Re: Will the Moon Crash Into Earth?


40 years is completely meaningless.

Based on what laws of orbital mechanics? Let me guess....you had a hard
time with improper fractions back in 4th grade?

And as I also said, not even 1000
years of distance data is to solve where the moon will be billions of
years from now.

Scooter....how long do you feel you need to observe a trajectory before you
can mathmatically calculate and predict said trajectory?

We'd need much! much! much! more movement data before
anyone could sanely use as an argument one way or the other.

Again....based on WHAT flavor of physics and mathmatics?

Jo what would you say if the moon was currently in an inward portion
of an unseen eliptical cycle?

Huh....."unseen eliptical cycle"????? Scooter, we've LANDED on the
sucker....unless you can slide a chunk of Black Hole by it to perturb it's
orbit....it's movement is as predictable as, quite literally, a falling
rock! I'd say you spent too much of your apparently limited educational
time in the "Fuzzy Subjects"....(poli-sci...communications....english lit?).
FWIW, based on my ancient ancestors work....you only need TWO (three's
better) accurate observations to accurately predict the orbital mechanics of
a given body. "40 years" of observation is MORE than enough to precisely
predict the Moon's orbit 40 years from now, 40,000 years from now, 40
million years from now to long beyond the potential life-span of the inner
solar system....or the reverse! The math not only predicts the future....it
recapitulates the past. But since you already sound like one of those
"flat-earth" non-mathmatic, "Let's 'discuss' this!" types.....you aren't
going to accept anything that can't be observed via Prof Peabody's Way-Back
Machine, so I've just wasted my time, and will predicatbly have to deal with
your adolescent ranting in response via your attempts to "debate" rather
than "calculate"! My BEST answer to you is to study Kepler's three
laws....and DO THE MATH!



But thanks for the debate. Love it.

Figures you'd bring up the term "debate"....like yammering and "concensus"
is a substitute for calculation! Scooter....if it can't be expressed in
numbers, it's an opinion, not a fact...and all you've brought to this is
opinion to refute physics.

I await your "righteously indignant", and probably profanity-filled attempt
at flaming! To quote another scientist confronting a "debater", "It still
moves!"

John

"The principal difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has
limits!" A. Einstein



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New pictures of enceladus
    ... it is but a diversionary tactic to debate the minutia ... I then observe water at -10 degrees C. ... all materials that are liquid at 10C become solid at -10C. ... very idea of expansion that are testable. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... > Kees Roos has fought the valiant, although at times, dishonest fight, but ... > *see* motion despite the fact that I repeatedly said that we could ... > *observe*, yet despite the fact that I never said we could see motion in ... I've been following this debate for quite a while, and if it's true that to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)