Saying you as a human being have to physically be on the planet to measure the density of it is questioning the validity of the method we use to measure density of planets. We use accurate satellites and you deny their information as not accurate enough because a human being wasn't there. Do you see the logical fallacy in that? Do you realize we don't need physical human beings on the planet to do actual accurate science? Do you deny any of the info you learn from mars rovers because it wasn't gathered in person by a human being? Once again it's 2023 and that's not logical.

SOL-ar. We get the word solar from Sol. Using that logic, any other planetary system would be a star-ar system. Colloquially, sure, since we all get what you're saying, but to scientists, who love to "achtchually.." people, they need to be very technically correct

Science is theory. Seriously though, start with Descartes if college is out of reach. Becoming more well-rounded will help you prove your point because the way you say stuff now contradicts itself.

I think the theory is that if you go deep enough, it gets warmer due to interior heating. Plus the added pressure that deep could help in melting the water. I think you may also not be considering that salty water changes phases differently than pure water

Or math is more exact and it's not 1850 where we have to make theoretical guesses because we can send literal fucking probes and satellites to other planets to calculate the mass of a planet to an exact measurement. Theory in the context of science is not simply a guess—it is an explanation based on extensive and repeated experimentation.

You also don't need to be on the planet to calculate density if you bothered to read my last response. You clearly didn't. You can calculate the mass of a planet, standing on our planet, by looking at the gravitational effects on moons or other things around it. Notice how we live in 2023 and have sent satellites and probes to every planet in our system therefore don't need to make guesses as we've had decades to orbit them and measure with said satellites. You're being kinda anti intellectual with your reasoning right now.

[deleted]

U don't know what u r talking about....plus i never argued validity of any method....i said its theoretical at the end of the day....not exact. Its your fault that ur brain interpret my message wrong. Now don't start Brain Vs Mind topic....cause it will be philosophy 101

You'd get more benefit from studying epistemology in a Philosophy 101 class rather than arguing the validity of the scientific method.

No, it's only used in scholarly papers to refer to our planet system.

Isn't Ganymede the daughter of posiedon or smthing? I am sure it'd from Greek mythology

Cool, universe is not English, thanks....

Beltalowda for the belt

If u r not doing all this calculation without being present there...it still be considered as theoretical. Not exact. Even no scientist can exactly explain the secrets of Pyramid building....let alone earth....and mercury.....just sayin

Three if we count the vast and deep oceans. And then our thick atmosphere, where birds live, esp. Swallows, and many birds while migrating, too. 4 major layers is very complex system. Just right for life.

Neutron stars are tho. And cooling White dwarf stars as well.

Exactly! H, He, Li, most abundant. O is way down the line.

Callisto is the outer moon. Tidal effects on Ganymede are smaller than the other two of the Laplace resonance, it's both the outer (and so slower) and the least eccentric (0.0011).

Callisto isn't part of that resonance.

Too damn cold for any but water ice. Liquid water unless proven to exist is not there.

Surface temp 90 to 160 K. 294 K is 70 Deg. F. So far below frozen water it's not even realistic to be liquid.

Tidal effects from the other large moons (mostly Europa) would help, as would tides from Jupiter.

The Laplace resonance, however, dumps most of its excess energy into the inner moon, which orbits the fastest.

Not so. Other stars can have their own solar systems. & the phrase can be more widely used than you imagine.

Luna more originally. Moon is English and was not here until very recently, Selene is the Greek name for the earth's sole moon, Luna is Latin, thus Lundi (Monday), Marti, Mercredi, Jeudi, Vendredi, Samedi, Dimanche.

Engish uses the Deutsch gods for days of week. Francais and Espagnol day names are very similar.

People need to get outside of their personal cultural mindsets now and then. The whole world and much larger Universe is NOT English. & surely not Americain,

It shrinks?

Mercury is soid rock. the gases beingt blow away by strong solar wind and radiations.

If we get rid of the gases on ganymede, like a large furry dog which got it's hair clipped not much would be left.

Merc is rocky, Ganymede is gassy. There is no empirical, rational comparison. Mercury is WAY denser than Ganymede. Besides 'gany fooled around with Jove.

Right, but our Sun is the only one. They are referred to as Stars in other Extrasolar Planetary Systems.

Right, but our solar system is the only one. All other groups of planets revolving Suns are called Extrasolar Planetary Systems not Solar Systems.