A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Our 0.11% hollow moon, and near infinite vacuum of Selene L1 /Brad Guth



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 3rd 10, 10:16 PM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.geo.geology,sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics
Double-A[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,635
Default Our 0.11% hollow moon, and near infinite vacuum of Selene L1 /Brad Guth

On Jan 3, 12:47*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Jan 3, 11:56*am, Nightcrawler wrote:

On 1/3/2010 12:05 PM, BradGuth wrote:


snip crap


1) Define suction.
2) Define void.
3) Define vacuum.
4) Define hollow.
5) Formulate a real example of how they *all* interact.
6) Show how this interaction occurs on the moon and exerts
* * a force (not pressure) that is vectored in a direction
* * perpendicular to the surface of the moon, outward from
* * the center of the moon.


Gee whiz, now you expect me to be another Einstein, right off the top
of by little head none the less. *You do realize that I'm only
suggesting a 0.1% hollow/void worthy interior.



He didn't specifically ask for mathematical definitions. Can't you
explain suck in terms of chrome and trailer hitches?


Moon interior open space as geode like hollows/voids w/air at 14.7
psi:
*14.7 psi = 10.335e3 kgf/m2 (x 6 becomes a force worth holding up 62 t/
m2)



Hmmm. That's about 1 bar. What a coincidence!


Exterior Vacuum at 3e-15 bar = 1.2e-12 inch h2o = 3.06e-15 kgf/cm2
*Otherwise negative pull or suction of 14.7 psi (10.335e3 kgf/m2) = 62
t/m2

Assuming this mineral saturated lunar basalt is that of a sufficiently
fused molecular kind of solid that’s only leaking sodium, whereas
1/6th gravity should become worth 124 tonnes/m2 of holding that lunar
basalt shell up/away from the porous or semi-hollow mantel and its
tidal offset core, as such is going to lift or hold up a serious
amount of that basalt crust per km2 (124e6 tonnes/km2), not to mention
whatever interior pressure below that thick and heavy crust should by
rights be something considerably greater than 14.7 psi.

Due to the crust porosity and various mineral leakage as having
allowed some degree of subsequent pressure/vacuum equalization,
whereas even I might doubt that we’d get anywhere near that kind of
result, but it’s certainly fun to ponder.

Seems it’s going to be a little tough for our moon(Selene) not to have
those cavernous hollows/voids of some kind, at least a few solidified
geode like pockets, porous layers or accessible vugs within and under
that extremely thick and robust basalt crust, especially where that
supposedly iron core has shifted at least several percent (25%)
towards Earth in order to help offset that much thicker and mascon
saturated farside crust.

The farside mass offset of this unusually heavy mineral saturated
basalt crust is worth 4e21 kg, and the maximum 450 km radii of the
metallic core is supposedly worth 45e21 kg (more than likely it’s
only worth 4e21 kg). Therefore this dense metallic core of supposed
iron needs to be considerably offset towards Earth, so that the
greater proportion of lunar mass is always facing Earth.

*~ BG



So, where is the green cheese factory?

Double-A

  #22  
Old January 3rd 10, 10:27 PM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.geo.geology,sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Our 0.11% hollow moon, and near infinite vacuum of Selene L1 /Brad Guth

On Jan 3, 1:16*pm, Double-A wrote:
On Jan 3, 12:47*pm, BradGuth wrote:



On Jan 3, 11:56*am, Nightcrawler wrote:


On 1/3/2010 12:05 PM, BradGuth wrote:


snip crap


1) Define suction.
2) Define void.
3) Define vacuum.
4) Define hollow.
5) Formulate a real example of how they *all* interact.
6) Show how this interaction occurs on the moon and exerts
* * a force (not pressure) that is vectored in a direction
* * perpendicular to the surface of the moon, outward from
* * the center of the moon.


Gee whiz, now you expect me to be another Einstein, right off the top
of by little head none the less. *You do realize that I'm only
suggesting a 0.1% hollow/void worthy interior.


He didn't specifically ask for mathematical definitions. *Can't you
explain suck in terms of chrome and trailer hitches?

Moon interior open space as geode like hollows/voids w/air at 14.7
psi:
*14.7 psi = 10.335e3 kgf/m2 (x 6 becomes a force worth holding up 62 t/
m2)


Hmmm. *That's about 1 bar. *What a coincidence!


It was just given as an example, although I'd favor 100 bar because
so little O2 percentage would be required (1% O2 and 99% H2), of
which our moon(Selene) can't possibly be shy of those O2 and H2
elements.


Exterior Vacuum at 3e-15 bar = 1.2e-12 inch h2o = 3.06e-15 kgf/cm2
*Otherwise negative pull or suction of 14.7 psi (10.335e3 kgf/m2) = 62
t/m2


Assuming this mineral saturated lunar basalt is that of a sufficiently
fused molecular kind of solid that’s only leaking sodium, whereas
1/6th gravity should become worth 124 tonnes/m2 of holding that lunar
basalt shell up/away from the porous or semi-hollow mantel and its
tidal offset core, as such is going to lift or hold up a serious
amount of that basalt crust per km2 (124e6 tonnes/km2), not to mention
whatever interior pressure below that thick and heavy crust should by
rights be something considerably greater than 14.7 psi.


Due to the crust porosity and various mineral leakage as having
allowed some degree of subsequent pressure/vacuum equalization,
whereas even I might doubt that we’d get anywhere near that kind of
result, but it’s certainly fun to ponder.


Seems it’s going to be a little tough for our moon(Selene) not to have
those cavernous hollows/voids of some kind, at least a few solidified
geode like pockets, porous layers or accessible vugs within and under
that extremely thick and robust basalt crust, especially where that
supposedly iron core has shifted at least several percent (25%)
towards Earth in order to help offset that much thicker and mascon
saturated farside crust.


The farside mass offset of this unusually heavy mineral saturated
basalt crust is worth 4e21 kg, and the maximum 450 km radii of the
metallic core is supposedly worth 45e21 kg (more than likely it’s
only worth 4e21 kg). Therefore this dense metallic core of supposed
iron needs to be considerably offset towards Earth, so that the
greater proportion of lunar mass is always facing Earth.


*~ BG


So, where is the green cheese factory?

Double-A


Obviously that "green cheese factory" is inside where it's perfectly
cozy and otherwise perfectly safer than here on Eden/Earth.

~ BG
  #23  
Old January 3rd 10, 10:44 PM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.geo.geology,sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Our 0.11% hollow moon, and near infinite vacuum of Selene L1 /Brad Guth

On Jan 3, 1:11*pm, Nightcrawler wrote:
On 1/3/2010 2:47 PM, BradGuth wrote:

Moon interior open space as geode like hollows/voids w/air at 14.7
psi:
* 14.7 psi = 10.335e3 kgf/m2 (x 6 becomes a force worth holding up 62 t/
m2)


Just as an aside, what made the "open" space in these geode like
hollows 14.7 psi?


That was merely my constructive suggestion, such as derived from
natural geology produced gasses or from being artificially injected
with an atmosphere in order to benefit human habitat usage.

Your NASA claims that the thick and robust basalt crust of our naked
moon(Selene) contains loads of water (250 ppm essentially right at
the surface none the less), as well as there being a host of
radioactive plus other reactive elements to boot. So, I don't see any
problem in that lunar geology as having evolved with its fair share of
such geode and vug like voids (especially since it supposedly cooled
off so fast), or at the very least having substantially porous layers
to work with.

~ BG
  #24  
Old January 4th 10, 07:53 PM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.geo.geology,sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Our 99% hollow head of Guthball once again spewed...

On Jan 2, 10:34*am, Nightcrawler wrote:
On 1/2/2010 12:07 PM, BradGuth wrote:

Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least
bit hollow, or at least sufficiently porous?


Where's the objective evidence that Guthball has a brain?


What exactly is not holding up that robust lunar crust?

Moon interior open space as geode like hollows/voids w/air at 14.7
psi:
14.7 psi = 10.335e3 kgf/m2 (x 6 becomes a force worth holding up 62 t/
m2)

Exterior Vacuum at 3e-15 bar = 1.2e-12 inch h2o = 3.06e-15 kgf/cm2
Otherwise a negative pull or suction of 14.7 psi (10.335e3 kgf/m2) =
62 t/m2

Assuming this mineral saturated lunar basalt is that of a sufficiently
fused molecular kind of solid that’s only leaking sodium, whereas
1/6th gravity should become worth 124 tonnes/m2 of holding that lunar
basalt shell up/away from the porous or semi-hollow mantel and its
tidal offset core, as such is going to lift or hold up a serious
amount of that basalt crust per km2 (124e6 tonnes/km2), not to mention
whatever interior pressure below that thick and heavy crust should by
rights be something considerably greater than 14.7 psi.

Due to the crust porosity and various mineral leakage as having
allowed some degree of subsequent pressure/vacuum equalization,
whereas even I might doubt that we’d get anywhere near that kind of
result, but it’s certainly fun to ponder.

Seems it’s going to be a little tough for our moon(Selene) not to have
those cavernous hollows/voids of some kind, at least a few solidified
geode like pockets, porous layers or accessible vugs within and under
that extremely thick and robust basalt crust, especially where that
supposedly iron core has shifted at least several percent (25%)
towards Earth in order to help offset that much thicker and mascon
saturated farside crust.

The farside mass offset of this unusually heavy mineral saturated
basalt crust is worth 4e21 kg, and the maximum 450 km radii of the
metallic core is supposedly worth 45e21 kg (more than likely it’s
only worth 4e21 kg). Therefore this dense metallic core of supposed
iron needs to be considerably offset towards Earth, so that the
greater proportion of lunar mass is always facing Earth.

Not that any thick and mineral saturated form of fused basalt crust is
ever going to easily collapse under it's own mass, especially not at
1/6th gravity (even less gravity below that crust), and of course
better yet if the average interior atmosphere of whatever pockets or
voids of gasses were 100 bar (1470 psi) shouldn’t be unexpected.

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #25  
Old January 8th 10, 04:32 AM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.geo.geology,sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Our 0.11% hollow moon, and near infinite vacuum of Selene L1 /Brad Guth

On Jan 2, 3:18*pm, Robert Collins wrote:

I can remain silent no longer. *Here with the above quoted evidence I
would like to register a formal complaint with Usenet Control about
the entity that calles itself 'Brad Guth'. *The complaint is as
follows: *Brad Guth, or whatever it is, is a poor example of space
activism and degrades the greater enterprise with its format. *It
should therefore be held to shut up until it can present its
propaganda in a civilized and reasonable way.

Robert Collins


Gee whiz, you don't seem to have any support for your mainstream
interpretation of my research, that by the way uses as much of your
NASA and other public funded data that fits into my ongoing and
continuously emerging interpretations.

Why don't you instead provide us with your independent interpretations
as to how hollow and otherwise valuable that moon of ours is?

~ BG



  #26  
Old January 16th 10, 09:40 PM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.geo.geology,sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics
Robert Collins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Our 0.11% hollow moon, and near infinite vacuum of Selene L1 / Brad Guth

On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 07:32:05PM -0800, BradGuth wrote:
On Jan 2, 3:18*pm, Robert Collins wrote:

I can remain silent no longer. *Here with the above quoted evidence I
would like to register a formal complaint with Usenet Control about
the entity that calles itself 'Brad Guth'. *The complaint is as
follows: *Brad Guth, or whatever it is, is a poor example of space
activism and degrades the greater enterprise with its format. *It
should therefore be held to shut up until it can present its
propaganda in a civilized and reasonable way.

Robert Collins


Gee whiz, you don't seem to have any support for your mainstream
interpretation of my research, that by the way uses as much of your
NASA and other public funded data that fits into my ongoing and
continuously emerging interpretations.


Your fits are more 'abram' than anything, and hence I don't really see
why you think anyone should respect the content of your posts, other
than as some sort of bizarre ego-gratification at your ability to
froth at the keyboard. You obviously type far too quickly for your
own good, or anyone else's. If you look closely at what I wrote there
It might be implied that "continuously emerging interpretations"
doesn't do much for space exploration, which would be fantastic if you
were being funded by the NSF and needed a good reason to continue your
'research'.

Why don't you instead provide us with your independent interpretations
as to how hollow and otherwise valuable that moon of ours is?


I'd probably prefer to look at a jovian moon or perhaps something in
the asteroid belt, but there are lots of good things about the moon.
For one thing, an authoritarian government such as the Chinese
Communist Party wouldn't have far to send a large military force if
there was ever a rebellion uprising on some moon colony. Never mind
that large state and non-state corporations would be there with an eye
to assuring an environment condusive to profitable buisness
undertakings, at least in theory.

The moon is in extremely close proximity to a large market hugry for
products and services as well as raw materials, in relation to
astronomical scales. The sale of those products and services can
drive development in the first part of any expansionist phase; after
that it is difficult to say where the money is. But, we don't really
have to worry about that now since there isn't _anything_ going on any
further out than L5 as far as human activity is concerned. Voyager (or
whatever it's called these days) notwithstanding.

None of this, of course, should be news to anyone here. Personally, I
like some of the moons on other planets just because its further away
from the Earth and all of its crazies. Tin-pot dictators of
yesteryear, who influence contemporary affairs to an intolerable
degree now, are the last people you want near, say, the delicate
machinery of an airlock. The "stuttering" method of your writing
probably tells us your also a physical spastic, perhaps with a special
helmet and a name-plate riveted to a spot in some quasi-rural, little
yellow schoolbus. Hell, *you'd* probably drool on the controls one day
and space everyone in your compartment by accident -- that is, if we
are somehow unable to reliably build drool-proof airlocks, on account
of the fact that Dancing With The Stars is on TV right now and I'll be
right back with the rest of this article.

(If you want, you can take a break from reading this post for about
twenty-two minutes, thirty if you don't skip the commercials.)

So, like I was saying, I'd prefer to skip the Moon and get a little
further away. That makes it harder since the start-up costs go way,
way up but I figure that should be all that much of a problem since
one the the things that H. Sap. is really, really good at is spending
money buying stuff. Engineering and Science, not so much, but that
can be fixed with education, at least in theory. (Hold on, I've got a
caller... "No, I don't need any your goddamned life insurance!" *slam*)

Uh, where was I. Oh yeah, moons. And asteroids. Asteroids are
probably a good choice, but only if we can get robots to push them out
of the belt and somewhere where it's easier to work on them. Again,
expensive, but not as expensive as trying to work *in* the asteroid
belt.

It's just as cold or colder than the Moon in the further reaches of
the Solar System, and the vaccum is just as hard so it insulates well
no matter where you are. In neither place will there be trouble with
cooling your computers and machinery unless you choose Venus or
Mercury in a fit of insanity. I couldn't personally imagine a
scenario where anyone would want to colonize Venus, but it's a good
thing to consider and reject just in case we need to be prepared to
put Venus advocates in straightjackets the moment they start
campaigning for Venusian operations. But otherwise I wouldn't dream
of it even if I had a nuclear robot body, which I note would probably
require a smog test in California and annoying paperwork anywhere it
went. Don't get me started on software updates and preventative
maintenance, either. Let's just stick with tele- operated robotics,
CNC, or semi-autonomous robot agents with specialized field-level AI
and leave it at that. It's so much simpler.

Other destinations in the solar system are good from the standpoint of
epidemiology: any disease will have further to travel in the isolating
conditions of extra-planetary commerce. A pandemic on Earth would be
much less likely to infect the personnel of a space-station on Titan
or Io, whereas the Moon is close enough that frequent travel would
make the two atmospheres effectively linked from the standpoint of
microbiology. Nanotechnology presents similar challenges, but we
don't know exactly what they are yet so it is difficult to form a
perspective without more hard data.

Speculation is fun, though, and there's a bunch of good fiction out
there with entertaining scenarios on the future of people and cities
in space. Not much committment from the public on getting there, but
hey it's only the twenty-first century. There's a long, long way to
go before it will be commonplace to live in off-planet settlements
with advanced technological comforts and labour-saving devices. Maybe
someone can convince Microsoft to name one of its releases "Windows
Jupiter", "Titan 9.0" or something to raise awareness and nudge things
along a bit faster. And we probably need something better than the
AT&T Death-Star logo. Symbolic associations with cute puppies and
kittens wouldn't hurt either, perhaps a Hello-Kitty mascot to narrate
infomercials on YouTube wouldn't be out of order.

See, Brad? There's lots of things you can do with coherent English
that just aren't possible with word salad.

As promised, I have informed Usenet Control of your transgression and
expect their response at any moment.



Robert Collins

  #27  
Old January 17th 10, 01:11 AM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.geo.geology,sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Our 0.11% hollow moon, and near infinite vacuum of Selene L1 /Brad Guth

On Jan 16, 12:40 pm, Robert Collins wrote:
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 07:32:05PM -0800, BradGuth wrote:
On Jan 2, 3:18 pm, Robert Collins wrote:


I can remain silent no longer. Here with the above quoted evidence I
would like to register a formal complaint with Usenet Control about
the entity that calles itself 'Brad Guth'. The complaint is as
follows: Brad Guth, or whatever it is, is a poor example of space
activism and degrades the greater enterprise with its format. It
should therefore be held to shut up until it can present its
propaganda in a civilized and reasonable way.


Robert Collins


Gee whiz, you don't seem to have any support for your mainstream
interpretation of my research, that by the way uses as much of your
NASA and other public funded data that fits into my ongoing and
continuously emerging interpretations.


Your fits are more 'abram' than anything, and hence I don't really see
why you think anyone should respect the content of your posts, other
than as some sort of bizarre ego-gratification at your ability to
froth at the keyboard. You obviously type far too quickly for your
own good, or anyone else's. If you look closely at what I wrote there
It might be implied that "continuously emerging interpretations"
doesn't do much for space exploration, which would be fantastic if you
were being funded by the NSF and needed a good reason to continue your
'research'.

Why don't you instead provide us with your independent interpretations
as to how hollow and otherwise valuable that moon of ours is?


I'd probably prefer to look at a jovian moon or perhaps something in
the asteroid belt, but there are lots of good things about the moon.
For one thing, an authoritarian government such as the Chinese
Communist Party wouldn't have far to send a large military force if
there was ever a rebellion uprising on some moon colony. Never mind
that large state and non-state corporations would be there with an eye
to assuring an environment condusive to profitable buisness
undertakings, at least in theory.

The moon is in extremely close proximity to a large market hugry for
products and services as well as raw materials, in relation to
astronomical scales. The sale of those products and services can
drive development in the first part of any expansionist phase; after
that it is difficult to say where the money is. But, we don't really
have to worry about that now since there isn't _anything_ going on any
further out than L5 as far as human activity is concerned. Voyager (or
whatever it's called these days) notwithstanding.

None of this, of course, should be news to anyone here. Personally, I
like some of the moons on other planets just because its further away
from the Earth and all of its crazies. Tin-pot dictators of
yesteryear, who influence contemporary affairs to an intolerable
degree now, are the last people you want near, say, the delicate
machinery of an airlock. The "stuttering" method of your writing
probably tells us your also a physical spastic, perhaps with a special
helmet and a name-plate riveted to a spot in some quasi-rural, little
yellow schoolbus. Hell, *you'd* probably drool on the controls one day
and space everyone in your compartment by accident -- that is, if we
are somehow unable to reliably build drool-proof airlocks, on account
of the fact that Dancing With The Stars is on TV right now and I'll be
right back with the rest of this article.

(If you want, you can take a break from reading this post for about
twenty-two minutes, thirty if you don't skip the commercials.)

So, like I was saying, I'd prefer to skip the Moon and get a little
further away. That makes it harder since the start-up costs go way,
way up but I figure that should be all that much of a problem since
one the the things that H. Sap. is really, really good at is spending
money buying stuff. Engineering and Science, not so much, but that
can be fixed with education, at least in theory. (Hold on, I've got a
caller... "No, I don't need any your goddamned life insurance!" *slam*)

Uh, where was I. Oh yeah, moons. And asteroids. Asteroids are
probably a good choice, but only if we can get robots to push them out
of the belt and somewhere where it's easier to work on them. Again,
expensive, but not as expensive as trying to work *in* the asteroid
belt.

It's just as cold or colder than the Moon in the further reaches of
the Solar System, and the vaccum is just as hard so it insulates well
no matter where you are. In neither place will there be trouble with
cooling your computers and machinery unless you choose Venus or
Mercury in a fit of insanity. I couldn't personally imagine a
scenario where anyone would want to colonize Venus, but it's a good
thing to consider and reject just in case we need to be prepared to
put Venus advocates in straightjackets the moment they start
campaigning for Venusian operations. But otherwise I wouldn't dream
of it even if I had a nuclear robot body, which I note would probably
require a smog test in California and annoying paperwork anywhere it
went. Don't get me started on software updates and preventative
maintenance, either. Let's just stick with tele- operated robotics,
CNC, or semi-autonomous robot agents with specialized field-level AI
and leave it at that. It's so much simpler.

Other destinations in the solar system are good from the standpoint of
epidemiology: any disease will have further to travel in the isolating
conditions of extra-planetary commerce. A pandemic on Earth would be
much less likely to infect the personnel of a space-station on Titan
or Io, whereas the Moon is close enough that frequent travel would
make the two atmospheres effectively linked from the standpoint of
microbiology. Nanotechnology presents similar challenges, but we
don't know exactly what they are yet so it is difficult to form a
perspective without more hard data.

Speculation is fun, though, and there's a bunch of good fiction out
there with entertaining scenarios on the future of people and cities
in space. Not much committment from the public on getting there, but
hey it's only the twenty-first century. There's a long, long way to
go before it will be commonplace to live in off-planet settlements
with advanced technological comforts and labour-saving devices. Maybe
someone can convince Microsoft to name one of its releases "Windows
Jupiter", "Titan 9.0" or something to raise awareness and nudge things
along a bit faster. And we probably need something better than the
AT&T Death-Star logo. Symbolic associations with cute puppies and
kittens wouldn't hurt either, perhaps a Hello-Kitty mascot to narrate
infomercials on YouTube wouldn't be out of order.

See, Brad? There's lots of things you can do with coherent English
that just aren't possible with word salad.

As promised, I have informed Usenet Control of your transgression and
expect their response at any moment.

Robert Collins


Wow! nice blocks of well crafted word salad, that unfortunately has
nothing whatsoever to do with our semi-hollow or porous moon(Selene).
However, for fun I'll eventually read through parts of it so as to
insure that you get full credit.

At least my honest speculations are those based upon interpreting the
best available science, plus as always sticking within those pesky
regular laws of physics.

I sure hope that "Usenet Control" has nothing better to do, than to
follow up your request to terminate anyone having any deductive
formulated mindset, such as mine.

In the mean time, perhaps you can tell us why that unusual moon isn't
the least bit hollow or otherwise sufficiently porous within or under
that thick crust.

Otherwise, I'd like us to collaborate as to exactly what that 7.35e22
kg captured asteroid/moon(Selene) has to offer, including it's L1
usage that Clarke, Boeing and a few others thought was extremely
nifty, as did I for accommodating my LSE-CM/ISS.

Venus is another issue that's hardly insurmountable, at least by most
any 5th grader or older person that isn't brainwashed to whatever
status quo standards that you seem to approve of.

Do you have a better plan of action (besides extensive use of blinders
and ear plugs) that we should follow?

~ BG
  #28  
Old January 17th 10, 01:51 AM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.geo.geology,sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics
Hagar[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default Our 0.11% hollow moon, and near infinite vacuum of Selene L1 / Brad Guth


"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Jan 16, 12:40 pm, Robert Collins wrote:
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 07:32:05PM -0800, BradGuth wrote:
On Jan 2, 3:18 pm, Robert Collins wrote:


Give it up, GuthBall, I'm not the only one who thinks you are retarded.
Bob Collins wants to take action to have you barred from the NGs ...
I think we should call Nurse Cratchett and have you permanently
confined to the Cookoo's Nest, complete with padded cell and
straight-jacket, with pictures of the Moon. Venus and Sirius
plastered all over your cell walls.


  #29  
Old January 17th 10, 06:08 AM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.geo.geology,sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Our 0.11% hollow moon, and near infinite vacuum of Selene L1 /Brad Guth

On Jan 16, 4:51 pm, "Hagar" hagen@sahm,name wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

On Jan 16, 12:40 pm, Robert Collins wrote:
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 07:32:05PM -0800, BradGuth wrote:
On Jan 2, 3:18 pm, Robert Collins wrote:


Give it up, GuthBall, I'm not the only one who thinks you are retarded.
Bob Collins wants to take action to have you barred from the NGs ...
I think we should call Nurse Cratchett and have you permanently
confined to the Cookoo's Nest, complete with padded cell and
straight-jacket, with pictures of the Moon. Venus and Sirius
plastered all over your cell walls.


Your intent to get rid of anyone that isn't a trailer park redneck is
noted.

~ BG
  #30  
Old January 18th 10, 09:15 PM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.geo.geology,sci.astro,sci.space.policy,sci.physics
Robert Collins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Our 0.11% hollow moon, and near infinite vacuum of Selene L1 / Brad Guth

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 04:11:06PM -0800, BradGuth wrote:
On Jan 16, 12:40 pm, Robert Collins wrote:
As promised, I have informed Usenet Control of your transgression and
expect their response at any moment.

Robert Collins


Wow! nice blocks of well crafted word salad, that unfortunately has
nothing whatsoever to do with our semi-hollow or porous moon(Selene).
However, for fun I'll eventually read through parts of it so as to
insure that you get full credit.


Do not compound your crime with yet more baseless accusations. Usenet
Control will examine the record or relevant posts very carefully, in
particular, messages after the fact are sometimes the most revealing.

At least my honest speculations are those based upon interpreting the
best available science, plus as always sticking within those pesky
regular laws of physics.

I sure hope that "Usenet Control" has nothing better to do, than to
follow up your request to terminate anyone having any deductive
formulated mindset, such as mine.


Well, no. Usenet Control would if necessary contact the Galactic Patrol
if they thought there was a serious issue of that sort. I hope you
aren't thinking of messing with the Galactic Patrol; they have no
sense of humor.

In the mean time, perhaps you can tell us why that unusual moon isn't
the least bit hollow or otherwise sufficiently porous within or under
that thick crust.

Otherwise, I'd like us to collaborate as to exactly what that 7.35e22
kg captured asteroid/moon(Selene) has to offer, including it's L1
usage that Clarke, Boeing and a few others thought was extremely
nifty, as did I for accommodating my LSE-CM/ISS.


A Collaborator collaborator? But anyways, as I said I was not really
interested in the moon.

Venus is another issue that's hardly insurmountable, at least by most
any 5th grader or older person that isn't brainwashed to whatever
status quo standards that you seem to approve of.

Do you have a better plan of action (besides extensive use of blinders
and ear plugs) that we should follow?


Ear plugs?




Robert Collins

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Our 0.11% hollow moon, and near infinite vacuum of Selene L1/... G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] Misc 3 November 13th 09 06:25 PM
The 1~10% hollow moon / Brad Guth BradGuth Astronomy Misc 103 November 6th 09 12:50 PM
The 1~10% hollow moon / Brad Guth BradGuth Policy 1 September 15th 09 03:47 AM
The 1% hollow moon / Brad Guth BradGuth Policy 1 July 19th 09 09:19 PM
The 1% hollow moon / Brad Guth Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher Policy 0 July 17th 09 06:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.