(and yes, I worded that title for parody threads :p)
In my layman's knowledge, in order for one object (say the moon) to orbit another object (say the earth), the orbiting body has to be of smaller mass in order to maintain a stable orbit. Otherwise, you'd end up with a situation like a 125 pound dog being led on a leash by a 3 year old.
What I'm wondering....is there a theorem or formula that defines this? A scientific principle that says "in order for one object to orbit another, it's mass has to X times less than the orbiting body to maintain a stable orbit" (with other factors included)
If I had a magical dial that I could turn and magically increase the mass of the moon, as I turned it up, there should be a point where the moon's mass was great enough that a stable orbit around the earth was no longer possible, and it would either fly off on it's own or come crashing down to the earth. Is there a scientific formula that calculates this?
In my layman's knowledge, in order for one object (say the moon) to orbit another object (say the earth), the orbiting body has to be of smaller mass in order to maintain a stable orbit. Otherwise, you'd end up with a situation like a 125 pound dog being led on a leash by a 3 year old.
What I'm wondering....is there a theorem or formula that defines this? A scientific principle that says "in order for one object to orbit another, it's mass has to X times less than the orbiting body to maintain a stable orbit" (with other factors included)
If I had a magical dial that I could turn and magically increase the mass of the moon, as I turned it up, there should be a point where the moon's mass was great enough that a stable orbit around the earth was no longer possible, and it would either fly off on it's own or come crashing down to the earth. Is there a scientific formula that calculates this?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2rhXsQZ
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire