Nice way to be completely off-topic. You're criticizing hip-hop, not criminals. Gangsters aren't limited to inner city black youths who wear stockings on their head under a baseball cap, it's any criminal who's in the gang. Some of them even wear suits.
It didn't take me long to find your real name either, Ms. An Anonymous Coward. You seem to suffer from multiple personalities from what I can see, and they all have various blogs and websites. You should get that checked out.
If I got TFA right, it's only transparent to ultraviolets, through a tiny hole, and for a few femtoseconds. I'm sure it's great news but it's a bit over my head, and it's definitely nothing as cool as I was picturing.
Since half of those sucked in asteroids will be coming from the non-moon side of the earth, missing the earth and smacking into the moon's near side.
That's a good point, but do you think that it makes it as likely to happen as an asteroid just falling straight on the far side? No, and here's why : an asteroid coming from behind the Earth (from a lunar point of view) is quite likely to make a L turn or U turn when it nearly misses the Earth and thus never get anywhere near the Moon, like, cross the lunar orbit more than 90 degrees away from where the moon is.
But the earth as a shield still seems to make more sense than the earth as a vacuum cleaner.
What's really amazing is that you would consider a "shield" of less than 2 degrees of arc more likely to protect the near side of the Moon than having the Earth's strong gravitational pull make the asteroids' hyperbolic orbits look like a U turn and thus pretty much send a number of them back where they came from. Actually if it helps to think of the Earth as a sort of gravitational lens, and the asteroids' trajectories as rays of light, then you can see that from a random angle the "image" of the Moon would seem squished, and therefore harder to hit. It surely explains the 1.67 difference ratio I mentioned earlier. Well that's if you can picture how a gravitational lens makes non-aligned objects behind look, I know I can.
Of course the near-side being hotter
lol, hotter, wtf?? Seriously, what are you talking about.
And if you set up that dichotomy on the Moon without having it oriented that way, the less-cratered side would probably turn to orient towards Earth, in solar-system timescales.
You're wrong, and I won't even bother to try to understand your twisted logic.
What you need to show us is that the excess impacts on the far side have happened since the Late Heavy Bombardment.
Wrong again. Don't mean to troll (wait, I actually do), but debating on astronomical topics on Slashdot is like shooting a dead guy in a barrel. I mean look at this whole discussion, it wasn't even supposed to cause controversy, but people have such misconceptions about astronomy that it turns into a huge debate where I'm practically alone trying to explain how it works to people who don't understand how gravity works/that the Earth is very small compared to the Earth-Moon distance/have misconceptions that just elude my grasp and are completely oblivious to their gaping ignorance on the topic.
Right, the problem is that most people in the thread don't see to understand how it's by having the Earth pull all those asteroids towards itself that it makes rocks rain on the far side of the Moon. It seems that some people believe that the Earth only acts by somehow covering physically that side of the moon, like a sort of umbrella.
And what you're saying is pretty much what I said, except you left out the part where the Earth does all the attracting and the Moon gets in the way. Although maybe it's not what you're saying, I'm not sure :
It is a lot tougher for an asteroid to go around the Earth and strike the light side
Are you saying that the problem is the size of the Earth, not its gravitational pull? If you do then you need a serious reality check on how small the Earth looks from the Moon/compared to the distance between the two. The Earth isn't much of a physical obstacle at all.
Blocking? As in, just being an umbrella, an obstacle in the way? Considered that Earth occupies less 2 degrees of the Moon's field of view, that would account for a very small difference, something a couple of orders of magnitude too small to explain the discrepancy in impacts.
Or appearance-savviness. It matters whether a girl doesn't care for her looks and works in a field all day, or cares and undergoes diets, uses make-up, gets a fancy haircut and makes conscious clothing choices.
Are you kidding? Cursive is faster to write for anyone (trust me, I had to do a lot of writing in capital letters), more natural (you hardly have to lift your pen off the paper to write a whole world) and less exhausting.
This being said, as a certified dysgraphic, I'm glad to confirm that you're right in that it's now a useless skill. If the first decade of this century was any indication, typing is a more important skill than knowing how to hold a pen.
You're right in that the Earth keeps asteroids away from the near side, but why you fail to understand how the Earth makes it rain on the Moon's far side puzzles me.
Just picture from left to right the following : a bunch of asteroids, the moon's far side, the moon's near side, the Earth. The Earth pulls the asteroid towards itself. The moon is in the away and catches the space rock rain like a space umbrella.
Why would asteroids be coming towards the Moon FROM EARTH?
By being pulled by Earth into a near Earth miss and going forth to hit the Moon right in the kisser. The "near" side faces the rest of the universe too, just a few degrees of arc are occupied by Earth.
Wrong. Both sides of the moon have had the same level of impact
Wrong, the far side has about 1.67 times more recent impacts than the near side (citation).
The 'near' side of the moon only looks smoother because mare lava flows have smoothed it out somewhat. It's just chance that put those flows on the side we see.
No, we don't know that, there surely is a reason other than chance, we just don't know for sure what it is yet. Also, not all of it was covered by lava flows, and you can tell these areas look different from the far side. Well at least they look different to me.
Fun fact: if the earth had no weather, it would look just like the moon in terms of impact craters.
I'll assume that you chose the word weather instead of atmosphere for a reason, not too sure why, but the Earth is geologically active and has an atmosphere (assuming you weren't talking about there not being an atmosphere) then it would look more like Venus. And Venus doesn't have so many visible craters. Yeah, there's quite a difference between a body that died over 3 billion years ago and one that's still active, radiating and erupting.
Are you sure about that? Because while it surely attracts asteroids away from the Moon, it always attracts asteroids towards the couple to begin with. So are you really sure that the Moon is getting less than it would if it was alone?
Slashdot Mirror
Nice way to be completely off-topic. You're criticizing hip-hop, not criminals. Gangsters aren't limited to inner city black youths who wear stockings on their head under a baseball cap, it's any criminal who's in the gang. Some of them even wear suits.
Right, well just turn on Fox News, you might be amused by the coincidences with what you thought up all on your own.
Thanks for the precious advice Jeremy G. from Alabama! :D
It didn't take me long to find your real name either, Ms. An Anonymous Coward. You seem to suffer from multiple personalities from what I can see, and they all have various blogs and websites. You should get that checked out.
I think the first seven months of the Obama administration has already been more harmful for the country than the last eight years of Bush's.
lol, I love when people repeat a talking point right after they say "I think". Sheeple ;-)
If I got TFA right, it's only transparent to ultraviolets, through a tiny hole, and for a few femtoseconds. I'm sure it's great news but it's a bit over my head, and it's definitely nothing as cool as I was picturing.
Ah, I knew it didn't make sense.
Since half of those sucked in asteroids will be coming from the non-moon side of the earth, missing the earth and smacking into the moon's near side.
That's a good point, but do you think that it makes it as likely to happen as an asteroid just falling straight on the far side? No, and here's why : an asteroid coming from behind the Earth (from a lunar point of view) is quite likely to make a L turn or U turn when it nearly misses the Earth and thus never get anywhere near the Moon, like, cross the lunar orbit more than 90 degrees away from where the moon is.
But the earth as a shield still seems to make more sense than the earth as a vacuum cleaner.
What's really amazing is that you would consider a "shield" of less than 2 degrees of arc more likely to protect the near side of the Moon than having the Earth's strong gravitational pull make the asteroids' hyperbolic orbits look like a U turn and thus pretty much send a number of them back where they came from. Actually if it helps to think of the Earth as a sort of gravitational lens, and the asteroids' trajectories as rays of light, then you can see that from a random angle the "image" of the Moon would seem squished, and therefore harder to hit. It surely explains the 1.67 difference ratio I mentioned earlier. Well that's if you can picture how a gravitational lens makes non-aligned objects behind look, I know I can.
Of course the near-side being hotter
lol, hotter, wtf?? Seriously, what are you talking about.
And if you set up that dichotomy on the Moon without having it oriented that way, the less-cratered side would probably turn to orient towards Earth, in solar-system timescales.
You're wrong, and I won't even bother to try to understand your twisted logic.
What you need to show us is that the excess impacts on the far side have happened since the Late Heavy Bombardment.
I have already, thank you
I don't think that this is the case.
Wrong again. Don't mean to troll (wait, I actually do), but debating on astronomical topics on Slashdot is like shooting a dead guy in a barrel. I mean look at this whole discussion, it wasn't even supposed to cause controversy, but people have such misconceptions about astronomy that it turns into a huge debate where I'm practically alone trying to explain how it works to people who don't understand how gravity works/that the Earth is very small compared to the Earth-Moon distance/have misconceptions that just elude my grasp and are completely oblivious to their gaping ignorance on the topic.
Right, the problem is that most people in the thread don't see to understand how it's by having the Earth pull all those asteroids towards itself that it makes rocks rain on the far side of the Moon. It seems that some people believe that the Earth only acts by somehow covering physically that side of the moon, like a sort of umbrella.
Yep, I am, like 85% of mankind.
Yeah... that's the reason I compared geologically active Earth with geologically active Venus. You were supposed to get that.
lol, dark side and light side?
And what you're saying is pretty much what I said, except you left out the part where the Earth does all the attracting and the Moon gets in the way. Although maybe it's not what you're saying, I'm not sure :
It is a lot tougher for an asteroid to go around the Earth and strike the light side
Are you saying that the problem is the size of the Earth, not its gravitational pull? If you do then you need a serious reality check on how small the Earth looks from the Moon/compared to the distance between the two. The Earth isn't much of a physical obstacle at all.
Blocking? As in, just being an umbrella, an obstacle in the way? Considered that Earth occupies less 2 degrees of the Moon's field of view, that would account for a very small difference, something a couple of orders of magnitude too small to explain the discrepancy in impacts.
o/"\o
Funny, that's pretty heavy, you'd figure they'd use something lighter as to not give you a backache and help you drown.
Or appearance-savviness. It matters whether a girl doesn't care for her looks and works in a field all day, or cares and undergoes diets, uses make-up, gets a fancy haircut and makes conscious clothing choices.
Are you kidding? Cursive is faster to write for anyone (trust me, I had to do a lot of writing in capital letters), more natural (you hardly have to lift your pen off the paper to write a whole world) and less exhausting.
This being said, as a certified dysgraphic, I'm glad to confirm that you're right in that it's now a useless skill. If the first decade of this century was any indication, typing is a more important skill than knowing how to hold a pen.
You're right in that the Earth keeps asteroids away from the near side, but why you fail to understand how the Earth makes it rain on the Moon's far side puzzles me.
Just picture from left to right the following : a bunch of asteroids, the moon's far side, the moon's near side, the Earth. The Earth pulls the asteroid towards itself. The moon is in the away and catches the space rock rain like a space umbrella.
Why would asteroids be coming towards the Moon FROM EARTH?
By being pulled by Earth into a near Earth miss and going forth to hit the Moon right in the kisser. The "near" side faces the rest of the universe too, just a few degrees of arc are occupied by Earth.
Yeah, and I like turtles, but that has nothing to do with what's being talked about.
Wrong. Both sides of the moon have had the same level of impact
Wrong, the far side has about 1.67 times more recent impacts than the near side (citation).
The 'near' side of the moon only looks smoother because mare lava flows have smoothed it out somewhat. It's just chance that put those flows on the side we see.
No, we don't know that, there surely is a reason other than chance, we just don't know for sure what it is yet. Also, not all of it was covered by lava flows, and you can tell these areas look different from the far side. Well at least they look different to me.
Fun fact: if the earth had no weather, it would look just like the moon in terms of impact craters.
I'll assume that you chose the word weather instead of atmosphere for a reason, not too sure why, but the Earth is geologically active and has an atmosphere (assuming you weren't talking about there not being an atmosphere) then it would look more like Venus. And Venus doesn't have so many visible craters. Yeah, there's quite a difference between a body that died over 3 billion years ago and one that's still active, radiating and erupting.
Not everywhere, only in the "seas", so that's irrelevant.
it tells you that a lots of asteroids on target for the near side of the moon, hit th earth instead.
lol, wtf?? Asteroids don't absolutely have to hit something you know, if they don't hit something they most likely won't hit anything.
Are you sure about that? Because while it surely attracts asteroids away from the Moon, it always attracts asteroids towards the couple to begin with. So are you really sure that the Moon is getting less than it would if it was alone?