Thanks fieldmarshaldj.
|
Posted on 06/04/2019 6:01:30 PM PDT by ETL
Experts are never wrong, especially if they wear white lab coats, I would neve challenge their conclusions. I nearly made my own conclusion about the veracity of the computer generated movie they presented as photographic proof of their assertions.
Experts are never wrong, especially if they wear white lab coats, I would never challenge their conclusions.
But you were so absolutely sure about it. It was as-if you had done the calculations yourself and proven them wrong.
You wrote: "There is no way that rock has enough gravitational attraction to hold that smaller rock in orbit."
...Anyway, if they had imaged the two asteroids over a period of time they could have simply observed the smaller one going around the larger one. ie, seen it in various different positions with respect to the larger in separate still shots.
That is still my belief. I am not saying the rock isn't orbiting the big rock, just that Gravity alone does not adequately explain it.
Let’s face the facts. There is a lot of stuff flying around in Space. Good thing that there is a LOT OF SPACE, or there would be a lot of bumping and smacking and grinding out there.
WHEW!
The problem is that its moving too fast, too close to the camera. Something like Pluto, while moving fast as well, appears slower at this distance.
For example, it is much easier to photograph a motorcycle race at a distance—you are able to track the motion and keep the frame in focus.
On the other hand, if an item is crossing your plain of view and you are trying to track it with a huge telephoto lens, you are going to have a bear of a time shooting in focus and panning at the proper speed.
(I was a professional sports photographer for 14 years. I dealt with this stuff every day.)
That is still my belief. I am not saying the rock isn't orbiting the big rock, just that Gravity alone does not adequately explain it.
What other force or mechanism could there possibly be to even assist in the smaller being held in orbit around the larger, static electricity, magnetism...?
43,000 mph? That’s darn good gas mileage.
Gravity works at all scales. Absent significant external forces, that small rock will orbit the large rock forever. If they get very close to a massive object at the right time, there could be enough differential attraction to perturb the small rock's orbit. If that occurred frequently and in sync with the orbital period, the small rock could eventually be stripped away.
No one knows mostly because no one looks for anything else, but Gravity is a very weak force when you consider the inverse square rule. There are more than a few Freepers that seem to lean toward an "Electronic Universe." I have no dog in either fight and really don't much care but a lot of consensus science defies common sense. The moon sucks the Oceans up toward it but ignores clouds full of water, ok then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
