[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Terra Nova moon
Quick back of the envelope calculation:
Based on the information in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html,
current rate of lunar recession (as measured with lasers)
is 3.82 cm/year. Using this value, 85 million years ago the moon should have
been 3247 km closer to Earth on average. This is about
1% closer than today (average distance to moon presently 384,403 km).
Thus, simple instrumentation should note that the moon looks bigger, but I am
not certain how much of a difference it would look as
a naked-eye observation. In fact, the distance of the moon to the Earth varies
by 43,592 km through its cycle: this is over 10x the
difference between the 85 Ma and today. In other words, the averaged difference
between the distance to the moon now and then is
much less than the variation we see as part of the ordinary lunar cycle.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: 301-405-4084
Office: Centreville 1216
Senior Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
Dept. of Geology, University of Maryland
Faculty Director, Science & Global Change Program, College Park Scholars
Mailing Address: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Department of Geology
Building 237, Room 1117
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742 USA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu [mailto:owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu]
> On Behalf Of Dan Chure
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 1:30 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Cc: Dinosaur
> Subject: Re: Terra Nova moon
> This may be of interest: http://www.jstor.org/pss/30085018
> On 10/9/2011 10:35 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > Listers --
> > Pardon if I missed an earlier discussion but:
> > I know that the Mesozoic moon would have appeared larger
> than today's
> > moon, but it seemed absolutely gigantic in TERRA NOVA. Have they
> > overestimated the size or was it really that impressive 85 million
> > years ago? And what would this have done to the tides? They
> must have
> > been pretty extreme -- or am I misunderstanding the situation?
> > I'm picturing what extreme high tides coupled with annual coastal
> > storm seasons (and the occasional tsunami), must have done
> to Western
> > Interior Seaway beaches.
> > -- Donna Braginetz
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2012.0.1831 / Virus Database: 2085/4543 - Release Date:
> > 10/07/11