The Hollow Moon

In article d9A0c.654406$X%5.413978@pd7tw2no, Rick Sobie
wrote:

"Mark Martin" wrote in message
om...
"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:eNf0c.642256$X%5.375790@pd7tw2no...
And really, just how hollow can it be anyway? The Moon's volume is
known, and its mass is known. Thus, its average mass density is known
equally well, which is in the ballpark with that of Earth. The only
thing that's hollow is Sobie's skull.

-Mark Martin

You blab away and do no research whatsoever, ramble on with your mindless
insults whitout even making a half assed effort to look up a fact.

What gets me, is why you aren't watching TV right now instead of reading
things in this newsgroup which must be so confusing for you. Well just
keep
parotting the real stupid ones, no one will even notice, I am sure.

The Moon's volume is meaningfully measurable from right here on
Earth, its mass not only has been measured directly from the orbital
elements of satellites, but also was well estimated decades before the
advent of spacecraft by considering its affects on the Earth/Moon
system. Thus, its mass density is also measured. Ergo: you're a moron.

-Mark Martin

Must you force me to embarass Nasa time and time again? Think of their
children, and children everywhere, who look up to these scientists as
the bringers of light, to light the candles, and bring people out of the
darkness
of ignorance, into the light.

"The American efforts were almost laughable at first. The Ranger space probes
were
designed to hard land on the moon. Ranger 3, launched on January 26, 1962 ,
missed it's
target completely and went into solar orbit, Ranger 4 hit the moon but did
not send back
any useful information. Ranger 5 missed the moon by 450 miles and the whole
program
was put on hold for two years. "

"Ranger 6 allegedly had it's electrical system burn out in flight and no
pictures were sent. The
Russians re-activated their space program, but their Luna 5, launched on May
9, 1964, crashed at
full speed on the moon,
[nb:I love that one ;]
when it was intended to make a soft landing. Luna 6 utterly missed the moon.
Luna 7 crashed on the
moon when it's retro rockets fired too soon, which is a significant detail in
relation to where one
assumes the moon's center of gravity to be located in relation to the
surface. "

Nice dodge, Rick. These early spacecraft failures have *zero* relation
to the facts you were just presented with.

http://www.keelynet.com/unclass/luna.htm


Molassas site.

[snip lunar lunacy]


-=-=-=-=-

Official AFA-B Bully, Pest, and Gummint Disinformation Agent

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 18:44:01 -0900, "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)"
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 17:59:56 GMT, * wrote in
alt.fan.art-bell:

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 00:42:02 -0500, Doktor DynaSoar
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 06:19:10 GMT, * wrote:

} On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:17:56 -0500, Doktor DynaSoar
} wrote:
}
} On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:47:07 GMT, * wrote:
}
} } On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:26:36 -0500, Doktor DynaSoar
} } wrote:
} }
} } How would we be able to ID the
} } kooks otherwise?
} }
} } Kooks are the first to label others kooks.
} }
} } That makes you King of Kooks!
}
} Certainly one of the oldest living.
}
} } Congrats.
}
} I'd be more than happy to accept any award you could get me nominated
} for and voted in. I can't do it myself.
}
} Suffer in silence with the rest of your kooky paid disinformation agents

Silence, my ass.

Suffer. You've attributed to the demise of your species by covering the
asses of the power elite who are killing everyone.

I thought that was *my* job?

Anyone posting to Usenet under false pretenses for covert government is a
contributor. So you're included.

A quote from Sobie's link, http://www.keelynet.com/unclass/luna.htm :


"This is because in the case of a hollow spheroid the center of mass
is much closer to the surface of the moon if in fact the moon is
hollow than if it really were a homogenous mass of rock. The location
of the center of mass of any celestial object is critical in
determining it's gravitational gradient, hence the final velocity of
any object required to soft-land or otherwise come in contact with the
moon would not be known unless the location of the center of mass is
somehow determined."

This constitutes some of the most grotesque ignorance I've seen
lately. Assume two spheres of equal size & mass gravitating toward
each other. Where's the mass center of the two body system? It's
between them, out in the middle of empty space. That's the barycenter
of the system. Now assume a hollow spherical shell with uniform mass
density. Where's the center of mass? It's right in the geometric
middle. It's not pushed up near to the surface, and another massive
body interacting with it by gravity would behave EXACTLY the same when
on the outside of the shell. It only matters for a mass that finds
itself within the empty shell, where it'd be entirely weightless.

So, the (mis)behavior of lunar probes in the '60s provides no
particular evidence of the Moon's innards, none whatsoever. It is
however evidence of something else: LEARNING CURVE.

Fact is that the mass center of the Moon is just as well known as
is its mass & mass density. It has to be known; satellites tell all.

-Mark Martin

Rick Sobie wrote in message 1QB0c.636217$JQ1.11778@pd7tw1no...

"Steve nunya" wrote in message
...

If there is a problem with the moon, and if the dwarf star inside of it,
has failed now, as the interior is now in complete and utter darkness
as far as I know, and yes, there are people just like you and me,
who are or least were still inhabiting that interiror terraformed space,
last week, then they are now in complete darkness. No sun, no moon, and
no stars, and not that they had a sun moon and stars, they merely had
a single dwarf star, like a Dyson Sphere.

You are a complete Nut case.
the gravity a dwarf star would produce would rip the occupants of off the
surface of any
Trek sphere! You total and utter TARD!
I don't know what world your in but I suggest you upgrade you medication.



I know you are, but what am I.


Damn you got me! that rapier wit!
Hang on! you stole that line from the 8 year old next door didn't you!