Hollow moon update...

Well it seems that the fellows at badastronomy.com can't cut the mustard
and have moved the topic from General Astronomy, to Against the Mainstream
after I posted this rather convincing data to the site.

Their entire argument over a period of two weeks consisted of nothing
more than the moon rotates around the earth, and from a certain
preferred reference frame, you could say that the moon rotates around
on its axis. How pathetic is that.

The moon's center of mass gravity, is within the moon. It does not spin
on it's center of mass gravity.

The moons center of mass gravity, is not precisely in the center,
but a few kilometers closer to the earth, on the near side.
The same side where the crust is thinner, than the far side,
and if you examine the animation, you will see that is largely due
to the fact that the dirt and rock layer has been stripped off.
By some hitherto unimaginable catastrophy of Biblical proportions.

http://www.grucol.com/luna_1258542-265.avi

And as far as the reference to the moon as a planet, [n.b.: they had
argued that the moon is not a planet] well that again
is a matter of semantics, just as calling it a Dyson Sphere is not
entirely accurate. Some might argue that it is a Death Star
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/books/weg/dstc3.gif

http://www.astronomy.com/images/astr..._deathstar.jpg


And if you examine the south pole of the moon at Aitken Basin in this link,
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications.../slide_26.html
you will see an impact there in grey, which appears to be
a direct hit, at a weak point, and further examination of the
data also shows, that the hull appears to be cracked

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 19:12:42 GMT, "Rick Sobie"
wrote:

Well it seems that the fellows at badastronomy.com can't cut the mustard
and have moved the topic from General Astronomy, to Against the Mainstream
after I posted this rather convincing data to the site.


No, it was moved because you are an annoying moron.




Their entire argument over a period of two weeks consisted of nothing
more than the moon rotates around the earth, and from a certain
preferred reference frame, you could say that the moon rotates around
on its axis. How pathetic is that.

Nothing pathetic about it., You just fail to understand basic physics.
Anyone who follows the thread on the site can see you for the complete
****wit you are, and you were resoundingly shown to be a complete and
utter moron.

SNIP of Drek

--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:Kop2c.697279$JQ1.198977@pd7tw1no...
Well it seems that the fellows at badastronomy.com can't cut the mustard
and have moved the topic from General Astronomy, to Against the Mainstream
after I posted this rather convincing data to the site.

Their entire argument over a period of two weeks consisted of nothing
more than the moon rotates around the earth, and from a certain
preferred reference frame, you could say that the moon rotates around
on its axis. How pathetic is that.

Yes indeed, It is pathetic that Sobie, along with most other morons,
does not understand that rotation rate is absolute and self-referential.
Any inertial reference frame, such as that of the "fixed stars", will do.
Better yet, set up a Foucault pendulum most anywhere on the surface
of the Moon and watch the plane of oscillation rotate as if by magic.
Reference frame rotation rate is absolutely measurable. In free space,
be absolutely self-referential with a laser ring gyroscope. The quantum
of angular momentum is absolutely, and not at all relatively, hbar.
[Old Man]

"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 19:12:42 GMT, "Rick Sobie"
wrote:

Well it seems that the fellows at badastronomy.com can't cut the mustard
and have moved the topic from General Astronomy, to Against the Mainstream
after I posted this rather convincing data to the site.


No, it was moved because you are an annoying moron.


No it was moved because I asked them why does the earth spin on its
planetary axis, and they would have had to say,
because of the transfer of angular momentum,
at which point I would have said, what happens to the angular momentum
when the moon goes around the earth?

At which point they would have begun repeating
"Rejjack, rejjack, it does not compute"

"Old Man" wrote in message ...
"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:Kop2c.697279$JQ1.198977@pd7tw1no...
Well it seems that the fellows at badastronomy.com can't cut the mustard
and have moved the topic from General Astronomy, to Against the Mainstream
after I posted this rather convincing data to the site.

Their entire argument over a period of two weeks consisted of nothing
more than the moon rotates around the earth, and from a certain
preferred reference frame, you could say that the moon rotates around
on its axis. How pathetic is that.

Yes indeed, It is pathetic that Sobie, along with most other morons,
does not understand that rotation rate is absolute and self-referential.
Any inertial reference frame, such as that of the "fixed stars", will do.
Better yet, set up a Foucault pendulum most anywhere on the surface
of the Moon and watch the plane of oscillation rotate as if by magic.
Reference frame rotation rate is absolutely measurable. In free space,
be absolutely self-referential with a laser ring gyroscope. The quantum
of angular momentum is absolutely, and not at all relatively, hbar.
[Old Man]



Nice try Old Boy, but we are not impressed, nor amused with this
mass Munchhousen syndrome that is so evident in astronomy these
days.

I would have expected more from you, but you have perhaps been spending
far too much time in the sun?