posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:44 AM
reply to post by 0bserver1
The article clearly states "
Two shots of a boulder, and the tracks it left behind on the lunar surface as it took a tumble through the dust around
100 million years ago."
The sentence you quote simply states that "
A casual glance might suggest that it happened last week, or even that its rolling might resume at
any moment." .....The meaning of the article is clear. The rock rolled a very long time ago, even though
A casual glance might make you think
otherwise.....You seemed to cherry pick a sentence which made it seem as if it had only just recently started rolling, even though the article clearly
states otherwise.
As for the 'high gravity' statement.....That's just poor logic on the part of whoever wrote the article. Gravity tends to keep things down on the
ground and stable....It's an imbalance of forces which cause something to roll...gravity can be one of those forces, but lightweight objects will roll
as well (as we all know). Something bumped it (such as the impact of a meteor shaking the ground) a long time ago, and it rolled (a bit slower than it
would on Earth) down a hill....Nothing really spectacular. It's simply less common to see on the Moon because there are less processes by which a
boulder could be 'bumped' (no wind, or atmosphere...etc)
edit on 16-2-2012 by bhornbuckle75 because: Bumblebee