A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Lunar Mascons cleverness



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 1st 12, 02:31 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.astronomy
Androcles[_68_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default Lunar Mascons cleverness

By placing two satellites in elliptical orbit around the Moon
(or any other body) and measuring the distance between them,
variations in local gravity can be detected.



  #2  
Old January 1st 12, 03:10 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.astronomy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Lunar Mascons cleverness

On Dec 31, 5:31*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
By placing two satellites in elliptical orbit around the Moon
(or any other body) and measuring the distance between them,
variations in local gravity can be detected.


Yes, as well as 3D mapping the variable thickness of its crust plus
some better information as to whatever's inside of that thick and
metallicity saturated crust, such as how far off-center is its core,
and another estimate as to the volume and mass of its core.

Of course surface deployed instruments could have also told us much
better science as of 4 decades ago.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #3  
Old January 1st 12, 07:55 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.astronomy
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default Lunar Mascons cleverness

On 12/31/11 8:10 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
Yes, as well as 3D mapping the variable thickness of its crust plus
some better information as to whatever's inside of that thick and
metallicity saturated crust, such as how far off-center is its core,
and another estimate as to the volume and mass of its core.


Apollo rock show that the metallicity of the moons surface is
very similar to the Earth's surface, Brad.

  #4  
Old January 1st 12, 04:26 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.astronomy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Lunar Mascons cleverness

On Dec 31 2011, 10:55*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/31/11 8:10 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

Yes, as well as 3D mapping the variable thickness of its crust plus
some better information as to whatever's inside of that thick and
metallicity saturated crust, such as how far off-center is its core,
and another estimate as to the volume and mass of its core.


* *Apollo rock show that the metallicity of the moons surface is
* *very similar to the Earth's surface, Brad.


Oddly, most all of the confirmed meteorites as lunar origin tend to
say otherwise, Sam.

Just like the radar imaging of Venus is clearly more metallicity
worthy than Earth, and so is our physically dark moon, Sam.

Not all planets, planetoids, moons and asteroids got formed at the
exact same time and place, Sam.

The magnetic susceptibility of meteorites that originated from our
moon are not the same as Earth basalt, Sam.

For someone as metallicity colorblind and mainstream bigoted as
yourself, really shouldn't be telling others how to interpret images
or paramagnetic rocks, Sam.

Do you also think the Pope should go back into denial of their abusing
children?

You obviously think our faith-based government can do no wrong, and
thereby everything gets justified to suit, so of course you and every
other public-funded Mafia member have no option but to say whatever is
mainstream, or else.

What is it about others obfuscating or telling lies that so turns you
on, Sam?

Do you think our government and its many agencies has been always
doing everything right, Sam?

Why of course, how could a mere status-quo parrot like yourself really
know anything.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #5  
Old January 1st 12, 06:02 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.astronomy
Michael Moroney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 124
Default Lunar Mascons cleverness

Brad Guth writes:

Not all planets, planetoids, moons and asteroids got formed at the
exact same time and place, Sam.


But we know from isotope ratios that the Moon and Earth formed at the
same time and place, since there is so little difference between isotope
ratios between the two. The moon is more similar to Earth than either
are to Mars, for example.
  #6  
Old January 1st 12, 07:17 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.astronomy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Lunar Mascons cleverness

On Jan 1, 9:02*am, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
Brad Guth writes:
Not all planets, planetoids, moons and asteroids got formed at the
exact same time and place, Sam.


But we know from isotope ratios that the Moon and Earth formed at the
same time and place, since there is so little difference between isotope
ratios between the two. *The moon is more similar to Earth than either
are to Mars, for example.


Then my paramagnetic basalt of 3.5+ g/cm3 must have come from some
other planet or moon other than Earth or Selene.

Are you suggesting that lunar mascons are not going to be
significantly dense nor unusually paramagnetic?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #7  
Old January 3rd 12, 12:52 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.astronomy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Lunar Mascons cleverness

On Dec 31 2011, 5:31*pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
By placing two satellites in elliptical orbit around the Moon
(or any other body) and measuring the distance between them,
variations in local gravity can be detected.


I've posted about my many samples of paramagnetic basalt and perhaps
even some black carbonado, that according to the likes of our resident
FUD-masters, such rocks of 3.5+ g/cm3 can't be from our moon or Earth.

If those lunar mascons are those areas of merely low density basalt
and of minimal paramagnetic value, then perhaps they're merely
concentrations of gold and other heavy rare elements in order to
account for their influencing the orbit of satellites.

Either way, our mainstream metallicity colorblindness is going to
remain as problematic, as well as kinda worthless to most of us that
are trying to figure stuff out..

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #8  
Old January 3rd 12, 09:10 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.astronomy
Michael Moroney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 124
Default Lunar Mascons cleverness

Painius writes:

If a huge pile of mass the size of Mars actually did collide with an
as yet formed proto-Earth, then wouldn't that mass have some very
different metals in its crust?


Perhaps, however part of the theory was the Mars-sized planet formed at
Earth's L4 or L5 point from the same portion of the primoridial cloud
that formed Earth and wouldn't be very different from Earth.

However, even if we disregard that possibility, the _mix_ of proto-Earth
and that planet is now what comprises Earth's current crust, and that mix
is the reference point we call "Earth's isotopic content". Perhaps if we
get a sample from deep within the mantle (almost totally proto-Earth and
little from the impactor) we will see an isotopic content difference.

Similarly, the Moon would also be a mix of the impactor's mass and mass
from the earth splashed into space. A difference in ratio would come
from a difference in percentages from each source. If the ratio is the
same, then there would be very little isotopic content difference.

The fact is, there is very little isotopic content difference, which
leads to a conclusion that Earth and the moon almost certainly formed
together somehow, Guth's Sirius kookery notwithstanding.
  #9  
Old January 3rd 12, 10:24 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.astronomy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Lunar Mascons cleverness

On Jan 3, 12:10*pm, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
Painius writes:
If a huge pile of mass the size of Mars actually did collide with an
as yet formed proto-Earth, then wouldn't that mass have some very
different metals in its crust?


Perhaps, however part of the theory was the Mars-sized planet formed at
Earth's L4 or L5 point from the same portion of the primoridial cloud
that formed Earth and wouldn't be very different from Earth.

However, even if we disregard that possibility, the _mix_ of proto-Earth
and that planet is now what comprises Earth's current crust, and that mix
is the reference point we call "Earth's isotopic content". *Perhaps if we
get a sample from deep within the mantle (almost totally proto-Earth and
little from the impactor) we will see an isotopic content difference.

Similarly, the Moon would also be a mix of the impactor's mass and mass
from the earth splashed into space. *A difference in ratio would come
from a difference in percentages from each source. *If the ratio is the
same, then there would be very little isotopic content difference.

The fact is, there is very little isotopic content difference, which
leads to a conclusion that Earth and the moon almost certainly formed
together somehow, Guth's Sirius kookery notwithstanding.


That is not exactly true, unless you can tell us where I can obtain
some highly paramagnetic basalt of 3.5+ g/cm3 from a rock quarry
within the Washington state area (namely close to Tacoma or Bremerton
Washington), because at 3.5+ to near 4 g/cm3 we'd be talking about
seriously good metallicity saturated ores of considerable value.

Don't knock Sirius out of the ballpark unless you can tell us where it
has been in relation to our solar system for the past 300 some odd
million years, and of where those Sirius-B planets went?.

Are you suggesting that the laws of orbital dynamics and that of
considerable nearby gravity simply can't be applied in this case?

Are you further suggesting that there never was any molecular/nebula
metallicity cloud that created those terrific Sirius stars as of 300
+/- some odd million years ago?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”




  #10  
Old January 4th 12, 03:11 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,alt.astronomy
G=EMC^2[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,655
Default Lunar Mascons cleverness

On Jan 1, 10:26*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Dec 31 2011, 10:55*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/31/11 8:10 PM, Brad Guth wrote:


Yes, as well as 3D mapping the variable thickness of its crust plus
some better information as to whatever's inside of that thick and
metallicity saturated crust, such as how far off-center is its core,
and another estimate as to the volume and mass of its core.


* *Apollo rock show that the metallicity of the moons surface is
* *very similar to the Earth's surface, Brad.


Oddly, most all of the confirmed meteorites as lunar origin tend to
say otherwise, Sam.

Just like the radar imaging of Venus is clearly more metallicity
worthy than Earth, and so is our physically dark moon, Sam.

Not all planets, planetoids, moons and asteroids got formed at the
exact same time and place, Sam.

The magnetic susceptibility of meteorites that originated from our
moon are not the same as Earth basalt, Sam.

For someone as metallicity colorblind and mainstream bigoted as
yourself, really shouldn't be telling others how to interpret images
or paramagnetic rocks, Sam.

Do you also think the Pope should go back into denial of their abusing
children?

You obviously think our faith-based government can do no wrong, and
thereby everything gets justified to suit, so of course you and every
other public-funded Mafia member have no option but to say whatever is
mainstream, or else.

What is it about others obfuscating or telling lies that so turns you
on, Sam?

Do you think our government and its many agencies has been always
doing everything right, Sam?

Why of course, how could a mere status-quo parrot like yourself really
know anything.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”


Reality is so little iron is found on the moon shows it was never part
of the Earth Take its 700 mile thick mantle it is rich in rocky
substances,but no iron. In its dried up seas of lava no surface iron.
I'm not sure,but I don't think a drop of water has been found on the
moon. The moon is very much like Mars. Dry and dusty. Mars however
has lots of iron. TreBert
 




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
ASTRO: last night's Lunar Eclipse - Lunar _Eclipse_2008.jpg (0/1) Robert Price[_2_] Astro Pictures 0 February 21st 08 04:11 PM
Mascons in Non-Lunar Bodies? [email protected] History 22 September 13th 07 11:44 PM
Apollo 11 vs. mascons Henry Spencer History 0 September 19th 05 05:39 PM
Replacement ISS "Lunar Space Elevator hauls lunar rodents to/from LSE-CM/ISS" Brad Guth Space Station 2 November 19th 03 10:07 PM
Is exposure to lunar dust a long term health hazard for a future lunar base? Alan Erskine History 4 July 27th 03 05:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:39 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.