Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 68

Thread: Moon Orbit

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    15,920
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Thanks
    I do understand your point of view.
    Actually, I fully accept the idea that the Moon orbits around the Earth, although, it can get twice stronger gravity force from the Sun.
    It seems to me that even if the gravity force of the Sun will be 4 times stronger than the Earth, the Moon will still continues to orbit around the Earth.
    Based on my knowledge as Electronic Engineer, I will call it "Threshold".
    Which means, that the moon stay at that state because it was already position at that state (bonded by Earth gravity).
    However, based on the "Threshold" analogy, the moon won't set that gravity connection at the first stage without getting higher gravity force by the Earth.
    Do you agree with that analogy?
    No, it doesn't apply. The moon doesn't choose one body or another to orbit, according to which provides the largest gravitational acceleration. It responds to the gravity of both, all the time. And it orbits both, all the time.

    Grant Hutchison

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Thanks
    I do understand your point of view.
    Actually, I fully accept the idea that the Moon orbits around the Earth, although, it can get twice stronger gravity force from the Sun.
    It seems to me that even if the gravity force of the Sun will be 4 times stronger than the Earth, the Moon will still continues to orbit around the Earth.
    Based on my knowledge as Electronic Engineer, I will call it "Threshold".
    Which means, that the moon stay at that state because it was already position at that state (bonded by Earth gravity).
    However, based on the "Threshold" analogy, the moon won't set that gravity connection at the first stage without getting higher gravity force by the Earth.
    Do you agree with that analogy?
    If so, we have to ask: Why the Earth could offer higher gravity force at the first moment?
    It has nothing at all to do with thresholds. There are no discontinuities. There is no sort of hysteresis. There is no "connection". Gravity does not have any sort of "state".

    The motion of the moon is due to the combined gravitation of the Earth, the sun, Jupiter, Venus, all the other planets, and every rock, speck of dust, and stray gas atom in the solar system, as well as that of all the stars, planets, and other assorted objects of the Milky Way, and those of every other galaxy in the universe.

    As you've been told many times before, the two-body problem is an idealization, a simplification of real-world systems. There isn't an object anywhere in existence that follows a perfect orbit around a single primary.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Thanks
    I do understand your point of view.
    Actually, I fully accept the idea that the Moon orbits around the Earth, although, it can get twice stronger gravity force from the Sun.
    It seems to me that even if the gravity force of the Sun will be 4 times stronger than the Earth, the Moon will still continues to orbit around the Earth.
    Based on my knowledge as Electronic Engineer, I will call it "Threshold".
    Which means, that the moon stay at that state because it was already position at that state (bonded by Earth gravity).
    However, based on the "Threshold" analogy, the moon won't set that gravity connection at the first stage without getting higher gravity force by the Earth.
    Do you agree with that analogy?
    If so, we have to ask: Why the Earth could offer higher gravity force at the first moment?
    Since you did not give any specifics about an electronics situation involving thresholds, I cannot agree or disagree about an analogy.

    It appears that you are concerned about how the Earth could have captured a previously unbound Moon without having stronger gravity than it does now. That would have required a close encounter with another massive object at or near the time of the Moon's close approach. If the encounter geometry is just right, the other object's gravity could slow the Moon relative to the Earth just enough to make a capture happen, with the interloper being flung away by the kinetic energy exchange. This would be roughly analogous to using a retro rocket to slow a spacecraft down enough to become bound to a planet when it otherwise would have been a flyby, never to return. Such an encounter is considered highly improbable, and now the preferred theory is a collision with a Mars-sized body. Such a collision would break a lot of material loose from both bodies. Most of it would fly away, but if the geometry is favorable a relatively small portion could be moving slowly enough to remain gravitationally bound the the proto-Earth and become the Moon.

    As for how much stronger the Sun's gravity could be and still not disrupt the Moon's orbit, the sky is the limit in principle. In a thought exercise we could substitute a billion solar mass black hole for the Sun and place it 1,000 astronomical units away. That would make the overall strength of the central body's gravity 1,000 times what we actually have, but the difference in strength at the Earth and Moon positions would be no greater than what we actually have, because of the inverse cube law for that effect. Thus the Earth's gravitational effect on the Moon would still be 100 times stronger than the disruptive effect of the black hole.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,765
    Regarding my image of a portion of the Earth and Moon's orbit
    around the Sun:
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    So its meant to be only a tiny bit of the orbit? (I assumed I was
    having download problems, as well.)
    My apologies to you and Dave and anyone else who may have
    been annoyed by that. I'll try to get around to upgrading it....

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It would be interesting to see the whole orbit in one image - then
    you could zoom out to see the whole thing or zoom in to see the
    little slice you have posted.
    The computer I used to make it (back in 2009, for a thread here
    on BAUT/CosmoQuest) only has an 800 x 600 pixel screen.
    At the scale I chose to use, 1 pixel = 100,000 kilometres, the circle
    representing the Earth-Moon barycenter is about 3000 pixels in
    diameter. I had to make an entire circle in my graphics creation
    program. It doesn't have an option to make an arc. So the full
    image was something over 3000 x 3000 pixels. When reduced
    enough to fit on the 800 x 600 screen, the circle was very spotty.
    Dots and dashes instead of a solid line. I chose to keep only a
    width that I thought most readers would be able to view full-size
    on their monitors, 1600 pixels. A height of 260 pixels was enough
    to show the orbits going to the left and right edges of the image,
    so adding more height wouldn't be useful. A modern 4K screen
    has 4096 x 2160 pixels, so it could show the full width of the
    orbit, and the image could scroll up and down.

    The monochrome CRT monitor I saw demonstrated in the 1980's
    was 5000 x 5000 pixels.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    Last edited by Jeff Root; 2018-Jan-29 at 12:07 AM.
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,714
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    In one hand you claim that "dust and gas that was orbiting the sun", so it seems that this matter is under the Sun gravity, however, in the next hand you claim: "It formed because a denser-than-average volume".
    So, what is the source of that power which had set that denser-than-average volume? if it isn't the Sun Gravity while it is orbiting the Sun, than what is it?
    You really seem to be having difficulty understanding that even while both the earth and the moon orbit the sun, they are simultaneously attracted to one another. And the International Space Station is orbiting the sun while simultaneously orbiting the earth (and being attracted to the moon as well). Everything in the universe is attracted to everything else in the universe. Until you can understand that and visualize it somehow I think you are going to have difficulty understanding how things work.
    As above, so below

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    You really seem to be having difficulty understanding that even while both the earth and the moon orbit the sun, they are simultaneously attracted to one another.
    Ideally, post 20 should make it plainly apparent to Dave that one gravity well can live embedded in a larger gravity well.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    So, what is the source of that power which had set that denser-than-average volume?
    No "power" involved. A molecular cloud has mostly gas molecules and some dust particles moving randomly. Chance alone will create volumes that are denser then average. In addition, shock waves from supernova can also cause over-dense regions as speculated for the formation of the Solar System.
    See Nebular hypothesis and Formation and evolution of the Solar System.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Few more question:...
    There is no assumption that "the Earth and Moon had been formed separately". The origin of the Moon is based on evidence. The most plausible explanation for the Moon is the giant-impact hypothesis.

    We do not assume "they both had been formed together at the same moment", etc. (see above).

    We do not "set a gape of about 2 Billion years between the Sun formation to Planets/Moons formation". Age of Sun = approximately 4.6 billion years. Age of Earth = approximately 4.54 0.05 billion years.

    The "same power (or process)" did create the entire Solar System - see the Wikipedia articles above.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,765
    I believe that the number-one cause of denser regions *inside* a
    giant molecular cloud is that the dust particles shield the interior
    from the light of nearby stars. Some parts of the interior cool
    more than other parts. The cooler parts become more dense.
    Those regions can eventually collapse to protoplanetary disks.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    My apologies to you and Dave and anyone else who may have
    been annoyed by that.
    That's OK. Not annoyed just confused.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    even while both the earth and the moon orbit the sun, they are simultaneously attracted to one another.
    Yes, that that is correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    And the International Space Station is orbiting the sun while simultaneously orbiting the earth (and being attracted to the moon as well).
    Are you sure about it?
    Don't you think that the Space station is orbiting around the Earth while the Earth is orbiting around the Sun?
    If the Earth will be stripped away from the Sun, don't you agree that the Space station should continue to orbit around the Earth and not around the Sun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Everything in the universe is attracted to everything else in the universe.
    That is correct.
    However,
    We must distinguish between orbital path to general "attracted" power.
    So even if the moon is attracted by Pluto, or the Space station is attracted by the Moon, it has no real impact on the orbital path (maybe some sort of tidal).
    Therefore, do you agree that there is some difference between orbital path to tidal?
    Last edited by Dave Lee; 2018-Jan-29 at 01:53 PM.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    It has nothing at all to do with thresholds. There are no discontinuities. There is no sort of hysteresis. There is no "connection". Gravity does not have any sort of "state".
    I'm not sure that I understand your message.
    What do you mean by: "There are no discontinuities."
    Do you mean that the moon will continue to orbit around the Earth at any sort of Sun gravity?
    So, even if the Sun/moon gravity will be increased by 100 or over 1000 with reference to Earth/moon gravity, it won't be able to strip away the moon from the Earth?

  12. #42
    How about the force due to the motion of Earth-Moon system going around the Sun it pulls the two outwards. There is balance between the forces that determines the orbit of the Earth-moon around the sun. Plus you have force from the Moon going around the Earth. The distances between everything is not static and changes from point to point. (darn this what I will be thinking about all day if not week.)
    Last edited by The Backroad Astronomer; 2018-Jan-29 at 02:27 PM.
    ...I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me.
    You cannot run away from the truth, the world is not big enough. DI Jack Frost
    Don't Panic THGTTG
    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Einstein
    http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    We do not "set a gape of about 2 Billion years between the Sun formation to Planets/Moons formation". Age of Sun = approximately 4.6 billion years. Age of Earth = approximately 4.54 0.05 billion years.
    Thanks for your answer.
    However, why do we set any sort of gape in time?
    4.6 B - 4.54 B = 0.06 Billion.
    So, even if it is quite close to the error bar ( 0.05 billion years), we still have a gape of about 0.01 B year.
    I wonder what is the reason for that gape?
    Why don't we say that the whole Solar system had been formed about 4.54 B 0.06 billion years?

  14. #44
    The planets took a while to form. Plus often some planets would form and then get smashed apart and start to rebuild again, we only know how old the plants that still exist have been around.
    ...I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me.
    You cannot run away from the truth, the world is not big enough. DI Jack Frost
    Don't Panic THGTTG
    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Einstein
    http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    It appears that you are concerned about how the Earth could have captured a previously unbound Moon without having stronger gravity than it does now.
    Yes, that is correct

    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    That would have required a close encounter with another massive object at or near the time of the Moon's close approach. If the encounter geometry is just right, the other object's gravity could slow the Moon relative to the Earth just enough to make a capture happen, with the interloper being flung away by the kinetic energy exchange. This would be roughly analogous to using a retro rocket to slow a spacecraft down enough to become bound to a planet when it otherwise would have been a flyby, never to return. Such an encounter is considered highly improbable, and now the preferred theory is a collision with a Mars-sized body. Such a collision would break a lot of material loose from both bodies. Most of it would fly away, but if the geometry is favorable a relatively small portion could be moving slowly enough to remain gravitationally bound the the proto-Earth and become the Moon.
    So, in order to place the moon in place, there is a requirement for "another massive object at or near the time of the Moon's close approach."
    How do we get this massive object at the requested size, requested position and requested timing.
    Don't you think that the chance for that is very low?

    Look how many moons there are in our system.
    Think how many "massive objects" are requested to place all the moons on track.

    If there were massive objects, where are they?
    Why they are not part of our current solar system?

    I still can't understand why we don't assume that the Earth & moon had been formed at the same moment and at the same place?
    Why do we insist on another massive object to set the gravity bond between the two?

    Why can't we just assume that at the first moment the gravity power between the Moon/Earth was much higher than the Sun/Moon Gravity?
    However, do you agree that in this case, that massive object isn't needed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post

    As for how much stronger the Sun's gravity could be and still not disrupt the Moon's orbit, the sky is the limit in principle.
    Wow.
    So you claim that even if the Sun/Moon gravity will be increased dramatically (sky is the limit) with regards to the Earth/moon Gravity - the moon won't be stripped from the earth orbital path.
    Last edited by Dave Lee; 2018-Jan-29 at 09:05 PM.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by astrotimer View Post
    The planets took a while to form. Plus often some planets would form and then get smashed apart and start to rebuild again, we only know how old the plants that still exist have been around.
    Do you agree that we know the current status of our Solar system, but we really don't know how was it when it was formed?

  17. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Do you agree that we know the current status of our Solar system, but we really don't know how was it when it was formed?
    I think we know roughly how it is created but we do not and probably never know every collision that had taken place over time.
    ...I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me.
    You cannot run away from the truth, the world is not big enough. DI Jack Frost
    Don't Panic THGTTG
    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Einstein
    http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,652
    "The Moon is thought to have formed about 4.51 billion years ago, not long after Earth. The most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body called Theia."

    from the Wiki aricle Moon.

    Dave, do you dusagree with this mainstream explanation? If so, what do you propose as an alternatyve?

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,924
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Dave, do you dusagree with this mainstream explanation? If so, what do you propose as an alternatyve?
    No, the OP will not be advocating any alternatives in the Q&A forum.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,652
    "The Moon is thought to have formed about 4.51 billion years ago, not long after Earth. The most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body called Theia."

    from the Wiki aricle Moon.

    Dave, do you dusagree with this mainstream explanation? If so, what do you propose as an alternatyve?
    Last edited by John Mendenhall; 2018-Jan-29 at 05:50 PM. Reason: duplication

  21. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    "The Moon is thought to have formed about 4.51 billion years ago, not long after Earth. The most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body called Theia."

    from the Wiki aricle Moon.

    Dave, do you dusagree with this mainstream explanation? If so, what do you propose as an alternatyve?
    A good book to look to is Splat by Dana Mackenzie.
    ...I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me.
    You cannot run away from the truth, the world is not big enough. DI Jack Frost
    Don't Panic THGTTG
    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Einstein
    http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  22. #52
    Sorry, the Big Splat.
    ...I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me.
    You cannot run away from the truth, the world is not big enough. DI Jack Frost
    Don't Panic THGTTG
    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Einstein
    http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower
    That would have required a close encounter with another massive object at or near the time of the Moon's close approach. If the encounter geometry is just right, the other object's gravity could slow the Moon relative to the Earth just enough to make a capture happen, with the interloper being flung away by the kinetic energy exchange. This would be roughly analogous to using a retro rocket to slow a spacecraft down enough to become bound to a planet when it otherwise would have been a flyby, never to return. Such an encounter is considered highly improbable, and now the preferred theory is a collision with a Mars-sized body. Such a collision would break a lot of material loose from both bodies. Most of it would fly away, but if the geometry is favorable a relatively small portion could be moving slowly enough to remain gravitationally bound the the proto-Earth and become the Moon.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee
    So, in order to place the moon in place, there is a requirement for "another massive object at or near the time of the Moon's close approach."
    How do we get this massive object at the requested size, requested position and requested timing.
    Don't you think that the chance for that is very low?

    Look how many moons there are in our system.
    Think how many "massive objects" are requested to place all the moons on track.

    If there were massive objects, where are they?
    Why they are not part of our current solar system?
    You posted a quote from my previous post, which I have included here, but you give the impression that you did not read all of it. You might wish to reread it before doing anything else.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee
    I still can't understand why we don't assume that the Earth & moon had been formed at the same moment and at the same place?
    Why do we insist on another massive object to set the gravity bond between the two?
    Who says we are insisting on any such thing? I already said such a non-impact encounter is very improbable. That's why the experts proposed a collision hypothesis. If I am not mistaken the original idea was that they formed simultaneously out of a lumpy concentration of matter in the primordial nebula, but differences in composition discovered during the Apollo mission cast doubt on that. The collision idea only requires a glancing collision of two bodies rather than a highly improbable close encounter of three of them.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee
    Wow.
    So you claim that even if the Sun/Moon gravity will be increased dramatically (sky is the limit) with regards to the Earth/moon Gravity - the moon won't be stripped from the earth orbital path.
    In my hypothetical model, yes. I stand by my calculations.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    And the International Space Station is orbiting the sun while
    simultaneously orbiting the earth
    Are you sure about it?
    Don't you think that the Space station is orbiting around the Earth
    while the Earth is orbiting around the Sun?
    Both statements are completely correct:

    - The Space Station is orbiting the Sun.
    - The Space Station is orbiting the Earth.

    One statement is not more correct than the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    If the Earth will be stripped away from the Sun, don't you agree
    that the Space station should continue to orbit around the Earth
    and not around the Sun?
    It depends on how the Earth is "stripped away". If a massive body
    comes through the Solar System, passing close to the Earth, its
    gravity could pull both the Earth and the Space Station out of orbit
    around the Sun. But if the Flying Spaghetti Monster were to come
    through and snatch the Earth out of orbit, that big jerk could yank
    Earth away from the Space Station, leaving the Space Station
    behind, still orbiting the Sun. Earth's gravity might not be enough
    to hold onto the Space Station when Earth is suddenly jerked away
    by the powerful, noodly tentacles of the Big Jerk himself.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    However, why do we set any sort of gape in time?
    Because Formation and evolution of the Solar System. More explicitly because we measure a gap (4.6 B and 4.54 B years) and thus there is a gap.
    The age of the Earth is measured to be approximately 4.54 0.05 billion years. The error is a measured value for the Earth, not arbitrarily assigned and not for the Solar System.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    So, in order to place the moon in place, there is a requirement for "another massive object at or near the time of the Moon's close approach."
    How do we get this massive object at the requested size, requested position and requested timing.
    Don't you think that the chance for that is very low?
    Hornblower's post that you quote states just that. The "capture with a body to carry off excess kinetic energy" hypothesis is doubted because it needs a highly improbable event.
    The Wikipedia article has an alternative capture hypothesis that gives the early Earth a large atmosphere to aero-brake the Moon but supported only by possible capture of irregular satellites by gas giants. That probably dubious idea for the origin of the Moon removes the need for another body but struggles with the lack of evidence for such an atmosphere.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    In my hypothetical model, yes. I stand by my calculations.
    Addendum: At the risk of being repetitious, let me emphasize that I was specifying a billion solar mass body at 1,000 AU, not a 1,000 solar mass body at the Sun's position. For the latter, the disruptive effect between Earth and Moon would be increased a thousandfold, to about 10 times Earth's gravity, and I would expect the Moon to be ejected.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Both statements are completely correct:

    - The Space Station is orbiting the Sun.
    - The Space Station is orbiting the Earth.

    One statement is not more correct than the other.


    It depends on how the Earth is "stripped away". If a massive body
    comes through the Solar System, passing close to the Earth, its
    gravity could pull both the Earth and the Space Station out of orbit
    around the Sun. But if the Flying Spaghetti Monster were to come
    through and snatch the Earth out of orbit, that big jerk could yank
    Earth away from the Space Station, leaving the Space Station
    behind, still orbiting the Sun. Earth's gravity might not be enough
    to hold onto the Space Station when Earth is suddenly jerked away
    by the powerful, noodly tentacles of the Big Jerk himself.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    I assume the monster's big jerk is non-gravitational in your scenario. Is that correct?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •