http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LADEE/news/lunar-atmosphere.html#.Uj8c_4asgk0 Quote: "Until recently, most everyone accepted the conventional wisdom that the moon has virtually no atmosphere."
Another quote to bring it into context "the density of the atmosphere at the moon's surface is comparable to the density of the outermost fringes of Earth's atmosphere where the International Space Station orbits".
It's like if a lake dried up and there was just some mud in the bottom, you're saying it's still a lake. Yes, technically. But coloraday is saying: for practical purposes... it's not really there (you saw the word practically right?). I.e. good luck swimming or fishing.
In other words, you're both right. Depending on how you look at it.
Well, it's not an atmosphere in a common sense. By the definition from Wikipedia, "an atmosphere is a layer of gases surrounding a planet or other material body of sufficient mass that is held in place by the gravity of the body". What is implied by the lunar atmosphere in LADEE mission is not something made of gases, but rather pieces of dust rising up from the Moon's surface in the daylight. There are several hypotheses to explain this phenomenon (e.g. the most popular one claims it's due to the electrostatic forces emerging from the lunar surface being heated by sunlight). LADEE is to test which of them is correct.
So, if we're speaking about the conventional definition of the word "atmosphere", then no, Moon does not have it.
Eh, those are not hypotheses so much as conjecture.
Once somebody puts together methods to test and observe the conjecture for its accuracies (and inaccuracies) that can be repeated... then they shall be hypotheses.
For now, the most accurate explanation for commonly observed practices is that there is an atmosphere--with puts that at the theoretic level.
Though the accuracy of that theoretic atmosphere might be about as accurate as the theoretic knowledge that continents rise and fall (which was debunked by observations of ocean floors that brought to accurate the long thought to be pseudoscience claim that continents drift). Or the Rutherfordian Age of the Earth--being roughly about 300 Million Years Old (as entropy would not allow Earth to be older). The Rutherfordian age of Earth was disproved when it turned out that Radiation was not pseudoscientific snake oil.
So yeah... more observation of the Moon is still required for some elements of what is going on there. Most of those elements are not important to any practical part of day to life--apart from people on the internet trying to out brain each other.
Capitalize: Names of celestial bodies: Mars, Saturn, the Milky Way. Do not, however, capitalize earth, moon, sun, except when those names appear in a context in which other (capitalized) celestial bodies are mentioned. "I like it here on earth," but "It is further from Earth to Mars than it is from Mercury to the Sun. --
This reference is for English grammar, but French has different capitalization rules. But I do believe that in this situation they would be the same...
Here's a guide to capitalization in French: http://french.about.com/library/writing/bl-capitalization.htm It doesn't answer this specific question, but it does have some good information.
French does not use an indefinite article in negative constructions, but "any" should be an acceptable translation in this context. See my discussion earlier this week with n6sz: https://www.duolingo.com/comment/280568$comment_id=15291932
I would report it.
Practically, yes. Technically, no. One source of the lunar atmosphere is outgassing the release of gases such as radon and helium resulting from radioactive decay within the crust and mantle. Another important source is the bombardment of the lunar surface by micrometeorites, the solar wind, and sunlight, in a process known as sputtering. [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon]
I would have gone the reverse... as there is a roughly one inch atmosphere held by the gravity of the moon.
Which yeah... it is technically there... but it is not going to affect anything any macroscopic life that lands on the moon would be doing there. So... Technically yes... Practically--not really.
Okay... I appreciate how this is correct in a PRACTICAL concept of Science. In a more EXACT concept of Science the Moon does have an atmosphere... it is just far too shallow for humans to make any use with... and it is also highly radioactive.
I just wanted to read the comments talking about the more impractical areas of science. As yeah... Science get ridiculous exact on concepts that have no practical usage outside of Science. I mean, I suppose it is possible for single cell based life form to adapt to the one inch atmosphere of the Moon--and that is a wonderful idea for a terrible B-Movie.
Thank you comments sections.
What about the Moon over the sea, reflected on a still night? I think it has lots of atmosphere!
This is not just a frivolous comment, but I would like to ask if 'atmosphère' can be used in this way, or is it limited to the gases around a planet? Also, what about the atmosphere of the Brexit negotiations as another example.
Edit: I was part way through a lesson when this cropped up and I posted. the answer was given in a later part of the lesson. Yes, I infer, atmosphere can be used in this kind of way since the example in the lesson was about the atmosphere of a restaurant. I assume it didn't mean if it was smoky or stuffy!! do correct me if I am wrong.