Jump to content

stargazine_ep38_banner.thumb.jpg.6fe20536a22b28c17b2ee1818650993c.jpg

Recommended Posts

The definition of a moon is a natural object (or satellite) that orbits a planet. To my understanding Saturn's rings are made up of space debris, and they must orbit around the planet. Does that mean that each individual piece of debris and dust in Saturn's rings, and other planet's rings, count as moons? 

Edited by Patrick2568422
Link to post
Share on other sites

To my understanding there is no definitive answer for question "what is a moon?". Sure it must be natural object, but as far as I know there is no size definition....where would you draw the line?....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tuomo said:

To my understanding there is no definitive answer for question "what is a moon?". Sure it must be natural object, but as far as I know there is no size definition....where would you draw the line?....

 

I say it has to be big enough to be spherical. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

from wiki

 

Definition of a moon

220px-Moon%2C_Earth_size_comparison.jpg
 
Size comparison of Earth and the Moon

There is no established lower limit on what is considered a "moon". Every natural celestial body with an identified orbit around a planet of the Solar System, some as small as a kilometer across, has been considered a moon, though objects a tenth that size within Saturn's rings, which have not been directly observed, have been called moonlets. Small asteroid moons (natural satellites of asteroids), such as Dactyl, have also been called moonlets.[12]

The upper limit is also vague. Two orbiting bodies are sometimes described as a double body rather than primary and satellite. Asteroids such as 90 Antiope are considered double asteroids, but they have not forced a clear definition of what constitutes a moon. Some authors consider the Pluto–Charon system to be a double (dwarf) planet. The most common[citation needed] dividing line on what is considered a moon rests upon whether the barycentre is below the surface of the larger body, though this is somewhat arbitrary, because it depends on distance as well as relative mass.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Earl said:

from wiki

 

Definition of a moon

220px-Moon%2C_Earth_size_comparison.jpg
 
Size comparison of Earth and the Moon

There is no established lower limit on what is considered a "moon". Every natural celestial body with an identified orbit around a planet of the Solar System, some as small as a kilometer across, has been considered a moon, though objects a tenth that size within Saturn's rings, which have not been directly observed, have been called moonlets. Small asteroid moons (natural satellites of asteroids), such as Dactyl, have also been called moonlets.[12]

The upper limit is also vague. Two orbiting bodies are sometimes described as a double body rather than primary and satellite. Asteroids such as 90 Antiope are considered double asteroids, but they have not forced a clear definition of what constitutes a moon. Some authors consider the Pluto–Charon system to be a double (dwarf) planet. The most common[citation needed] dividing line on what is considered a moon rests upon whether the barycentre is below the surface of the larger body, though this is somewhat arbitrary, because it depends on distance as well as relative mass.

so therefore. technically the little tiny bits of debris are moons.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/08/2017 at 20:28, Patrick2568422 said:

so therefore. technically the little tiny bits of debris are moons.  

In practical terms though to refer to the ice particles forming the rings as "moons" would be pushing the point somewhat and generally misleading.  Similar argument for the definition of a planet that led to the excitement in certain media circles regarding Pluto etc.

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the IAU site on naming astronomical bodies "Modern technology has made it possible to discover satellites down to 1 km in size or even smaller. " so it looks like it counts as a natural satellite as long as it has been possible to uniquely identify it so that it's discovery can be confirmed. 

Info from here https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming/

Regards Andrew

Link to post
Share on other sites

Angels, dancing on (heads of) pins ?

and this this business of the classification of Pluto (is it or is it not) was an exersize in agrandisment on the part of an ego & publicity,,, in my humble opinion,,,,   and demeans the dedication of ClydeT and his limited (state of the art?) equipment.

so there !

Edited by SilverAstro
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SilverAstro said:

(state of the art?) equipment.

I feel the need for a google, when did silvered glass take over from speculum metal mirrors? I suppose (1930's) he was part of the Porter / Sprinfield / Stellafane group. One for the History section !

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SilverAstro said:

Angels, dancing on (heads of) pins ?

and this this business of the classification of Pluto (is it or is it not) was an exersize in agrandisment on the part of an ego & publicity,,, in my humble opinion,,,,   and demeans the dedication of ClydeT and his limited (state of the art?) equipment.

so there !

Indeed, and all the while the universe cares not a jot what we call a planet nor a moon. Just human definitions with all the fragility that by default they must contain.:) 

Jim

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SilverAstro said:

this business of the classification of Pluto (is it or is it not) was an exersize in agrandisment on the part of an ego & publicity,,, in my humble opinion,,,,   and demeans the dedication of ClydeT and his limited (state of the art?) equipment.

There's an interesting vid on utube (from 1980) where Clyde himself predicts that a lot more Pluto-like objetcs will be discovered and so the importance of his discovery will decline. So I think he would have been fairly stoical about the reclassification.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, saac said:

Indeed, and all the while the universe cares not a jot what we call a planet nor a moon.

Quite right but classification has been the basis for enabling us to study the natural world. It has allowed us to get to grips with the great kingdoms of life, understand carbon and inorganic chemistry and the stars above via their spectral types. While no such classifications are perfect they do enable science.

Clyde Tombaugh achievement is not diminished by the reclassification of Pluto but to my mind enhanced when you realise how long we had to wait and the degree of technological enhancement that was needed to discover more of the class of object he discovered.

Regards Andrew

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that in all our qualitative taxonomies there are weaknesses when taken to the extreme or applied where they were never intended to be applied. A trivial example being "everything in the solar system (excluding the sun) is a planet as it orbits the sun.  That is clearly insufficient so we need to refine our definition to include clearing its own orbit and then having sufficient gravity to pull itself into roughly spherical shape. Further modifications evolve as each new challenge emerges. These definition suffer from such due to the looseness of their original conception and use. Referring to the debris  field forming the rings of Saturn as moons is a case in point.

Jim 

Edited by saac
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if in a way there is a parallel here with regards to the wonderful SI system. When defining base units we seek to root the definition of the unit to a truly fixed reference point using physical parameters. As an aside, I was reading somewhere recently that moves are afoot to remove the standard kg as the last physical standard. It's a shame in a way, I like the idea of a physical standard guarded as though it were treasure, which I guess it is really. :) 

 

Jim 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Etymologically the word Moon has common origins with words for Month.  ;)
Though that clearly doesn't limit some modern usage. The question arose
elsewhere as to whether an Astronaut could have a satellite! Sadly it would
have to orbit within the body of the person... An "exercise for the reader"? :p  

Edited by Macavity
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Macavity said:

 Sadly it would have to orbit within the body of the person... An "exercise for the reader"?

Errr ? I'm missing something (probably!) but barycenter has already been mentioned ?

If you and your missus were to go 'out there' beyond other influences you could each be the other's moon with a bary about half way betwixt  ( a few assumptions are always necessary :) )

Having been confounded by things like foot-poundals and slugs, progressed thro' cgs and MKS, I am all in favour of SI ( even tho' as an English I'd av preferred IS )  but dislike it's propensity for naming its units after personages of ever diminishing notoriety as they cast the net wider ( cycles per sec is expressive, Hertz is intellectual superiority/ snobbery  :( )

Edited by SilverAstro
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Exercise for the reader:

A subject, debate, or other matter that is not decided or dealt with directly by the author or presenter, but rather is left up to the judgment or interpretation of the observer, reader, or addressee.

Or as I would have once interpreted it: "Something I don't have to bother with..."! :p

Edited by Macavity
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a postscript: Certainly not my wish to cause any chagrins... Due to repetition,
(I'd forgotten about barycentres!) OR via any subsequent choice of words. A wry
reference to a frequent text book author  phrase? And certainly no one here... :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By SamK
      After many hours of fiddling round with Registax wavelet settings to process my own solar system images, I've always been curious as to how it actually works. In doing so I've put together my own image sharpening program which does something similar to Registax wavelets. For comparison, I've also added some general purpose deconvolution techniques which you'll probably be familiar with from other image processing software (like Wiener inverse filtering, Richardson-Lucy, etc). In choosing a point spread function to deconvolve with, one suprising result was that the typical stack outputs from Autostakkert work best with a Lorentz point spread function (with a minor modification). Deconvolving with a Gaussian point spread function doesn't really work. Deep-sky images seem to deconvolve best with a Moffat point spread function (which is to be expected - it's already well established that star profiles in long exposures are best approximated with a Moffat function).
      On the whole, it's unlikely that you can sharpen solar system images much more in this program than you already can in Registax. You can see results from Registax wavelet (sharpening layers), inverse filtering (e.g. Wiener), and iterative deconvolution (e.g. Landweber) below. They all give very similar results. In all the techniques there's a similar trade-off between less noise but less detail vs more noise but more detail.
      There are some quick start notes on the first page of the Readme here:
      https://github.com/50000Quaoar/Deconvolvulator/blob/main/Readme.pdf
      There are some examples of deconvolved images here (move mouse over image to see before/after):
      https://50000quaoar.github.io/Deconvolvulator/
      Image credits are on the hyperlinks
      The Windows download is here:
      https://github.com/50000Quaoar/Deconvolvulator/raw/main/Deconvolvulator32.zip
      Example solar system tifs to experiment with are here:
      https://github.com/50000Quaoar/Deconvolvulator/tree/main/image%20examples
      And the project page is here (with Source code in the src folder)
      https://github.com/50000Quaoar/Deconvolvulator
      If anyone finds it useful, do post here how it compares to other tools you use for solar system image sharpening.
      The download and the source code are free, you can use it unrestricted for any purpose. The OpenCV and OpenCVCSharp components which my program use have licence information at the end of the Readme.pdf.
      Sam
       

    • By stevewanstall
      A very crisp and cold night.  I added more luminance data and also collected some RGB for NGC 2841. There is now around 4 hours in L and an hour each in R, G and B. The subs are 114s at a gain of 139. 
       
       

       
      Wikipedia:
      NGC 2841 is an unbarred spiral galaxy in the northern circumpolar constellation of Ursa Major. A 2001 Hubble Space Telescope survey of the galaxy's Cepheid variables determined its distance to be approximately 14.1 megaparsecs or 46 million light-years. 
      This is the prototype for the flocculent spiral galaxy, a type of spiral galaxy whose arms are patchy and discontinuous. The morphological class is SAa, indicating a spiral galaxy with no central bar and very tightly-wound arms. There is no grand design structure visible in the optical band, although some inner spiral arms can be seen in the near infrared. 
      The properties of NGC 2841 are similar to those of the Andromeda Galaxy. It is home to a large population of young blue stars, and a few H II regions. The luminosity of the galaxy is 2×1010 M☉ and it has a combined mass of 7×1010 M☉. Its disk of stars can be traced out to a radius of around 228 kly (70 kpc). This disk begins to warp at a radius of around 98 kly (30 kpc), suggesting the perturbing effect of in-falling matter from the surrounding medium.
      The rotational behaviour of the galaxy suggests there is a massive nuclear bulge, with a low-ionization nuclear emission-line region  at the core; a type of region that is characterized by spectral line emission from weakly ionized atoms. A prominent molecular ring is orbiting at a radius of 7–20 kly (2–6 kpc), which is providing a star-forming region of gas and dust. The nucleus appears decoupled and there is a counter-rotating element of stars and gas in the outer parts of the nucleus, suggesting a recent interaction with a smaller galaxy.
      Equipment: Celestron 9.25 XLT at F10, Skywatcher EQ6 Pro GEM, ZWO 1600MM Pro, ZWO EFW with ZWO LRGB filters, QHY5IIC guide camera on Skywatcher 9 x 50 finderscope
    • By MarsG76
      Mosaic of the Large Magellanic Cloud One of two (known) companion/satellite galaxies of the Milkyway galaxy, located 160,000LY away and only visible from the southern hemisphere. Due to the angular size of the LMC, this image consists of 4 frames, each exposed in natural color at 500mm focal length through an 80mm refractor. The 4 frame are combined into one image to fit the whole satellite galaxy into the frame. The camera used was my astromodded and active cooled canon 40D. Exposure time was 2 hours and 42 minutes per frame for a total of 11.5 hours for the whole image.
    • By BenR
      Hello
      I am new to astronomy, and recently purchased a Celestron Starsense Explorer LT 114AZ, and just for a start, I used the finderscope to locate exactly a random star, and I looked through the eyepiece and just saw a blurry white image. I was using a 25mm eyepiece lens, and then decided to put on the 2x Barlow lens with the 25mm lens, and nothing changed. Is this normal? What should I do to improve?
      Thanks.
    • By Greggy-spaceboy
      So I made this diagram to explain my ridiculous thinking which is probably wrong on many levels.  I am aware they are looking for planets within stars that have suitable or imitatable conditions to our planet to support the notion that "life could exist on other worlds" .... I wonder, (and this may already be the case) ... are they factoring the evolutionary development time , in particular from single cell to multicellular organisms and the other regions in the universe that will also share a similar time point as sol/ our galaxy is from the centre of the universe.  I just wonder if it is a thing where they explore within a specific range because of a justified thinking that other life will also evolve in a specific region of the universe... where is my thinking incorrect ? much appreciate any input on this... apologies for my stupid picture.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.