of Saturn.
PandaEven3982 t1_iy90oye wrote
Depends on relative masses. Terra and Luna are following a barycentric orbit of Sol :-)
Ok_Neighborhood_1203 t1_iy968gk wrote
True... though in the case of the moon-earth system, the barycenter is about 1000 miles inside the Earth. And all the other planets, meteors, comets, and dust in the rest of the solar system are perturbing our orbit too. Even the surrounding stars and galaxies have tiny effects on orbits if you can measure them precisely enoigh.
Neat fact, the Sun-Jupiter barycenter is outside the surface of the sun. So, the solar system actually orbits empty space :)
PandaEven3982 t1_iy97cd6 wrote
Grinz, nod, yup. Wake me up when we have an O'Neill colony at L4. Or when we can explain the math of null gravity versus microgravity :-)
mfb- t1_iy7qme4 wrote
Two moons in a close orbit around each other are possible and such a configuration could last for a very long time. Tides would be like for a single moon in that case.
noseboy1 t1_iy6w5bv wrote
My astrophysics is not nearly as well informed as I'm sure many are here, but the nice thing about space is that it's infinite. With infinite space and stars and planets and moons I'm sure it exists.
... but generally speaking, because of how fast everything moves and the fact that gravity would dictate the two also pull on each other, so they should collide, that possibility is probably stupid low.
But hey, it was once thought binary stars were impossible, turns out they're actually pretty common, the rule book gets thrown out on stuff like this every time we make a better telescope.
Glad-Style-1375 t1_iy77v7a wrote
We don't know if space is infinite....
noseboy1 t1_iyd9yi5 wrote
Fair. I think it's still vast enough for a pair of moons to be bumping uglies sonewhere
Radiant_Nothing_9940 t1_iy77u64 wrote
Space sadly isn’t infinite. It’s just very big. Also they wouldn’t be pulled together if they were binary, same way our moon isn’t pulled towards earth. If you want an example of a planetary binary, we actually have one in our solar system; Pluto and Charon are 2 bodies orbiting a barycenter which I believe (I might be wrong) is outside of Pluto’s surface. Charon and Pluto are pretty damn close together, and could likely be much closer. If 2 objects are too close, they will begin to pull each other apart. The issue then is not whether or not 2 objects could sustain distance from each other without colliding, as they just orbit each other, but more an issue of the 2 objects not ripping each other apart through tidal forces.
Sorry if this is illegible or sounds like thinking out loud, I’m pretty fucking tired so forgive me at least a little bit.
The_elk00 t1_iy7d37j wrote
Space is such a crazy concept to think about. If it's not infinite, what's the end or edge like? Does time move at an insurmountably slow speed at the edge? Is space infinite but there's just nothing there? Is it a wall? Does all matter become more tightly packed that it acts like a wall but can expand?
Aekiel t1_iy7hyfh wrote
There's a lot of debate about this.
The prevailing theories at the moment are that the universe is either infinite or finite. If it is infinite then there is no question of whether it is bounded or not (it is unbounded as you can't name two points within the universe and have the distance between them encompass everything within it).
If it is finite then the question is whether it has an edge or not. If it has an edge it is referred to as a bounded universe and we have little idea what could be at or beyond the edge of such a universe.
If it is a finite but unbounded universe then there's a definable volume to the universe (that is growing all the time due to expansion), but it doesn't have an edge. This is where the common balloon analogy comes in (a balloon doesn't have an edge, but as it expands the surface area of the balloon and distance between two points expansions).
Current thought rules out a finite bounded universe as it violates homogeneity, but there's no settled consensus on whether we live in an unbounded infinite universe or an unbounded finite one.
EDIT: If we do live in a bounded finite universe there's also debate as to the geometry of it (is it like a sphere? a torus? something weirder?).
Radiant_Nothing_9940 t1_iy8c0ym wrote
There’s also the theory that it’s a 4d hypersphere, meaning reaching one “edge” will just be the same as making it to the opposite side and nothing else. I love this theory as it adds both an explanation for the expansion of space (the sphere itself is expanding, so all the 3d things are getting further apart) as well as possibly leaving a scientific space for a god. I am an atheist, but if we live in a 4 dimensional (or more) universe, a god could easily exist outside the 3d bounds of it, and would therefore be able to see and interact with any part of it.
Too bad this universal theory is likely untrue and these days not considered a prevailing theory. It just explains so much for me, and could even let string theory exist, but I think the math just doesn’t work out.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments