[QUOTE=Shagnasty]
I disagree. If there was a bar with a beautiful view of the earth and 1/6 the gravity, how could you say there is no atmosphere? Travel guide books would be all over that.
[/QUOTE]
Ha!
Actually, I was about to post that the moon has no atmosphere to speak of. But there are things happening up there:
But given that ‘the Moon is surrounded by a vacuum higher than is usually created in laboratories on Earth’, saying ‘no atmosphere’ is close enough.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
I know what I wrote and the response was clearly contradicting the first part.
[/QUOTE]
Um, no it wasn’t. It clearly was an answer to the question “is there any other deterioration?” (I really can’t see how you read it otherwise.) But, let’s wait for the respondent to return.
I’ve heard rumors that this was really a movie set. 
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
I know what I wrote and the response was clearly contradicting the first part.
[/QUOTE]
No way. The response was clearly to the actual question, “is there any other deterioration?” Just as you assumed the sun had faded it, the respondent assumed there was no other deterioration. His choosing to say “assume” in his contention doesn’t mean he was countering your assumption, but rather that he was making his own assumption - about other deterioration.
You may know what you wrote but you don’t seem to understand what he wrote.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
I assume the Sun shining on the flag has faded it some, but is there any other deterioration?
[/QUOTE]
Wow, this thread exploded into a piss-up. My response was to the above sentence. If you know your grammar, the response of “I’d assume not - no atmosphere, right?” is obviously referring to “…but is there any other deterioration?” To imply that you believe otherwise is suspicious. You know exactly what I meant.
Joe
The OP quote-mined himself in post #8 - cutting short the question and pretending you were answering the shorter quote.
<spock>
fascinating :dubious:
</spock>
[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Is there wind on the moon?
[/QUOTE]
There’s no atmosphere.
[/QUOTE]
Sure there’s wind! I can hear the “woosh”. (at least let’s hope this was one…)
All this lunacy…
Reading this thread reminds me of the interactions between the senior faculty members at Unseen University.
[QUOTE=Qadgop the Mercotan]
Reading this thread reminds me of the interactions between the senior faculty members at Unseen University.
[/QUOTE]
Ook!
[QUOTE=Qadgop the Mercotan]
Reading this thread reminds me of the interactions between the senior faculty members at Unseen University.
[/QUOTE]
The OP is an English teacher, remember.
In GQ, no other comment is possible.
Question for you lunatics: When the Eagle took off, would the blast radius have been wide enough to cause some “weathering” of the flag?
[QUOTE=WarmNPrickly]
Atmosphere helps, but no it is not generally correct. The very nature of dyes invariably means that they are susceptible to absorbing photons resulting in various radical electronic states that will easily cleave. The Norrish type cleavages are good examples of this. Atmosphere helps, especially oxygen, in that it gives a place for the resulting fragments to go, but eventually a radical will find something else to react with. The end result is that color is gone and the material is deteriorated. No atmosphere is required.
[/QUOTE]
I stand corrected. Ignorance fought on my part. Thanks, WarmNPrickly.
Neat question.
Let’s assume the following
Mass flux per year per m[sup]2[/sup] for the moon is the same as the earth ~ 40,000,000 kg per year (the numbers I found online range over a bunch of values) divided by 5x10[sup]14[/sup]m[sup]2[/sup] (the surface area of the planet) 8x10[sup]-8[/sup] kg/year/m[sup]2[/sup].
So say the vast majority are 1mm wide particles made out of stone (density ~ 2500 kg/m[sup]3[/sup]. That gives us a mass of 1.3x10[sup]-8[/sup]kg.
So the number of 1mm wide particles impacting the surface per year per m[sup]2[/sup] would be 8x10[sup]-8[/sup] / 1.3x10[sup]-6[/sup] .06 particles per year.
It has been 40 years so the flag could have 2-3 holes, each about 1 mm wide.
Note massive hand waving causing poster to actually hover, note assumption of flux being radial, note assumption that the moon gets the same mass flux as the earth, note my math likely has errors, note I have the flag flat on the ground, note…well you get the idea
[QUOTE=Grey]
Note massive hand waving causing poster to actually hover, note assumption of flux being radial, note assumption that the moon gets the same mass flux as the earth, note my math likely has errors, note I have the flag flat on the ground, note…well you get the idea
[/QUOTE]
Note that you’re also using Unicode codepoints that (apparently) haven’t been assigned characters.
is U+F0E0 (the octet sequence 0xEF 0x83 0xA0 in UTF-8), which is “Unknown character in range Private Use Area”. It’s possible my software is old and later versions of the standard reassigned some Private Use Area characters, but reassignments in the BMP would be very odd this late in the game.
I suspect you wanted U+2248 ALMOST EQUAL TO ( ≈ ) or U+2245 APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO ( ≅ ).
[QUOTE=vertizontal]
Question for you lunatics: When the Eagle took off, would the blast radius have been wide enough to cause some “weathering” of the flag?
[/QUOTE]
I thought I read that the blast knocked the flag over. Nasa say it might have.
I thought I also remembered that the future lunar landing missions took care to plant the flag further from the lander, so this wouldn’t happen.
If we’re being picky, of course, the OP is wrong to talk about “the American flag”. There are six of them on the moon. (See same Nasa page.)
(I’m not saying the OP is one of them, but it’s amazing how many people think there was only one manned lunar landing! How quickly we forget…)
[QUOTE=Roland Orzabal]
Normally I wouldn’t participate in a GQ hijack, but since you’re going along with it, what the hell. Take the following hypothetical:
Poster 1: “I assume A is true, but is B true?”
Poster 2: “I’d assume not.”
You’d interpret Poster 2’s response as saying that A is untrue? Either you parse questions very strangely, or you think that everyone else does.
Is it the parallel structure (“I assume”) that’s throwing you?
[/QUOTE]
As much as it pains me to say it, I read it the way 2.5 did, and it didn’t occur to me until much deeper in the thread that there was another meaning.
Mostly because terrible answers like “I assume not” are not the accepted norm in this forum, it read to me like a snarky “don’t assume things you don’t know” type of response. But then, I was barely paying attention.
[QUOTE=Siam Sam]
I’ve heard rumors that this was really a movie set.
[/QUOTE]
Yep. After they finished the shoot in Burbank, they folded up the flag and put it back in its package for resale. It could be anywhere.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Here is what I wrote:
Then a response came:
That reads as a contradiction of the first part on my statement.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s revisit your original statement, without any of that naughty redaction:
The first part of your statement explicitly mentioned the sun and nothing else. The second part of your statment concerned everything except the sun. The response by wheresgeorge04 made no mention whatsoever of the sun. How is it, then, that you think he’s talking about the sun? I mean, I know the answer is that you’re a dingdong, but I’d really like to see you show your work on this one.
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]
The second part of your statment concerned everything except the sun.e.
[/QUOTE]
It also includes everything the sun could do besides fading; for instance breaking down the polyester fabric.