I always appreciate someone who takes the time to do critical research on issues, even seemingly small ones.I hope you know me to be a very peaceable person who would never wish to cause anyone any inconvenience.
I understand context. That is why, IMO, it is important to keep things in context with a subject under discussion. In this case, it is the magnetosphere that deflects the Solar Wind that strips away the upper atmosphere. It is only the magnetosphere, and not some ambiguous “force field”. As I am sure you are aware, Scientists and science enthusiasts use the best terminology for a given issue, not ambiguous, nebulous, or other terminology that could be misconstrued. That is because they understand that science requires exactitude of meaning to be clear and comprehensible.For that reason I wish to point out that descriptions sometimes have more than one context.
Rarely have scientific discussions used “force field” to describe a force. Virtually always the terminology is specific, i.e. magnetic lines of force, magnetosphere, electromagnetic field, gravitational force, applied force, and of course the strong and weak fundamental forces. “force field” is almost completely relegated to SciFi, where it belongs.As someone who also has a degree in science, I am sure you will recall electrical force fields, electromagnetic force fields, forces exerted in a gravitational field, and so on.
I understand, and I appreciate your informative references."The Earth does not have a force field. That is a science fiction creation which does not exist in reality." I was responding to this.
Sounds like you might be catching up. Again, have you lived under the stars for the last 80 years?
No, Missouri. Better now than in past. I have decided I like climate change since it happens daily, monthly, yearly and has for some time. Don't like lower quantum energy sectors.
Terraforming moon, if even possible would involve nuking limited materials such as water ice at poles. These materials would, I suspect, be better used as a direct mined resource.From the very top:
"My question I suppose would be in the category of terraforming. Would it ever be possible - if only in theory, to provide the moon with an (albeit temporary) atmosphere.?"
In theory anything is possible. Yes, any atmosphere for the Moon would be temporary. It just does not have the gravity to hold an atmosphere.
The effort to terraform the Moon - for what purpose? - would be so much better spent elsewhere.
And what would be the purpose? Asteroids might equally threaten the Moon, and the expanding Sun would threaten both equally.
Someone asked if it would be possible to terraform the moon (create an atmosphere by setting off a few nukes). My view is a suitable atmosphere could not be created and the resources on the moon would be better mined for rocket fuel etc. I think people are getting a bit carried away with this terraforming concept, I am dubious about whether or not it is possible on any planetary surface. Anyway let's get people back to the moon first. The moon did have a thin Mars like atmosphere a few billion years ago.Errrr . . . . . . . . . elucidate please.