ConwayLife.com

MathAndCode wrote: ↑

January 17th, 2021, 2:33 pm

I mentioned that we could have one habitable planet at each stable Lagrange point, but now that I look back at the posts, I see that we didn't actually agree on it. Do you think that we should have two stable Lagrange points?

I don't really think so. One planet in a Lagrange point is already really unlikely I think. We could have other planets not in them though. For example, AFAIR Jupiter actually protects Earth from asteroids with its gravity. I can't really think of any other possible things like that though. Do you think another terrestrial planet could be influential? Perhaps panspermia?

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑

January 17th, 2021, 2:53 pm

I don't really think so. One planet in a Lagrange point is already really unlikely I think. We could have other planets not in them though. For example, AFAIR Jupiter actually protects Earth from asteroids with its gravity. I can't really think of any other possible things like that though. Do you think another terrestrial planet could be influential? Perhaps panspermia?

Objects in Lagrange points aren't uncommon. Wikipedia lists over 14,000 objects in the L₄ or L₅ points of Jupiter. (I pasted all of the tables together, and the combined table took up 14,742 rows, implying 14,742 objects.) As for panspermia, while I don't think that transferring life would be very likely due to the long journey required in the harsh conditions of outer space and the unlikeliness that the two planets will have similar environments, it's entirely possible that compounds possibly useful for life could be transferred. However, it's entirely possible that these compounds could simply be created on the planet. If I remember correctly, scientists have managed to create nitrogenous bases (both those used in RNA and additional nitrogenous bases that occur within living organisms as intermediates) abiotically in laboratories using water, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, and sparks to simulate lightning, and they have created other organic compounds by adding methane and other molecules that could feasibly develop without life.

MathAndCode wrote: ↑

January 17th, 2021, 3:16 pm

Objects in Lagrange points aren't uncommon. Wikipedia lists over 14,000 objects in the L₄ or L₅ points of Jupiter. (I pasted all of the tables together, and the combined table took up 14,742 rows, implying 14,742 objects.)

Wow. I did not know how common they were. We can have another planet in the other Lagrange point.

MathAndCode wrote: ↑

January 17th, 2021, 3:16 pm

As for panspermia, while I don't think that transferring life would be very likely due to the long journey required in the harsh conditions of outer space and the unlikeliness that the two planets will have similar environments, it's entirely possible that compounds possibly useful for life could be transferred. However, it's entirely possible that these compounds could simply be created on the planet. If I remember correctly, scientists have managed to create nitrogenous bases (both those used in RNA and additional nitrogenous bases that occur within living organisms as intermediates) abiotically in laboratories using water, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, and sparks to simulate lightning, and they have created other organic compounds by adding methane and other molecules that could feasibly develop without life.

Stuff like viruses or bacteria in a very low metabolic activity stage can certainly survive inside asteroids granted that they don't die during ejection. Also, panspermia doesn't necessarily need to be from where life started and then dies to where it found a better home. We can have life evolve to very high levels of complexity and still have there be panspermia from the planet. Earth probably still ejects bacteria and the like.

If you have a box with a flimsy liner, you can see a pattern form from collisions of gas molecules bouncing off, or if you have 2 parallel curved mirrors with a light bulb between, and a flimsy mylar mirror glued over the mirrors, it will draw or imprint a coil or spring shape on mylar mirror, cause light reflecting back, then reflect, and back again is a reversing direction, and a coil reverses direction in little circles as it goes forward.

With water and possibly bacteria in water surrounding the earth, that is flimsy, like a flame is flimsy, and a flame in a home gas fireplace that has 40 small nozzles making fire, and if you have in the room those tabletop small tiki torches, the single flame from that will show strange vertical black lines in the fire. So in looking for an alien planet, if you find one, you might be able to download info from a flimsy water vapor with life surrounding it, maybe even engtangling the two planets somehow.

ntdsc wrote: ↑

January 17th, 2021, 3:34 pm

If you have a box with a flimsy liner, you can see a pattern form from collisions of gas molecules bouncing off, or if you have 2 parallel curved mirrors with a light bulb between, and a flimsy mylar mirror glued over the mirrors, it will draw or imprint a coil or spring shape on mylar mirror, cause light reflecting back, then reflect, and back again is a reversing direction, and a coil reverses direction in little circles as it goes forward.

With water and possibly bacteria in water surrounding the earth, that is flimsy, like a flame is flimsy, and a flame in a home gas fireplace that has 40 small nozzles making fire, and if you have in the room those tabletop small tiki torches, the single flame from that will show strange vertical black lines in the fire. So in looking for an alien planet, if you find one, you might be able to download info from a flimsy water vapor with life surrounding it, maybe even engtangling the two planets somehow.

Huh? Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here too much.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑

January 17th, 2021, 4:06 pm

Huh? Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here too much.

That flimsy materials like an immaterial vapor cloud of water and algae surrounding a planet is open to showing a pattern in the vapor from things on the planet that are similar to the vapor cloud or would imprint on the larger cloud. Like maybe clouds near planet's surface like Earth's clouds, which would then imprint on cummulus clouds smaller cloud like things on actual surface of planet, and then imprint on vapor cloud that goes out some distance beyond planet. But when I looked at the gas fireplace, it almost looked fake, the fire, because the nearby flame from tiki candle 6 feet away was making vertical dark stripes appear in gas fireplace flame. What if you could find an alien planet by looking at large scale structures in universe, then winnow down to smaller structures to find unnatural planet.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑

January 17th, 2021, 3:27 pm

Wow. I did not know how common they were. We can have another planet in the other Lagrange point.

Should we give the two planets the same properties or make them different from each other?

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑

January 17th, 2021, 3:27 pm

Stuff like viruses or bacteria in a very low metabolic activity stage can certainly survive inside asteroids granted that they don't die during ejection.

Yes, but while being inside an asteroid should protect them from stellar radiation also have to deal with cold temperatures, being surrounded by a vacuum (because asteroids are not completely solid), and other hazards.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑

January 17th, 2021, 3:27 pm

Also, panspermia doesn't necessarily need to be from where life started and then dies to where it found a better home. We can have life evolve to very high levels of complexity and still have there be panspermia from the planet. Earth probably still ejects bacteria and the like.

Yes, but let's consider what has to happen in order for panspermia to occur from Earth. An asteroid or other object from space has to impact the Earth. This isn't likely for any individual interplanetary object because the Earth is relatively small compared to the entire Solar System, but there are enough objects floating around so that over a million space objects collide with Earth every day. However, the vast majority of these are tiny pieces of space dust whose mass is a small fraction of a milligram and that therefore quickly burn up in Earth's atmosphere. The object must be large/dense/otherwise able for at least part of it to avoid burning up in Earth's atmosphere before reaching Earth's surface, and these collisions are much rarer. (Asteroids someones explode in the atmosphere, which could blast some of their material back into space (although only if the asteroid was traveling at a shallow angle), but the asteroids that explode before reaching the ground explode too high to have collected any spores or other lifeforms before then. Once the object hits the Earth's surface, it needs to cause an impact powerful enough to launch a large chunk of rock into the atmosphere. If the piece of rock is too small, its ratio of surface area to mass will be high enough that air resistance will prevent it from escaping the atmosphere—and possibly even make it burn up. (Launching water droplets or single-celled organisms not attached to anything will not work for the same reason. However, even if the meteorite hits the water, if the impact is powerful enough, and the water that the meteorite hits is shallow enough, the impact could stir up rock from the seafloor.) Some types of rock are more volatile than others, meaning that they can be launched into the air more easily, but these types of rock tend to be less dense, making them more vulnerable to air resistance and typically more likely to break apart due to aerodynamic forces. Also, the force of air resistance increases with relative speed, and at high enough speeds to cause turbulence (which includes the escape speed from Earth's surface), the force of air resistance increases quadratically. This makes getting anything to escape Earth's atmosphere by propelling it only at the surface, as opposed to also propelling it midflight, extremely impractical. (This is one of the reasons why rockets fire their engines throughout their flight instead of burning all of their fuel at once.) Even if a piece of rock with Earth life on it escaped Earth's atmosphere, unless it either had enough speed to escape Earth's sphere of influence or entered the Moon's sphere of influence (and didn't crash into the Moon, passed behind the Moon instead of in front of it, and possibly got lucky), it would simply fall back down to Earth right away. Even if the rock escape Earth's sphere of influence, because Earth is the only planet in the Solar System's habitable zone, the rock would have to enter another solar system in order for panspermia to occur, so the rock would have to escape the Solar System without crashing into the Sun or anything else first. (The rock would likely be too small for panspermia to still be possible if it crashed into a rocky planet.) The rock would then have to enter another solar system with a habitable zone and a planet within it and crash into that planet (which is much less likely than the rock crashing into a star or an uninhabitable planet). It would take the rock at least dozens of thousands of years to reach another solar system, and it could possibly drift in outer space for millions of years, so lifeforms on the rock would have to be able to survive for that long without food, water, or oxygen and while being expected to extreme cold, vacuum, stellar radiation, cosmic rays, and likely more. Also, they would have to survive intense bursts of heat and pressure caused when the meteorite collided with Earth and when the rock fragment crashed onto the exoplanet. Even if all of that happened successfully, the lifeforms would have to be able to reactivate and thrive on the exoplanet; staying in hiberation doesn't count. This is not a given as the exoplanet would likely have a significantly different environment from Earth, e.g. it might not have dioxygen in its atmosphere. Also, if the exoplanet already has life, it's possible that the lifeforms from Earth would be eaten soon after landing. (They might happen to be toxic to the exoplanet's lifeforms, but even in that case, chances are that any rock fragments would be small enough that there would be so few surviving Earth-based lifeforms in any one place that by the time that the exoplanet's lifeforms learned to not eat them, there would be no Earth-based lifeforms left.)
In short, panspermia is extremely unfeasible.

You posted late! Only 19 minutes before I came online.

MathAndCode wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 1:32 am

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑

January 17th, 2021, 3:27 pm

Wow. I did not know how common they were. We can have another planet in the other Lagrange point.

Should we give the two planets the same properties or make them different from each other?

I say different. We could even make life start later on one than the other. We could make one lighter or colder than Earth. One interesting idea could be making one of the planets a gas giant and give it a habitable moon.
Edit: If we make it a moon we can make it very light because it doesn't need an iron core to make a magnetic field. It's already protect by the gas giant's one.

MathAndCode wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 1:32 am

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑

January 17th, 2021, 3:27 pm

Stuff like viruses or bacteria in a very low metabolic activity stage can certainly survive inside asteroids granted that they don't die during ejection.

Bacteria can certainly survive in space for years by clumping together for at least three years. And this is unprotected. Granted, they were extremophiles, but it shouldn't be too had for bacteria to find tiny holes in asteroids. Also, viruses don't even have a metabolism. They can't really get killed from intense cold, only radiation. The interplanetary flight is arguably the easiest phase of the journey.

MathAndCode wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 1:32 am

Yes, but while being inside an asteroid should protect them from stellar radiation also have to deal with cold temperatures, being surrounded by a vacuum (because asteroids are not completely solid), and other hazards.

Cold temperatures are very survivable. If there's one thing I learned from biology class it's that cold temperatures don't damage proteins. I don't know much about the vacuum, but I don't really see how it could kill a microorganism.

MathAndCode wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 1:32 am

In short, panspermia is extremely unfeasible.

Yes, ejection and landing are HARD. Maybe if there's water and a thin atmosphere on a lighter planet ejection could happen. But as you said there's no guarantee that they find there way to another habitable planet.

ntdsc wrote: ↑

January 17th, 2021, 4:22 pm

That flimsy materials like an immaterial vapor cloud of water and algae surrounding a planet is open to showing a pattern in the vapor from things on the planet that are similar to the vapor cloud or would imprint on the larger cloud. Like maybe clouds near planet's surface like Earth's clouds, which would then imprint on cummulus clouds smaller cloud like things on actual surface of planet, and then imprint on vapor cloud that goes out some distance beyond planet. But when I looked at the gas fireplace, it almost looked fake, the fire, because the nearby flame from tiki candle 6 feet away was making vertical dark stripes appear in gas fireplace flame. What if you could find an alien planet by looking at large scale structures in universe, then winnow down to smaller structures to find unnatural planet.

Bacteria and other microorganisms can certainly affect the atmosphere and hydrosphere of a planet. Large enough mats of plankton can be seen form outer space. There must be other things observable from space like that, but I can't think of any now.

The gas fireplace was susceptible to things in room, like running humidifier would turn blue flame orange and sound like boiling then on high heat from water in air. Algae will grow on outdoor lantern on flimsy shiny mirror on top and bottom. But led light photons will draw coils on Mylar flimsy mirror on photons reversing course bouncing between two parallel mirrors, but its a gradual imprint of a coil in mirror. If bacteria is growing where coil is imprinted, since DNA is small and imprint in mirror of coils is large, the light bouncing adapts and imprints much smaller coils, so can use maybe this idea in photonics OR neural nets because 2 parallel mirrors is a neural net with line or hyper plane in infinite mirror.

ntdsc wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 3:34 am

The gas fireplace was susceptible to things in room, like running humidifier would turn blue flame orange and sound like boiling then on high heat from water in air. Algae will grow on outdoor lantern on flimsy shiny mirror on top and bottom. But led light photons will draw coils on Mylar flimsy mirror on photons reversing course bouncing between two parallel mirrors, but its a gradual imprint of a coil in mirror. If bacteria is growing where coil is imprinted, since DNA is small and imprint in mirror of coils is large, the light bouncing adapts and imprints much smaller coils, so can use maybe this idea in photonics OR neural nets because 2 parallel mirrors is a neural net with line or hyper plane in infinite mirror.

What do you mean by coil here exactly?

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 3:39 am

ntdsc wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 3:34 am

The gas fireplace was susceptible to things in room, like running humidifier would turn blue flame orange and sound like boiling then on high heat from water in air. Algae will grow on outdoor lantern on flimsy shiny mirror on top and bottom. But led light photons will draw coils on Mylar flimsy mirror on photons reversing course bouncing between two parallel mirrors, but its a gradual imprint of a coil in mirror. If bacteria is growing where coil is imprinted, since DNA is small and imprint in mirror of coils is large, the light bouncing adapts and imprints much smaller coils, so can use maybe this idea in photonics OR neural nets because 2 parallel mirrors is a neural net with line or hyper plane in infinite mirror.

What do you mean by coil here exactly?

It normally drew a quarter inch by half inch coil or spring shape in Mylar mirror because light bouncing between 2 mirrors reverses course and coil reverses in little circles as it goes forward.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 2:30 am

I say different. We could even make life start later on one than the other. We could make one lighter or colder than Earth. One interesting idea could be making one of the planets a gas giant and give it a habitable moon.
Edit: If we make it a moon we can make it very light because it doesn't need an iron core to make a magnetic field. It's already protect by the gas giant's one.

I don't think that putting a gas giant in a Lagrange point would be very feasible because gas giants have to form past the frost line. With a single star, the gas giant could simply migrate inwards because any intermediate orbit would be stable, but in this particular situation, migration doesn't seem feasible because many intermediate distances would not have stable orbits. However, we could give one of the planets a very large moon and make the moon habitable as well as the planet.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 2:30 am

Bacteria can certainly survive in space for years by clumping together for at least three years. And this is unprotected. Granted, they were extremophiles, but it shouldn't be too had for bacteria to find tiny holes in asteroids. Also, viruses don't even have a metabolism. They can't really get killed from intense cold, only radiation. The interplanetary flight is arguably the easiest phase of the journey.

While that is impressive, it is still no guarantee that the bacteria will be able to survive the journey to another solar system because it will last much longer. Also, in the experiment, the Earth's magnetic field still protected the bacteria from most solar and cosmic radiation. Additionally, the meteorite impacts on Earth and the alien planet will create intense bursts of heat and pressure that the bacteria might not be able to survive, as most extremophiles are adapted for surviving in a specific type of extreme environment and cannot survive the opposite extreme.
Also, I'd like to point out that when I was explaining why panspermia is impractical, I thought about extremophiles, but I chose to discard them because any lifeforms launched into space will likely be taken from the Earth's surface or just under it, and the lifeforms there likely won't be extremophiles because those are typically not extreme environments.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 2:30 am

Cold temperatures are very survivable. If there's one thing I learned from biology class it's that cold temperatures don't damage proteins. I don't know much about the vacuum, but I don't really see how it could kill a microorganism.

Water expands when it freezes into ice, and this can crack rock, so it's more than capable of causing cell walls and membranes to burst. (This, combined with the fact that water is good as absorbing heat changes, is why farmers spray water on their crops before a frost.) A vacuum could cause water and/or other essential compounds to diffuse out of a cell without being replenished.
Also, any organism that is specialized to surviving cold vacuums will probably not fare well during the aforementioned intense bursts of heat and pressure during the two meteorite impacts. Some extremophiles are general extremophiles, but even for those, there's a limit for how hot they can get before they stop being biology and start being chemistry or physics, and being extremophiles won't help them beyond it.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 2:30 am

Yes, ejection and landing are HARD. Maybe if there's water and a thin atmosphere on a lighter planet ejection could happen. But as you said there's no guarantee that they find there way to another habitable planet.

Less surface gravity and a thinner atmosphere would make panspermia easier if life were present, but those same conditions would likely decrease the probability of life developing there.

MathAndCode wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 2:34 pm

I don't think that putting a gas giant in a Lagrange point would be very feasible because gas giants have to form past the frost line. With a single star, the gas giant could simply migrate inwards because any intermediate orbit would be stable, but in this particular situation, migration doesn't seem feasible because many intermediate distances would not have stable orbits. However, we could give one of the planets a very large moon and make the moon habitable as well as the planet.

Then shall we make the other planet a very massive super Earth with a habitable moon? That's much more plausible and the planet would have a much larger magnetic field than Earth. (The Moon isn't protected by Earth's magnetic field.)

MathAndCode wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 2:34 pm

While that is impressive, it is still no guarantee that the bacteria will be able to survive the journey to another solar system because it will last much longer. Also, in the experiment, the Earth's magnetic field still protected the bacteria from most solar and cosmic radiation. Additionally, the meteorite impacts on Earth and the alien planet will create intense bursts of heat and pressure that the bacteria might not be able to survive, as most extremophiles are adapted for surviving in a specific type of extreme environment and cannot survive the opposite extreme.
Also, I'd like to point out that when I was explaining why panspermia is impractical, I thought about extremophiles, but I chose to discard them because any lifeforms launched into space will likely be taken from the Earth's surface or just under it, and the lifeforms there likely won't be extremophiles because those are typically not extreme environments.

Yes, I did not consider that they had Earth's magnetic field protecting them. You're right about the extremophiles too.

MathAndCode wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 2:34 pm

Water expands when it freezes into ice, and this can crack rock, so it's more than capable of causing cell walls and membranes to burst. (This, combined with the fact that water is good as absorbing heat changes, is why farmers spray water on their crops before a frost.) A vacuum could cause water and/or other essential compounds to diffuse out of a cell without being replenished.
Also, any organism that is specialized to surviving cold vacuums will probably not fare well during the aforementioned intense bursts of heat and pressure during the two meteorite impacts. Some extremophiles are general extremophiles, but even for those, there's a limit for how hot they can get before they stop being biology and start being chemistry or physics, and being extremophiles won't help them beyond it.

That water is probably denser than regular ice though because it is rapidly cooled (I think). But it could still do what you said normal ice does.

MathAndCode wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 2:34 pm

Less surface gravity and a thinner atmosphere would make panspermia easier if life were present, but those same conditions would likely decrease the probability of life developing there.

Yeah. Let's just forget that I ever mentioned panspermia.

Does anyone have Universe Sandbox 2 to simulate the hypothetical solar system discussed in this thread?

creeperman7002 wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 3:18 pm

Does anyone have Universe Sandbox 2 to simulate the hypothetical solar system discussed in this thread?

I don't. Should I get it? It's free.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 3:19 pm

I don't. Should I get it? It's free.

Based on my knowledge, I don't think it is free. But Universe Sandbox 2 is a good program to simulate your hypothetical solar system. I have seen many YTers use it, like GrayStillPlays, Spike Viper, and Anton Petrov to name a few.

creeperman7002 wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 3:22 pm

Based on my knowledge, I don't think it is free. But Universe Sandbox 2 is a good program to simulate your hypothetical solar system. I have seen many YTers use it, like GrayStillPlays, Spike Viper, and Anton Petrov to name a few.

Yeah, It's not free. I saw something else about it that was free. Sorry.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 2:51 pm

Then shall we make the other planet a very massive super Earth with a habitable moon? That's much more plausible and the planet would have a much larger magnetic field than Earth. (The Moon isn't protected by Earth's magnetic field.)

(Earth's magnetic field extends farther away from the Sun than towards the Sun, so the Moon is protected by Earth's magnetic field for about 40% of the time, but we wouldn't want life exposed to solar radiation for the other 60%.)
That sounds good. The moon would likely have very large tides, which could make it easier for life to reach land. However, we may need to worry about tidal locking.

MathAndCode wrote: ↑

January 18th, 2021, 4:27 pm

(Earth's magnetic field extends farther away from the Sun than towards the Sun, so the Moon is protected by Earth's magnetic field for about 40% of the time, but we wouldn't want life exposed to solar radiation for the other 60%.)
That sounds good. The moon would likely have very large tides, which could make it easier for life to reach land. However, we may need to worry about tidal locking.

Would tidal locking necessarily be a problem? It's not like only one side is looking at the suns constantly. One side would still be hotter than the other though. The far side looking at the planet would only get sun rarely when the planet is directly on the host planet's orbit, and it would get it at a very low angle. Tidal locking does not stop tides, right? This moon would also be very tectonically active.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑

January 19th, 2021, 2:32 am

Would tidal locking necessarily be a problem? It's not like only one side is looking at the suns constantly. One side would still be hotter than the other though. The far side looking at the planet would only get sun rarely when the planet is directly on the host planet's orbit, and it would get it at a very low angle. Tidal locking does not stop tides, right? This moon would also be very tectonically active.

Tidal locking would make the days much longer, and it would prevent tides on the moon from its planet, although it could still get solar tides.

MathAndCode wrote: ↑

January 19th, 2021, 9:11 am

Tidal locking would make the days much longer, and it would prevent tides on the moon from its planet, although it could still get solar tides.

What are the circumstances needed for tidal locking? Wikipedia says:

The effect arises between two bodies when their gravitational interaction slows a body's rotation until it becomes tidally locked. Over many millions of years, the interaction forces changes to their orbits and rotation rates as a result of energy exchange and heat dissipation.

So we might need to place the moon a bit far away.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑

January 19th, 2021, 9:16 am

So we might need to place the moon a bit far away.

Yes, but in that case, we'll have to make the moon large enough for it to have its own magnetic field.

MathAndCode wrote: ↑

January 19th, 2021, 9:25 am

Yes, but in that case, we'll have to make the moon large enough for it to have its own magnetic field.

But won't the planet's magnetic field already be very strong? I know the gravity is also stronger. I don't know how strong the two will be. Isn't there any distance where tidal locking doesn't happen but it's still protected by the magnetic field? We also have to remember that the magnetic field is not symmetric, it bulges away from the suns.

Schiaparelliorbust wrote: ↑

January 19th, 2021, 9:29 am

But won't the planet's magnetic field already be very strong? I know the gravity is also stronger. I don't know how strong the two will be. Isn't there any distance where tidal locking doesn't happen but it's still protected by the magnetic field? We also have to remember that the magnetic field is not symmetric, it bulges away from the suns.

I'm sure that is for the far side, but I'm not sure about the near side. Also, it's worth mentioning that Ganymede has a magnetic field, so the moon wouldn't have to be very large in order to have one.

MathAndCode wrote: ↑

January 19th, 2021, 9:52 am

I'm sure that is for the far side, but I'm not sure about the near side. Also, it's worth mentioning that Ganymede has a magnetic field, so the moon wouldn't have to be very large in order to have one.

Biblaridion said that the planet has to be somewhat large in order to have a magnetic field. How does Ganymede work? Wikipedia says that it's probably created by convection. I wonder why Biblaridion said that then.