Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 91:
Line 91: + +
→Current Article Factually Incorrect: Moon's resonance is 1:1, Mercury's is 3:2
:: But it is very misleading to avoid saying that there is a generally accepted scientific theory that the Moon resulted from a gigantic collision with the Earth several billion years ago. The theory explains the lack of iron and several other anomalies. I don't know why you avoid this, since it is consistent with your thesis that the Earth-Moon system is unique.
:: But it is very misleading to avoid saying that there is a generally accepted scientific theory that the Moon resulted from a gigantic collision with the Earth several billion years ago. The theory explains the lack of iron and several other anomalies. I don't know why you avoid this, since it is consistent with your thesis that the Earth-Moon system is unique.
:: Your tidal comments are nonsense. The same tidal force theory that explains the Moon's rotation also explains Mercury's. Mercury just happens to be locked into a slightly different resonance. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Your tidal comments are nonsense. The same tidal force theory that explains the Moon's rotation also explains Mercury's. Mercury just happens to be locked into a slightly different resonance. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::RSchlafly is right on all 3 points. In fact, they used to suppose that Mercury's resonance resulted in an 88-day rotational period, same as its "year". I was in 4th grade when I happened to find out that Mercury's rotational period was actually 58.6 days, due to its 3:2 resononce. That is, it rotates 3 times for every 2 revolutions around the sun. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
== Simple rebuttal to Aschlafly's Moon point #4 ==
== Simple rebuttal to Aschlafly's Moon point #4 ==