3 ms·

Jupiter has four stable resonant satellites on the order of 1% of Earth's mass within an orbital radius of 1% of Earth's orbit. It's plausible by that example.

digging 3y ago
[flagged]
- vikingerik 3y ago
  I meant the Galileans. I'm going to ignore the accusatory tone and not debate further.
  - digging 3y ago
    I'm only further confused. I literally don't have any idea if the system you're describing is similar to the one in the article without looking up the data and doing the math. You claimed they're similar, so I figured you had done the math, and I wanted you to show me so I could believe you. If you take that as offensive, after making a technical comment, I don't know what the point of this conversation is.
    - ant6n 3y ago
      Omg this is tedious
      - digging 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - unethical_ban 3y ago
      In case this isn't a troll, let it be known that a detailed, sources-cited comment in a friendly thread isn't expected. It's one thing to ask "hey, what satellites are you talking about, I'm unaware", vs. the tone of expectation and admonishment presented.
      - digging 3y ago
        I guess I messed up in thinking that the comment was a response to my mention of the tiny orbits of these planets then. Because if it was, it was not a good response, since I still don't even know if the system mentioned is in actually similar to the one in TFA. So I guess it was just an offhand comment about something unrelated and I should have ignored it.
    - ramblenode 3y ago
      The parent isn't trying to prove this to you like an argument in a debate. They are providing you with a potential direction for further research in case you are interested in learning more.
- tessierashpool 3y ago
  this is an inappropriate response
  - digging 3y ago
    In what way?
    - xen2xen1 3y ago
      Your being a jerk, demanding technical answers from someone making a off the cuff comment? "I assumed you did the math" is rude and inflammatory.
      - digging 3y ago
        > demanding technical answers from someone making a off the cuff comment It's a technical discussion. Asking for proof of a technical claim that confused me is correct, not rude.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        some_furry 3y ago
        > It's a technical discussion. Who decided that? When was this negotiated? Reread your comments and ask yourself these questions.
        digging 3y ago
        > Who decided that? When was this negotiated? I did, when I began by discussing technical aspects of an article about astronomy? I wish I could edit my first reply for better tone because it was difficult to write, but we're not allowed to edit comments here so the misunderstandings continue.
        3y ago
javajosh 3y ago
Not an expert, but the wikipedia article on orbital resonance[0] mentions Laplace's discovery of a 3 body resonance, Io–Europa–Ganymede. They are indeed OOM 1% of Earth's mass (Ganymede being 2.5% for example[1]). 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganymede_(moon) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganymede_(moon)

digging 3y ago

[flagged]

vikingerik 3y ago
I meant the Galileans. I'm going to ignore the accusatory tone and not debate further.
- digging 3y ago
  I'm only further confused. I literally don't have any idea if the system you're describing is similar to the one in the article without looking up the data and doing the math. You claimed they're similar, so I figured you had done the math, and I wanted you to show me so I could believe you. If you take that as offensive, after making a technical comment, I don't know what the point of this conversation is.
  - ant6n 3y ago
    Omg this is tedious
    - digging 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - unethical_ban 3y ago
    In case this isn't a troll, let it be known that a detailed, sources-cited comment in a friendly thread isn't expected. It's one thing to ask "hey, what satellites are you talking about, I'm unaware", vs. the tone of expectation and admonishment presented.
    - digging 3y ago
      I guess I messed up in thinking that the comment was a response to my mention of the tiny orbits of these planets then. Because if it was, it was not a good response, since I still don't even know if the system mentioned is in actually similar to the one in TFA. So I guess it was just an offhand comment about something unrelated and I should have ignored it.
  - ramblenode 3y ago
    The parent isn't trying to prove this to you like an argument in a debate. They are providing you with a potential direction for further research in case you are interested in learning more.
tessierashpool 3y ago
this is an inappropriate response
- digging 3y ago
  In what way?
  - xen2xen1 3y ago
    Your being a jerk, demanding technical answers from someone making a off the cuff comment? "I assumed you did the math" is rude and inflammatory.
    - digging 3y ago
      > demanding technical answers from someone making a off the cuff comment It's a technical discussion. Asking for proof of a technical claim that confused me is correct, not rude.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - some_furry 3y ago
        > It's a technical discussion. Who decided that? When was this negotiated? Reread your comments and ask yourself these questions.
        digging 3y ago
        > Who decided that? When was this negotiated? I did, when I began by discussing technical aspects of an article about astronomy? I wish I could edit my first reply for better tone because it was difficult to write, but we're not allowed to edit comments here so the misunderstandings continue.
        3y ago

javajosh 3y ago

Not an expert, but the wikipedia article on orbital resonance[0] mentions Laplace's discovery of a 3 body resonance, Io–Europa–Ganymede. They are indeed OOM 1% of Earth's mass (Ganymede being 2.5% for example[1]). 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganymede_(moon) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganymede_(moon)