The galaxy should have been fully colonized many billions of years ago

@sonhouse said
@divegeester
Of course there is no 'dark side' of the moon but because it is tidally locked to Earth, the backside gets slightly less energy in total since Earth does emit some energy which will reach the moon, a small part of it of course.

You said in your previous post that the back side of the moon is “in total darkness and no direct light from the sun”, this is completely incorrect.

Furthermore it is actually the nearside of the moon which gets “slight less” exposure to the sun, not the far side. This is basic earth/moon rotational geometry sonshouse. When the near side of the moon is facing the sun it will at times be fully or partially eclipsed by the earth. This never happens to the fair side.

Either way, neither option supports your earlier assertion.

Stop doubling down chap.

@sonhouse said
@divegeester
Of course there is no 'dark side' of the moon but because it is tidally locked to Earth, the backside gets slightly less energy in total since Earth does emit some energy which will reach the moon, a small part of it of course.
Look at Suzianne's post, nice piece about that subject.
why would folks double thumb her down? It's just an article and may even be wrong so why the TD?

Because it disagrees with certain people's pet theories.

@sonhouse said
@divegeester
Because Earth emits heat as well as the sun so that increases slightly the heat on the nearside but the backside has total darkness and direct light from the sun but that is slightly less heat than the combined heat from Earth and sun hitting Luna.
Not much heat for sure but it is a tiny bit more.

This is the post that the paper I linked agreed with. That was why I posted the link.

@suzianne said
This is the post that the paper I linked agreed with. That was why I posted the link.

If your link asserts, as sonhouse did, that the far side of the moon is in total darkness, then it too is totally incorrect.

@divegeester said
If your link asserts, as sonhouse did, that the far side of the moon is in total darkness, then it too is totally incorrect.

He meant dark from earthshine. Obviously.

I really tire of you throwing out everything people say and focusing on one thing misspoke.

@suzianne said
He meant dark from earthshine. Obviously.

He may have meant that, but it's not as obvious as you gaslight it is. Clearly, none of you have ever listened to a Pink Floyd album, or you'd have known how many people make that mistake.

@suzianne said
He meant dark from earthshine. Obviously.

That is not what he said at all, so no, it’s not obvious.

Clearly Sonhouse is mistaken when he asserts that “the back side of the moon is in total darkness”, it isn’t. Much of the time it is full sun, most of the rest of the time it’s in partial sun. Occasionally, for a day or so, during a full moon on earth, the back side of the moon will be in total darkness.

@suzianne said

I really tire of you throwing out everything people say and focusing on one thing misspoke.

I couldn’t care less what you tire of.

@shallow-blue said
He may have meant that, but it's not as obvious as you gaslight it is. Clearly, none of you have ever listened to a Pink Floyd album, or you'd have known how many people make that mistake.

NObody makes that mistake.

People aren't as stupid as you'd like to believe.

@divegeester said
I couldn’t care less what you tire of.

Sure you could.

You'd stop chasing my skirt if you couldn't.

@divegeester said
That is not what he said at all, so no, it’s not obvious.

Clearly Sonhouse is mistaken when he asserts that “the back side of the moon is in total darkness”, it isn’t. Much of the time it is full sun, most of the rest of the time it’s in partial sun. Occasionally, for a day or so, during a full moon on earth, the back side of the moon will be in total darkness.

You're singing to the choir.

He knows that too.

I have no idea why you (and others like SB) love to paint people as know-nothings. If I had to guess, it's because you're both insecure of your own intelligence.

@suzianne said

I have no idea why you (and others like SB) love to paint people as know-nothings.

I’m replying to sonshouse incorrect assertion.

It’s and yourself and he who are painting yourselves as “know nothings”

@suzianne said
You're singing to the choir.

Based on what sonshouse and yourself wrote, apparently not.

@suzianne said

You'd stop chasing my skirt if you couldn't.

“Chasing your skirt”

What do you mean by that?

skirt chaser

noun. slang. a person who habitually tries to seduce women. Collins English Dictionary.