# Gravity in the Asteroid Belt

## Recommended Posts

I was trying to follow a post about gravity and magnetism that was just too technical for me and wondered if someone might have an idea about this question. How can an almost non-ferris asteroid such as Ida have a moon? It's must be either one of two things, gravity or magnetism. Considering where the asteroid belt is located and the complexity of its formation, it strains my mind that it can even exist.

Took this link from the net.

Ida and Dactyl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/243_Ida

Edited by rigney
##### Share on other sites

I was trying to follow a post about gravity and magnetism that was just too technical for me and wondered if someone might have an idea about this question. How can an almost non-ferris asteroid such as Ida have a moon? It's must be either one of two things, gravity or magnetism. Considering where the asteroid belt is located and the complexity of its formation, it strains my mind that it can even exist.

Took this link from the net.

Ida and Dactyl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/243_Ida

Well, if it's non-ferrous, then that sorta rules out magnetism, doesn't it?

It can have a moon because it's massive and dense enough that another object can be gravitationally bound to it. You can tell from the picture that Dactyl is about a radius away from Ida, so the gravitational acceleration it feels is about 0.0025 m/s^2. Which is almost exactly the acceleration our moon undergoes from the effect of gravity from the earth.

##### Share on other sites

swansont:

Well, if it's non-ferrous, then that sorta rules out magnetism, doesn't it?

Not really. Science states that everything in the universe is to some degree magnetic, down to the last single atom. Do you know of any atom studied that does not have a magnetic signature, or spin?

Edited by rigney
##### Share on other sites

Large objects in space do not orbit each other due to magnetic fields, ferrous or not. I did see a possible experiment that could be carried out in micro gravity that would allow a very light electrically charged object to orbit a wire with a DC current running through it but that is not how it would work for large objects like asteroids...

##### Share on other sites

swansont:

Well, if it's non-ferrous, then that sorta rules out magnetism, doesn't it?

Not really. Science states that everything in the universe is to some degree magnetic, down to the last single atom. Do you know of any atom studied that does not have a magnetic signature, or spin?

So then, what is the general overall average magnetic force from a piece of wood which contains a large quantity of "to some degree magnetic" atoms?

Do you think this magnetic force is increased in larger pieces of wood? How big piece of wood do you need to by magnetism lift a small magnet?

##### Share on other sites

swansont:

Well, if it's non-ferrous, then that sorta rules out magnetism, doesn't it?

Not really. Science states that everything in the universe is to some degree magnetic, down to the last single atom. Do you know of any atom studied that does not have a magnetic signature, or spin?

Sure. I laser-trapped an isomer of K-38. No nuclear spin, so no magnetic interaction with the electrons, so no hyperfine structure. Was able to trap it with a single laser frequency.

But the very fact that magnetism varies from material to material is an indication that it can't be responsible, because orbits would not be predictable based solely on the masses involved; it would depend on the composition. And we observe that this is not true. When the evidence doesn't match the hypothesis, you have to abandon the hypothesis.

##### Share on other sites

The asteroid belt has legalized clay marriage

##### Share on other sites

The asteroid belt has legalized clay marriage

Tell me abouy it.

Sure. I laser-trapped an isomer of K-38. No nuclear spin, so no magnetic interaction with the electrons, so no hyperfine structure. Was able to trap it with a single laser frequency.

But the very fact that magnetism varies from material to material is an indication that it can't be responsible, because orbits would not be predictable based solely on the masses involved; it would depend on the composition. And we observe that this is not true. When the evidence doesn't match the hypothesis, you have to abandon the hypothesis.

I believe you are wrong dismissing an honest question by dragging the asker it into an isolated situation of which he knows nothing. I find it strange that many of you blindly accept gravity by how it works, not what it is. Why not find out? I say this simply because, other than equations predicting gravitational functions, and an unknown,? classified as a graviton, no one can actually describe it. Sort of borders on religious teachings. Preacher doesn't like your enquiry, he just ups the ante by giving you another one of Gods mysteries.

.

Edited by rigney
##### Share on other sites

I believe you are wrong dismissing an honest question by dragging the asker it into an isolated situation of which he knows nothing. I find it strange that many of you blindly accept gravity by how it works, not what it is. Why not find out? I say this simply because, other than equations predicting gravitational functions, and an unknown,? classified as a graviton, no one can actually describe it. Sort of borders on religious teachings. Preacher doesn't like your enquiry, he just ups the ante by giving you another one of Gods mysteries.

.

You made a claim, I debunked it. That's how this works. That's the way it works when you make a claim — there are implications of it. If it's true, there's a wide spectrum of behaviors that must also be true. In this case, that there would be magnetic interactions inside of atoms, which is the source of some of the atomic structure that we see. But this is absent in some systems. Your claim of not being able to have zero spin is naive to an almost absurd degree.

Claims about gravity vs magnetism also have these wide-reaching implications, such as the long-range behavior (monopole vs dipole, or 1/r^2 vs 1/r^3) that has been mentioned before, and the issue of composition that I mentioned earlier in this thread. The claim doesn't stand up to even superficial scrutiny. To continue to insist on it moves you out of the realm of science and smack-dab into the middle of crackpot land. Is that where you want to be?

Your claim of blind acceptance is, frankly, BS. Regardless of the investigation, or lack thereof, into "what it is" (which is philosophy), how it behaves has been researched extensively, as has magnetism. They aren't the same thing. Your casual dismissal of "equations predicting gravitational functions" belies the tremendous power of the equations.

##### Share on other sites

(...) I find it strange that many of you blindly accept gravity by how it works, not what it is. Why not find out? I say this simply because, other than equations predicting gravitational functions, and an unknown,? classified as a graviton, no one can actually describe it. Sort of borders on religious teachings. Preacher doesn't like your enquiry, he just ups the ante by giving you another one of Gods mysteries.

It is pretty obvious that it's not the scientific consensus who are blindly clinging to beliefs bordering to ludicrous ignorance of known facts.

##### Share on other sites

You made a claim, I debunked it. That's how this works. That's the way it works when you make a claim — there are implications of it. If it's true, there's a wide spectrum of behaviors that must also be true. In this case, that there would be magnetic interactions inside of atoms, which is the source of some of the atomic structure that we see. But this is absent in some systems. Your claim of not being able to have zero spin is naive to an almost absurd degree.

Claims about gravity vs magnetism also have these wide-reaching implications, such as the long-range behavior (monopole vs dipole, or 1/r^2 vs 1/r^3) that has been mentioned before, and the issue of composition that I mentioned earlier in this thread. The claim doesn't stand up to even superficial scrutiny. To continue to insist on it moves you out of the realm of science and smack-dab into the middle of crackpot land. Is that where you want to be?

Your claim of blind acceptance is, frankly, BS. Regardless of the investigation, or lack thereof, into "what it is" (which is philosophy), how it behaves has been researched extensively, as has magnetism. They aren't the same thing. Your casual dismissal of "equations predicting gravitational functions" belies the tremendous power of the equations.

No! I made no such claim. But understood words in this link to indicate such. http://sciexplorer.blogspot.com/2011/10/2-mechanism-of-magnetism.html And There was no casual dismissal of equations, I simply don't understand them. Edited by rigney
##### Share on other sites

No! I made no such claim. But understood words in this link to indicate such. http://sciexplorer.blogspot.com/2011/10/2-mechanism-of-magnetism.html And There was no casual dismissal of equations, I simply don't understand them.

Hmmm. You apparently missed this part: And here's the hitch: electrons come in up/down pairs. Any filled valence shell of electrons has a zero net magnetic moment because all the oppositely spinning electrons cancel each other out.

swansont:

Well, if it's non-ferrous, then that sorta rules out magnetism, doesn't it?

Not really.

Here is a claim. That composition shouldn't matter. Which I addressed.

Science states that everything in the universe is to some degree magnetic, down to the last single atom.

Another claim. In the context of the discussion, this also relates to the composition problem.

Do you know of any atom studied that does not have a magnetic signature, or spin?

I'll mention another: He-4. Zero spin nucleus, no net electron spin.

##### Share on other sites

Hmmm. You apparently missed this part: And here's the hitch: electrons come in up/down pairs. Any filled valence shell of electrons has a zero net magnetic moment because all the oppositely spinning electrons cancel each other out.

Here is a claim. That composition shouldn't matter. Which I addressed.

Another claim. In the context of the discussion, this also relates to the composition problem.

I'll mention another: He-4. Zero spin nucleus, no net electron spin.

No MAS!!!! You win. I've been around long enough to know that even if you're only searching, you best have the right tools to work with, and I don't. You guys have a good one. I'm out of here. Edited by rigney

## Create an account

Register a new account