"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 sufficiently right, as otherwise you would have so easily
impressed the living hell out of us village idiots with all of your vast
wizardly expertise of 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 a
lighting strike, is certainly a new and improved mainstream weird as all
get out science, and so much more so impressive if those lighting 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, as
supposedly representing the orbital mechanics of our moon as 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 can't 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 BIG-BANG, or even that of our rad-hard
astronauts merely walking upon our naked anticathode lethal moon.

Perhaps you can explain to us how a nearly 30% inert GLOW rocket can
manage to deploy it's nearly 50 tonne payload into orbiting our moon,
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. I'm certainly
impressed as all get out, as is Russia, India, ESA and China, and so why
the heck should you not continue as to impress us some more?
-
Brad Guth


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