52
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 18:
Line 18: + + + + Line 58:
Line 62: − − Point 5 in the article is complete and utter nonsense and should be removed. It is an opinion of one person with absolutely no relation to the moon. Can someone please unlock this article?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
→Disagreement with current entry: split off my links into a new section
:: 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)
Point 5 in the article is complete and utter nonsense and should be removed. It is an opinion of one person with absolutely no relation to the moon. Can someone please unlock this article?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
==Further Disagreement with current entry==
Some links and comments about the points in the article:
Some links and comments about the points in the article:
All five of these points should really be dropped, as has been previously suggested. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)
All five of these points should really be dropped, as has been previously suggested. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)
==Number 5==
==Number 5==