Re: Nice try.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:02:22 +0000 (UTC), "Michael Mcneil"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"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?

unnecessary for it to be geologically active. It's active because the
gravity of it's planet affects the various densities of itself, just
like tides do on Earth because the moon pulls. Similarly, the Earth
pulls on the moon. (It's just that water is easier to move than rock).
However, the Earths pull on the Moons rocks and mantle is far greater
than the Moons on Earth. See hoe that works?


>
>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. 


*REALLY*??? You need to explain how your new physics can allow you to
come to *that* conclusion before you go much further.




>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.
Because you are making this up as you go along. You are using mental
gymnastics, nearly acrobatics, to keep your favourite notion alive.



> 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.

And you need to postulate something other than fusion to explain
stars.




>
>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.

BWAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA


>
>Time will tell which eccentricty is madness or if both ideas are wrong.

Your idea is madness. No further time is necessary.


>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.)

You aren't a scientist either.  Both the Moon and the Earth orbit
around a common "center of gravity"




>
>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.

Yes, please do, your ignorance is showing.




--
Lt. General, Fanatic Legions.
Commander of Southern Hemisphere Forces.

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