Moons: their origin, age, & recession

Yep. Only Jupiter is a bit bigger than earth and has a slightly larger mass. There are consequently much greater tidal forces affecting it than the moon and this creates a lot of heat. A glance through any encyclopaedia should confirm this information.

quote:

---

"why is this not true of other lunar satellites like Io of Jupiter?"

---

How many satellites is it not true of? How many is it true of?

Yes really. But the fact that they orbit the same planet is not the only property they have. They differ on many others, as you say.If you think the calculations that lead to Io being tidally heated enough to account for the volcanic activity should also lead to all the other moons of Jupiter being likewise volcanically inclined - then show the calculations.However - I don't think you've done the work. Yes, they are different. Made of different things, with different origins, at different orbital distances, different masses, different densities and with different eccentricities. That's a lot of important variables. That's why they are all different.And yes - it is because they were made that way. But it is not necessarily because someone decided to do it that way.So we agree - Io is in a different situation to our moon so while the rules are the same - the situation is different and thus we might anticipate differences. So why did you bring up Io?

Yes. They are all unique. All moons, planets and stars are unique. This tells me that they have different histories. No - I wouldn't put it like that either. The bottom line is that processes occurred and they were results of those processes, the same can be said about their current positions. Yes. Nobody has EVER seen Halley's comet orbit four times, or an electron. What difference does it matter if a person has seen something or not? Maybe so - but being a myth does not mean it is false. And you saying it is false does not mean that it is false either.So - is your only argument that nobody has seen it happen, therefore it is false? Because I that can easily be shown to fail as an argument.Unless you think that murderers should be able to say 'Nobody has ever seen me commit murder therefore I am not guilty' and have a good point?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I'm glad you agree that not seeing something is irrelevant to the discussion over whether that something happened, and that instead evidence of those things happening can be studied instead.That was my point. You too. If you feel like answering why you think the fact that "No one has EVER observed a moon being captured by a planet, & no one has ever seen a moon develop in orbit around a planet since the days of Galileo until now." is of any importance to this discussion, I'll be waiting...

There are a number of ways of trying to understand the universe.One of those ways is to observe the universe, attempt to derive equations about how it works and then use calculations to hypothesize more information about the universe which can then hopefully be checked using an independent method.Another way is to observe the universe, attempt to derive equations about how it works - and then slavishly adhere to them when independent methods of checking show inconsistency, and proclaiming that any contradictory pieces of evidence are the ones that are somehow wrong and not the equation used to describe the part of the universe in question. Bonus points if the assumptions in the equation cannot be justified or supported with any evidence whatsoever.I prefer the former. Calypsis4 prefers the latter. I'll leave it to the reader to reach their own preference.