/sci/ - Science & Math

If the moon maintained it's current orbit, and then suddenly its mass increased tenfold it would probably crash into the earth.

>>2737656
you can remove the 'probably' from your last post...

>>2737656

Let us then assume, for fun's sake, that the moon is at its increased mass and still in a stable orbit.

It would be more massive than the earth. It wouldn't be able to maintain a stable orbit.

Then it would have to be moving faster. A lunar month would be like 3 days. The Tides would be 10 times larger. The moon would be larger diameter so there would be a few more eclipses.

> implying tides are mainly due to the moon.

>>2737698
no, faggot.

the earth is about 80 times more massive than the moon.
so with the moon size increased 10-fold, earth is still 8 times more massive.
lern-2-not_be_a_cunt

>>2737706
That should be more like 10 days because of newtons square law.

>>2737742

Babe when you coming over? We're supposed to go dancing this weekend, I'll even cook dinner before we go!

What do you mean by large? Greater mass? Greater volume? Greater angular diameter?

This is going to be under the assumption of stable orbit around a common center of gravity while in orbit around the sun. With objects of similar mass, one doesn't orbit the other. Instead, they orbit a common center of gravity.

If the moon were ten times its size, then we can assume ten times the mass as well. This would essentially make the moon larger than the earth. It really wouldn't be a moon any more. Instead, we'd be a binary planet system. With that, there would also be the possibility of a shared atmosphere. With the moon having greater mass, however, part of our atmosphere would be stripped away. If we assume that it has its own atmosphere, much like our own on earth, perhaps that might be different.

The ultimate question would be whether or not the internal properties of the moon mimic that of the earth. The magnetic field we generate with our dual core planet was caused early on by an interstellar collision with something roughly the same size as Mars (hence, the formation of our current moon). Now, if the moon also was capable of generating its own strong magnetic field, and had plate tectonics, then sentient life would be possible.

Tides would be astronomically higher, to the point where coastal regions would experience tides of hundreds of meters instead of just a few meters. This wouldn't be bad news for life in the oceans as it would drastically increase the amount of minerals washed into the oceans. For life on land, it would become questionable as to whether or not life would have even bee possible in the timeframe that it happened.

cont'd...

The length of the day would change. If the change were overly drastic, life might not be possible as we know it to exist today. Tidal lock would also be important. Being that the Earth is now of smaller mass than its neighbor, should be become trapped in tidal lock with the parent planet, life would, again, change as we know it (the origins of life and types of lifeforms).

The moon used to be much closer to the Earth at one point, and did cause dramatic tides of hundreds of meters once before.

Play around with this and try to make a binary orbit around a star. ^_^ http://phet.colorado.edu/sims/my-solar-system/my-solar-system_en.html

Our moon is more important than people realize. Though it's actually moving away from us and will someday leave, it's important to note that the sun will probably go nova before this happens. :D

>>2737770
lol, when you gonna get over yourself and actually start being a namefag so i can recognise you, you flesh-faced little bugger. :)

>>2737774
mass and volume are in proportion. and yeh, thats what he means

...ya fuckin' idiot!

>>2737792

Not necessarily.

>>2737785

:) - Call me Max.

>>2737807
YES NECESSARILY!

>>2737809
is that you're real name?

>>2737812

You're assuming that the stuff being added to the Moon is of the same density as the Moon. If stuff of a different density was used, then the Moon could end up with 10 times the mass without 10 times the volume, or vice versa.

>What would happen if the moon was ten time as large as it currently is?
It would appear bigger on the sky. It would be easier to observe its shape and deducing Earth's shape without the use of a telescope.

>Would the moon be able to maintain its same orbit?
Absolutely, if the mass distribution was the same as now. Otherwise there would be minor differences.

>How would this affect the amount of light that reaches the earth's surface?
Again, if it's just an up-scaling, then the light we receive from the moon would be 10 times more than it currently is. Which means it would be 1/40,000 of the amount of light we get from the sun.

>>2737829
FUCK
OFF

it isnt 'stuff being added'

the moon simply 'is 10 times larger than it currently is'
with everything in proportion
and never a mis-communication.

...you cant explain that.

> implying he said the density should be the same.

Where´s your imagination?

>>2737779
>Tides would be astronomically higher,
10 times higher.

>>2737850

How would the Moon get 10 times larger with nothing being added to it? If it's simply thinning out, there wouldn't be any changes such as dramatic tides.

>>2737863
More like 3.3 times higher. That whole inverse square law and everything.

>>2737868
its a hypothetical question, this cant happen IRL. But theres no point being stupid about it, just take it simply and understand that the moon is '10 times as large as it currently is'

>>2737824

No, Its Jonathan :)

>>2737870
that means it would be 100 times higher.

>>2737863

Not necessarily. :-)

first off... if the moon was 10x the size it is now the Earth and Moon would collide. Killing us all

>>2737904
lurk moar, newfag

i was just imagining a twin planet with both planets being close enough to build a bridge between them and they are sharing atmsophere in their closeness, yet orbit fast enough to not crash together

that'd probably a awesome world to live in

>>2737929
the novelty would quickly wear off and it would seem no more amazing than this world to an inhabitant of it.

>>2737921
haha, you're a fag