"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message


On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:23:53 +0000 (UTC), in uk.sci.astronomy , "Brad
Guth" wrote:

the usual twaddle.

I pity your doctors.

"There is a huge force of gravity between the earth and moon - some 70
million trillion pounds (that's 70 with another 18 zeroes after it), or
30,000 trillion tonnes (that's 30 with 15 zeroes)."

Euh, firstly gravity isn't measured in pounds or tonnes, and secondly
quoting humongous numbers is a classical kook trick to trick ordinary
folks into believing them. "Gosh the numbers are so huge / tiny /
boggling it must be true / untrue / whatever". Ever bothered to work
out the weight of the earth in grammes? Or the number of atoms in a
pinhead? Or the number of angels that can dance on a kooks brain?

that which currently represents an absolutely horrific
amount of ongoing applied energy,

A few terajoules is NOT a horrific amount of energy. Try
thunderstorms.

Obviously I'm being sufficiently right, as otherwise you could have so
easily impressed the living hell out of us village idiots with all of
your vast wizardly expertise, and thereby having those supposed much
better numbers, and of being so kind as to sharing in whatever's in
support of such numbers.

Otherwise, your calling a continuous application of an extra 254
gigajoules per second or merely 914 tj/hr of recession energy as being
so much less impressive than a few wussy milliseconds worth of lightning
strikes is certainly offering us a new and improved mainstream weirdness
as all get out science, and so much more so impressive if those
lightning storms are overtaking the continuous 2e20 joules/sec of what
the entire lunar orbital worth of energy has to offer, as representing
the sort of wag-thy-dogs to death of what your superior conditional laws
of physics as extracted from whatever's scripted within your NASA koran
of nifty infomercial-science, as supposedly representing the orbital
mechanics of our moon as somehow being something that's so gosh darn
insignificant.

Silly me, I honestly didn't know that 2e20 joules/sec of a continuous
applied force was so gosh darn wussy by our NASA's "so what's the
difference" policy of infomercial-science standards. I'll be sure to
past that one along, so that other Village idiots don't mistake such big
numbers as having any meaning whatsoever.

I obviously can't hardly speak for others, but I must say that your new
and improved form of topic naysayism on a stick is all together a whole
lot more impressive than any houcs-pocus Alan Guth form of BIG-BANG
expansion, or even that of our rad-hard astronauts merely walking
moonsuit butt-naked upon our nearly atmospherically naked anticathode
lethal moon.

Perhaps you can further explain to us how a nearly 30% inert GLOW rocket
can manage to deploy it's nearly 50 tonne payload into orbiting our
moon, as having done so within such a short amount of travel time and
thereby having accomplished each of those round trip NASA/Apollo
missions with merely a 60:1 ratio worth of rocket per payload. While
you're at it, please inform us as to where's Venus as of Apollo 11, 14
and 16. As to such rocket-science and w/o a prototype fly-by-rocket
lander none the less, I'm certainly impressed as all get out, as is
Russia, India, ESA and China, and so I'm thinking; why the heck should
you not continue as to impress us some more?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG