 | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
|
(...) I get 3.5 days, ignoring the motion of the earth toward the moon. Don't worry about the cookie - LUGNET provides free cookies for us all. :) Jeff J (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Couldn't resist
|
|
(...) Holy cow, it's that long?! Man, cool or not, forget that..., too long! Call me when the moon's an hour away. Now *that* would look cool, if it was the first time you'd looked up in a few days. Plus, the apparent gravity on the earth's surface (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Couldn't resist
|
|
(...) I never spotted this before, but it's further proof that there's negligible friction in space. If there was, the Moon would have slowed down in it's orbit and fallen to Earth, and the Earth would slow down and fall into the sun. Actually, I (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Couldn't resist
|
|
(...) I have two questions to ask now because of the replies to this bulletin board message I sent in response to many other messages on the Lugnet Space bulletin board room. The first question is for Kyle D. Jackson and Jeff Jardine and it is if we (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Couldn't resist
|
|
(...) Whoa, that's something I never thought of before! It kind of raises an interesting idea, too. If this is always a trend for the satellite (i.e., "moon") of any planet with large amounts of liquid on the surface, then maybe over time there is a (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Evolution of Earth and moon (was: Couldn't resist)
|
|
(...) Actually, you have this backwards. The friction of Earth's oceans against its solid parts is slowing the Earth's rotation down. This translates into a loss of angular momentum for the Earth. But angular momentum must be conserved. The angular (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution of Earth and moon (was: Couldn't resist)
|
|
Hi, Long time no see, John! Have you just been lurking about? (I'm finally back from Europe myself.) Coming to Brickfest? How's JHU? (...) Weren't there other methods used recently as well? I'm not sure that any would be as accurate as a laser, (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution of Earth and moon (was: Couldn't resist)
|
|
(...) Would there be any difference in the accuracy of laser vs. radar? I'm not enough of an EE geek to know, but thought "no" because they're just different wavelengths of the same thing, right? Or does the wavelength difference (it IS many orders (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution of Earth and moon (was: Couldn't resist)
|
|
(...) Not quite. There's a good comparison here (URL) talking about speed radar versus laser. Basically the laser is more accurate, but requires more accurate aiming by the operator. ROSCO (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution of Earth and moon (was: Couldn't resist)
|
|
(...) More accurate at measuring *speed*. We were talking about distance. Careful reading of both articles reveals no claimed difference in accuracy for distance measurement, since it's the same technique being used. (the speed difference is because (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution of Earth and moon (was: Couldn't resist)
|
|
(...) I've posted a few times this year, but mostly I've been lurking. And trying to build something that truly satisfies me. I keep buying more parts and experimenting... patience now... (...) Welcome home. Is the dissertation in the can? (...) (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution of Earth and moon (was: Couldn't resist)
|
|
(...) Isn't the theory behind rainbows (or light spectrums in general) that the different wavelengths refact by differing amounts, and so white light is "spread" into a spectrum of colours? If that's the case then radar and laser energy would (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution of Earth and moon (was: Couldn't resist)
|
|
(...) My first inclination is that there should not be a difference. When measuring distances with light, the accuracy *can* be limited by the wavelength. I think one can measure accurately down to roughly half the wavelength of the light used. I (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution of Earth and moon (was: Couldn't resist)
|
|
(...) I think most of this sounds reasonable, but I'd guess that laser still follows the inverse square "law". ROSCO (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution of Earth and moon (was: Couldn't resist)
|
|
In lugnet.space, Jeff Jardine writes: <snip> (...) I'll address this point to fill in a bit of a hole, as a lot of the other concerns are past me. Yes, radio waves are affected by gravity which is why they travel along the surface, so in a sense (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution of Earth and moon (was: Couldn't resist)
|
|
(...) I thought that the whole point of a laser is that it doesn't - it's a directed beam of parallel waves of light. The inverse square law is for a diverging beam. As distance from the source increases, the area the beam is spread over increases (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
