South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

March 26, 2019, 08:18:03 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

No "seas" on far side

 (Read 4680 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1514



WWW
« on: June 11, 2014, 15:05:44 PM »

I am still sceptical about this explanation. http://www.universetoday.com/112459/mystery-solved-why-there-no-lunar-seas-on-the-far-side-of-the-moon/
I can not see that the Earth's heat could radiate all the way to the Moon. The Moon was closer in the past, but still..
Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2014, 15:34:27 PM »

I am still sceptical about this explanation. http://www.universetoday.com/112459/mystery-solved-why-there-no-lunar-seas-on-the-far-side-of-the-moon/
I can not see that the Earth's heat could radiate all the way to the Moon. The Moon was closer in the past, but still..

Was the moon tidally 'locked' from its formation?  If so, this explanation is quite plausible, if not, not.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3740


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2014, 15:51:51 PM »

Remember also that the Moon is receding from Earth and has been doing so since its formation.  At the time of its formation, it would have been considerably closer.  Moreover, the process of it becoming tidally locked would have “kneaded” the nearer side of the Moon more, thereby inducing frictional body heat in addition to the radiant heat from the cooling Earth, which had no atmosphere early on and so there was little to absorb the heat that it was radiating.

'Luthon64
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1514



WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2014, 16:11:18 PM »

But only became tidally locked later on, as it was moving away from Earth.
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1742



WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2014, 18:28:46 PM »

Is there any reason why it couldn't possibly just be coincidence that the far side is rough? What do we see on other tidally locked moons in the solar system? Could they cast some light on this?
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3740


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2014, 08:02:27 AM »

If it is a coincidence, it’s a most remarkable one.  Other planets’ moons may not be helpful in pointing towards an explanation because they are thought to be remnants or “crumbs” of planet formation processes (coalescence), rather than the collision of large celestial objects.

'Luthon64
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 2999



« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2014, 17:19:47 PM »



By the way, that hypothesis has had it's first bit of evidence surface recently.
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1514



WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2014, 15:43:54 PM »

I did not realise that the moon's rotation slowed down that fast. Here is a bit more on the two faces of the moon. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/07/01/the_moon_s_two_faces_why_are_they_so_different.html
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1742



WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 02, 2014, 05:33:32 AM »

If it is a coincidence, it’s a most remarkable one.  Other planets’ moons may not be helpful in pointing towards an explanation because they are thought to be remnants or “crumbs” of planet formation processes (coalescence), rather than the collision of large celestial objects.

'Luthon64


Currently, the earth's continents are all on one side of the planet, with a huge ocean covering the other side. Of course not analogous to the lunar situation, but before we solve mysteries, we must be careful to make absolutely sure that there really is a mystery to solve.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3740


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 02, 2014, 08:08:41 AM »

The Earth is less perfectly spherical than the Moon and, unlike the latter, is still subject to significant ongoing tectonic and complex internal geophysical processes.  The Moon’s internal structure is also considerably simpler than the Earth’s.

Wheedling out the right questions to ask in order that science can progress is indeed often both more important and trickier than answering them.

'Luthon64
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 2999



« Reply #10 on: July 02, 2014, 09:48:35 AM »

Currently, the earth's continents are all on one side of the planet, with a huge ocean covering the other side.

The Earth [is] still subject to significant ongoing tectonic and complex internal geophysical processes.

My thoughts exactly. The continents were once one, broke apart, and started spreading out... and are still spreading out. Going out on a limb: One day they may well be equally distributed around the globe.
Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #11 on: July 02, 2014, 10:00:56 AM »

Quote
One day they may well be equally distributed around the globe.
...and then all crash against each other one day? Some large mountain ranges no doubt will follow.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3740


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 02, 2014, 10:58:33 AM »

India is busy crashing into the rest of Asia, hence the Himalayas.  Africa is crashing into Europe, hence the Alps.  The Nazca and Antarctic plates are being thrust under the South American plate (i.e., another collision), hence the Andes.

'Luthon64
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1742



WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 02, 2014, 14:36:13 PM »

The continents will probably eventually bunch together in a supercontinent again? Anyway, my point was just that there needn't necessarily be any very special reason why a planet is asymmetrical.

But I am biased, because I recently read yet another article in which a researcher goes to great lengths to solve what is in fact a non-mystery:

http://boingboing.net/2014/06/10/vermeers-paintings-might-be.html
Logged
cr1t
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



cr1t
« Reply #14 on: July 02, 2014, 14:41:23 PM »

But I am biased, because I recently read yet another article in which a researcher goes to great lengths to solve what is in fact a non-mystery:

http://boingboing.net/2014/06/10/vermeers-paintings-might-be.html


I watched that docie it was produced by Penn and Teller the magicians.

I though it was very well done.
I don't think they claim anything other than to say.
This is possible a certain way and to do it.

Tim does not come across as a researcher rather just some body that had an idea he wanted to try out.
Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2014, 14:42:26 PM »

The continents will probably eventually bunch together in a supercontinent again? Anyway, my point was just that there needn't necessarily be any very special reason why a planet is asymmetrical.

But I am biased, because I recently read yet another article in which a researcher goes to great lengths to solve what is in fact a non-mystery:

http://boingboing.net/2014/06/10/vermeers-paintings-might-be.html


I've got the movie (mainly becouse it's produced by Penn Jillette & directed by Teller).  We'll  watch it at the first rainy weekend, which looks like it's going to be this one...
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3740


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2014, 15:37:45 PM »

Anyway, my point was just that there needn't necessarily be any very special reason why a planet is asymmetrical.
The irony of this approach is of course that we can only ever confidently say it’s a coincidence after we have scientifically eliminated all conceivable mechanisms that could have produced the observed effect.  That is, in order eventually to conclude that it is a coincidence, we have to proceed on the assumption that it is not one.  Said conclusion would be reached through a process of elimination because there can be no positive evidence in support of it.  And since there are such possible mechanisms aplenty, it would be unduly fatalistic to suppose such a multifaceted coincidence in the case of the Moon.

'Luthon64
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 2999



« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2014, 15:55:29 PM »

You are biased. You are ignoring the possibility that god did it. *ducks*
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3740


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2014, 17:30:16 PM »

You are ignoring the possibility that god did it.
True, that.  Maybe the cantankerous old coot is trying to tell us he’s also a loony two-face — not that we needed telling, mind you. Tongue

'Luthon64
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1742



WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2014, 19:51:32 PM »

Anyway, my point was just that there needn't necessarily be any very special reason why a planet is asymmetrical.
The irony of this approach is of course that we can only ever confidently say it’s a coincidence after we have scientifically eliminated all conceivable mechanisms that could have produced the observed effect.  That is, in order eventually to conclude that it is a coincidence, we have to proceed on the assumption that it is not one.  Said conclusion would be reached through a process of elimination because there can be no positive evidence in support of it.  And since there are such possible mechanisms aplenty, it would be unduly fatalistic to suppose such a multifaceted coincidence in the case of the Moon.

'Luthon64

Fair enough: I seem to be experiencing a collapse of healthy scientific curiosity. :-)
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1742



WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2014, 19:56:10 PM »

The continents will probably eventually bunch together in a supercontinent again? Anyway, my point was just that there needn't necessarily be any very special reason why a planet is asymmetrical.

But I am biased, because I recently read yet another article in which a researcher goes to great lengths to solve what is in fact a non-mystery:

http://boingboing.net/2014/06/10/vermeers-paintings-might-be.html



I've got the movie (mainly becouse it's produced by Penn Jillette & directed by Teller).  We'll  watch it at the first rainy weekend, which looks like it's going to be this one...


I know a classically trained artist who tells me he's writing a book in which he debunks the whole thing.

Well, I didn't see the video, so perhaps I shouldn't say too much, but there seems to me not to be mystery to be solved in the first place. Vermeer's work is not fundamentally different from that of his contemporaries, and their techniques are well known and in fact still used today by classical realists, who can nowadays paint even more realistically than Vermeer himself, without having to use any optical aids.
Logged
cr1t
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



cr1t
« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2014, 09:16:22 AM »


I know a classically trained artist who tells me he's writing a book in which he debunks the whole thing.

Well, I didn't see the video, so perhaps I shouldn't say too much, but there seems to me not to be mystery to be solved in the first place. Vermeer's work is not fundamentally different from that of his contemporaries, and their techniques are well known and in fact still used today by classical realists, who can nowadays paint even more realistically than Vermeer himself, without having to use any optical aids.



I'm not sure if Vermeer used this technique. The time taken seems impractical.
But there seems enough "evidence" to give reasonable doubt that he did use it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Vermeer#Theories_of_mechanical_aid

I'm no expert in classical realist paintings so my opinion is not worth much.

In anycase they don't make the claim he did it this way, only yo say it's possible to do it this way.
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1742



WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2014, 12:29:38 PM »


I know a classically trained artist who tells me he's writing a book in which he debunks the whole thing.

Well, I didn't see the video, so perhaps I shouldn't say too much, but there seems to me not to be mystery to be solved in the first place. Vermeer's work is not fundamentally different from that of his contemporaries, and their techniques are well known and in fact still used today by classical realists, who can nowadays paint even more realistically than Vermeer himself, without having to use any optical aids.



I'm not sure if Vermeer used this technique. The time taken seems impractical.
But there seems enough "evidence" to give reasonable doubt that he did use it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Vermeer#Theories_of_mechanical_aid

I'm no expert in classical realist paintings so my opinion is not worth much.

In anycase they don't make the claim he did it this way, only yo say it's possible to do it this way.


Well, yes, it is also possible that aliens helped him... :-)

The ideas of Hockney that the Wiki article refers to have already been quite thoroughly debunked, though you can kick me if I can find the link. We'll see what happens with Jenison's ideas, but I am not very optimistic.

It is true enough that many of the old masters were interested in optics and played around with such equipment, but these things are for the most part not of much use in creating paintings, and anyway, they are simply not necessary. As I said before, the problem here is that people who don't know much about the issue see some profound mystery in need of a solution, pretty much like non-Egyptologists who will tell you with great conviction that the Ancient Egyptians couldn't possibly have built the pyramids.

Jenison makes the same kind of error. E.g. this passage from the article I originally linked to:

"There are clues in Vermeer's paintings that he did this. For example, the white wall in the back of the room seen in The Music Lesson. The way Vermeer painted this wall is consistent with a photograph. It is not consistent with human vision. If you were standing in the room that Vermeer painted, you would see that wall as a pretty even shade of off-white. The retina in your eyeball does some image processing to minimize the effect of light and shadow. To your eye, the wall appears to have far less contrast than it actually has. And if you can't see it, you can't paint it. But Vermeer, unlike other painters, painted his walls the way a photographic camera would record it."

All I can say is "Huh?" Jenison simply has no idea of what he's talking about; anyone with a first year's student's experience in drawing and painting can see a whole rich variety of tones and colours in a seemingly white wall. Jenison assumes that because he cannot see it, no one can.

Nowadays, classically trained artists routinely paint stuff like this:



without any optical aids, and frequently without using reference photos either. They do use the cameras Jesus put in their heads, mind you, plus the processing equipment between their ears... :-)

Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1514



WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2014, 12:47:53 PM »

And I have trouble drawing a stick figure. Tongue
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1742



WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 04, 2014, 04:22:58 AM »

And I have trouble drawing a stick figure. Tongue

Hehe, I think to paint like the one I posted requires much talent, and most of us simply don't have it. However, anyone can learn to draw and paint fairly decently, and in the process you learn how to see things that most people don't. It's almost like becoming psychic. :-)

Anyway, I have now veered way off topic. But because I saw one elaborate "solution" to a non-mystery, I reacted by seeing coincidences everywhere. What would that make me? The opposite of paranoid? :-)

Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 2999



« Reply #25 on: July 10, 2014, 09:44:15 AM »

EDIT: I'm a moron, thanks.
Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2108



« Reply #26 on: July 10, 2014, 13:46:25 PM »

Anyway, I have now veered way off topic.

If I may (going to anyway), I started art classes a couple months back (trying to get in touch with my lost creative self) and found that if I turn a picture upside down I can actually draw the bloody thing as opposed to the right side up, I am an utterly, completely useless artist.

ps. I can draw a pretty decent cartoon cat after four months though....  Tongue
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1742



WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 10, 2014, 13:58:16 PM »

Anyway, I have now veered way off topic.


If I may (going to anyway), I started art classes a couple months back (trying to get in touch with my lost creative self) and found that if I turn a picture upside down I can actually draw the bloody thing as opposed to the right side up, I am an utterly, completely useless artist.


Supposedly because when you turn it upside down, you have no preconceived ideas of what the subject is supposed to look like, so you draw what you see instead of what you think is supposed to be there. The trick works for some people, but not all. Never worked for me.

Quote
ps. I can draw a pretty decent cartoon cat after four months though....  Tongue


And just to make you feel better, go take a look at this:

http://www.texacochildrensart.com/winners_current/gallery_2014.asp

I have been struggling with learning to draw for longer than these kids have been alive, and I still cannot do what some of them can. :-)
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Up
  Print  
GoogleTagged: google skeptic com


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.946 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page January 30, 2019, 16:57:17 PM
Privacy Policy