If this is true, then this explains the simulations, and would indicate that the asteroid is not in orbit around the Earth, and is thus not a moon.

Give a URL to the above quote, please.

Oh, and if the poll was so stupid, why are you spending so much time here? :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Is there somewhere that shows as an actual "categorization" instead of just a term used to describe it? Acording the sims, the "second moon" passes behind the Earth crossing directly through our orbit around the sun.

SpaceAce

No offense, but I felt like answering a challenging Trivial Pursuit question only to find out that the company who made that question didn't know the correct answer themselves.

http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~wiegert/3753/faq.html

The question itself (about that asteroid) was interesting, though :thumbsup

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Friday
Not true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Do you believe there is such definition as "super natural"?
If you do I can't answer your question you won't understand - no offence.

Dude, you're criticizing me, and patting me on the back at the same time. :1orglaugh

When I made the post, I read that this moon was categorized as a moon. Is it now? According to your article... no. Take a look at this:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...on_991029.html

To quote a bit of this:

- very interesting because, as I said before, there is no minimal size of a satellite.
It appears that they have to define "moon" more precisely than just "a natural satellite that orbits the earth. I guess this is ok; what they really have to define is "orbit"... if he object does not appear to "orbit" the planet, then it cannot be a moon. This object does not appear to, so it is not a moon. The Moon appears to, so it is a moon. The problem lies in that the gravity of all objects effect all others, so when does a 3 mass system (such as the Sun, Earth, and Moon) make a planet-moon system going around the sun, and when does it be just 2 objects orbiting the Sun (which appears to be the case with the Sun, Moon, and Cruithne.

And dude... I could not possibly know the "correct answer" if the party who defines the answer changes their mind.

Nevertheless, this is an interesting thing that not many people knew about... so I thought I'd bring it up. There is nothing wrong with enlightening some people with some information that they knew nothing about which is so close to home (astronomically, anyway). :)

Btw, isn't this cool:

http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827...rogan_01,1.jpg

Showing a camera view in which the Earth and Sun remain fixed, it shows the moon. Notice that it flies around the Lagrange points of the Sun-Earth system... it would be impossible to categorize this 'moon' as a simple orbit around the Sun by itself when it is so tied to Earth's orbit (just as the many Trojan Asteroids orbit in the Lagrange points around Jupiter).

Definition:
Lagrange points: Lagrange Points mark positions where the gravitational pull of the two large masses precisely cancels the centripetal acceleration required to rotate with them.
http://www.physics.montana.edu/facul.../lagrange.html

As I stated in the post above (er, as the article stated), there appears to be no categorization. Therefore, the same problem exists here as does with Pluto. Given all the general facts of planets and asteroid, Pluto is no where near a planet, but is actually an asteroid. You would think scientists, of all people, would be the first to change their minds upon receiving new information (as I am - I would never argue that this 2nd moon is actually a moon giving the new information regarding it), but they refused, and seemlingly just because it is know to millions of kids as the 9th planet, a panel of scientists ruled that it remains a planet.

So let me make it more clear, very interesting post, indeed.

And it does seem that they need to define what is a moon and what is not.

But with the current definitions I WILL stick with my vote, Earth has one moon :)
Because that asteroid is not orbiting earth, and moon in my opinion has to orbit a planet.. Do you agree?

Agreed.

Super natural? Of course it has a definition, just as any word does. No offense taken, but what are you getting at?

Here's a moon for ya! :moon

(Ah jeez...too easy)

Actually, you didn't need to make it more clear... I followed what you were saying exactly.

I agree 100% with you.

What do you think about this, though: "The problem lies in that the gravity of all objects effect all others, so when does a 3 mass system (such as the Sun, Earth, and Moon) make a planet-moon system going around the sun, and when does it be just 2 objects orbiting the Sun (which appears to be the case with the Sun, Moon, and Cruithne)?" Take a bunch of intermediate cases between the two, and at some point people are going to have to question which category it belongs to...

I think there is only one moon that orbits the Earth, but two satellites that orbit the moon... and I think they're called satellites, not moons...

THE DEATHSTAR!!!!

all i need is a smiley of darth vader!

:moon

Yes, you are most likely right. They just haven't turned it around, yet.

http://www.min.net/~jareed/emvader.gif

Making fun of the crib?