On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:43:25 +0000, Rick Sobie wrote:

"OhBrother" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:pan.2004.02.28.13.34.02.262985@noplace.com...

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?

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/javagif/gifs_small/20040228_1342_c3.gif

I don't know what the heck you are talking about.

But I do know what you are attempting to accomplish in a very lame shallow
sort of way.

And we agreed there would be no math.

Suddenly, when the other parties density grows by an order of ten.  That tells
me they have been challenged on an opinion that they have nothing to back it
up with.  Bodes poorly for your hypothesis and credibility.

Insofar as maths, I don't know who agreed to that, but certainly wasn't with
me.  

So it's settled then, the moon ISN'T hollow and you've lost by default 
thru you're failure to prove the core arguments backing up your assertion.

O'