Re: Nice try.

"Wally Anglesea™" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


> Can you explain why, since the Earth is more massive than the Moon,
> that the Moon is less geologically active than it should be, if the
> moon causes quakes on Earth.  There should be a reciprocal effect on
> the Moon, except far more obvious.  There isn't.

I believe I can explain it, there is certainly a smidgeon of
circumstantial evidence at least, though of course nothing a mere
thaumaturge could prove.

> >I have cross posted this thread to sci.geo.meteorology because
> >I am an idiot. I should have posted it to sci.geo.oceanography but
> >Ctrl V'd it to the wrong link by mistake. (Good job no-one reads my stuff.)

> Look to the Moon and explain why it's not as geologically active as it
> should be if gravitational attraction is an important factor.  The
> moon should be nearly as geologically active as say Europa, albeit on
> a smaller scale

Is Europa in captured rotation?

Seeing as anything I have written on the subject previously has been
dumped where it belongs by now, I shall attempt the unbelievable once
again:

The moon is in captured rotation. Were it not, then I suspect it would
be magnetically active. God in his infinite wisdom has seen to it that
it will not fall on our heads or be lost to us due to magnetism. Why
magnetic forces should be chosen as my get out clause I do not know. I
was working on a post last night about celestial mechanics. (Something
for you all to look forward to.) I mentioned the magnetoshphere. So...

I do not believe in the "theory" (what do they call a theory when it is
socially unacceptable not to believe it?) that the sun is fired by
nuclear fission -or is that fusion? Naturally there is no more on my
concept than there is on the daft one. So you will be pleased to know
you have no reasons to change your religion on that score.

I believe the sun's heat source to be the same as that which causes
seismic activity on Europa, Earth and Mars etc. It's the same thing
that causes sun spots -and all that.

Time will tell which eccentricty is madness or if both ideas are wrong.
I don't think that being ostracised for my beliefs is going to upset me
more than usual, so I continue:

Being in captured rotation, Earth and possibly the sun do not have
the same effect on the moon as the moon does on the earth. I forget off
hand how much they weigh but the moon is approximately 1/81 of the
mass of the earth. It is moving (ostensibly) around it at some 1000 mph.
And the earth is moving around the moon at something similar. (Or is it
the same?) (Only important to astrometrists and perfectionists -I am
neither.)

Being in captured.... as I said, the mascons of the moon are
facing the earth continually. Any rate of change is allowed as the swing
(I forget the term) of its face moves from right to left. (Where the man
in the moon looks where he has been at moon-rise and looks where he is
going at moon-set.)

But this is pushing me to state a theory which until laws are defined
for it, I am loath to do. There is nothing worse for future learning
than to be encumbered with stupid nonsense such as the theory of
evolution, of monkeys or of stars. The concept of plate tectonics or
expansionism and all that load of cobblers is the same sort of thing.
Prove it not excuse it.

And so since I can't prove it I shall now shut up.


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