This question is for Barry (Dr. Bickmore) or anyone else who can answer it. If the mass of a celestial object is known–by whatever method– does that allow us to compute how much of the object is solid (a presumably denser material) and how much of it is water ( a presumably less dense substance?) For example, the mass of Saturn’s moon Encedalus is stated to be a definitive figure. If the mass figure is correct, does that allow us to determine how much of Endedalus is liquid water and how much of it consists of a rocky core? If it does, I have not seen those two figures stated anywhere. We know factually because we have observed it from the Cassini space ship, that some of the mass of Encedalus is water and that it is escaping from the moon.
My question has relevancy because Barry and others have made anissue of the UM figure for the earth’s mass, which is much lower than the peer reviewed scientific figure. But would the UM figure be more likely to be the correct one if the UM is correct about the amount of water beneath the earth’s crust?
In other words, what comes first–the relative amounts of water and solid in a moon–or planet–as a means of determining mass,or the mass determination as a way of knowing how much of that mass is liquid and how much is solid? If mass can be determined by a mathematical equation on a blackboard, does that then lead us to a determination of the substance of the mass without having to first obsereve it? Frank