"Childhood obesity is a growing problem" -DU Headline
Question #90661 posted on 12/04/2017 8:06 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

In light of overflowing inboxes, I thought I'd ask some easily answered (or at least quickly answered) questions to help out your stats (cuz obviously stats are all that matter in life). Hope you enjoy them!

So,
Moon or stars?

-Vector

A:

Dear Vector,

Definitely stars, mostly because I really miss them. Utah valley obviously isn't the worst offender in this regard, but the light pollution here is so much worse than what I experienced growing up.

-The Entomophagist

A:

Dear night owl,

If you ask which I prefer
I will answer, true and sure,
That while I love the moon's pale light
The stars are what I choose each night

We always ask just what they are
When we see them, twinkling far
But quite depressing when you know
They may have died many years ago

But still! They all are beautiful!
Though it is irrefutable 
If pollution's levels are ignored
We may not see them anymore

And if our closest star decides
It can no longer live and thrive
I suppose I'd better say adieu
We know what the world is coming to

Perhaps I'm wrong to choose the stars
After all, they are so far
Perhaps it's best to choose the moon
I hope it's not exploding soon

-guppy of doom

A:

Dear person,

I love the stars, especially on a clear night. I also love the moon, but only when it is a crescent moon or a full moon. I don't like anything between first and last quarter (except for the full moon). Gibbous moons are not good moons.

-Sheebs

A:

Dear Magnitude and Direction,

Hmmm... Moon? Stars? Mars!

Definitely Mars.

Rebelliously yours,

Tipperary

A:

Dear Banach,

Let's see, without a moon, we would suddenly be without tidal waves, but overall would not be terribly affected.

Without stars, we have just enough wiggle room in that statement to squeeze in exactly one star. Assuming this wasn't always the only star around, something must have happened to all those other stars. And probably that something wasn't good. Possibly it would be that darned heat death coming round to collect its entropy dues. Regardless of what it could be, it's most assuredly also going to come for us. But luckily we're working on a cosmic time scale here, so we have plenty of time to procrastinate dealing with this problem by shunting it off to future generations. And in the meantime we still have our star to keep basic life-on-earth-functions functioning.

But what if there weren't ever any stars but just the one? Well then, the universe would be rather empty. Turns out we get all our elements formed out of stars. As this XKCD comic puts it, the two ingredients of the universe are hydrogen and time. And all elements heavier than iron have to be formed in a supernova, which of course would require our one star to die. Looks like things wouldn't be going so good in this scenario for life to even start at all. 

And now there's just one option left: moons. While we'd have weird tides, we still would be able to survive as a planet.

Thus I'm compelled to give you the most logical answer to your query: yes.

~Anathema

A:

Dear you,

Stars. Would much prefer to live on an earth with no tides rather than an earth with no heat.

~Anne, Certainly

A:

Dear Victor,

Stars are definitely prettier than the moon. Like, the moon is all mysterious and stuff, but you can't make beautiful constellations with it, and it's not as gorgeous and twinkling and awe-inspiring as the stars.

-Alta

A:

Dear Vector,

Although the moon is cool, I would definitely have to pick the stars. I mean, they're literally giant flaming balls of gas. The moon is just a big rock. 

-Mitty