Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
With moderate power, comes moderate responsibility.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                         

Moon Stick

 It moves away from us at about 2 inches a year
  (+2, -1)
(+2, -1) 		  [vote for,
against]

In an equatorial zone of the moon on the side that faces us, have a pole pointed at the Earth that is marked off in 2 inch increments. Have the incriments translated into dates of when the moon was approx. that much closer at that time in the earths history. Each year slide the dates up the pole by one unit.
—sartep, May 20 2003

[link]






       That'd be one costly ruler.   

       What good does it do anyone if it's on the moon?
—snarfyguy, May 20 2003
   

       Just 'cause I suggest it doesn't mean we have to do it today even though it is possible. Perhaps, at sometime in the future as an exhibit in a museum this would be a powerful example. For now you can do a virtual version of this on your computer. Make a 3d version or photoshop something together.
—sartep, May 20 2003
   

       Oh, so that's why the moon looks bigger in old photographs!
—Canuck, May 20 2003
   

       No, that was a different moon entirely. The moon you see today is refered to as the New Moon. :)
—sartep, May 20 2003
   

       Maybe you could have one of those signs with a whole lot of place names angled to indicate direction with the distances next to the name. You know those signs at tourist hotspots. And every 20 000 years you add on 1 kilometer. Pity all the arrows will be pointing in the same directon, and the distances would have to be updated realtime and what is the point really.
—Trodden, May 20 2003
   

       Gets a fish... the ruler could not be constructed as it would need lots of the material unobtainium which is presently unobtainable.
—venomx, May 20 2003
   

       This doesn't make much sense. 2 inches is insignificant when you consider that the moon has about 30,000 miles of play in its eccentric orbit.
—waugsqueke, May 20 2003
   

       [venomx] what part of this is unobtainable? Going to the moon or putting a 16 foot high pole on it? Hasn't past history shown that we can do this? Did everyone think that I was trying to connect the two celestial bodies together with a pole? The approx. 2in measurements would be for show as a central point in a museum, the same thing could be done here to show the distance the moon moves away from us.
—sartep, May 20 2003
   

       // I couldent help but to notice that it took approx 3 years for the event to occur, since the last time. //   

       There's no particular significance to this. Lunar eclipses occur just about every six months or so. It's been three years since one happened when it was night on your part of the planet. There'll be another you can see in November, provided it's not overcast like it was on my part of the planet last week.   

       sartep, did you see my comment? Are you aware of the terms "apogee" and "perigee"? Could you perhaps explain the point of this idea a bit more clearly?
—waugsqueke, May 20 2003
   

       Sorry waugsqueke, yes I do understand apogee and perigee. But the moon is moving away from us. Even though it has an eccentric orbit, the radius of that orbit is on average 2 inches more each year. Since the same side of the moon faces the earth, I felt a stationary pole could be placed on the surface giving an indication of past orbits.   

       True, this wouldn't be the most accurate measurement, at best it would be a simplified example to prove a point of the moons increasing distance from the earth.   

       Ultimately, it would be designed to look the way poles here show past ground levels with dates next to them.
—sartep, May 20 2003
   

       No and no, however the lightwave version of doppler is redshift/ blueshift.
—sartep, May 20 2003
   

       sartep, it just seems to me like a very arbitrary and inaccurate thing to measure, particularly located in a place where not a soul will see it, and for no real reason that I can ascertain.   

       nacho, the red colour is due to the refraction of the sun's light passing through the earth's atmosphere, around the edge of the shadow, before striking the moon. It's the same process that causes red sunsets.
—waugsqueke, May 20 2003
   

       Sorry, you've lost me. Are you drinking, by any chance?
—waugsqueke, May 20 2003
   

       Ah, right. I just hope you're not driving anywhere.
—waugsqueke, May 20 2003
   

       Waugs, just because it could be built today doesn't mean that would be the best idea. However, it can be designed today, like many things. However in the future there is a very good chance many eyeballs will glance at a thing like this. Maybe in perhaps the first lunar museum or something.
—sartep, May 20 2003
   

       Who's going to dust it?   

       Ah, therein is the beauty of it - when an irresistable force meets an immovable object - they become dust free. So, when we get slammed into by the moon yo-yo - the ruler will once again be legible. By who, I don't know, as there will be few survivors. Best if the ruler is marked in metric *and* capitalist pig.
—thumbwax, May 21 2003
   

       That's funny as hell, thumbwax. Yeah, I'm not really the biggest fan of building on the side of the moon that faces us. But you know, that those landing spots will be places of interest in the future.
—sartep, May 21 2003
   

       You want the moon on a stick!
—imaginality, Oct 18 2006
   
      
[annotate]
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle