Feeds

back to article Astroboffins solve birth of the Man in the Moon face

NASA's Gravity Recovery And Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) has apparently figured out the origin of the "Man in the Moon". According to the space agency's researchers, who published their findings in this week's edition of hefty boffinry mag Science, the distinctive almost-face-like marks on the Moon are "large, lava-filled, impact …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Man in the Moon. Pfffft.

Everyone knows that it's a rabbit pounding rice for mochi.

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Man in the Moon. Pfffft.

I can see a sailing ship, a moose and a packet of crisps, but no man...

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Man in the Moon. Pfffft.

I see a lady clad in shiny black vinyl clutching a whip. With fishnet stockings. And spike heels.

0
0
Meh

Re: Man in the Moon. Pfffft.

Try looking at the moon and not in your rumpus room.

0
1

Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

Its about the history of impacts, that maybe the MOON saved us from a lot of it, look at size of craters, super-impose that formation somewhere on google earth, over a populated area, we are lucky more of space crap doesn't hit us, we should pick all the rocks up, it's a Navigational Hazard anyway ...

1
3
Silver badge

Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

What part of "4 billion years ago" do you not understand? The earth was similarly pummeled in the same time-frame. Time, geology & weather has (mostly) hidden the evidence. The moon only has one of those processes.

1
1

Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

4 million years ago, was still here ..... Time has hidden most of evidence, have a geek ruhr valley in germany some day, I was not talking about yesterday, about moon and it's role in this, grow up ..

0
6
Silver badge

@ JamesTQuirk 08:44 (was: Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....)

Somewhat incoherent comment. Care to try again?

4
2
FAIL

Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

Look up at the sky. Now look at the moon. Not much of a shield, is it?

4
3
Silver badge
Gimp

Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

> JamesTQuirk posts disjointed stuff from another part of the multiverse

Whatever you are on, I don't want it

1
0
Silver badge
Alien

Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

> Not much of a shield, is it?

The moon: An immense TRACTOR BEAM GENERATOR cunningly disguised as a small, burnt-out ball of regolith and brimstone. To fake the gravitational effect, THE ENGINEERS did not forget to put an appropriately-sized BLACK HOLE at the HEART OF THIS ARTIFACT.

PUNY HUMAN!

1
3

Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

@ Destroy All Monsters

Why would anyone care, you are a weazle who follows me around because I proved you where a idiot in couple of other posts, how old are you 12 ? Get a life .... People are opinions, just because you dont like them, is no reason to carry on like this, YOU child ...

1
6
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

> Why would anyone care, you are a weazle who follows me around

Lolno. You think you are important or anything? Begone, butterfly.

0
4

Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

No. When stuff comes into the atmosphere, most of it burns up, bar a few bigger pieces of rock (metal?) like the one in Russia earlier this year.

Also, the chance that something will hit the moon (if it's bound to hit either the earth or the moon) is miniscule. At least so it seems to me.

1
1

Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

@ Destroy All Monsters

Yes I see, ONLY Your Opinion counts, that what it is, I people say something you don't agree with you have one of your tantrums, well sorry this is a forum, people can say what they want, You don't need to say anything, or agree, only offer Your opinions, but you choose to bug/abuse me, well tuff, I am sticking around, because of You, I hate bully’s ......

0
5
Bronze badge
Trollface

Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

Dear Mr Quirk,

I only got Grade 2 CSE English, but i think it should have read:

"i proved you were an idiot" NOT "i proved you where a idiot"

I could be wrong.

PS....also you could have used, "i proved that you're an idiot"

4
0
Bronze badge
Happy

Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

Its not life as we know it Jim, because a bit more effort is required. More CAPS, preferably random and you get the recognition you deserve. FOTW has been absent for so long.

1
0
Silver badge
Trollface

Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

> I hate bully’s ......

I actually love bully's. They are excellent with mayonnaise.

0
0

Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

@ i like crisps

Others have spellcheck, i just USE you ....

0
2
Anonymous Coward

@JamesTQuirk. @Destroy all Monsters...

SLAP FIGHT!

0
0
Silver badge

Re: @JamesTQuirk. @Destroy all Monsters...

As if.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: @ JamesTQuirk 08:44 (was: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....)

Pretty much all of JamesTQuirk's comments are hard to understand, the grammar and sentence structure are so bad.

2
0

Re: @ JamesTQuirk 08:44 (was: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....)

People try to use a forum, to chat about "moon", and you children turn it into a playground, Because you dont like my comments, get a life, you are doing nothing to me, only exposing your own stupidity ...

0
4
Silver badge

Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

If 4 billion years is accurate, the Earth wasn't even solid then.

The oldest dated terrestrial rocks are 3.8 billion years old. The oldest terrestrial zircon crystals are 4.3 billion years old. (Zircons crystallize out in even white-hot magma. They are harder than just about anything except diamond so they survive all subsequent geological processes except deep re-melting. Zircon can contain Uranium but not Lead impurities at formation, which allows accurate radio-isotope dating - any Lead in a Zircon must have started as Uranium when the zircon crystallized.)

0
0
Bronze badge
Meh

Re: @ JamesTQuirk 08:44 (was: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....)

Because you dont like my comments

I didn't say I don't like your comments, I said they are hard to understand.

0
0

Re: Its a history of the moon saving our butts ....

Similar in some way to how Rob Ford has saved the street kids from smoking crack by smoking it all himself?

0
0
Silver badge

Personally ...

... I never could see the supposed "man in the moon". To me it's a random bunch of craters left by a random bunch of debris leftover from the formation of the Solar System.

8
0

Re: Personally ...

Not just me then... been staring at the photo wondering what other people see. Might actually need someone to draw on the picture to show me where the features are supposed to be!

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Personally ...

It doesn't surprise me at all that you can't see it. That requires imagination and creativity, neither of which you demonstrate in your posts.

0
7
Bronze badge
Pirate

Re: Personally ...

I can easily see there the Spanish Armada sailing against England over the Sea of Tranquility.

Good enough for AC?

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Personally ...

I can see a mouse . . .

1
0

Re: Personally ...

Good to know there's more of us, I've always seen it as a collection of craters which is fascinating enough on its own. I have googled some images that are supposed to show it but it doesnt make it any clearer to me.

2
0
Bronze badge
Alien

Re: Personally ...

I too can see a mouse...but not the pleasant Tom & Jerry type mouse...more

a sort of ' James Herbert ' type mouse....you wouldn't want to stroke him.

0
0

Re: Personally ...

It doesn't surprise me at all that you can't see it. That requires imagination and creativity, neither of which you demonstrate in your posts.

Imagination and creativity? Looking at the moon again quickly, I'd say it's more likely you'd need a tendency to hallucinate....

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Personally ...

Have an upvote from me. I can't see a man in the moon either. Looks like there's a lot of us about.

1
0

Re: Personally ...

I can't see any face in enlargements like this or through a telescope, but I do when staring up at night - I presume it's largely because then I don't see the craters at all, just a collection of grey tones. But the relative contrast against the sky might also help with the illusion.

(Or the old fella is a sensitive as a small child to the presence of a photographer and always manages to blink or grimace precisely as the shutter finger descends)

Anyway kids growing up in the southern hemisphere are cruelly mislead by these stories, since upside down it really does look like the rabbit in the moon.

0
0
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Personally ...

There are (at least) two 'men on the moon' depending on what culture you're talking about (every culture has it) and they're intermingled in a really strange way.

The 'standard' man on the moon looks like a palsied smiley face doodle: two round eyes and a round mouth, the edges of the moon disc form the head. The whole thing is about 14 degrees from straight up (hence the palsied part), if you could rotate the moon 14 degrees it would be easier to see. It is made with three of the enormous 'seas', not the smaller craters, you have to ignore the small craters.

The weird part, in Ireland, Scotland, parts of India, and a few Native American tribes they have a much more detailed man (or witch) who is walking bent over with a large bundle on his back, like the cover of that untitled Led Zeppelin album with the symbols. It is a rather detailed image that I had to have someone point out to me and it is weird that such disparate cultures share it. Some anthropologists use it as evidence, like Great Deluge stories, that there used to be more intermingling of cultures in the far distant past.

3
0
Silver badge

I think this article is based on a misreading. The source of the lunar maria (lava fill of impact craters) has been generally accepted for decades. The interesting new science is why the far side has very few maria compared with the face that we see. One theory was that the bombardment was somehow asymmetrical, it looks like GRAIL has contributed to providing us with a better answer.

4
0
Silver badge

@Chris Miller

The Moon is in synchronous rotation with the Earth, thus protecting the near side from most bombardment, and thus most changes. Likewise, the farside isn't quite as protected. Over 4 billion years, the surface texture difference becomes obvious to the thinking man ...

0
5
Silver badge

Re: @Chris Miller

Read the article again Jake.

3
1
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: @Chris Miller

jake, no. Do not pass go. Go home, take a valium. Think about what you are saying

1) Makes no sense

2) Would have the reverse effect anyway

@Chris Miller: You are correct, Sir!

I also want the old jake back. Or is that another jake?

2
2
Mushroom

Easy to explain..

The reason that the near side has so much maria is because it took a lot of nuclear bombs launched from earth to finally nudge the moon into a tidally locked orbit so that the tidal motion of the moon would cause earth's oceans to form life and then have the life migrate to land.

The real question is who did this?

0
0
Silver badge

Re: @Chris Miller

Spin a bucket around at the end of a rope.

Allow several hundred people to randomly throw dyed water balloons at said bucket from any and all angles. Observe how much dye actually lands in said bucket, compared to what splatters onto the outside of the bucket and yourself, in the center of the system.

For fun, and charity purposes, fill the balloons with ketchup instead of water+dye.

1
0
Silver badge

@DAM (was: Re: @Chris Miller)

Re-read mine. Nearside & farside refers to the moon, not the earth.

Once the moon was tidally locked, the nearside had a measure of protection. Only stands to reason. See my reply to Chris Miller.

0
2
Vic
Silver badge

Re: Easy to explain..

> The real question is who did this?

Yeah, sorry, I'd had a few beers, and it seemed like a good idea at the time...

Vic.

2
0
Vic
Silver badge

Re: @DAM (was: @Chris Miller)

> the nearside had a measure of protection. Only stands to reason

That might "stand to reason", but it's incorrect anyway. From TFA:

The climate of the Moon is also said to have played a part in the formation of its features. The researchers believe that because the near side of the Moon was warm enough to produce a thinner crust which allowed for larger impacts. As a result, the craters in the near side are said to be as much as twice the size of their counterparts on the far side of the Moon.

It's the nearside - which you claim is "protected" - that has the bigger impact craters...

Vic.

1
0
Silver badge

@Vic (was: Re: @DAM (was: @Chris Miller))

There is only one problem with your argument. Your "impact craters" on the nearside aren't a result of impact. Rather, they are a result of the moon's internal vulcanism.

I rather suspect the farside had similar features soon after tidal-lock set in.

The phrase "are said to be" doth not scientific proof make.

0
1
Vic
Silver badge

Re: @Vic (was: @DAM (was: @Chris Miller))

> "impact craters" on the nearside aren't a result of impact.

The article says differently.

I await your lunar science credentials with bated[1] breath...

Vic.

[1] I almost wrote "baited", but I'm really not that interested in this fish.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: @Vic (was: @DAM (was: @Chris Miller))

Try to educate yourself, Vic. Here's a starting point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_maria

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, Wiki sucks. But it's got some good links.

Again, see my reply to Chris Miller, above.

Not a professional, just an amateur. See these two posts:

http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/1432149

http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/1433296

The 20 inch is a work in progress ... and again, the Wife is fascinated :-)

0
1
Vic
Silver badge

Re: @Vic (was: @DAM (was: @Chris Miller))

> Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, Wiki sucks. But it's got some good links.

Ah, I see. Your qualifications are "reading Wikipedia".

> Not a professional, just an amateur

But you decide to argue with the people quoted in the article who are professionals.

Vic.

1
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.