It's about 4x larger on average, according to this source ...
"Lunar dust particles are minuscule, with an average size of 70 micrometers.."
Ever seen lunar dust turb? I have.
Ever actually read any of the many varying reports on this really neat material? I have.
Ever do any research on it?
Obviously no. I neither know why I ask or why you post...
What I said was .006 inches.
15.84 micrometers is 0.0006 inches, which is 10 times smaller.
My size wasn't 15.84 micrometers. It was more like 156 micrometers. 0.006 in., turb.
I know you don't understand the many reports, and that in each one you'll find different sizes of grain measurements.
Again you're wrong, according to this source..
See the chart (pg.1239 of doc). Sand grains - very fine (63 micrometers) fine (125 mm) medium (250 mm) coarse (500 mm) very coarse (1000 mm).
So very coarse sand is twice as small as your average grain!! Just where did you get such a figure, anyway? It's out of whack..
Imeasured about 20 grains I have. , and unfortunately turb, you say they average between .002 in. and 40 inches across! That's a very course bunch of boulders.
You're wasting my time (or, I am!). You do realize that, don't you??
Enough, lunar soil (like powder, if you ever get the chance to see some, which isn't likely) is alot smaller than average sand.
You're wrong, again, and again...
What's your point?
Were you attempting to prove your contention?
Stop wasting time and get on with it.
And I really do understand this phenomenon. I understand it hasn't a shred of proof. And therefore, I have come to understand this phenomenon is nothing but a convoluted, contrived mess of your own invention..
You rfeally understand nothing at all. It's clearly visible in photos, and it is perfectly logical a phenomenon, if you understand anything about the creation of it, the lunar soil, the lighting conditions of the Moon, and things like that. but you don, and you won't.
I didn't invent it.
I don't actually care about it.
You seem to think it has some significance, when in reality the only significant issue here is your proving your contention.
Gee turb, nice dodge. It's not like anyone doesn't clearly see the tactic here.
My burden of proof? My evidence?
I don't care about haloing, turb. Didn't when I first saw it, ecades ago (long before you were even around) You do!
You try and explain why it's so significant...
I cared about landing on the Moon, doing the science, and getting back home again.
I'm sure turb that if I anticipated the cultural malaise that would, decades later, produce the idiocy we see on this thread, I'd have made some definite suggestions regarding photographing the landing sites from orbit, and other things to make sure some nit wit didn't think we faked it all...
Of course, I'd have been committed for psychological analysis and have been terminated.
Sorry Buddy! I was just covering my own butt but not trying to prohibit cool stuff.
Wouldn't have mattered anyway.
You'd still be here, claiming it was all a fake, and producing nothing to sustantiate the lunacy you put forth. I guess it was just destiny...
Because you've failed to meet your burden of proof, I've searched and searched for information on this phenomenon. But I can't find it anywhere. It appears to be a false claim.
Too much talk about this old, already explained (to you) nonsense.
Your proof of your contention was???