On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:30:03 +0000, Rick Sobie wrote:

"oh_brother" <oh_brutha2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message >

Um, are you saying "Physics" as in "classical physics" or as in "Rick
Sobies Physics"?

If you say it is the first, please post your calculations reinforcing
your position.

Firstly, if people do not understand Newtonian physics, f=ma,
then I don't suppose they are going to understand Einstein's field equasions either,
and if you can't understand that, there is not much hope you could
understand mine.

I don't know anything about "people".  The assertion was made that the
moon was hollow and that physics supported your viewpoint.  I was
questioning what sort of physics you were applying, and also trying to
understand whether you arrived at that viewpoint thru analysis or "being a
person who believes he knows some physics and who 'feels' that a hollow
moon is correct".  Which is it?

But let us suppose, that you understand about frame dragging, seeing as how
this is a science newsgroup, and let us suppose also, that you heard somewhere
that man made satellites exhibit frame dragging, have you thought about what
affect frame dragging might have on the moon?

Lets stay with f=ma and avoid the 'theoretical constructs'.  For slowly
moving objects newtonian physics gives approximately right answers.  Are
you saying there are relativistic issues at work here to suggest the moon
is hollow?  What are they?

Have you considered that the center of gravity of the moon is not in the center
of the moon, but is off by several kilometers? And have you considered there
are no masscons on earth? Have you seen any planes dip when going over
any old craters on earth? Like Apollo missions did passing over the marias?

Considered?  Support your assertion and don't go off into other areas.  Is
the earth hollow too?  Have YOU seen planes dip?  How does that support
your assertions?

Just because someone applies a name to a thing, you automatically assume
that it must be understood and factual. Masscons, and tidal locking,
are nice sounding phrases based on no scientific principals other than,
"well folks, that is what we observe, and we don't know why it does that,
but lets call it this."

Okay, stop grabbing for Ma, apple pie and the girl next door.  You said
the moon was hollow.  Now you are blathering off about some philosophical
issue.  What are your physics related calcs to explain why you think the
moon is hollow (aside what you 'feel').  What is your estimate of the
moon's mass?  Where should the moon be if your estimated (hollow) mass was
in fact real.  What is the difference between the moon's position and
where it 'should' be according to your calcs.  How fast 'should' the moon
be moving if it were hollow?  How much force should the 'hollow' moon be
exerting on tides?  What's the difference between what is observed.  Post
graphs showing these differences.  What is the effect of the Moon's 'pull'
on physical objects YOU have measured?

And then go on to look for any explanation that people will accept,
and if they really push us on the weak points of our arguments,
then just persist and pretend they just don't understand, and if that
fails appeal to authority.

Again, you're giving us more "tears for fears".  If you've got a case to 
make, please post it.  Put up a website with your analysis.  

Maybe you'll get the Nobel prize for your insightful observations.

Or else you can do nothing and simply skulk off only to reappear on
another topic thread making equally unsubstantiated assertions about
something else.  "Venus has a chocolate creme center"!  The 'dog star' has
planets with inhabitants that look like dogs!  Bill Clinton is actually a
Grey Reptoid!

O'

It is a circular game that leads nowhere.

And I want my ship back. As stated I am offering a $500 dollar reward
no questions asked for its safe return.
It looks sortof like this
http://cosmicparadigm.com/images/MeierUFO.gif