Q&A 104: Should We Reconsider The Definition Of A Moon? And More...
In this week's questions show, I explain why it's probably not time to reconsider the definition of a moon, if we could make artificial gravity with a chunk of a neutron star, and why a supermassive black hole isn't the anchor for an entire galaxy.
Watch the video here:
Comments (4)
เอาดวงจันทร์เป็นสถานีกลางเสถียรดีกว่า สถานีลอยไม่เสถียร
Doggone it, Fraser! Another viewer asked if an alien civilization could spot planet 9 before we do and you said "no" - we're in a better position than they are to view it. Granted, it must have a REALLY long orbital period, but if an alien civilization were slant on to our system, wouldn't it have an easier time spotting something passing in front of the bright disk of the Sun than we would have of spotting that same thing 500 AU into the darkness of space? Granted, they'd probably have to do like we do and spot that SAME thing several times to confirm it, but ... !!! ???
Fraser, one of your viewers asked if a planet could orbit a binary star in a figure 8 and you replied in the negative. Yet, your most recent episode on the craft we're planning to launch to visit some asteroids in two of Jupiter's LaGrange points seems to suggest otherwise. Please explain how the spacecraft can continue to do it -- AFTER its mission is essentially over (and presumably it has run out of any fuel) but a planet can't! Thanks.
i think we do need a new definition of moon, by current definitions isn't every speck of dust in saturns ring also a moon.?