Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
1,685 bytes added ,  09:32, March 9, 2007
lots of links; please remove all five points from the article
Line 18: Line 18:     
:: The same claim was made about Mercury, misleading people for years, before it was proven false.  Similar flaws can be expected to be found with the other bodies.  "Tidal locking" would not explain the totally synchronous orbit anyway.  There would be deviations greater than what is seen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)
 
:: The same claim was made about Mercury, misleading people for years, before it was proven false.  Similar flaws can be expected to be found with the other bodies.  "Tidal locking" would not explain the totally synchronous orbit anyway.  There would be deviations greater than what is seen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
Some links and comments about the points in the article:
 +
 +
1. If you check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse the Wikipedia article for Solar Eclipses], you'll note "An annular eclipse occurs when the Sun and Moon are exactly in line, but the apparent size of the Moon is smaller than that of the Sun. Hence the Sun appears as a very bright ring, or annulus, surrounding the outline of the Moon." (there's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RingfoermigeSonnenfinsternis.jpg a pic] too) so its not always a perfect match; this is because the moon's orbit is not a perfect circle, but rather an ellipse: "The distance from from the Earth to the Moon varies by about 13% as the Moon travels in its orbit around us." [http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_S03/lunarorbit.html]
 +
2. [http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html]  The link given about Mercury also gives the scientific explanation about the moon BTW.  Also, the deal with Mercury (from that article) was apparently because it was claimed that the direct visual observation of it indicated that it had a single side facing the sun; *that* was wrong. We can clearly see that the moon presents the same side.
 +
3. [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html]
 +
4. That's basically "Slichter's dilemma" and was solved by the 80's [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html]
 +
5. There are "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy alone. [http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/milkyway.php]  So "few" could easily be many many million in just our 'neighborhood' of the universe.
 +
 +
All five of these points should really be dropped, as has been previously suggested. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)
52

edits

Navigation menu