Earth has another Moon/ "Quasi-Satellite."

a reply to: Kashai

If you're looking for a discussion of climatology you are derailing your own thread.

This thread is about the discovery of a tiny object with a transitory orbit. An orbit similar to that of Earth's but one which keeps it many millions of miles away.

a reply to: Phage


And how would that apply billions of years ago when the Earth was more tropical?

Again I am asking you a question as to how climate would be affected by an objects orbiting earth?

And what could present ideal conditions?

In context over the last 4 billion years many more objects orbited Earth than do today in its past.

So again what would it take to stabilize Earths wobble and what environmentally would be the result?

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Orionx2


To put it bluntly this is but one example of something that clearly has been a factor in earth history since its beginning.

While today it understood as a factor to a lesser degree it has always been a factor.


As far as your interpretation of modern English 4 billion years does in fact constitute "billions" of years. Just as 4 grapes is enough to add the "s" to the word "grape'.

No, just no. 4 grapes as apposed to 4 Billion grapes is entirely different.

originally posted by: Kashai
And how would that apply billions of years ago when the Earth was more tropical?

The same as it does now; There would be no effect.

Again I am asking you a question as to how climate would be affected by an objects orbiting earth?

That question has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Perhaps you should start a thread on climate change?

And what could present ideal conditions?

Define "ideal conditions".

In context over the last 4 billion years many more objects orbited Earth than do today in its past.

Source, please.

So again what would it take to stabilize Earths wobble and what environmentally would be the result?

So again, this is irrelevant to the current topic, and Phage already answered once.

a reply to: Orionx2


You input is irrelevant to the topic....more so it really makes no sense to even bring this issue up.

Text

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Orionx2


You input is irrelevant to the topic....more so it really makes no sense to even bring this issue up.

What are you talking about? You brought up grapes and I destroyed your argument, and then you want to claim it is irrelevant? I can only assume you are apart of "secure team" or one of those other BS youtube channels that feed off the ignorant...

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Teikiatsu


As expressed and to elaborate while this particular object has been around for only about 100 years there were obviously other objects in a similar situation in the past.

Perhaps there have been, but as this article suggests they only orbit near earth for a few centuries then go away. Perhaps there has been a sum of years approaching one billion years, but the occurrence and paths have been so random it is actually easier to say they have negated each other rather than have some compiled impact on the planet.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance


Orbiting bodies affect earth climate and while this one is not a factor others or the cumulative affect of others, could have been in the past.

I am asking a question so what is wrong with an answer?

Also I have been starting threads this way for a really long time so what is your problem?

I began the topic and am consciously and intellectually aware and competent as to why I started it...so ego's aside can I get an answer to my question??

a reply to: Teikiatsu


I would disagree in relation to planetary formation in general a much greater amount of such object would have existed say 2.5 billion years ago as opposed to a billion years ago and so on.


And what has happen to the climate since then?

a reply to: Orionx2


I get it you are the comic relief.

Not really taking you seriously at this point.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Orionx2


I get it you are the comic relief.

Not really taking you seriously at this point.

Like wise...

a reply to: Orionx2

Agreed so what about my questions regarding earth wobble/climate/orbiting bodies/variations in earth climate throughout history???

How large of an object would stabilize earths wobble and what would be the effect upon the Earth???

I know given your simpleton responses this is probably over your head but I am asking you anyway??


As well as all others concerned of course.

Ladies and Gentlemen I am trying to relate to something here so can we get past all the semantics and address the topic which is about gravitation and climatology.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Teikiatsu


I would disagree in relation to planetary formation in general a much greater amount of such object would have existed say 2.5 billion years ago as opposed to a billion years ago and so on.

Fair point, but there is not reason to think they were all affecting earth equally and in the same manner. Also, that many more asteroids would have been having much more impact on each other and sling-shotting each other away much more often.

And what has happen to the climate since then?

I'm not here for the climate discussion. I have no problem admitting there are countless variables that affect Earth's climate that we are not aware of and cannot account for in our incomplete computer models.

the size of the object alone is sufficient to conclude that there is insufficient mass to produce any gravitational influence on earth. and since the object does not orbit earth it would have zero effect on the wobble. also that would have zero effect on the
climate on earth. phage is correct.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Orionx2

Agreed so what about my questions regarding earth wobble/climate/orbiting bodies/variations in earth climate throughout history???

How large of an object would stabilize earths wobble and what would be the effect upon the Earth???

I know given your simpleton responses this is probably over your head but I am asking you anyway??


As well as all others concerned of course.

"simpleton responses". Sometimes the simple answer is the right one. Not sure what publication you are trying to promote, but good luck to you.

a reply to: Teikiatsu


Actually I came here or that very reason.

My opinion is that if Earths Wobble were diminished the planet would warm up.

And I am wondering what it would take so I decided to come to ATS to ask this question as I am interested in your opinions.

I have been on the Internet for some time and have found this way of starting threads weeds out problems with members that cause problems quite frankly.

So to all concerned the floor is open to comment.

a reply to: Kashai

Is it your suggestion then, that the arrival of this tiny object, in an orbit which keeps it millions upon millions of miles away from Earth, is the cause of the warming trend which has been observed for the past century?

You do understand that the wobble which affects obliquity has a period of more than 40,000 years?

a reply to: CaDreamer


I agree that with regards to Phage's response to this particular orbital he is correct.

But there is still the issues I asked him about and am asking all of you about?

a reply to: Phage


No not at all I am relating to this issue in relation to the much bigger picture.

As far as I am concerned the distance of the moon from earth has an effect upon our climate because as it moves further away the Earths wobble will increase.

So while I agree with you that this is a very minor effect and had nothing to do with Earths climate I am asking you what would?

Sincerely Phage this is not some effort otherwise.

At the very least it is something interesting to discuss.