Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
Originally posted by ngchunter
Earth's rotation is gradually slowing for the same reason. I guess you don't believe in that either. Most major moons of the
solar system are all tidally locked to their parent planet.
Higher resolution means smaller field of view. You can see the narrow angle camera coverage map here:
Well it doesn't, unless you send a much bigger telescope into lunar orbit, the mass of which would be a bit like sending a command module into lunar
orbit (so you better have a Saturn V handy to launch it).
I would explain that it's anything but easy to make fake images of the moon
You are correct in that I do not want to believe. I prefer to understand.
It seems to me you don't understand and don't want to understand, you want to actively dis-believe whatever the "mainstream" position is.
I see a qualitative difference there. Here are the problems with your answer:
- Did somebody measure by how much the earth rotation is slowing or did you just say that without knowing?
Yes, earth's rotation is measured, so no I didn't say that without "knowing."
- How do you know the reason? Did somebody remove the "tidal effect" as a control?
Gravity works. Don't believe me? You can measure it yourself in a lab with a torsion balance.
- You avoided to answer my question, What is the tidal effect on earth's land masses (since the moon does not have any oceans)?
Tidal force is a force, it doesn't matter if it's land or water that is affected, the amount of force is the same regardless. The effect it has on
water in terms of amount of deformation is of course different than that of land, but that is irrelevant to your level of misunderstanding. Tidal
force = force of gravity on object's near side - force of gravity on object's far side. It's simple math, the type of material affected does not
factor into the amount of force.
- Why are only "most", not all major moons "tidally locked"?
I don't think your level of understanding is ready for that discussion yet.
- What about the minor moons? Why are the planets not "tidally locked" to the sun?
Again, you need to understand the basics before you understand all the ramifications. You're not ready for that yet. Minor moons are often newer to
the parent planet than the major moons, thus tidal deceleration of its rotation has not yet had sufficient time to induce tidal lock. Many minor
moons are also farther from the parent planet than the major moons, thus it takes longer since tidal acceleration forces decrease with the distance
cubed. The planets themselves are far more massive and have far more rotational inertia than moons, and most are sufficiently far from the sun that
tidal forces are too weak to have brought them into tidal lock yet (again, distance cubed, not distance squared, but you probably don't even
understand that part yet). Mercury, however, is locked in a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance with the sun, which is very stable due to tidal forces. How it
arose has to do with its orbital history.
Your explanation provides no evidence and no logic reasoning. There is nothing that is understandable, only believable for those with blind faith. You
are just repeating some mantra that YOU believe in but does not make any sense.
Excuse me, excuse me. Just because it doesn't make sense to YOU does not mean it does not make sense or lacks logic or lacks evidence. It has all
those things, it is simply that you are ignorant of it.
LROC does not show more than a small portion of the whole surface, no matter how you want to describe the camera angle.
Again you demonstrate that you do not want to understand.
"much bigger telesecope"? Hubble is taking pictures with amazing resolution of objects billions of light years away, the surface a few hundred miles
away requires a camera the size of a command module? Can you show me the math on that?
Do you know how big those galaxies are in angular size compared to the equipment left behind on the lunar surface? Yes or no? The galaxies Hubble
sees are many arcseconds wide when viewed from earth, the equipment on the moon is a tiny, tiny fraction of an arcsecond wide. The lunar descent
stage is the biggest thing left down there, about 4 meters across at the base, and at a distance of about 400,000km it's only 0.002 arcseconds wide.
Dawes' limit gives us the formula for Hubble's resolving power. R = 11.6 / D D = 2.4 meters, so R = 0.05 arcseconds, far too little to resolve
anything left on the moon (and by the Nyquist sampling theorem, it's effectively like 0.1 arcseconds).
(By the way, I said mass of the command module, not size - the former directly dictates how large of a rocket you need to get where you're going, the
latter really only dictates fairing size).
edit on 9-1-2013 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)