/sci/ - Science & Math

new york and countless other shitty coastal cities get's flooded

>i'mokwiththis.jpeg

HAHAHAHA how stupid can you be? Gravity isn't hot, your a retard! how could it warm up a moon?

Also how would we move europa from neptune to begin with?

>>1964107
You sir, are a fucking idiot.

Ever heard of friction? That's what happens when an entire moon of water/ice shifts twice a day.

gtfo my /sci/

>>1964107
>Europa
>from neptune

wow... i actually thought /sci/ was smart. Also, jupiter's gravity is what is powering the moon Io's volcanos

>Also, would europa be able to sustain life then? would the ice melt to form a water covered-moon with the earth providing the heat due to the earth's gravity pulling on it's water (tidal waves on europa)?
Jupiter has a bigger gravity.
Think about it.

>a bigger gravity

>bigger gravity

>gravity

Implying gravity exists.

>>1964124
>implying it doesn't

oh you

>implying the implications of your implication is correct

Niggers.

>>1964129
THAT'S RACIST!

>>1964129
>redundant redundant redundant nigger
gtfo my /sci/
gravity is real fucktard.

>>1964115
>>1964114
Trolled

>>1964136
>>1964135
>>1964134
>>1964129
>>1964127
>>1964124
/sci/ has turned into /v/ and /b/

And what if it doesn't?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html

>>1964146
>what if it doesn't
would not be surprised

Newton was a chistard after all

[spoiler] same goes for big bang [ spoiler]

>>1964102
I see no problem with this. We just need to invent powerful engines strong enough to move entire moons.

This could possibly be a stable system with Earth pulling on the moon's water to form tides. If you think about it, Europa would be close enough to the sun for the water to melt, the only issue I see would be that it would be winter every time the moon passes behind the earth, and probably also low atmospheric pressures.

>>1964169
Einstein was a half christian, and one part of his theory is incorrect, what does this tell us? lawl.

Due very low gravity of Europa and having practically no atmosphere, it's water is more likely to gradually vaporize away.

>>1964239


Once again this gravity term comes up. stfu.

>disregard how we would "move" europa.

Create cool robots that can eat a whole moon and incorporate it in their body + they can travel in space.

Direct them right to the designated location and slam the whole swarm together --> whole Moon moved

>>1964102
>earth providing the heat due to the earth's gravity pulling on it's water

what?

>>1964261

A moon's mass of cool robots will be as difficult to move as a moon. Perhaps more so. Definitely more so.

>>1964184

You can't be half christian, just like YOU can't be half retarded.

>you just went full retard

>>1964289
Why? A swarm of robots, each and every single unit with it's own drive?

>>1964302

Because they still have mass, and so they still have gravitational pull. Two small objects sitting on your desk don't look like they're attracting each other very much, and indeed they're not. But a moon's mass of them will have a hard time getting away from each other. So then it's just a big ol' ball of robots, that are as difficult to move as a moon.

IDEA: Gather asteroids/meteoroids and ball them up until it's combined mass is great enough to pull europa out of jupiter's gravitational pull and...

>>1964184
that Jews are 100%? OH SH-

>>1964321
>>1964321
>inb4: fuckup in calculations

>>1964239

No, im not referring to same shit as the earlier troll. I mean, for the same reason the moon has no atmosphere, and why mars lost most of it's atmosphere and water in the past. It's gravity is TOO LOW to hold atmosphere. And, if the water of the Europa would melt, it would immediately begin to vaporize and be blown away and get broken up by the solar radiation.

Europa would have liquid water and might develop a water vapour atmosphere. But the fun would'nt last for long, at least on the cosmic timeline, until Europa would be rendered as a barren rock like our moon.

>>1964184
when using /sci/entific logic? Nothing, idiot. It could just as easily mean:

Einstein's theory was incomplete because he wasn't completely christian.

^ Wrong, but more logical. Gtfo

Making anti-religion jokes doesn't purchase /sci/ cred

"So then it's just a big ol' ball of robots, that are as difficult to move as a moon.

Just build bigger robots to carry those robots. Problem solved.

>>1964311

I'm sorry, can someone get this man a high five for using the phrase, 'big ol' ball of robots'? We seriously need to make one of these. This can be our moon landing.

>We choose to build a big ol' ball of robots not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

I'm not sure if that's what he meant...
but if it is, agree.

>>1964350

I don't think gravity is the only thing that prevents a planet from having it's atmosphere striped away.

Better idea: Throw Europa at Mars and populate the resulting planet with algae and plants to terraform the shit out of it.

>>1964464
Also important is a magnetosphere to protect it from solar winds.

>>1964595
Is Europa small enough to not shatter Mars if we did that? Mars is pretty small (1/3 of the Earth)

>>1964464

Indeed not.

But having a no geological (volcanic) activity to replenish the atmosphere does.
Assuming there the planet had a magical shield that would protect the planet from solar radiation.
It still would'nt stop the planet from getting gradually stripped off of it's atmosphere. The atmospheric particles would keep reacting with each other until there would only be lighter gases left (other gasses being absorbed in ground minerals), which would descent high in planet's atmosphere and eventually escape to space. It's taking long with mars's atmosphere, even with all the solar radiation breaking up the atmosphere, but mars has that gravity, even though low compared to earth. But In case of planet/planetoid with as little gravity as our moon has, it would happen VERY quickly.

Our atmospheric balance is a combination of factors-

Enough gravity to hold on to an atmosphere
A magnetic field to deflect incoming solar wind that would scour the surface of gasses
Volcanic and biological gas sources to replenish what little gas still escapes anyway

To compare, Venus maintains its atmospheric balance almost entirely through volcanic replenishment as it has no magnetic field to prevent losses from solar wind.

>>1964108
flooding would depend on the moon's orbit. if both moons are lined up, one behind the other, then the gravity pulling at the water would be twice as strong, but if it was on the other side of the planet, it would be pulling in the other direction, thus almost countering the tidal flow at all

>>1964692
here we've determined that the atmosphere would disapear, and we've know that it has no magnetosphere. meaning that the moon would have no reason to go above 0 kelvin, as it has nothing to protect it from space.

if we where able to force it's core into meing molten, and force an atmosphere onto it that would continually replenish it's self enough to counteract the loss of atmosphere, we may have something, but otherwise, I think not.

as a partially related question, could a ring around the planet serve to capture lost atmosphere? be hard to pick up gasses, but would they at least congregate in the location of an asteroid ring?

>>1964740
>the moon would have no reason to go above 0 kelvin, as it has nothing to protect it from space.

Space is 3 Kelvin.

>>1964748
space around the earth? space around neptune? space halfway to aldebaran? logically it'll be different
my point was just super cold.

>>1964765
>logically it'll be different
huh? Background radiation is what it is.

It would be stable, Europa would be just a second Moon. No life, just another shit in the night sky.

If you wanna life, best bets are bringing Venus a bit more close to Earth orbit. Venus can [and do] sustain atmosphere.