Ferocious Aardvark wrote::lol:
Aww, feeling inadequate again, Mugs? there, there, don't take on so!
Fsck me, now you think you're Rumpole!
Short answer: It depends.
Longer answer:
1. I don't see the direct relevance.
2. You won't explain the relevance of your "point" (or indeed what your point actually is) so how can anyone sensibly consider whatever it is you are getting at?
3. It isn't a "yes or no" question. You don't get to set a multiple choice of 2 one-word answers! What next, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Well, you
think you do, and if so, good for you! My congratulations! I'd just like to know, how big is your studio (length minimum 93 million miles? Must be expensive to rent) and how do you recreate a G-type main-sequence yellow dwarf star for your re-creation?
If you can't do that, then you would have to set out how you recreate these basic parameters in some other way, in order to arrive at your proof. What is your proof? I'd be fascinated.
I know that your question, such as it presently is, is of no apparent direct relevance to what we are discussing, so unless you can re-frame it in a way where we can see your point and any relevance, you seem to be wasting your time.
I think you've watched too many old TV courtroom dramas and genuinely see yourself like Rumpole or Perry Mason, with a killer question. When what you need is a less banal scriptwriter.
While the "single" (sic) light source you probably refer to (the Sun) was naturally there, any items on the surface were illuminated by more than one light source; the Sun's light was reflected back from the regolith; the Earth was in the sky and acting as another light source (earthshine, much like moonshine on earth, but more variable, and from a bigger object); and the camera had an integral FLASH; which when used would also scatter off the regolith, astronauts' clothing, lander etc. as the individual image's case may be.
As it is, you're trying to infer that you have some sort of killer point, based on your self-proclaimed immense knowledge of the inverse square law and photographic exposures, but your tactic of "
Look, I KNOW what the issue is here, and it is OBVIOUS, and so I DON'T ACTUALLY NEED TO MAKE MY POINT, I can just ask obligue rhetorical questions and this will suffice" is cringeworthy.
But at least you are learning stuff. I've taught you that there is no air on the Moon, and that the Sun is actually not a small light source, so I am furthering your scientific education. I don't expect gratitude.
There are only two possible explanations here ...... you are either perfectly normal or you are a pompous prat.
I am getting the hang of this ......
